I just did a large two day shoot for 8+ hours a day with over 100 different people and I choose to use my kit lens... and wait for it... NO ONE NOTICED!
I recently completed a Help Photography shoot for the charity that is right next to my office. I thought what the heck, I am going to only use my kit lens and see what happens... so I did. I gave the back all their portraits, I gave them CD's of the images I didn't print and I gave them a card if they needed help printing their other images. I never once said... my I could have used a longer/faster/sharper lens... I own them... I could have used them... but I wanted to prove a point for on here... new lens don't make for better photos... now if you are like me and you suffer from Lens Buying Addiction... well we both know there is no hope for you... and keep buying whatever lens you just 'want to try.'
But if you are a high school kid and you can choose between $1500 for that 135mm prime, macro, corrected lens OR saving for college... my money is on the schooling...
Now the sample image I posted of my PA is not perfect... there are lighting and MANY other issues... none of which could be fixed with different lenses... most revolve around the 6 foot by 9 foot room I had to work in... still... this is just a humble warning... buying new lenses is addicting... "There be Dragons There"... thus ends my rant... I am off to check the postbox... maybe the new 12-24 f/4 Rectilinear lens I order will be there!!! (no not hypocritical... everyone needs an UWA rectilinear lens, that FOV you cannot do with the kit lens... MOVE BACK and get the shot... NEVER!)
You had me giggling all the way through that rant :-D
I have to say, I do agree with you. One of my favourite philosophies when it comes to photography is "it's not about the gear". While I would love to buy more lenses, I currently only own the two kit lenses that came with my D40X (18 - 55mm f3.5 - 5.6; 55-200mm f/4-5.6) and a 50mm f/1.8 prime. I find I'm often reaching for the 18-55mm lens as it has the shortest focusing distance and lets me get up close and personal with my subject matter. The 55-200mm is great for moon shots. Personally, I think I've got some decent shots using the kit lenses too. Its all a matter of learning how to use them to get the best result you can, not being blinkered by the belief that you can't produce great images because of the equipment you have. OK, ending my rant now XD
I mostly agree. A "kit lens" is good enough to get the job done most of the time. A nice fast prime does make a better photo usually though. It's just that the average Joe doesn't see that difference in quality. I know that there are a thousand things I can do to become a better photographer and buying a new lens is nowhere near the top of that list. But I'm not giving up my 24-70L anytime soon either.
@rebeccab I wish the Pentax DA 17-70 wasn't such a crap lens.... I LOVE my 16-50... but I wish there was an extra 20mm would be great... and I have an honest beef with the lens... you cannot quick shift to manual focus... a must for me normally... not that my kit lens can... but... ah never mind... I guess that is why I have the 16-50 which happens to cover the 'same' 18-55....
@fillingtime that's great... so much glass stacked on top of each other... you must need a LOT of light to produce such little noise in the macro image...
I agree with you - both in the wanting new stuff and that it's the photographer, not the equipment.
Shot with 50mm prime lens (ok, not my kit lens, but < $200) and extension tubes. Still want a macro. Or a lens baby. :D
@icywarm Actually, I was rather surprised at how little noise there was. I was in full experimentation mode with that shot ;-) Light source was a 100 lumen LED torch, shone through tracing paper walls of a DIY light tent. I'm also lacking in the lighting area :-)
Great post =) Seriously though, I only use my two kit lenses that came with my camera and my extension macro rings ..... My latest photo was done on my smallest lens with the #2 extension ring =)
I think, when it comes down to it, it depends where your photo will be used. If you are just shooting portraits and you have strobes available to you, a kit lens will probably be fine.
But I've been hired to shoot a photo of The Boardwalk here in Myrtle Beach that will be enlarged to 20'x30' and hung on the side of a building. Yes, that is in feet. When it comes to something that large, I will be using my sharpest Nikon 20mm f/2.8 lens I paid about $900 for.
If a photo will only be printed as large as 8"x10", the lesser quality of a kit lens over a good prime or zoom lens probably won't be noticed. But if you're aiming to sell prints as large as 20"x30" (inches this time) or panoramic prints as long as 60", you are definitely going to need a sharper lens.
And...I still use my Nikon 17-75mm f/3.5-4.5 kit lens from time to time when shooting on construction sites or dangerous locations. I'd rather bust that lens worth about $100 versus my 24-70mm f/2.8 worth $2000.
So, decide where your photos will end up, and then choose a lens.
@icywarm - Just a note on extension tubes. The ones you linked to don't provide mechanical or electronic connections from lens to the body. So you will loose the ability to auto-focus, control your aperture, and with a lot of Nikon cameras you'll loose metering ability as well. And if you're shooting with a new G type lens (which most kit lenses are) you can't control your aperture on the lens, so you'll be stuck with the smallest aperture. Which sucks for trying to focus. So for a lot of people a kit lens and extension tubes just isn't a workable solution.
@swilde
I just bought a 52mm Wide angle that has a detachable Macro adapter. It was $5 on amazon...
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B002VSM7LE/ref=oss_product
This is the shot I got using that adapter and my +4 adapter. This is a grain of baking sugar.
I, too, would love to have a true macro lens but really you can use the adapters and get great results. I am saving for a better camera than my D40 first. lol
@sudweeks cannot people meter with sunny 16 anymore? And for macro don't you focus by moving the camera??? Ok the ap comment was interesting... with pentax without ap control you are stuck wide open... interesting nikon would leave you stuck closed....I wonder what the logic is there?
No really your comments are correct, I just posted something that could work of course you can speed tons on a great set of tubes....
@icywarm - I had to pull a lens off my camera to double check - but yes, with Nikon if a nikon lens isn't connected to the camera, the aperture closes down to the minimum. Because of this, it's a lot harder to find what is exactly in focus even with moving the camera back in forth like it is when the aperture is opened all the way up.
Most macros I shoot aren't done in daylight, so sunny 16 isn't relevant. You'll have to guess and check your metering. Not a big deal to me - but it could be to other people.
I'm cool with cheap macro setups, I just want to let people know what they're getting into.
KIT LENSES ARE USEFUL!!! i got some pretty decent shots with my 18-55mm and 55-200mm.. but i actually grab the 18-55mm more than the 55-200mm... hihi but it's pretty addicting using my friend's 35mm f/1.8 lens.. i'd buy this when i got my money! hahahha
I changed back to my kit lens when I went to Centreparcs - I wanted the autofocus for quick wildlife shots. But when I did, I noticed the kit lens had a slight soft-focus quality to it. I used my kit lens for a good four months or so before I got my first other lens (40-80mm Takumar), and had taken perfectly acceptable photos with it. But I guess I'd been kinda spoilt by the clarity of the 40-80mm - it bugged me, and I ended up switching back. I've noticed this slight drop in clarity with other Pentax DA optics I've tried, and I guess the lower budget lenses in their range just don't have as nice glass in them, and you have to pay megabucks for the nice clarity I have the privilege of experiencing with my 40-80mm.
So yeah, if you've got a kit lens and can't afford to upgrade, then ignorance is bliss. Once you've bought a nicer lens, though, it is really hard going back!
@madmazda86 yeah once I used DA* and LTD's I have a tough time with the DA's.... but still... I physically hurt everytime I see the price of a DA*(300/4... AHH!)
I don't own any kit lenses, but I've gotten flack for using my 18-200mm lens for professional work. Yet the people saying it's a "horrible" lens can't tell my photos were taken with it... funny how that works.
@hmgphotos oh was it another photog with a bigger lens than you... !?! Could you image... well the photo LOOKS great and would be a perfect FIT for our cover... but we cannot publish anything taken with glass that is not white...
@icywarm HAHHAHAHAHAHA!!!! I love it! Don't you know that white lenses are better than everything else?!
I just got flack from people who haven't really be published, and on the rare photo forum post I will make. "Ugh, that lens is just horrible quality!" and yet they've never used it... don't hate because I have 1 lens for everything from 18 to 200mm and you have 10 lenses to cover that focal range! LOL
Nice!! It is definitely true! I try not lusting over lenses but I really want an 18x200 at some point. I do have a friend who has one and will let me borrow it to make sure that's what I really want.
I did Help Portrait here too in December. We didnt' have too big of a turnout but hope to do it again next year. A friend just suggested that we do a Veteran project and take pictures of Veterans for free. I'm on board for that too if it happens.
Write a Reply
Sign up for a free account or Sign in to post a comment.
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
http://cgi.ebay.ca/Macro-Extension-Tube-Ring-Nikon-AF-Ai-DSLR-SLR-/180503449322?pt=Lens_Accessories&hash=item2a06d80eea#ht_3323wt_1139
I have to say, I do agree with you. One of my favourite philosophies when it comes to photography is "it's not about the gear". While I would love to buy more lenses, I currently only own the two kit lenses that came with my D40X (18 - 55mm f3.5 - 5.6; 55-200mm f/4-5.6) and a 50mm f/1.8 prime. I find I'm often reaching for the 18-55mm lens as it has the shortest focusing distance and lets me get up close and personal with my subject matter. The 55-200mm is great for moon shots. Personally, I think I've got some decent shots using the kit lenses too. Its all a matter of learning how to use them to get the best result you can, not being blinkered by the belief that you can't produce great images because of the equipment you have. OK, ending my rant now XD
Great portrait btw.
Oh, it's a Liquid Amber seed pod which are about 3 - 4cm in diameter.
Shot with 50mm prime lens (ok, not my kit lens, but < $200) and extension tubes. Still want a macro. Or a lens baby. :D
Thanks heaps for this post :)
But I've been hired to shoot a photo of The Boardwalk here in Myrtle Beach that will be enlarged to 20'x30' and hung on the side of a building. Yes, that is in feet. When it comes to something that large, I will be using my sharpest Nikon 20mm f/2.8 lens I paid about $900 for.
If a photo will only be printed as large as 8"x10", the lesser quality of a kit lens over a good prime or zoom lens probably won't be noticed. But if you're aiming to sell prints as large as 20"x30" (inches this time) or panoramic prints as long as 60", you are definitely going to need a sharper lens.
And...I still use my Nikon 17-75mm f/3.5-4.5 kit lens from time to time when shooting on construction sites or dangerous locations. I'd rather bust that lens worth about $100 versus my 24-70mm f/2.8 worth $2000.
So, decide where your photos will end up, and then choose a lens.
I just bought a 52mm Wide angle that has a detachable Macro adapter. It was $5 on amazon...
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B002VSM7LE/ref=oss_product
This is the shot I got using that adapter and my +4 adapter. This is a grain of baking sugar.
I, too, would love to have a true macro lens but really you can use the adapters and get great results. I am saving for a better camera than my D40 first. lol
No really your comments are correct, I just posted something that could work of course you can speed tons on a great set of tubes....
Most macros I shoot aren't done in daylight, so sunny 16 isn't relevant. You'll have to guess and check your metering. Not a big deal to me - but it could be to other people.
I'm cool with cheap macro setups, I just want to let people know what they're getting into.
I still want to buy lenses though :P
here are samples from my kit lens.,.. ^__^
So yeah, if you've got a kit lens and can't afford to upgrade, then ignorance is bliss. Once you've bought a nicer lens, though, it is really hard going back!
But I will say, in relation to the specific situation discussed, you're on the money - I couldn't agree more.
I just got flack from people who haven't really be published, and on the rare photo forum post I will make. "Ugh, that lens is just horrible quality!" and yet they've never used it... don't hate because I have 1 lens for everything from 18 to 200mm and you have 10 lenses to cover that focal range! LOL
I did Help Portrait here too in December. We didnt' have too big of a turnout but hope to do it again next year. A friend just suggested that we do a Veteran project and take pictures of Veterans for free. I'm on board for that too if it happens.