Are Kit lenses really that bad?

[Karsten V]

So you think I read it correctly the first time?:hug::

I have no idea how you read it.

He stated he had a Canon camera and that he had been reading about the camera (Canon) and that the general consensus was that it were bad (again Canon).

Then finally asked what problems a (general) kit lens could have?

I said that Canon was made of plastic (indicating that I thought that _could_ be a problem). You are correct that I didn't mention Nikon, but then again, since the Nikon kit lens is made of glass I didnt think Nikon would have the same potiential problem.

Either way I don't really see that its my job (or any other forum user) to keep a balance between Canon and Nikon.

I get the feeling that you also have a Canon camera and have an almost religious connection to the company for that reason. I myself bought the Nikon camera based on the fact that the lens were made of glass and not plastic.
I try not to mix my electric equiptment with religion

Sorry to the original posted for pollution his question with the Canon vs Nikon problem.

 

[Stretch Armstrong]

Yes, I did convert to the Church of Canon in recent years. I used to attend the Holy Church of the First Nikon until the minister was caught covorting with a sexy third party lens. So there.

 

[MikeR]

There are better lenes but it is not bad. There are many examples in this link
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=33

Most images on my website http://mikerubinphoto.com/ were taken with it,although I have replaced it with a Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8

 

[Gregidon]

Is the Canon kit lens really plastic? Can you show some documentation of this?