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
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.
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.
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 !
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?
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 !
Hey, how do you manage to isolate just a fragment of a comment the way you just did ?
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
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).
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.
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.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.