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?
In the 1960s, "kit" lenses were excellent optics. I had a 50mm f/1.4 Nikkor on my Nikkormat FTn. It was great.
Somewhere along the way, the concept of "kit lens" got cheapened by manufacturers trying to undercut the price of entry into the hobby/business of photography. The 50mm prime became less and less expensive, and less and less capable. To encourage enthusiasts to buy more lenses, the trade press started making fun of the "nifty fifty". It worked... sort of. Users just started buying other lenses instead of the 50mm.
These days, manufacturers offer several kit lenses, almost all of which are zooms. For example, Panasonic offers a Lumix G Vario 12-60mm f/3.5-5.6 ASPH. POWER H-FS12060 bundled with their G85. They also have a Leica DG Vario-Elmarit 12-60mm f/2.8-4 ASPH. H-ES12060 that is often bundled with the GH5. The G Vario version is a very decent, if slow lens. It sells by itself for about $500. But, it only adds $170 to the G85 over the price of the body alone. The DG Vario Elmarit is a phenomenal lens, but at twice the price (about $1000 by itself). In a kit with GH5, it adds only $600.00.
What are these lenses really worth? They're worth whatever people pay for them!One problem with "kit" lenses for dSLRs is that most dSLRs are APS-C. They come with APS-C or DX lenses. These lenses are smaller, lighter, less expensive to manufacture, and often sharper *on APS-C cameras* than the equivalent grade full frame lenses that might fit the same body. So because they are lower priced, they have an "image problem." (I'm using that in the context of brand image, not photographic quality!) There is NOTHING wrong with most APS-C/DX kit zooms, but the low price has a way of making people think so! They think its wise to buy the bigger, heavier, full frame lens that covers roughly the same field of view, "just in case" they "upgrade" to full frame, later. Never mind the fact that the full frame lens performs WORSE (although more consistently from corner to corner) on APS-C than it does on full frame. That, of course, *causes* them to want to "upgrade..."
Time and again, this "image" problem occurs with many different products. For instance, in the 1970s, Toyota was selling cars that were several times more reliable than American cars from the big three. Consumer Reports surveys of owners showed that, in actual experience. Yet those cars were WAY less expensive than the American cars of the day. In the 1980s, Toyota wised up, and started charging about as much for their cars as the Americans charged for theirs. But they wouldn't discount them as much, because with their reputation among savvy, well-informed customers, they did not have to! Their sales accelerated rapidly. Thus began the Big Price and Quality Squeeze on the American auto manufacturers. Loyalty and patriotism meant less in the marketplace than saving money and time on repairs.
Most of us have encountered a common phenomenon of travel — Hotel prices have almost NO correlation with room quality, cleanliness, and service! A $99/night room in one location might be spotless, well-furnished, and the staff may be highly attentive to your needs. The next night in another city, a $179/night room might be a dive, with fixtures that don't work, mold in the bathroom, faucets that don't work right, and a TV with blurry picture.
"You get what you pay for" is a nice generality, but it is often not true. If something is manufactured in high quantity in a modern factory, it is often built to exacting standards. If it is made in small quantities in a smaller shop that does not meet ISO standards, it may have variable quality, plus a higher unit cost, that leads to a higher selling price.
I don't see anything wrong with the term "kit lens," but I do see a major flaw in consumer behavior. Caveat emptor, folks! (Let the buyer beware.) Do your homework. Assume NOTHING.