Kit lenses - are they any good? - Part 5 -Real World and Conclusion

All images - Panasonic G3 14-42mm zoom kit lens

I really can't remember when I last went out with a Panasonic standard zoom "kit lens" with serious intent. If I've bought a new camera, I've usually taken some test shots with the supplied zoom and put it on ebay soon afterwards. So yesterday was a reminder of when I first started with m4/3 and there were very few lenses (2 in fact) to use on the original camera I had, the G1.

I have used other "kit lenses" on other cameras. I've used the various 14-42mm lenses on the Olympus Pens I've had, I particularly liked the 18-55mm on the Samsung NX10 I owned and I've used the Nikon 18-55mm on various bodies. However considering how well the 14-42mm performed on the G3 yesterday, I really should have used my previous copy more.

CONCLUSION.

This "neglect" is often what happens to "kit lenses" as far as I'm concerned. After all they aren't very "sexy" are they? I don't think I'm alone in regarding them as somewhat irrelevant, and I'll freely admit that these series of tests has surprised me as to how good the quality is on, what after all, are actually very useful lenses. 

Why I wouldn't have noticed this before, is probably down to my desire to use the other faster, better specified lenses I have as quickly as possible. Why take out the standard zoom when there is a 25mm f/1.4 or an m-mount Zeiss to put on the camera? 

True there are some pretty ordinary "kit lenses" about. The Canon 18-55mm instantly springs to mind, but to be honest, that's probably not typical. Certainly not of the mirrorless CSC's. Because after all, it is in the manufacturers interest to make these as good as possible. They are aware, I'm sure, that in many cases, people who buy their cameras won't buy any other lens. When Panasonic first brought out the G1, many of the reviews noted how good the 14-45mm lens sold with it was. I do remember that there was some surprise about that, considering what you got as part of the average DSLR kit at the time. To a certain extent, Panasonic "changed the game" and set a standard for these lenses that seems to be emerging as the pattern. You can see how they are taking this on with their new X lenses and the prototypes for the "pro spec" zooms that should emerge next year.

Sure the average "kit lens" probably won't give you the optimum results for the sensor in your camera, and they certainly aren't particularly fast and consequently aren't exactly the most useful lens for low light. But I think they are often a lot better than they get given credit for. Certainly the ones I have currently for my m4/3 and NEX cameras are very decent lenses and from the tests I made, when mounted securely on a tripod they are capable of pretty impressive results. 

My trip yesterday produced some very sharp images, and I'd be lying if I said that I could tell the difference between pictures taken with the 14-42mm and some of my other more highly regarded and expensive lenses, in a blind test.

So in answer to the question - "Kit lenses - are they any good?" My answer is yes they are. I suspect I won't be putting then on ebay as quickly as I usually do. I'm not sure I need three m4/3 versions though, and I will have to decide which one to keep, but while I'm using m4/3 cameras I will certainly be looking to keep one, as I will certainly keep the 18-55mm for any NEX camera I use. The humble "kit lens" may not grab the headlines and they certainly aren't "objects of desire" for many of us, but they are probably the best value lenses available to us as photographers, and for that alone they deserve to be treated better.

Kit lenses - are they any good? - Part 4 - Sony NEX-C3 kit lens compared to m-mount primes

Sony NEX-C3 18-55mm kit zoom Voigtlander 28mm f/2 Ultron Zeiss 50mm f/2 T* Planar

After looking at the m4/3 kit zooms, I decided to have a look at the 18-55mm zoom for the Sony NEX-C3 and compare it with two m-mount lenses I have.

First - Voigtlander 28mm f/2 Ultron

28mm on NEX-C3 comparison test

Second - Zeiss 50mm f/2 T* Planar

 

50mm on NEX-C3 comparison test

As usual the test was done with the camera and lenses mounted on a tripod. All images were processed identically in Photoshop Adobe Camera Raw. For large versions of the test files - click through to flickr > Actions > View all sizes > Original.

As before here's a side by side comparison, shot at 28mm, with the zoom, on the left, compared to the Voigtlander.

28mm on NEX-C3 comparison test.

Which looks sharper?

 

I'm not going to make any comment on the 28mm comparison except to say that the "kit zoom" does very well here I think. I'll let you draw your own conclusions however, from the test. 

On the 50mm comparison, the Zeiss produces sharper results, but then it is the sharpest lens I've ever owned, so I would expect that. Again though, the zoom does very well, considering all the criticism that Sony e-mount lenses get.

I did a previous post on this zoom here:- 

http://soundimageplus.blogspot.com/2011/08/sony-nex-c3-how-18-55mm-kit-zoom-can.html

in which I talked about how the lens can produce great results when processed from raw in Capture One Pro. Now the camera is supported by Photoshop and Lightroom (Also recently by Apple and Aperture) I repeat that view again. From what I've seen, I'm not quite sure why this lens comes in for all the criticism that it does, certainly with regard to how sharp it is.

All of this, is of course geared towards the arrival of the NEX-7. There is the question of whether the e-mount lenses are "up to" the challenge of a 24MP sensor. Personally I have no doubts that the 18-55mm "kit lens" will be able to produce good results, having seen what it will do on the NEX-C3 and the results I've seen from the new sensor in the A77. Sony would obviously be scoring an own goal if they turned out a great camera with a mediocre zoom bundled with it in a kit.

So again, have a look at the samples and see what you think.

Kit lenses - are they any good? - Part 3 - Prime or Zoom - which is which?

Image on the left is taken on the Panasonic Leica 25mm f/1.4 prime lens and the image on the right is with an Olympus 14-42mm f/3.5-5.6 kit zoom (the old original one) Again both on the G3 at f/5.6 and ISO 160. Both processed identically from raw using Photoshop Adobe Camera Raw.

Full-size version available via flickr > Actions > View all sizes > Original

Which looks sharper?

Kit lenses - are they any good? - Part 2 - m4/3 primes and zooms

Panasonic G3 Leica 25mm f/1.4 Panasonic Olympus14-42mm Nikon 24mm f/2.8

This is a comparison between three kit zooms, one AF prime and one MF adapted lens on a Panasonic G3 at 25mm and ISO 160.

The lenses are the Panasonic Leica 25mm f/1.4, Nikon 24mm f/2.8D, Panasonic 14-42mm f/3.5-5.6, Olympus 14-42mm f/3.5-5.6 (Original version) and an Olympus 14-42mm f/3.5-5.6 (Latest E-P3 version)

You can download the file below  here.

Some points worth noting.

All images were shot on a tripod, shot raw and processed identically using Photoshop Adobe Camera Raw.

The new E-P3 version of the 14-42mm seems to have a different idea of what 25mm is. All images were shot from exactly the same place and were set exactly to 25mm. The exif data for the lens indicates that it was at 25mm, but as you can see its slightly different to all the others.

There is some slight vignetting at wide apertures on the Panasonic zoom, and the latest Olympus zoom exhibits some moire here and there. 

Also 25mm on each of the zooms has a different aperture value. The original Olympus gives f/4.4, while the newer one shows f/4.3. The Panasonic zoom is at f/4.6 at the same focal length.

VERDICT.

I was surprised at how similar, and how good they all were. There's no real standout performance, though I do believe the 25mm Leica prime is slightly sharper than the rest. The Nikon was darker throughout and looked the softest of all to me, however it had the most accurate colour. I could see virtually no difference between the zooms, and the original Olympus 14-42mm still holds up very well. 

If you want a fast lens, then obviously the zooms are not suitable. An f/4.3 standard lens is pretty slow. At the other end f/22 was probably the worst of all the apertures for all the lenses but even then, wasn't that bad.

To be honest I would have no problem using any of these lenses for what I do, and all of them would produce high quality images, using the G3 sensor and processing. Assuming I didn't want a wider aperture and was shooting outdoors with my usual settings of f/8 or f/11 I would be hard pressed to to tell the difference between them. Does it show that these "kit lenses" are actually quite good? Well I think it probably does. It is probably the case that there are other factors that contribute to the apparent sharpness of the lens. How steady the camera is and the shutter speed is very important. When used on a secure tripod, the zooms turn in good results even wide open.

Have a look for yourself and see what you think.

Kit lenses - are they any good? - Part 1

Olympus E-P3 14-42mm lens

A new camera comes out these days, and almost invariably the first example of it you can buy is with the "kit lens". Usually a standard zoom of 18-55mm on an APS-C camera or a 14-42mm on m4/3. They are certainly usually pretty cheap in the kit. I saw one camera where the version with the kit lens cost £1 more than the body only!! And yet when you buy these kit lenses on their own, they are often quite expensive. If you buy an Olympus E-PL2 + 14-42mm camera from Park Cameras in the UK it costs £439. The E-PL2 body alone costs £399. However if you want to buy the 14-42mm lens on its own it can cost £269.99 !!!!

So is the Olympus 14-42mm kit lens worth £40, £269.99 or somewhere in between? I've decided to find out. Are these lenses any good, any use? or are they just fillers for a kit? How can they cost such wildly different amounts?

Its often stated that many people who buy a camera will only ever use this standard lens that comes with the camera, so to a large extent these "kit lenses" in many ways define the camera and its performance.

Personally I do use them, but nowhere near as much as other lenses I buy. Certainly much less on my m4/3 and NEX cameras than manual focus prime lenses plus adapters. However, in terms of sales, I haven't noticed any particular reluctance for my clients to buy images shot with 14-42mm's or 18-55mm's, so are they more useful and better quality than many of us think?

Because of buying a lot of cameras recently, I have accumulated four of them. I currently have:-

Panasonic 14-42mm for my G3

Olympus 14-42mm for my E-PL1

Olympus 14-42mm (The new pretty one pictured above) for my E-P3 and a

Sony 18-55mm for my NEX-C3.

It is my intention to see how they perform, against each other and against the prime lenses, both AF & MF, that I have. When I buy a kit containing them I often get them on ebay ASAP, and it would be interesting to see just how much of an advantage, if any, I get by selling them. Am I making a big mistake and is the quality of these often neglected optics better than I think? All will be revealed!!