# How bad are kit lenses?



## Vinny (Mar 21, 2010)

I ventured into my first photography store in 30 years was showed a DSLR and was told that basically all the cameras come with a 18-55mm (or there abouts) zoom kit lens. I'm also interested in getting a longer zoom, Pentax has a 70 to 300mm, it looks as though the major players have this as well - again these are kit lenses.

How bad optically are they? For me, an amateur not looking to make money on it - are they that bad? When I bought my camera years ago I settled on Vivtar lenses because they were decent and cost about 1/3 of what Nikon lenses were.

I go onto the internet to research the lenses and it seems that whatever I look at the reviewer have bad things to say about them. I looked at Nikon mostly but 18-55, 55-200, 70-300, 18-200 all have "issues". I understand that a $200 lens should not be as good as a $1600 lens but are they a waste of money?

I would like to hear from all camera people not just Nikon people. Thanks in advance for any in-site.


----------



## ann (Mar 21, 2010)

the best thing for you to do , imho , is to take  a camera your interested and have the dealer put on the kit lens. Buy a memory card, or bring one along if you can borrow one from a friend (be sure it fits thecamera your interested in) 
Take a series of photos using the lens at the posted lens points at the full f stops.

Then ask them to put on the "pro" lens and do the same thing.

Go home, put the images up on your computer and start veiwing the files , compare the 18mm 2.8 against the "pro" lens same range and you will have your answer

only you can decide , if you see a differnce you have your answer and if  you don't you still have your answer.

There is no perfect lens and there are thousands of opionions out in cyber land, including some made by "names" that have never even touched the lens


----------



## Formatted (Mar 21, 2010)

The 18-55 is actually not half bad...


----------



## benhasajeep (Mar 21, 2010)

Almost all the lower priced lenses are very useable.  I have a bag full of Nikon's finest in lens offerings.  And yet I still have "kit" lenses that I use with my work traveling camera.  And although sometimes I do run into their limits.  They work just fine for me when I am traveling for work.  They are just fine for a very large amount of photo work.  I don't want to take my expensive equipment with me in my work travels.  So, I bought the cheapest camera and body I could to reduce my risk if they are stolen or broken.  D40X w/ 18-55 vr, and just got a really good deal on a 55-200 vr so I bought it to add to my travel bag.

For most people in the general public they are just fine for their primary lenses.


----------



## PJL (Mar 21, 2010)

Kit lenses have improved dramatically since the days of the all plastic, optically awful lenses that came with low end film cameras, like the Rebel G.


----------



## usayit (Mar 21, 2010)

not that bad... the TPF is full of enthusiasts with high expectations.    

They are limiting in certain ways: IQ, flaring, build, max aperture.  For someone on a budget, you could consider buying slightly older or used lenses that still might be better than a new kit lens at similar price ranges.

One example that comes to mind in my bag:  24-70L or 24-105L versus my old Tamron 35-135 f/2.8 Aspherical.  Sure its got a noisy slow AF motor, no IS, its not weathersealed, and nor does it have the 24mm, but its faster than my 24-105L and longer than the 24-70L (which I eventually sold).  Optically, it is surprisingly good.


----------



## wescobts (Mar 21, 2010)

As with any lens, there is always a limit. I have an 18-70mm 3.5-5.6 kit lens and get some fine shots out of it. I try when possible to shoot in the sweet spot, which is about f5.6-f8. I also have the 70-200mm 2.8, great lens ! but it's very long, big and heavy, and has a tendency to miss a focus. Well lets be honest, I missed the shot and it focused on what I was actually looking at and not what I wanted :er: So there are other factors involved. Try a prime lens, most of them are VERY sharp and cost less than the big zooms.


----------



## Hamtastic (Mar 21, 2010)

Vinny said:


> How bad optically are they?



As zoom lenses go they are usually pretty good.  The reason I don't want to use a kit lens isn't because it's not sharp enough.  It's because it's not fast enough.  I want the option of f/2.8 at all focal lengths.  

That's not to say there haven't been lemons.  Every brand has introduced lousy lenses, but in general I'd tend to examine the shooter's technique before worrying about the lens when dealing with sharpness problems.  99% of the time, even with el-cheapo lenses, the blame lies with the tool user rather than the tool.


----------



## Jeremy Z (Mar 21, 2010)

They are better now than they have ever been. However, they are not all created equal. Do yourself a favor before you buy and consider the "smaller" camera/lens brands, such as Pentax, Samsung, and Sony. When I was DSLR shopping a few years ago, I went in thinking I would come out with a Canon. After trying the Canon, Nikon, and Pentax, the Pentax was the clear winner. It felt better in my hand, the 18-55 kit lens was the only one with a stainless steel lens mount and all glass elements. Pentax co-developed their SMC lens coating with Zeiss.

I have both Pentax kit lenses, and I use the 18-55 for 90% of my shooting. It is very sharp, and I have to admit that when a shot goes wrong, I normally am not griping about the lens, but kicking myself for missing something stupid, like white balance, or forgetting and leaving it set to ISO 3200.

I also have the 55-200 kit lens, and it is also very good. No complaints. Lastly, I have a manual focus 50 mm f/2. This one is sharper than the kit lens at the same focal length, but not enough to make it worth carrying unless I really need the f/2.

There are a lot of happy people here who make a lot of good shots with Canon & Nikon kit lenses, so I surmise that they are also good.

Another reference to check is Popular Photography's lens reviews. They tend to stay away from kit lenses, but occasionally, they review them. Here's a typical one on a Sony kit lens:
Lens Test: Sony DT 18?55mm f/3.5?5.6 SAM AF | Photography - PopPhoto.com Offers Camera Reviews and Exclusive Photo Tips

There are some things in there we don't always think about, like whether the filter area rotates or not.

I too also shot some of the older, off-brand zoom lenses designed in the 70s and 80s. I have a Sigma 28-85 and a Tokina 70-150 for my Olympus OM1n. They are both good lenses, but they don't compare to the Zuiko primes. Back then, NONE of the zoom lenses compared to primes. It was a matter of accepting lower image quality in exchange for the convenience. Nowadays, we can have it all. Quality & convenience. The optical quality is better than on those old zooms. If you want prime lens quality, you can have that too with the higher end zooms, but the price is money & weight. ($1600 instead of maybe $50)

Now, we have computer optics designs that are much better. But the construction is cheaper, and this is one area the more expensive zooms are going to be better.

Then, like an earlier member mentioned, if you later buy a nicer (heavier, faster, more expensive) replacement, you have the option of taking the cheapy along if you want to save weight or space.

When you buy the camera body with one of these lenses, the lens is pretty much a freeby, so you have nothing to lose by getting one and trying it out. If it turns out not to meet your expectations, you haven't lost anything. You can expect the same thing when comparing telephoto kit lens compared to a higher end one. The same types of lower quality construction, slower optics, etc. 

Note that higher speed optics are only really needed now for moving subject. Image stabilizing technology has taken away a lot of the need for higher speed optics.


----------



## Iron Flatline (Mar 21, 2010)

They're perfectly fine.


----------



## KmH (Mar 21, 2010)

Even pro glass has it's limitations.

What counts is that the photographer knows the +'s and -'s of their equipment and gets from it the maximum performance it can provide.


----------



## Montana (Mar 21, 2010)

Iron Flatline said:


> They're perfectly fine.




x2


----------



## mwcfarms (Mar 21, 2010)

As I am getting my camera at the end of the month. I have been debating back and forth wether to buy a Nikon D90 kit which can either come with a 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 VR or the 18-105mm F3.5-5.6 VR or just the body and an 18-200 VR  and a 50mm prime. I will be grabbing the 50mm whether I get the kit or not. The price is about 200 more for body+lens+prime than kit plus prime but who knows. I actually love the advice about the memory card and wouldnt have thought of it. Heading into the store this week and will try that to see how much of a difference it makes for me. Thanks for the great tip.


----------



## JimmyO (Mar 21, 2010)

Optically there pretty much all pretty good. The reason i pay more is for speed, toughness, and reliability.


----------



## Vinny (Mar 22, 2010)

ann said:


> the best thing for you to do , imho , is to take a camera your interested and have the dealer put on the kit lens. Buy a memory card, or bring one along if you can borrow one from a friend (be sure it fits thecamera your interested in)
> Take a series of photos using the lens at the posted lens points at the full f stops.
> 
> Then ask them to put on the "pro" lens and do the same thing.
> ...


 
This is a great idea - THANKS!


----------



## manaheim (Mar 22, 2010)

I think ann said it very well, though I think the lesson in what she said is more implied than actually explicitly stated... most people cannot tell the difference between a $100 lens and a $2000 lens.  If you are someone who _can_ tell the difference, than a heftier investment in glass may make sense for you.

I frequently tell people the same thing with lenses, and I usually get shouted down, but here it is anyway...

Until you can really tell the difference, buy the cheap stuff.  Why?

It's cheap!  If you buy a $100 lens and later decide you need something better or different, you have wasted $100.  Whoop-de-doo.  If you buy an $1800 lens and realize you really need the 80-200 instead... well... ouch.  (granted, in either case you can always sell it)
More limitations=more learning.  The more restricted you are in what you can do to make something "work", the more likely you are you bump into those restrictions, and the harder you will have to work to understand and work around those limitations.  This is a sure-fire way to learn a lot about photography.  I can get some AMAZING pictures out of my total piece of crap 28-100 3.5 lens, but only because I REALLY know what I'm doing now... and much of it is BECAUSE of that stupid lens. 
Kit lenses are fine.  Learn their limitations and work within them and you'll have some great results.  Then as you become more familiar with your specific needs you can sink bigger dollars into some of the more kick-ass gear.


----------



## Joves (Mar 22, 2010)

I operated fine with several kit lenses. You just have to learn where they operate best, like any other lens.


----------



## Dominantly (Mar 22, 2010)

The Nikkor 18-55VR is actually a damn great lens for the money. The 55-200VR is also pretty darn sharp/awesome.
I have photo examples if you would like, of the 55-200.


----------



## Renol (Mar 23, 2010)

I like using TV's as an analogy. Your basic kit lenses are like basic CRT tv's. You can use them and get a picture worth looking at but you don't have all the benefits of the higher quality sets. Pro quality lenses are like the top of the line super hi-res LCD/plasma flat screens. Picture quality is stunning in comparison and it has all the bells and whistles. 

If you don't want the low quality kit lenses and the price tag of the pro stuff turns you away, definitely consider the "middle of the road" quality lenses. I know canon so I'll use it as an example. I wouldn't look twice at the 75-300mm f/3.5-5.6 even for under $300 but I would consider the 70-300mm f/3.5-5.6 for under $600 because its a better lens. Many of the 3rd party lenses can be pretty good too.


----------



## Vinny (Mar 23, 2010)

Thanks for all the replys!

I know that I can't afford professional quality lenses so I probably will be OK with kit lenses. My concern came from a review site and it seemed that this person trashed any kit lens, didn't make a difference from which manufacturer. I do like ann's idea but the truth is I probably can't pick out the difference except if the lens was really bad.

Of course I realized that everyone has an opinion and like every other subject in the world there can be bias in the review since it is ONLY a $200 lens. I asked this question of the people here since there is more of a cross section of opinions than a single thought on the subject. The concensus here is that kit lenses are OK and I'm not going to worry too much about it.


----------



## Vinny (Mar 23, 2010)

Dominantly said:


> The Nikkor 18-55VR is actually a damn great lens for the money. The 55-200VR is also pretty darn sharp/awesome.
> I have photo examples if you would like, of the 55-200.


 
If you don't mind sending me a link to view them I would appreciate it! THANKS!


----------



## jackieclayton (Mar 23, 2010)

Formatted said:


> The 18-55 is actually not half bad...



I agree... nothing wrong with kit lenses... my 18-55mm on my D40x was great... not pro quality or anything but for an entry level camera I was pleased with the results I got with the kit lens on it.  That wasn't even the VR version (bought the kit before the VR lens of it came out) so I'm sure its even better now.  Later I bought the 55-200mm VR to get more range (which is also a great entry level lens, i've got some really nice DOF on it).


----------



## Renol (Mar 23, 2010)

Keep in mind also that the kit lenses are often made with more plastic and of poorer quality than even the mid-range lenses. I've heard of numerous situations of lenses breaking or falling apart under light to moderate use because of the poor build quality.


----------



## ghache (Mar 24, 2010)

i REALLY love my 18-105, the range is awesome! it has is limitation but overwall its a great lens, if there was a 2.8 in that same focal lenght i would be all over it in a heart beat!


----------



## ghache (Mar 24, 2010)

Renol said:


> Keep in mind also that the kit lenses are often made with more plastic and of poorer quality than even the mid-range lenses. I've heard of numerous situations of lenses breaking or falling apart under light to moderate use because of the poor build quality.


 
ive used my 18-55mm VR with my d60, at camping, fishing trip, biking, partys, drunkfest, vacation and my camera or lens had didnt had a scratch. i think that if you take good care of your gear it will last forever.

just to point something out, i sold a tamron 28-300 to some guys, i went to his place with the lens and when i saw his camera and lens i was almost afraid to let him try the lens on his body. that thing was SO DIRTY it was unbelievable.


----------



## Dao (Mar 24, 2010)

Kit lenses are not bad.  They have limitations.  They may not belong to the sharpest lens group, but most of the newer kit lenses are decently sharp.  The color of the output may not be as great as the expensive one, but they are not bad neither. 

If you check with few technical lens review sites, you will find that kit lenses are just fine.  (But the older generation of Canon 18-55mm lens are not as good as the newer one optically)

They have limitation such as variable max aperture throughout the focal length range, the max aperture is not as wide as the better one.  Their build quality may not be as good as the more expensive one. Their auto focus speed may not be as fast as the quality one, but they cost a lot less.

If someone take a photo of a indoor birthday party with flash bounce off the ceiling, you may not see much different in the end result.


----------

