First off, let's have a great big round of ROLL DEM EYES, PEOPLE.
Anyone who accuses me of glorifying Pentax kit lenses in this thread and denigrating Canon kit lenses - try reading my posts without putting on your "defensive glasses".
The issues we're discussing is JUST AS MUCH Nikon as it is Canon. I've said so. I believe that Sony has also done this.
I've also said that the Olympus kit lens does not seem to have these cost-cutting issues.
I've not said anything about the optical quality of the Canon kit lens. I've also generally had a lot of good things to say about the Canon 50mm F1.8.
I have a hard time buying that a plastic mount was done to save weight. How much does a metal mount weigh? Darn near nothing.
Master Mason, I did not say that the XT has terrible build quality, but that other entry-level DSLRs (Nikon, Olympus, and yes, Pentax) are generally considered to have
better build quality. I've said countless times that all DSLRs are extremely high-quality cameras and have never said that the Rebel line is junky. I've seen several times where other people have commented on not liking the feel and just the other day, someone commented that it felt like a "toy" to them, yet nobody seems to get upset at them?
Jann, FWIW, the age of the lens shouldn't matter. I have a few really old lenses in my collection and none of them do, and just spend some time at a photo shop that has more decades-old glass than stuff from the past 10 years, and nothing I looked at had rotating front elements. Certainly some old lenses did but I think it was always pretty rare.
What I can't understand is why C/N fans continue to make excuses for the kit lens' attributes, re: plastic mount, rotating front, no lens hood, difficulty working with CPs and other filters that require a specific rotation. Of
course both companies are completely capable of making excellent lenses. But wouldn't it be nice if Canon and Nikons fans could say that their kit lens was not only pretty good optically, but had fast, quiet focusing (I understand that the Nikon is pretty good in this regard), had a nice lens hood, worked with CP filters without being a PITA, a solid feel, and a metal mount? They most certainly are capable of producing such a lens AND having it cheap enough to be a basic inexpensive kit lens. Come on!
And no, lest there be any doubt, I most certainly don't think Pentax is perfect. They made a big mistake when they use stuck with the tiny DL buffer instead of the larger DS buffer when designing the K1x0D, for example.
To sum up: whatever words you want to use, CPs and C/N/S kit lenses don't get along well. This is something to consider when someone is specifically asking about kit lenses, as was done in this thread. If you don't like the choice of words, well, I'm very sorry, but I suspect that any mention of this at all will ruffle feathers, but the issue remains and I think it's worth noting, just as others are quick to point out the K1x0D's substandard buffer size (and I myself generally point it out as well.)
Anyway, I'm not here to have such stupid debates (and yes, this is definitely a
very stupid debate.) If I can't mention CP issues with rotating fronts on C/N/S kit lenses without causing a fracas, then perhaps I'll steer completely clear of hardware threads and just participate in the other threads. Will that make you all happy? I'm not interested in fighting with you all, as we all lose when we do.
so didnt know that larger numbers also means more light as well get to the sensor still learning things everyday
