For beginner DSLR users.....why the kit lenses are more than good enough for you

Started Apr 3, 2013 | Discussions thread
mike703
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,918
Like?
Re: For beginner DSLR users.....why the kit lenses are more than good enough for you
In reply to Sovern, Apr 3, 2013

Oh, boy.  Here you go again: a relative beginner posting your prejudices and opinions as facts that everybody needs to learn from.

I notice that your 'Why ETTR sucks' video that you promoted in this thread

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51203186

has been removed a whole day after it was posted.

Anyway a few comments since you asked for them:

(i) the plural of body is bodies, not body's

(ii) You wrote:  'The kit 18-55 lens is F3.5 on is wide end. The more expensive 24-70 lenses and 17-55 lenses are 2.8 on the wide end. The difference from F3.5 to F2.8 is only 2/3rds of a stop faster meaning that if you shoot at the wide end of your lens most of the time (such as what most landscape photographers do) you’re only gaining a very small amount of low light capturing ability.  2/3rds of a stop is hardly anything in the grand scheme of things and most would agree that it’s definitely not worth spending $500 or more for……'

But lenses such as 17-55 f/2.8 are two stops faster at the long end.  That is a huge difference and can easily mean the difference between getting the shot or not getting it.  In addition, a lens such as a 17-55 f/2.8 will have much higher image quality than a kit lens, especially at extremes like the widest setting and max aperture where kit lenses generally suffer from a host of problems such as severe distortion and vignetting and poor edge / corner quality.

(iii) You wrote: 'If you shoot Landscape photography, you will be stepping down your lens anyways to at least F8 so that you get enough depth of field which makes the fast aperture speeds such as F2.8 of the more expensive lenses useless for landscape photography.'

It's 'stopping' down, not 'stepping'.  And 'anyway', not 'anyways'.  And it is just possible that the owner of a 17-55 mm f/2.8 lens might occasionally want to use it for something other than landscapes at f/8, no?

(iv) You wrote: 'When you’re in a situation when you can’t use flash having a fast, yet somewhat cheap prime lens will be better than any of these $1,000-$2,000 zoom lenses.'

I'm sure all those misguided professional wedding photographers will immediately stop using their 70-200 f/2.8 zooms and exchange them for a 50mm f/1.8.

I'll leave it there is life is too short.  You have had some good advice above... please read it.

Best wishes

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow