It's Time to Praise the Kit Lens

[HiFiGuy1]

Dallas,


I don't think anyone took serious offense.


And BTW, here's one of my friends playing a gig at Mardi Gras this year.





Handheld (as are almost all my shots) 40D, 28-135, not sure of the focal length or other data without looking it up.

[Steve Eisenberg]

And to everyone I apparently upset...


I have no gripe with amatuers, beginners, professionals or anyone else using this forum. Have fun, post what you like. My original post wasmeant to be funny.


I know the other professionals on this forum have had the same experiences with cell phone cameras and point-and-shoot jockeyswho believe megapixel count equals quality. I don't shoot a wedding these dayswhere there aren't twenty people with cell phone cameras shooting over my shoulder.I have to find that a little funny. I just imgine them goingdown to Eckerds and blowing that baby up to 36 x 54. I know it takes a picture...it just won't look like mine!


I do take image quality seriously becuase my customers enlarge my work and in more than twenty years of photography I've learned the lens is much more important than the body. Ido own a 1DMKII, but I use my XTiall the time. It delivers great results with great glass screwed on the front.


All you offended kit lens guys, don't be so defensive. Have fun and shoot to make yourselves happy.
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

I've re-read your posts and you are a troll who was called out. Cover your butt all you want. You came here anonymously to denigrate, not to participate in the positive spirit of this thread. Now you call people upset and offendedand think that makes it ok, while still defending something inappropriate. Am I upset? Am I offended? I despise anonymous posters (who troll)like you. And here's my name, on my thread. And I don't need to defend or apologize for anything I say here.


You could use your real name, and even help your own business with all the good folks who come here. You could meet people and make connections. But I guess you need to leave yourself a way to say what you want, and then CYA when called out.


Meanwhile, people are contributing their really greatphotos, and you're still here. Great.

[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....&lt;g&gt;





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

[Steve Eisenberg]

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....&lt;g&gt;


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!

[mukul_chou]

Dallas,


I don't think anyone took serious offense.


And BTW, here's one of my friends playing a gig at Mardi Gras this year.





Handheld (as are almost all my shots) 40D, 28-135, not sure of the focal length or other data without looking it up.



<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

The other data [based on the file U h'v uploaded] is


Shutter speed: 1/50 sec


Aperture: f/5


Focal length: 65mm


ISO: 1600


In other topic in this thread you said

So, after having seen some of these pics, remind me again why I just spent $900 on a 40D kit? [img]../emoticons/emotion-2.gif[/img]

Probably you could not get this shot with a P&amp;S... on P&amp;S anything beyond ISO 200 is unusable and ISO 1600 I don't know howmany can support it even. This shot without a flash is probably way beyond the capalblity of any P&amp;S. I'm not sure about the newest P&amp;S like SX1 IS or G10 but I have used SX100 and sure they does not deserve even a comparison with a DSLR. Keep patience and continue enjoying phoytography.... [Y]

[Jon Ruyle]

My addition to the kit lens pile:


[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.25.93.5d+first+10000/sarah-and-nathan.JPG[/img]


105mm @ f/4 iso 640

[mattsartin]

Canon XTi 18mm 25s f/9 ISO 200

[I chase light]

This was taken by a student of mine yesterday with the lowliest of the lowly kit lenses, the non-IS 18-55. Pretty darn decent bokeh for a hockey puck/chair caster


[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.26.42/Student-Shot.jpg[/img]

[ShutterbugJohan]

You all have some great pictures! Keep up the good work!

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.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

Mr. Carnathan said "(please use your real name for your user name)" I hope it's OK that I just used my first name.


Johan

[HiFiGuy1]

You all have some great pictures! Keep up the good work!

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.
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

Mr. Carnathan said "([url="/forums/p/152/264.aspx#264]please use your [b]real name[/b] for your user name[/url])" I hope it's OK that I just used my first name.


Johan
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

I didn't realize that Bryan had made that request. I apologize for not following the spirit of the rules. It was assuredly unintentional.