What exactly IS wrong with kit lenses?

but not much else.

Often colour and contrast is a little off the best lenses but not much these days, most new kit lenses are strong in this department.

You pay for speed though because it = glass and lots of it.

--
***********************************************
Please visit my gallery at http://www.pbase.com/alfisti
Pentax Lens examples at http://www.pbase.com/alfisti/images_by_lens
Updated January '09

Luke Kaven said:

Try using the Nikon 18-70mm lens, which is a cut above most kit
lenses and well made, at 50mm, and put that up against a photo shot
with a 50mm f/1.8. [I did.] There was no comparing them. The 18-70
is sharp and optically very good, but it isn't beautiful -- not in
very many situations when beautiful is needed. It just does not
paint a subject the way a top notch lens does. Look at images made
with the Nikon 85mm f/1.4d or the 180mm f/2.8d or the 200mm f/2, or
the Zeiss Distagon, or the Summilux -- they really deliver beauty.

The minute you go beyond casual shooting, you know the difference is
meaningful. And if you want the shallow depth of field with good
bokeh, something that can make or break the shot, there's no other
option than to get a good fast lens.

Click to expand...

You are comparing prime lenses to zooms & it's no surprise that the primes win. In the old days of film, it was common knowledge that zooms were inferior in many ways to primes & although today's zooms are better than ever, it seems that most people have abandoned primes & chosen zooms as their primary lens. Many posters here act as if primes don't exist & that expensive fast zooms are the only way to go. I would recommend that a beginner get a few older reasonably fast primes if they want to experience the build & image quality of a "pro" lens. Even if they have to go manual. IMO manual is not a big deal with a DSLR if you are not in a hurry. I like the way a fixed focal length lens requires me to really put some thought into making the photograph.
--
'It ain't what they call you that's important, It's what you answer to!'

Mark Shaw said:

Mark Shaw said:

But to answer you question specificially, there really is nothing
wrong with kit lenses, you just cannot expect them to be the equal of
$500 lenses. They do offer good value for the money, and and
generally can produce very good results.

Click to expand...

Marty sums things up nicely. We would all like fast, good quality
lenses. However, there is an old saying about champagne tastes and
beer budgets.

Ringwraith69, while everyone would agree that a kit lens is not up to
the standard of Marty's $500 (in Canada, that's more like $1,100)
lens, someone reading your comments might think that you are
criticizing others for choosing just a kit lens; not just making a
comparison of kit lens versus higher quality lenses. Just an
observation.
--
Mark

Digital means never having to pay for your mistakes!

Click to expand...

I'm sorry to say, but then you haven't been reading my posts very well. I repeatedly said that kitlenses can be good and didn't critice anyone for using kitlenses, either by choice or for budget reason. I did criticice those, however, who dismissed a preference for better / more expensive lenses as just snobbery.

Denying the inherent better optical and build quality of expensive pro grade lenses in comparison to kitlenses is just as silly as stating that kitlenses are cr*p, that's the point I've been making all along.

--
'We are only immortal for a limited time'

Oops!

n/t

Luke Kaven said:

Try using the Nikon 18-70mm lens, which is a cut above most kit
lenses and well made, at 50mm, and put that up against a photo shot
with a 50mm f/1.8. [I did.] There was no comparing them. The 18-70
is sharp and optically very good, but it isn't beautiful -- not in
very many situations when beautiful is needed. It just does not
paint a subject the way a top notch lens does. Look at images made
with the Nikon 85mm f/1.4d or the 180mm f/2.8d or the 200mm f/2, or
the Zeiss Distagon, or the Summilux -- they really deliver beauty.

The minute you go beyond casual shooting, you know the difference is
meaningful. And if you want the shallow depth of field with good
bokeh, something that can make or break the shot, there's no other
option than to get a good fast lens.

Click to expand...

You are comparing prime lenses to zooms & it's no surprise that the primes win. In the old days of film, it was common knowledge that zooms were inferior in many ways to primes & although today's zooms are better than ever, it seems that most people have abandoned primes & chosen zooms as their primary lens. Many posters here act as if primes don't exist & that expensive fast zooms are the only way to go. I would recommend that a beginner get a few older reasonably fast primes if they want to experience the build & image quality of a "pro" lens. Even if they have to go manual. IMO manual is not a big deal with a DSLR if you are not in a hurry. I like the way a fixed focal length lens requires me to really put some thought into making the photograph.
--
'It ain't what they call you that's important, It's what you answer to!'