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

Alright - much has been written in the past (along with bantering back and forth) about preferences between the kit 18-55 and 15-45 lenses.

I periodically get flustered with the two.  For example, I love the 18-55 due to it's superior construction and finish - not to mention the longer focal reach.  But then I also enjoy (more so lately) the 15-45 due mainly to its wider angle reach.  I'm not crazy about the all plastic build nor the slow f6.3 long end, but it is what it is.

I have 3 copies of the 18-55 which came with the earlier M cameras I purchased. I also have 2 copies of the 15-45.  I've found with my 18-55 that overall, the sharpness levels are fairly steady across the frame (with the center obviously being the sharpest) - at least with the copies I have.  On the other hand, as much as I enjoy the 15-45, I find a certain blurriness on the edges.  For example, one copy of my 15-45 is very sharp in the center, yet the left side is fairly diffuse - and on the other copy, the right side is diffuse to a certain extant.  It drives me bonkers to see this.

So what am I asking here?  For those of you who have both lenses, which do you prefer the most - based specifically on clarity and sharpness across the frame ?

Overall, if I had to choose just one to keep as my standard kit lens (yeah, the ole' gun to the head scenario in which you are forced to choose), I'd easily choose the 18-55.

nt

For what it's worth: my 15-45 is tack sharp throughout the zoom range. It gets softer on the outermost edges, but gets better by stopping down. I think I have a very good one. Very nice lens.

Much better than some Sony 1650SELP kitzooms I've had (though if you're lucky it can be excellent too).

Thing is, I shoot 90% of my stuff at 24mm, so the 18-100 is of no interest to me.

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.

You really took me back to the late seventies and early eighties and my audio snobbery days.  Almost forgotten about Threshold.  And thank you for spelling McIntosh correctly! Nothing to do with the computer system.  The hours I spent comparing sound systems, amps, turntables (and different tone arms! etc.) were some of the happiest hours of my life.

And you are right about that veil.  Applies to music as much as imagery.  Great post.  thanks again.

Ol' Don in Broken Arrow

That reminds me.

i went through the audiophile thing too and actually built my own speakers out of frustration with commercial offerings. However I never went down the path of the giant speaker cable hogwash :-).

What I learnt when developing cross-over filters for speakers is that the simplest and softest filter was always the best one (given drivers that will allow 1st order filtering). To put things simply: the less electronic correction you have to apply, the better for a 'natural' soundscape.

Now I recall someone here on DPR saying that some zoom lenses have that extra magic, amongst which the Pany 12-32 because there is not way too much glass in there to screw things up.

So that makes sense to me.

MikeJ9116 wrote:

I have made comparisons in the past between music and photography. I too was into hi-end audio back in the 1990s and became too obsessed. Where music and photography align is that they each have an art and a technical component. I have been envious of people who can filter out the technical side and focus almost solely on the artistic side. These people look at the content of a photo or the melody/message of a song and appreciate the essence of either one. I need a mixture of both to truly enjoy music or photography.

I am also working on not making photography the main focus of a vacation, family gathering etc. I missed a lot of good times and memories fixating on getting photos. One reason I keep gravitating toward smaller gear is to keep me from being temped to spend too much time on the technical side of snapping a photo. This is the reason the M100 attracts me because it has good IQ but you can't get too wrapped up in using it and missing moments that can't be substituted by taking a photo.

I'm not sure I would trust Canon for going 100% automatic. Pany seems to have nailed that thing better. OK and now I'm running for cover!

telefunk wrote:

That reminds me.

i went through the audiophile thing too and actually built my own speakers out of frustration with commercial offerings. However I never went down the path of the giant speaker cable hogwash :-).

What I learnt when developing cross-over filters for speakers is that the simplest and softest filter was always the best one (given drivers that will allow 1st order filtering). To put things simply: the less electronic correction you have to apply, the better for a 'natural' soundscape.

Now I recall someone here on DPR saying that some zoom lenses have that extra magic, amongst which the Pany 12-32 because there is not way too much glass in there to screw things up.

So that makes sense to me.

Passive crossovers? Stone age tech. People will insist on simple, first-order passive crossovers while ignoring the plain fact that the signal has undergone complex digital processing involving high tech active electronics before it reaches the speaker. 21st century digital electronics then coupled to 20th-century tech RLC circuits. Ditto for the idea that fewer lens elements makes for a 'purer' image.

Abu Mahendra wrote:

telefunk wrote:

That reminds me.

i went through the audiophile thing too and actually built my own speakers out of frustration with commercial offerings. However I never went down the path of the giant speaker cable hogwash :-).

What I learnt when developing cross-over filters for speakers is that the simplest and softest filter was always the best one (given drivers that will allow 1st order filtering). To put things simply: the less electronic correction you have to apply, the better for a 'natural' soundscape.

Now I recall someone here on DPR saying that some zoom lenses have that extra magic, amongst which the Pany 12-32 because there is not way too much glass in there to screw things up.

So that makes sense to me.

Passive crossovers? Stone age tech. People will insist on simple, first-order passive crossovers while ignoring the plain fact that the signal has undergone complex digital processing involving high tech active electronics before it reaches the speaker. 21st century digital electronics then coupled to 20th-century tech RLC circuits. Ditto for the idea that fewer lens elements makes for a 'purer' image.

Uhh possibly slightly off-topic:

99% of loudspeakers have passive crossovers. So they better be well-designed.

First active speakers by (who else?) Philips were the MFB speakers and later the amazing digital series.

I get the feeling that all of these lenses are better at the wide end of things.

Ben, great post. A few years ago I reduced my work schedule on anticipation of retirement, my youngest left for college, and I inherited a little money. First things I bought were an amp from a British company, a turntable from an Austrian company, a high end cartridge from a US company, a pre amp and a headphone amp.  I started out with budget price but excellent speakers but planned to upgrade in a few months as I understand more about high fidelity sound.  And  that is as far as I went down that rabbit hole. I like what I have but I look at the headphone amp I rarely use and realize I hit the right point to stop.

Then I went down the photography rabbit hole and I am still digging!  I think I need one more body (could be M100?) and there is wide angle lens I want. Another really long telephoto would be fun and my computer needs a total upgrade. Maybe sticking with sound systems might actually have been cheaper!

I am enjoying photography a lot more though. One difference is that camera clubs provide a lot of opportunities for shooting new  places and things, learning from accomplished speakers and providing a social connection with people with a common interest.

As to the original subject of post, the canon kit lenses, am on my phone so all the posted images look about the same but I am very interested in people’s opinions. I maybe just one good black friday discount away from owning one!