How Do You Know It’s Time to Stop Using the Kit Lens?

GeoffRG said:

RaysJ said:

GeoffRG said:

We have mostly replied that there's a time to stop using the 'kit" lens. It seems to me that the OP believes the lens that came with their camera is in some way inferior. I don't know about Sony but Nikon bundles a number of its lenses with various Z bodies. All these lenses are available separately, they aren't produced just to sell as part of a kit. Some manufacturers/dealers may have sold cheap lenses with cameras in the past but I don't think that is the case now.

Actually there is probably no need to stop using it, generally the kit lens is a pretty good example of the lens makers craft. More often than not supplementing it with longer and/or shorter lenses is all that's required. As an example Nikon has offered the Z5 II with the 24-70 f/4 in a kit. The only alternative lens in that range is the 24-70 f/2.8 S, if one doesn't want/need the faster, heavier lens there's no reason to stop using the kit lens, except possibly to obtain a greater zoom range.

Similarly, the same camera is offered with the 24-120 f/4 in a kit, other kits offered include the 24-200 f/4=6.3, the 24-50 f/4-6.3 and the 28-70m f/2.8. My choice would be either the 24-120 f/4 or 28-70 f/2.8 if I were buying a kit. Either of those wouldn't need to be replaced.

When I entered the Nikon system I bought an. F4s, there wasn't a "kit" option with the F4 so I chose a relatively slow zoom. With film I soon realised that I needed faster lenses and bought primes, that was 35 years ago. At that time the kit lens, where one was offered, was the 50 f/1,8 there was no need to stop using it.

There are other reasons not to stop using that first lens, many alternatives are bigger, heavier and significantly more expensive. The beginner's money is probably better spent on a supplementary lens, such as the 70-180 (sticking with the Nikon system for convenience) or 17-28, than on replacing a perfectly good kit zoom.

Click to expand...

I have not used the Sony 16-50mm but it is pretty cheap, l can get a grey market one for £110, used plenty around £70.

Click to expand...

This is one of those areas where price isn't a good indication of quality, build a large enough number of lenses and the unit price comes down pretty low.

GeoffRG said:

Yes Canon and Nikon have much better quality lenses available, on Full frame.

Sony has some really lenses but they are expensive.

Need to find the right lens, for the images you want and decide if you want APS-C or FF camera, going forward.

I would be looking at used lenses, you can gradually upgrade them.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

RaysJ said:

GeoffRG said:

RaysJ said:

GeoffRG said:

We have mostly replied that there's a time to stop using the 'kit" lens. It seems to me that the OP believes the lens that came with their camera is in some way inferior. I don't know about Sony but Nikon bundles a number of its lenses with various Z bodies. All these lenses are available separately, they aren't produced just to sell as part of a kit. Some manufacturers/dealers may have sold cheap lenses with cameras in the past but I don't think that is the case now.

Actually there is probably no need to stop using it, generally the kit lens is a pretty good example of the lens makers craft. More often than not supplementing it with longer and/or shorter lenses is all that's required. As an example Nikon has offered the Z5 II with the 24-70 f/4 in a kit. The only alternative lens in that range is the 24-70 f/2.8 S, if one doesn't want/need the faster, heavier lens there's no reason to stop using the kit lens, except possibly to obtain a greater zoom range.

Similarly, the same camera is offered with the 24-120 f/4 in a kit, other kits offered include the 24-200 f/4=6.3, the 24-50 f/4-6.3 and the 28-70m f/2.8. My choice would be either the 24-120 f/4 or 28-70 f/2.8 if I were buying a kit. Either of those wouldn't need to be replaced.

When I entered the Nikon system I bought an. F4s, there wasn't a "kit" option with the F4 so I chose a relatively slow zoom. With film I soon realised that I needed faster lenses and bought primes, that was 35 years ago. At that time the kit lens, where one was offered, was the 50 f/1,8 there was no need to stop using it.

There are other reasons not to stop using that first lens, many alternatives are bigger, heavier and significantly more expensive. The beginner's money is probably better spent on a supplementary lens, such as the 70-180 (sticking with the Nikon system for convenience) or 17-28, than on replacing a perfectly good kit zoom.

Click to expand...

I have not used the Sony 16-50mm but it is pretty cheap, l can get a grey market one for £110, used plenty around £70.

Click to expand...

This is one of those areas where price isn't a good indication of quality, build a large enough number of lenses and the unit price comes down pretty low.

RaysJ said:

Yes Canon and Nikon have much better quality lenses available, on Full frame.

Sony has some really lenses but they are expensive.

Need to find the right lens, for the images you want and decide if you want APS-C or FF camera, going forward.

I would be looking at used lenses, you can gradually upgrade them.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Well the 24-105 lens is a popular lens but it is a lot more expensive. You said you did not know about Sony.

The reviews l have seen are not great, one gives it 1 star, even at f/8 it is not very sharp, main plus is the size and low weight. Some kit lenses are quite good.

Click to expand...

Mofisa Wu said:

Hey everyone, I’m still quite new to photography, currently using my Sony A6400 with the standard 16-50mm kit lens.

It’s been great for learning so far — light, convenient, and decent for everyday shooting — but recently I’ve started wondering if I’m missing out by sticking with the kit lens too long.

Here’s where I need your help:

How do you know when it's time to upgrade?

• Is it when you feel “limited”?
• Is it about sharpness? Low light? Creative control?
• Or is it more about hitting a certain skill level first?

I don’t want to just buy a new lens because people say “the kit lens is bad.” I want to understand what practically pushes photographers to switch.

Would love to hear your stories — what made you finally take the leap away from your kit lens, and what did you get next?

Thanks in advance for sharing your wisdom with a beginner who’s just trying to make better decisions.

Click to expand...

RaysJ said:

**** Dastardly said:

That's when you should change the kit lens, or at least buy a cheap prime.

The kit lens is like putting throaway tyres on your brand new Mustang- they work, but they're far from desirable.

A good lens is like buying a brand new camera.

Click to expand...

It depends on the kit lens, some are very cheap but others are pretty good. I known some pro wedding/studio photographers, who used Canon kit lenses most of the time.

Is the Nikon 24-120 a kit lens?

Click to expand...

**** Dastardly said:

RaysJ said:

**** Dastardly said:

That's when you should change the kit lens, or at least buy a cheap prime.

The kit lens is like putting throaway tyres on your brand new Mustang- they work, but they're far from desirable.

A good lens is like buying a brand new camera.

Click to expand...

It depends on the kit lens, some are very cheap but others are pretty good. I known some pro wedding/studio photographers, who used Canon kit lenses most of the time.

Is the Nikon 24-120 a kit lens?

Click to expand...

I am not familiar with every kit lens ever made, but all of them are limiting the bodies on which they are used, that's exactly what the manufacturer wants, otherwise nobody would bother spending hundreds of dollars extra for better glass.

As for wedding photographers, many of them are providing subpar services at premium prices, they know their customers well.

Click to expand...

**** Dastardly said:

RaysJ said:

**** Dastardly said:

That's when you should change the kit lens, or at least buy a cheap prime.

The kit lens is like putting throaway tyres on your brand new Mustang- they work, but they're far from desirable.

A good lens is like buying a brand new camera.

Click to expand...

It depends on the kit lens, some are very cheap but others are pretty good. I known some pro wedding/studio photographers, who used Canon kit lenses most of the time.

Is the Nikon 24-120 a kit lens?

Click to expand...

I am not familiar with every kit lens ever made, but all of them are limiting the bodies on which they are used, that's exactly what the manufacturer wants, otherwise nobody would bother spending hundreds of dollars extra for better glass.

As for wedding photographers, many of them are providing subpar services at premium prices, they know their customers well.

Click to expand...