Good glass, not so good glass
Dec 19, 2017 11:25:29 #
jonjacobik
Loc: Quincy, MA
I'm still a newbee around here, but when I see a discussion about kit lens vs a better lens I'm confused, but guessing it's not the way the lens was packaged, but the quality itself. When looking at Nikon's offerings for example I see:
17–55mm f/2.8 SALE! AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G IF-ED DX AF-S Now $1,199.95
and 4 offerings of 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 lenses with an assortment of vibration, focus, options all ranging in price for $119 to $249
I'm sure it's not just the silly mm 17 vs 18, nor is it a bit more than half an f stop that makes the difference.
Back to the question. Am I correct to assume that all 4 lenses that are less than $250 are 'Kit' lenses and the good glass is probably always over a grand?
17–55mm f/2.8 SALE! AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G IF-ED DX AF-S Now $1,199.95
and 4 offerings of 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 lenses with an assortment of vibration, focus, options all ranging in price for $119 to $249
I'm sure it's not just the silly mm 17 vs 18, nor is it a bit more than half an f stop that makes the difference.
Back to the question. Am I correct to assume that all 4 lenses that are less than $250 are 'Kit' lenses and the good glass is probably always over a grand?
Dec 19, 2017 12:11:48 #
I am a Canon user, but, you are pretty close.
However some of the lower priced lenses are just older designs that they still sell. They may not have the bells and whistles the new models have, like stabilization, the latest fast-quiet focus motor, wonder coatings etc. They may be built lighter and not weather sealed etc. or a combination of those two - old design - budget build.
However some of the lower priced lenses are just older designs that they still sell. They may not have the bells and whistles the new models have, like stabilization, the latest fast-quiet focus motor, wonder coatings etc. They may be built lighter and not weather sealed etc. or a combination of those two - old design - budget build.
Dec 19, 2017 12:21:39 #
jonjacobik wrote:
I'm still a newbee around here, but when I see a d... (show quote)
The more expensive lens is definitely a better lens. It's better in many way. I think the contruction is better. It's 2/3 stop faster at the wide end and 2 stops faster at the long end. It's also sharper.
Dec 19, 2017 12:23:30 #
Old Timer
Loc: Greenfield, In.
Kit lens are the lens that are called that because they are the economy lens bundled with a camera for a starter kit. Most are not an inferior lens but not up too par with higher priced lens which are usually have lower light capabilities. The Canon 18 55 I found is a good lens for its price. The 55 270 not as good over all. Most beginners would be satisfied for time until they learn what the want will and learn and progress and then buy lens that suit their specific needs. Glass is in my opinion more important than the camera body.
Dec 19, 2017 12:30:59 #
Dec 19, 2017 12:39:32 #
Kit lens is a misused term. Look at the Canon EOS 5D Mark IV DSLR Camera with 24-105mm f/4L II Lens. That is sold as a kit. The kit lens is the 24-105mm f/4L II. It is a thousand dollar lens and a lens I very much want.
A "kit" lens is a lens sold with a camera body as part of a deliberate pairing. When Canon or Nikon or Sony or whoever puts together kits, they make an effort to provide a lens that gets a fair bit out of the body it is sold with. A starter camera is going to be matched with a starter lens.
A "kit" lens is a lens sold with a camera body as part of a deliberate pairing. When Canon or Nikon or Sony or whoever puts together kits, they make an effort to provide a lens that gets a fair bit out of the body it is sold with. A starter camera is going to be matched with a starter lens.
Dec 19, 2017 13:16:33 #
The 17-55mm f/2.8 lens is more expensive b/c the aperture is constant throughout its range. It is an excellent lens but it has no VR which in itself is no problem with a high enough shutter speed. I bought mine used for $750 and am very happy with it.
Dec 19, 2017 13:27:21 #
jonjacobik wrote:
I'm still a newbee around here, but when I see a d... (show quote)
As a hobbyist, the value of high quality lenses has to be weighed against ones own personal budget. Does one need several different lenses that can cost a thousand dollars or more? You may lust after them but is the increased image quality worth the hit to your budget? That’s a question I have to ask myself over and over. For the professional who can write it off, I’m sure that question is much easier. I did splurge a couple of years ago and got a Canon 24-105mm L lens and I do love it but I still keep my 18-55mm kit lens just for the few times when I need to go just a bit wider.
Walt
Dec 19, 2017 14:58:42 #
I bought a "kit" and within six months I wondered why I ever settled for such low quality lens. They got me started but if you really like photography the satisfaction is not there. I have since gotten rid of the "kit" lenses I started with and now shoot with 16-85mm and 70-300mm both with VR. Not the best but tons better than the 18-55mm and 55-200mm I started out with. Now I am looking at a super telephoto and moving from the D3200 to a D7100. So, "kits" serve there purpose..............but not for long. Just my two cents worth.
Dec 19, 2017 15:48:15 #
Nikon's 17-55 2.8 was made back when they didn't have a full-frame digital camera.
It's every bit a professional lens and would have been one of the "Trinity" if they kept making only DX cameras.
It's heavy and pricy, but an awesome lens.
When I first used mine, it was an "OMG" moment!
Even wide open it was sharp.
I had been using the 18-70 before that.
It's built like a tank!
Makes the 18-55 line feel like cheap toys.
It's every bit a professional lens and would have been one of the "Trinity" if they kept making only DX cameras.
It's heavy and pricy, but an awesome lens.
When I first used mine, it was an "OMG" moment!
Even wide open it was sharp.
I had been using the 18-70 before that.
It's built like a tank!
Makes the 18-55 line feel like cheap toys.
Dec 19, 2017 15:54:03 #
GoofyNewfie wrote:
Nikon's 17-55 2.8 was made back when they didn't have a full-frame digital camera.
It's every bit a professional lens and would have been one of the "Trinity" if they kept making only DX cameras.
It's heavy and pricy, but an awesome lens.
When I first used mine, it was an "OMG" moment!
I had been using the 18-70 before that.
It's every bit a professional lens and would have been one of the "Trinity" if they kept making only DX cameras.
It's heavy and pricy, but an awesome lens.
When I first used mine, it was an "OMG" moment!
I had been using the 18-70 before that.
Just curious, how long has that lens been around?
Dec 19, 2017 15:54:42 #
I got the Sony e 16-50mm f3 5-5.6 oss pz 'kit' lens packaged with my Sony A6000. When I used it the first time, I nearly jumped out of my skin for joy although I found the foacl range just a little bit frustrating. Later, I read some less than complimentary reviews on it that put me off the lens. GAS took hold and I started to invest in some premium lenses. Yes, the better lenses gave better results, but I came to appreciate the 16-50 for what it is - a very compact, light, 'plenty good enough' lens with stabilization and power zoom. Perfect for carrying around in a jacket pocket with no more than a light wrist strap.
OP - I sent you a PM.
OP - I sent you a PM.
Dec 19, 2017 16:23:55 #
SueScott wrote:
Just curious, how long has that lens been around?
Came out in 2003.
We have 2 at work.
Still use them when I shoot DX format.
Borrowed a D500 from Nikon to shoot graduation last May and it paired beautifully with the 17-55.
Dec 19, 2017 16:32:37 #
My Pentax K-30 was kitted with an 18-55mm lens; I purchased their 18-135mm almost immediately because it was one of the few "normal" lenses they manufactured with an in-lens AF motor; more recent cameras have been kitted with the 18-135mm lens.
Dec 19, 2017 17:13:56 #
jonjacobik
Loc: Quincy, MA
That 70-300 from Nikon - Specifically - 70-300 MM 1:4.5-6.3G ED VR is a great lens that That I bought separately from my D5600 for about $500 last summer, but is now bundled with the D5600 and 18-55mm for less than $800 ($400 less than 6 months ago). That makes it, now, just a crappy kit lens. Still compare it to the $1200 + Zooms - it is a hobby lens.
Calling something a kit lens is just confusing.
Calling something a kit lens is just confusing.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.