blair1955 wrote in post #16204191
Since the film SLRs I’ve bought the body and lens separate except my first one a Yashica TL Electro in the mid-70s I haven’t had a kit lens until now. I got my 60D with an EF 18-200mm IS lens and overall I’m pleased with it thus far. My questions is there a difference between kit and non-kit lenses? In addition to the above I have a Tamron 70-300mm /4-5.6 Di VC lens that I’m really impressed with.
I think I have had just about every lens for a crop, and have come full circle. As others have said, I have found you will find a jump in image q if you go to say a canon 40mm, 50, 85mm ....I found. I had canons, sigma, and tamrons, the tamron 17-50 f/2.8 slightly better, but slow focus. I found my sigma 17-70 soft, I actually found your 18-200 convent, but a little soft, and felt like I had a giant point and shoot.. Convenience wise and decent iq, I found the 18-135 best. I also had a canon 15-85, iq maybe slightly better than kit, great range, but again for the moneyersonally not worth it for me. My 70-200 L I found sharp, but for the money personally not worth it, and eventually sold them all and bought the kit lens again, all new from people that wanted to upgrade them. I find the 55-250 a gem for the price. I use my 85mm for indoor sports, ....Bottomline is your really not going to get a wow factor for the money, primes will give you more, and are fast and can give you great results. If I was making money on photography, then I would have all L lenses for the slightly better iq, but faster focus and durability.
But it is all personal choices of what worth your money