Did any of you "go pro" with the kit lens?

cameraperson wrote in post #15680643
I'm just curious about you pros. Did all of you start out with tons of gear? Did any of you start out with just a kit lens (and the camera of course.) Think portraits (outdoor or indoor), but I guess any type of photography would be interesting to know about.

Also, I know there are good and bad lenses, but is it true that as long as the eyes are in focus people are less likely to be upset?

I've made money with pictures that used a couple of versions of the Canon 18-55mm lens, both the older non-stabilized lens and the newer stabilized lens. As so often actually happens, the lens you use is less important than the manner in which it is used. It also helps that the Canon 18-55mm image stabilizer lens is a good unit. Frankly, only equipment fans of the type that inhabit forums such like this care which lens is used. Potential customers are interested only in the pictures that are generated. And, the Canon 18-55mm lenses can generate very good pictures.

The difference is this:
The entry-level cameras and kit lenses can help you make great images under certain conditions. However, a working pro needs equipment that he/she can use to reliably produce great images EVERY TIME under ANY condition.

If you're doing mass-produced studio portraits, or assembly-line business headshots for five hundred corporate employees, AND you're in control of the lighting and the subjects, then the kit lens and low-end body will be adequate (as long as you have backups!). But if you're shooting a low-light concert, racing cars, a baseball game, an evening wedding in a dimly lit church... a rebel body with the kit lens just isn't going to cut it. 55mm and f/5.6 is going to give you extremely disappointing snapshots.

"Look at this one awesome photo I got with the rebel and kit lens" simply isn't an adequate argument. One lucky shot doesn't constitute proof. It's anecdotal evidence at best.

nathancarter wrote in post #15683121
The difference is this:
The entry-level cameras and kit lenses can help you make great images under certain conditions. However, a working pro needs equipment that he/she can use to reliably produce great images EVERY TIME under ANY condition.

If you're doing mass-produced studio portraits, or assembly-line business headshots for five hundred corporate employees, AND you're in control of the lighting and the subjects, then the kit lens and low-end body will be adequate (as long as you have backups!). But if you're shooting a low-light concert, racing cars, a baseball game, an evening wedding in a dimly lit church... a rebel body with the kit lens just isn't going to cut it. 55mm and f/5.6 is going to give you extremely disappointing snapshots.

"Look at this one awesome photo I got with the rebel and kit lens" simply isn't an adequate argument. One lucky shot doesn't constitute proof. It's anecdotal evidence at best.

Very well said.

I buy gear for specific needs based on jobs I have. They are tools that allow me to make money. Period.

Can I be a roofer with a cheap hammer? Sure. Can I make more money with a nailgun? Absolutely.

I don't buy gear just to masturbate to it. I buy it to make more money. I track what gear I use on what jobs and how much I make with each item. If I don't need something, I sell it off. I'd rather spend my money taking a trip with my family than buying another camera or lens. But if buying that tool will make me a nice return on the investment, it is worth buying.

Listen to Thomas Campbell. If you are a pro, by that I mean feeding your family and paying your bills, it's very doubtful that you are doing it with a rebel and a kit lens, just like a professional mechanic doesn't work with an adjustable wrench and a pair of pliers. Now calling yourself a pro is something entirely different.

If "going pro" means occasionally accepting a job for pay, and it does not mean a concerted effort to create a profitable business, then there are certainly jobs for which a "kit lens" will produce adequate results. But beware the limitations!

My first DSLR lens was a Canon EFS 18-55. Stopped down, with the light behind it, that lens did a pretty decent job. But is was terribly susceptible to flare whenever there was a light source in front of it, and it had no hood which made that worse. The results were pretty embarrassing sometimes.

Curtis N wrote in post #15683423
If "going pro" means occasionally accepting a job for pay, and it does not mean a concerted effort to create a profitable business, then there are certainly jobs for which a "kit lens" will produce adequate results. But beware the limitations!

I think it means making it your profession. Your main or only source of income.

I could offer my services as a mechanic, and I've been paid with cash or beer to help out a couple friends here and there, but that doesn't really make me a professional mechanic. When I had a pickup, I was paid by a couple friends to help move their apartments, but that didn't make me a professional mover. I've played golf with friends and won a little cash here and there. Same thing with playing poker and gin. But that didn't make me a professional golfer or poker player.

People that get the odd job of photography seem to want to latch on to the term professional and prop themselves up with it. But it isn't their profession. And they know it and they are representing themselves as something they are not. I think that is pathetic. Just like if I called myself a professional poker player because I made a few grand playing.

You make good points. I don't know I agree with your analysis of them.

whuband wrote in post #15683407
Listen to Thomas Campbell. If you are a pro, by that I mean feeding your family and paying your bills, it's very doubtful that you are doing it with a rebel and a kit lens, just like a professional mechanic doesn't work with an adjustable wrench and a pair of pliers. Now calling yourself a pro is something entirely different.

That too is a good point. Pro should probably mean your full time job.

There are many definitions of the word "professional." We've had these discussions before and I don't want to go through it again, but for the record I consider myself a professional if I'm asking to be paid for my services.

I just want the OP to clarify what he meant by "going pro" in his original post, and we can go from there.

cameraperson wrote in post #15680643
I'm just curious about you pros. Did all of you start out with tons of gear?

I went to the dark side with a T-50 and a Tonkia something to 300mm lens.

Does that count?

Wayne

I know some very good ones in this field.

cameraperson wrote in post #15680643
I'm just curious about you pros. Did all of you start out with tons of gear? Did any of you start out with just a kit lens (and the camera of course.) Think portraits (outdoor or indoor), but I guess any type of photography would be interesting to know about.

Also, I know there are good and bad lenses, but is it true that as long as the eyes are in focus people are less likely to be upset?

You can absolutely build a portfolio with a kit lens, which could get you hired for certain gigs. If you're getting paid your fair share, you should rent a suitable lens. If you aren't getting jobs all the time, it would be economical to rent a high end lens only when you need it, and use the kit lens to continue to build your portfolio.

A professional lens is a small component of what it takes to be a professional, so don't get too caught up about it, but know that you will need to upgrade to owning one at some point.

As for the eyes in focus issue, this may be true if you are doing consumer photography like birthday parties or low end events. If the clients never see the OOF images, then there won't be any issues with that.

Curtis N wrote in post #15685019
There are many definitions of the word "professional." We've had these discussions before and I don't want to go through it again, but for the record I consider myself a professional if I'm asking to be paid for my services.

I just want the OP to clarify what he meant by "going pro" in his original post, and we can go from there.

When I first posted I was thinking of someone that started with a kit. They took that kit and made money. Nothing else (maybe small things or a flash). Eventually the upgraded and then went on to be full-time.

In one sense I meant getting paid at all. That's not what a real "pro" is. I know it's someone that knows what they're doing, full time job and all that. I probably should have thought more about that, not meaning to insult the real workin' folks.

I have my own skillset. I see folks that think it's easy. They have no idea how long it took me to acquire my skillset.

In the simplest meaning, someone that started out with nothing, built up from there. In other words, they didn't all dump $2500. I know some on here did. Others didn't. Some are outright offended when you bring up pro and you don't have the tools. Some take it personal.

Curtis N wrote in post #15685019
There are many definitions of the word "professional." We've had these discussions before and I don't want to go through it again, but for the record I consider myself a professional if I'm asking to be paid for my services.

I just want the OP to clarify what he meant by "going pro" in his original post, and we can go from there.

I would agree with this. I started out last year with my kit lens. If I'm being paid that is ONE way to define professional and I've taken some amazing pictures with my kit lens. I soon upgraded though. I felt the need to, because of a personal decision.

cameraperson wrote in post #15685628
When I first posted I was thinking of someone that started with a kit. They took that kit and made money. Nothing else (maybe small things or a flash). Eventually the upgraded and then went on to be full-time.

In one sense I meant getting paid at all. That's not what a real "pro" is. I know it's someone that knows what they're doing, full time job and all that. I probably should have thought more about that, not meaning to insult the real workin' folks.

Ok. So "pro" might mean you're getting paid for a certain gig, or it might mean you're an experienced, highly skilled, full-time shooter.

I would say there are plenty who have done paid gigs here and there with the kit lens. I did some event photography with my EFS 18-55 back in the day, and I can't say the output would have been any better with a $9,000 rig in my hands.

But a full-time shooter is going to have better tools at his disposal, because sometimes it does make a difference. And a pro will always use the best tools at his disposal.

My kit lens hasn't seen the light of day for years, except when my 6-yr-old grandson wants to be like me and take some pictures.