THE WORST Lens You Can Buy? 💸
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 27 авг 2024
- 💲 CAMERAS/LENSES 💲
linktr.ee/tomcalton
🤘 FOLLOW ME 🤘
www.tiktok.com/@tomcalton
tom.calton
tom.calton
www.tomcalton.co.uk
#photography #sonycameras #sonycamera #cameralens #photographytipsforbeginners
Good old reliable kit lens. You learn to love it when you have no money
Or you learn to make money so that you can replace it
Canon 40D + 50mm f/1.8 quite a cheap combo that provides image quality far above a pro body with a standard 18-55 kit lens.
Correct. Also, wear your flash, always, & your problems go away. Don't be discouraged.
I have have other lenses but still love Fuji's XC50-230 for some reason. :-D
I think a kit lens is just a different type of tool. They are lightweight and cheap but can be decent lenses for the money. Fuji, Panasonic, and Nikon seem to have figured out how to make decent kit lenses, so they're not all terrible. They're just a different type of tool and if you're using them in the right scenario they can be great. For shooting groups of people, landscapes, or product photography the wide depth of field shouldn't really be an issue.
Just don't expect a razor thin depth of field or for them to be as sharp as a Zeiss Otus and you probably won't be disappointed. Many are even weather sealed!
I think this is the most sense I've heard all day! Well said 👏🏻
I agree with this. Having used the 18-135MM F3.5-5.6 from Nikon, I never really understood everyone saying kit lens is trash and they can't use it, until I used Canon 18-55MM kit lens. That lens seriously sucked, the autofocus was so terribly slow on that, it made my Nikon D80 feel like a fast camera.
Ive seen lenses where the depth of field can be so shallow that someones eyes will be in focus, but the tip of their nose isn't. Sometimes you just don't need f1.8.
@@ixamraxitrue
And of course if you pay more you get more don't expect so much from a relatively cheap lens
last year I was using a kit lens for paid shoots. If you have enough light you will do fine.
they should give us 50mm f1.8 as a kit lens
Seen many stores selling camera bodies with 50s as a pack. Just a bit more expensive than kit 18-55.
It was standard back in the film days before zooms were cost effective. Most kits were a 50mm and often f1.4 too.
@@nyvkroft6530Minolta sold their film cameras with a bunch of different lens but little gems like a 58mm 1.2 or 85 1.7 were very common
I use my kit lens for car photography. Don’t get me wrong, it sat around for 5 years, but I managed to find a job that actually recommended the kit lens for its cheap nature and it’s wide zoom. I now use it everyday. Cheap is nice because you don’t want to break your nice glass on the job, and we shoot at f8 pretty much the whole time, so it doesn’t really matter that it’s got that variable aperture. Thought I’d share.
Fujifilm XF-18-55 kit lense is AMAZING!
Truuuue
Fujifilm owners are like…wait other makes don’t give you a good lens with your camera? Why would they do that?
Alright, rub it in why don't ya! 😜
Agree
The kit Fuji is a pretty solid lens
Kit lenses are a great learning tool, not ideal but they're cheap and, at least with Nikon, they're usually pretty sharp too.
Traveling with a smaller kit lens can allow for versatility. It’s not always easy to carry bigger lenses or a set of primes when for example visiting a city, village, or doing even a trek in the mountains or jungle or desert. These smaller kit lenses definitely have their place in the travel photography. I usually travel with a fuji 18-55 f2.8-4 and maybe a prime like a 35mm or 27mm. I find myself shooting more like that as I can keep the camera around my neck at all times. And a setup that you use more is a better setup ✨
It's bad for some people but it's good for landscape when you need f8 anyway even portrait with story, You don't need to blur every photo
I bought mine for astrophotography, so higher/smaller aperture is ok (sharper focus at infinity), and we get the benefit of a wide field of view... so its actually not a terrible lens for basic astrophotography if you have a stable mount.
Less aperture means less light, which means longer exposures. With a exposure of more than 15-20 seconds stars won't look sharp as the earth has rotated enough to make it pretty noticeable.
And cranking up the ISO to nastily high levels isn't a good idea.
So... I'm feeling genuinely curious about your astrophotos.
@@LuisCabanzonGutierrez All true, which is why you would generally use a star tracker, or shorter exposure while using stacking software. That said, for wide field like 18mm~24mm, you can do 30s without noticeable trailing, but if you're at much longer fl than that, you definitely want a star tracker. I wouldn't do much more than 1200 iso, which is still too high on older gear but newer gear has very little noise at that iso with good flats and dark frames. I wouldn't push it to 128000 or anything ridiculous like that for sure.
You can get nice wide field astro photos at 800iso stacking just ~50-100 photos using ~10s exposure. If your at a nice site, say bortle 2-4, you could get some good shots with just a single 30s exposure at 1200iso. Drop it to 10-15 and stack about 50 shots and you can get some really nice images.
You' d be surprised how little you need for wide field astro. Its not like trying to shoot a nebula with six different filters stacking hundreds of images for each filter, and having to process the image for hours on equipment that costs as much as a house. It feels like the cost is exponentially proportional to the focal length sometimes, lol.
I agree I have a kit lens from my canon r and it’s terrible I instantly went and bought a prime lens and all my photos look amazing it was literally the reason why now I get clients and people pay me to take their pictures lol
The canon EOS r ? That kit lens is the 24-105 f/4L if I’m not mistaken, I actually bought that one after buying the body separately and ended returning it because it was just too dark for indoor photography for me at the time, however I now own the 28-70 f2 and I absolutely love it
Kitlenses provide marginally better image quality than phones at a more limiting range, if I was buying my first camera again, I would just skip the kitlens, just get a 50mm 1.8 or something fast like that
There’s a time and place for everything. My old EF-s 18-55mm f3.5-5.6 recently became useful to me when I needed a cheap wide zoom. I’m shooting cars and use f8 for every photo, so the kit lens is actually perfect!
I've used my Nikon kit lens (the one in the video) for many years and have had great results (subjective, I know). I just got a 35mm F1.8 and honestly I feel like the kit lens is much more usable (I'm shooting cars). The situations where I can use the low aperture of the prime lens are so few. Normally you want the whole car to be in focus and then you can't go below the kit lens aperture anyway.
Dude really called f/5.6 pretty narrow. It's all relative to the application. I shoot primarily with an OM-1 and a Pentax KP these days, so 2x and 1.5x crop factor. I had a Fuji GFX kit and sold it when I didn't get any reasonably higher results than my EM-1 Mark III at the time or my Pentax K-1.II. At a 2x crop factor, I'm getting an equivalent depth of field around f/5.6 when using my 12-40 f/2.8 or 40-150 f/2.8. At 80mm equivalent, you can get some great separation without being absolute mushy blur at that f/2.8 that equals out to f/5.6. My 12-60mm f/2.8-4 Pana Leica kit lens is variable aperture, but it's a solid lens.
Lenses don’t narrow down their aperture when you zoom in. The aperture stays the same size, but since the focal length increases, you end up with less light getting in.
If you’ve got a 50mm lens and the diameter of your aperture is 25mm, that means you’re at f/2 (focal length divided by 2). If you increase the focal length to 100mm but leave the aperture at 25mm, that’s f/4 (focal length divided by 4).
i hate kit lenses because they are kit lense
People don't believe when I show them photos from the sony 55-210mm kit lens made for APS-C is used on my full frame A7R2. Picked it up used for $85.
The sony 16-50 PZ works very well for me when I travel and really do not want to nor have time and space to carry multiple lenses and swich them depending on the situation. The 16-50 shuts down to be small and compact and works great in those scenarios for me
That's a pretty good lens for street photography and for news photograhers.
I always believe the kit lens gauges what type of shooter you'll be 18-50 for portraits and 55- 210 for landscape
Variable aperture isn't as big a problem as suggested because a kit lens isn't going to be much use in poor light without a flash anyway, but a prime lens with a wide aperture is less versatile to the vast majority of beginner photographers who the kit lens is targeted at.
Prime lenses are a very specific tool most beginners don't know what 'specific' aspect of photography they will prefer and orientate into and the option of just buy lots of lenses isn't an option early on.
You have walk before you can run.
Idk I think the sony 28-70 was a decent lens
Any kit lens is good exept for canon
@@ixography i switched it for a tamron 28-200 2.8-5.6 and the difference is night and day in every aspect especially glass quality
@@-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-k apples and oranges. No rocket science lol
Not every lens with variable aperture is bad. Take a look of Canon's RF 100-500 f4.5 to 7.1 or Pentax 150-450 f4.5-5.6. Theese are very good lenses, that produces mindblowing pictures.
or the Leica 24-90 f2.8-4... i mean Leica is known to produce garbage but that lens blows all 24-70 out of the water
The RF lens is just too slow
His point is not that variable aperture is bad, just that the design of kit lenses means there is a minimum aperture for longer focal lengths and so a lot of the benefits associated with digital cameras (such as shallow depth of field) are lost, because of that limitation. This doesn't mean that you can't take mindblowing pictures with a kit lens, it only means that you are going to be limited on what kind of images you take. You're not going to be getting really nice bokeh, for example.
I have a Tamron 28 - 200mm F3.8 - 5.6 LD (Model 271D), and it works great for film...
The Rokinon/Samyang 35-150mm f2-2.8 is legendary.
What i will say is that owning a crop sensor and using this lens for landscape helps trememendously. expecially for long exposres.
As you mature as a photographer you’ll realize shooting wide open is only for very specific shots. Unless I am doing portraits for someone else im almost always shooting at f/4 or above, my preferred aperture is f/8.
Artistic Photography is mostly about composition and you can’t really compose an image if 90% of it is insanely out of focus bokeh. You won’t shoot wide open as much as you think you will.
The AF-P 18-55 is actually one of my favorite lenses of all time. Super light and compact, but really sharp, even sharper than praised lenses like the Fuji 18-55/2.8-4. Yes, you give up a stop of light, but for the landscape and travel work I did with it that's not really important, but sharpness is. Throw in the super cheap 35mm 1.8 for low light and shallow depth of field and you are good to go.
Maybe on your typical brands. Not when you have the Fujinon XF18-55 kit lens. Selling that kit lens is a huge mistake.
Your talking about most kit lenses, the Sony 16-50 3.5-5.6 only has one upside: it’s small. The sharpness is ass( especially corners), colours don’t look clean at all, af fails when it isn’t sunny, it’s a proper mess
Kit lenses are great for starters, I had nikon one which somewhat started to malfunction so I removed the front element and it became a very good super duper macro lens. Try it if you have one lying around no need to purchase a expensive dedicated macro if your budget doesn't allow.
My R6 came with a “kit lens” It’s a 24-105 L series lens. Takes pretty damn good pictures 😂
Canon R6 + 24-105mm
Approx: £3.5k...ouch !!
Enough said..with any Camera, any Lens can be paired & called "kit".
18-55mm lens is one of best zoom range I like to photograph most from streets to landscape, close shots of things and portraits of living beings in a close proximity! But vintage Canon and Nikon AF 18-55 mms are much slower and require more light in low light conditions, but these lenses deliver wonderfully when there's enough light to avoid noises in the pictures despite the fact that they're inexpensive alternative to good photography! The fast lenses like Fuji 18-55 f/2.8 wr/af lens, are highly expensive to give magnificent images in any. low light situation! Bigger fast zooms are far more expensive, think of the sony G-master lenses for example are excellent for spots and wild life! Still then, the slower lenses won't put you down if they are used carefully with tripods!
I don't need that blur effect, I just want to shoot videos indoors in proper lighting. Will getting a prime lens help me increase the sharpness or quality of the video?
each time i use the 18-55mm i always set the aperture to 5.6 so whatever focal length i set it to my exposure doesnt change
Sound logic 👍🏻
For those who are new, you’ll get over the blurry backgrounds pretty fast. It’s merely one type of photo to take within the ocean of infinite photos.
Tbh i like my sony kit lens a lot. Its not great at anything but also isnt bad at anything. Its the perfect way to find out your preferred focal length you like to shoot at to then buy a cheap prime afterwards. After that its just a rabbit hole of spending for more specific stuff lmao.
I got the nifty 50 with my kit in 2011. I got clients right away. 50 for head shots, the 18-55 for environmental portraits. Good times.
The Panansonic L Mount 20-60 kit lens is massivly underated and an amazing lens for an all rounder.
Für Anfänger ist das Kita-Objektiv das perfekte Einsteiger Gerät. Vor allem wenn man noch nicht zu 100% sicher ist in welche Richtung es gehen soll. Reicht einem die Brennweite nicht aus... Dann Kauft man sich ein tele .. usw.
Mein erstes objektiv nach dem ausreizen des Kita-Objektives war ein Makroobjektiv. Dann ein Offenblendiges China Objektiv und dann... Noch mehr Makros und ein paar alte Objektive zum adaptieren.
I've been using my Nikkor 18-55mm kit lens paired with my D5600 for a few months. It's a really nice lens. There's some CA and coma but that is easy to remove in post processing. I don't really plan on upgrading to a better lens in the same focal range
sony aps-c kit lens is honestly one of the best lenses i’ve ever used - so sharp at approx 5.6 and a pancake lens.
I absolutely LOVE my Pentax 18-135mm kit lens! It's my go-to "I don't know what lens I need, so I'll take that one" lens. It's very good in all situations, but not great at any one thing. Sure, I have better lenses for any one job, but it's still going to be the better lens if I bring the wrong one that day. Plus nowadays it lives with a circ polarizer on the nose, which only makes it even more useful.
Kit lenses are ideal for when you begin and for the fact they allow some zoom. It covers all the zoom angles you'd use for day to day photography. Just perfect.
primes are always going to have a greater level of sharpness and larger aperture (usually) vs a kit or zoom lens that can reach an equivalent focal length. my 50mm f/1.9 is my daily driver for a reaosn.
Kit Lens seems good in landscape photography since you need long exposures, therefore more light coming to the sensor, as well as wide DOF so no need for bokeh. Also on street photography - you just need to have a good composition and shooting technique.
My fuji kit lens goes from f2.8 - f4 so its decently fast and i dont mind it being variable aperature since i dont do video
the fuji kit lens is well regarded to be a pretty good lens, i love my 18-55
For the odd tourist application it is fine. Not everyone wants it blurry… you do want to make sure the Castle shows up in the background when you are shooting your family in the Magic Kingdom…
Doesn't every type of lens will be brighter at low focal lengths? If the lenses are closer to the sensor, it would always get more light, right?
No, not quite. The amount of light that's able to enter the lens is determined by the aperture (the opening inside the lens). A lens with a wide maximum aperture (small f/number), like f/1.4, will let in more light when set to f/1.4, than a lens with a maximum aperture of f/3.5 would. I hope that makes sense.
But with the kit lens, you get to learn a lot about the use and limitations of the lens. Also the kit lens @55mm and f5.6 has better bokeh than the same lens @18mm and f3.5 .
Depends. For documentary video primes are too slow to change. Or manualy focus. So a whatever kind of zoom with IS generaly is much better, because when it mattets you can make your shot. Who cares if ita lower quality, with changing lens you would just miss too many shots...
Also i think it was 18-135 kit lens, was very frekin good for video. Just gets the job done!!!
And yes if you want more quality, and you are making enough money, buy something better. But they are not bad at all.
For photography. I wouldnt even try. I mean its possible. Like shooting an event or something. But probably a much better idea for photographing people buying some primes...
kit lenses are as valid as primes or fast zooms. perfect for beginners and lightweight versatile setup. my 35-150 has a variable aperture too!
Note: high iso doesn't create noise, not enough light on the sensor does
Disagree! It’s one of the few ways you can have a wide angle for the price. Now really for use it will lack what most need in terms of speed but you can get a cheap wide angle like this. All it needs is enough light to produce what you want. Add a flash. I’ve seen a night club Photog produce amazing photos with this lens and all he added was a flash and he knew how to expose wel using the tools at hand.
Bad low light on variable aperture?That's why you use flash. Be more result oriented rather than 'i want to do it my way' style
Good starting point for beginners. I discovered that I loved shooting on higher focal lengths that way.
kit lens is the reason many unable to appreciate the different between phone camera and a proper camera.
many bought DSLR and question why they had to bring such a heavy big bulky camera when phone camera took literally similar looking picture
I'm glad my Sony A6400 came with an 18-135mm f3.5-5.5. It's way more versatile than the basic 18-50 or similar. At 135mm it gives me a decent background blur and it's useful in a variety of situations 😁
The kit lens is incredible, for learning photography and starting out you need to be in daylight and learning how to work with light, 3 years later I still use that lens but understand it has its limitations
The 18-55 was my kit for so long that I just got used to expressing myself with it, and I've really come to appreciate it, and I almost don't want want to use anything else, even though there's plenty of good glass out there. 😅
I got the Sony 16-50 for start. Yes it's not the best lens but hey! To start taking pics, it's actually really great. I upgraded then to the 50mm FE one any i used that all the time. Then i got the 55-210mm and yes, it's also variable one but good for it's job. If i need something in the dark. I will use the 50mm and everything else with my tele (i don't use my 16-50 as much as back then since the other 2 is taking it's place)
In Pentax system it makes sense because it is the cheapest WR (Weather-Resisted) lens
No problem. For low light situations, your gonna have to wear your flash ontop of your camera. Even outside.
I think those 18-55 lenses couldn't shake of bad name from first generations, later models were quite usable. Of course They had their limitations, and you outgrow them pretty fast. But they could produce nice pictures. As starting point for many photographers they served well. But I wouldn't buy one if it wasn't part of the set.
In situation that needs the background to be shown, it can be usable
This nikon 18-55 isn't that bad for macro it's kinda good whit the dcr-250 trust me 😉
Zooms usually suck. The ones with fixed aperture and internal zooms are not bad.
I bought an 18-135mm f3.5-5.6 when I was a teenager and didn’t know the first thing about lenses. Now I don’t even look at a lens with a variable aperture.
The 18-55 canon in particular has insane chromatic aberration issues too and for that loathe it
another reason kitlenses have bad reo is they are mostly the lenses beginners start out with and its not always the lens thats bad but the lack of knowledge, for sure faster lenses help to over come some lacks in knowledge but i've seen alot of great images from kit lenses by peple who have kept them along side other lenses as they progress
I think you can get a 1.8 prime as well as the traditional zoom lens on a Panasonic s5ii for like $2150 which isnt bad at all
Rf24-105f4L kit that comes with canon body is not bad at all 😂
I still rock my 18-55mm. Bulletproof lens with silent autofocus and a small, lightweight build. Great for video especially because its not the sharpest but 4K still looks solid out of it.
It all depends on preference and what You wish to achieve... I don't fully agree
So spend 100$ on a nifty 50 and keep the kit lense between 18-24mm ((with f/3.5 to F4, as a beginner for your wide angle shots on your APS-C
The 12-60mm variable aperture lens that comes with some Lumix cameras is actually a great kit lens.
I have the "kit" lens rf 24 105 f4-7.1 and it works just fine and replaces the L version for much cheaper.
I wouldn’t say it replaces it, the L is superior in just about every way
Kit lenses are fine. They are not supposed to be sharp or fast. In my opinion a worst lens is a lens you got for some reason long ago, but never really used and so it continues to get bored on the shelf day after day waiting for nothing to happen :o)
Wise words 👌
Kit lenses even though they have disadvantages, are great if you know how to workaround, it’s not always advantageous to have a lower f number.
newer kit zoom lenses are even slower on the long end
I use exactly an 18 to 55 mm and the exact one in the picture im looking at
Bro hasn’t heard of f6.3. Pretty standard with kit lenses. Not against the video, but kit lenses are good for learning. As a beginner people are yet to explore a niche they might find a passion in. A 35mm f1.8 isn’t gonna do anything for someone who wants to go for bird photography. Whereas 18 mm f3.5 kit setup is enough for a starter landscape photographer.
I have the ultrazoom Tamron 18-400 and it goes from f3.5 to f6.5 but I have the lens for zooming and you will most of the time have the smaller appeture with a zoomlens
Got a Tamron 18-300 on my fuji XS10, this thing is a beast seriously...
I'm lookin at the Tamron 18-300mm very soon!
Na it depends. The lumix 20-60 kit is really Not Bad. I use it to shoot wide. 20 mil , f 3.5 isnt Bad at all for such a cheap lens!!
Zoom i dont rlly use, just hop on a cheap 50 mil 1.8 instead
Just bought a canon T7 from Walmart, it came with a 18-55 and a 75-300 lens. Then I went to Target and bought a 50 mm 1.8 lens 😁
I have a Nikon d3400 with one of these lenses, but I just got a new camera and lens today, so I’m looking forward to it arriving
I think you’re completely wrong. Yes, there have been some truly crap kit lenses but a lot of that is down to build quality not variable aperture. I would point out the most modern kit lenses have some form of vibration reduction and many of them like Fujis XF 18-55 now range from 2.8 wide open to F4. Shooting wide-open isn’t going to produce your sharpest results. In most cases anyway.
Kit lens it s pretty decent I'd say, but if you're buying a nice camera like the Sony a6400 you're just not getting the quility you want from it
Down to 5.6 ? Gosh, I only wish it was that open.
Many of the newer Canon's come with 4.5 to 6.3 at the long end.
looking at my Leica Vario-Elmarit-SL 24-90mm f/2.8-4 ASPH. L and feeling pretty happy about variable aperture... losing a stop of light isn't the end of the world.... Kit lenses have a bad reputation because the old EF and F Mount Kit lenses were plastic crap... with the X-Mount 18-55 all of that changed
Isn't this a 4 grand Lens? Surely not comparable to a $100 KIT lens. AMIRIGHTTT??
The f stop is bad, the range is the best. That's why a 17-55mm f2.8 lens costs 1500 usd
Well, kit lenses DO use crappier glass, plastic and AF mechanics so - no, I still beleve that variable aperture is not the worst aspect of a lens 😅
Fun fact: the wow Guy in this video is a Belgian singer called Eddy Wally
Fujifilm’s 18-55 is a BEAST 🔥
The nikon kit lens (18-55) actually has surprisingly good makro image quality if you mount it backwards
U realise not everyone has an extra couple hundred to spill out on a new "budget" lens
The kit lens are probably some of the best vlogging lenses.
I agree with you, and my favorite Prime lens is a Helios 44m old Russian lens
The normal 18-55 kitlens is mostly just boring and not bad, it has the typical "phone zoom range" with just marginally better image quality. The one you should really look out for is anything that starts at 28mm like a 28-80mm or 28-90mm. Those are most likely some of the worst canon lenses of all time. Also the old 70-300 non L from canon. (The new 500€ one still loses to the tamron 70-300 Di VC USD that costs like 180€ and released in 2010). Oh, and also the 75-300 is shit.
I have fujinon x 16-80 f/4 weather resistant which is sold separately in my area for almost 1000 $. I always laugh when somebody tells me that kit lenses are always bad
My Nikon D7500 comes with a 18-140 F/3.5-5.6 which is a great kit lens although there is quite a bit of vignette. I still do have a dedicated prime which is small so I just keep it in my pocket but I rarely ever use it unless I'm in a low light situation