Apparently the cheap kit lenses are the "perfect lens"

[Nero]

8 reasons why cheap kit lenses are the perfect lens | Digital Camera World

Who actually believes this? Haha

I mean they're good all-around lenses but far from perfect.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk 4

 

[Blacktop]

They may not be the perfect lens, but I just traded a 50mm 1.8D for an 18-55mm vr kit lens, because I sold my D3100 with that lens, and I was without it when I bought the D300.
Until I can afford a 17-55mm Nikkor I will never get rid of my 18-55. Love that lens.

The 55-200 I'm not a big fan.

 

[Horoscope Fish]

Who actually believes this? Haha

I mean they're good all-around lenses but far from perfect.

I don't think the word "Perfect" is intended to be taken literally.

And while making some good, if somewhat obvious, points the article is clearly just "filler" for the 'site.

...

 

[TedG954]

The so-called "kit lenses" are way underated. "Perfect" maybe not, but they produce fine photos if the photographer does his/her job. Too many people blame their equipment or think more $$$ automatically improves their skill. I use "kit" lenses all the time right along side my more expensive-almost-professional lenses. If you really believe your lens is holding you back...... by all means buy something else. I'll keep mine.

 

[Browncoat]

Kit lenses are just like any other package deal for other products: they're meant for the buyer to get out there and begin using their new toy immediately. Any kit/package deal item is usually:

• Inexpensive
• Average - low quality
• Versatile
• "Good enough" for Average Joe

And that's pretty much what you get with a kit lens. More experienced shooters who are upgrading to a new camera typically already own other lenses, so they go with the body-only option. Newbies just entering the market, or hobby shooters are probably going to stick with that kit lens for awhile. Soccer mom types will probably never buy another lens at all.

I still use the kit lens that came with my D90 (it's now attached to my backup D40). It will probably never see any serious action again, but it's just fine for taking birthday photos and the like.

 

[Fortkentdad]

I guess I'm the average Joe because I'm learning how to shoot with my old 28-80 F60 kit lens from the turn of the millennium. I see it on eBay - goes for under $100.00 nowadays. Saw one under $50 recently. But it is certainly working for me at the moment and I've been very happy with some of the images.

On the other hand it does have a short range for a zoom and am thinking of upgrading to something a little longer. Not sure what yet. But don't kick a kit just because it's a kit.

 

[Nero]

Everyone seems to be assuming I'm saying kit lenses suck. I know they don't.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk 4

 

[egosbar]

i shot these with the 18-55 and 55-300 , cant see a problem , post processing raw files is and essential skill

the seagull in flight at 300mm i was stoked

agree though they are good lenses but to call them perfect mmmmmmmm think not

 

[Horoscope Fish]

I think the term "kit lens" is a meaningless phrase and I really wish we would all just stop using it. I've seen deals where you can opt to get the camera body with top notch lenses such as the Nikon 70-300mm f/4-5.6G or 85mm f/1.8G as your "kit lens". The D5300 my girlfriend uses came with an 18-140mm VR kit lens which goes for a not insubstantial $500 if purchased separately.

The term kit lens merely indicates the lens came as part of a package, it means nothing beyond that.

...

 

[weebee]

I, too, hate the term kit lenses. It gives these lenses a false enigma.

 

[egosbar]

very true

 

[fotojack]

I've always hated the term "kit lens", because it's always been misinterpreted to mean cheap, which is certainly not the case at all. It just means that the lens is "perfect" for it's intended use.....not perfect as in high quality or optical brilliance. I still use my 18-55 and my 18-105, both of which I bought outright and not as a kit. Both of those lenses have their place in photography. Lens snobs have given it a bad rap over the years.

 

[kevy73]

I guess it comes down to the old thought that the "perfect lens" and even the "perfect camera" is the one you have with you when you need it.

 

[TedG954]

I've always hated the term "kit lens", because it's always been misinterpreted to mean cheap, which is certainly not the case at all. It just means that the lens is "perfect" for it's intended use.....not perfect as in high quality or optical brilliance. I still use my 18-55 and my 18-105, both of which I bought outright and not as a kit. Both of those lenses have their place in photography. Lens snobs have given it a bad rap over the years.

"Perfectly" stated. Amen!

 

[aroy]

A kit lense is one bundled with the camera. As majority of buyers of DSLR are new and need a lense, kit lenses have a huge sale. I agree with the article that they are not "Cheap", just "less expensive" due to economies of scale.

As long as you know the limitation of your lense, you can get excellent results. I get good images with my 18-55, and as long as they are shot between F8 and F11, they compare in sharpness with my primes - 50mm F1.8 and 35mm F1.8. The primes have better micro contrast, but the kit lense the versatility. Another point that I agree with is the shorter minimum focusing distance. Some of the better close ups of flowers are with my 18-55 at 55mm.

Here are two images one with kit lense and one with 35mm prime

 

[aroy]

Here is a comparison of the 3 lenses - 18-55, 50mm F1.8 and 35mm F1.8

At F11







At F8







The crop for kit and 50mm is same. For 35mm it is tighter to give approximately the same view
Unless you view at 100%, there is not much difference.

 

[SkvLTD]

I'll say that when you have a good flash, "kit" level lenses can get the job done indeed unless you shoot in extremely low light (better make sure flash that laser grid to help focus). When you want it to focus in 1/2 a second instead of 1 second, that's when you reach for pro zooms. Also barrel distortion when you zoom in...