How bad is a "kit" lens.

I was always happy with the Nikon 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6. I only upgraded for a constant f/2.8 aperture (pretty much the only reason why people upgrade, or VR - in the days when kit lenses were not VR).
 
I use a lot of kit lens and found them very good,there's a lot of pressure out there sometime to replace your kit lens quickly,like they almost throw aways i say get out their and try them at first you might be surprised.

:)
 
I have several friends who ran out and bought kits against my advice, and their cameras sit on their shelves because they realized it didn’t give them much more versatility than their current P&S
Click to expand...
There's always one though, isn't there?

I'm (sort of) lucky in that my cameras came with quite long kit lenses. 18-135mm on the D80, and 18-105mm on the D7000, so I rarely feel that I don't have enough reach, and unless I'm doing something extreme, 18mm is plenty wide enough for most situations.

If I need speed, I've got fast primes, but I don't shoot much in the dark where I can't use a tripod and a longer shutter speed. Until that day comes, the fast telephoto's can stay in the shop.
 
I have several friends who ran out and bought kits against my advice, and their cameras sit on their shelves because they realized it didn’t give them much more versatility than their current P&S
Click to expand...

That says a whole lot more about those people and their interest in photography than it does about any of their gear.
 
Last edited:
One of my favourite ever images was taken with my Nikon 18-55 non VR. I very under-estimated bit of kit.
 
The only reason I sold my 18-70 kit lens that came with the D70 was that the person who bought my D200 needed a lens to use on it. The D700 I'd bought as an upgrade to the D200 came with the variable aperture 24-120 which was rather less good than the 18-70 but was at least FF. I actually managed to get what the 24-120 had cost me (as extra above body only price of the D700) in part exchange against a later purchase, having already upgraded (and it was an upgrade!) to a Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 that I got in a Jessops sale at a very good price. That 24-70 has now been upgraded to the current 24-120 f/4 which is much better than the old variable aperture version.

While I never actually owned it, I did use the 18-55 non VR kit that came with Dad's D50 and while it was OK, it wasn't as sharp as the 18-70 and felt more plasticky. It was a lot lighter though which made it a better choice for him.
 
Having changed the Canon kit 18-55 IS for a *Sigma 17-70 2.8/4, I've no intention of losing the Canon. It's not bad at all once you stop it down a bit, and I'm using it on tubes for the odd close-ups and macro's I do, so it's usually stopped down from f8 to f11-ish anyway :)
When it's not on the tubes, it's on the 550D as the back-up gear to the 60D and Sigma.

*TBH, I didn't see a jump in IQ, more a girly skip :D But the Sigma feels better built and having 2.8 at the wide end is a godsend for bands in pubs.
 
There are a number of good reasons for upgrading (better build quality, better optics, faster, constant aperture etc) but that doesn't make the kit lenses "bad". I got the Canon 17-85mm with my 30D, and it has a number of shortcomings, but it covers a very useful range as a walk around and I've got some excellent results from it. I wouldn't pay full retail price for one though.

Sure, I'd like a 17-55mm or a 15-85mm, but they're both way out of reach for me and I really can't see myself ever being able to afford one. I don't lie awake at night worrying about it though. My old, manual, Nikkor 50mm f1.4 AI is excellent and works well with an adapter. The only drawbacks are the focal length, which is a bit long on a crop body for me, and my ageing eyes that sometimes struggle with MF and a crop viewfinder.

Just work with what you've got. There are very few truly "bad" lenses in the top manufacturers' stables.
 
Last edited:
artyman said:
Couldn't agree more. my favourite shot from last year was with my old 350D with the original el-cheapo kit lens.
Click to expand...

SOme of my own favourite shots were also taken on the same body, same lens :)
 
Yep ... I have the Canon 18-55 kit which came with my 600D and it's a little cracker. Sharp, versatile and light weight. OK, not as "fast" as some but none the less I've got some lovely shots with it and don't plan to dispose of it anytime soon.
 
That article mentions the is lens, is that the mk2 kit lens? I have the original 18-55, no is, plastic, I think you can pick them up for £30 now. As such it's a perfect lens for where you don't want to risk a more expensive one. Optically it's not bad so I've used it where I've needed a lightweight solution, such as on the end of a pole on a car rig and I've used it through a lions cage (with handlers permission) whilst the cat took an interest in it.
 
The kit lens is great! It has f8. Use it at f8 and like nearly all lenses you'll be fine.
 
The trusty kit lens that came with my former camera (the D3100) has always been my choice of lens when attached to my D7000 in terms of indoors still life photography.
The very tight f36 aperture makes it perfect for that kind of thing as it eliminates that depth of field effect. That's how I made a photo of my model KITT (of Knight Rider fame) appear as if it is an actual life size object.
It just makes for a very useable handy workhorse of a lens.
 
Last edited:
I'm still using a kit lens. I realise that these lenses have limitations but that doesn't mean to say they're rubbish.

All the photos I've posted on here were taken using a kit lens and no-one has suggested I put my gear on ebay. :)
 
Byker28i said:
That article mentions the is lens, is that the mk2 kit lens? I have the original 18-55, no is, plastic, I think you can pick them up for £30 now . . .
Click to expand...

:shrug: No idea whether it's the mk2, mk3 or mk-whatever - I really don't keep up with these things. But the newer kit lenses that come with Canon are is (and still plastic!).

Absolutely nothing wrong with them though IMO.
OK I've added new lenses to my collection over the years where I've found limitations with the kit lens - something faster, something longer, a dedicated macro etc etc - but for specific purposes and I certainly won't be parting with mine any time soon.
I'm actually surprised that nobody else has mentioned my favourite feature of the Canon 18-55 kit lens. The short minimum focus distance IMO makes it a great close-up lens and I've shot some of my favourite insect pictures with it.

I really can't understand anyone advising any newbies to upgrade immediately as a matter of course - work with it first, enjoy it and only if and when you're hitting its limitations think about upgrading appropriately to plug that gap.
 
the main problem with the original 18-55 was build quality - it took okay photos but it wore badly -especially the rubber on the zoom grip.

I used mine til it fell apart, then got a 18-55mk3 (IS) second hand - used that for a while then swapped it for a 18-125 , then swapped that for a 17-50 f2.8
 
I also got the Nikon 18-70 kit lens when I bought a D70s years ago - still have it, it still gets used on crop sensor cameras and is still as sharp as a sharp thing, weighty, well made, etc. No complaints from me for the only 'kit' lens I have ever owned ;)
 
big soft moose said:
I used mine til it fell apart, then got a 18-55mk3 (IS) second hand.8
Click to expand...

There hasn't been a Mk3 of the IS version.

The lens line runs:

18-55 Mk1
18-55 Mk1 USM
18-55 Mk2
18-55 Mk2 USM
18-55 IS Mk1
18-55 IS Mk2
18-55 nonIS Mk3
18-55 IS STM
 
Last edited:
If you know even the basics you should get good results from a kit lens.

One of my lenses is the Canon 18-135 IS which is technically a kit lens (albeit the more expensive option!) and I've used it at a wedding, even in low light using flash / shutter drag. Yes I used other lenses and fast primes, but her favourite shots were taken with the 18-135.

The bride and groom were delighted needless to say.
 
The kit lens with my 350D was and still is poor IQ but when i replaced it with a 60D the kit lens of that was the 18-55mm IS II that went onto the the 350D and is a major step up from the non IS version, Wife uses that now with a nifty 250 as well and gets some stunning pictures from them.
 
Dave1 said:
There hasn't been a Mk3 of the IS version.

The lens line runs:

18-55 Mk1
18-55 Mk1 USM
18-55 Mk2
18-55 Mk2 USM
18-55 IS Mk1
18-55 IS Mk2
18-55 nonIS Mk3
18-55 IS STM
Click to expand...

see in my head he one that comes after mk2 is mk3 - so the m1 IS would be 18-55 mk3
 
I had an 18-55 on my 450D, it was the first lens I bought for the 450D, and when I sold the body, it was also the last lens to go. The quality on them isn't that great and not very sharp wide open, but I did take some decent images with it, and the range was fine for what I was mainly using it for.
 
big soft moose said:
see in my head he one that comes after mk2 is mk3 - so the m1 IS would be 18-55 mk3
Click to expand...

The Mk3 doesn't have IS, so would be rather confusing to call the Mk1 IS by the same name.

The Mk3 looks like the IS lenses (minus the IS switch) and was launched with the 1100D.

Specs.jpg
 
Who said the kit lens was bad?

Main reasons I moved mine along were no constant aperture, distortion at the wide end, CA at the 55mm end in my experience, slow AF, very ... and it just felt like it would fall apart after a slight bang. I got a Tamron 17-50 2.8 for very cheap, and it delivered much more. I immediately noticed the difference in image quality, bokeh, sharpness ... the tamron isn't a tank, but it sure feels healthier then a kit lens.

People make this big deal about kit lenses, to prove their worth, like we're all hating on it. Everyone has owned one at some point. But most people sell them on or they gather dust in a cupboard after moving to 2.8 glass or primes.

The kit lens is ok ... if you don't want to spend or don't have much of a budget. But then, if you're on a tight budget you're not buying higher end gear anyhow.
 
The original 14-45 lens that Panasonic supplied with the early M4/3 cameras was not at all bad for a kit lens - although I believe that some of that may be down to firmware correction.
 
I use the 18-105 that came with the d7000 almost all of the time, it does most of what I want.
 
i used the 18-55 non is kit lens that was with the 1100d and i still use it to this day i think the iq is rather good for a basic kit lens, its not L stuff but dam good for what it is here is a photo taken with mine
<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/hoochy1/8013633479/" title="IMG_0804 by hoochy1, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8298/8013633479_9685ac06c1.jpg" width="500" height="333" alt="IMG_0804"></a>
 
Last edited:
I've still got the 18-55 IS (II) kit lens from my 450D and do occasionally still use it. Stopped down the IQ is fine. Yes it looks a bit plasticy but it works - i generally avoid trying to play football with my lenses anyway.

That said, i have dropped it down a series of tiered rock ledges and watched it bounce off every one on its way to the bottom. Other than a tiny scratch on the glass (not visible in pictures) the lens still works. My much more expensive 10-22mm on the other hand fell off the top of an open rucksack and fell roughly 6 inches to the floor, exploded into pieces and cost me £260 to get fixed. So plastic looking cheap lenses don't always fall apart more often than better built ones.

I've got no intention of getting rid of my 18-55 as its a good backup for if/when my main faster ones die.
 
vizzair said:
I use the 18-105 that came with the d7000 almost all of the time, it does most of what I want.
Click to expand...

the 18-105 is a very capable lens and still in my bag
 
Cagey75 said:
Who said the kit lens was bad?

Main reasons I moved mine along were no constant aperture, distortion at the wide end, CA at the 55mm end in my experience, slow AF, very ... and it just felt like it would fall apart after a slight bang. I got a Tamron 17-50 2.8 for very cheap, and it delivered much more. I immediately noticed the difference in image quality, bokeh, sharpness ... the tamron isn't a tank, but it sure feels healthier then a kit lens.

People make this big deal about kit lenses, to prove their worth, like we're all hating on it. Everyone has owned one at some point. But most people sell them on or they gather dust in a cupboard after moving to 2.8 glass or primes.

The kit lens is ok ... if you don't want to spend or don't have much of a budget. But then, if you're on a tight budget you're not buying higher end gear anyhow.
Click to expand...

This all depends on what your into. F2.8 is pointless as my work horse lens at 80% of the time mines set to f11. People spend to there needs and budget. Sigma 10-20mm is ment to be great tho so that may become my kit lens haha
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top