SueScott Loc: Hammondsville, Ohio

Wow! That's almost ancient! I got mine used - it had originally belonged to a studio that went FX and I happened to be at the camera shop at the right time.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

Basically yes Jon, you generally get what you pay for. Kit lenses are not bad, in fact most folks are pleased. Now, some Kit lenses are better than others. Example, Nikon this Holiday season has offered the Nikon 16-80 at half price when paired with the D500, and offered the 24-120 at about half off when paired with the D810 and D750. So, you can save big and get quality glass for under a grand. But, Jon, as this started out, generally you get what you pay for. Good luck and keep on shooting until the end.

mas24 Loc: Southern CA

The 18-55mm is a lens that is put on entry-level crop sensor cameras. Canon and Nikon for certain, and maybe others I am unaware of. The 18-55mm is an inexpensive lens, for the absolute beginner. Not a horrible lens, and not great either. It was my very first lens on a Nikon DX DSLR. I still have it, among other lenses. I keep it, even though I very rarely use it anymore.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

So-called "kit lenses" must be priced low enough that including them with a camera body won't scare buyers away. If the Nikon 70-200mm lens was included with a body, its $2,700 price would make the total cost too high to attract most people.

Lots of thought goes into designing a lens, not just for quality, but also for price. More people will buy a $100 lens than will buy a $500 lens with the same focal range. The difference in performance between the two will be slight, but those who want the best results will be willing to pay the higher price. If it takes science and extreme magnification to justify the higher cost, maybe the lower cost item will do just fine.

cameraf4 Loc: Delaware

Jon, think of it this way: A professional/serious hobbyist photographer will not need to buy a new camera that comes with a lens --- he will already have lenses. Lenses that are bundled with a camera are intended (generally) for folks just starting out with photography OR with a new system/Brand. No kit lens today is "crappy." It will be well made and optically sound because the maker will want you to like it and buy more of his brand. But some lenses are more difficult to make than others (more expensive materials, more difficult design, etc). Those lenses are generally for more experienced shooters who want more out of their equipment and are willing to pay for it.

Hbuk66 Loc: Oswego, NY

There are a lot of people on this forum that adhere to the notion that a more expensive lens is always a better lens and the reality is that is not true. That 70-300 4.5 IS a great lens, and Nikon making it into a kit lens does not change that fact. Nikon made some great lenses more than 50 years ago, that are manual focus, but still great glass. The Nikkor 135mm f2.8 is a prime example, and one of the best lenses made .

lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

It is mostly the larger and single largest f-stop f/2.8 though out the entire range of focal lengths. And secondarily a IQ thing.

Also seems to be more a Nikon thing. I have a "kit" variable aperture smc-Pentax DA 18-55mm f/3.5 - 4.5 zoom lens and a pricey smc-Pentax DA* 16-50mm f/2.8 zoom lens. Both for APS-C Sensor bodies (in Nikon-talk DX). The DA* (star) and Limited version Pentax lenses are their better state of the art models. They also make HD D FA lenses too for Full Frame, Cropped Factor, and film bodies. These ones are really expensive. My point being unlike Nikon, Pentax does not intentionally make "bad" glass to force the customer to buy Full Frame or FX lenses to get high quality. With Nikon in addition to the 2.8, 3.5, 4, 3.5 - 4.5, 3.5 - 5.6, etc. different types of largest irises on a lens but the DX vs FX huge differences.

I'm not making a case for you to buy Pentax over Nikon or Canon. I am merely pointing out a big difference in their marketing. And hopefully answering your question. Buy higher end Nikon and you will get a great system. Buy any Pentax and you get a great system. And as far as I can tell, buy Canon and also get a great system. Though there can be some problems with interchanging Canon APS-C components with Full Frame components, and old with new. That is my spin anyway, and I think it is fair based on what I know from reading and from friends. (Oddly, most of my personal photographer friends shoot Full Frame / higher end Nikon or Canon cameras. I have a friend who also shoots Pentax like I do but had the money to buy a Full Frame Pentax K-1. He loves it! I'm still waiting to have enough money for that. Though, I've barely learned the potential of my used Pentax K-3.)

lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

So true about vintage Nikon glass (and cameras). I know many people who use their old glass still.

aellman Loc: Boston MA

There is a big difference between a f3.5-5.6 kit lens and an f2.8. The lower aperture number is a large factor in the price. An f2.8 lens has much more light gathering ability as well as control of depth of field. Although there is snobbish dumping on kit lenses, most are of excellent quality and more than adequate for many applications, unless you are a professional with a Trumpian budget. I'm not in any way denying the need or desire photographers have for a complement of high-priced glass, but for me (and I'm guessing you), the kit lens will do a great deal. It's an easy decision in one way: use a kit lens for a while and see if there's anything you need that it doesn't do. If so, consider other lenses, including used, clearance, and refurbished to save $.

pithydoug Loc: Catskill Mountains, NY

yes more expensive but one of deciding factors is F/2.8 in zoom glass. Once you get a lens that goes below f/4.0 the price goes way up because of the technology.

In general a kit lens is just ok. If your serious about quality photos they will not perform well unless you are in ideal lighting. if all your photos are for facebook or 8x10 or less, a cheaper lens will do ok. Of course thre quality of the sensor is another factor.

Shutterbug57

I think the “kit” lens designator may not be the best, because sometimes pro glass is in the kit with a pro body. A better term would be pro glass and consumer glass. The performance and price are generally linked and indicative of which category each falls into. Having pro glass does not make one a pro, but sometimes it will allow one to get a shot not obtainable on consumer glass - need a fast lens in a low light environment - especially in the days where ISO 3200 was not really all that presentable.

Pro level glass tends to be sharper, focus faster and generally outperform consumer glass. THBS, consumer glass, in the right hands can produce some truly stunning images. The trick is in knowing the sweet spot for the lesser quality glass. If you can shoot f/8 or f/11, consumer glass, especially name brand (Nikon/Canon) consumer glass, will frequently perform quite acceptably in the mid aperture range. The limitations tend to be clarity at each end and an inability to open up as much as most pro lenses.

Consumer level glass allows many people to enjoy (D)SLR photography when they would/could not participate if they had to buy a bag full of >$1,000 lenses. Recently Tamron & Sigma have been turning out some really nice pro-level glass at roughly 50% of the Nikon/Canon pricing. The performance of these lenses is virtually equal to the branded glass. This has been a welcome change and will, hopefully, bring the prices on branded glass down.

In the end, we each have to look at what we are trying to accomplish with our photography and decide what level of glass we need (and can afford) to satisfy our vision. For instance, if you are shooting volleyball in dimly lit gyms and want publishable images, a f3/5-f/5.6 consumer zoom may not get it done for you - unless you have a modern ultra-high ISO camera and are willing to live with the noise at those levels. Even then, that glass, wide open, is not likely to be as sharp as a constant f/2.8 lens. If, however, you are shooting snapshots at the beach on sunny days, the consumer lens may be all that you need. It is all about your value equation.

ole sarg Loc: south florida

One would never see the difference.

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

"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?"

You are correct. Lenses like the 18-55mm VR made by Nikon is one of the kit lenses.
Kit lenses do not necessarily mean a lens that is being cheap is of inferior quality. This particular lens has very good optics.
The 17-55 f2.8 is a professional lens with a fixed, not a variable aperture like the kit lens. It is better built and I am sure the tolerances are smaller compared to the kit lens.

Elsiss Loc: Bayside, NY, Boynton Beach, Fl.

Not all kit lenses fall in that category. For example, my D750 was purchased with an included “kit” lens which happened to be the 24-120. By itself,the lens costs new around 1100.00. When purchased with the camera, Nikon gives you a break and you save approx. 600.00. It is a razor sharp, well made lens that makes the D750 a great walk around set-up. Seems to me that when you purchase an FX kit with lens, the manufacturer supplies a very nice lens. Not so much when purchasing an entry level crop frame camera kit.

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

Except when the kit is such a steal you can buy it, sell the lens quickly on eBay and come out ahead of just buying the body.