It really depends on what you want with the 18-55.
I personally uses it quite often now and find it acceptable.
But the photos I took are daily decoration progress photos, party photos and something totally not serious at all...
Then it'll be a pretty nice and light walk-around lens.
But, if I'm going to a photo shoot or on part-time assignment, then I take my primes.
To be honest, I used 18-55 to shoot my sister-in-law's engagement party last week. It came out great! So it's not too shabby.
cheers
Andy
Boris Liberman said:
Hi!
My questions. How good/bad is the 18-55, especially in the sub 28 range? How is it on a film camera? How well do the 16-45 and 20-35 compare to each other and to the 20 and 24mm primes? (I know the 16-45 is digital only)
I don't think that 18-55 can be __any good__. Oh well, it does cover the mount while camera is in storage...
I cannot comment about the lenses you mention though I had a chance to hold 16-45 (thanks Jostein). I think it is just fine, but it does not cover the full 35 mm frame.
My general thought is if the 18-55 is not bad it might suffice for awhile, as it only adds $100 over the body alone and I can use it with my Z-1p (if I keep my Z-1p). But I'm used to the sharpness and contrast of my primes, so if it's a dog am I better off putting the money towards a better lens?
I went out and bought from J.C.O. Sigma 18/3.5. It is good enough for me and it is prime anyway - still less glass than 18-55. You can probably find something like this on eekBay.
Or you can buy 24 mm lens as it's been suggested and then you will have 36 mm as your widest lens.
I think that both of the above options are preferable to 18-55. Before I bought Sigma 18, I had K 24/2.8 as my widest. It worked marvels on *istD. It still does...
Just my pixels...
Boris
