Opinion of 18-55 "Kit" lens

When I finally get ready to "pull the trigger" and buy a DSLR, the compacts all come with no lens or the 18-55. Would it be better to buy body only, then the 18-270 PZD Tamron, or the body bundled with the "kit" lens, and save for other lenses after?

What's your opinion of the "kit" lens?

For a beginner the 18-55 or 18-135 kit lenses are fine.

You'll soon find what focal lengths you mainly use and what your requirements are.
Some want wider angles, more telephoto, lighter weight, small size etc.....
I prefer reasonably fast lenses as lower f-stop generally means better low light performance.

The 18-55mm is better that the 18-270mm on almost all metrics (except above 55mm...).

I like mine and I use is quite a bit. It's especially good if you can stop down a bit.

If you want a wider zoom, the Canon 15-85mm IS is generally well regarded, although its performance above ~50mm is a bit weak.

Also, I'd suggest looking at the various f/2.8 zooms in the mid-teens to ~50mm range.
The Sigma seems to be the current challenger to the excellent (and expensive) Canon lens.

If you haven't already, read THIS. It's for the first generation with IS, and the newer one is supposed to be better. It's a good enough lens, and it doesn't break the bank.

So, the advice is get the 18-55 kit lens. The easier way. And the price is good.

The very latest one is supposed to be superb optically, with STM focusing thrown in for good measure. I may pick one up, as I have never owned an 18-55 kit lens

If you are asking this question. Go away. Get the kit lens. Use it. If at all you find it limiting, then come back tell us how it limits you and ask for upgrade advice. Do not read this board anymore. Seriously. Your pocketbook will thank you.

mike_311 wrote in post #16114776
If you are asking this question. Go away. Get the kit lens. Use it. If at all you find it limiting, then come back tell us how it limits you and ask for upgrade advice. Do not read this board anymore. Seriously. Your pocketbook will thank you.

Honestly this.

Theres a bunch of reasons why you wouldnt want the kit lens, but until you know which of them apply to you then you may as well get the kit lens and learn.

Its not a bad lens.

It is a good lens, with the benefit of being small and light. Resolution is very good. Color and contrast are not quite up there with L zooms, but neither is the price and weight.
I took one on my last trip to Europe and would be even happier with the new STM version.
Go for it. ...The 18-55IS has good optics.

For what you pay for the 18-55mm lens with the camera, it's well worth it. It's a very good starting point and like others have said, you can expand your glass collection when you find out where your interests are and what the limitations are with said lens.

i found the 18-55 kit lens to be decent. In perfect conditions, it will produce amazing images. Things go south when the conditions are not perfect, which is like 90% of the time. This is not really unique to the lens, but I found it more of a hurdle shooting with the kit lens than I did other lenses in identical conditions. Its pretty cheap feeling, all plastic everything and manually focusing it accurately is a joke. But the optics can deliver if you pay attention to what you are doing.

As cheap as it is construction-wise, I managed a week in the amazon with it, and while I didnt expose it to the rain, it never failed me.
For the record, I dont know what gen. my kit lens is. I got it with the T2i, if that makes any difference.

buffumjr wrote in post #16114491
When I finally get ready to "pull the trigger" and buy a DSLR, the compacts all come with no lens or the 18-55. Would it be better to buy body only, then the 18-270 PZD Tamron, or the body bundled with the "kit" lens, and save for other lenses after?

What's your opinion of the "kit" lens?

Didn't I already cover the kit lenses in your thread about super zooms a few weeks back? For the last few weeks, in several threads, you have asked a large number of questions about lenses and cameras you are hoping to get when you finally pull the plug. But given the number of questions from you over these several threads I think its time for you to start searching this forum for answers since many of your questions have been discussed time and time again. We certainly don't mind helping, but after the first few dozen questions or so, you really need to put a little skin in the game and do some research on your own. Practically every thing you need to know has already been said somewhere here. Ask as many questions as you need to if you are stumped of course, but you may find the info you need more quickly by searching for it yourself. Also I have a feeling you are so concerned about making a mistake that you want to be sure you have the absolutely best choice of camera and lens. That's laudable, but regardless of any advice we give you, we can't guaranty you will be happy with what you get. Sooner or later you are going to have get off the fence, take a risk, and actually buy a camera and lens. Then we can help you get the the best from it.

It comes down to this. For all intents and purposes, unless you really need a lens to fill a specific need or want. All lenses, even the cheap ones, especially newer models, you probably won't notice a huge difference in image quality. What you end up paying money for is build quality, durability, sealing, constant aperture.

Example. Take two lenses, 85/1.8 and 85/1.2, one cost $400 one costs $2000. If you set the 1.2 at 1.8 and compared, many people would be hard pressed to see a difference. So why pay $1600 more? Some people want 1.2, the want the L build quality and reliability, to them its worth it.

What the point I'm trying to make?

You have one decision, is the 18-55 range enough or do you want a single lens to cover a larger range.

When I first started, I got an XS, 18-55 and 55-250. Next bought a 50/1.8. After shooting a lot I realized I needed a better body and I hated switching lenses, so I sold it and got a 60D with the 18-135. After shooting for a while, I found that lens too limiting and wanted sharper so I sold the lens and get a tam ron 10-24, upgraded my 50 to the 1.4 and got a tamron 24-75/2.8 and an 85 1.8. Soon I realized the 10-24 wasn't good enough so I sold it and upgraded to the canon 10-22. Fast forward to now, I've come to realize I love taking portraits. Its the only thing I really love shooting, so my focus moved to a full frame body and primes for stellar sharpness and shallow dof.

Long winded, but you will find your direction changing, we don't know what you want or need, and at this point neither do you. You need to pick a direction and if it doesn't work, sell the gear and get something else.

take a look here and tell yourself if this is a crappy lens or not.
https://photography-on-the.net …?t=445986&highl​ight=18-55

I'd take the kit lens and use it untill you feel it is too limitating for you. I got my first reflex (60d) with canon 17-55 as a huge present to our family...well...for the first year or so I couldn't understand why everybody was so enthusiastic about 17-55; to me it was just too heavy, difficult to handle and made me "look like a pro"...which was embarassing. As a beginner I'd have appreciated a cheaper lens more.