Quote Originally Posted by Joel Bookhammer





Steve I have also reread his posts, not just the onesabout the kit lensbut all of his posts on this site, and he has put alot of positive information out there for people to read. He is not a "troll" sure his comment could of been taken the wrong way and apparently has. He hasmade his peace on the subject. Also he is not the only individual posting information and not using his "real" name.


But back to the kit lens. One of thethings I usethe kit lens for is"macro" photography.The kit lens came with this little adapter thingy (for lack ofbetter words) That you can put on the end of the lens and it decreases the minimum focusing distance by alot. The image quality really takes a hit but Its still fun to mess around with, I got a great shot with it this past year while being infested with cicada's.





My favorite "kit" lens pic.


The only gripe I have about my"kit" lenses is that the one, I think its a 75-300 froseup while I was taking a shot ofa lunar eclipse. Itnow will notauto focus at all and is extremely hard to manually focus. I also own a 70-200 so its not that big of a deal to me but still wishI had theextra 100mm of lensfor some things. Im not sure ifit was the cold that caused the malfunction or thelunar eclipse....<g>


I've never studied the lenses "elements" in depth but wonder how the "kit" lenses compare to older photographic lenses weather they be canon, pentax, nikon etc. How much more "technology" is in the glass compared to their much older conterparts.


Thanks


Joel Bookhammer

Hi Joel. I appreciate what you're saying. If people feel the need to be anonymous, no problem. It's when they engage in negativity without wanting to be exposed, that is a problem. I want people to know that they can, and should participate in this community no matter what their equipment, and that was the point of this positive thread. When Bryan created this community, he asked people to use their first and last names. And for the first time ever, I have done so. And you know what?It feels pretty good.



"Dallasphotog" might have all kinds of great posts here, but he damages himself when denigrating instead of simply participating. And yes, folks might be too sensitive to post here if they get the impression it's a site for the high-end equipment owners only.


To your points about build and image quality. The kit lenses are definitely not as robust as even the mid-priced lenses, but I wouldn't want to test that out with any lens! I have a 28-80 and 75-300 from 1995. Over time the 75-300 has developed a loud squeak when/if it focuses. Sometimes I have to help it alongby zooming out, then back in. But the 28-80 works just fine. The light weight is definitely nice, as others have mentioned. But the price paid is with fewer elements, and less built in image corrections (aberrations, distortion,etc).


I heard it said that digital pictures are scrutinized more closely than film pictures (probably heard it at this forum!). I look at my printed photos with the kit lenses and am amazed at the quality. Sharp, colorful, beyond what I ever expected. With DPP and PS you can mitigate distortion, noise and chromatic aberration. Maybe someone that owns kit lenses, and L lenses could do a head to head comparison. Take an ordinary photo with both lenses. Run the kit lens photo through DPP's Lens Aberration Corrections (it has built-in lens profiles), as well as any other tools within DPP and Photoshop. And see how they compare.


Are today's kit lenses better than the lenses that our Dads had? I don't know the answer to that one. I assume they got what they could afford at the time. We couldn't afford a Cadillac in 1964, so his equipment probably wasn't professional grade. But man, he took some great pictures!