onyxtiger Loc: Northern California

Out of curiosity, why are people so down on the lenses that come as a combo with the camera? The so-called kit lens. It doesn't seem to matter if it's Canon or Nikon.
I've had no problem with mine. So, I'm just curious and I'm probably opening a can of worms here, I'm sure.

Hey, even the 'wannabe' can wade in here. (He knows who he is) :lol:

Maybe, I'll have to rent a comparable lens from one of the rental companies and see if I can really see/tell the difference.

wilsondl2 Loc: Lincoln, Nebraska

Got me. I think they want them to do things that they can't like take pictures in low light or contro Depth of Field better. They are not made as rugged as some lenses but for most of us who take care of their lenses it dosn't matter. - Dave

Shellback Loc: North of Cheyenne Bottoms Wetlands - Kansas

I have the kit lens and have had no issues... I also have fast lens - depends on what I'm shooting...

Some discussion points on kit lens:
Not sharp through the complete focal range -
Not good in low light (most are 4.5 ~ ...)-
Made out of plastic and wear out quicker -

The kit lens I have produce some pretty good photos and I am happy with the IQ. The newer lens are getting better all of the time - no complaints from me (personal opinion)

And the benefit - they are lighter and easier on the pocketbook.

So, it boils down to what is your shooting preference? If you need a fast lens, then you pay the higher $$$'s.

If the kit lens gives you what you want and you're happy with the end results - then IMHO there is no need to upgrade.

And if you wear it out or break it, just pick up another one off of eBay ;)

As many professionals have said - doesn't matter what you have - it's not the camera gear that makes a photographer, just get out and shoot -

Rongnongno Loc: FL

You are not opening a can of worm.

Unless the kit is made of lenses that are manufactured to the highest standard, the kit is offering cheap alternatives that may or may not serve as a 'starter'. Most will in the long run become an additional cost that you should not have paid had you been given the right information.

That said, if someone is happy with it, why intervene? If you are happy with what you have why mess with your satisfaction by running a costly test? (rent is cheap if it avoids investment for a specific job or in order to test expensive equipment prior to a purchase).

onyxtiger Loc: Northern California

Sounds good. Thanks all for the responses. I am happy with the kit lenses I got. So I will not be changing any time soon. Nice to know what others think. :)

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

When I bought my D90 (years ago) it came with an 18-105mm kit lens. It was/is a really good and versatile lens. When I upgraded to the D7000, I bought the body only and kept the 18-105mm.
Over time I started to feel the zoom lens was making me lazy. I was using the zoom to frame the shot and taking what it gave me instead of moving myself and getting what I wanted. (I don't know if that makes sense to anybody but me)
At the same time I wanted a faster lens. I think the 18-105mm was something like f/3.5-5.6.
So when I moved up to the D600, I got a 50mm f1.4. I also have a Micro (Macro) lens and a 70-200mm f/4 that I use for wildlife. But the lens that is almost always on my camera is the 50mm f/1.4.
So I guess I used all those words to say there's nothing wrong with a kit lens.

boberic Loc: Quiet Corner, Connecticut. Ex long Islander

I think that for the most part kit lenses are sold as a package so that the price of the body plus lens is more attractive to the average buyer. For example, if a canon 70D came with a n 80-200 L f2.8 IS lens the "kit" would cost over 3 grand and no one would buy it. Nothing wrong with kit lenses but they usually are not top of the line lenses and as such don't command top of the line prices.

Kubie Loc: SE Kansas

To me it's not that the kit lenses are so bad it is that you can get a lens that will do a specific job much better and sometimes for not much money. I shopped around and got a 18-135mm 3.5-5.6is as my kit lens with my canon 60D. It is a decent lens I use it a lot and I've had very good success with it. However there are times it fails me for example indoor use, say a birthday or family get together. I bought a used $90 50mm 1.8 (the so called nifty fifty) and for that use there is no comparison. No flash needed most the time and the clarity is stunning. This doesn't mean the kit lens is bad, just means it's not the best application for the job particularly when the grand-kids are bouncing about the house at warp speed!

I tend to carry the kit lens most the time if I'm out hiking or just wandering about. It's a good, lightweight, multipurpose choice. Just learn the limitations and make allowances.

wilsondl2 Loc: Lincoln, Nebraska

Mac - If you shot 35mm film cameras your D600 and 50mm lens is just like going home. Most film SLRs came with a 50mm lens. Didn't call them a kit lens then. - Dave

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

You're right on target Dave. My first SLR was an Olympus OM-1 that had a Zuiko 50mm f1.2 lens with it. I wish I still had them.

BigDaddy Loc: Pittsburgh, PA

My Nikon d5200 came with 2 kit lenses, 18-55 and 55-200mm lenses. I'm less than happy with them. These lenses cost in the $200 range, not much money for what they do, but, a decent zoom lens that I've heard works well with this camera costs around $1200. Do you think the kit lens would compare to a $1200 lens? I don't, or, I would sure hate to buy one if it works the same as either of my "kit" lenses.

I could get pretty good prime lenses for the price of these zooms, but that's not the same thing. I guess it all depends on what the "kit" lens is. I'm thinking in general, you get what you pay for.

davidrb Loc: Half way there on the 45th Parallel

Canon has been using the EF 24-105 and EF 24-70 lenses as kit lenses. These are fairly good lenses, but I have to agree with your observation on kit lenses. These lenses are designed to last only as long as the user allows. Light use (family get-togethers, birthdays, family weddings, etc.), they will last a long time. Active photographers will eat them alive. The advanced photographer will use a lens more often, and under more severe circumstances. This individual will shed the kit lens in a hurry, it is not designed to withstand this type of use. As far as the optics are concerned, how much difference do they make when the subject is baby's second birthday? Or the twins on the beach last summer? It comes right down to the marketers, kit lenses are aimed at entry level camera users. Many of these folks do not know enough about photography to know the difference. But, like everything else in photography, there are some diamonds in the ruff. There are some kit lenses that are considered quite good. I will leave that part of this discussion to the Brothers Shooter, M.T. and SS.

DOOK Loc: Maclean, Australia

When I bought my first Nikon DSLR a few years ago, two 'kit lenses' came with it, an 18-55 & a 55-300. I believed (at the time) that kit lenses were crap, & went on a spending spree buying 'decent' lenses. I later discovered that I had been misinformed. The kit lenses look a bit plasticky & are a bit slow, but lack little in IQ, AF performance, & image stabilization (VR). Used outdoors during daylight hours, kit lenses generally produce excellent pictures. As a matter of fact, my Nikon 55-300mm kit lens is one of the sharpest lenses I own, & I am currently using it on a bird series. The pics in this link were taken with my 55-300mm yesterday.

http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-228273-1.html

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

Move over folks, Wannabe coming through!! :lol

Onyx, I have never met a kit lens I thought did not shoot pretty darn good. Sure the build on some of them is a little sketchy, and some are really noisy, blah, blah, blah, but that won't make then shoot poorly.
But the IQ is decent in good light, as with any lens. If you're gonna shoot professionally, you owe it to a customer to use the best gear you can get. But a kit lens will shoot so close to a pro lens, most of the time you can't tell them apart in normal shooting.
Though the pro lenses are sharper, that is NOT the reason to spend the extra money on a top of the line lens, or you will probably be dissapointed. Sure, you can convince yourself there is a huge difference, but one is mostly kidding themselves, to justify the cost.
I have compared some of the most maligned lenses with some of the sharpest lenses made, and I can't see much difference in good light.
Fast lenses are expensive, so kit lenses are generally pretty slow, but nothing a top of the line flash can't fix in a big hurry.
Anyway, just my personal experience, your mind will play its own tricks on you, depending on what YOU spent! :lol:
SS

onyxtiger Loc: Northern California

Thank you, Sharpshooter, for your very enlightening observations. I may have to graduate you out of 'grasshopper' status to something a bit higher. Locust, perhaps? :lol:

Actually, I do appreciate your feedback, SS.

Thus far, I've not been disappointed with the two 'kit' lenses I've got. But, I have to admit, I do really like the Nikkor 10-24mm lens I recently bought.