# Kit lens... Why???



## deudeu (Mar 28, 2008)

I am pretty much a beginner. I have just had a GX-10 for a few months, and no money to get glass. 

Actually, no money is not a good excuse. There is really no excuse for that, because with those K-mount on Samsung and Pentax DSLR you can pick up some oldies for not much. 

The thing is that i was a little doubtful on how much of a difference the lens could make. I have learned about optics (mostly here) and i know all about depth of field and Barrel distortion and CAs and such but I had little troubles believing that on a sunny day at f8 there would be much difference.

Anyways, i picked up an old 50mm f1.7 prime which just arrived today and this thing is off the hook!! It is FAST! It is SHARP! The bokeh is BEAUTIFUL! it is everything i've ever dreamed off (well kinda in a way... you know what i mean)

I have been playing around my basement all day because it is dark and there is lots of junk down there and i am loving it. A 50mm prime is not very versatil, but i don't think that the zoom lens is going to get back on my camera for a while.

This raises the question of why getting the kit lens? If i had bought the body only and the lens i have now i would have saved money. Of course there is lots of things i can't do with this lens. But if i had bought the body only and, say the sigma 17-70mm, it would have added up to only $150 extra. I would have add extra reach and better IQ.

If i ever get another normal zoom the kit lens will stay in a box somewhere forever because it is not even worth selling. And this is even true with the Pentax kit lens which is the best kit lens out there. It has to suck owning another of the kit lenses.

Anyways, i just wanted to give a little advice to all the people out there who are about to buy their first DSLR. Buy the body only, and get some decent glass, the kit lens is just not worth it on the long term.


----------



## Dubious Drewski (Mar 28, 2008)

Hehe. You're in love with your 50mm vintage prime? Are you trying to be my friend?  Cause you're saying all the right things!


But anyway, despite my love for my 50mm, I kind of have to disagree with the comment about the kit lens being useless. 18mm is a very very useful length, and if your 50mm is like mine, you can't autofocus. I didn't think that would be a problem until I really started using my camera in practical situations (My city has a photo club and we go on frequent field trips all over the province) (I also do alot of portraiture). Autofocus is useful.(But if yours has it, then cool)

Not to mention P-TTL metering goes wonkers with a lens that doesn't have an A setting. Many vintage lenses don't have this (Like mine) (Maybe yours does though - good for you if so)


The 50mm primes have their uses - they are spectacularly sharp and fast - but the kit 18-55 is far FAR from useless. You might come to this realization soon enough too.


----------



## sabbath999 (Mar 28, 2008)

Personally, I have a lot of good fast glass and I still use the Nikon kit lens all the time... it is very sharp and very light.


----------



## Mav (Mar 28, 2008)

Here's some photos I took with my $100 Nikon 18-55 kit lens mostly on my D80, and a few on the D40.

Paris:



















Virginia Beach sunrise:












My old car, shot with the D40 and 18-55:





^ apparently I underestimated the collector value of that thing with the enthusiast sub-culture and had people literally tripping over themselves to buy it just by the pictures alone.  






company events:






baby photos:












The cheap crappy kit lenses are perfectly capable of giving you tens of thousands of great photos.  They're the perfect lenses to start out with, along with a 50mm prime just because they're so cheap.  There's no reason to spend more IMHO, especially while you're learning.  The only reason I upgraded is because I could afford to.  If I couldn't, I'd keep on taking a ton of great photos with kit lenses.  You should see some of the night time city shots my buddy takes with his D50 and 18-55 kit lens on a tripod.  They're simply amazing.

Once you learn the ropes of DSLRs, know what you like to shoot and develop a shooting style and understand what you need in a lens a bit better, by all means spend money and upgrade.  I've sold off both of the 18-55 kit lenses I've had but actually sorta regret selling the last one.  They're so lightweight and small, and still take outstanding photos.  Can't speak for Pentax (but this post was pretty generic) but the 18-55 kit lenses seem to all do close focusing at 1:3 macro which at least in the Nikon system is just about the closest focusing lens they have currently aside from their dedicated 1:1 macro lenses.  So they're good starter macro lenses too.  1:3 is pretty darned close.


So don't bust the kit lenses. :mrgreen: :greenpbl:


----------



## Dubious Drewski (Mar 28, 2008)

Holy 56k warning, Batman!

Those shots are nice - but they don't really prove any point; push that kit lens to its limits and then show us _those_ pictures.  Any lens can take a photo in those tame conditions you're displaying.

I wanna see the limits of chromatic aberrations, diffraction limiting, I wanna see if there's barrel distortion anywhere, the whole deal!  THEN I'll be impressed.  (Your photos really are nicely shot and exposed, though.)


(I'm just being fair and arguing both sides here, hehe - I still like the kit 18-55, don't worry)


----------



## deudeu (Mar 28, 2008)

Dubious Drewski said:


> The 50mm primes have their uses - they are spectacularly sharp and fast - but the kit 18-55 is far FAR from useless. You might come to this realization soon enough too.


 
Don't get me wrong here, i didn't say that the kit lenses were useless. If tomorow i take a trip in a new city i will go with my kit lens. 
What i meant was that if i had to start again i would probably go with the body only and then spend a little extra money on the sigma 17-70.
I just think that the kit lens, though cheap and small and good for starters, is not that good of a deal. 
In the case of the Pentax one (or the D-Xenon for Samsung) it is way soft under 25mm, can't really be satisphying (not sure about the spelling here, non native speaker, i appologize) under f5.6, has major vignetting on the wide end of the zoom....


PS: My prime is a Pentax M... No AF, Metering is a bit strange, but i don't feel like it is that much of an inconvenient. I am not planing on using it on a moving crowd or for sport shoots...


----------



## Dubious Drewski (Mar 28, 2008)

I tried to use my 50mm at full f/1.4 to shoot a moving cat.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/dubiousdrewski/2358734446/

I missed the focus by half a centimeter - it would have otherwise been an awesome shot. I'll never do that again. Haha.


----------



## Mav (Mar 28, 2008)

deudeu said:


> In the case of the Pentax one (or the D-Xenon for Samsung) it is way soft under 25mm, can't really be satisphying (not sure about the spelling here, non native speaker, i appologize) under f5.6, has major vignetting on the wide end of the zoom....





deudeu said:


> If i ever get another normal zoom the kit lens will stay in a box somewhere forever because it is not even worth selling. And this is even true with the Pentax kit lens which is the best kit lens out there. It has to suck owning another of the kit lenses.




If you notice all of these flaws with your Pentax kit lens then how can you say that it's the best kit lens out there?  I never had any real complaints with my Nikon 18-55 kit lens other than I just wanted something with more range.  No it doesn't match the sharpness, color, and contrast of the Nikon 50mm f/1.8 prime, but then again most consumer level zooms aren't going to match the overall IQ of primes anyways.  If you want prime level quality in a zoom you generally have to step all the way up to the professional level $1000+ zooms.


----------



## Bobby Ironsights (Mar 28, 2008)

For decades all SLR kits came with the 50 mm prime as the kit lens. Problem is, zoom sells and beginners don't seem to care about fast glass until they try to take pictures indoors in ambient light.

It's really too bad because that is the single largest improvement that would come into the photographs of most amateur snapshooters.

Still, in photography school, an SLR that can shoot in all manual and a 50mm prime lens is what is usually the required, or at least the recommended gear.

Good on you for recognizing the benefits of prime lenses over zooms. Ansel Adams could probably get wall space at MoMA using a holga but the rest of us mere mortals can use all of the help we can get, and I've gotten some of my best shots in low light handheld.

Here are two comparisons from my GF's very first roll of film, one with onboard flash and one without. She won't hardly use flash anymore and is always stealing my prime.









P.S. Don't ask me what kind of lazy ass cat doesn't move after it gets a flash picture taken. Beleive it or not, that one was taken first.


----------



## deudeu (Mar 28, 2008)

Mav said:


> If you notice all of these flaws with your Pentax kit lens then how can you say that it's the best kit lens out there? I never had any real complaints with my Nikon 18-55 kit lens other than I just wanted something with more range. No it doesn't match the sharpness, color, and contrast of the Nikon 50mm f/1.8 prime, but then again most consumer level zooms aren't going to match the overall IQ of primes anyways. If you want prime level quality in a zoom you generally have to step all the way up to the professional level $1000+ zooms.


 
I haven't used the other kit lenses. I don't know for a fact that Pentax has the best kit lens out there. I just go along with what more knowledgeable people out there have said. 
I will name my sources: dpreview and photozone.
This being said, it is possible to take very good pictures with the Kit lens. It is possible to take very good pictures with a P&S. I had a tiny lumix before and i felt like the glass was better on that than the kit lens. 
I also don't expect any of the zooms to match the IQ of any of the primes. Technically i understand that it is not possible. 
Like i said before, if i was to start over, i would save about $130 by buying the body only and then add $180 and score something like the sigma 17-70. And if i was broke (which i am) i would go with a wider prime on top of the 50 i have right now. I am sure i could even save a couple bucks that way. 
Of course, this is probably because of my style of photography. 

PS: didn't mean to offend any of the Canon Nikon people out there. I know it is a touchy subject... And i agree with you all the way guys, those people do make better cameras (the Full format ones)... They just ask way too much for it!


----------



## Mav (Mar 28, 2008)

Dubious Drewski said:


> Holy 56k warning, Batman!
> 
> Those shots are nice - but they don't really prove any point; push that kit lens to its limits and then show us _those_ pictures.  Any lens can take a photo in those tame conditions you're displaying.


_Tame?_ :mrgreen:

The first Paris photo was taken from a _moving bus_ on the fly at 1/60s, iso1600, with the lens wide open at f/3.5 and 18mm.  The original showed very little vignetting and it was plenty sharp.  In the 100% crop original version you're looking more at my D80's iso1600 performance than you are the ability of the lens.

The second Paris photos was taken free standing in gusty wind with absolutely nothing to brace against at _1/8s_ and iso1600 and 18mm and f/3.5 wide open also.  I've print this at 20x30" and it looks great.  This is also my favorite photo to post when people say you "can't" take handheld shots at slower shutter speeds without VR/IS, and I'm always sure to mention the wind part too.  I took 3 shots and this one was blur free.

The third was taken on a tripod but at f/18 to get some tail light streaking.  Didn't have a 2-stop ND filter on me at the time.  




Dubious Drewski said:


> I wanna see the limits of chromatic aberrations, diffraction limiting, I wanna see if there's barrel distortion anywhere, the whole deal!  THEN I'll be impressed.


Other photos I've taken with this lens at normal apertures are all reasonably sharp, even wide open.  Barrel distortion?  Yeah it has noticeable barrel at 18mm, but then again so does the $1200 professional 17-55DX f/2.8.  There's very little CA on the lens.  It's very simple and has so few elements.  The little CA that you do see is nothing to write home about compared to the horrible CA I had on the 35mm f/2 when wide-open, which was actually one of the reasons I ended up selling it.  It's also remarkably flare and ghost resistant.  Again, the simplified design and few elements.  It performs far better shooting into light sources than the pro 17-55/2.8 does.  It also does the 1:3 macro which is pretty darned close.

Yes, the pro 17-55DX is sharper off the camera, but the 18-55 sharpens right up to about the same after a pass through DxO's calibrated auto-sharpening modules.  The biggest difference is the color and contrast of the 17-55DX which are incredible.  The 18-55 just doesn't match it there.  And of course the 17-55 is an f/2.8 so you can get away with shooting at the long end of the lens in marginal light.  It also lets you get some subject isolation unlike the f/5.6 which you have to try really hard to do.  Bokeh looks creamy smooth on the 17-55DX, unlike the 18-55 which honestly has pretty hideous bokeh.

Here's a sharpness comparison of the 18-55 compared to the 18-200VR and some other lenses.  It actually tested out sharper than an $1800 Nikon 28mm f/1.4D lens at f/4 and 28mm.  Of course the 28/1.4 can shoot at 1.4, the 18-55 can't.  It was also sharper than the Nikon 18-200VR and the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 as well. :greenpbl:



Dubious Drewski said:


> (Your photos really are nicely shot and exposed, though.)
> 
> (I'm just being fair and arguing both sides here, hehe - I still like the kit 18-55, don't worry)


Are you saying that the photographer makes a bigger difference than the lens does?  If so I'll take that as a compliment and run. :mrgreen:


----------



## Mav (Mar 28, 2008)

deudeu said:


> PS: didn't mean to offend any of the Canon Nikon people out there. I know it is a touchy subject... And i agree with you all the way guys, those people do make better cameras (the Full format ones)... They just ask way too much for it!


Actually I've been meaning to post a kit lens "myth busting" thread by posting some of my better kit lens photos in it and was just using your thread as an excuse to do so.  You seem to have backed off a bit from your initial language too. 

Actually that reminds me, the reason I sold my other two kit lenses was because I was going to try to find a good deal on the 18-55VR used when D60 owners start putting them up for sale and upgrading.  Also, before I was using my 35mm f/2 prime as a night time walkaround lens, but the CA was so bad on it at f/2 that it ruined too many photos.  It was mostly gone by f/2.8, but by the time I do that there really isn't much difference between f/2.8 on that and f/3.5 on the kit lens.  The 18-55VR will be a great night time walkaround lens.


----------



## Happy Hour (Mar 28, 2008)

I have a cheap kit lens that got awful reviews from every site I have seen and I love it!!! It's one of my favorite lenses! More times than not I choose the cheap kit lens that has awful reviews over my sigma lenses. I think having only a kit lens is the way to go with a new camera. It really pushes you to learn the camera instead of flipping 20 different lenses on. When ever I have bought a new body I only use one lens (usually the kit) until I learn all the ways of that camera. On todays new bodies there is way too many options and buttons to get use to and I prefer concentrating on learning where all those are than which piece of glass I need. But thats just me and my opinion.


----------



## passerby (Mar 29, 2008)

I am in agreement with Mav that the nikon 18-55 kit lens is really good lens base from many pictures I have taken. There is visible distortion at 18mm, but is there wide angle lens that is truly free of distortion?

For some reason nikon have made good quality kit lenses starting with 18-70. The professional reviewers and the users are in agreement that 18-70 is top performer. Than the el cheapo 55-200 vr is excelent lens. The 18-135 is another very sharp lens. And now the 18-200mm is being used as the kit lens for d300 for many retailers.

I think nikon is using their well known expertize in glass to lure the buyers by supplying them with good lenses - even when the camera is just cheap camera. I can't see any other reason for it.

The link below (it is 3.2 mb !!) is taken at 18mm f5.6 ISO 800. Although hardly to say any visible distortion here but I do know the 18mm has visible distortion, no doubt. 

My monitor is an equivalent of A3 size paper (19"). I am sure enlarging it twice of that will still within the acceptable level for printing. And this is ISO 800 with 1/30s hendheld I am talking about. I love the way it reproduced the colours.

http://i268.photobucket.com/albums/jj10/passerby12/qvb1.jpg


----------



## deudeu (Apr 11, 2008)

Since I first started this thread i have had quite a bit of time to practice with my old prime...
It doesn't leave my camera anymore. I do feel very limited, especially with the crop factor on this thing and the metering issues on my body. 

But I just want to make a little comment on the kit lens being great for beginners and all. Why is it so great? The kit lens are all automatic pieces of technology that make taking a picture in most situation easy. They are mostly designed for the general public who goes to walmart and buys a DSLR because they think it will take better pictures than the cheaper bridges but don't know why.
I think that if someone is a beginner but is willing to invest into a new DSLR he/she is probably somewhat serious about it and willing to learn. 
When buying a cheap all manual old prime, you will have to understand those numbers (shutter speed, aperture) and get a feel of how the light works. I think that this is great training for a beginner. At least I have learned a lot through that process.

Now the other argument for the kit lens is that beginners can use those for a while and then decide what other lens they need. Why can't you do that with a 50mm prime? I walk around with my prime on all the time. Most of the shots i miss are on the wide end. So i know i need something wider. This is the same conclusion than when i was using the kit lens. 

I know you can take great pictures with a kit lens. It just doesn't compare to what a prime can do.


----------



## eminart (Apr 11, 2008)

deudeu said:


> Since I first started this thread i have had quite a bit of time to practice with my old prime...
> It doesn't leave my camera anymore. I do feel very limited, especially with the crop factor on this thing and the metering issues on my body.
> 
> But I just want to make a little comment on the kit lens being great for beginners and all. Why is it so great? The kit lens are all automatic pieces of technology that make taking a picture in most situation easy. They are mostly designed for the general public who goes to walmart and buys a DSLR because they think it will take better pictures than the cheaper bridges but don't know why.
> ...


 

Maybe you just don't know how to shoot with a slower lens?   Anybody can shoot with a fast lens.  
:coffee:

I'm just joking, mostly.  But, I'm a beginner and I've shot with old manual primes and "kit" lenses.  Frankly, they both have their limitations and it's really just up to whoever is shooting to decide which limitations they dislike more.  Both are capable of great photos.


----------



## Happy Hour (Apr 11, 2008)

deudeu said:


> Since I first started this thread i have had quite a bit of time to practice with my old prime...
> It doesn't leave my camera anymore. I do feel very limited, especially with the crop factor on this thing and the metering issues on my body.
> 
> But I just want to make a little comment on the kit lens being great for beginners and all. Why is it so great? The kit lens are all automatic pieces of technology that make taking a picture in most situation easy. They are mostly designed for the general public who goes to walmart and buys a DSLR because they think it will take better pictures than the cheaper bridges but don't know why.
> ...


Actually for years most slr's came with a 50mm prime as the kit lens. I think that offering a small zoom (like most do) as a kit lens is better for the average consumer. In order to attract the P&S level consumers to make the jump you have to have similar options. Several people I know have slrs and have never bought anything other than the kit lens that came with it. there theory is, "it takes better pics than my P&S ever did, what do I kneed another lens for?" That is what the low end slr's are mainly designed for like the Rebel xti or the Sony A100.


----------



## usayit (Apr 11, 2008)

Remember... kit lenses get bad reviews on photography review places simply because of the people.  There is nothing wrong with them.... they do the job they were designed to do... as a lens to introduce the world of SLR photography to the masses.  The people on photography sites like TPF are accustom to a certain quality... kinda like the difference between box wine and bottled.  Many/most have already been "spoiled" by high end zooms or very nice prime glass.

As the OP found out, shooting with a nice (even vintage) prime will drive your photography a step farther.... the more you leverage a good quality lens.. the more you'll find yourself out growing the kit lens you started out with.

Some of the K-mount and M42 screwmount Takumars in my collection will put even the most expensive lenses of today to shame.

btw.. for years.. cameras were purchased with a choice of either 35mm or 50mm lenses.  It was only relatively recently did Kit Zoom lenses appeared.  Zooms were a relatively new "technology".


----------



## NateS (Apr 11, 2008)

I love my 50mm....a lot, but sometimes when my 8 month old is on the move it's easier to have the zoom of the kit lens.

Coupled with my SB-600, the kit lens is wonderful indoors.  My Nikon kit lens is really sharp....even wide open and if I want a full frame shot of my son, it's easier w/ the kit lens than the 50mm.

All that said, I always use the 50 when possible.  If not for the sharpness, the contrast and colors are better than the kit lens.  Here's a comparison.

Kit Lens w/ SB-600 






50mm @ f2.8 w/ SB-600





While, the 50mm is clearly a better image (in my opinion), the kit lens isn't necessarily bad.  

Also, sometimes, the 50 is just flat too close for the range of shooting....example.  Our 8 month old crawling to his first easter basket this year.  I needed the zoom to be able to get wide enough for full shots and close enough for the other shots.  Example?

I needed wide then zoom, then wide...and back and forth.  I would have missed a lot of shots if I had stuck with the 50.  Sure, quality would have been better, but I'd rather capture all the precious moments sometimes rather than only some at better quality.

Wide





Zoomed





Wide





Zoom





The kit lens also does great outdoors, especially when stopped down to around f/8.

Here's a couple of examples.....with the 50mm I would have had to step back farther than was possible.










For the $65 this lens cost me (used) it's a godsend.  The versatility is great and the sharpness/contrast/colors (while not incredible) are still very good and get me some great photos when needed.  I can't imagine not having this lens in my bag unless it was replaced with the Sigma 18-50 f2.8 or Nikon 17-55 f2.8 but those are 5x and 10x the cost.


----------



## deudeu (Apr 11, 2008)

Happy Hour said:


> Actually for years most slr's came with a 50mm prime as the kit lens. I think that offering a small zoom (like most do) as a kit lens is better for the average consumer. In order to attract the P&S level consumers to make the jump you have to have similar options. Several people I know have slrs and have never bought anything other than the kit lens that came with it. there theory is, "it takes better pics than my P&S ever did, what do I kneed another lens for?" That is what the low end slr's are mainly designed for like the Rebel xti or the Sony A100.


 

I completely agree with you. 
Selling a zoom as a kit lens is marketing since most people would not know what to do with a prime. The average consumer wants a zoon since it is what he has been used to on P&S for quite some time now. 
If you are really serious about your hobby though... learning with an old prime would be a pretty good/cheap idea, and i think that it is just as frustrating. 
The good pictures i get out of my prime are just so much better than the good pictures i get out of my kit zoom.


----------



## NateS (Apr 11, 2008)

deudeu said:


> Since I first started this thread i have had quite a bit of time to practice with my old prime...
> It doesn't leave my camera anymore. I do feel very limited, especially with the crop factor on this thing and the metering issues on my body.
> 
> But I just want to make a little comment on the kit lens being great for beginners and all. Why is it so great? The kit lens are all automatic pieces of technology that make taking a picture in most situation easy. They are mostly designed for the general public who goes to walmart and buys a DSLR because they think it will take better pictures than the cheaper bridges but don't know why.
> ...




Honestly,....if you had to pick between the 2, then which would you choose?

1. Getting the shot you need with a little less IQ 

or 

2. Not getting the shot at all, because you are too stubborn to settle for a little less IQ to get the shot you need/want?  

I personally don't approach every single shot as "studio" quality.  Sometimes, I just want to capture memories.....I guess I"m a bad photographer and a "noobie" for life because I choose to do that with the kit lens sometimes? 

When I'm looking for getting really, really great quality pics, I throw on the 50mm f1.8.  However, for those of us that can't afford a 1200 17-55, the 18-55 is a good lens to get what you need.

Shoot, I'd put down the DSLR and grab my A620 P&S if it meant the difference between getting the pictures I need and not getting them.



> I think that if someone is a beginner but is willing to invest into a new DSLR he/she is probably somewhat serious about it and willing to learn.



Oh, and that ^^ is the biggest myth I've seen on the forums.  I used to have the same thinking but it is the farthest thing from the truth.  I only know about 3 people in my area that use a DSLR not counting the pros I know (2 rebel xt's and a D40).  None of the people have any desire to use another lens and very little desire to learn.  All 3 shoot in auto mode at all times and will probably never turn the dial to another setting.  On board flash, etc....  Most of the beginner DSLR users are using a DSLR labeled point and shoot....... a few of them want to learn and make their way to our wonderfuly thephotoforum.com


----------



## deudeu (Apr 12, 2008)

NateS said:


> Oh, and that ^^ is the biggest myth I've seen on the forums. I used to have the same thinking but it is the farthest thing from the truth. I only know about 3 people in my area that use a DSLR not counting the pros I know (2 rebel xt's and a D40). None of the people have any desire to use another lens and very little desire to learn. All 3 shoot in auto mode at all times and will probably never turn the dial to another setting. On board flash, etc.... Most of the beginner DSLR users are using a DSLR labeled point and shoot....... a few of them want to learn and make their way to our wonderfuly thephotoforum.com


 

I agree but this is posted on TPF and thus is adressed to people who went through the trouble of finding this forum and looking through it before taking a decision. 
This kind of person has already spent a bit of time looking for forums to answer their questions will probably get away from the auto mode pretty quickly (i have never tried it...).
This being said it is true that with a 50mm prime only you will miss some shots. I don't think that this is true with a 28mm prime.
If someone already has a P&S and wants to get serious about photography and asks what he should get, i just think that both sides of the argument should be presented.


----------



## NateS (Apr 12, 2008)

deudeu said:


> I agree but this is posted on TPF and thus is adressed to people who went through the trouble of finding this forum and looking through it before taking a decision.
> This kind of person has already spent a bit of time looking for forums to answer their questions will probably get away from the auto mode pretty quickly (i have never tried it...).
> This being said it is true that with a 50mm prime only you will miss some shots. I don't think that this is true with a 28mm prime.
> If someone already has a P&S and wants to get serious about photography and asks what he should get, i just think that both sides of the argument should be presented.




Don't get me wrong, I"m a huge Prime lover and wouldn't mind getting something wider like the Sigma 30 f1.4.  I'll probably eventually upgrade the kit lens to something better like Sigma 18-50 f2.8, or add the 30mm f1.4 for the wider end.  I can't afford either of those right now and I need something to get me the wider shots when the need arises.  On situation's where you need a little flexibility and can't afford another 400-500 on another lens, it's hard to beat.  I mean seriously, these can be had all over for under $75 used.....for the convenience/price factor of the lens, it's hard not to have it unless you've got that range covered with better glass.


----------



## deudeu (Apr 12, 2008)

NateS said:


> Don't get me wrong, I"m a huge Prime lover and wouldn't mind getting something wider like the Sigma 30 f1.4. I'll probably eventually upgrade the kit lens to something better like Sigma 18-50 f2.8, or add the 30mm f1.4 for the wider end. I can't afford either of those right now and I need something to get me the wider shots when the need arises. On situation's where you need a little flexibility and can't afford another 400-500 on another lens, it's hard to beat. I mean seriously, these can be had all over for under $75 used.....for the convenience/price factor of the lens, it's hard not to have it unless you've got that range covered with better glass.


 

Can't disagree with that...
You win!

I hate when that happens.


----------



## RyanLilly (Apr 12, 2008)

The kit lens is perfect for the intended, market, The camera companies probably figure, a customer that buys a beginner DSLR and kit lens(es), is a one time sale, generally not expecting them to purchase more lenses, the only add on they hope for is maybe a flash.

And like others have said, the standard lens was a 50mm for years ,but there were really not many consumers buying SLRS. SLR only became consumer items when auto-modes were introduced. Remember before digital most people, were using  fixed focus 35mm or 110 point and shoots, so even then  nobody really expected a zoom kit lens. It was not till after compact digital P&S became popular that a zoom kit lens was absolutely a necessary.


----------



## Mav (May 3, 2008)

I finally picked up an 18-55VR exactly from who I thought I'd pick one up from.  Unwanted and straight out of a D60 kit, $135 delivered.  Sweet!   I got it because I like to do a lot of transitional light night time or very early morning photography where VR is ok and you don't necessarily need fast glass.  Here's how it did vs my FIVE times more expensive Nikon 17-55DX f/2.8 pro lens in its first test.


17-55 f/2.8 @ 17mm, f/2.8, 1/2s, iso800, handheld






18-55VR f/3.5-5.6 @ 18mm, f/3.5, *1s*, iso800, handheld 





They look the same to me! :lmao:  

Even at 18mm wide-open, the 18-55 is still just about a full stop slower then my 17-55 (f/3.5 vs f/2.8), but the VR let me shoot it a full stop longer shutter speed to get sharp results so it was able to make up the difference.  I managed to squeeze off one sharp shot at 1s on the 18-55, but got zero sharp shots at 1s on the 17-55.  This was pushing the limits at 430am (don't ask), on my deck, with no tripod.  Both were a challenge to shoot like this, but the little 18-55VR pulled it off, LOL!

From some other indoor testing I was able to get sharp results at 1/5s at 55mm and f/5.6 on the 18-55VR.  My 17-55 f/2.8 is still f/2.8 at the 55mm end, but from practice I can only handhold that down to about 1/15s or 1/20s at the 55mm end since it doesn't have VR.  So the 18-55VR is two stops slower, but the VR makes it up here as well and effectively it's the same as my far more expensive 17-55.

You might not think so, but I'm actually pretty happy about this!   Now when I go on travel I can just take my 18-55VR and leave the much bigger and heavier 17-55DX at home since I mostly do scenic stuff on travel anyways.  I don't need the extra speed to freeze motion or for subject isolation if shooting family or people.  Plus walking around a strange city at night or the early AM you never know who or what you're going to run into.  If someone wants to take off with my camera I'll just give it to them, no big loss with a dinky but GOOD and easily replaceable lens on the front.  Of course Ken says you can use the 17-55 for self defense.  Good point, and probably true. :lmao:  Would probably just end up breaking the mount on your camera anyways though. 

If you like to do scenic stuff in maginal light, the 18-55VR is sweet.  I'd assume the Canon 18-55 IS will perform about the same.


----------



## KrisHunt (Jun 1, 2008)

I'm as much of a beginner as I can get&#8212;I don't actually own a DSLR yet&#8212;but I've been reading a lot of stuff on the web about various cameras, lenses, and photography in general. One thing I've always heard is that kit lenses are crap, but this is the first time I've ever seen a comparison with other lenses to back that up. I'd love to see more comparison shots between a kit lens and a more expensive lens to see what I'll be paying for if I opt for the better lens.


----------



## Mav (Jun 2, 2008)

I've compared my 18-55VR to my pro Nikkor 17-55 f/2.8 and stopped down at f/8 during daylight shooting, the cheap little 18-55 lens actually looked sharper! No kidding.  I had myself tricked viewing both images at 100% on my 24" iMac simultaneously, but the sharper shot was actually the 18-55!  The only difference I saw was in the far corners.  You almost couldn't tell, but the 18-55 seemed to be a tad sharper in the corners, but otherwise they were identical.  The reason you spend 5 or 6 times more for the Nikkor 17-55 f/2.8 over one of the $100-200 18-55 variants is for shots like this:

D40, 17-55DX @ 55mm & f/2.8





That's the long end of the lens and at maximum aperture.  Typically lenses will be at their weakest from an image quality and sharpness perspective at their long ends and maximum aperture, but the pro lens still looks sharp and has great color and contrast.  Next, see the light points in the background?  That's the out of focus rendering of the lens, or "bokeh".  Cheaper lenses and even some expensive ones might have sharp edges on the bokeh with the outer edge actually being brighter which will quickly ruin portraits like this if you have a bunch of bright ring-shaped light rather than smooth solid circles.  What you see there is more neutral looking bokeh.  It's not the best, but far better than the cheaper lenses.  The larger f/2.8 aperture is also 4 times more sensitive to light than the 18-55 would be at 55mm and its maximum aperture of f/2.8.  With more light gathering ability, that gives you more range for your flash, or it allows you to let more natural light into your photo such that you're depending on the flash less.  Or if you're trying to stop the motion of a 1 yr old without a flash, the f/2.8 aperture will give you 4 times the shutter speed of the 18-55 at f/5.6 at its long end, and still nearly twice as quick at the wide end too.

Next, depth of field.

38mm and f/2.8





See how the deck, bench, and grass are all nicely out of focus?  Larger apertures mean a shorter depth of field, and give you the ability to isolate your subject better which makes for a better portrait.  The variable maximum aperture of the 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 lens would be about f/4.8 or f/5 at 38mm depending on the version and the subject isolation wouldn't have been as good since smaller apertures mean more in focus, not less.

If you can afford the time to swap lenses and shoot things that either don't move, or do move but just not very quickly, you'd probably be better off getting a 35mm f/2 prime for around $200-300 new and then a 50mm f/1.8 prime for around $100 and for $300-400 you'll have the whole 17-55 range covered at f/2 or faster for the most part for one-third the price of a professional mid-range f/2.8 zoom, and still cheaper than most of the consumer mid-range f/2.8 zooms.  In fact I did just that for months after my daughter was born.  But then the thing learned to crawl and now walk and I just couldn't keep up with her with the primes anymore.   So I needed a mid-range FAST zoom.  I didn't want the flimsy build quality of the consumer f/2.8 mid-zooms nor their ugly bokeh and some of their other attributes, got a nice bonus check after some extra hard work, and so I splurged on the Nikkor.

If I'm just walking around during the day though and am not going to be shooting at apertures larger than f/8 doing scenic type photos where I want lots of depth of field, the 18-55 kit lens is perfectly fine.  Heck, even wide open they're fine.  No they won't be as sharp as the pro lenses, but you can sharpen them up to look about the same after some post processing anyways.  The reason to pay a lot more is for the stuff above that you can't really replicate well or even not at all in post processing.  Like tight depths of field for portraits, creamy smooth bokeh, and nice color and contrast anywhere on the lens.  The kit lens loses color and contrast at its long end, but not the pro lenses.  They look great everywhere.  The $100 50mm f/1.8 prime lenses are just as sharp, colorful, and contrasty at 50mm and also a stop faster.  The professional zoom just gives you the ability to zoom in an instant, for 12 times the price.


----------



## Senor Hound (Jun 2, 2008)

Kit lenses are a compromise.  Its basically saying, "Hey, I'm not the best, but for the price you get a good range and decent optics."  Besides, the kit lenses of nowadays are really good!  And in photography, you pay a lot more for something just a little better (little is a relative term and this may differ with opinion, I know).

But 50mm primes are cool.  They make you feel like you have professional-quality glass for an amateur price.  What's not to love about that?


----------



## KrisHunt (Jun 2, 2008)

When you say you can get a new 50mm prime for $100, are you talking about third party? I'm thinking of getting a Canon XSI, and the going rate for a 50mm prime lens made by Canon is $325.


----------



## sabbath999 (Jun 2, 2008)

Canon EF 50 1.8 for $89.95 USA Warranty




KrisHunt said:


> When you say you can get a new 50mm prime for $100, are you talking about third party? I'm thinking of getting a Canon XSI, and the going rate for a 50mm prime lens made by Canon is $325.


----------



## Senor Hound (Jun 2, 2008)

KrisHunt said:


> When you say you can get a new 50mm prime for $100, are you talking about third party? I'm thinking of getting a Canon XSI, and the going rate for a 50mm prime lens made by Canon is $325.



There is a 50mm that's around $325, but its the 50mm f/1.4 lens.  You can usually find the 50mm f/1.8 for much less (someone posted a link where its LESS than one hundred dollars!) and is much better of a deal for the financially-conscious (like me).


----------



## KrisHunt (Jun 2, 2008)

Is the only difference the maximum aperture?


----------



## sabbath999 (Jun 2, 2008)

KrisHunt said:


> Is the only difference the maximum aperture?



No, the faster lens is a lot better built as well.


----------



## Mav (Jun 2, 2008)

And at least the Nikon f/1.4 version has very creamy bokeh (out of focus area rendering).  The bokeh on the f/1.8 version is on the ugly side, which can ruin portraits.  I'm not sure if the Canon or other makes are the same.  I traded up to the f/1.4 version both for the speed and for the nicer bokeh, but now I need to get a lens hood for it because the ultra-fast glass tends to be more flare prone.  For beginners, I'd recommend just getting the starter f/1.8.


----------



## RyanLilly (Jun 2, 2008)

The canon 1.8 is sharp and has OK looking bokeh; nicer looking bokeh, sharper and much faster than the kit lenses. A very good buy, downside is its very plastic and light feeling. 

Now the 1.4 is *SHARP! *has a smother bokeh(more aperture blades)and has USM focusing, which is fast, and the build quality is fairly robust.


----------



## Mav (Jun 3, 2008)

Number of aperture blades just controls the shape of the out of focus light points.  The actual bokeh rendering (harsh and ugly, or smooth and creamy, etc) has to do with the actual optical design and the amount of spherical aberration built into the lens.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/bokeh.htm :mrgreen:


----------

