So whats wrong with kit lenses?

[iskoos]

May I ask how they are called kit lenses? Or what makes the kit lens a kit lens?

It is true that Canon's EF-S 18-55 comes with almost all rebel cameras but it can also be pruchased separately in the box just like all the other EF-S lenses. And it does not say on 18-55 lens box that "Caution! This is a KIT lens" It is just like the other EF-S lenses...

So how do you guys distinguish the kit lenses from non kit lenses?

 

[Goontz]

May I ask how they are called kit lenses? Or what makes the kit lens a kit lens?

It is true that Canon's EF-S 18-55 comes with almost all rebel cameras but it can also be pruchased separately in the box just like all the other EF-S lenses. And it does not say on 18-55 lens box that "Caution! This is a KIT lens" It is just like the other EF-S lenses...

So how do you guys distinguish the kit lenses from non kit lenses?

"Kit lens" is just a general term. There's nothing that differentiates one from any other lens except the fact that, like you said, it most often comes packaged with a camera. That, in addition to what Big Mike said on the first page.

 

[iskoos]

So basically per what you are saying there is really not a concrete description for a kit lens. What could be a kit lens for someone may not be a kit lens for me then.
Really confusing...
If EF-S 18-55mm would only come in the box when you purchase a rebel body and not offered as a separate item, then I would consider it as a kit lens but now I cannot even call it a kit lens. Because if I do it, then in the future if EF-S 17-85mm starts coming in the boxes I have to call it a kit lens as well...

I also read Big Mike's post and I do not think that he means "EF-S 18-55mm is a kit lens becuase it is light and made of a lot of plastic while the other non-kit(sorry I cannot come up with another terminology here) EF-S lenses are heavier and made of less plastic and more metal...

Not trying to be offensive; just trying to find a clear answer...

 

[Rosshole]

"Kit Lens" is a loosely used term. Just leave it at that.

 

[Dao]

When manufacturer sell the camera with a lens as a package, the lens is the kit lens. I am not talking about the retailer package deals, I means the lens is shipped with the body together from the factory.

Do you think EF 24-105 F/4L is junk? It is often shipped with the Canon EOS 5D MkII camera. And yes, that is a kit lens because it is sold as a kit.

 

[Derrel]

One very widely-sold, early 18-55 kit lens from one manufacturer was a very poor lens: I happen to own the lens, as did my buddy Steve--and the lens was "craptastic". Poor edge resolution, and a serious problem with chromatic aberration; there is a poster here who tried to do landscapes with his 18-55 kit lens, and his images are plagued with that awful "video-y" look, which is sort of hard to describe, but it is the look produced by this company's cheap kit lens. It ruins photo after photo,even stopped down to f/8 or f/11; the lens is junky, and should never have been inflicted upon the public.

Some of the earlier kit lenses were designed for use on 6- and 8.2 megapixel bodies; now that d-slrs are being built with 10.2 to 12.2 to 18 megapixel image sensors, these earlier kit lens models are simply NOT good enough to make top-quality images.

If the earlier 18-55 kit lenses really were "good enough", then why have the two larger camera makers iterated the designs so rapidly? The answer is that the early days of the 18-55 saw a lot of sub-par lenses, designed to retail for $100, churned out. On a 6MP or 8.2MP d-slr from 2005, that lens quality was marginally acceptable; today, it looks sub-optimal.

 

[Stamp]

Well after research today, I'm still not certain what to choose. Between the 70-300 Tamron and Sigma. I see a load of youtube videos with super loud and broken autofocus motors on the Sigmas, and read and see a load of purple fringing from the Tamron lens... Maybe I'll just get an old Minolta zoom lens. This is turning out to be a PITA! :x

 

[iskoos]

When manufacturer sell the camera with a lens as a package, the lens is the kit lens. I am not talking about the retailer package deals, I means the lens is shipped with the body together from the factory.

Do you think EF 24-105 F/4L is junk? It is often shipped with the Canon EOS 5D MkII camera. And yes, that is a kit lens because it is sold as a kit.

That was excatly my point. If we are going to mark the kit lenses as junk then we have to be able to decsribe what a kit lens is. If we cannot -because it is a loosley used term or a general term-, then we have to name the lens (make/specs.) specifically before we call it a junk or even compare to other lenses.

 

[Derrel]

Let's make it clear: there are three levels of lenses. There are entry-level lenses. There are prosumer lenses. And there are the professional-grade lenses.

The "kit" lenses are the low-price, lightly built lenses, like the 18-55 and 55-200 lenses which are sold at VERY low prices--$200 or less. When people speak about kit zoom lenses, they are referring to the inexpensive, lightly built, low-cost zoom lenses. Every single kit zoom lens has a variable maximum aperture--every,single one.

The 24-105 Canon L series lens with Image Stabilizer was often sold in the $3,800 EOS 5D "kit"; however, a Canon Luxury-series, L-lens that sells for more than the price of most entry level d-slr kits, is clearly not a "kit zoom".

"Kit zooms" have been around for quite a while now. I think most of us know one when we see one. it is light, slow in aperture, and priced very affordably--well below the cost of a prosumer or professional-level lens. One aspect of kit zooms: for the most part, they are made by the camera makers,and not by the third party lens makers,although some might consider the low-priced,light-duty 70-300 models made by Sigma,et al to be kit lenses. For example, the 18-55mm f/3.5~5.6 kit zooms sold by Nikon,Canon,Pentax, and Sony--we do not see Tamron or Sigma or Tokina trying to get into that low-low end market; instead, Tamron and Sigma and Tokina are aiming for the prosumer level lenses with f/2.8 constant aperture, and a range beginning at 17,18,and 16mm respectively, and topping out at 50mm--those are not "kit zooms". Those are aimed at siphoning off the market for the Canon and Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8 "professional"-grade lenses made for APS-C cameras; the manufacturers' 17-55mm f/2.8 offerings cost more than the price of a body+kit lens, while the 3rd party prosumer lenses are in the $350-$400 range more or less.

Kit lenses are the "low-end" lenses, pure and simple. The absolute-cheapest are the 18-55 models, and the 55-200 models. There are also wider-range kit zooms, like Nikon's 18-105mm and 18-135. I think we can define kit lenses by what they are NOT; they are NOT expensive and they are NOT built to heavy-duty standards. The dividing line between kit lens and low-cost consumer zoom in the 70-300 category is marked by optical performance and price; most of the low-cost 70-300 lenses suffer from notable chromatic aberration at the longer end, while the manufacturers offer lenses that cost well over $500 that offer solid optics and are definitely prosumer zooms, approaching professional-grade in build and optics.

Let's put it this way: a kit lens is not a lens you'll be bragging about owning. Its origins are humble, its specifications quite limited, and nowhere NEAR state of the art.

 

[Gaerek]

I think Derrel hit the nail on the head on this one. I've been making general arguments that kit lenses (low end, inexpensive) aren't junk, and maybe I've generalized too much. I guess here's a better way to put it.

Are kit lenses junk to a pro with pro level glass? You bet they are.

Are kit lenses junk to a newbie, or even a mid-level amateur? Not always, but the newbie and the amateur can accept a larger level of tolerance for bad glass, typically.

To the OP, his kit lens, and basically whatever lens he decides to go with won't be junk. It will expand what he can do with his camera, and will allow him to take pictures now. If the OP had to wait until he could afford better glass, he might be waiting a while.

 

[The_Traveler]

Let's put it this way: a kit lens is not a lens you'll be bragging about owning. Its origins are humble, its specifications quite limited, and nowhere NEAR state of the art.

While Derrel is correct in his discussion of kit lenses, one cannot make complete generalizations about all entry level lenses. Two examples are lenses I've owned and used extensively in the past, the Nikon 50 mm 1.8 and the 18-70. Both of these are inexpensive and incredibly good lenses. The 18-70 has been superceded by the 18-55 which is even cheaper and better.

Understand the issue of build but read reviews about the specific lenses you want to buy.

Lew

 

[Stormchase]

To make a simple statment to the OP, I have been using the 18-55 ef-s canon lens for a lot of shots. I picked up a tamron 90mm macro. I know it's quite a diff lens then the kit lens I have but after just a couple squeezes of the shutter I see a big difference in quality, clarity, and construction. My kit will be my new wide lens.

 

[Stamp]

Everyone... I think we cleared all the kit lens myths up!!! Good job and many thanks to each of you for your valuable input, especially Derrel and gaerek.

Now, as I posted earlier in the day, I'm trying to decide on a good up to 250-300 zoom but for my Sony, new lenses are limited, and I'm stuck between getting a new Sigma or a Tamron, each of which I have concerns about, or getting an older used Minolta lens from Ebay or craigslist.

I would start a new thread, but it appears we have some valuable experience already subscribed to this thread. What say you? New "consumer zoom", or older used Minolta zoom?

 

[gsgary]

Here's one taken with a kit lens from the film era Canon28-80 i thought i would try it on my 5D, not too shabby

 

[Goontz]

Personally, I'd go with the new lens. No real basis for that other than not having to worry about dealing with possible issues from old used gear or dealing through eBay, and having something brand new. Admittedly, I don't have much knowledge on what is available for Sony other than knowing there isn't as much as Nikon or Canon, and also don't know specifics of the lenses you're looking at. What are your reservations with Sigma or Tamron?