Poll - What is the best KIT lens?

[Jerryrigged]

Most people wouldn't try multiple systems and stick with the kit
lens. If you follow the "it's all about the glass" philosophy a
discussion of kit lenses makes no sense. They are invariably the
worst glass in any makers lineup. Buy a cheaper body and skip the kit
lens if that is your philosophy.

Yea, I know I responded to this once already, but I was thinking abotu this over lunch some more...

I'm not, and I don't work with a bunch of high rollers that can drop $1000-$2500 on a camera at a drop of a hat.

My first (and only) SLR was a Minolta Maxxam XTi (?) with a Quadarray 28-80 3.5 lens. I think I payed around $350 for the camera about 10 years ago. seems cheap now, but at the time, that was nearly my entire take-home paycheck. BUT, I wanted the "High Quality" pics that you can "only" get with an SLR... I could have gotten a nicer Minolta lens with the kit, for another hundred bucks or so, but I wanted to save the cash for the "beer can" zoom (10x? 12x? zoom? I don't remember...) that lens cost about what I payed for my kit, no way could I get it with my camera, I would have to save for it... So I bought the "Body only + aftermarket lens" kit instead of the better Minolta lens kit. Guess what? I never did get that "Nice Lens", or any other lens. That minolta sits on my shelf with the same Quadarray lens on it. Turned out, that camera never took a "really nice" picture. yea, probably about 80% my not knowing how to take pictures, but the lens not being very sharp didn't help either...

So now, If I ever head down that road again, I want to get a camera with a great (or at least good) kit lens. I don't care how many $2000, pro-glass, "L" FX whatever lens the brand has to offer, I want a decent, affordable kit... because even thought I would LIKE one of those high-dollor pro lenses, I know I won't ever get one...

--
Current digital camera: my cell phone
And now a SP-570!

 

[GossCTP]

Most people wouldn't try multiple systems and stick with the kit
lens. If you follow the "it's all about the glass" philosophy a
discussion of kit lenses makes no sense. They are invariably the
worst glass in any makers lineup. Buy a cheaper body and skip the kit
lens if that is your philosophy.

Yea, I know I responded to this once already, but I was thinking
abotu this over lunch some more...

I'm not, and I don't work with a bunch of high rollers that can drop
$1000-$2500 on a camera at a drop of a hat.

My first (and only) SLR was a Minolta Maxxam XTi (?) with a Quadarray
28-80 3.5 lens. I think I payed around $350 for the camera about 10
years ago. seems cheap now, but at the time, that was nearly my
entire take-home paycheck. BUT, I wanted the "High Quality" pics
that you can "only" get with an SLR...

The only thing between the world and the film is the lens. Are you saying that you bought the cheapest body or that you skimped on the lens to get a body with more features?

I could have gotten a nicer
Minolta lens with the kit, for another hundred bucks or so, but I
wanted to save the cash for the "beer can" zoom (10x? 12x? zoom? I
don't remember...) that lens cost about what I payed for my kit, no
way could I get it with my camera, I would have to save for it... So
I bought the "Body only + aftermarket lens" kit instead of the better
Minolta lens kit. Guess what? I never did get that "Nice Lens", or
any other lens. That minolta sits on my shelf with the same
Quadarray lens on it. Turned out, that camera never took a "really
nice" picture. yea, probably about 80% my not knowing how to take
pictures, but the lens not being very sharp didn't help either...

You're assuming that the Minolta kit lens would have been the better buy I suppose. If it was a kit lens it still wouldn't have been great though maybe good enough for the film era.

So now, If I ever head down that road again, I want to get a camera
with a great (or at least good) kit lens. I don't care how many
$2000, pro-glass, "L" FX whatever lens the brand has to offer, I want
a decent, affordable kit... because even thought I would LIKE one of
those high-dollor pro lenses, I know I won't ever get one...

Every maker has a lens option between their f/2.8 pro glass and their $100 kit lens. It's usually either f/4 or within a half stop of it throughout the range. My point is if IQ is one's biggest quest it makes more sense to buy an entry level body (or a used cam) and mid-tier glass than a mid level body with a cheapy kit lens. Few hobbyist put serious wear on their cameras. A used D40x seems to go for around $550. Nikon Used to have an 18-70 f/3.5-4.5 for about $300. In Pentax mount you could buy a 14mp K20D with kit lens for $1000 or you could get a used K10D for $550 and a Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4.5 for $400. The latter is the better deal. You won't get 14mp out of the kit lens. 10 is doubtful.

In two years the lens will retain much of it's value, and the bodies won't.
--

Through the window in the wall
Come streaming in on sunlight wings
A million bright ambassadors of morning

 

[Jonathan Demarais]

It's all about the glass, right? or at least it used to be... but
for now, let's leave the sensors out of the question.

No question, Olympus:





'I cried because I had no E-3. Then I met a man with no E-510'

Olympus E-410, E-330, Nikon D100 & Pentax K20D.
40 lenses of various types

 

[mfbernstein]

It's all about the glass, right? or at least it used to be... but
for now, let's leave the sensors out of the question.

No question, Olympus:

I'd hesitate to put much stock into a 'comparison' where 17mm on a 4/3 sensor comes off as wider than 18mm on an APS-C one.
--
MFBernstein

'Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit.' - Ed Abbey

 

[Brad99]

The Pentax kit lens test on DPR is out of date unfortunately, there's now a MkII version reckoned to be quite a bit sharper. I think it's only issued as kit lens for the K20D.

 

[MiGue]

from my experience the pentax DA 18-55mm AL II lenses and the olympus also have good kit lens.

Nikkor VR are also good

 

[apoc]

By the way, your link took me to the Rebel XT page and didn't show
any pics of the kit lens.

2/3 down the page there is a comparison between the old 18-55 and the "new" 18-55 that was shipped with the rebel xt, and it shows how it is vastly improved.

--
Sorry about my english, it's not my first language.

 

[Two Truths]

Top image seems to be suffering from camerashake, horizontal much more than vertical.
--
Stuart / the Two Truths
http://www.flickr.com/photos/two_truths/
http://two-truths.deviantart.com/gallery/

 

[Marty4650]

Panasonic has released two DSLR's.

Their first effort, the L1, came with a truly outstanding 14-50mm f/2.8 lens. This lens was so good that some Olympus 4/3 users were buying the camera plus lens, and then selling the camera body on eBay. At one point in time, this kit was being sold at Circuit City for $999. And today you will see that same lens selling for $900 at B&H, which tells you the lens was 90% of the kit's cost.

You can get the Canon kit lens for $170 or Nikon kit lens for $110 at B&H.

The Panasonic L10 came with another great lens, which wasn't as fast as that one on the L1. But it still will beat any kit lens made by anyone else.

Of course, since Panasonic decided to include "the best kit lenses in the industry" on their DSLRs, they doomed themselves to disappointing sales. Because they were bundling such outstanding kit lenses with entry level bodies, they were pricing themselves right out of the market. They just can't sell the L10 for more money than a Pentax K20D or an Nikon D80, even if it does come with better glass.

After Panasonic, my vote would go to Olympus for high quality in kit lenses.
--
Marty
http://flickr.com/photos/7735239@N02/sets/72157604030772272/detail/

Panasonic FZ7, FZ30, LX2

 

[Razor503]

FYI:

"Kit" lenses are OEM lenses sold with the OEM body at the time of the sale. Pentax with Pentax, Canon with Canon-ad infinitum.

Manufacturers put together "kits" so a Nikon "Kit" (set) would have a Nikon body/lens, not Nikon body/Quantaray lens (or any "third party" lens).

If you buy the "kit" and open the box and a body and lens(es) are in the box?
It's a "kit".

Othewise-not.

 

[RedFox88]

DPR tested the kit lenses:

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/

 

[Glen Barrington]

The one that came with my 2 lens E500 kit. Roughly equivalent of an 80 - 300 in FF. Probably one of the sharpest lenses I have ever owned from any manufacturer. I'm not a heavy telephoto user. But I love this lens.



--
STOP Global Stasis! Change is good!

Now that you've judged the quality of my typing, take a look at my photos. . .
http://www.photo.net/photos/GlenBarrington

And my non Photo blog:
http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-Qe0Iq3g2d6ML3IynXl.Q2i5CPe6UaA--?cq=1

 

[puttin]

Oly 420 or 520 and the 2 kit lenses 14-42 and 40-150 are a great bargin

 

[Marty4650]

FYI:
"Kit" lenses are OEM lenses sold with the OEM body at the time of the
sale. Pentax with Pentax, Canon with Canon-ad infinitum.
Manufacturers put together "kits" so a Nikon "Kit" (set) would have a
Nikon body/lens, not Nikon body/Quantaray lens (or any "third party"
lens).

If you buy the "kit" and open the box and a body and lens(es) are in
the box?
It's a "kit".

Othewise-not.

Which is exactly how Panasonic sold those cameras.

You could only get them WITH those high end lenses. If you see a Panasonic body for sale, that just means someone removed the lens to use with their E3, and are selling the body off.

Look... the question was "who makes the best kit lens" and perhaps it is unfair to comare a $100 Nikon lens with a $1000 Leica lens... but BOTH are kit lenses. Both are 3X zoom lenses. BOTH come supplied with the camera body and are sold as a "kit."

And anyone who thinks the Leica lens isn't better is just plain nuts.
--
Marty
http://flickr.com/photos/7735239@N02/sets/72157604030772272/detail/

Panasonic FZ7, FZ30, LX2

 

[MikeSoCal]

It's all about the glass, right? or at least it used to be... but
for now, let's leave the sensors out of the question.

What brand has the best KIT glass? I'm not asking about the best
uber-pro lens, or the lenses that cames with the upper-tier (pro
grade) bodies, or kits that are above $1k, but basic, consumer-grade
kit lenses.

Where do they rank?

The kit for the Cannon Rebel line, Nikon D40/D60/D80,
SonyA200/A300/A350, Oly E3x0/E4x0/E5x0, Pentax K100d/K200D...

Part two - is there any one lens that is a standout? a real great
deal/outstanding quality at a consumer lens price? And 2.b - is
there any kit lenses that should be avoided at all cost?

--
Current digital camera: my cell phone
And now a SP-570!

 

[Jonathan Demarais]

Top image seems to be suffering from camerashake, horizontal much
more than vertical.
--
Stuart / the Two Truths
http://www.flickr.com/photos/two_truths/
http://two-truths.deviantart.com/gallery/

It was on a tripod, more mirror slap from the Nikon? In any case, the aberrations are FAR worse on it than the Olympus. All Olympus lenses have exceptional edge correction, even wide open compared to kits from others. The only lens that is close to the Olympus is the 16-85mm Nikon which costs $700.00.
--



'I cried because I had no E-3. Then I met a man with no E-510'

Olympus E-410, E-330, Nikon D100 & Pentax K20D.
40 lenses of various types

 

[MusicDoctorDJ]

--
J. D.
Colorful Colorado

Handheld from Oly E-510 w/40-150 kit lens at full zoom:



Remember . . . always keep your receipt, the box, and everything that came in it!

 

[Jonathan Demarais]

Panasonic has released two DSLR's.

Their first effort, the L1, came with a truly outstanding 14-50mm
f/2.8 lens.

No sorry. If you are going to pretend an $800 lens is a "kit" lens then Nikon's $700 16-85mm is superior. My friend had both lenses. The Nikon is not a fast lens, but its image quality is tops. However, Panasonic (aside from killing their chances at being in the DSLR game to any extent) is crazy to supply $500+ lenses as kit lenses. They should do like Sony, bring out the most horrible kit lens ever developed (the Sony 18-70mm, a dog on par with Canon's old 18-55mm) and offer a Zeiss as a much superior $800 alternative.

'I cried because I had no E-3. Then I met a man with no E-510'

Olympus E-410, E-330, Nikon D100 & Pentax K20D.
40 lenses of various types

 

[neil holmes]

It's all about the glass, right? or at least it used to be... but
for now, let's leave the sensors out of the question.

What brand has the best KIT glass? I'm not asking about the best
uber-pro lens, or the lenses that cames with the upper-tier (pro
grade) bodies, or kits that are above $1k, but basic, consumer-grade
kit lenses.

Where do they rank?

The kit for the Cannon Rebel line, Nikon D40/D60/D80,
SonyA200/A300/A350, Oly E3x0/E4x0/E5x0, Pentax K100d/K200D...

Part two - is there any one lens that is a standout? a real great
deal/outstanding quality at a consumer lens price? And 2.b - is
there any kit lenses that should be avoided at all cost?

--
Current digital camera: my cell phone
And now a SP-570!

Hi

A kit lens is only the first to get, not the last.

For ages the mantra was that Oly had the best, but from the dpreview tests, the Pentax OLD one was better and cheaper....that lens has been replaced by a better one still.

Then again, in some places the kit lens may be different again (Pentax in Australia often gets sold with a Sigma Kit lens instead of Pentax as Sigma and Pentax have the same distributor here..my kit lens was a Sigma 28-200 with my film camera years ago and i buy body only with digital and maake my own "kit"...Tamron 17-35 2.8-4).

Having said that all brands are pretty good, though I would base my decision on what I was going to photograph and how and on what lenses are available readily enough to do what I want....and on how the camera felt in my hand.

Also if you wanna upgrade even a little from a kit lens...what is available to you?
How about if you want to upgrade a LOT?

Now, as to Oly kit lenses. I have not used them and the photos i have seen from them are fine, again, having said that......The UK magazine Photography Monthly has a section called our cameras. A range of staffers of different skill levels was given a camera for a year or so and the June issue was the final with the cameras of the last year. One of the more experienced cameras people on the staff is Roger Payne and he had an Oly E510 for the year.

This is what he had to say. (page 103)

"......Negatives? Well, the focusingisn't the fastest, image quality from the 14-42mm and 40-150mm kit lenses isn't the best....."

he did not really like the camera (I gathered that a few issues ago when he seemed to dislike the noise and that kinda settled it...he gave the E510 a C+ and will not miss it.

Just goes to show that even with mostly highly regarded kit lenses there can be variation in opinion, so try what ever you can yourself.

neil

 

[Jonathan Demarais]

New Oly 40-150mm has better control of CA, but isn't as sharp and isn't as fast (especially as you increase focal length) as the old one. But, it did probably cost Olympus about 1/2 as much to make it.
--



'I cried because I had no E-3. Then I met a man with no E-510'

Olympus E-410, E-330, Nikon D100 & Pentax K20D.
40 lenses of various types