Right, after reading a review, it would seem the kit lens is actually, well, crap.
So what would you all recommend for mostly portrait photography?
18-55 kit lens is not crap.
Its not the best lens in creation, but its also very far from being the worst.
Its image quality is slightly less than a nifty fifty at 50mm, but infinitely better at 20mm.
It is also has nowhere near as good image quality as a 17-55 f2.8 IS, but its also a bit cheaper (£600 vs £28 . . .
) and most people wont notice the difference until you blow it up and start comparing pixels.
Build quality is poor, its got a wobbly front element and horrid manual focus. So what? People dont look at your lens, they look at the results. Do you photos have big letters on them saying "taken with a lens with rotating front element and no distance scale"
I believed the reviews until I tried using the lens. Its not perfect, but it does take cracking good photos. For £28 its not worth not having. Seriously. Bundled with the body its half the cost of a nifty fifty, but will do a lot more.
The reviews cause kit lens hatred and the reality is there is not much wrong with it. Its weak in certain areas, you just have to adapt your technique to avoid them. 18-24mm is soft and a little bit of distortion below 20mm, its also softer towards maximum aperture. Build feels bad, but I reckon its probably slightly nicer build than the nifty fifty.
For £28 it will allow you to take photographs and get good results. It'll then make a great backup when your technique is on a level where its worth moving to better glass, and you know what you need.
Remember, its not the camera, its the photographer.
)
That would keep the other half happy as well.
