Indi
Loc: L. I., NY, Palm Beach Cty when it's cold.
graybeard wrote:
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
I know it's simply semantics, but I would never call a "Kit" lens inferior, just not "top shelf."
I had a Nikkor 18-55mm "Kit" lens that came with my D5100 and I got some incredibly sharp images with it.
When I bought my D5300 recently it was packaged with a Nikkor 18-140 lens. That is also a very nice and affordable lens.
BTW, when I was researching my D5300, I looked at "body only" models and noticed that the 18-140mm, when purchased separately, was somewhere in the $450 plus range. I wouldn't consider that a Kit lens.
BTW, my Nikkor 18-140 is for sale because I bought the Sigma 18-300.
I'm just too lazy to take a picture of it to post it here on the UHH.
They are the lens that is usually sold with the camera, not of excellent quality, but fairly good, certainly good enough to learn a new with. If you are a beginner, I would suggest getting the camera with one. If you are experienced and have several lenses, just buy the body.
graybeard wrote:
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
No doubt you'll get all kinds of answers on this subject. Mine would be that so far I've had excellent luck with Canon's "kit" lenses - normally their 18-55.
I use mine strictly for video or on occasion when I need a little more width to my frame. I've never had a problem with mine and find the current lens I'm using for video to be tack sharp.
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?
That is utter nonsense. All I have are the two "kit lenses" that came with my D3100. I go manual a lot. Don't make those of us who can not afford a lens that costs a thousand plus dollars such rank amateurs that they will never progress past a Point and Shoot.
And by the way, I have some excellent shots with my lenses. Most of what makes good photography comes from what's between your ears.
graybeard wrote:
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 !
I have 40+ years in using 35mm film SLR's, and my ... (
show quote)
:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:
Ralloh wrote:
That is utter nonsense. All I have are the two "kit lenses" that came with my D3100. I go manual a lot. Don't make those of us who can not afford a lens that costs a thousand plus dollars such rank amateurs that they will never progress past a Point and Shoot.
And by the way, I have some excellent shots with my lenses. Most of what makes good photography comes from what's between your ears.
:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: agreed! Nice one!
Don Fischer wrote:
I can't remember what I got with my D70 but I did turn down the kit lena. 18-55 wasn't going to do it for me. Come to think of it, maybe I didn't get a lens at all with it. I have a number of them from film! It's not that the kit is no good but the 18-55 just wouldn't do it for me. When I got the D5000 I turned down the kit lens there to, went with the 18-1105, D90 kit lens! lol I'd like to have some of the expensive lens but this is mostly hobby for me and I live on social security, I can't justify the cost of an expensive one. I used to think that I needed a 80-200 2.8. But somewhere along the road got a 70-300 Sigma and it's done well for me. the title kit lens doen't bother me, what it is can. What does anyone use an 18-55 for any way? Oh, I like metal mounts but the plastic one's don't bother me a bit.
I can't remember what I got with my D70 but I did ... (
show quote)
I mainly use my 18 ~ 270mm lens and then need my camera bag. However, when I want to travel light I use my 18 ~ 55mm lens and a smaller camera 'pouch' and am very glad of it. :thumbup:
If I wanted to shoot video - then the 18 ~ 55mm lens with its silent auto focussing is a must. :thumbup: :thumbup:
JimH123 wrote:
One example is that I have a camera modified to be able to capture IR. If I use the 18-55mm kit lens, the central portion of the image is much brighter (called a hot spot). If I use a better lens, there is no such problem.
This is just one example showing how a kit lens manufactured with some compromises doesn't match up to a better lens.
Except that most people are not interested in shooting IR!
boberic
Loc: Quiet Corner, Connecticut. Ex long Islander
graybeard wrote:
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 !
I have 40+ years in using 35mm film SLR's, and my ... (
show quote)
There is no question that Canon's L series glass is better than their "kit"lenses. However unless your'e a pro, or have a pro level camera the kit lenses will work just fine on your T3. Whats more is that any one who looks down on your gear is a snob and derserves no attention. MHO
tomeveritt wrote:
Good Morning (in hiding) Graybeard
Most Nikon owners don't make "Condescending" remarks about Canon owners. The majority of Nikon owners do not join in with the daily Put Downs of Jpegs, Idiots not shooting Raw, Nikon vs Canon, show me yours so I can criticize it, etc.
UHH has a minimum of Braggers and Judges compared to other blogs, this is almost the only blog I even follow.
Some of the advice on UHH is expert help and experience offered by semi and working Professionals. Have a nice day 8-)
Good Morning (in hiding) Graybeard br br Most Nik... (
show quote)
I have just been back over the last 3 pages to find out what prompted this comment and cannot find anything at all! Why is it that some Nikon owners seem to feel everyone is slighting them? I don't see it happening with Canon, Olympus, Pentax etc owners. :roll:
PNagy
Loc: Missouri City, Texas
graybeard wrote:
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
I bought my first SLR with a kit lens. After a few months I replaced it with some high quality lenses and threw the it lens away. The images are so much better with better glass.
St3v3M wrote:
Unless you've changed the settings in the camera you are shooting in JPG.
JPG images are fine for most people and it's only when you need more that you might consider moving to RAW.
There are pros and cons to everything in life. S-
Indeed! and neither is the be all and end all of existence.
Hey Ralloh I'm with you, my kit lenses are sharp. Not gonna pay all that money. Not gonna sell pictures anyway.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.