Pedrohog wrote:
Newbie here. Recently purchased the Canon T3i , mostly for video purposes. Came with the usual 18-55mm lens plus a 75-300mm.
On this forum, I have read some implied skepticism about certain kit lenses, but no one (in my limited viewing) has actually come out and detailed the minuses of some of the standard kit lenses, or which ones are particularly problematic and why. Details, anyone? What's the specific problem(s)?
There isn't really a specific problem with them. They are just not as well made as the more expensive lenses.
For instance:
Kit lenses -
*plastic barrels
*plastic bayonet mount
*won't manual focus while in autofocus mode without stripping out the gears
*Optics not as precision ground and not multi coated as more expensive glass
*some have no lens hood bayonet mounts
*some have no distance scale
*the IS features not as smooth (cheaper made) as the more expensive lenses
*more susceptible to chromatic aberration because of lens design
*more distortion because of lens design
*more susceptible to zoom lens creep than more expensive lenses
*less resale value
*not fast e.g. good lenses (f-stop for low light shooting etc.)
*won't stand up to the riggers of professional uses by a pro that depends on a dependable lens to make a living.
Other than that, they are great for taking nice snap shots and with practice, under certain conditions and in good hands make absolutely stunning images. I'm saying "they are NOT crap!" But, as in anything you buy these days, there are choices from less to more expensive, durable to not so durable, crap to excellent, so on and so on. A kit lens is something to get the novice started in photography. Some more experienced photographers will usually try to buy a 'body only' because they are already vested in good glass.