A noticeable difference?

[fjrabon]

ha, if we bought out of need instead of want, unless you're an actual, legitimate professional, we'd all be shooting P&S's.

Boy ain't that the truth!

ha, yes. Like I said in an earlier post, I just agreed to buy a 10-24mm Nikkor wide angle off Craigslist. I'm constantly going back and forth with 'I don't really need this' and 'well, it's kind of a stupid good deal, I could actually flip this thing for a profit if I really wanted.' And it's the only lens I've really wanted since I got my 35mm prime. But trying to convince myself I need a $1000 lens, even if I'm getting it at a crazy discount, is kind of laughable. Of course I don't need it.

 

[Dao]

I do not know others, but personally I like the zoom range that the kit lens offer. And I still don't know why people keep saying kit lenses are bad. Kit lenses are not bad, they just have limitations. If a person do not know it limitations, replaced it with another better lens may not solve the problem.

Right now, I do not own the kit lens. I replaced it with the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8. The focal length range is similar to those kit lens, but it is offer a wider max aperture and optically better in certain situations.

OP, if you are a beginner and just start learning, the kit lens is not bad at all for tight budget setup. Certainly a 35mm prime is not an replacement of a 18-55mm zoom lens.


The lenses and cameras are tools, you need to use the right tools to do the right job. If you need to wide angle lens to do the job, zoom or prime, you need a wide angle lens. It is easier to use a toilet brush to clean the toilet although a tooth brush can do the job as well, but it take longer.

Don't get me wrong, I do like prime lens, I have 4 primes range from 14mm to 100mm. But the 17-50mm lens mount on the camera most of the time for daily shooting. (based on my personal shooting habit)

 

[fjrabon]

I do not know others, but personally I like the zoom range that the kit lens offer. And I still don't know why people keep saying kit lenses are bad. Kit lenses are not bad, they just have limitations. If a person do not know it limitations, replaced it with another better lens may not solve the problem.

Right now, I do not own the kit lens. I replaced it with the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8. The focal length range is similar to those kit lens, but it is offer a wider max aperture and optically better in certain situations.

OP, if you are a beginner and just start learning, the kit lens is not bad at all for tight budget setup. Certainly a 35mm prime is not an replacement of a 18-55mm zoom lens.


The lenses and cameras are tools, you need to use the right tools to do the right job. If you need to wide angle lens to do the job, zoom or prime, you need a wide angle lens. It is easier to use a toilet brush to clean the toilet although a tooth brush can do the job as well, but it take longer.

Don't get me wrong, I do like prime lens, I have 4 primes range from 14mm to 100mm. But the 17-50mm lens mount on the camera most of the time for daily shooting. (based on my personal shooting habit)

Yeah, the kit lens on the D5100 is actually an extremely good deal. THe reason it's cheap isn't because it has low quality optics, it's because it can be mass produced, unlike really any other lens, which keeps overhead costs down. The biggest reason really expensive lenses are really expensive is that they're specialist lenses, that aren't manufactured enough to take advantage of economies of scale. Sure, there are better lenses out there than the kit lens, but fewer that will give you as much quality and versatility dollar for dollar. I tend to shoot a 35mm most of the time mostly because I shoot really low light a pretty decent amount, and I actually like being constrained by the 35mm frame.

As Ken Rockwell says "the kit lens is really the only lens you actually need.​"

 

[KmH]

Yep! ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑

Here is an image made with a Nikon D90 and Nikon 18-55 mm kit lens set to f/11, in larger part because f/11 is in the range of sharpest focusing apertures for that lens: