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

Some good responses here. I was lucky... it only took a few primes to show me that I needed to work on my technique. I didn't think I needed a bigger sensor or a full frame.

The one variable that some seem to be missing is that the lens does eliminate the variable of the camera from the equation. That, and I had seen a video series where good photographers took pictures with toy cameras, AND I went back and played with my point and shoot to see how good the pictures were with that camera. And I surprised myself with how good the pictures were!

But it took me going from point and shoots, to an EOS M, to M43 to get here.

That said, better equipment takes better pictures.

Ceteris paribus, better lenses make better pictures.

No Talent Hack said:

Ceteris paribus, better lenses make better pictures.

Click to expand...

I can see why you have that nic...

I spent thousands on DSLR lenses. One day, I got a 18-140 kit lens for chits and giggles. And it turned out to be my main DX lens for years. Thus, sold all the unused lenses and a few DSLRs, and got a LX100 for the 4K ability, then when the dust bunnies got too much to bear, I replaced it with the GX85 and 2 lens kit. Today, that 12-32 kit lens is my go to daylight everything lens for that camera. When the light gets low, and the night gets dark, I pop on the 15mm f/1.7 for photo and video.

IME kit lenses are the best lenses for general purpose use. They can do just about everything in the daylight. And with cameras having IBIS, they can be low light performers as well.

Badwater said:

I spent thousands on DSLR lenses. One day, I got a 18-140 kit lens for chits and giggles. And it turned out to be my main DX lens for years. Thus, sold all the unused lenses and a few DSLRs, and got a LX100 for the 4K ability, then when the dust bunnies got too much to bear, I replaced it with the GX85 and 2 lens kit. Today, that 12-32 kit lens is my go to daylight everything lens for that camera. When the light gets low, and the night gets dark, I pop on the 15mm f/1.7 for photo and video.

IME kit lenses are the best lenses for general purpose use. They can do just about everything in the daylight. And with cameras having IBIS, they can be low light performers as well.

Click to expand...

This is my experience also. I have tried a lot of lenses but generally use the 15mm f1.7 just because it handles so nicely. Really that's the primary reason. If I could get the 12-32 to handle as well I would leave it on the GX85.

That 15 captures 80% of what I shoot. The next lens I use is the 35-100 f4-6 small telephoto. Then I have the 42.5mm f1.7 which I hardly use, and the 12-32 which I hardly use (but I am no longer afraid to use).

jhunna said:

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.

Click to expand...

To buy any expensive gear then to find out it’s the lack of skill that mattered.

LightBug said:

To buy any expensive gear then to find out it’s the lack of skill that mattered.

Click to expand...

Not at all. I still have and use the expensive lenses. But now I can shoot my kit leases as well.

Price of an education.

jhunna said:

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.

Click to expand...

I had a similar experience with the Canon M5 and its 15-45mm lens. I bought several other lenses right after I got the camera kit but after a year or so I tried the 15-45 again and was surprised that it truly is a great lens. The only lens I got that is a tiny bit sharper is the M lens 22mm, prime lens, so that is to be expected. I use the 15-45mm 90% of the time.

Kit lenses definitely have their place. If I'm gonna be walking around outdoors I usually have my 24-85 and a prime (usually a 50). Nice to have that flexibility and I still get decent subject isolation and image quality wide open.

absquatulate said:

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.

Click to expand...

There are many roads to Damascus, and people don't know what they don't know. Some people have to learn by experience as opposed to just being told, and there's nothing wrong with that if it actually helps them. Furthermore, people need to stop worrying about how other people spend their money. If buying an expensive lens leads someone to the realization that it's not the gear, it's them, and they actually learn from the experience, then more power to them. It's not like they can't keep using the better lens once they have it as a better lens is a better lens and has benefits in its own right.

Also, though it is indeed true that most famous photos were made on equipment inferior to today's, at the time the equipment was being used it was often considered state-of-the-art for the era. Cartier-Bresson wasn't running around with a Brownie box camera; his Leica's were considered premium gear for the time and many other famous photogs followed similar practices. If someone wants to use modern premium gear for there own work, regardless of skill level, fine by me. I get what you're saying and it is indeed a fine line, but people can do as they like. They'll likely get where they're going eventually one way or another, and it's not a competition anyway.

Member said:

Member 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.

Click to expand...

There certainly is that crowd, no doubt. Thing is though, if they're happy shooting mundane stuff, spending money on going for creative opportunities isn't going to change that necessarilyeither; they'll just shoot mundane things in exotic locations instead, and I've seen a ton of that on Flickr as well. As someone who teaches photography, sadly I've had a lot of wonderful students who were great people all around and exceptionally mediocre photographers. Sure, they got better from what they learned in my class, grew in their skills, and were happy as a result, but they just didn't have the eye and I doubt that anything they could do would change that. Still, they were having fun and enjoying the hobby, so who am I to say they're wasting their money?

In the long run, I find it's best to deal with stuff on a case-by-case basis, which can be difficult sometimes on a forum where it can be too easy to generalize.

I sometimes think back to my Nikon D70 and sigma 18-50mm. For a summer, that was the only lens I had. I used it every day, and oddly, there was a tremendous freedom in having just one lens -- I never needed to worry that if only I had something better I could nail the shot. I had what I had and I made the shot work with what I had. The setup run circles around my previous Optio-450. The distortions were horrible, but I learned to work it in Photoshop 7.



I made some of my best photos with that set, just because for the time I was 100% content with what I had, and felt no need to worry about it. It is not about the lens.

I actually did check on e-bay a while ago if I could find one. Then I had to remind myself that it is not about the lens, but my own state of mind when I use it. If I keep telling myself that if only I had this or that lens I would make the shot, then I never will.

As an exercise in austerity, now that I am in the process of giving up my Canons, I got myself a used Fujifilm X-T10 and a 16-50mm to go with that. And I am hellbent to stick to that combo, and resist every temptation to upgrade the kit, until I can honestly say that I have used it to its fullest potential. Funny, that kind of puts me in the same spot I was 15 years ago, with a body and a kit zoom.

You should revisit this thread years from now when you get some photography experience.

jhunna said:

LightBug said:

To buy any expensive gear then to find out it’s the lack of skill that mattered.

Click to expand...

Not at all. I still have and use the expensive lenses. But now I can shoot my kit leases as well.

Price of an education.

Click to expand...

You have it backwards. Spending money does not equal to learning. The actual leaning part is what’s important, you could achieve the same competency without spending money unnecessarily up front on expensive lenses. Maybe you are trying to justify buying lenses, but what you suggest seems like really poor advice in general, unless you work at a camera store.

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...

They really have. I can only speak to Nikon variants but the once lowly Nikon 18-55 with the newer iterations of stabilization have become quite good.

I used to lug around that tank of a 24-70 2.8. Dumped it after a decade for primes, which were noticeably better. But on a lark I picked up the latest version of the 24-85 VR, and I'll be darned if it doesn't seem every bit as good as the 24-70 was. The VR really helps, and the thing is half the size as well.

I'm glad I kept my Nikon 18-55mm kit lens. I went on holiday and found most of my shots were F5.6. The kit lens paired well with a 35mm F1.8 prime for for a light weight combo.

MrTapi said:

I sometimes think back to my Nikon D70 and sigma 18-50mm. For a summer, that was the only lens I had. I used it every day, and oddly, there was a tremendous freedom in having just one lens -- I never needed to worry that if only I had something better I could nail the shot. I had what I had and I made the shot work with what I had. The setup run circles around my previous Optio-450. The distortions were horrible, but I learned to work it in Photoshop 7.



I made some of my best photos with that set, just because for the time I was 100% content with what I had, and felt no need to worry about it. It is not about the lens.

I actually did check on e-bay a while ago if I could find one. Then I had to remind myself that it is not about the lens, but my own state of mind when I use it. If I keep telling myself that if only I had this or that lens I would make the shot, then I never will.

As an exercise in austerity, now that I am in the process of giving up my Canons, I got myself a used Fujifilm X-T10 and a 16-50mm to go with that. And I am hellbent to stick to that combo, and resist every temptation to upgrade the kit, until I can honestly say that I have used it to its fullest potential. Funny, that kind of puts me in the same spot I was 15 years ago, with a body and a kit zoom.

Click to expand...

Back in the day (film SLRs) I got buy for a year or two with just a 50mm. Later I got by for several years with just a 28-80 kit lens. I know and concur with what you're saying.

I occasionally toy with the idea of stripping back to just a lens, but have developed too many diverse interests. I am travelling shortly and would love to take just one lens (and not a 10x superzoom!) but don't know if I have the courage to do it! Sad but true.

--
Happiness lies in thinking or doing that which one considers beautiful - HIK