forjava Loc: Half Moon Bay, CA

This point of view is much more accurate, if rarely voiced, than the anti-plastic remarks so often tossed out so lightheartedly by so many.

Readers, think about it: How many Series E lenses have you seen on eBay with damaged plastic barrels? When Nikon first used plastic, on the EM and Series E, Nikon set up a QA organization tasked to ensure parity in quality to metal.

Mounts have different issues; Series E mounts are metal.

Drivers for plastic at Nikon, initially, were (1) manufacturing cost for consumerization and (2) lighter weight, for women and sub-adults.

And let's save the topic of plastic in pro-level aspherical lens elements for another day.

photoman022 Loc: Manchester CT USA

I'm a firm believer in using my 18-55 kit lens. I did splurge for a Tammy 70-300 and 28-70 (f/2.8). For landscapes I use the kit lens; for portraits I find myself going to the 28-70 regularly. I use the 70-300 for wildlife and flowers. The kit lens is sharp and when I enlarge to 11x14 there is no distortion in the photo. I'm sold on kit lenses and don't look down on them.

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

You make excellent points, but isn't it the quality of the lens that counts, not the designation 'kit'? It may be that 'inexpensive' lenses are included in low cost 'entry level' 'kits or bundles', and some of them may be of low quality, but being in a 'bundle' or 'kit' doesn't necessarily imply poor quality. Sometimes mass production/distribution makes a good quality product cheaper. A Canon bundle that includes 'L' series lenses or various other lenses doesn't mean that the lenses are inferior for being included in a bundle. I would suspect that the same is true for Nikon or other premium brands. Surely it is the quality of the lens - optics, construction, and so on - that makes the distinction, not the inclusion in a bundle or otherwise?

Wouldn't a more objective standard and description be more appropriate and valuable?

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

I want to repeat myself hoping that this time it is clear to everyone. I used the Orton Effect saying that it had nothing to do with the lens, that was my creativity. I showed a photograph without digital manipulation.
I clearly said in the original post that the shots were simply samples. To make everybody happy I am now posting the originals.

(Download)


(Download)

RichardSM Loc: Back in Texas

To be honest I like these even better without a doubt.

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

Kit lenses are intended for the beginner, not meaning they are not capable. Usually their best performance as I said is in the middle of the aperture range, like f8, f5.6.
I bought my first Olympus, the EPL-1 with the 14-42 kit lens but today I am already using the Zuiiko 12-40 f2.8 Pro, a professional lens. The Panasonic 14-45 came with a Panasonic body.
It is a godsend that Zuiko and Panasonic lenses can work in each other's body and the selection of lenses from both companies is good enough to fulfill any needs.
Someday most cameras will be mirrorless.

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

Except of course if the kit lens happens to be a premium lens such as a Canon L series which is sometimes sold in bundles. Anyone that thinks that the term kit lens means anything worthwhile does not understand very much.