For a long time I have been unfairly harsh towards my kit lens 18-55 wr. I waited and waited for a new lens to come and when it finally did. (20-40) my disappointment where big to be honest. Although it´s a fine lens in many respects I couldnt bring myself to buy it because the lack of edge sharpness. I then decided to give my old 18-55 a last chance. I went out shooting raw like a mad man and then I w
ent home and run the pics through Lightroom 5 wich I recentley bought. And what happend? When I did all the adjustment I could find, like Cromatich abberation, vingetting color contrast, sharpening etc. the result was: I now like the 18-55 wr. It is quite good if one shot raw and do a lot off pp. Here is one example wich is very representative. I focused on the blue beemer numberplate wide open 18mm. I Think it shows what is possible to do with this lens. Cheers
18- 55 is quite capable lens , I like it . My pic is here , for you to see.
I agree that this lens sometimes gets a bum rap, and is actually better than some people give it credit for. Using F5.6-F9 will yield a significant improvement, especially at the wide end. I usually use the 21 or 15 Limiteds instead for the 24mm and shorter range and have thought about replacing the 18-55 for the midrange 28-35, but after comparing test reports to others in that range, there isn't much difference at F5.6-8.
It really isn't a bad lens and stopped down it can be decent. However something like the DA 35 2.4 absolutely blows it out of the water. Pick one up and you'll see what I mean. Best bang for the buck in the Pentax glass without question.
Any government that has the power to correct any injustice and level any inequality also has the power to do ANYTHING it wants.
It's all about sample variation. There are some horrible samples out there, I couldn't believe how blurry the one is, which PentaxForums.com was using in their tests.
But good 18-55 samples are really good! I remember having started photographing a planar target for scientific documentation purposes with my 40mm Limited, but then switched over to my kit (the Version II of 2008), because it gave just better picture quality towards the edges and Corners (mainly because the 18-55 kit lens doesn't seem suffer from curvature-of-field, whereas my Limited prime does (as many primes probably do?)
The kit's sweet spot is around the 24mm mark, where it seems to perform like a prime lens. The wide end (18mm) is quite sample dependent, and the 55mm end is mediocre OOC, but "OK" if given the proper sharpening amount in ACR.
In the scheme of things there’s some things that just are.
They'll never be a bad 50 , 135 , 18-55 , 28-80
The reason is because everyone make them so optical solutions are ten a penny and they’re all solid.
- Fujifilm X-T223.6%
- Nikon D50025.4%
- Nikon AF-S 105mm F1.4E8.2%
- Olympus M.Zuiko 12-100mm F47.5%
- Panasonic Lumix DMC-G857.2%
- Sigma 85mm F1.4 Art6.7%
- Sigma 50-100mm F1.8 Art5.1%
- Sony a63006.4%
- Sony Cyber-shot RX10 III3.7%
- Sony Cyber-shot RX100 V6.3%