Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Pentax / Samsung dSLR, K Mount Mirrorless

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old May 4, 2007, 9:31 PM   #11
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 23
Default

If I were doing it again, I'd pass on the kit lens.

Others speak highly of the lens and they post pictures that are well beyond anything that would be possible (Like NonEntity1) with my copy, but I can't take a decent image with the thing to save my life. I use my best tripod, f10, fast shutter speed during the day, and make sure the object is close (any shots I've seen, even from the best kit lens, that are of objects out on the horizon are blurry), and my images still blow. I mean, they're cell phone camera quality. Seriously.

Thinking I had a bad copy, I sent it to Pentax. Pentax returned it with a note that reads, "Tested. Performance is normal."

From what I can figure out reading the forums and browsing images, I think there is a wide variance in kit lens quality. Some of them are obvioulsy pretty decent. Lots of other people have had the same kit lens experience I've had. Mine would have been a waste of $5, had they charged me $5 for it.


Anyway, I'd pass on the kit lens and go for the DA 16-45/4. Even better, I'd go for the DA 16-45/4 and the DA 50-200.
Tom Brown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 4, 2007, 11:25 PM   #12
Senior Member
 
mtngal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Frazier Park, CA
Posts: 16,052
Default

I really like my kit lens and use it whenever I need wide angle. I have the DA 50-200 and have always thought the color on the pictures I take with the kit lens are better than with the 50-200. There does seem to be variances in the lenses - other people love their DA 50-200, while I'm luke-warm on mine. It's been well worth it, especially since I got mine in a kit with a DS.

I don't use it much indoors, but here are two pictures I took last weekend. I haven't had a chance to properly go through the pictures I took yet, but thought these might give you an idea of what I take outside with this lens. These were both taken with the K100 (I tend to use the kit lens (wide angle) on the K100 and a long lens on the K10). Both of these were taken in early morning, when the fog hadn't quite finished lifting.
Attached Images
 
mtngal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 4, 2007, 11:30 PM   #13
Senior Member
 
mtngal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Frazier Park, CA
Posts: 16,052
Default

Both these shots were taken in raw, converted in Lightroom using its default settings, and just resized in CS2 (bicubic sharper setting). This one I adjusted the levels a bit as I underexposed it a bit (trying not to blow out the white foam). No other sharpening or pp done to them (these are full frame). I was standing just below Spyglass golf course (think that's the one that overlooks the ocean).

A side note - this one was taken right beforeI suddenly found myself with very wet shoes, socks and cuffs on my blue jeans!
Attached Images
 
mtngal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 5, 2007, 12:00 AM   #14
Senior Member
 
mtngal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Frazier Park, CA
Posts: 16,052
Default

Found one taken last weekend with the kit lens and at 1600 ISO on the K100. Noise would have been a little worse with the K10, but that's a function of the camera, not the lens. This isn't the greatest picture in the world - I didn't want to use flash because I wanted to capture the dark interior. We are all standing INSIDE a tree - literally (Calavaras Big Trees State Park, inside a fallen, hollowed outsequoia tree). Taken in raw, converted with Lightroom's default settings, cropped significantly and rotated (I tilted the camera quite a bit), then resized using bicubic sharper in CS2 - no other adjustments made (when I finally get to this one as I'm going through my pictures, I might play around with changing the exposure - this is essentially straight out of the camera).

SorryI don't have a better example of the kit lens at 1600 ISO.
Attached Images
 
mtngal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 5, 2007, 7:13 AM   #15
Senior Member
 
Hayward's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,318
Default

DigitalAddict wrote:
Quote:
The kit lens is as basic as it gets. Since you are saving quite a lot on the deal, how about adding the great FA 50mm F1.4 which goes for $195 after mail-in rebate? I mean in addition to the kit lens.
Or even an old 1.7 (my fav and still not real expensive on Ebay) or 1.4... heck maybe even a 1.2 "A" for like half or less that, if you don't mind MF which on a prime and likely non fast dynamic action situational use for that FL not a big deal.
Hayward is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 5, 2007, 12:17 PM   #16
Senior Member
 
NonEntity1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Lake Placid Florida USA
Posts: 2,689
Default

Tom Brown wrote:
Quote:
I use my best tripod, f10, fast shutter speed during the day, and make sure the object is close (any shots I've seen, even from the best kit lens, that are of objects out on the horizon are blurry), and my images still blow. I mean, they're cell phone camera quality. Seriously.
Tom,
It does sound like you got a bad example. I know when I was researching for my first Dslr purchase the Pentax kit lens seemed to have a reputation of being one of the best kit lenses. Mine does well out to infinity too, this shot is taken from across the lake.

Tim
Attached Images
 
NonEntity1 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 5:52 PM.