Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main Photography Discussion
Kit lenses
Page 1 of 8 next> last>>
Feb 18, 2015 00:03:50   #
graybeard
 
I see a lot of references to "Kit" lenses, often with an inference that they are in someway inferior. Can anyone shed any light on this? Thanks

Reply
Feb 18, 2015 00:14:11   #
tainkc Loc: Kansas City
 
In a nutshell: They are usually not of the best build quality. However some of them are pretty darn good! They make them on the "cheap" side so as to make them economical to purchase. This way, even the casual user can enjoy photography without having to put a second mortgage on their home.

Reply
Feb 18, 2015 00:14:37   #
St3v3M Loc: 35,000 feet
 
Kit lens http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kit_lens

Reply
 
 
Feb 18, 2015 01:06:36   #
graybeard
 
tainkc wrote:
In a nutshell: They are usually not of the best build quality. However some of them are pretty darn good! They make them on the "cheap" side so as to make them economical to purchase. This way, even the casual user can enjoy photography without having to put a second mortgage on their home.


Say bro, I see you are Soo. My favorite RR. I have several frieght cars with the $00 logo on them. I have 2 Canon lenses, I guess both are "kit". A 18-55mm and a 55-250mm. But if Canon puts their own name on them I figure they can't be too bad.

Reply
Feb 18, 2015 01:13:20   #
graybeard
 


Hey, thanks for the link. Lot more there than I would've thought. Kit sounds OK to me. No snob appeal, but that might help keep the price down !

Reply
Feb 18, 2015 01:15:33   #
St3v3M Loc: 35,000 feet
 
graybeard wrote:
Hey, thanks for the link. Lot more there than I would've thought. Kit sounds OK to me. No snob appeal, but that might help keep the price down !

Most people will use a 'kit lens' in Auto and be happy, while others want more.
It's sort of like; why put expensive racing tires on a car unless you're going to race it?

Reply
Feb 18, 2015 01:44:27   #
graybeard
 
St3v3M wrote:
Most people will use a 'kit lens' in Auto and be happy, while others want more.
It's sort of like; why put expensive racing tires on a car unless you're going to race it?

I have 40+ years in using 35mm film SLR's, and my wife recently gifted me with a digital Canon T3, along with 2 kit lenses, the 18-55 and the 55-250mm. I must say I was simply blown away, both for automatic functions and digital. I was even more impressed when I found I could use my old M42 lenses with a cheap adapter. I don't mind using them manually, that is what I am used to. Just love it all ! But one of the things that irritates me is the superiority complexes I see so much of (nothing new to me, seen it in film days too). I see it particularly in Nikon users and in some condescending attitudes (like with kit lenses). It's not the camera, its the photographer !

Reply
 
 
Feb 18, 2015 01:45:23   #
St3v3M Loc: 35,000 feet
 
graybeard wrote:
... It's not the camera, its the photographer !

Amen!

Reply
Feb 18, 2015 01:46:54   #
graybeard
 
St3v3M wrote:
Amen!


Hey, how do you manage to isolate just a fragment of a comment the way you just did ?

Reply
Feb 18, 2015 01:47:50   #
St3v3M Loc: 35,000 feet
 
graybeard wrote:
Hey, how do you manage to isolate just a fragment of a comment the way you just did ?

Click Quote Reply, then edit between the [quote]'s

Reply
Feb 18, 2015 01:50:18   #
graybeard
 
St3v3M wrote:
edit


Like that?

Reply
 
 
Feb 18, 2015 01:50:41   #
St3v3M Loc: 35,000 feet
 
graybeard wrote:
Like that?

Like that!

Reply
Feb 18, 2015 01:53:47   #
graybeard
 
St3v3M wrote:
Like that!


So I learned a couple of thing from you tonite. Kit lenses and editing replys. I will try for 3 then let you go to bed. What is raw? (remember I have a film mind set, so I have a lot of new stuff to learn).

Reply
Feb 18, 2015 01:56:13   #
St3v3M Loc: 35,000 feet
 
graybeard wrote:
So I learned a couple of thing from you tonite. Kit lenses and editing replys. I will try for 3 then let you go to bed. What is raw? (remember I have a film mind set, so I have a lot of new stuff to learn).

RAW is basically unprocessed film, where JPG's are in-camera processed frames.

RAW requires you to use a digital dark room to process your film.
JPG is like taking your film to a store and letting the machine do it for you.
- You still have control over the outcome, but not as much as with RAW.

Reply
Feb 18, 2015 01:57:48   #
graybeard
 
St3v3M wrote:
RAW is basically unprocessed film, where JPG's are in-camera processed frames.


I have shot over 1,000 pix so far, don't even know which one I used. I still haven't downloaded any of them.

Reply
Page 1 of 8 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main Photography Discussion
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.