Kit lens(es) or save up a bit more?

[Sir Trev]

Keen photographers of the Org.

Back in the 35mm days I had built up a comprehensive outfit based around a Pentax MESuper and enjoyed messing about with some of the odd features but was always held back by the cheaper lenses which were all I could afford. When the whole lot was taken in a burglary 20 years ago I've been compact ever since. Inspired by fantastic entries in the photo threads recently however I am slowly convincing myself to get an SLR again.

And so to my question. What are the kit lenses like these days? I am looking at a Canon D650 or Nikon 5200 which gives me a huge range of lenses to choose from. I can however get most of the focal ranges I'm likely to want by going for a twin-lens kit. They will be bottom of the range items so how do they compare to the cheaper zooms I was using 20 years ago?

[Brettus]

in my (albeit not that extensive) experience, the kit lenses are pretty good (for image quality) the build quality is lacking but that isn't a problem if you look after them.

I'm in a similar quandary, I initially bought a sigma 28-300mm as a do it all lens, I then got a macro lens and was pretty much set, but now my sigma can't focus properly I needed a zoom. I picked up a kit lens (18-55mm from a friend which gave me a new world of wider shots) and I think it is a great lens, I just need more reach so I'm struggling as to whether I should go all in and get one of the top of the range lenses or if one of the "mediocre" reviewed lenses would be more than sufficient for me.

Given that I think the kit lenses are impressive I wonder if the other end of the spectrum wouldn't be wasted on me. But the flip side to that is I thought I'd not notice an upgrade in the stock suspension on the SV as I managed quite happily with stock but I much prefer the nicer set up.

Trying to draw a conclusion from this I'd say that the twin kit lenses (like the stock SV) are a great place to get started, you might want to upgrade later on when cash allows but it isn't essential.

Of course if money isn't really an object you don't buy an SV in the first place.... for the rest of us, it works just fine.

[Littlepeahead]

The kit lenses do the job, but for wildlife, portraits, action and low light this is where the decent lenses come into their own.

I bought a cheap second hand Sigma 18 - 200mm last year while I had my 24-70mm repaired. It's light, good range and fine for snapshots, but compared to my L series they are a different class. Ford Fiesta to a Maserati.

I would read up a bit on what's available and if you can't afford the L-series then go for something mid range. And consider second hand from somewhere like like MPB Photographic, Camera World or LCE.

I doubt you would get a pic like this from a kit lens. It's taken on the 70 - 200 f.28. That's Jambo's hand by the way with his new baby. The wide aperture and image stabilising really are worth paying for.

[jambo]

I have had 3 "standard zoom" lenses for my Canon DSLR so far:

1) The kit 18-55 that came with the 400D. Felt plasticky, was a little slow to focus and let in a moderate amount of light. The new IS kit lenses are much nicer feeling (my dad's 1000D has one and it's really quite good).

2) A 17-85 IS USM. The IS was helpful indoors, the USM is much faster and quieter, and I quite like the extra zoom range. Better, but again I think it'd be less of an upgrade from the current 18-55 IS than it was from the non-IS one I had. That said they come up for sensible money 2nd hand (which is how I got mine) and it's the lens I reach for when I'm going to be outside for the day.

3) A Tamron 17-50 f2.8 (non-IS/VC). This is now my work a day lens. It's a little noisy when focusing, but the extra light it lets in allows it to be used as a standard portrait lens, and to get much better photos indoors of my son who insists on moving around a lot. I got it because having a kid meant I was going to start needing the shutter speeds indoors that an f4-5.6 lens just wasn't going to give me. Don't discount 3rd party glass. Zoom ring moves the "wrong/Nikon" way, but this doesn't seem to bug me.

So it depends what you want. For me, I really wanted to let in more light, and the Canon 17-55 f2.8 IS was just too much money, as was the 24-70 f2.8 L (and I'd have missed the wide end). That left me looking at Tamron, Sigma et all, as the prices were in my budget. So I got the Tamron.

The other thing I'd ask is how important video is to you? If you don't need video some of the older XXD Canons can be very good value. I got spoilt rotten and was bought a prosumer SLR by my wife last year, the biggest differences have been having access to the options I want without having to go through the sub-menus, the brightness of the viewfinder and handling. Pick up a 40D / 7D or similar and look through the veiwfinder, and compare it to the mirrors on the 650D. If all my kit was stolen tomorrow I'd probably go out and by a used 40D and another Tamron 17-50 f2.8.

Jambo

Edit: This might make a good starter kit. Better quality glass & body. Sacrificing the video capability, warranty & pixel count.