Ranking the worst of the kit lenses

Discussion in 'Digital SLR' started by RichA, Apr 22, 2005.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    From what I gather, the standard zoom supplied
    with the entry level DSLRs would rank something
    like this, worst to best.
    Correct me if I'm wrong.

    It seems like Nikon's is quite acceptable and Konica's
    is the only "kit" lens that isn't a 2nd grade compared
    to others in that line. Going the next step with
    Olympus, Canon, or Nikon requires spending another
    $300-$500 above the standard kit price, I'm not sure if
    Pentax offers another zoom apart from the one that comes
    with it as a kit. Because of this, it would seem that
    the Minolta is the subjective "best buy" when dealing
    with the standard kit.
    RichA, Apr 22, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  2. RichA

    birch999 Guest

    For the most part, the Canon 18-55 kit lens is not all that bad, and
    serves a significantly credible purpose.

    On the down-side, in low-light situations, It tends to be somewhat of a
    total bummer.

    On the Upside: the Canon 18-55 kit-lens tends to perform admirably as a
    wide-angle alterative . . .
    birch999, Apr 22, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  3. RichA

    DonB Guest

    I have seen references to tests from a German magazine which rated
    Olympus as 'super', top ranked, and the Canon, Nikon and Pentax next
    rank down,
    DonB, Apr 23, 2005
  4. RichA

    Basic Wedge Guest


    My own results agree. I rate the Olympus 14-54 as a good, sharp lens. I've
    also seen good results from the Nikon 18-70. I have heard the Canon 17-55 is
    a lens to avoid, while the 17-85 is a better choice. Did I hear correctly,
    some of Konica Minolta's lenses are actually made for them by Tamron?

    Basic Wedge, Apr 23, 2005
  5. It gives good results, but it does have a very cheap feel to it.
    Steven M. Scharf, Apr 23, 2005
  6. RichA

    Stacey Guest

    Where did you gather this? The olympus kit lens (both the 14-54 and the
    cheap 14-45) has been ranked as one of the best kit lenses by several
    Stacey, Apr 23, 2005
  7. RichA

    RichA Guest

    So the weak point I've seen is actually the Olympus camera, the E-300
    RichA, Apr 23, 2005
  8. RichA

    Stacey Guest

    Stacey, Apr 23, 2005
  9. RichA

    Tumbleweed Guest

    I bought a 50 1.8 having been told about its outstanding qualities.
    I was shocked to find test shots of similar subjects taken using the 18-55
    and 50 1.8 were indistinguishable on screen.
    Pulling up the corners and edges 'till the pixels were obvious they were
    still on a par.
    Either I've got a flukey good 18-55 or an inferior 50 1.8

    But who cares about MTF data - the image is everything ;o)
    Tumbleweed, Apr 23, 2005
  10. RichA

    RichA Guest

    Your shots are excellent, saturated and sharp.
    "Problem" doesn't mean bad, just not as good as similarly priced
    cameras from other manufacturers. In most tests I've
    seen they've scored it lower for overall image quality
    than Canon's Rebel XT and the new Pentax, principally because
    of noise. So it's unlikely you'd see the problem much in well-lit
    shots where you can use low ISO speeds.
    Shots like this might be an issue though;


    RichA, Apr 23, 2005
  11. The 14-45mm is cheap? Its listed at $250 at B&H. I don't know about
    other kit lens, but the Canon 18-55mm can be had for about $100. Now,
    thats cheap.

    - Siddhartha
    Siddhartha Jain, Apr 23, 2005
  12. If you have the money then you can avoid the 18-55mm. But if you are on
    a budget then the Canon 18-55mm offers very good value for money. It
    can't be used in MF very well because the MF is a bit wobbly and you
    won't get much out of it in low-light but other than that the image
    quality is pretty good given its price.

    - Siddhartha
    Siddhartha Jain, Apr 23, 2005
  13. RichA

    G.T. Guest

    It's easy to convince one's self of anything.

    G.T., Apr 23, 2005
  14. True. I compared my 18-55mm with a Pentax Super Takumar SMC 50mm f/1.7.
    I couldn't tell much difference.

    - Siddhartha
    Siddhartha Jain, Apr 23, 2005
  15. RichA

    Frank ess Guest

    That's true, even if it isn't germane to a specific instance.
    Frank ess, Apr 23, 2005
  16. RichA

    Parker Guest

    Really?- those ducks look as though they're swimming in an oil slick - the
    result of noise post-processing?, or the infamous in-camera noise
    Parker, Apr 24, 2005
  17. RichA

    Stacey Guest

    Exactly and look great printed 11X14 and up as well..

    I've seen the color saturation of some of these "better" cameras and for me
    they don't look better, YMMV which is why people buy different cameras.

    Looking at 100% crops, I agree the canon is better. But I don't view images
    at 100% do you?

    Might be, then again might not. BTW several of those shots at my site where
    shot at ISO400, some at ISO 100. Can you pick out which is which without
    looking at the EXIF data?
    Stacey, Apr 24, 2005
  18. RichA

    Stacey Guest

    I suppose you have never heard of "selective focus"? That shot was done with
    the lens wide open so of course -only- the front duck is going to be in

    Typical ignorant coment from an OM basher..
    Stacey, Apr 24, 2005
  19. RichA

    Stacey Guest

    And the "kit" is only $100 more with the lens... Why would you buy the body
    only and then the lens?
    Stacey, Apr 24, 2005
  20. RichA

    Stacey Guest

    Stacey, Apr 24, 2005
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.