This may seem rather simple (or is it...?)

You know, beyond images looking "nice," to put it simply, there is another variable that represents an intangible - that is, it's not readily easy to describe.  And this intangible is not often discussed or recognized.

Now before I describe what I'm talking about here, let me provide some comparisons/references to the world of the "Audiophile."  Some 30 years ago, I was a fanatical Audiophile in pursuit of the finest sound equipment I could find (within reason - income helps).  Some folks can listen to music and just reply with, "gee, that sounds nice."  Audiophiles however (and you think hard core photographers are crazy?), go beyond the reasonable.  In their quest for the most realistic sound imaginable (mirroring what is heard in a concert hall, the timbre of the instrumentation, the imaging, etc.), Audiophiles will stop at nothing in their quest to achieve that balance.

The Audiophile dissects music, as he/she looks for "air around the instrumentation," "front to rear and left to right imaging," musicality - that is, the veil being lifted from the soundstage," Timbre, ambience, and so much more.  Thousands are spent on simple things like the peripherals involving the finest sound cables (some of which can be 1-2" thick), special feet that prevent vibrations to the floor (which in turn can return in form to the input devices), and so much more.  It can be ridiculous to be sure, but watching a group of audiophiles listening to music at a high-end sound shop can be entertaining as new forms of vernacular can be learned.  At one time I was involved with the likes of brand names such as Irving M. Fried, IMF, B&W, Threshold Electronics, Audionics, McIntosh, Conrad Johnson, and the list goes on.  And this doesn't even address the endless battle of wits between those who promote transistors vs. those who favor Tube amplification - sigh.

Now enter the world of digital photography.  When we refer to sharpness (or clarity), there is often an intangible that is not discussed.  And that is being able to experience an image vicariously - that is, having that "palpable" feeling of being in the scene when you view an image.  This is often the result of optics that can seemingly lift that "veil" I referenced about Audiophiles above."

I've seen optics that cost thousands of dollars - yes, they were sharp indeed - but something was missing - something difficult to describe.  The images were almost too clinical - not necessarily realistic.  Yes, for conversational purposes, you could talk about sharpness from edge to edge, but with some of these so called high end lenses, something was missing - that intangible that allows folks to feel as though they're in the scene.

By the same token, I've seen some inexpensive lenses - kit lenses, if you will - that provided not only a good degree of sharpness and/or clarity - but they also managed to erase that veil that makes images more vibrant and more realistic feeling.  Now go figure.  So price doesn't always mean a direct correlation between capturing images that can convey a sense of you being there, or being absolutely mundane.  And don't get me wrong here because I know that a certain degree of post processing can play an important role here (if not overdone).

Having said all this, I find the following kit lenses to be capable of capturing superb imagery - often punching far above their weight when you think of their low prices.  Now yes, I realize that copy-to-copy variations can be frustrating, but that's the reality of it all.  These are:

Panasonic (M43):

Lumix 14-45 f3.5-5.6 OIS (equivalent to a 28-90 MM zoom).

Lumix 14-42 II f3.5-5.6 OIS

Lumix 12-32 f3.5-5.6 OIS (equivalent to a 24-64 MM zoom).

Lumix 12-60 f3.5-5.6 OIS (equivalent to a 24-120 MM zoom).  I've fallen in love this lens and have two of them because it is that good of a zoom, and you can pick them up for a pittance on eBay.

Fuji:

XF 18-55 f2.8-4 IS (It's a shame to really call this a kit lens, but that is the category it falls into).

XC 16-50 f3.5-5.6 IS (Depending on the copy you wind up with, this lens can either be a total bummer, or it can be superb - again, punching far above its weight if it's a good one).

Samsung NX:

Even though they are no longer making cameras (that's a shame really), I've found their Power zoom kit lens - the 16-50 f3.5-5.6 IS PZ - to be a superb optic.  The two copies I have of this lens really stand out and this lens is the size of a prime lens.

Olympus:  Sorry, but in the kit lens department, I've tried all of the ones Olympus has produced.  Just not impressed.  Images have that Intangible veil (at least IMO).  I find the Panasonic kit lenses to be much better overall if you're shooting in M43).  To get good Olympus glass, you'll have to pay for it!

Canon EOS M:

Again, here's a case of copy to copy variations.  I have three 18-55 versions that are very sharp and there are some scenes I've taken that just knock your socks off.  I like the 15-45 (like it better on the M10), but when I put it on the M3, I'm not very impressed - now go figure again.