Kit lens... Why???

[eminart]

Since I first started this thread i have had quite a bit of time to practice with my old prime...
It doesn't leave my camera anymore. I do feel very limited, especially with the crop factor on this thing and the metering issues on my body.

But I just want to make a little comment on the kit lens being great for beginners and all. Why is it so great? The kit lens are all automatic pieces of technology that make taking a picture in most situation easy. They are mostly designed for the general public who goes to walmart and buys a DSLR because they think it will take better pictures than the cheaper bridges but don't know why.
I think that if someone is a beginner but is willing to invest into a new DSLR he/she is probably somewhat serious about it and willing to learn.
When buying a cheap all manual old prime, you will have to understand those numbers (shutter speed, aperture) and get a feel of how the light works. I think that this is great training for a beginner. At least I have learned a lot through that process.

Now the other argument for the kit lens is that beginners can use those for a while and then decide what other lens they need. Why can't you do that with a 50mm prime? I walk around with my prime on all the time. Most of the shots i miss are on the wide end. So i know i need something wider. This is the same conclusion than when i was using the kit lens.

I know you can take great pictures with a kit lens. It just doesn't compare to what a prime can do.

Maybe you just don't know how to shoot with a slower lens? Anybody can shoot with a fast lens.
:coffee:

I'm just joking, mostly. But, I'm a beginner and I've shot with old manual primes and "kit" lenses. Frankly, they both have their limitations and it's really just up to whoever is shooting to decide which limitations they dislike more. Both are capable of great photos.

 

[Happy Hour]

Since I first started this thread i have had quite a bit of time to practice with my old prime...
It doesn't leave my camera anymore. I do feel very limited, especially with the crop factor on this thing and the metering issues on my body.

But I just want to make a little comment on the kit lens being great for beginners and all. Why is it so great? The kit lens are all automatic pieces of technology that make taking a picture in most situation easy. They are mostly designed for the general public who goes to walmart and buys a DSLR because they think it will take better pictures than the cheaper bridges but don't know why.
I think that if someone is a beginner but is willing to invest into a new DSLR he/she is probably somewhat serious about it and willing to learn.
When buying a cheap all manual old prime, you will have to understand those numbers (shutter speed, aperture) and get a feel of how the light works. I think that this is great training for a beginner. At least I have learned a lot through that process.

Now the other argument for the kit lens is that beginners can use those for a while and then decide what other lens they need. Why can't you do that with a 50mm prime? I walk around with my prime on all the time. Most of the shots i miss are on the wide end. So i know i need something wider. This is the same conclusion than when i was using the kit lens.

I know you can take great pictures with a kit lens. It just doesn't compare to what a prime can do.

Actually for years most slr's came with a 50mm prime as the kit lens. I think that offering a small zoom (like most do) as a kit lens is better for the average consumer. In order to attract the P&S level consumers to make the jump you have to have similar options. Several people I know have slrs and have never bought anything other than the kit lens that came with it. there theory is, "it takes better pics than my P&S ever did, what do I kneed another lens for?" That is what the low end slr's are mainly designed for like the Rebel xti or the Sony A100.

 

[usayit]

Remember... kit lenses get bad reviews on photography review places simply because of the people. There is nothing wrong with them.... they do the job they were designed to do... as a lens to introduce the world of SLR photography to the masses. The people on photography sites like TPF are accustom to a certain quality... kinda like the difference between box wine and bottled. Many/most have already been "spoiled" by high end zooms or very nice prime glass.

As the OP found out, shooting with a nice (even vintage) prime will drive your photography a step farther.... the more you leverage a good quality lens.. the more you'll find yourself out growing the kit lens you started out with.

Some of the K-mount and M42 screwmount Takumars in my collection will put even the most expensive lenses of today to shame.

btw.. for years.. cameras were purchased with a choice of either 35mm or 50mm lenses. It was only relatively recently did Kit Zoom lenses appeared. Zooms were a relatively new "technology".

 

[NateS]

I love my 50mm....a lot, but sometimes when my 8 month old is on the move it's easier to have the zoom of the kit lens.

Coupled with my SB-600, the kit lens is wonderful indoors. My Nikon kit lens is really sharp....even wide open and if I want a full frame shot of my son, it's easier w/ the kit lens than the 50mm.

All that said, I always use the 50 when possible. If not for the sharpness, the contrast and colors are better than the kit lens. Here's a comparison.

Kit Lens w/ SB-600

50mm @ f2.8 w/ SB-600

While, the 50mm is clearly a better image (in my opinion), the kit lens isn't necessarily bad.

Also, sometimes, the 50 is just flat too close for the range of shooting....example. Our 8 month old crawling to his first easter basket this year. I needed the zoom to be able to get wide enough for full shots and close enough for the other shots. Example?

I needed wide then zoom, then wide...and back and forth. I would have missed a lot of shots if I had stuck with the 50. Sure, quality would have been better, but I'd rather capture all the precious moments sometimes rather than only some at better quality.

Wide

Zoomed

Wide

Zoom

The kit lens also does great outdoors, especially when stopped down to around f/8.

Here's a couple of examples.....with the 50mm I would have had to step back farther than was possible.

For the $65 this lens cost me (used) it's a godsend. The versatility is great and the sharpness/contrast/colors (while not incredible) are still very good and get me some great photos when needed. I can't imagine not having this lens in my bag unless it was replaced with the Sigma 18-50 f2.8 or Nikon 17-55 f2.8 but those are 5x and 10x the cost.

 

[deudeu]

Actually for years most slr's came with a 50mm prime as the kit lens. I think that offering a small zoom (like most do) as a kit lens is better for the average consumer. In order to attract the P&S level consumers to make the jump you have to have similar options. Several people I know have slrs and have never bought anything other than the kit lens that came with it. there theory is, "it takes better pics than my P&S ever did, what do I kneed another lens for?" That is what the low end slr's are mainly designed for like the Rebel xti or the Sony A100.

I completely agree with you.
Selling a zoom as a kit lens is marketing since most people would not know what to do with a prime. The average consumer wants a zoon since it is what he has been used to on P&S for quite some time now.
If you are really serious about your hobby though... learning with an old prime would be a pretty good/cheap idea, and i think that it is just as frustrating.
The good pictures i get out of my prime are just so much better than the good pictures i get out of my kit zoom.

 

[NateS]

Since I first started this thread i have had quite a bit of time to practice with my old prime...
It doesn't leave my camera anymore. I do feel very limited, especially with the crop factor on this thing and the metering issues on my body.

But I just want to make a little comment on the kit lens being great for beginners and all. Why is it so great? The kit lens are all automatic pieces of technology that make taking a picture in most situation easy. They are mostly designed for the general public who goes to walmart and buys a DSLR because they think it will take better pictures than the cheaper bridges but don't know why.
I think that if someone is a beginner but is willing to invest into a new DSLR he/she is probably somewhat serious about it and willing to learn.
When buying a cheap all manual old prime, you will have to understand those numbers (shutter speed, aperture) and get a feel of how the light works. I think that this is great training for a beginner. At least I have learned a lot through that process.

Now the other argument for the kit lens is that beginners can use those for a while and then decide what other lens they need. Why can't you do that with a 50mm prime? I walk around with my prime on all the time. Most of the shots i miss are on the wide end. So i know i need something wider. This is the same conclusion than when i was using the kit lens.

I know you can take great pictures with a kit lens. It just doesn't compare to what a prime can do.

Honestly,....if you had to pick between the 2, then which would you choose?

1. Getting the shot you need with a little less IQ

or

2. Not getting the shot at all, because you are too stubborn to settle for a little less IQ to get the shot you need/want?

I personally don't approach every single shot as "studio" quality. Sometimes, I just want to capture memories.....I guess I"m a bad photographer and a "noobie" for life because I choose to do that with the kit lens sometimes?

When I'm looking for getting really, really great quality pics, I throw on the 50mm f1.8. However, for those of us that can't afford a 1200 17-55, the 18-55 is a good lens to get what you need.

Shoot, I'd put down the DSLR and grab my A620 P&S if it meant the difference between getting the pictures I need and not getting them.

I think that if someone is a beginner but is willing to invest into a new DSLR he/she is probably somewhat serious about it and willing to learn.

Oh, and that ^^ is the biggest myth I've seen on the forums. I used to have the same thinking but it is the farthest thing from the truth. I only know about 3 people in my area that use a DSLR not counting the pros I know (2 rebel xt's and a D40). None of the people have any desire to use another lens and very little desire to learn. All 3 shoot in auto mode at all times and will probably never turn the dial to another setting. On board flash, etc.... Most of the beginner DSLR users are using a DSLR labeled point and shoot....... a few of them want to learn and make their way to our wonderfuly thephotoforum.com

 

[deudeu]

Oh, and that ^^ is the biggest myth I've seen on the forums. I used to have the same thinking but it is the farthest thing from the truth. I only know about 3 people in my area that use a DSLR not counting the pros I know (2 rebel xt's and a D40). None of the people have any desire to use another lens and very little desire to learn. All 3 shoot in auto mode at all times and will probably never turn the dial to another setting. On board flash, etc.... Most of the beginner DSLR users are using a DSLR labeled point and shoot....... a few of them want to learn and make their way to our wonderfuly thephotoforum.com

I agree but this is posted on TPF and thus is adressed to people who went through the trouble of finding this forum and looking through it before taking a decision.
This kind of person has already spent a bit of time looking for forums to answer their questions will probably get away from the auto mode pretty quickly (i have never tried it...).
This being said it is true that with a 50mm prime only you will miss some shots. I don't think that this is true with a 28mm prime.
If someone already has a P&S and wants to get serious about photography and asks what he should get, i just think that both sides of the argument should be presented.

 

[NateS]

I agree but this is posted on TPF and thus is adressed to people who went through the trouble of finding this forum and looking through it before taking a decision.
This kind of person has already spent a bit of time looking for forums to answer their questions will probably get away from the auto mode pretty quickly (i have never tried it...).
This being said it is true that with a 50mm prime only you will miss some shots. I don't think that this is true with a 28mm prime.
If someone already has a P&S and wants to get serious about photography and asks what he should get, i just think that both sides of the argument should be presented.

Don't get me wrong, I"m a huge Prime lover and wouldn't mind getting something wider like the Sigma 30 f1.4. I'll probably eventually upgrade the kit lens to something better like Sigma 18-50 f2.8, or add the 30mm f1.4 for the wider end. I can't afford either of those right now and I need something to get me the wider shots when the need arises. On situation's where you need a little flexibility and can't afford another 400-500 on another lens, it's hard to beat. I mean seriously, these can be had all over for under $75 used.....for the convenience/price factor of the lens, it's hard not to have it unless you've got that range covered with better glass.

 

[deudeu]

Don't get me wrong, I"m a huge Prime lover and wouldn't mind getting something wider like the Sigma 30 f1.4. I'll probably eventually upgrade the kit lens to something better like Sigma 18-50 f2.8, or add the 30mm f1.4 for the wider end. I can't afford either of those right now and I need something to get me the wider shots when the need arises. On situation's where you need a little flexibility and can't afford another 400-500 on another lens, it's hard to beat. I mean seriously, these can be had all over for under $75 used.....for the convenience/price factor of the lens, it's hard not to have it unless you've got that range covered with better glass.

Can't disagree with that...
You win!

I hate when that happens.

 

[RyanLilly]

The kit lens is perfect for the intended, market, The camera companies probably figure, a customer that buys a beginner DSLR and kit lens(es), is a one time sale, generally not expecting them to purchase more lenses, the only add on they hope for is maybe a flash.

And like others have said, the standard lens was a 50mm for years ,but there were really not many consumers buying SLRS. SLR only became consumer items when auto-modes were introduced. Remember before digital most people, were using fixed focus 35mm or 110 point and shoots, so even then nobody really expected a zoom kit lens. It was not till after compact digital P&S became popular that a zoom kit lens was absolutely a necessary.

 

[Mav]

I finally picked up an 18-55VR exactly from who I thought I'd pick one up from. Unwanted and straight out of a D60 kit, $135 delivered. Sweet! I got it because I like to do a lot of transitional light night time or very early morning photography where VR is ok and you don't necessarily need fast glass. Here's how it did vs my FIVE times more expensive Nikon 17-55DX f/2.8 pro lens in its first test.


17-55 f/2.8 @ 17mm, f/2.8, 1/2s, iso800, handheld

18-55VR f/3.5-5.6 @ 18mm, f/3.5, 1s, iso800, handheld

They look the same to me! :lmao:

Even at 18mm wide-open, the 18-55 is still just about a full stop slower then my 17-55 (f/3.5 vs f/2.8), but the VR let me shoot it a full stop longer shutter speed to get sharp results so it was able to make up the difference. I managed to squeeze off one sharp shot at 1s on the 18-55, but got zero sharp shots at 1s on the 17-55. This was pushing the limits at 430am (don't ask), on my deck, with no tripod. Both were a challenge to shoot like this, but the little 18-55VR pulled it off, LOL!

From some other indoor testing I was able to get sharp results at 1/5s at 55mm and f/5.6 on the 18-55VR. My 17-55 f/2.8 is still f/2.8 at the 55mm end, but from practice I can only handhold that down to about 1/15s or 1/20s at the 55mm end since it doesn't have VR. So the 18-55VR is two stops slower, but the VR makes it up here as well and effectively it's the same as my far more expensive 17-55.

You might not think so, but I'm actually pretty happy about this! Now when I go on travel I can just take my 18-55VR and leave the much bigger and heavier 17-55DX at home since I mostly do scenic stuff on travel anyways. I don't need the extra speed to freeze motion or for subject isolation if shooting family or people. Plus walking around a strange city at night or the early AM you never know who or what you're going to run into. If someone wants to take off with my camera I'll just give it to them, no big loss with a dinky but GOOD and easily replaceable lens on the front. Of course Ken says you can use the 17-55 for self defense. Good point, and probably true. :lmao: Would probably just end up breaking the mount on your camera anyways though.

If you like to do scenic stuff in maginal light, the 18-55VR is sweet. I'd assume the Canon 18-55 IS will perform about the same.

 

[KrisHunt]

I'm as much of a beginner as I can get—I don't actually own a DSLR yet—but I've been reading a lot of stuff on the web about various cameras, lenses, and photography in general. One thing I've always heard is that kit lenses are crap, but this is the first time I've ever seen a comparison with other lenses to back that up. I'd love to see more comparison shots between a kit lens and a more expensive lens to see what I'll be paying for if I opt for the better lens.

 

[Mav]

I've compared my 18-55VR to my pro Nikkor 17-55 f/2.8 and stopped down at f/8 during daylight shooting, the cheap little 18-55 lens actually looked sharper! No kidding. I had myself tricked viewing both images at 100% on my 24" iMac simultaneously, but the sharper shot was actually the 18-55! The only difference I saw was in the far corners. You almost couldn't tell, but the 18-55 seemed to be a tad sharper in the corners, but otherwise they were identical. The reason you spend 5 or 6 times more for the Nikkor 17-55 f/2.8 over one of the $100-200 18-55 variants is for shots like this:

D40, 17-55DX @ 55mm & f/2.8

That's the long end of the lens and at maximum aperture. Typically lenses will be at their weakest from an image quality and sharpness perspective at their long ends and maximum aperture, but the pro lens still looks sharp and has great color and contrast. Next, see the light points in the background? That's the out of focus rendering of the lens, or "bokeh". Cheaper lenses and even some expensive ones might have sharp edges on the bokeh with the outer edge actually being brighter which will quickly ruin portraits like this if you have a bunch of bright ring-shaped light rather than smooth solid circles. What you see there is more neutral looking bokeh. It's not the best, but far better than the cheaper lenses. The larger f/2.8 aperture is also 4 times more sensitive to light than the 18-55 would be at 55mm and its maximum aperture of f/2.8. With more light gathering ability, that gives you more range for your flash, or it allows you to let more natural light into your photo such that you're depending on the flash less. Or if you're trying to stop the motion of a 1 yr old without a flash, the f/2.8 aperture will give you 4 times the shutter speed of the 18-55 at f/5.6 at its long end, and still nearly twice as quick at the wide end too.

Next, depth of field.

38mm and f/2.8

See how the deck, bench, and grass are all nicely out of focus? Larger apertures mean a shorter depth of field, and give you the ability to isolate your subject better which makes for a better portrait. The variable maximum aperture of the 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 lens would be about f/4.8 or f/5 at 38mm depending on the version and the subject isolation wouldn't have been as good since smaller apertures mean more in focus, not less.

If you can afford the time to swap lenses and shoot things that either don't move, or do move but just not very quickly, you'd probably be better off getting a 35mm f/2 prime for around $200-300 new and then a 50mm f/1.8 prime for around $100 and for $300-400 you'll have the whole 17-55 range covered at f/2 or faster for the most part for one-third the price of a professional mid-range f/2.8 zoom, and still cheaper than most of the consumer mid-range f/2.8 zooms. In fact I did just that for months after my daughter was born. But then the thing learned to crawl and now walk and I just couldn't keep up with her with the primes anymore. So I needed a mid-range FAST zoom. I didn't want the flimsy build quality of the consumer f/2.8 mid-zooms nor their ugly bokeh and some of their other attributes, got a nice bonus check after some extra hard work, and so I splurged on the Nikkor.

If I'm just walking around during the day though and am not going to be shooting at apertures larger than f/8 doing scenic type photos where I want lots of depth of field, the 18-55 kit lens is perfectly fine. Heck, even wide open they're fine. No they won't be as sharp as the pro lenses, but you can sharpen them up to look about the same after some post processing anyways. The reason to pay a lot more is for the stuff above that you can't really replicate well or even not at all in post processing. Like tight depths of field for portraits, creamy smooth bokeh, and nice color and contrast anywhere on the lens. The kit lens loses color and contrast at its long end, but not the pro lenses. They look great everywhere. The $100 50mm f/1.8 prime lenses are just as sharp, colorful, and contrasty at 50mm and also a stop faster. The professional zoom just gives you the ability to zoom in an instant, for 12 times the price.

 

[Senor Hound]

Kit lenses are a compromise. Its basically saying, "Hey, I'm not the best, but for the price you get a good range and decent optics." Besides, the kit lenses of nowadays are really good! And in photography, you pay a lot more for something just a little better (little is a relative term and this may differ with opinion, I know).

But 50mm primes are cool. They make you feel like you have professional-quality glass for an amateur price. What's not to love about that?

 

[KrisHunt]

When you say you can get a new 50mm prime for $100, are you talking about third party? I'm thinking of getting a Canon XSI, and the going rate for a 50mm prime lens made by Canon is $325.