What's wrong with kit lens?

[alex_lofquist]

<p>I've used the 24-50 "kit" Nikkor on film for many years. It's light and gives good images up to 8X10 prints and when projected. When shot at f/8, or about, you can barely tell it from an f/2.8 lens. (Bob Krist used this lens as a "walk-around" when he was travelling some years ago.)</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Eric - while it may not apply to the latest kit lenses, I believe the 28-80 f/3.3-5.6 G was once a kit lens for film cameras. It's decently sharp, but the reason I got it is that the autofocus (at least on an F5) is scarily fast. It certainly blows my original one-ring 80-200 f/2.8 out of the water, mostly because the mechanism that's moving is so light.<br />

<br />

If I'm honest, it's probably not as fast as my 200 f/2 AF-S or 14-24, and I suspect it's not up there with a 70-200, but I'd not hold autofocus performance against it compared with its big brethren. (My 28-200, on the other hand, takes its sweet time.)</p>

[james_smith55]

<blockquote>

<p>I purchased a <strong>Nikon 18-55mm f/3.5 to f/5.6</strong> as a backup lens. This low-priced kit lens is a great performer. I love using it, instead of one of my higher priced lenses, on a DX body for walk-around candids and landscapes; <strong>especially in bad weather</strong> or hostile environments.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm not familiar with Nikon gear. I am a Canon guy. My walk around <strong>Canon premium L zoom is weather sealed</strong> so it is better to use it in bad weather as opposed to a cheap consumer zoom. That's one of the reasons Canon L lenses cost so much.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>When shot at f/8, or about, you can barely tell it from an f/2.8 lens</p>

</blockquote>

<p>isnt this true for most lenses though?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If I'm honest, it's probably not as fast as my 200 f/2 AF-S or 14-24, and I suspect it's not up there with a 70-200</p>

</blockquote>

<p>screwdriver lenses are generally not as fast as pro-spec lenses, and their AF speed varies, depending on what body you use. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>That's one of the reasons Canon L lenses cost so much.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Canon L lenses aren't supplied as kit lenses, even in Europe. Nikon's pro-spec zooms are sealed too, but then so is the 18-70--another reason why it's as well-regarded as any kit lens in the last decade or so. Not sure if any Canon kit lenses are weather-sealed.</p>

 

[john_narsuitus]

 

<blockquote>

<p>I'm not familiar with Nikon gear. I am a Canon guy. My walk around <strong>Canon premium L zoom is weather sealed</strong> so it is better to use it in bad weather as opposed to a cheap consumer zoom. That's one of the reasons Canon L lenses cost so much.</p>

</blockquote>

 

<p><strong>Unless it has a plastic barrel, I am not sure I would be willing to subject a high-priced</strong> <strong>weather sealed Canon premium L zoom to salt water spray or a salt water drenching.</strong><strong><strong></strong></strong><br>

<strong> </strong><br>

<strong> </strong></p>

[sebastianmoran]

<p>Turning it around, the advantages of the Kit lens:<br>

- Less expensive. Reduced risk in cases of loss or damage. Less worry about your lens.<br>

- Lighter weight and smaller. Easier to carry and stash. Compare a kit lens to an f/2.8 zoom. To me the difference in size/weight is astounding. (Of course, a nice 50mm f/2 D is even smaller.)<br>

- Damn good image quality in many cases.</p>

<p>My 18-70 DX lens is a favorite.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Eric wrote:</p>

<blockquote>screwdriver lenses are generally not as fast as pro-spec lenses, and their AF speed varies, depending on what body you use.</blockquote>

 

<p>You're right that this is generally, although not universally, true. The AF speed even of AF-S lenses varies with body (a bit), the screwdriver lenses more so (especially with an F5). I believe there's a consensus that the 50 f/1.4 AF-S may be slightly slower to focus (although probably more accurate) than the AF-D version. My 80-200 f/2.8 "pro" lenses (well, they were once) are screwdriver lenses, one of which (two-ring AF-D) is respectably fast at focussing, one (one ring mark 1) is best described as "ponderous", but it's no worse than my 150-500 Sigma. Besides, the most recent DX kit lenses are (obviously) AF-S, like all but one of the DX range. The 28-80 I mentioned is a screwdriver lens, but since the mechanism that's being moved is so light, it's scarily fast when stuck on a body powered by eight AA batteries (like the F5).<br />

<br />

The big win for sticking the motor in the lens (other than instant manual-focus override) is with lenses whose focus mechanism can't easily be driven by a screwdriver - notably the big supertelephotos. Hence the 400mm AF-I is very fast (although admittedly the 300mm and 600mm AF-I lenses weren't). I've got to say that my (screw-driven) TC-16A is pretty instant, but then it's not moving much glass very far. Small lenses don't have such a problem. I've not timed my 28-80 against a 24-70 f/2.8 - partly because I'm not enough of a fan of mid-range zooms to spend 24-70 money getting one - but I'd not be surprised if it's nearly as fast, at least on an F5.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p><em>Canon L lenses aren't supplied as kit lenses, even in Europe.</em></p>

<p>If you google "canon 5d mk iii kit box" you will find plenty of images of the boxes of 5D Mk III + 24-105L Canon packaged kits. Being sold in kits says nothing of the quality of the lens. Panasonic sold the GF1 in kits with the 20/1.7 which is an excellent prime lens that sells for a lot more money separately. </p>

 

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>I believe there's a consensus that the 50 f/1.4 AF-S may be slightly slower to focus (although probably more accurate) than the AF-D version.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>ok, but the 50/1.4 AF-S is not a pro-spec (gold ring) lens.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>My 80-200 f/2.8 "pro" lenses (well, they were once) are screwdriver lenses</p>

</blockquote>

<p>and as such, is slower in focus speed than the 70-200 AF-S lenses, especially on a pro-spec body.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The 28-80 I mentioned is a screwdriver lens, but since the mechanism that's being moved is so light, it's scarily fast when stuck on a body powered by eight AA batteries (like the F5).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>the 50/1.8 AF-D is another screw-drive lens with super-quick focus because of the short throw. it's not a kit lens, though.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If you google "canon 5d mk iii kit box" you will find plenty of images of the boxes of 5D Mk III + 24-105L Canon packaged kits.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>ok, you got me there. but you're getting kind of nit-picky... the 5dmkIII isnt a weather-sealed body, so the point James Smith was trying to make wouldn't apply in that case. more to the point, the vast majority of Canon DSLR kits are packaged with 18-55 IS or other non-L lenses. the 5dIII+24-105L is a $4300 kit, btw. at that price point, Canon is trying to give you a reason to stay with them and not jump to a d800.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Being sold in kits says nothing of the quality of the lens.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>yes and no. some kit lenses are kind of meh. the 24-120VR 3.5-5.6 sold with the D700 certainly was nothing to write home about.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Panasonic sold the GF1 in kits with the 20/1.7 which is an excellent prime lens that sells for a lot more money separately.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Panasonic does that sometimes, so does Olympus. FWIW the 12-50 zoom that's the kit lens for the new OM-D E-5 is weather sealed, as is the camera body. and the flash. i wish nikon would do something like that.</p>

 

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Eric - sure, I was just pointing out that "screwdriver vs pro-spec" wasn't the distinction to make. I honestly don't know how much of the speed improvement from the 70-200 is because it's AF-S and how much is because it's simply newer - I believe the 80-200 AF-S wasn't much faster than the AF-D.<br />

<br />

As for the gold ring, I was under the impression my 135 f/2 DC (which is a screwdriver lens) was "pro-spec", but it's band-less. I assumed it was just a recent marketing thing to match Canon's red "L" branding, and the 135 hasn't been produced since they made that marketing decision. I'll give you that the 50mm primes are conspicuously missed off Nikon's list of "lenses to use with a D800", which possibly tallies with my impression that Nikon could do with an f/1.2 ED update to match Canon's 50mm L prime (and the latest Noctilux). Possibly the gold originally meant "ED", but that doesn't explain the gold band on the 85mm AF-S. Perhaps Nikon decided that their existing acronym collection wasn't confusing enough and they needed to muddy the waters further.<br />

<br />

Panasonic are a slightly odd case - the point of a micro 4/3 system is its portability, so a kit lens like the 14-42 can, uniquely in the kit lens world, be designed with size as a priority over budget. It's an interesting design, though. I've been tempted to stick an E-series 50mm prime on my D700 for portability reasons...</p>

[anthony_r3]

<p>Other than built quality, there is nothing wrong with their performance.<br>

YES, being compared to similar lenses that are $1000+ you will find some difference.<br>

I am sure many have mentioned but 18-55mm is awesome lens for awesome price tag. 18-70mm(discontinued) kit lens that came with my D200 is one lens that I just cant sell. Good weather seal, decent image quality!<br>

Other then that Dave L gave you pretty much all the answer</p>

[john_tran14]

<p>being referred to as inferior....I'd like to know why?</p>

<p>The way I look at the question is "not how" the kit lenses are inferior "nor whether" the kit lenses are inferior or not... I'd like to know why?</p>

<p>I believe the kit lenses are not meant to be good or bad, they are mainly what is recommended for that particular camera when you buy the camera. The purpose is to give a better deal for expected customers of that certain camera model.</p>

<p>If you are buying a cheap, low-end camera, then the kit lens should be cheap and also low-end but still likely the most appropriate lens for the camera. Who decided that? I think the marketing department of the manufacturer decided that </p>

<p>If you are buying a decent camera, then I think your kit lens is also decent</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>John - I'm sure, since the cameras are typically reviewed with the kit lens (especially in the general media), that no manufacturer deliberately cripples the kit lens to promote sales of upgrades. There's definitely no point in sticking a large, heavy and expensive lens (such as the 24-70 f/2.8) on a cheap camera, since it will remove any portability advantage of a small body and cripple the sales compared with a camera equipped with a lens that allows it to be priced lower. Most novices would complain if their new SLR couldn't cover a basic range of focal lengths (like a cheap compact), so a kit lens usually has to be a mid-range zoom; most won't fuss about the aperture, since even a basic kit lens on a basic DSLR is going to spank a compact camera for DoF control and low light performance (especially now kit lenses have VR); there are, admittedly, some more expensive lenses that are often offered as kits (or at least, bundles, since the lenses are usually also upgrade options) for those who want to spend more, but the cheapest kit option is almost always going to be similar. All kit lenses are going to be "decent", but if you want to compromise the price and portability of your system by buying a different lens, it's got to be up to the user to choose how to make that compromise - at least with a DSLR that's an option, unlike compact cameras.<br />

<br />

I don't tend to think of the high end cameras as having kit lenses. Lenses <i>bundled with them</i> or discounted when bought with them, yes, but I suspect people buying a D4 don't want someone else adding to the price by choosing their lenses for them. (For reference, I don't want a 24-70 f/2.8 for my D700 or with any D800 I buy, and I certainly don't want any kind of 24-120.) I suspect the "kit lens combination" of the D700 and original 24-120 came about in a frantic attempt to get rid of some stock, after the reviews of that lens panned it.</p>