curious about kit lenses

[Abby Rose]

Are they really any good for anything? I seem to read a lot here that advises people to chuck them and get this lens or that lens. What is "wrong" with kit lenses?

Just curious. I don't even have a DSLR, so this doesnt apply to me. But still.

 

[Boomn4x4]

Nothing is wrong with them, they are just slow. You are limited with what you can do with them.

 

[Infidel]

Boom is exactly right. On a serious note, tt is not necessarily worthwhile to toss the kit lens in favor of something else, unless as a photographer you are aware of a specific limitation of the lens that can only be addressed by the purchase of a new lens.

On a less serious note, with any SLR, buying stuff is part of the fun. Additionally, the attitude is such that if one never buys additional lenses, then they never needed an SLR in the first place, so one MUST purchase additional lenses and accessories in order to justify the original SLR purchase. Frankly, depending on the type of photography one is trying to accomplish, spending that first $500 on lighting equipment instead of a macro lens that only gets used twice, would probably go a lot further in improving one's photography. Just my $0.02.

 

[bazooka]

I disagree that the only problem with them is that they are slow. They are slow indeed. But the ones I've looked at have much poorer resolution, even at the critical aperture and focal length, compared to a quality lens. Distortion, chromatic abberation, and vignetting are also much worse with kit lenses.

 

[Boomn4x4]

I disagree that the only problem with them is that they are slow. They are slow indeed. But the ones I've looked at have much poorer resolution, even at the critical aperture and focal length, compared to a quality lens. Distortion, chromatic abberation, and vignetting are also much worse with kit lenses.

That dosen't mean there is something "wrong" with them. They are just a lower quality lens. Like anything else, you get what you pay for... but that dosen't mean that just because you spent less there is something wrong with it.

Its like saying that when you buy a car you should throw the radio out and buy a new one.

 

[Infidel]

I disagree that the only problem with them is that they are slow. They are slow indeed. But the ones I've looked at have much poorer resolution, even at the critical aperture and focal length, compared to a quality lens. Distortion, chromatic abberation, and vignetting are also much worse with kit lenses.

These are indeed limitations of a kit lens, and your point is noted. It should also be noted that there is at least one example of an expensive, 'pro' quality, fast 85mm prime lens that produces serious axial/longitudinal chromatic aberration when wide open. Nevertheless, to a certain extent, the skill and needs (actual needs, not perceived) of the photographer determine whether a better lens will really improve image quality. After all, is anyone here really interested in pictures of brick walls? Check out the disposable camera contest thread.

 

[GooniesNeverSayDie11]

Its more IQ than speed. A canon kit lens is faster at the wide end than a 17-40L f/4 lens ( in aperture but not AF speed ), but noone would recommend the kit over the L lens. In fact the kit lenses with IS are quite decent to start with but typically have not great contrast, not great color, CA issues, and are generally less sharp than the expensive counterparts. Once you factor in faster motors for fast AF like USM or HSM, and its clear why people prefer the higher end lenses. With that said, search on flickr, you can make quite striking images with your kit lens, especially if not planning to enlarge them much.

 

[Rosshole]

Hmmm.... must be a Can0n thing, because Nikons Kit lenses are teh b0mb!

 

[SrBiscuit]

yeah ive been very happy with my kit lenses.

if you go into them knowing that they are not the best lenses produced, for the money, i say they are a great addition to your lineup.

my 18-55 makes great pics. if i drop it and smash it to oblivion...thats cool. ill get another.

 

[stroker]

My advice.. Decide what you will be shooting most and buy the lense to match(along with the body). If you like close up stuff get a nice macro lense. A good multi puprose lense would be 35-150mm lense with macro.

 

[Abby Rose]

Thanks everyone, that's interesting. Pretty much along the lines of what I thought.

 

[Vinny]

I asked a similar question before I bought my camera as I was worried they would be crap ... they're not! We all can't afford the big $$$ to buy pro quality glass but in the same token it would be useless to buy a lens and it is garbage. I am totally satisfied with the quality of the Nikon 18-105 (the D90's kit lens) and I purchased the 70-300 VR and it too is excellent IMO. Spent all of $389 on the 70-300 and quite honestly I couldn't (and can't) afford $1000 or more on the lens. Better lenses may take better photos but it's the photographer's skill that really takes better photos ... that's what I'm working on!

 

[Mbnmac]

I have the 18-55 and 55-200 'kit lenses' mostly to figure out what aperture I will want to shoot at most and where to put my cash going forward. I also have the 35mm 1.8 which tends to get left on the camera just due to it being a nice lens to capture most things in most light.

I really haven't given my zooms the try-out they deserve, but when you do use 'better' glass it's hard to go back, even for the extra reach.