The fuji 18 to 55 kit lens does a great job for travel and landscapes. I have started experimenting with it for photographing my community orchestra. I don't do portraits, so bokeh is not an issue. I use the 23f2 for street; it's lighter and less conspicuous.
I've done a tone of photography work, and I mean weddings, private functions, parties, birthday portraits etc with an 18-55 and a 55-200 with a Nikon D5200 and sometimes a 70-300f 4.5 . I believe its about understanding the strengths of your camera system, lighting and composition, how you use your kit determines results. It is time for an upgrade though, I'm leaning toward the z5 or the z6ii .
My first DSLR in 2011 was the Nikon D3100 with the 18-55mm kit lens. I loved it, it was great! I ended up giving the body and lens to a family member. I haven't used a kit lens since, but I'd use one if I didn't have a prime or a fast zoom. Today I have a D500 & D850 with 8 lenses. My favorite lens for the D850 is the Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 G2 or the Nikon 85mm f/1.8. For the D500, the Nikon 200-500mm f/5.6E is AMAZING! I love your content, Leigh! Thank you!
I have the Nikon Z5 with the 24-50, it is a little slow with the f6.3 but with the ability to work with higher ISO’s I find I love this little lens. 24-50 on a FF is perfect in my mind… using an 85mm on another body when needed. Enjoyed this video as many of your other videos.
I got the Nikon Z "kit" lens, the the z 24-70 F4 S. and it's an S lens. It is quite superb, as are ALL the S lenses for the new Z range. I don't think any manufacturer would risk using an inferior lens for a kit lens...they need their buyers to have a great experience and want to buy more.
I have a Nikon AF Nikkor 28-80mm f 3.3- 56 G lens on my Nikon D600 FX camera and this lens is permantly on my camera 99% of the time and found it a very good combination for me. Love your vlogs an I am disabled with walking problems so I have plenty of times to watch I am from Kent, UK.
I have a variety of lenses including 16-80 f2.8-4, 17-50 f2.8, 50mm f1.8, etc…, but when it comes to shooting the Aurora Borealis, my 18-55 Kit that came with my D5300 is still my go to even on my D500. It’s a great little lens.
I do agree that the kit lenses are very useful & handy in terms of weight. As you rightly said that we should never miss buying the kit lens which comes with the camera bundle. Thanks.
I don’t have any kit lens, not because I have anything against them. My son is just starting out so I gave him a Sony a6600 and my kit lens. He loves them and gets very good photos with them.
Hi Leigh- You just got 100% cooler wearing a Star Wars shirt. I agree with you about kit lenses... gear nerds turn in to snobs after a while. It stops being about creating for some reason.
I don't use my 18-55mm f3.5-5.6 kittens any longer since I have got a 20mm f2.8 and a 45mm f1.8 The advantage of the larger aperture for me is much more worthy than don't have to change the lens. And the "additional" option of getting nice bokeh made the choice easy.
I was never a friend of Kit Lenses until a friend lent me a m.zuiko 12-50mm. This thing is weatherproof, can do something close-up / macro, cheap to buy used and is no longer in production. I like it.
I'll be getting that Panasonic 20-60 lens soon too because of the diminutive size compared to the 24-105. Makes it great for travel. Also great as a back up lens.
Great video. I find the Nikon Z 24-70 f4 a wonderful lens as well. It came with my Z6. The 2.8 version is indispensable but, when light allows, it is nice to have the option for a lighter lens with similar quality.
I shoot with a Canon 200D and it came with the 18-55mm kit lens. This is a very useful lens with excellent sharpness, fairly robust too. Sadly it is a little slow for my needs so I invested in the Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 and that has become my standard lens. I have kept my kit lens however, it is a good solid backup and i wouldn't cry if it got damaged, but I would buy another one, kit lenses have a place in our arsenal.
Hi Leigh, in the video you mention bokeh and aperture a lot, but here's a thing: I got my Fujifilm camera with the 18-55mm kit lens, which has an aperture of f2.8 on the wide end, and goes up to f4 on the long end. Compared to the more professional 16-80mm lens, which has an apertuer of f4 all the way, also at 16mm, in fact the kit lens does better (in terms of aperture). I know the 16-80 is newer and thus probably faster, too. My dilemma is: Why should I upgrade (if I decide to) to the pro lens if it does not give me better aperture? Yes, the extra 25mm is great, especially for travelling. And here comes another dilemma: another probably great lens that I am looking at/ considering for travel, the 18-135 with a variable aperture from 3.5 to 5.6. I understand the compromise compared to pro lenses (in terms of aperture, that is), but what else is there that I should consider when choosing THE lens? Both the 16-80 and 18-135 are weather sealed and I think having a sealed lens (especially for travel) is a good thing, considering you normally travel across various conditions such as humid forests, cloudy mountains, salty seasides, sandy deserts, etc. I would really love to hear your opinion :c)
The L 20mm -> 60mm "kit" lens is a one-of-a-kind... The focal range is unlike most other lenses, kit or not, and turns out to be a most useful range. I appreciate the overlap of the 20 to 60 when paired with a 24->105, etc. because one does not have to change lenses at the exact changeover focal length as one would have to do if using a 14->24 and a 24->105. My 20->60 does very well with the Leica SL2 and most of my photography needs to include some depth of field so shooting at f/5.6 or f/8 is my standard.
Interesting video. I have the 16-50 kit lens for my Z50 and find the image quality excellent. I wish it were faster, sure, but my biggest gripe is the collapsible design. I really dislike having to extend the lens every time, but not much to be done there… The 24-70 F4S is also collapsible, I believe, so it is what it is.
I can't use zooms anymore. I tried kit lenses and "pro" lenses for over a decade including arguably the optically best zoom in the world right now, the Leica SL 24-90mm 2.8-4. I always wanna open up more than I can and I get lazy in terms of framing. I need stick to one focal length at a time. I think it's just to eliminate variables. "Should I zoom in / out?" isn't a problem any longer. Very personal choice but ... I need that. :)
The argument against “the kit lens” was always that it couldn’t be any good as it was thrown in with the body for free. But that hasn’t been true for a long time. A “camera kit” doesn’t say anything about the quality of the lens. It can be junk, or it can be awesome. Given that people with a system camera are increasingly found in the enthusiast segment or higher (“normal” people just use their smartphones) there aren’t many junk lenses anymore.
I miss the Fuji 18-55mm kit lens. I sold it with my X-t2 to buy an X-H1. I use the Fuji XF 18-135 as my kit lens now, and I like it, but I miss the compactness of the 18-55.
Yes, Fuji makes a great 18-55 f2.8, and Olympus 14-42 is good too. The Nikon 18-55 or the newer 16-50 Z are not very good. I replaced my 18-55 with an older 18-105 and got much better results.
Thanks for sharing Leigh... love your work.... although I am a dedicated Nikon user, your videos always give inspiration & energy.. cheers from Australia 😀
Well my first DSLR, the Nikon D5300, had a really bad kit lens IQ wise. It was REALLY bad. When I got the 35mm 1.8 for the Nikon it was a HUGE jump in IQ and sharpness. I never, ever, used the kit lens again. On the other hand, when I got my first Fujifilm camera, the Fuji Kit Lens was SO MUCH better. Compared to the Fuji 1.2/1.4/2.0 primes the IQ/sharpness of the Fuji kit lens wasn't a huge jump. I like that, because it meant choosing between the Kit lens and the primes wasn't about IQ and sharpness, but more about size, focal length and speed. That's at least my personal experience.
I have a kit lens, though that’s not saying much. It’s a gold-ringed constant aperture Nikkor: the 24-120mm f/4. But it was sold as part of a kit with the D750. I didn’t buy it that way, but it is still a “kit lens” in that sense. When I say the build quality could be better as it suffers from zoom creep, or that the AF isn’t as fast as Nikon’s best, I’m talking about this lens. Not about the idea of a kit lens. The lens is also very sharp, renders wonderfully on my D750 and the range is great. Plus it has VR. I do hate zoom creep, and I would like faster AF. But the thing is, the lens still delivers solidly. I did try out the 24-70/2.8, but that’s just too heavy for what I do.
I usually buy my cameras 'body only' so I have the option to save the extra money for a lens I really want. The only time I made an exception to this rule was when I bought the Z fc almost a couple of months back. I needed a lens with the body and the 16-50mm 3.5-6.3 was very reasonably priced as a kit lens, the lens matched the color of the body, and the zoom range was quite useful. Being my first kit lens ever, I was surprised that the optical performance was way better than I expected. I mostly use the Z fc with an FTZ adapter and my F glass but I found myself reverting to the kit lens on several occasions for selfies and wide angle shots in general. What surprised me the most is that the last few shots I took with it were at the wide end and when I went to Photoshop to edit the photos, I did not find the need to apply any corrections (vignetting, CA, distortion...etc.) and all I did was just to add saturation and vibrance as well as recover some shadows. I was pleasantly surprised because for a second I forgot that I was editing a RAW file!
@Brandon Hinsley thanks for the feedback. Yes I’m intrigued. I take primarily landscape and such but even for that purpose I think it would be good to try. Defined compositions etc. would you agree?
The primes for Nikon's Z mount in the S line, like the 50mm f/1.8, are stupendous. But the "advantage" of them will really depend on the individual. If you find yourself using a higher ISO sensitivity or a slower shutter speed than you'd like with the 24-70mm f/4, OR if you really want to experiment with a shallower depth of field, taking a look at a faster lens, like the 50mm f/1.8 is a great idea!
I love my Nikon 24-70 F4 S lens, it’s definitely more than enough for most people. It’s compact, relatively light and produces great image quality. I use it almost exclusively, only when needing low light performance do I switch to my Sigma Art 35 1.4.
I currently own the kit lenses for my Z50. They are great for all around travel photography. But I have notice for low light photos and video it doesn't perform as well. I am thinking of getting a prime lens for those occasion where I need a fast lens. Any suggestions or recommendation. As always great content...looking forward to your next video.
I would look at the 2 smaller lenses they have produced for the Zfc, the 28mm and 40mm f2.8. They are lovely and small, perfect for travel. Or if you're feeling flush you could consider the much larger 20mm, 35mm and 50mm f1.8...
I didn't discuss any one lens in detail. Rather, I included photos from a number of different kit lenses. There are several captured with the 24-70mm f/4 S at around the 4-minute mark. :)
You are saying that the main disadvantage of kit lenses is the aperture limitations (which leads to low light issues, and less ability to have shallow depth of field). But I was surprised you did not mention one thing I usually see as the biggest criticisms of kit lenses: image quality and sharpness. Of course it depends on the 'kit', but an example is the very small Sony APSC kit lens, the 16-50, which many reviewers have shown to have much lower image quality and sharpness than other lens options. I still like having that kit lens on my Sony a6000, as it creates a kit that can fit in my jacket pocket ! And I realize that modern kit lenses can do very well in the right circumstance, particularly if the light is good. It seems to me the kit lens issue is the same issue as with choosing any lens: there is always a tradeoff between quality vs cost and weight. There's no way to have great glass without it being larger, and with higher cost.
I discussed it, but there really doesn't need a large discussion on it these days. Kit lenses are FAR better than they used to be. Lenses will always vary in terms of sharpness and everyone has different tolerances for how sharp they need a lens to be, especially when factoring convenience. The Sony 16-50mm may not be the sharpest lens out there, but I used it without a second thought. We're at the point that some reviewers are grasping at straws to show differences in lens clarity. It's a good problem to have! But really, MANY people put cost/convenience over ultimate sharpness when looking at lenses.
With my z5 I started with the 50mm 1.8 s lens. Fell in love with it but I always wanted a zoom just in case For all purpose shooting and times of the essence. I’m debating between the Nikon z 24-70 f4 or the Nikon z 24-200. Also they may release a 24-105 someday so it’s really difficult deciding what to do 😞
The fuji 18 to 55 kit lens does a great job for travel and landscapes. I have started experimenting with it for photographing my community orchestra. I don't do portraits, so bokeh is not an issue. I use the 23f2 for street; it's lighter and less conspicuous.
I've done a tone of photography work, and I mean weddings, private functions, parties, birthday portraits etc with an 18-55 and a 55-200 with a Nikon D5200 and sometimes a 70-300f 4.5 . I believe its about understanding the strengths of your camera system, lighting and composition, how you use your kit determines results. It is time for an upgrade though, I'm leaning toward the z5 or the z6ii .
My first DSLR in 2011 was the Nikon D3100 with the 18-55mm kit lens. I loved it, it was great! I ended up giving the body and lens to a family member. I haven't used a kit lens since, but I'd use one if I didn't have a prime or a fast zoom. Today I have a D500 & D850 with 8 lenses. My favorite lens for the D850 is the Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 G2 or the Nikon 85mm f/1.8. For the D500, the Nikon 200-500mm f/5.6E is AMAZING! I love your content, Leigh! Thank you!
I have the Nikon Z5 with the 24-50, it is a little slow with the f6.3 but with the ability to work with higher ISO’s I find I love this little lens. 24-50 on a FF is perfect in my mind… using an 85mm on another body when needed. Enjoyed this video as many of your other videos.
I got the Nikon Z "kit" lens, the the z 24-70 F4 S. and it's an S lens. It is quite superb, as are ALL the S lenses for the new Z range. I don't think any manufacturer would risk using an inferior lens for a kit lens...they need their buyers to have a great experience and want to buy more.
I love my Fujifilm 18-55 kit! I still use it a lot 👌🏼
That's an exceptional lens
@@TheGodX I love it!
I have a Nikon AF Nikkor 28-80mm f 3.3- 56 G lens on my Nikon D600 FX camera and this lens is permantly on my camera 99% of the time and found it a very good combination for me. Love your vlogs an I am disabled with walking problems so I have plenty of times to watch I am from Kent, UK.
I have a variety of lenses including 16-80 f2.8-4, 17-50 f2.8, 50mm f1.8, etc…, but when it comes to shooting the Aurora Borealis, my 18-55 Kit that came with my D5300 is still my go to even on my D500. It’s a great little lens.
I do agree that the kit lenses are very useful & handy in terms of weight. As you rightly said that we should never miss buying the kit lens which comes with the camera bundle. Thanks.
I don’t have any kit lens, not because I have anything against them. My son is just starting out so I gave him a Sony a6600 and my kit lens. He loves them and gets very good photos with them.
Hi Leigh- You just got 100% cooler wearing a Star Wars shirt. I agree with you about kit lenses... gear nerds turn in to snobs after a while. It stops being about creating for some reason.
I don't use my 18-55mm f3.5-5.6 kittens any longer since I have got a 20mm f2.8 and a 45mm f1.8 The advantage of the larger aperture for me is much more worthy than don't have to change the lens. And the "additional" option of getting nice bokeh made the choice easy.
I was never a friend of Kit Lenses until a friend lent me a m.zuiko 12-50mm. This thing is weatherproof, can do something close-up / macro, cheap to buy used and is no longer in production. I like it.
I'll be getting that Panasonic 20-60 lens soon too because of the diminutive size compared to the 24-105. Makes it great for travel. Also great as a back up lens.
Great video. I find the Nikon Z 24-70 f4 a wonderful lens as well. It came with my Z6. The 2.8 version is indispensable but, when light allows, it is nice to have the option for a lighter lens with similar quality.
I shoot with a Canon 200D and it came with the 18-55mm kit lens. This is a very useful lens with excellent sharpness, fairly robust too. Sadly it is a little slow for my needs so I invested in the Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 and that has become my standard lens. I have kept my kit lens however, it is a good solid backup and i wouldn't cry if it got damaged, but I would buy another one, kit lenses have a place in our arsenal.
I have a 18-200 kit lens that came with my Canon 60D. Love it!
Hi Leigh,
in the video you mention bokeh and aperture a lot, but here's a thing: I got my Fujifilm camera with the 18-55mm kit lens, which has an aperture of f2.8 on the wide end, and goes up to f4 on the long end. Compared to the more professional 16-80mm lens, which has an apertuer of f4 all the way, also at 16mm, in fact the kit lens does better (in terms of aperture). I know the 16-80 is newer and thus probably faster, too. My dilemma is: Why should I upgrade (if I decide to) to the pro lens if it does not give me better aperture? Yes, the extra 25mm is great, especially for travelling. And here comes another dilemma: another probably great lens that I am looking at/ considering for travel, the 18-135 with a variable aperture from 3.5 to 5.6. I understand the compromise compared to pro lenses (in terms of aperture, that is), but what else is there that I should consider when choosing THE lens? Both the 16-80 and 18-135 are weather sealed and I think having a sealed lens (especially for travel) is a good thing, considering you normally travel across various conditions such as humid forests, cloudy mountains, salty seasides, sandy deserts, etc. I would really love to hear your opinion :c)
The L 20mm -> 60mm "kit" lens is a one-of-a-kind... The focal range is unlike most other lenses, kit or not, and turns out to be a most useful range. I appreciate the overlap of the 20 to 60 when paired with a 24->105, etc. because one does not have to change lenses at the exact changeover focal length as one would have to do if using a 14->24 and a 24->105. My 20->60 does very well with the Leica SL2 and most of my photography needs to include some depth of field so shooting at f/5.6 or f/8 is my standard.
I really like my zoom kit lens, it's the only zoom I have so I use it for walkaround/casual photos.
I have a Nikon AFS 24-120 4G ED that came with my D750 that I love so much that when I sold my D750, I kept the lens and now use with my Z6II
Interesting video. I have the 16-50 kit lens for my Z50 and find the image quality excellent. I wish it were faster, sure, but my biggest gripe is the collapsible design. I really dislike having to extend the lens every time, but not much to be done there… The 24-70 F4S is also collapsible, I believe, so it is what it is.
My kit lens is an 18 to 55mm, Canon, and it does very well.,but definitely requires a lot of natural or flashlight
Dear Leigh,
Usually, I do not use any lens having less than F4 widest aperture and prefer to have prime lenses instead.
I can't use zooms anymore. I tried kit lenses and "pro" lenses for over a decade including arguably the optically best zoom in the world right now, the Leica SL 24-90mm 2.8-4. I always wanna open up more than I can and I get lazy in terms of framing. I need stick to one focal length at a time. I think it's just to eliminate variables. "Should I zoom in / out?" isn't a problem any longer. Very personal choice but ... I need that. :)
The argument against “the kit lens” was always that it couldn’t be any good as it was thrown in with the body for free. But that hasn’t been true for a long time. A “camera kit” doesn’t say anything about the quality of the lens. It can be junk, or it can be awesome. Given that people with a system camera are increasingly found in the enthusiast segment or higher (“normal” people just use their smartphones) there aren’t many junk lenses anymore.
I miss the Fuji 18-55mm kit lens. I sold it with my X-t2 to buy an X-H1. I use the Fuji XF 18-135 as my kit lens now, and I like it, but I miss the compactness of the 18-55.
Yes, Fuji makes a great 18-55 f2.8, and Olympus 14-42 is good too. The Nikon 18-55 or the newer 16-50 Z are not very good. I replaced my 18-55 with an older 18-105 and got much better results.
Thanks for sharing Leigh... love your work.... although I am a dedicated Nikon user, your videos always give inspiration & energy.. cheers from Australia 😀
Well my first DSLR, the Nikon D5300, had a really bad kit lens IQ wise. It was REALLY bad. When I got the 35mm 1.8 for the Nikon it was a HUGE jump in IQ and sharpness. I never, ever, used the kit lens again. On the other hand, when I got my first Fujifilm camera, the Fuji Kit Lens was SO MUCH better. Compared to the Fuji 1.2/1.4/2.0 primes the IQ/sharpness of the Fuji kit lens wasn't a huge jump. I like that, because it meant choosing between the Kit lens and the primes wasn't about IQ and sharpness, but more about size, focal length and speed. That's at least my personal experience.
I have a kit lens, though that’s not saying much. It’s a gold-ringed constant aperture Nikkor: the 24-120mm f/4. But it was sold as part of a kit with the D750. I didn’t buy it that way, but it is still a “kit lens” in that sense.
When I say the build quality could be better as it suffers from zoom creep, or that the AF isn’t as fast as Nikon’s best, I’m talking about this lens. Not about the idea of a kit lens. The lens is also very sharp, renders wonderfully on my D750 and the range is great. Plus it has VR.
I do hate zoom creep, and I would like faster AF. But the thing is, the lens still delivers solidly. I did try out the 24-70/2.8, but that’s just too heavy for what I do.
I usually buy my cameras 'body only' so I have the option to save the extra money for a lens I really want. The only time I made an exception to this rule was when I bought the Z fc almost a couple of months back. I needed a lens with the body and the 16-50mm 3.5-6.3 was very reasonably priced as a kit lens, the lens matched the color of the body, and the zoom range was quite useful. Being my first kit lens ever, I was surprised that the optical performance was way better than I expected. I mostly use the Z fc with an FTZ adapter and my F glass but I found myself reverting to the kit lens on several occasions for selfies and wide angle shots in general. What surprised me the most is that the last few shots I took with it were at the wide end and when I went to Photoshop to edit the photos, I did not find the need to apply any corrections (vignetting, CA, distortion...etc.) and all I did was just to add saturation and vibrance as well as recover some shadows. I was pleasantly surprised because for a second I forgot that I was editing a RAW file!
I do love how Nikon handles processing in-camera, especially on the Z bodies. :)
I have the 24-70 f4. It’s amazing. Thinking of the 50 mm 1.8 next. Is this prime that much more of an advantage? Price point is right though.
@Brandon Hinsley thanks for the feedback. Yes I’m intrigued. I take primarily landscape and such but even for that purpose I think it would be good to try. Defined compositions etc. would you agree?
The primes for Nikon's Z mount in the S line, like the 50mm f/1.8, are stupendous. But the "advantage" of them will really depend on the individual. If you find yourself using a higher ISO sensitivity or a slower shutter speed than you'd like with the 24-70mm f/4, OR if you really want to experiment with a shallower depth of field, taking a look at a faster lens, like the 50mm f/1.8 is a great idea!
@@LeighAndRaymond thanks Leigh! I will look into it. Interested in working with a prime like this and learning more.
@@LeighAndRaymond I know is personal preference but the 50 mm 1.8 vs the 35 mm 1.8?
@@LeighAndRaymond I totally agree! I haven’t used my kit lens since I got the 50 mm 1.8S that is doing do much better in any situations.
I love my Nikon 24-70 F4 S lens, it’s definitely more than enough for most people.
It’s compact, relatively light and produces great image quality.
I use it almost exclusively, only when needing low light performance do I switch to my Sigma Art 35 1.4.
I HAVE THREE KIT LENSES LOVE THEM USE THEM A LOT ............
I currently own the kit lenses for my Z50. They are great for all around travel photography. But I have notice for low light photos and video it doesn't perform as well. I am thinking of getting a prime lens for those occasion where I need a fast lens. Any suggestions or recommendation. As always great content...looking forward to your next video.
I would look at the 2 smaller lenses they have produced for the Zfc, the 28mm and 40mm f2.8. They are lovely and small, perfect for travel. Or if you're feeling flush you could consider the much larger 20mm, 35mm and 50mm f1.8...
I use a kit lens on a regular basis and get some great photos with it!
I can
remember when every camera came with a 50 mm lens and a case.
You didn't cover the Nikon 24-70 F4
I didn't discuss any one lens in detail. Rather, I included photos from a number of different kit lenses. There are several captured with the 24-70mm f/4 S at around the 4-minute mark. :)
I have no kit lens. On my Fuji X100V is the lens fixed, and this lens is amazing, far away from a so called kit lens 🙂
The Fuji X100V is such a great camera!
Love kit lenses. Love my prime lenses. Love your videos. Love you and Raymond. 👍👍💕
Thanks so much :)
You are saying that the main disadvantage of kit lenses is the aperture limitations (which leads to low light issues, and less ability to have shallow depth of field). But I was surprised you did not mention one thing I usually see as the biggest criticisms of kit lenses: image quality and sharpness. Of course it depends on the 'kit', but an example is the very small Sony APSC kit lens, the 16-50, which many reviewers have shown to have much lower image quality and sharpness than other lens options. I still like having that kit lens on my Sony a6000, as it creates a kit that can fit in my jacket pocket ! And I realize that modern kit lenses can do very well in the right circumstance, particularly if the light is good.
It seems to me the kit lens issue is the same issue as with choosing any lens: there is always a tradeoff between quality vs cost and weight. There's no way to have great glass without it being larger, and with higher cost.
I discussed it, but there really doesn't need a large discussion on it these days. Kit lenses are FAR better than they used to be. Lenses will always vary in terms of sharpness and everyone has different tolerances for how sharp they need a lens to be, especially when factoring convenience. The Sony 16-50mm may not be the sharpest lens out there, but I used it without a second thought. We're at the point that some reviewers are grasping at straws to show differences in lens clarity. It's a good problem to have! But really, MANY people put cost/convenience over ultimate sharpness when looking at lenses.
Your the subconscious is against your idea ! That's why you hit your kit lens at @00:10 :D Nice video as usual
With my z5 I started with the 50mm 1.8 s lens. Fell in love with it but I always wanted a zoom just in case For all purpose shooting and times of the essence. I’m debating between the Nikon z 24-70 f4 or the Nikon z 24-200. Also they may release a 24-105 someday so it’s really difficult deciding what to do 😞
☺️
To be honest
Have yet to use my kit lens once
What lens do you use instead?
@@LeighAndRaymond 50mm f1.4 and 24mm f2.8