Kit Lens or Zoom?

[Plain Nev]

This might be a daft question, but what actually is the difference? Both zoom after all. Or is it simply that one is supplied with the camera and the other is an after market piece?

 

[Snapper67]

Kit lenses are normally at the lower end of lens quality and are supplied as a 'kit' so you can get going.

Other zoom lenses may have a fixed wide aperture etc and be manufactured to a far higher quality.

Accordingly, the price rises.

Dougie.

 

[troutfisher]

Kit lenses are normally at the lower end of lens quality and are supplied as a 'kit' so you can get going.

Other zoom lenses may have a fixed wide aperture etc and be manufactured to a far higher quality.

Accordingly, the price rises.

Dougie.

Depends on the Kit lens , the Canon 5Dmk2 kit lens was a 24-105L f4, the Fuji 18-55 Kit lens is very good but equally as Dougie says some are at the lower end of quality.

 

[Plain Nev]

I'm glad you mentioned the Fuji 18 - 55. I have one myself, and although I'm far from an expert it does seem pretty good. I will be getting another lens at some point, I'm sure. Which is why I was wondering about the distinction. Particularly as other lenses in the range cover roughly similar ground.

 

[Retune]

I don't think there's a hard and fast definition - I'm sure Leica will sell you a kit with a lens that costs thousands! But often it means one of the lower priced standard zooms or telezooms sold as part of a starter package. To make the price attractive, the company may have made economies like using plastic lens mounts or slower maximum apertures, but not always. There might well be a better specified zoom in the manufacturer's range that covers a similar range, but with more robust build quality, a faster aperture or otherwise higher performance. But on the other hand, the company knows the buyer will be judging the system by their first lenses, so they try to make them as good as possible for the price. Some of them are bargains, especially compared to the price of the body alone. I wouldn't necessarily upgrade unless the kit lens is limiting you in some way. I kept the 18-70mm that came with my Nikon D70 and ended up using it for several years on a D300.

 

[Box Brownie]

In broad terms it is a distinction without a difference!

The key(?) is whether the body being bought is consumer, producer or 'professional' level body.

I have no idea which category your Fuji will fall into but suffice to say that in @troutfisher post the Canon 5Dmk2 and it's kit(?) included lens, the 24-105mm is a premium L Series lens....that kit is aimed at pro users and keen amateurs who value full frame cameras.

So coming back to my generalisation.....you pick your camera make and body choice but the bundled 'kit zoom' lens will be the makers choice of anything from a budget starter lens through to Pro grade, to compliment the body in question.

 

[Plain Nev]

I wouldn't necessarily upgrade unless the kit lens is limiting you in some way.

A very good point. I do find my particular lens quite versatile. And I'm getting good results from it. So, from that perspective there isn't a huge incentive to change.

In broad terms it is a distinction without a difference!

The key(?) is whether the body being bought is consumer, producer or 'professional' level body.

It's an XT3. Sort of mid range I should think. It seems pretty well balanced with the 18 - 55, which is a good quality lens. It may be that it covers most bases pretty well for my purposes. But it's always good to hear other people's views when it's still a bit of a grey area for me.

 

[Box Brownie]

A very good point. I do find my particular lens quite versatile. And I'm getting good results from it. So, from that perspective there isn't a huge incentive to change.



It's an XT3. Sort of mid range I should think. It seems pretty well balanced with the 18 - 55, which is a good quality lens. It may be that it covers most bases pretty well for my purposes. But it's always good to hear other people's views when it's still a bit of a grey area for me.

Just noticed 'auto correct' turned prosumer into producer, the correction makes no sense in the context of my post.

Many camera makers see the 18-55mm short zoom as the sweet spot for a bundled lens. Yonks ago, even my first Canon dSLR the 350D had that zoom range included.....I added to my lens arsenal over the years.

My progression of upgrading never were with bundled lenses until I switched formats to Olympus mFT and that "kit" had two "pro" grade lenses in it.

IMO any future choice/purchase of extra lenses you make will not necessarily mean your kit lens will superceded unless you decide that what it does/doesn't do is holding you back!

PS if your kit lens is this specific one https://www.imaging-resource.com/lenses/fujinon/xf-18-55mm-f2.8-4-r-lm-ois/review/ it is based on this page a well respected lens that is "more than just a kit lens".

 

[ancient_mariner]

It's more about perception. A 'kit lens' is normally thought of as a low consumer quality lens, as opposed to a high quality lens included in a kit. Few would think of the 24-105 mentioned above as a kit lens.

 

[NickD]

Often kit lenses are plasticky and slow, built down to a price (although nowadays they're mostly pretty good optically).

The Fuji is one of the exceptions, it's a quality bit of kit, and still my go-to as a walkaround. In terms of functionality, IQ, build quality and weight it's hard to beat.

 

[TCR4x4]

The “other” common Fuji kit lens is the 16-50mm, and is worlds apart from the 18-55. (I have both). The 16-50 is small, plasticky, much slower aperture, no aperture control on the lens, no ois switch. Optically it’s still ok though, but not on par with the 18-55.
So “kit lens” means just that.. it was sold as part of a kit, that doesn’t necessarily mean it’s bad, as proven by the very good 18-55 with the Fuji.

 

[troutfisher]

I'm glad you mentioned the Fuji 18 - 55. I have one myself, and although I'm far from an expert it does seem pretty good. I will be getting another lens at some point, I'm sure. Which is why I was wondering about the distinction. Particularly as other lenses in the range cover roughly similar ground.

Just an aside when you are looking at other Fuji lenses if you are looking for something a bit longer don't dismiss the the XC 55-230, XF quality it is not but if you can live with the variable aperture and a plasticky lens it,s surprisingly good value for the money.

 

[Nod]

In the Fuji line up, the XF range of lenses is usually "better" than the XC range. The XF 18-55 is only called a "kit lens" because it's often supplied as the lens in a kit of body + 1 lens. Unless you want or need a faster (wider aperture) option or a greater range (18-135?), I'd stick with the 18-55 as a walkaround and work from there. (FWIW, I'm a Fuji user and have the 10-24, 18-135 and 100-400 with a 1.4x converter mounted on 3 bodies, with a couple of primes for specific uses [a macro and a pancake])

 

[Plain Nev]

Well, this has bought up some interesting discussion. Thank you for all your comments. Sometimes it just helps to clarify your thinking. I'm inclined to agree, the 18 - 55 is a cut above, and I have no immediate plans to replace it. For the photographs I like to take it fits in well with my needs.

 

[d00d]

Generally, kit lenses are underrated, go dirt cheap secondhand.

Buying a new body only is not always easy, but do it if you can. A cheap used lens from a superior kit .... way to go ...