Are kit lenses rubbish?

[Jill H]

I have a Canon Power ShotPro1 with 28-200mm integrated lens which I bought in 2005 (which is a great all round camera and it has a fantastic super macro facility) and I have recently bought my first digital SLR - a Canon EOS 450D (Rebel XSi). I wanted to "step up" but I couldn't justify forking out a huge amount of money - so of course it came with 2 kits lenses - 55-250 and 18-55.

On a recent 5 week trip I became a little disillusioned with the SLR - ease of use for one thing - never having the right lens on for the the job - don't have this problem with the Power Shot, but something I need to get used to. And also I wasn't always particularly happy with my results from the SLR as opposed to the PowerShot. Maybe it is the operator!

My question is? Are kit lenses rubbish? I have read various articles about the "glass" not being as good as more expensive lenses and if you want good quality photos you need to pay more. Is this correct? And what lenses would you suggest? I take mainly landscape and macro. I would like a little more length on the zoom - the 250 is a bit limiting sometimes.

I have also read that Tamrom make some great lenses that fit Canon. What would your opinion be in relation to buying Tamrom instead of a Canon lens or should I stick with Canon?

If I am going to fork out more money, I want to know that I am spending it wisely. I am not always confident that retailers are telling you the right thing - they just want to sell!

I look forward to your replies. Thanks in advance.

[Woody]

Hello Jill,

Thats half the fun, trying different lens's (how do you spell that?) If you're like me and want to take good photos as an enthusiastic amateur, then the kit lens should give pretty goood results. Look at the quality of posts here. Many are taken with the same gear as you and I have and they are incredable.

I upped the ante by buying a 70/300 and a prime 50mm and I love to try each in different situations.

If you want to go higher up the tree and you can afford it, then by all means invest in some better glass.

I've had a heap of cameras over the years and they just get better and better.

Good luck with your endeavours.

Cheers,

John W.

[OsmosisStudios]

Originally Posted by Jill H

Are kit lenses rubbish?

As with about 99% of things photography related: it depends.

Kit lenses are generally not great. They're not TERRIBLE, but they're not great. Most have a range (focal length and aperture) in which they do pretty well, actually, but generally there's something better that will cover the same range.

Now for the downside: most of those options are more expensive.

Most camera companies sell their lower-end gear with kit lenses so that the camera is essentially good to go as soon as the customer buys it. That's instant-gratification commercialism for you.

If you do your research right, you can get the body separate and another lens instead that might be of greater quality.

You mentionned that the problem may be the operator and, not to be insulting, that's likely at least a good part of the problem. dSLRs are a new breed and have a rather steep learning curve. It took me over 2 years to learn my camera font-to-back, and there are still the littlest of things that come up every so often. Take the time to practice, experiment and learn.

[takethislife5150]

I wouldn't say that they are rubbish

all taken with the 18-55 EF-S IS kit lens










It really is what you make of it

Regards
Kenneth

[Quintin]

I'm still using the EF 18-55mm 3.5-5.6 IS that came with my 500D. Not a single photographer I've spoken to — whether amateur, semi-pro or pro — has ever had anything bad to say about it. It's got a decent range, especially for very wide shots, and the image stabiliser is great... not that it's that important on a relatively short lens. Kit lenses are apparently better now than they were a couple of years ago.

Of course, there's no contest between standard kit lenses and higher-end lenses like the L-Series lenses. These lenses have superior quality optics made from very high-grade materials; when you read their reviews online, you'll spot terms like "Aspherical Lens Elements", "Flourite Elements" or "Ultralow Dispersion Glass Elements", which means that you're getting the real deal. Higher quality glass means better images.

As for third party lenses like Tamron and Sigma: I'd say stick with Canon products. Third party lens manufacturers also use flourite and UD glass in their construction, but the lenses have to be reverse-engineered from the Canon lenses, so the quality that you get out of them usually isn't as good. Also, as far as I'm aware, you won't find Image Stabilisers, USM motors, or similar technologies on third-party lenses. I'm guessing it's either a legal or a technical issue, or both.

If you've got a super-steady hand and don't need an image stabiliser for telephoto shots, or if you don't mind a noisy AF motor, you might have a look at a third party lens. They're definitely cheaper. But I doubt you'll get as far with quality as you will with Canon.

[thegrandpoohbah]

Originally Posted by Quintin

Also, as far as I'm aware, you won't find Image Stabilisers, USM motors, or similar technologies on third-party lenses. I'm guessing it's either a legal or a technical issue, or both.

That is not correct. Sigma and Tamron have these features as well, they are just named differently (the names of the features are probably copyrighted). Things like VR (vibration reduction) and HSM (hyper sonic motor) are essentially the same thing as IS and USM.

[dcclark]

Actually, many kit lenses have fairly decent optics -- not great, but decent. They'll be good enough that, unless you're looking for it, you won't really notice the distortion or minor defects.

Where kit lenses do have problems, though, are usually in the details. The main one is construction quality -- the 18-55 that came with my Nikon D40 is all plastic, and whenever I hold it, I feel like it might fall apart if I'm too rough with it. My other (more expensive) lenses have more metal parts, more solid barrels, and in general can take more abuse. Very high end lenses often come encased in a metal barrel which entirely separates the inner workings from the case.

In addition, many kit lenses have rotating front elements, which makes it harder to use them with certain filters (polarizers, graduated ND, etc. -- anything where orientation matters). This doesn't mean you can't use a polarizer on them, just that it's more of a pain to deal with. This is a very common rule, I think, with more expensive equipment: it makes it easier to do what you want.

There are other details, too -- my Nikon kit lens has no ability to adjust the focus on the fly (without changing to manual focus).

But all of that said, optically, I'm very happy with it. I use my other lenses because I prefer wild and wacky focal lengths, not because the optical quality is significantly different.

[candleman]

i think this is getting a tad side tracked.

Originally Posted by Jill H

I have a Canon Power ShotPro1 with 28-200mm integrated lens which I bought in 2005 (which is a great all round camera and it has a fantastic super macro facility) and I have recently bought my first digital SLR - a Canon EOS 450D (Rebel XSi). I wanted to "step up" but I couldn't justify forking out a huge amount of money - so of course it came with 2 kits lenses - 55-250 and 18-55.

On a recent 5 week trip I became a little disillusioned with the SLR - ease of use for one thing - never having the right lens on for the the job - don't have this problem with the Power Shot, but something I need to get used to. And also I wasn't always particularly happy with my results from the SLR as opposed to the PowerShot. Maybe it is the operator!
.

a powershot is a multi-tool (like a pocket knife that does lots of things)
it can do a bunch of things.. macro and supertelephoto ...and a bunch of tricks all in one package.

a dslr is a specialist tool..
so if you want to do specialise in macro.. you buy a macro lens (like a 105mm f/2.8 for example)
if you want to shoot your kids sports you buy a 70-300VR or similar
if you want landscapes you buy a wide angle lens like a 14-24 f/2.8
if you want to do portraits you get somethign else like a 50mm 85mm f/1.8

each tool is specifically designed to do a specialist job.
it does what it does.. and it does it well.

the problem with the kit-lenses (Osmosis mentioned) is that they are for "instant gratification" ...somehing to get a newbie taking pictures.
the kit lenses should help you decide what you are missing in a lens.. and then that will lead you on to decide what your next lens chopice should be.

at your "newbie" level i doubt the glass quality is the issue, its
1. your "mis-use" of the camera ...so theres some learning to be done
2. you are usedto a masive focal range in your powershot.. and the "special tool" thing is going to take some getting usedto.

all the best with it tho'

[inkista]

I like mine.



Using one won't suddenly turn all your photos butt-ugly, and it's the best bargain wide-angle lens you'll find for a crop body.

Originally Posted by Jill H

On a recent 5 week trip I became a little disillusioned with the SLR - ease of use for one thing - never having the right lens on for the the job - don't have this problem with the Power Shot, but something I need to get used to. And also I wasn't always particularly happy with my results from the SLR as opposed to the PowerShot. Maybe it is the operator!

It's probably a combination of the lens and the operator. Out of curiousity, how long did you shoot with the film EOS? Or did you buy it at roughly the same time? Because for someone completely new to SLR photography, who's used to P&S digicams, buyer's remorse is a common factor: you spent a lot of money expecting a huge upgrade, and suddenly you got something harder to use and more limited than your P&S in terms of telephoto and macro, that's turning out duller pics by default, because dSLRs assume you want to process the photos yourself, rather than rely on the one-size-fits-all overcooking P&S cameras do.

If you're experienced with SLRs, skip this list. The main technique "deficiencies" that can cause blurred photos are:

1. handholding technique: most folks skip the bit in the manual on how to hold the camera.
2. misfocus: learn how to select focus points, and what the different focus modes do. Also, learn to aim for high-contrast targets (ideally, where black meets white at a sharp edge).
3. too slow a shutter speed for camera shake (without a stabilized lens, the shutter speed you want to use is 1/focal_length or faster, so with a 200mm lens, you need to be at 1/200s or faster)
4. too slow a shutter speed to freeze subject action (only the subject is blurred)
5. shooting wide open with the narrowest DoF (with a larger sensor and longer lenses, you really can get things out of focus). Also lenses don't perform equally at all apertures: you can often increase sharpness by stopping down one or two stops from wide open.
6. Learning to post process. Simple Levels/Curves adjustments can work wonders.

My question is? Are kit lenses rubbish? I have read various articles about the "glass" not being as good as more expensive lenses and if you want good quality photos you need to pay more. Is this correct?

Yes, and no. Depends on your definition of "good quality". The lens can work on chromatic aberration, sharpness, contrast, etc. But it doesn't do a freaking thing to improve composition, timing, or your ability to find/make light. Remember the great pics you took with your P&S? There are a ton of camera folks who would relegate that lens to the same level of the kit lens. Or even below it.

More expensive lenses can be better than the kit lens, but not necessarily on image quality. They may be more usable, more versatile, have more contrast, be faster, etc. But remember that the way you need to judge the lens is as a special-purpose tool. Price, size, and weight also go into the equation of finding what's the best fit for you.

I have also read that Tamrom make some great lenses that fit Canon. What would your opinion be in relation to buying Tamrom instead of a Canon lens or should I stick with Canon?

The only real drawback to going with a 3rd party lens is that they often reverse engineer the electronic communication in the mount. If Canon updates the mount somehow (say, to communicate lens EXIF information) 3rd party lenses can be made incompatible. Tamron/Sigma/Tokina, et. al. may rechip a lens if it's relatively recent, but older used lenses run more of a risk. Canon only has the obligation to make sure its own lenses work with the new mount; not everybody else's.

All of that said, right now, I'd say stick with the lenses you have and learn to get the most out of them. Your Pro1 did NOT, btw, have a 28-200 lens. It had a 7mm-50mm lens, and a 4x+ crop factor, which gave you the equivalent FoV of a 28-200 on film. But your P&S's lens's depth of field and minimum focus distance and effect on camera-shake are completely different from what you'd get from a 28-200 lens on film. It's just the FoV that's equivalent.

The only lens you may want to consider getting right now is the 50mm f/1.8 II: cheap enough (~$100) to be a great third training wheel lens, and it will teach you about wide max. apertures, and the joys of shooting with a prime instead of a zoom.

[momtoamiracle]

just wanted to add to get some books on using an SLR in general, such as the Digital Field Guide for your particular camera. Understanding Exposure by Bryan Peterson is also a great book. It takes a while to get used to your camera. Once you learn what THOSE particular lens can do, you will be pretty happy with them. Also, an external flash can also help, if you don't have one.

have fun!