Rubbish ‘Kit-lenses’…why?

[Dave in Wales]

For Kit-Lens’ generally read ‘Crap-lens’....IMVHO.

For the life of me this is an item of photographic gear that I cannot get my head around.

‘The ubiquitous crap/kit lens’….mediocre at best, terrible at worst.

They are now offered with high'ish end FF DSLR’S i.e. Nikon D610 and D750 as well as Canon I’m sure.

Back in the FF day, 35mm, there were no 'kit lenses' as such, that were built ‘down’ to a price, there were just ‘lenses’, and one chose accordingly.

Surely it’s not beyond the camera makers to produce a small, light, standard zoom with superb IQ, equivalent to the Nikon 24-70, and a fixed aperture of say f3.5 - f4.
OK, so it costs more, a D750 body is £1500, what’s another few quid or so for a superb standard zoom.
Most of us don’t ‘need’ f2.8 anyway.

The old and new Nikon 24-70 f2.8 both weigh a ton and cost an arm and a leg. The Tamron equivalent is cheaper yes, but no lighter.

After much ‘faffing’ about, buying and returning, I have finally settled on a D750 with an AF-S 50mm f1.8 G lens to start with and use me legs.
I can’t afford either of the 24-70's, in cost or weight, so I’ll build up a few primes…24…50…85.

Just my 2p's worth.

DiW

 

[dizidav]

You should be able to use all your Film lenses with your D750, I use Film era lenses on my D700, with good results.

 

[rob-nikon]

Did you try the 24-120 f4? Not many 'kit lens' retail at £700-800 new. It's supposed to be a great lend if f2.8 and weather sealing is not needed.

 

[chris malcolm]

The kit lens supplied with the Sony A77 & A77ii, the 16-50mm f2.8, is generally agreed to be a top quality lens.

 

[gad-westy]

I thought the 24-120 f/4 was meant to be a decent lens? I'd also heard reasonable reviews of the newer (and older for that matter) 24-85 though must admit I've read some bad reviews too.

My own experience of Nikon kit lenses has been pretty good. The 18-55 feels ready to break at any moment but the IQ is actually very good. The 18-70 is one of my favourite Nikon lenses period and the 18-105, 18-135 and 18-140 were all pretty nice too.

 

[simonblue]

Most SLR came with an 50mm lens except for pro body,then came zoom lens and manufacture started adding an cheap zoom,i think the idea was just something to get you going

 

[redsnappa]

Surely it’s not beyond the camera makers to produce a small, light, standard zoom with superb IQ

Of course camera manufacturers can if they wish create a great kit lens. They choose not to do so as this would lose them the revenue stream from photographers whose first upgrade is usually the kit lens.

 

[woof woof]

Back in the FF day, 35mm, there were no 'kit lenses' as such, that were built ‘down’ to a price, there were just ‘lenses’, and one chose accordingly.
s cheaper yes, but no lighter.

I don't think that's true. Maybe you're viewing the past through rose tinteds?

I remember the 28-70mm I got with my 35mm Nikon SLR, I used it for years but by todays standards it was rubbish and even by the standards of the day it was no star and I'm pretty sure that the Canon / Minolta / whatevers were pretty mucn the same and there's the cheap 50mm f1.8's that many SLR's were shipped with. Lovely things to play with these days they may be but quality items? Nupe. IMVHO.

 

[a1ex2001]

Crappy kit lenses have been the norm since zoom's became the normal thing, if anything today's kit lenses are actually ver very good canons latest 18-55mm stm is leagues ahead of the kit lenses of the earlier digital era!

One thing I do long for is a remake of something like the 28-70mm f3.5-4.5 cheap sharp and compact as canon don't really offer it!

 

[petersmart]

TBH the kit lens I had with my first DSLR - the Canon 350D and the 18-55mm - was a pretty good lens.

The trouble is that many people seem to equate expense with good quality so if it's a "kit lens" then it has to be crap - not so.

And the other lens which many decry because of its cheapness - the Canon 50mm F1.8 - is in fact the best value lens Canon make - easily as sharp, or sharper, than many "L" glass lenses.
.

 

[Phil V]

I don't think that's true. Maybe you're viewing the past through rose tinteds?

I remember the 28-70mm I got with my 35mm Nikon SLR, I used it for years but by todays standards it was rubbish and even by the standards of the day it was no star and I'm pretty sure that the Canon / Minolta / whatevers were pretty mucn the same and there's the cheap 50mm f1.8's that many SLR's were shipped with. Lovely things to play with these days they may be but quality items? Nupe. IMVHO.

Crappy kit lenses have been the norm since zoom's became the normal thing, if anything today's kit lenses are actually ver very good canons latest 18-55mm stm is leagues ahead of the kit lenses of the earlier digital era!

One thing I do long for is a remake of something like the 28-70mm f3.5-4.5 cheap sharp and compact as canon don't really offer it!

This^
Awful kit zooms predate digital, and there are some great kit lenses available now along with the dross.

 

[Boldonian]

The kit lenses for Nikon FF are the 24-85 and 24-120. Not sure you could describe them as crap. The Canon FF kit lens is the 24-105 L , again far from crap. Just buy a body only if this irritates you so much?

 

[simonblue]

Also don't forget some people will be quite happy with the kit lens,and not wish to buy an pro lens

 

[pingu666]

i think the old m42 50mm era where all pretty decent, but yeah the kit lens on your plastic slr probably wasnt special.

my dad has a pentax zoom of about f4, constant... iris closes as you zoom out...

 

[chris malcolm]

Lens image quality is a multidimensional thing. The kit lens of my first DSLR was an 18-250mm f3.5-f6.3. That's a zoom ratio of 14X. Obviously it has to be rubbish in image quality compared to a good prime because its a kit lens, and because its such a huge range zoom. I found that its best central sharpness was at around f8, and if I wanted best edge to edge sharpness f11 was better at the edges while losing some central detail to diffraction. So whenever possible I shot it at f8, which was most of the time. I also found that its sharpness fell off somewhat at the extremes of the zoom range, a bit at 18mm, especially at the edges, and rather more at 250mm, everywhere. Between around 30mm and 150mm I got impressively fine detail. My habit when processing my images was to downsize them as much as possible without losing detail. Usually that was a downsize of 67%. But my best images, avoiding the softer extremes, and taken with care on a tripod, often could not be downsized at all from the camera's 14MP without losing detail.

The first good quality prime I bought for my first DSLR was a 50mm f1.4. I was pleased to see in the reviews that while it was rather soft wide open it was bitingly sharp by f4 and it was among the top performers in central sharpness. So one of the first tests I did was to photograph a winter tree with lots of exceedingly fine twiggy detail with both lenses at 50mm and f8. To my surprise it was hard to see any extra detail in the prime images. Pixel peeping to the max I could see it here and there in some carefully chosen parts of the image. Not something that would ever be visible on my usual big print size of A4. It might just be visible on an good quality A3 print if you looked at it with a magnifying glass.

Of course the prime 50mm lens could produce sharp images at stops wider than the zoom could reach, and the zoom was pretty crap wide open. The prime could also do good differential focus at wide apertures, something beyond the capabilities of the zoom. As for dim light, the prime could take good carefully handheld portraits by candlelight! It was in many respects a far better lens. But it wasn't much better than the zoom at its best.

Now I have a 24MP camera and a bagful of primes and better quality zooms to cover that 18-250mm range and more. Going by the conventional wisdom about lenses those 24MP should have gone so far beyond the resolution of that crap kit 18-250mm zoom that not only would the extra MP have shown no more extra detail, but revealed in horrible detail the defects of the lens. But I found that wasn't the case. Moving up from 14MP to 24MP that crap kit lens, at its best, showed more detail, just not as much more as sharper lenses. Alhough technically speaking I've upgraded from that old crappy kit 18-250mm zoom I still use it as my standard walk around lens. I use the others for things which the 18-250mm either can't do or doesn't do well. It still takes a lot more of my photographs than any other single lens I have, and possibly as many as the rest of them combined. A portfolio of my best ever A3 prints would include many taken with it.

Where did this idea of the crappy kit zoom which must be upgraded from and junked ASAP by any serious photographer come from? I suspect there must have one or two really crap kit zooms produced at some time by one or another of the big manufacturers, and camera shop salesmen and armchair experts have been trading with relish on that gossip ever since.

 

[snerkler]

The kit lens supplied with the Sony A77 & A77ii, the 16-50mm f2.8, is generally agreed to be a top quality lens.

Yep, I had this combo and it was fantastic. Not cheap though.

 

[a1ex2001]

This^
Awful kit zooms predate digital, and there are some great kit lenses available now along with the dross.

I agree accept I don't think there is any dross left both the Canon and Nikon standard crop kit lenses review very well these days and only really need to be replaced if you want faster glass or must have a constant aperture, even the classic dual lens kit telephoto's are great these days canon 50-250mm is in a different league to the old equivalents!

 

[Phil V]

I agree accept I don't think there is any dross left both the Canon and Nikon standard crop kit lenses review very well these days and only really need to be replaced if you want faster glass or must have a constant aperture, even the classic dual lens kit telephoto's are great these days canon 50-250mm is in a different league to the old equivalents!

I've neither tested them nor read the reviews, but in posts above mine there's some scathing remarks about some of the current kit lenses.
The only EFS kit lens I've owned was an early 18-55, and I don't think I shot a frame with it. I have though tried some awful EF kit lenses from the 90s on film

 

[Steve Smith]

The 18-70mm kit lens which originally came with the D70 is good.


Steve.

 

[wyx087]

You want a good kit lens? buy Fujifilm X series.

Their XF 18-55mm lens comes with some of Fuji's cameras is cheap, light (relatively), fast and excellent. XF 18-55mm F2.8-4, metal lens mount, much lighter than F2.8 equivalent yet identical at wide end. But only costs around £200 second hand, compared to double for the F2.8 one.

The Canon 24-105mm F4 IS L lens comes as kit lens for 5D's are no slouch. They perform wonderfully and quite a bit lighter than F2.8's.

I think OP just didn't research enough systems on the market. I'm sure some M43 also offer some wonderful kit lenses.

 

[woof woof]

You want a good kit lens? buy Fujifilm X series.

...I'm sure some M43 also offer some wonderful kit lenses.

I don't know about wonderful but certainly acceptable, good even

I have a MFT Panasonic 14-42mm kit lens and for a variable aperture kit zoom at a reasonable price I honestly can't complain... and the 28-70mm Sony I have for my A7 could actually be described as... good, maybe even very good

 

[ChrisHeathcote]

Also don't forget some people will be quite happy with the kit lens,and not wish to buy an pro lens

Simon makes a very valid point, I think this whole "crap kit lens" thing goes with the fact that with later incarnations of DSLRs they were more accessible to The Joe bloggs's and Uncle Bob's of the world, who wanted a "professional" looking camera and wanted a DSLR.

We forget that not everyone that owns one is an enthusiast and looks for everything to be tack sharp or is even that bothered about the technicalities of different modes, but want a big camera that looks the part and in their mind takes pictures like the pros. In reality they could get the same with an average P&S or bridge camera.

It's all about the right tool for the job. As photographers we get hung up on things like, sharpness, correct exposure, the million different rules on composition, High ISO noise etc. We forget a large proportion of camera owners couldn't give a flying fig.

 

[Nostromo]

I'm no pro and have never used an expensive lens. But I understand the original statement, "why sell a semi pro or pro camera with an in adequate lens"?
I guess it comes down to £££.
You could just buy a body and any lens you like.
A kit lens for someone starting out is a good lens, it gives a range of zoom, a fairly good IQ and a starting point in photography. I've learnt a lot about photography with mine.

 

[JYC]

I don't know about wonderful but certainly acceptable, good even

I have a MFT Panasonic 14-42mm kit lens and for a variable aperture kit zoom at a reasonable price I honestly can't complain... and the 28-70mm Sony I have for my A7 could actually be described as... good, maybe even very good

E-M1 can come with the 12-40 f2.8 lens as a kit so the original statement probably holds

 

[Ed Sutton]

For Kit-Lens’ generally read ‘Crap-lens’....IMVHO.

For the life of me this is an item of photographic gear that I cannot get my head around.

‘The ubiquitous crap/kit lens’….mediocre at best, terrible at worst.

They are now offered with high'ish end FF DSLR’S i.e. Nikon D610 and D750 as well as Canon I’m sure.

Lens snob.

 

[Swanseajack]

I'm no pro and have never used an expensive lens. But I understand the original statement, "why sell a semi pro or pro camera with an in adequate lens"?
I guess it comes down to £££.
You could just buy a body and any lens you like.
A kit lens for someone starting out is a good lens, it gives a range of zoom, a fairly good IQ and a starting point in photography. I've learnt a lot about photography with mine.

Sorry, cant agree with the OP on that statement, the D750 is available with two very good "Kit Lenses" the 24-85mm and 24-120mm f4 which are both very good. If not happy with those then spend the extra bucks and buy the body and 24-70 f2.8 pro lens. Simples really.

From the original post he mentions, "Surely it’s not beyond the camera makers to produce a small, light, standard zoom with superb IQ, equivalent to the Nikon 24-70, and a fixed aperture of say f3.5 - f4" Well Nikon do make a fixed aperture kit lens the 24-120mm f4 lens and the 24-85mm is f3.5-4.5. At a guess, the OP hasn't done his research properly.

As with others mentioned above, I have also had the Nikon 18-55mm, 18-70mm, 55-300mm & 24-120mm f4 and the Fuji 18-55 & 55-200mm kit lenses and IMO they were all very good performers.

 

[a1ex2001]

I've neither tested them nor read the reviews, but in posts above mine there's some scathing remarks about some of the current kit lenses.
The only EFS kit lens I've owned was an early 18-55, and I don't think I shot a frame with it. I have though tried some awful EF kit lenses from the 90s on film

The original EFS 18-55mm was a total dog a situation which has now been rectified twice and the EF kit zooms on film were spectacularly crap in most cases poorly built with crummy optics but with most people only printing 6x4 I guess they thought they could get away with it!

 

[furq]

It's not just the quality - it's the size.

What's the point of having a (coat) pocketable camera like the Panasonic GX7 with a massive 14-42mm kit lens?!

 

[stevelmx5]

To be fair, most kit lenses offer reasonable quality when shot within their limitations. I used to shoot with the Canon 18-55 on my first DSLR (400D) and as a landscape shooter I would be stopped down to F11/F16 and the results were good. In fact, my first published image was a double-page spread in the Digital Photo Gallery section shot with that combination so however poor they are it still earned me money!

 

[SsSsSsSsSnake]

I can't find the site right now but somewhere i think a lady was displaying photos taken with her Canon 18-55 and on my iMac 27 they looked very very nice,her point that the kit lens isn't
as bad as people make out,i will try and find it and post it later unless someone else does.

 

[strumstrum]

Kit lenses have come to a decent level now, build quality a bit lacking but IQ wise all good, especially with most of us tweaking colours/contrast PP; and Pentax 18-55wr is an unbelievable lens for the money, great build quality, weather resistant and way better than average IQ

 

[allanm]

Most kit lenses are actually very good, and most people I suspect are happy with them, not everyone want to spend hundreds on a "pro" lens then not use it because its too big and cumbersome. One of the reasons I went to smaller (m43, mirrorless) cameras was because I believed people that kept saying "don't upgrade your camera, just buy better glass"!
Well, that may be true for some, but now I am back with Nikon, I will stay away from ƒ2.8 and / or "pro" lenses and use what gives the results I want.
The kit lens that came with my D750 is a 24-120 ƒ4..........

 

[Brazo]

Most kit lenses are the 18-55 type variable aperture and are cheap and cheerful. Their quality whilst debateable often far exceeds that of the photograper who is by then already planning to spend ££££ to improve his photography!

 

[TimmyG]

Their quality whilst debateable often far exceeds that of the photograper who is by then already planning to spend ££££ to improve his photography!

True that. I have yet to get the best my kit lens has to offer I reckon..

 

[DoctorJ]

I thought the 24-120 f/4 was meant to be a decent lens? I'd also heard reasonable reviews of the newer (and older for that matter) 24-85 though must admit I've read some bad reviews too.

My own experience of Nikon kit lenses has been pretty good. The 18-55 feels ready to break at any moment but the IQ is actually very good. The 18-70 is one of my favourite Nikon lenses period and the 18-105, 18-135 and 18-140 were all pretty nice too.

I got the Nikon 18-105 with a D90, I sold the body and still use the lens on my new body - I know it is made of plastic largely and isn't fixed aperture but it is a great walkabout lens and the IQ is fine. I have other lenses but still use this because it gives me flexibility when I may not know what I am going to be shooting. No complaints.

 

[gad-westy]

Most kit lenses are the 18-55 type variable aperture and are cheap and cheerful. Their quality whilst debateable often far exceeds that of the photograper who is by then already planning to spend ££££ to improve his photography!

So true! I was utterly guilty of this when I started out. Everyone loves a new toy though!

 

[Brazo]

So true! I was utterly guilty of this when I started out. Everyone loves a new toy though!

I'm guilty myself!!!!

 

[Blank_Canvas]

For Kit-Lens’ generally read ‘Crap-lens’....IMVHO.

For the life of me this is an item of photographic gear that I cannot get my head around.

‘The ubiquitous crap/kit lens’….mediocre at best, terrible at worst.

They are now offered with high'ish end FF DSLR’S i.e. Nikon D610 and D750 as well as Canon I’m sure.

Back in the FF day, 35mm, there were no 'kit lenses' as such, that were built ‘down’ to a price, there were just ‘lenses’, and one chose accordingly.

Surely it’s not beyond the camera makers to produce a small, light, standard zoom with superb IQ, equivalent to the Nikon 24-70, and a fixed aperture of say f3.5 - f4.
OK, so it costs more, a D750 body is £1500, what’s another few quid or so for a superb standard zoom.
Most of us don’t ‘need’ f2.8 anyway.

The old and new Nikon 24-70 f2.8 both weigh a ton and cost an arm and a leg. The Tamron equivalent is cheaper yes, but no lighter.

After much ‘faffing’ about, buying and returning, I have finally settled on a D750 with an AF-S 50mm f1.8 G lens to start with and use me legs.
I can’t afford either of the 24-70's, in cost or weight, so I’ll build up a few primes…24…50…85.

Just my 2p's worth.

DiW

Do you mean 35mm film days ?

In the 80s zoom lenses serve very expensive. Sigma and Tameron were well below par and of questionable quality that's why the 50mm was 'the standard lens' - that and the fact that in 35mm terms remains close to the human eye field of vision.

Things have changed today the Fuji Xf 18-55mm is optically superb, rugged metal construction and kicks the Canon and Nikon 'standard' into a cocked hat for quality. Go and see and handle it for yourself.

 

[Phil V]

As no-one has mentioned this...
Kit lenses are 'better than most people need' if you're stopping down and shooting landscapes.

But they're totally crap compared to a 'pro' zoom shooting moving subjects wide open lit by disco lights. (My 17-55 at 2.8 is tack sharp and will instantly focus on a black cat in a candlelit cellar)

Just for balance, we need to understand that not all photographers have the same requirements.

 

[rob-nikon]

I can't find the site right now but somewhere i think a lady was displaying photos taken with her Canon 18-55 and on my iMac 27 they looked very very nice,her point that the kit lens isn't
as bad as people make out,i will try and find it and post it later unless someone else does.

There is a guy on flickr is taking fantastic images on an iPhone, they are much better than some I've seen with the most expensive kit.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/terenceleezy/albums/72157648092930528

The kit lens is probably better than most need it to be. I have myself been thinking about whether I need expensive lenses when there are cheaper options that are probably good enough for my needs. One such lens is the 24-120 f4 'kit lens', it seems to be a great alternative to a 24-70 f2.8.