Kit Lenses: Could somebody please explain to me the difference (beside price) of a kit lens and a normal lens To me they appear to be the same thing especially with Canon L series...

Bobc163 Loc: Australia NSW

Could somebody please explain to me the difference (beside price) of a kit lens and a normal lens
To me they appear to be the same thing especially with Canon L series lenses but are always listed as cheaper

speters Loc: Grangeville/Idaho

And they are usually the cheaper kind (with a few exceptions). Reason is to lure potential buyers to purchase a certain camera they throw in a lens (hence kit), to make the purchase more attractive, but although they are cheaper, they are still of decent quality. Some exceptions are the Canon 24-105L, and the 24-70/f2.8L, as these are clearly not the cheap kind lenses, but still considered kit-lenses (because they are used in that way).

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Bobc163 wrote:

Could somebody please explain to me the difference (beside price) of a kit lens and a normal lens
To me they appear to be the same thing especially with Canon L series lenses but are always listed as cheaper

I wish they never coined that expression. It immediately makes the lens seem like a cheapie that is just thrown in to get the shooter started. I use Nikon, and I don't think they make a "kit" lens that does not take good pictures. Of course they could be better, but not everyone wants to spend $2,000 on a lens. Whether you call them kit lenses or entry level lenses, they are good performers for a good price.

When in doubt about a particular lens, look for online reviews. DxO and dpreview are good sources.

juicesqueezer Loc: Okeechobee, Florida

jerryc41 wrote:

I wish they never coined that expression. It imme... (show quote)

Jerry, you are right on there. Nikons 55-200 lens comes to mind and it is a great lens. Their 18-55 is another. Both are very sharp. Yes, they are cheaper, but still take great pictures.

amehta Loc: Boston

jerryc41 wrote:

I wish they never coined that expression. It imme... (show quote)

Unfortunately, some of the past "kit" lenses were subpar. In recent years, the 24-120mm lens which came with the D700 comes to mind.

Erik_H Loc: Denham Springs, Louisiana

Some kit lenses are made with more inexpensive materials like the 18-55 that I got with my D3100, it had a plastic mount but it is a very sharp lens. I've since upgraded my camera and got higher end lenses, but I still like that lens and use it often.

wilsondl2 Loc: Lincoln, Nebraska

As stated the kit lens is one that is bundled with the camera. The more expensive lenses are generally built better. They will take more abuse. The big difference is they are faster. ( bigger aperture openings) This way you can take pictures in lower light levels and the big thing for many is that you can control the depth of field better. You can take portraits with the subject sharp and the background blurry. For sport shots you can use faster shutter speeds with the wider aperture. As far as sharp pictures at the middle apertures you will find they are just as sharp as the expensive ones. My advise to someone just starting is get the kit lens then when it will not do what you want it to do make note and when you are finding a lot of shots that you are missing buy they type of lens that will do the job. This may be a tele or a macro or a wide angle or a prime for low light. - Dave

kitcar Loc: Liverpool.Merseyside. UK

[quote=Bobc163]Could somebody please explain to me the difference (beside price) of a kit lens and a normal lens
To me they appear to be the same thing especially with Canon L series lenses but are always listed as cheaper[/quote

With my Canon camera purchase came a "kit lense" EFS18-55 & looking at some of disparaging criticism of the said lens I did a test by viewing (PS) print size, 54x36 inches. I printed A4 section and noticed a slight smoothing of the image. If you did manage to print a54x36 inch print, would you be viewing it at reading distance (i.e. 13ins)?. Except for pro posters size or PP cropping my A4 prints are pretty sharp @ 1/6th (aprox) of full print size (54x36inch).

kitcar Loc: Liverpool.Merseyside. UK

Attached is trying to explain the above post. Sorry about the pop can.

boberic Loc: Quiet Corner, Connecticut. Ex long Islander

Bobc163 wrote:

Could somebody please explain to me the difference (beside price) of a kit lens and a normal lens
To me they appear to be the same thing especially with Canon L series lenses but are always listed as cheaper

A "normal" lens is a prime lens that is intended to view the world as the eye sees it. A so called normal field of view. Usually about 50mm. A kit lens is a lens included with the body of the camera as a "kit" for usually marketing reasons. The lens may be a high quality item or not. It's up to the consumer to make a judgement as to weather or not to buy the kit or seperate items

GoofyNewfie Loc: Kansas City

boberic wrote:

A "normal" lens is a prime lens that is intended to view the world as the eye sees it. A so called normal field of view. Usually about 50mm. ...

While the 50mm lens approximates the magnification of the human eye, it is considered the normal focal length only for a "full-frame" camera.
"Normal" is very roughly the measurement of the diagonal of the sensor or film you are using.
For cameras with different sensor sizes, what is considered normal would would be different.
APS-C is somewhere around 30mm.
4/3rds- about 25mm.

bull drink water Loc: pontiac mi.

we are at it again, some are better than others. there used to be a site that offered cameras with choices of kits that ranged from low end to hi- end lenses. imagine a kit that included a quality canon camera and a 70-200mm "L" lens.

Crwiwy Loc: Devon UK

Bobc163 wrote:

Could somebody please explain to me the difference (beside price) of a kit lens and a normal lens
To me they appear to be the same thing especially with Canon L series lenses but are always listed as cheaper

I was watching a pro photographer explaining what he kept in his camera bag - 2 of everything - and he stated that he kept a 'kit lens' on one of the bodies and that the quality was very good. :thumbup:

GoofyNewfie Loc: Kansas City

Crwiwy wrote:

I was watching a pro photographer explaining what he kept in his camera bag - 2 of everything - and he stated that he kept a 'kit lens' on one of the bodies and that the quality was very good. :thumbup:

The 18-55 "kit" lens for my Fuji XE-1 is pretty dang awesome.

ocbeyer Loc: Baltimore

GoofyNewfie wrote:

While the 50mm lens approximates the magnification of the human eye, it is considered the normal focal length only for a "full-frame" camera.
"Normal" is very roughly the measurement of the diagonal of the sensor or film you are using.
For cameras with different sensor sizes, what is considered normal would would be different.
APS-C is somewhere around 30mm.
4/3rds- about 25mm.

This is something that has intrigued me. A 50mm lens on my Canon APS-C body and on my Olympus 4/3 body have different effective focal lengths yet when I look through the view finders they have neadly identical fields of view, the images match perfectly with what I am seeing through my other open eye. I figure the VF on most cameras must be designed to allow that.