tnturk Loc: Gallatin Tennessee

Nikon D3100, entry level DSLR. Lens Nikon 55-200 "kit lens" bought refurbished at Adorama for $65.00. Take a look.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

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.

Bultaco Loc: Aiken, SC

[quote=sodapop]You do not understand marketing. Beginner/starter is a ploy to make the consumer uncomfortable with what they have and a desire to move up, ie spend more money for a "better"lens. No one wants to be seen with a beginner camera.


I've seen many with a BEGINNER camera do they really care what people think?

bull drink water Loc: pontiac mi.

my two cents worth. the term "kit lens" was coined by camera makers and dealers and writers, to pitch to buyers who didn't know enough or want to buy a body and lens separetly. it would have been nice to list A kits and B kits. A with a premium lens and B with a economy lens. when I bough my Sony a-200, it came as a kit with two lenses with every accessery you could think of. plus a backpack and a hard case. the images were fine for a beginner. the short zoom lens wore out, but every thing else still works.

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

I'm with you on this, as regards terminology. My first cameras (Kodak Brownie 127 and an Agfa Instamatic) didn't come in kits, since there weren't many options. I still have my mother's Kodak 110 Instamatic kit, a nice plastic case with a camera, a 110 film cartridge, and some flash cubes. My first SLR was a 'kit camera' a Zenit E with a Helios 58mm f/2 lens. It's quite a decent lens and works well on modern cameras. My next camera, a Canon AE-1 also came as a kit. The FD 50mm f/1.8 lens was quite decent. Next I bought a T90 body, no lens, so clearly not a kit camera.

Now, I have been using a Canon T3i mostly, and have just acquired an 80D. But with a battery grip, all the lenses and flash guns that I have most people perceive the T3i as a 'scary or serious camera', not a beginner's camera. It isn't the lens, the body, the other accessories, and I have never come up against comments about 'a starter camera' and I don't care. It's all about perception.

I have owned some very fast vehicles in my life time. I usually do everything that I can to play down the badges etc. Those that recognize the vehicles don't bother to 'play' with them. Those that don't recognize them don't try to play either. Discretion has a positive value in my world and ostentation is seldom a good thing.

Heather Eliza Loc: BFE :)Upstate, NY, Adirondack Park, Foothills

These are fantastic captures. "kit" lenses do a great job when they are used to their potential. by that i mean, taken off of auto, so the human, not the camera controls the scene and makes the shot. I still own, and use my "kit" lenses. when I'm camping and I'm afraid of dropping a prime in the lake :) but they do get used, and they work well.

bull drink water Loc: pontiac mi.

there was a dealer that use to advertise on the internet, that offered up to 5 different kits same body different lens from a lower to a higher price range.
the higher ranges included the G and L lenses..

tnturk Loc: Gallatin Tennessee

Thank you. TnT

Vince68 Loc: Wappingers Falls, NY

The Nikon 24-120mm f/4 lens has been included with a number of different model Nikon cameras, the D750, D800, and D810. I own this lens and use it on my D800, and am very happy with it. Here is a link to an updated review of this lens in which the reviewer has been using the lens in combo with a D810 for a few years now.

https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-24-120mm-f4g-vr and also a link to his his D850 review which includes photos taken with the 24-120mm f/4 lens also https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-d850/9

John_F Loc: Minneapolis, MN

Years ago I heard a story about how kit lens got its reputation. This fellow reported of the great camera kit deal he got on eBay. I forget the camera brand and model and this is what he told. It seems all his pictures has what looked like rain drops and he could not figure why. Until one day he dropped the camera, fortunately on a wood floor from not a great height, except that one floor nail had been sticking up. One inspecting the lens he noticed a kind of puncture hole in the lens but no cracks like glass would give. This gave rise to suspicions so he took a magnifying glass to both ends of the lens. To his astonishment the camera end lens surface looked like it had tiny bubbles. As the front surface had that nail mark he tried out his pen knife and the lens was soft and it was easy to smoothen the puncture. He concluded the lens glass was not glass but a transparent plastic molding made to look like glass. He now understood why a camera that sold in the $750 class only cos $100 on eBay. His complaint got turned down as the warrenty period had expired. Was that where "kit lens" originated?

shelty Loc: Medford, OR

I can remember when the lens automatically came with the camera, and it was difficult to buy a camera without the lens, and the lens on the camera was one of their best lenses, and the manufacturer didn't sell second grade lenses.

John_F Loc: Minneapolis, MN

Just how "less capable?" A 50 mm focal length stays 50 mm - yes, no. 5 aperure leaves instead of 7 or 9. Fewer f-stops, like lowest, highest, and one middle. What mean "less capable."

frankraney Loc: Clovis, Ca.

Great shots, and from a "starter camera"
My point exactly....

adamsg Loc: Chubbuck, ID

Jerry: You are spot on!! I have that very lens (Nikon 18-55mm) and find it to be a very good lens. I wish I could do a direct comparison with the old 50mm 1.4 that is on my Nikon F. It is a wonderful piece of glass and serves me so very well when I shoot film. I often wondered why the term kit lens was used and you are right that it can lead to a real misconception of the quality and utility of a lens.

n3eg Loc: West coast USA

The Olympus cameras usually come with the 14-42mm II R lens, which definitely performs like a kit lens.
The E-M5 originally came with the 12-50mm lens, which also performs like a kit lens.
The 14-42 is worth about $150 and their 40-150 (a secondary kit lens) goes for $99 new.
All are outperformed by the 14-150, which is in the $400-$500 range.
The "kit lens" still exists.