Domination of kit lenses

<p>So, I went to a Halloween school function and a Halloween party with lots of kids, and DSLRs were out in force. Many megapixels of children running around in costumes were recorded. The funny thing is that I was the only person who with a non-kit lens. Every other parent at both functions were using the kits. When someone took my family's picture with my camera, they were confused and intimidated by the non-kit Tokina lens. There is apparently a large crowd of people who pick up the camera+kit lens at best buy and never think of getting anything else. Someone should make an APS-C fixed lens superzoom with DSLR focus speeds and get it to this crowd. If getting a second lens for a camera is so unusual, taking advantage of that market seems like a good idea.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"Someone should make an APS-C fixed lens superzoom with DSLR focus speeds and get it to this crowd."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It's been tried, at least with 35mm film, and approximated with digital. Olympus made ZLR type 35mm cameras - I still have an iS-2, very good camera. So did a couple other makers. Very good, very capable and generally snubbed by purists and elitists. It takes an experienced, confident amateur or pro to shamelessly use anything "less" than an interchangeable lens camera and dare to get good results.</p>

<p>Prepare for the usual jibber jabber about high ISO noise, slow shutter/AF response and not enough megapickles.</p>

<p>What's the advantage for the camera companies for such an offering? You can get a brand-new digital Rebel (though not the latest model) with 18-55 IS lens for less than $600. If you want to take pictures of your kids playing sports, you can add a tele zoom for anotherr $150. What's the price point for making an all-in-one camera with APS sensor and megazoom competitive with the DSLR combos? Will the camera companies make money from such a camera at such a price?</p>

<p>I don't really care what other people use.</p>

<p>For that sort of occasion I would probably ponder over my range of lenses - then take the kit lens. They are small and light, reasonably good if a bit slow, do everything you are likely to want in an undemanding situation and I would not be too bothered if someone turned it into a pumpkin.</p>

<p>Most people don't need, nor want, anything past the 18-55mm zoom on a crop camera DSLR. For those that do....most camera manufacturers make a "kit" type zoom from 55-200mm or so. And when they find that the speed (widest apeerture) of the zoom is not enough, then they buy a dedicated flash for their camera. That's what family picture and vacation picture takers are happy with. And even that much equipment....body, 2 lenses, flash....is more bulk and weight than they really want to carry all the time.</p>

<p>They can shoot almost anything that a family can want pics of with that equipment. About the only families that venture past that are the indoor sports picture takers. Then they find out that they need that $1000+ f/2.8 zoom....but that's about the only ones that ever go past "kit" lens status.</p>

<p>I really don't think your idea would appeal to most family camera buyers. Us photographers here on photo net.....and other sites like this....are really the minority when it comes to sheer number of sales. We may buy more cameras over the length of our lives than a family shooter would, but on any given day the family shooters buy more cameras than us as a group.</p>

<p>Stephen,</p>

<p>First of all, kit lenses generally are very good for casual shooters. The kit lens is partially responsible for mass sales of low-end DSLRs. Mass sales of low-end DSLRs = money for research, development and production of more esoteric high-end stuff that some of us want to shoot with.</p>

<p>Secondly, why on earth do you care what lenses other people shoot with?</p>

<p>Will</p>

<p>I guess I am just brand loyal. I have AIS Nikkors from 16mm - 500m for my F2's and Hassy lenses from 60 - 150 for my 500 C/M. If you want a lens that is designed to work perfectly with your camera, then OEM lenses are still the best way to go.</p>

<p>Amen to that, Scott. You can never go wrong by buying the camera maker's brand lenses. I wanted to address that as well with Stephen, but the kit lens issue was enough to get me started.</p>

<p>Will</p>

<p>yeah, I am a camera snob when I mingle with the other shooters. I am usually the only parent with the Red Ring on my lens. I tend to laugh to myself about it. I'm sure they are getting the pictures they like tough.</p>

<p>The worst lens that I ever owned was the Canon kit lens that came with my 20D. My Soligor telephoto zoom that I had ten years ago was the only thing I ever had that was in it's "league." While the new Canon kit is an improvement, the old 18-55 broke me of the illusion that OEM lenses are always the best. Canon makes many world-class lenses, but they also make a lot of dreck. I sold off the new kit lens in favor of a Tamron 17-50 because the the kit was way too slow at 55mm.</p>

<p>Additionally, Canon does not make a fast 50-135 or a 50-150, so if you want a 80-200 2.8 equivalent lens for a crop camera you need to go third party.</p>

<p> Most of the people just want a nice camera. The kit lens offers an excellent quality lens for their camera at an affordable price. Sometimes people get the photo bug and start looking at more expensive gear and sometimes they do not. I imagine many of us started out in the same manner.</p>

I don't believe Stephen is concerned with what other people use. He was just making an observation and wondering why the camera manufacturers don't cater to that market with a fixed camera lens.

<p>I'll add to what most other people said. The kit lens isn't that horrible, better then most built in zooms of digicams and superzooms. Most people are getting the cameras because they do want a bit more flexibility, want higher quality images, maybe more megapixels, better flash control and power, etc. Most probably could careless about lens interchangability.<br>

Would it actually save manufacturers much of anything to take something like a Rebel and make it a fixed lens zoom? Probably not or maybe only a small amount and any audience for that is going to be taken away from their entry market interchangable lens dSLR. Doesn't seem like a point. I'd love to see numbers, but I'd bet 50% of entry level dSLR purchasers never get anything other then the kit lens and probably 25% of the remainder probably never go beyond the two kits lens (IE 17-55 and 55-200 kit lenses) or a super zoom (like an 18-200) for the camera.</p>

<p>My wife's friend as a Nikon D60 with the kit lens. Her pictures are noticably better now then compared to her P&S that she had been using, especially the flash pictures. She only has and uses the kit lens and the built in flash. That is the level of photography most people want. She loves the fast focusing, quick flash recharge and frame rate that the camera has compared to her old P&S, oh and the fast shutter response. Most people don't care about higher quality glass, faster glass, wider angles or more telephoto. Some certainly do, but I'd say the minority with the entry market we see now.</p>

<p>Crap, look back in the 35mm film era. Most people didn't get much glass. Most probably had a 28 or 35mm, 50mm and 135mm lenses or maybe even just a 50 or a 50 and 135. Some had just a 35-70 or 28-70 or 80mm zoom lenses and that was or maybe a 50 thrown in. I don't really have exact numbers, but looking at the serial numbers of different olympus lenses it looks like they sold something a bit north of a million 50/1.8 lenses and 1 million 50/1.4 lenses, something like 500,000 135/3.5 lenses, around 400,000 28/3.5 and 2.8 lenses combined and only something like 90,000 24/2.8, 60,000 85/2 as some examples. That to me says that the numbers were something like for every 10 people who bought an OM camera with a 50/1.8 or 1.4 on it, 3 of those bought a 135/3.5 as well, 2 bought a 28/3.5 or 2.8 (and probably both of those 2 people also got the 135/3.5) and only something like 1 or 2 of those who bought lenses other then the 50, 28 or 135mm lenses.</p>

<p>The big problem with point and shoots is the slow AF and shutter lag that prevent you from getting the shot. If not for those problems I doubt most of the other parents would have had DSLRs in the first place.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The big problem with point and shoots is the slow AF and shutter lag that prevent you from getting the shot.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Actually that's not entirely true. Several makers make decent point and shoots or "all in ones" if you prefer. The Canon G9/G10, for example. Even the mighty Michael Reichman's been known to use one.</p>

<p>I think the biggest problem is that when people get on the internet to make a selection, too many "armchair experts" tell them that a true DSLR is the only way to go, even if it's way over their heads starting out. It's kind of like telling people they "must" use Photoshop - sometimes you need to let folks grow into things at their own pace or you lose them altogether.</p>

<p>My Pentax K100D's 18-55mm kit lens never ceases to amaze me in how darn sharp it is. However, I realize this class of lens is subject to quality control issues that influence performance differences between the same model more so (I'm assuming) over the more expensive lenses. I base this on image samples I've seen and complaints read from other owners of this lens.</p>

<p>I've grown attached to my one and only camera not because it's a DSLR but because I found out any other camera I buy be it a P&S or DSLR I'm not familiar with is almost impossible for me to figure out its interface in how to use it. I just bought a used Nikon Coolpix 5700 for its macro capability over my DSLR. The first time I tried to navigate its menu system and read the owner's manual, I felt like I was having to relearn how to use a camera. It now sits on my nik-nak shelf because I got so disinterested in learning how to navigate its menu system.</p>

<p>Several months back I was helping a muralist figure out how to change and/or set a custom color temp balance setting on her small pocket sized Sony P&S so that she could take decent color balanced pictures of her murals under the mixed fluorescent/tungsten lights. After almost 15 minutes trying to get it to do what I wanted and getting nowhere I just finally gave up.</p>

<p>I was a bit embarrassed because she spotted me from outside shooting with my Pentax DSLR and a big and fancy looking Vivitar MF zoom lens and perceived me as an expert pro photographer even more so after I introduced myself as a fine art photographer/digital imaging consultant.</p>

<p>I think I'm going to have to seriously reexamine my job description after that and consider adding to my self appointed title the word <em>"Limited"</em>.</p>

<p>When I was younger, I was given a 35mm camera with a 50mm lens. Later on, I was able to get more stuff, but, for the most part, I used that one camera and lens for a majority of everything for about ten years. I suppose I should have made better decisions, but, I did what I did and got what I got. </p>

<p>Sometimes using what you have can be as good or better than getting more stuff. If the kit lenses work, then that's okay. </p>

<p>You could think of it as seeing a lot of people who are grooming skills for better photography later. They're going to do what they do; the kit zooms offer a fair answer to a lot of needs.</p>

<p>We all start somewhere...kit lenses included. It's a good thing to even see people with DSLRs...parents or pros...</p>

<p>For the old time Canon history buffs. Back in 1986 Canon commissioned some prototypes using early molded designs. Colani, German industrial designer produced some out of box goodies.Like this one At first glance,sure, something from War of the Worlds. Looking closer a one zoom lens, highly functional layout if you are into that sort of thing. Especially re the current convergence of still and HD video. (The flash 'pylon,' ahh, I am less enthused about)</p><div></div>

<p>I for one like to see people out and shooting pictures, so for me it doesn't matter what camera is being used. I enjoy the fact people are capturing the moment.<br>

I was one of those parents that started with the kit lens and could not help myself... I now have a "L" lens. The funny thing is some of my favorite photos were shot with the kit lens... go figure ;-)</p>

<p>A lot of parents just want a camera that is better than a compact P&S. In the 70's it was the Canon AE-1, in the 80's and 90's it was the Canon Rebel and Nikon N60, 65, 75, and now it's the D-Rebels, and Nikon D40 or 60. The idea is the same, an affordable easy to use camera that "takes better pictures" than a P&S. I think that the kit lens is a terrible choice for these parents. They want simple and easy to use. The last thing they need is to have to change lenses between an 18-55 and 55-200. Superzooms are ideal for these people. They're ideal for me and I'm doing this for 40+ years.</p>

<p>My suggestion to a parent who wants a camera better than a P&S is a digicam superzoom like a Nikon P90 or Canon SX20 IS or an entry level DSLR with a superzoom. I tell them to start shooting on auto and move to more advanced techniques as they learn more about their cameras and photography in general.</p>

<p>To us this is a profession or a serious hobby. Most parents just want good pictures of their family and their vacations.</p>

<p>why kit lens? its the one that comes in the box or the lens that has the special price. and for the newbie it will take most of what the newbie wants to take. besides the person starting out in dslrs really does not know what other lens to get anyway. they have no info to base any other choice on. and the makers are pushing the kit lens in any event. besides, after the sale the kit lens sale opens the door for a 70-200mm for the telephoto. why would the maker sell one lens for some profit when they can sell 2?</p>

<p>for myself i know better, but i have been shooting slr/dslrs for 40yrs. i have 2 dslrs. on 1 is a 18-250, while the other has a 24-135mm. does what the kit lens does and gives me more range as well.</p>

<p><em>I think the biggest problem is that when people get on the internet to make a selection, too many "armchair experts" tell them that a true DSLR is the only way to go, even if it's way over their heads starting out. </em></p>

<p><em>I think Deb is spot on. Canon makes the G10 ... which would easily be my recommendation to all starting types. People will love the experience, will have few limits, and can shoot RAW. Don't forget that 99.9% of people have no intention of studying to use a more advanced camera and will be completely satisfied with a good P&S.</em></p>

<p>The Rebel is competing directly with this group. People by a DSLR, plug in the kit lens, place the camera on full AUTO ... and are wishing they have gotten the G10. At some point, they realize there are other lenses that ... God, forbid ... are even more expensive that the camera/kit lens combo.</p>

<p>It is a small subset of shooters that really benefit from the diversity of a DSLR.</p>

<p>By the way, it's the same as computers. We all have computers that do amazingly more than we ever will actually tap into.</p>

<p>The biggest complaint that I hear from parents shooting their children with P&S's is the shutter lag. They constantly complain that they keep missing the shot. I tell them to turn off the redeye prevention and prefocus. It helps, but there's still noticeable lag. Only an SLR eliminates the lag. That's why many parents end up with one. They usually get the kit lens because it's a package deal. I don't think you can get a D40 or D3000 w/o the kit lens. Some kits come with an 18-55 and a 55-200. The price is attractive, so many parents buy it.</p>