19. After shooting with expensive lenses you will be able to shoot your kit lens.

I posted a list of things that have helped me get better at this thread:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4330001

This seems counter intuitive, but I have found great joy in shooting with my kit lens after spending money on some expensive (to me) glass. Before I bought my GX85 with its 12-32 kit lens, I only shot point and shoots. So I rented some cameras and a few prime lenses and shot with those before I bought my gx85. I had no idea what I was doing or shooting, I just new that the pictures looked ok.

So I get the GX85 with the 12-32 lens and I think I am going to be set. Well the pictures looked terrible to me, even on Auto. So much so I thought I had wasted my money on this ILC when I could have had a PS. I decide to buy a good prime lens 15mm f1.7 and the 20mm f1.7, because I couldn't be the problem, it must be this cheap lens. And yeah, I could get some low light shots that I couldn't get with the 12-32, but the pictures still weren't that good. That's when I realized I need to pay attention to how I was taking pictures.

So I only shot with the 15f1.7 for months. I shot lots of pictures. I tried autofocus, I did manual focus, A mode, P mode, S mode, etc... And after about a years time I could take pretty decent shots with this 15 f1.7. Then I tried my 20mm f1.7 again, and I was taking decent shots. Now that I am such a great photographer(?) I can afford to spend money on the 42.5 f1.7 which is just a great lens to have and makes taking good pictures effortless.

Then one day I was bored and put the 12-32 back on my camera. Hated the fact that there is no manual focus on it, but I had learned enough tricks to make this lens expose and focus the way I wanted, and... man what a GREAT LENS! Its really sharp, it can take wonderful pictures even in low light and high iso settings. AND its a zoom so I don't have to walk so much. I never get to this point with the kit lens if I didn't spend months learning and appreciating the good glass.

I'm a Canon shooter that has moved beyond the kit lenses.

I own the 24-70 f2.8 II, 24-105 f4 II, 70-200 f2.8 IS II, and the 300 f2.8 IS II.

Excellent and very expensive lenses. I know the kit lenses are very good, and I've seen wonderful images from them. But I consider myself a sharpness & detail freak, so I went with the expensive lenses.

Using expensive lenses does not guarantee wonderful photos. That's up to the person using the camera. But I enjoy my expensive lenses and doubt I'll return to the kit lenses.

So now I can take mediocre photos that are super sharp and detailed. Perhaps I need therapy. ;-)

--
My best aviation photos: https://www.flickr.com/photos/31267310@N05/albums/72157643184140294
My Sets: http://www.flickr.com/photos/31267310@N05/sets

I'd also point out that the high "replaceability" factor of kit lenses make them better suited for many users and situations.

It's also notable that although today's kit lenses are very good, that wasn't always the case. The past ten years have seen remarkable improvements.

In addition to cost savings, kit lenses are generally lighter weight and less bulky.

In decent light kit lenses can be great.

I have a few systems - micro 4/3, Sony full frame and a couple of stray APS-C DSLRs. Easily the lightest set-up I have is the Canon 700D with kit lens.

Other set-ups are better overall, but given the concerns about weight so often expressed on here and the references to gargantuan DSLRs, this is a bit of an eye-opener. For hiking and travel with light kit and a battery that lasts for days, it's not a bad option.

Bobthearch said:

I'd also point out that the high "replaceability" factor of kit lenses make them better suited for many users and situations.

It's also notable that although today's kit lenses are very good, that wasn't always the case. The past ten years have seen remarkable improvements.

In addition to cost savings, kit lenses are generally lighter weight and less bulky.

Click to expand...

This is kind of what I was leading up to... the latest kit lens are very sharp. And my 35-100 f4 lens for m43 is really nice. I wish the 12-32 was built the same way or at least had a manual focus ring. If that were the case then I would use the primes for very select situations. As it stands the 12-60 f3.5 is a VERY good lens. I don’t know why its not glued to my camera.

But again, I would not have appreciated these cheap lenses IF I had not went through using the primes.

because you can get about 100mm from your subject at 55mm.
Very handy.
It also gives mad, swirly bokeh with a 1.7 multiplier screwed to the front.

Nothing could ever make me want to use the Sony 16-50 PZ kit lens again. The three I got with kits were not satisfactory.

Ha ha

that is called technique...

you started getting it

The kit type lens is a critical piece of equipment to me. It's light and versatile. It's tough to beat when tooling around at a festival, where it's crowded, or in a social situation where you don't want a huge lens to dominate your space.

The FF 24-105 has a longer zoom range, or in Canon the cheaper F4 24-70 adds a macro mode, so you can grab any small thing that you happen to notice, so they both offer more versatility than any better lens.

There's no reason for a kit lens in a professional situation. They're just outstanding for carrying the camera around when you have no idea what you want to shoot, though.

After shooting with my kit lens, I realize why I spent money on better lenses. Your other lenses may have helped you learn how to get the most out of inferior gear, certainly there is nothing wrong with that. But unless your kit lens covers a range that your other lenses don't, or has some other advantage like weight, why bother with inferior gear?

MediaArchivist said:

After shooting with my kit lens, I realize why I spent money on better lenses. Your other lenses may have helped you learn how to get the most out of inferior gear, certainly there is nothing wrong with that. But unless your kit lens covers a range that your other lenses don't, or has some other advantage like weight, why bother with inferior gear?

Click to expand...

I still prefer to shoot with my primes. But I dont avoid my kit lenses when they hit a focal length I need.

Old Greenlander said:

Ha ha

that is called technique...

you started getting it

Click to expand...

I am, and its been a long time in coming.

Rather than shoot it you could donate it to charity or just bin it.

have got there without shooting with expensive lenses, but you fell into the trap of believing better lenses make better pictures, and they don't. There are plenty of people out there just shooting with cheap dslrs and kit lenses creating superb images. They don't come on sites like this, they just learn their equipment well and get the best out of it, you never miss what you haven't had. Oh I know people on here will give every justification under the sun why they need this or that lens, but pretty much any modern lens will get you decent results and beyond in normal shooting conditions, that's the reality.

absquatulate said:

have got there without shooting with expensive lenses, but you fell into the trap of believing better lenses make better pictures, and they don't.

Click to expand...

That is the point of this thread, you don’t need expensive lenses to make good picture. But its really hard to not spend the money when your goal is to take the best pictures. And the primes ARE better, but there really needs to be attention paid to light, and making the best use of it no matter what lens you have.

jhunna said:

absquatulate said:

have got there without shooting with expensive lenses, but you fell into the trap of believing better lenses make better pictures, and they don't.

Click to expand...

That is the point of this thread, you don’t need expensive lenses to make good picture. But its really hard to not spend the money when your goal is to take the best pictures. And the primes ARE better, but there really needs to be attention paid to light, and making the best use of it no matter what lens you have.

Click to expand...

Well to be fair you made the statement you wouldn't have got where you are without buying more expensive lenses, when in reality you could, just like anyone else. The lens really doesn't make any difference to how good your work is, that's down to you, you should see some of the stunning work done with pinhole cameras, which don't have any lens.

jhunna said:

absquatulate said:

have got there without shooting with expensive lenses, but you fell into the trap of believing better lenses make better pictures, and they don't.

Click to expand...

That is the point of this thread, you don’t need expensive lenses to make good picture.

Click to expand...

That depends on your definition of "good" and how capable the kit lens is relative to that definition.

absquatulate said:

have got there without shooting with expensive lenses, but you fell into the trap of believing better lenses make better pictures, and they don't. There are plenty of people out there just shooting with cheap dslrs and kit lenses creating superb images. They don't come on sites like this, they just learn their equipment well and get the best out of it, you never miss what you haven't had. Oh I know people on here will give every justification under the sun why they need this or that lens, but pretty much any modern lens will get you decent results and beyond in normal shooting conditions, that's the reality.

Click to expand...

I get what you're saying and agree with it for the most part, but I do think you're overlooking one apsect/benefit of using better gear - it eliminates a variable.

It's entirely true that better gear will not necessarily make you a better photographer apart from whatever purely mechanical benefits it imparts to your work, but the one thing it can do is eliminate the ability to justify one's poor performance using the gear as a scapegoat. By this, I mean if one has a mediocre piece of gear, it's very easy to say that whatever poor results you're getting are due to that gear, but if you're using a known top-quality piece of equipment and still getting the same results, well, by the process of deduction you realize it's all you and nothing else. That's what happened with the OP and what he's talking about.

That's why, in that sense, I think it's fine and OK to say that better gear can make you a better photgrapher, albeit via a very meta kind of way. Of course, the problem becomes that some folks don't want to believe it's them no matter how much evidence they have pointing to that conclusion, and at that point there's not much gear or other people can do to help with that.

Chikubi said:

absquatulate said:

have got there without shooting with expensive lenses, but you fell into the trap of believing better lenses make better pictures, and they don't. There are plenty of people out there just shooting with cheap dslrs and kit lenses creating superb images. They don't come on sites like this, they just learn their equipment well and get the best out of it, you never miss what you haven't had. Oh I know people on here will give every justification under the sun why they need this or that lens, but pretty much any modern lens will get you decent results and beyond in normal shooting conditions, that's the reality.

Click to expand...

I get what you're saying and agree with it for the most part, but I do think you're overlooking one apsect/benefit of using better gear - it eliminates a variable.

It's entirely true that better gear will not necessarily make you a better photographer apart from whatever purely mechanical benefits it imparts to your work, but the one thing it can do is eliminate the ability to justify one's poor performance using the gear as a scapegoat. By this, I mean if one has a mediocre piece of gear, it's very easy to say that whatever poor results you're getting are due to that gear, but if you're using a known top-quality piece of equipment and still getting the same results, well, by the process of deduction you realize it's all you and nothing else. That's what happened with the OP and what he's talking about.

Click to expand...

They could save themselves a lot of money and just ask someone who has a clue? I understand buying a different lens which can give you something different i.e a longer focal length or wider aperture etc but buying better lenses doesn't really achieve much except maybe a bit more sharpness and/or contrast. Virtually all the greatest work in the 20th century was achieved on gear which is considered inferior these days. I take your point but it's an expensive way to achieve something you deep down should already know, with a bit of experience or thought. I am speaking from my personal experience on this as well, it's mistake many of us have made.

Chikubi said:

That's why, in that sense, I think it's fine and OK to say that better gear can make you a better photgrapher, albeit via a very meta kind of way. Of course, the problem becomes that some folks don't want to believe it's them no matter how much evidence they have pointing to that conclusion, and at that point there's not much gear or other people can do to help with that.

Click to expand...

I'd go a stage further, plenty of people delude themselves about their own abilities by owning expensive gear as well. Of course many are happy shooting mundane stuff and that's fine too, they just might have been better sticking to a basic DSLR and kit lenses, saving a lot of money and maybe spending it on giving themselves better opportunities. Some of the best work I've seen on flickr has been taken on relatively cheap gear in exotic locations by people travelling. That's the advice I'd give to any newcomer, don't spend all you money on gear, spend it on giving yourself creative opportunities.

Most of the people who post problems on this site complaining about their camera are doing something wrong. The fact is all cameras can take decent photos so 95% of the time it's the person using the camera that's the problem, not the camera itself. The other 5% it's a faulty camera that needs to be exchanged or repaired.

I've seem many threads started with people blaming the camera for their problems. When others point out that they don't have the problem and post examples proving their point the OP stubbornly refuses to believe they are the problem because their egos won't let them think anything different.

The exception to the above is people trying to shoot sports with a camera that doesn't have Continuous AF up to the task, usually an entry level.

--
Tom