imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Yes .....in the Nikon world. Not so much in other worlds tho.

gessman Loc: Colorado

Well, you're picking up on some of the nuances of early photography life and that's good. You're also getting some very good answers here. Inexpensive lens used in good light in the middle of the day when you don't have to resort to going to the extreme ends with either aperture or zoom range, thus keeping the lens near the middle settings, you will find that you can often get shots that are about as good as you can with more expensive lens. Unfortunately, many of our best and most desirable shots are shot when we can't get what we want with the diminished capabilities we find in inexpensive lens, hence the urge for the capabilities the more expensive lens provides us.

I have both, and use both, expensive and inexpensive lens on a daily basis and my experience has shown me that I can often rely very nicely on inexpensive lens as long as I respect the limitations they impose and give them every chance for success. It's all about knowing your equipment and understanding what you're doing which has to do with the available light and your technique which comes with a methodical approach to learning.

The same goes for expensive lens - while their capabilities are a bit broader and more flexible, if you exceed their capabilities they'll pay you back with something you may not enjoy. Understanding what those capabilities are in each case is the trick and sometimes that isn't exactly a simple task given all the different lens with their differing capabilities or lack thereof.

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

Yes, in the other worlds you can get some good glass under $1,000.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

jonjacobik Loc: Quincy, MA

And a good photo is in focus where it should be in focus, have the composition the photographer was after, and perfectly lit. It was taken with a crop sensor or full sensor, a D850 or D3400, a good photo is still a good photo and everyone know it when the see it.

Kit lens or pro lens -

Thanks guys. A good discussion and 'Kit' will probably be in our vocabulary for a long time. It's a whole lot easier to say than consumer glass.

digit-up Loc: Flushing, Michigan

I've stated (here-in) not too long ago, that the kit lenses are generally not much better than a "front, BODY cover, from MOST brands. For example, how many people actually relish the 18 to 55mm that gets strapped on to the body they so longed for? The lens is usually given most of the credit for great images, so I think one should just take the body cover, and save for a great lens. Anybody want to buy my 18-55mm KIT LENS???

d3200prime

I totally agree. The term "kit" has no bearing on the quality of the lens. Nikon, for instance, offers low quality, "kit" lenses with their intro cameras and go all the way up to their highest quality, most expensive, cameras paired with high quality "kit" lens costing up into the mid to high thousands of dollars. It's just the manufacturers way of saying you can purchase this camera and this/these lenses are included at an attractive price. It's ALL about competition, moving inventory, marketing and making money folks. So, don't get all jangled about the term "kit lens".

gvarner Loc: Central Oregon Coast

I'm a bigger advocate for excellent eyesight and artistic vision than I am for high quality glass.

kdogg Loc: Gallipolis Ferry WV

Check out this page, covers just about anything lens wise be it Canon or Nikon. https://www.the-digital-picture.com/

John_F Loc: Minneapolis, MN

Whether a lens, snidely called kit, is good/bad depends on what you think its picures look like - masterpiece/crud. What criteria decide quality. Well, I think the first factor is: each of the spherical surfaces of the lens has a center of curvature - are all of those centers co-linear. If no, what happens as different light beams refract across those surfaces. A second factor is does each surface have one and only one radius of curvature. If not, the lens surface will have locally different curvatures and what happens as different light beams refract across those multiple curvature surfaces? These two are optic laws factors. How about the manfacturing factors. Any of you ever handle a micrometer - its barrel has little engraved lines and the body shaft has a 'zero' line. These lines have finite width, so these impose an error of measure. If it is scribed to 0.001 inch accuracy, then the error in measure is 1/2 thousandth inch. Now such a device might measure your lens radii of curvature. Are there other manufacturing errors - glass is a mixture of different silicates with other stuff like borates. How homogeneous is the final solidifed chunk that is ground to a spherical surface to a radii to within some error in value. I have a hunch that lens' 'sweet spots' come from just such errors. An expensive lens might have one 'sweet spot' and a cheapie will have multiple 'sloppy spots.'

bwana Loc: Bergen, Alberta, Canada

Kit lens are simply lenses having a good match to a camera body. I've received a Canon 24-105 L as a "kit" lens with a Canon camera and it is definitely not a poor quality lens! In fact it is one of the best lenses I've ever owned. I no longer use it with a Canon body but it works great with my Sony A7R II.

I also use a number of older Canon EF & FD, Pentax, Minolta, Tamron, Sigma and T2 lenses. Some yield great image quality, some not so much BUT some older lenses are quite often very good quality at a bargain price.

bwa

MrGNY Loc: New York

Some of the kit/bundled lenses were at one time the better glass and have been replaced with new designs. This does not mean that they are inferior lenses, it just means that they have been replaced by a lens with with VR, better coatings etc.

latebloomer Loc: Topeka, KS

I question cost is always a determinent of quality. Is the Nikon 50mm 1.8 E lens a poor quality? Look up the reviews. Is the Tokina 100 macro poor quality compared to the Nikon? Many reviewers say it is superior. I do have a recent Tamron 24-70 that is one of the sharpest zoom lenses I have had and others say the same. I believe that it is cheaper than the Nikon. I am not saying that quality glass can be found inexpensive most of the time. Some very expensive Zeiss lenses wil knock the socks off other lenses. I am just saying that many if not most expensive lenses can be superior; but, it depends.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

Well, first of all, an f/2.8 constant aperture lens is 2/3 stop faster than 18mm f/3.5 and 2 full stops faster than 55mm f/5.6. It's A LOT MORE than half a stop difference where it's most needed.

You're also comparing apples and oranges in that the 17-55mm Nikkor is well built with has three ED (extra low dispersion) elements, three aspherical elements, a 9-blade aperture, metal mount, uses premium AF-S focus drive and the matching lens hood is included ($30 value). In comparison, the 18-55mm are plasticky including the bayonet mount, use 7-blade apertures (makes for less nice background blur), AF-P focus drive (in two versions), at best have two aspherical elements, and their matched lens hoods are not included, sold separately.

HOWEVER, the Nikkor 17-55mm really is overpriced, even on sale ($300 off the usual price). The Canon equivalent is selling for $800 ($80 discount) AND it's a stabilized lens (as are two of the 18-55 Nikkors). Unfortunately the Nikkor 17-55mm is not.

There also are Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 OS (stabilized) for $369, Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 (not stabilized) for $300 and Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 VC (stabilized) for $650.

Novicus Loc: north and east

The Best Nikon Kit- lens......the Nikkor 50 F2.0 , the one from the F era.