What's the verdict on kit lenses?

[vjack]

I plan to buy either a Rebel XT or a 20D in the next couple weeks. This will be my first SLR, so I have 0 lenses of any kind. What are your thoughts about the kit lenses? Worthwhile or should I not bother?

[Rhys]

I plan to buy either a Rebel XT or a 20D in the next couple weeks. This will be my first SLR, so I have 0 lenses of any kind. What are your thoughts about the kit lenses? Worthwhile or should I not bother?

From what I've heard, not very good. I have heard that Tamron and Sigma are better and cheaper. I'm looking into the Sigma 18-50 and Sigma 18-125. I'm also looking at the Tamron 28 - 80 and Tamron 75 - 300.

[24Peter]

It's actually not so bad. I've managed to get some pretty good shots with it on my XT. Right now I use it primarily as my wide zoom. I've gotten some nice landscape shots with it.

http://photos.imageevent.com/24peter/malibupart2/large/IMG_2736.JPG

http://photos.imageevent.com/24peter/malibupart1/large/IMG_2655.JPG

http://photos.imageevent.com/24peter/malibupart1/large/IMG_2635.JPG

My primary lenses are the Canon 28-105 3.5-4.5 and Canon 75-300 USM IS. I wouldn't say it's worth much more than the $100 extra you pay for the kit but for me it's a good wide angle option until I opt for a more expensive lens.

[vjack]

Nice pictures! At only $100, I was thinking it would be a good way for me to learn the camera while researching other lenses. Hopefully, that will prevent me from rushing into a bad decision. I suspect the kit lens will be at least as good as I'd find on any non-ultrazoom point-and-shoot.

[sarcazmo]

Not a bad lens to learn on, but I think you'll quickly come to want more.

I think I'd invest in the Tamron 28-75 rather than the kit lens. JMO.

[blossm11]

I just purchased the Canon Rebel XT, with the kit lens. The lense may not be top of the line, but I am in the same boat as you are...this is my first SLR so I have no other lenses. In my opinion, I think its a good lense for me to start out with, until I can afford to add lenses to my collection. :)

[Khyron]

http://www.nexus-point.net/pictures/disney-world/IMG_0861.jpg

http://www.nexus-point.net/pictures/disney-world/IMG_0865.jpg

http://www.nexus-point.net/pictures/disney-world/IMG_0875.jpg

Bought a Tamron 28-75 the next day for low light, I don't see much difference in the daylight shots.

Khyron

[jparks]

I only received the camera last night. Its colour, resolution, speed of focusing and light weight are impressive. The expensive 17-85 lens is reat for macro, ... but has a parallax problem. Look the the edge of the chess book in the inclosed picture. It should be straight!

[g0tr00t]

Having used a lens similar to a kit lens, I concluded that they are fine for outdoor shots. For indoor, the built in flash will have its limits so an external flash is recommended.

I would recommend a 50mm 1.8 at first. Once you get the 1.8 bug its hard to shake off. I do not recommend lenses starting with aperatures above 2.8.

Get the best lens you can afford and it will stay with your system longer than the camera.

[Rhys]

Having used a lens similar to a kit lens, I concluded that they are fine for outdoor shots. For indoor, the built in flash will have its limits so an external flash is recommended.

I would recommend a 50mm 1.8 at first. Once you get the 1.8 bug its hard to shake off. I do not recommend lenses starting with aperatures above 2.8.

Get the best lens you can afford and it will stay with your system longer than the camera.

Having spent a few days looking at zoom lenses, I can honestly say that my opinion of them from 20 years ago still stands - they suck. I think primes are still the way to go. Get an 18, 28, 50, 85 and you'll be set for most situations.

[Chucko]

Get the best lens you can afford and it will stay with your system longer than the camera.

Good advice. IMHO, the camera should be considered as an accessory of the lenses, not the other way around.

[Chucko]

I think primes are still the way to go. Get an 18, 28, 50, 85 and you'll be set for most situations.

I agree, but unfortunately my wallet doesn't. :(

I made the mistake of pricing prime lenses in this range today... most sell at street prices in excess of US$300. The exceptions are the 50/1.8 (cheap at US$80!), 28/2.8 (about US$160), 35/2 (US $220). Canon's "least expensive" 20 mm lens is US$400 or so.

Given that the lowly EF-S 18-55/3.5-5.6 sells for about US$150, and it could substitute for (not "replace") the three "inexpensive" lenses mentioned above, zooms do have a certain attraction for the DSLR newbie!

There's something magical about the US$1000 mark for the combination of camera and lens.

[Rhys]

I agree, but unfortunately my wallet doesn't. :(

I made the mistake of pricing prime lenses in this range today... most sell at street prices in excess of US$300. The exceptions are the 50/1.8 (cheap at US$80!), 28/2.8 (about US$160), 35/2 (US $220). Canon's "least expensive" 20 mm lens is US$400 or so.

Given that the lowly EF-S 18-55/3.5-5.6 sells for about US$150, and it could substitute for (not "replace") the three "inexpensive" lenses mentioned above, zooms do have a certain attraction for the DSLR newbie!

There's something magical about the US$1000 mark for the combination of camera and lens.

Well, there we are... Get the 18-55, a 28 and a 50. Save up for an 18 or 20mm lens. Actually, the 28 isn't so bad at 42mm equivalence.

[jparks]

There is no way I am going to climb money or hike carrying more than one lens and it should be light. Canon has done a fanastic job with the Rebel XT. Now could they come out with a lens similar to the 17-85 except make the actual lens of the light weight polymer used in high-in binoculars. Clearly they should be able to produce the 17-85 under 200 grams!http://www.dcresource.com/forums/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=48845#

[JasD]

Very difficult to recommend a lens but the above are all good tips. It's all generally down to £££/$$$. I purchased the Sigma 18-125mm which was stuck on my 20D until I purchased the 70-200 f4L and the 100mm f2.8 Macro. Both absolutely stunning lenses. I found that the Sigma is an "ok" lens but nowhere near as sharp as the other two (or the 50mm f1.8 for that matter).

For a starter lens with a zoom I'd agree with the Tamron 28-75 (I'm getting one soon to replace the Sigma) or even the Sigma 24-70mm. Both have nice large f2.8 appertures and will allow much more in photographic opportunities. I find my Sigma just a little slow on the long end at f5.6. My 50mm f1.8 is excellent in low light and I also use this a lot when flash can't be used.

Buy the best you can afford and read the www.fredmiranda.com reviews. Oh and chack ebay for some great prices.

[Rhys]

What a terrible idea. Nikon tried this, 15 years ago with ghastly results with its E series of lenses.

[Bluedog]

The Kit Lens is alright but not a top flight performer. As with most lens step it down an aperture or two for best results. As for that I've got one sitting going unused cause I noticed CA in bright contrast situations that I don't get with my Sigma 18-125mm or Tamron 28-75mm.

[Mr. Peabody]

The Kit lenses are okay. I wouldn't say they are great by any means. You're spending at least $1000 on a camera and you're getting a $100 lense with it.

[mcenut]

Here is my opinion on the kit lenses that come with the 20D and the XT.

"They are the good zoom lenses under $100."

That being said, I sold my kit lens from my 20D less than a month after purchasing it. I now have a 50mm 1.8 mark 1 and a 28-80mm USM mark 1 lens. I bought them on eBay for just over $200 for both. By far my favorite is the 28-80mm zoom. It's not as wide as the 18-55mm lens that I first had, but the performance of the 28-80mm with ring USM makes up for that one short coming.

I also recomend buying only EF lenses. The reason is that in the next few years we will start seeing digital SLR camera that have a full size sensor and won't be able to use the EF-S lenses. I don't want to start buying all new lenses when I retire the 20D.

[Chucko]

I also recomend buying only EF lenses. The reason is that in the next few years we will start seeing digital SLR camera that have a full size sensor and won't be able to use the EF-S lenses.

I agree with the recommendation, but I'm not sure I agree with the reasoning.

For me, one of the attractions of the EOS DSLRs is that they use the same lens mount as the EOS film cameras, so one lens can do double duty. Even though I haven't shot any film in a while, I can't imagine leaving it behind forever at this time.

I had a look at the (film) Rebel T2 today, and I was astounded at how much camera you get for only US$250! Heck, that's the cost of a fair-to-middlin' EF lens.

[Rhys]

I agree with the recommendation, but I'm not sure I agree with the reasoning.

For me, one of the attractions of the EOS DSLRs is that they use the same lens mount as the EOS film cameras, so one lens can do double duty. Even though I haven't shot any film in a while, I can't imagine leaving it behind forever at this time.

I had a look at the (film) Rebel T2 today, and I was astounded at how much camera you get for only US$250! Heck, that's the cost of a fair-to-middlin' EF lens.

$250? I saw a K2 for $150 including the lens - brand new.

[g0tr00t]

Good advice. IMHO, the camera should be considered as an accessory of the lenses, not the other way around.

Chucko! That is an excellent, excellent, excellent quote!

Thanks for that!

[Rhys]

With the advent of the digital body, the camera has become more important when compare with the lens. With film cameras, a good lens was critical and the body didn't really matter much at all. As long as a camera exhibited all the shutter speeds, it didn't matter whether the camera had AE, AF, AP, SP etc. Now that we have digital cameras, the body has become important as that takes on the dual role of film and body. Essentially, we have throwaway bodies with bolt-on lenses. When we need more megapixels, we throw the body away and buy another. This is one reason why I'm not keen on the price of dSLRs. For something that gets chucked away every few years, they're a bit expensive!

Actually, I'm dead keen on the XT as a body but I know I should be looking at the glass, first and foremost. Ideally, all lenses should be F2.8 or faster but as with my 35mm system, that takes time to build up. With my 35mm system, I started with 28, 135 and 50mm lenses. With digital I see I'll have to build down to the 18mm lens as the wider angles are so much more expensive.