Is the cold shoulder to kit lens justified ?

[kpsmithuk]

That waterfall shot is amazing how did you have camera set for that? Ive atempted a few shots like that in the past with a film slr and a digital point and shoot (conpact) and never pulled it off successfully

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Buckster]

That waterfall shot is amazing how did you have camera set for that? Ive atempted a few shots like that in the past with a film slr and a digital point and shoot (conpact) and never pulled it off successfully

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk 2

Use a tripod and use a long shutter of a second or longer. You can start by stopping down the lens as much as possible. If that still doesn't give you a long enough shutter because it's so bright out, use a neutral density filter.

 

[kpsmithuk]

Tripod would probably help, i probably introduce to much camera shake for the longer shutter. Will try again when have the chance.

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Gavjenks]

Any lens made by nikon or canon these days is going to be damn near perfect for any practical usage in terms of sharpness. Don't worry about sharpness unless you yourself consistently notice it in your images without looking for it.

The only reason the kit lenses are not wonderful and magical in every way is for the reasons that are clearly advertised right on the lens: their speed (usually fairly slow, 3.5 or higher), and their lack of ability to go to extreme focal lengths in any direction. And lack of build quality usually, and lack of fancier features like USM or stepper motors, etc.

Upgrading generally does things like giving you a wider range (if you want a zoom still), OR giving you a brighter lens (with the same zoom or even more so for a prime), or a quieter or faster autofocus, or sturdier, or whatever. Nothing's really being hidden from you, and I don't think it's worthwhile to worry much about any non-advertised numbers for these companies (like sharpness). Just assume everything will be more or less perfectly sharp unless proven otherwise.

 

[Josh66]

I use a kit lens (EF-S 18-55) that I have modified to fit on a full frame camera every now and then. It's not my favorite lens, but -honestly- I don't have a whole lot to complain about with it. Most of my complaints are along the lines of build quality.

I actually went out of my way to be able to use an EF-S lens on a film camera, so - yeah, there's nothing wrong with the kit lens, expect that it was made as cheaply as possible.

 

[orb9220]

Yep constantly get comments from people not believing my images where taken with the cheapish 55-200vr.
And re-thinked their position that that particular lens may be worthy addition to their kit after all.

+1 Gavjenks. I use the 55-200vr even for Getty stock. At least half are with that kit lens.
The secret is learning your camera & lens limitations and working around them.

For pro's yes they do need to spend for the pro glass. As is built to withstand day to day pro use. Give them that little bit extra in Color & Contrast. Minimum in the way of CA or Barrel Distortion or Pincushions. As time is money and need a fast lens to get the shot.

But a kit lens can produce Pro Image quality also. If a photographer understands his equipment and how to use it. And has a intimate understanding of Exposure,Light,Dynamic range and an eye for composition. Can produce excellent results with whatever is on hand. As the equipment will always be just the tool and 2nd to the shooter behind it.
.