"Kit Lens" - Bad Terminology: Many people have a negative opinion of kit lenses. They think they're cheap plastic lenses that the manufacturer includes just to get the buyer started...

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Many people have a negative opinion of kit lenses. They think they're cheap plastic lenses that the manufacturer includes just to get the buyer started shooting. In many cases, kit lenses are very good, like the little Nikon 18-55mm. Camera makers could have avoided this situation by listing the camera as "With Lens." Ordinarily, buying a kit is preferable to buying the basic item, but "kit lens" seems to imply it's not very good quality.

Comments?

nimbushopper Loc: Tampa, FL

You're correct! The kit lens that came with my D500 is the 16-80 EDIF with crystal nano coating that sells for $1066 by itself, takes very sharp pictures.

RGreenway Loc: Morristown, New Jersey

Agree. I just bought the excellent Sony “kit lens” the 16-50 to use on my A6500 which I had bought without a lens originally. The reviews of this little lens are very good and it is also excellent for 4K video since it has power zoom. Luckily I was able to get it on eBay under $200 so it cost about the same as if I got the “kit” to begin with. It has very good IQ, is very compact and is fast enough for general use. It’s the equivalent of a 24-70 on a full frame camera and when turned off is almost a pancake lens! Good job Sony!

Bill_de Loc: US

I think the term originally referred to the cheap lenses that people still associate with the term. It turned out to be good marketing and the manufacturers started bundling better lenses.

Each lens as to be evaluated on its own merits. It shouldn't really matter what name is used to refer to it. If I have a lens that gives me good results, you can call it whatever you want. You can't insult an inanimate object.

---

Jim Bob

jerryc41 wrote:

Many people have a negative opinion of kit lenses. They think they're cheap plastic lenses that the manufacturer includes just to get the buyer started shooting. In many cases, kit lenses are very good, like the little Nikon 18-55mm. Camera makers could have avoided this situation by listing the camera as "With Lens." Ordinarily, buying a kit is preferable to buying the basic item, but "kit lens" seems to imply it's not very good quality.

Comments?

You're exactly right. Several years ago when I purchased a D7100 it came with a bundle that included the excellent 18-140 as a "kit" lens. That is still one of my favorites.

Gitchigumi Loc: Wake Forest, NC

Jim Bob wrote:

You're exactly right. Several years ago when I purchased a D7100 it came with a bundle that included the excellent 18-140 as a "kit" lens. That is still one of my favorites.

I'll second that... In my case, the "kit" was a D7100 with a Nikkor 18-200 lens plus bag and other accessories. The lens is outstanding and I am very pleased with it. So, in my case at least, the term "kit lens" is very misleading. Sure, it comes with the camera and other accessories to make up the "kit", but it in no way implies that the lens is inferior in any way.

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

I always thought that "kit lens" meant a lens matched to the camera by the manufacturer. I also thought it meant that the manufacturer thought the lens would work well with that particular body. I have also found that to be true. The 18-55 that came with my Canon Rebel xti years ago was a good match to the body and my skill level at the time. Canon does not sell the 5D IV with that lens. That comes kitted with a 24-105 f/4L or a 24-70 f/4L.

billnourse Loc: Bloomfield, NM

The 18-135 kit lens that comes with some of Canon's higher end crop frames is an excellent lens. The 24-105 L 4.0 or 24-70 f4.0 "KIT" lenses offered with the 6d Mk II or the 5D Mk 4 are high end L lenses that retail for over 1,000. I would think you would have to judge the lens on it's own merit rather that what it is called. "A rose by any other name".

Bill

Mac Loc: Pittsburgh, Philadelphia now Hernando Co. Fl.

jerryc41 wrote:

Many people have a negative opinion of kit lenses. They think they're cheap plastic lenses that the manufacturer includes just to get the buyer started shooting. In many cases, kit lenses are very good, like the little Nikon 18-55mm. Camera makers could have avoided this situation by listing the camera as "With Lens." Ordinarily, buying a kit is preferable to buying the basic item, but "kit lens" seems to imply it's not very good quality.

Comments?

Agreed.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Wow! No disagreement?! : )

Gitchigumi Loc: Wake Forest, NC

jerryc41 wrote:

Wow! No disagreement?! : )

Amazing, eh?

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Gitchigumi wrote:

Amazing, eh?

We must be in The Matrix.

RGreenway Loc: Morristown, New Jersey

Yes and to the point that it’s the photographer who makes the most difference not the lens! But I will admit to a touch of GAS. I enjoy trying new lenses and cameras now and then.

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

The 50mm F/1.7 Pentax-A that was kitted with my Pentax Super Program in 1984 is still one of the best lenses I have.

The 28-80mm That was kitted with my Canon EOS Elan camera in 1995 and the 18-55mm that was kitted with my Rebel XT in 2007 gave me fine pictures even though both had “plastic” mounts, and each outlasted my use of the camera it was kitted with.

Larrymc Loc: Mississippi

jerryc41 wrote:

Wow! No disagreement?! : )

OK, I vehemently disagree!!!

Larry