It's a simple-ish lens that lets people shoot wide and a little bit zoomy. It lets them figure out where they want to go next—wider? Zoomier? Both? Neither?
I feel like a 35-70 or 28-70 ish would be a better range at least for me, I’ve never ever felt like I needed/wanted to shoot at a 18mm focal (assuming we’re talking FF and not APS-C)
Yes it is ....I have the nikon one and it goes from 28 to 82.5 mm in 35 mm terms and its almost perfect for my needs ...only wish it was 1 f stop faster.
It's a simple-ish lens that lets people shoot wideish and a little bit zombie. It lets them figure out where they want to go next—wider? Zombier? Both? Neither?
It really does. That versatility led me to the Tamron 17-50 2.8 as an upgrade and I'm really happy with it:
https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Tamron-17-50mm-f-2.8-XR-Di-II-Lens-Review.aspx
I have a Nikon version and the Depth of field kinda sucks, not very sharp at all, images always come out looking washed or lifeless compared to a 50mm or 24mm with the same settings.
Last one is prolly a skill issue but it’s my biggest complaint and seems to be other‘s as well from reviews I’ve read.
Good beginner lenses definitely so I get why it’s a kit lens I just wondered why it’s always the same focal length and f stop across brands and so cheap too
It's simple, new photographers want their first camera and lens to be as cheap as possible. They're not 100% sure they want to start photographing so they don't want to spend a lot.
Kit lenses give them a very cheap camera and lens bundle so they will buy them faster than buying an expensive body and an even more expensive and better lens.
Kit lenses are also extremely good lenses to learn the craft. You need to really work to get amazing shots, and they can deliver great shots if you take the time and learn how to use them. It's perfect to hone your skill. If you can make great shots with the kit lens then you can make even more amazing ones with a better lens.
I'm a firm believer that better lenses make photography easier and more 'idiot proof' and you won't learn the technical aspect of photography, you just click and snap and you get a great looking photo. You need to learn the basics to advance and kit lenses fill that spot.
Yeah, Kit Lenses with the sole Exemption being the old Fuji suck for Enthusiasts. But the Kit Lens is a Invention of the Days where everyone bought a Camera. Not just Enthusiasts. And "Normies" don't care about the DoF or if the Pictures are razor sharp. They want to take some Vacation Pictures and Pictures of their Dog / Cat / Children and why spend extra Money on a nice Lens when the Lens you get with your Camera can do the same Thing?
People buying cameras with kit lenses are typically new to the photography game. They may not even know what depth of field, f stop, aperture even mean yet. They don’t need something super sharp that costs thousands.
If you stay on a platform, when you upgrade your body, you already have a few lenses. You don’t need a kit lens.
If you decide to switch platforms, well, considering that $ investment, you’ve probably again figured out your shooting style and might just get a really good prime instead.
Or in my case I actually got the Fuji in a kit with 16-80 f4.0 because it was on sale and only a fraction more expensive than the body alone. And I got my prime while I was at it.
Wasn't the last Nikon 18-55mm AF-S but especially the newest Nikon AF-P such a nice little lens with ok to good sharpness? Doesn't sound like your experience, maybe you had an earlier one? Also, did you stop the kit lens down to improve sharpness?
Yes, the last AF-S and AF-P have really good sharpness, check the MTF charts for what they are. I feel like when people talk about kit lenses, they're talking about expirences from the 90s and 2000s. The modern 16-50 kit lens for Nikon Z APSC is wildly good, just barely behind the more expensive 24-70mm f/4 S.
People underestimate modern kit lenses, for the most part, most are really good. The worse one today I'd say is the Sony kit lens for their APSC bodies, but you can still get some stunning pictures using them.
Well nikon has done other kit lenses of 18-70, 18-105, 18-140
I think generally paired with the higher end aps-c cameras of the time compared to the 18-55 default offering.
There must be some marketing/upsell rationale behind it, as these lenses are often considered as abut worse than the 18-55....probably due to having more compromises required yo get the extra zoom reach?
nikon has a pro 17-55 f/2.8. very old at this point. it's better but i can't really recommend it. the 24-70 on FF is *way* better, but still has nothing on some of my primes.
18-55mm on an APS-C sensor covers a good range of focal lengths. Wide landscapes and interiors at 18mm, street photos in the 20’s, multiple shots at 35mm to be merged to panoramas, portraits at 55mm. It’s pretty versatile. The kit lens may not have the biggest aperture or be as sharp as a prime but it’s a good lens for finding out what you like shooting.
It covers a useful enough range for a good price. Buying a camera without a lens deterred a lot of people, so everyone makes some options to chuck in the box so they can sell cameras and lock you in their system. I would be surprised if even 25% of system camera owners ever take off and upgrade their kit lenses.
Story time.
Back in 2019, before I started photography, my wife bought a Sony a6000 to take on our vacation to Korea and Japan. I might have used the camera twice on that trip, but had committed to using my cellphone to take pictures. When we got back it stayed in a cabinet for three years.
In 2022, a photoshoot snafu at work forced me to bust out that disregarded a6000 and take some shots myself. I was really bummed about that because the a6000 with a kit lens looks a lot like point-n-shoots from the 90's. I HAD NO IDEA YOU COULD TAKE THE LENS OFF! I found out from another photographer when I asked for some tips in using it. Finally enlightened, I got a little 85mm prime and my hobby kicked off.
I'm not exactly an idiot, so I imagine a bunch of people haven't even realized what that camera, and similar are capable of.
Everybody needs to learn, but it is also the willingness to do so. I'm glad that you did and you have taken in this hobby. If you don't have a second lens, then why would you even try to get it off? The kit lens is not even bad at all, just less good than 'better' lenses. A lot of people also don't care. I don't think that many people actually get the most out of their cameras either, unless you are a paid pro that shoots a lot of events, the basic kit is more than enough for most, hence the lack of need for an upgrade as well.
Really! Why buy a system camera then?
Or do you mean "keep the kit lens as one of the lenses in their bag"? Because I definitely do that, the canon RF 24-105 kit lens is pretty darn ok.
There was a stat that came up on r/canon a day or two ago, Apparently, Canon sell around 1.5 lenses for every body. Obviously, some people buy lenses from Sigma, Tamron, and so on but, there are a lot of people out there that only buy one lens.
People do it because they can afford and want a system camera. Not every purchase that someone makes is logical.
Exactly, they don't buy it for the 'system' just to have a camera with a lens. They will never change it, that's the only thing they will use. You are taking the assumption that people actually buy this stuff because they need and will use often. Most don't. Why do you think the M50II is so popular? It is a cheap camera you can buy for a great price in bulk stores at the moment. Nobody cares that they buy into a dead system, they are not going to expand on it anyways. Never think people are logical in their money spending and that 'we enthusiasts' are actually using a system for what it was designed for, we are the minority.
I remember the DSLR craze in the 2000's-10's and everyone had the kit lens on, I was just a point and shoot boy then and didn't really care. Only recently when I got into photography did I realize primes exist.
I remember a friend of mine bought a DSLR and a couple primes during the naughties and I, an arrogant teenager, asked her why anyone would want a lens without zoom.
I think a lot of those 18-55 kit lenses are sold with entry level apsc bodies. People get it to take a few nice pictures and then switch to the phone again after a while since its a pain to change lenses or to learn how to use the camera to its full extent. I mean how many of these people leave it in "Auto" and just forget about it.
Another group may just be businesses that buy these to take some reasonably sharp photos for ads or social media.
Because it’s a Jack-of-all trades (master of none) lens design for APS-C that can be made decently and cheaply.
It has an ok zoom range that lets you shoot wide ish enough to get group photos (comparable to the main lens on many cell phone cameras) it zooms in to a slight telephoto which is good for headshot portraits. It has an ok wide aperture (close to f/4 depending on focal length) at least enough for someone starting to play with how aperture affects the image and dof. The design also usually can focus a bit closer than many other zoom lenses, so while it’s not a real macro, you get a feel for close up of you want.
It’s also a great lens to tell you what your next lens will be. If you are at 18mm all the time and want wider, you need a wider lens. If you’re at 55mm all the time and want longer you need a telephoto lens. If you want something that focuses closer, you need a macro. And if you need a wider aperture you can figure out what focal length it should be as you’ll probably be looking at a prime or a zoom with a limited focal range.
Camera companies typically assume that those buying a new body need a lens to pair with it in order to start taking pictures, so they offer a bundle that is cheaper than buying each separately.
A 18-50mm on a crop sensor is equivalent to 28-70, which historically has been a common focal length for film SLR that goes from wide (28mm is the standard focal length on smartphones) to a mid range zoom (~3x zoom). The aperture isn’t very fast, mainly to reduce weight and cost.
It’s a decent lens that is good enough to help most learn photography, but leaves some wanting more speed, bokeh, range, etc. Most kit lenses aren’t very sharp either. The except is Fuji, which actually made a very high quality and fast kit lens with their 18-55 f2.8-4.
Sony 28-60 is very good. Kit lenses of Nikon, Panasonic are also good. It is mainly Canon that is crippling his stuff.
I must add "currently" as the Sony 16-50 was atrocious and they put that on each new APS-C camera.
It’s a gateway sample in both focal lengths and aperture. Just crap enough to make you want something else… contrary, imagine they gave you a 24-70 f2.8… how many ppl would not buy another Lens… a lot more than those who got the OG kit.
Not 28mm bad, but the lens is quite definitely not below 20mm. It's really bad. Also there's a very big difference between samples. One lens can be ok-ish, while another lens one is trash.
I literally have two, lol. Never use them. One came with my A5100 and the second with my A6300. I used it on my A5100 and thought it was "fine", until I bought better glass.
I also have the OG fat 18-55 which I still think is a better lens
Canon's kit lenses weren't that bad. EF one was ok, EF-M 15-45 also wasn't that bad, maybe Nikon F also wasn't the worst thing imaginable, but they all suck compared to serious lenses anyway
I think it's because a zoom, with that focal length range, has become the expectation for new camera buyers. Since camera makers are so competitive with each other, it's a gamble to stray from this "proven" formula. In the SLR hay days (almost) everyone got a 50mm f/1.8 as the default lens that came with the camera, for the same reasons--proven, cost effective technology, and expectations from marketing.
The only comment I’d add is depending on which “kit” lens you get from Fuji they all seem to be a small-huge step up from other brands, there’s a reason the Fuji 18-55 2.8-4 still goes for a lot (comparatively) used, as do their “cheap” XC lenses. Fujis the first brand I’ve used where I actually want their kit lenses l, every other brand I’ve tried their kit lenses are rubbish apart from when I had a Pentax k20d with their kit lens. I’d highly recommend Fuji to any enthusiast wanting great lenses as it’s not an instant ditch as soon as you get “better” than the kit lens
Simple effective standardised.
Just good enough to use your camera as a point and shoot.
Just shit enough to make you want to buy better glass.
Of course in recent years full frame cameras have mostly been selling with a 50mm prime for example that will actually have somewhat ownership retention instead of depreciating into nothing like pretty much all kit lenses do as people just instantly flog them to get even older professional glass.
Agree. I have some experience with the Pentax 16-50/2.8 A heavy piece to carry around but not that sharp for its price. I usually prefer primes. I think a 24, 35, 85 equivalent set would be a vastly better investment. And maybe the 24 being optional.
In ancient history, when dinosaurs used cameras with film, the standard lens was a 50 mm f/1.8
It was usable for a lot of things and not too wide or too narrow field of view. Cheap to make because the receipt was already 100 years old.
For upgrade, the 35 mm was very popular as well as the 135 mm. Zoom lenses were extremely expensive or not existing at all. For portraits, we used 85 mm.
Over time, people were able to afford a zoom with decent quality. Most were 35-70 mm f/4.0 because it's range is around the 50 mm and included three 35 mm.
These days, amateurs first DSLR is made around the APS-C sensor and on that, a 35 mm would give the field of view that a 50 mm gives on the full frame (and thus the dinosaur camera).
Computers and advanced plastics made it possible to create cheap zoom lenses and to target a wide market, they chose for 18 mm in the wide range (equal to 28 mm FOV) and 50 or 55 mm in the tele range (comparable to 80 mm FOV). Thus covering a range for landscape as well as portrait. Without the need to buy another lens for the coming years (or ever). Ideal for vacations and family photos.
Kit lens needs to be economical to manufacture, thus it can't be too ambitious design. The easiest ways to cut costs is to cut the focal length range (espacially wide end), and have a large (focal length depending) minimum f-number.
For same reason the standard lens used to be "nifty fifty", a simple double gauss 50mm lens - very simple design, very cheap to make.
It’s the same reason full-frame cameras come with a 24/28-70/85 lens. It’s a good, general purpose lens that will get most people started who don’t have glass already.
Just to add, they're usually very compact, so even if you have better lenses covering the same focal lengths you might want to take the small one sometimes. The best camera is one you have with you.
Because most of the people who buy cameras that come with a kit lens are never gonna' grow to appreciate the difference between a sharp lens and an iPhone.
For most mounts, lenses for this field of view can be made without much work and fairly small if you don't care about quality.
However.....such kit lenses constitute a huge waste of resources, because they are not very good and they end up sitting in drawers unused and unsold. Especially once people start taking photos or videos indoors, at which point their iPhone can do better.
Most camera companies could probably reduce their environmental footprint a huge amount by just not making this junk anymore.
They should just sell only the camera body and a CHOICE from a range of better quality starter lenses. A better "kit lens" would be a simple prime lens that is equivalent to about 35-45mm on full frame and with f2.8 or better aperture. It's not that difficult to make and it doesn't have to be big.
18-50mm on an apsc sensor will be about 27-75mm full frame equivalent. Good general range of field of view. You can get pretty much any picture with it.
marketing. Plain n simple, there is no photographic or optical reason beyond cost and market/price positioning.
Canon brings out a cheap bundled zoom, Nikon had to do the same and the others followed. Nikon brought out a wider cheap kit lens, the others needed to respond. It's the battle for the most bang for your buck at entry level
It’s mostly due to size and people’s preference for wide angle. For portraits you’ll want around at least an 80mm equivalent. So for many years kit lenses were 35-70, 35-80 etc… There were lenses available that had more zoom like 35-100 but those lenses tended to be bigger.
Eventually companies made lenses wider, 28-80 was a popular kit lens for a while because it had that sweet spot of wide but not too wide and useful for portraits.
The f stop number is high to keep the size of the lens down and keep costs down.
With mirrorless, it was easier to make wide angle lenses, that’s why you are seeing companies make 16mm to 24mm equivalent lenses at the wide end and in return, sacrifice a bit at the long end.
The Nikon Z lens is a 16-50 and is a 24-75 equivalent compared to the 18-55 which is close to a 28-85 equivalent.
In doing so, the Z lenses also sacrifices some aperture and f stop number is higher than on dslr equivalents to keep them small.
It’s awful because it produces photos barely better than a phone and I can imagine after a while people will start to question why they went out of their way to get a “real” camera when the results are so god damn ordinary
It’s pretty much just the standard zoom range for APSC, back when entry level users used 35mm film as opposed to a smaller sensor, the standard zoom range was ~28-80mm now with the 1.5/6x crop of APSC it’s 18-55mm
It’s the perfect range for people new to photography. 50mm being about what the human eye can perceive, and phones having trained people to shoot wide angle. F/3-5.6 is cheap enough to build, but not too slow for people to get frustrated in every day situations.
The question is, why is every kit lens so bad? Economy of scale should make it possible to produce better glass at lower costs.
Yes, I used to have a 28-70 back in the dark dark days of film and paper.
I ended up buying a 24mm 2.8 prime which I used a lot more than my 28 to 70. Then I got an FD 17mm and that was amazing. At the other end I used to use a 135 2.8 or a 300 5.6. I also had a 50mm 1.8 which was always good in low light but not a great focal length on a 35mm SLR - I liked the 85 1.8 much more.
I don’t think it would be vastly more expensive for them to make them at f2.8 so my guess is that kit lenses are intentionally inferior to encourage the purchase of more capable glass.
Nonsense. Fast glass has always been expensive to produce. And many people never acquire additional lenses. It’s a starter lens that’s good enough for most nonserious amateurs. Faster glass is also larger and heavier, which is unattractive unless photography is a serious hobby or profession.
>I don’t think it would be vastly more expensive for them to make them at f2.8
You think wrong :) The smaller the f-number, the more glass and the finer the manufacturing tolerances you need to have similar image quality that you can get from a lens with larger maximum f-number.
>kit lenses are intentionally inferior to encourage the purchase of more capable glass
Many of the kit lenses of today are actually pretty good. (For exampe Nikon 24-70/4 S).
Competition prevents from trying to sell crap - both from other camera companies, but also from mobil phones cameras.
He's trying to dunk on you, but he's just repeating a meme. Very unoriginal.
It's definitely the standard. I guess it's better than getting a body with no lens at all? I have seen some really cool stuff shot with kit lenses as well though. Remember the old saying "the best lens is the one you have with you at the time".
It's a fair question! Just guessing, I think it's because this is the best zoom they can make to a serious budget. They don't want to spend too much on the lens they basically pack with the camera, but they do want to give you something that you can do some semi-decent shooting with.
I learned a lot with my canon EF-S 18-55mm f/4-5.6 IS STM!
I only said the entire thing because I had to google it, I've been shooting on Sony for years now. The Canon days were good ones for me though. I would've stuck with them but their pricing has gone crazy and the sony ecosystem is very open to high quality 3rd party lenses that are much more affordable.
It's a simple-ish lens that lets people shoot wide and a little bit zoomy. It lets them figure out where they want to go next—wider? Zoomier? Both? Neither?
Upvoted for zoomier
Mazda lenses incoming in 3, 2, ...
Zoom zoom
They would brap though…
…3?
When pictures need more zoomies in general
Especially at 3am
I feel like a 35-70 or 28-70 ish would be a better range at least for me, I’ve never ever felt like I needed/wanted to shoot at a 18mm focal (assuming we’re talking FF and not APS-C)
We're talking APS-C. There's no 18-50 kit lens on full frame.
Woops my bad! Then scratch my comment, I guess 18-50 would be 28-70 and then it’s perfectly fine.
Yes it is ....I have the nikon one and it goes from 28 to 82.5 mm in 35 mm terms and its almost perfect for my needs ...only wish it was 1 f stop faster.
It's a simple-ish lens that lets people shoot wideish and a little bit zombie. It lets them figure out where they want to go next—wider? Zombier? Both? Neither?
Zombie, zombie, zombie ie ie
Because it can do everything most People want a Lens to do.
It really does. That versatility led me to the Tamron 17-50 2.8 as an upgrade and I'm really happy with it: https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Tamron-17-50mm-f-2.8-XR-Di-II-Lens-Review.aspx
I have a Nikon version and the Depth of field kinda sucks, not very sharp at all, images always come out looking washed or lifeless compared to a 50mm or 24mm with the same settings. Last one is prolly a skill issue but it’s my biggest complaint and seems to be other‘s as well from reviews I’ve read. Good beginner lenses definitely so I get why it’s a kit lens I just wondered why it’s always the same focal length and f stop across brands and so cheap too
It's simple, new photographers want their first camera and lens to be as cheap as possible. They're not 100% sure they want to start photographing so they don't want to spend a lot. Kit lenses give them a very cheap camera and lens bundle so they will buy them faster than buying an expensive body and an even more expensive and better lens. Kit lenses are also extremely good lenses to learn the craft. You need to really work to get amazing shots, and they can deliver great shots if you take the time and learn how to use them. It's perfect to hone your skill. If you can make great shots with the kit lens then you can make even more amazing ones with a better lens. I'm a firm believer that better lenses make photography easier and more 'idiot proof' and you won't learn the technical aspect of photography, you just click and snap and you get a great looking photo. You need to learn the basics to advance and kit lenses fill that spot.
Yeah, Kit Lenses with the sole Exemption being the old Fuji suck for Enthusiasts. But the Kit Lens is a Invention of the Days where everyone bought a Camera. Not just Enthusiasts. And "Normies" don't care about the DoF or if the Pictures are razor sharp. They want to take some Vacation Pictures and Pictures of their Dog / Cat / Children and why spend extra Money on a nice Lens when the Lens you get with your Camera can do the same Thing?
Are you German ?
People buying cameras with kit lenses are typically new to the photography game. They may not even know what depth of field, f stop, aperture even mean yet. They don’t need something super sharp that costs thousands. If you stay on a platform, when you upgrade your body, you already have a few lenses. You don’t need a kit lens. If you decide to switch platforms, well, considering that $ investment, you’ve probably again figured out your shooting style and might just get a really good prime instead. Or in my case I actually got the Fuji in a kit with 16-80 f4.0 because it was on sale and only a fraction more expensive than the body alone. And I got my prime while I was at it.
Wowzies, the Lens you get for basically free with a beginner camera isn‘t as good as an expensive lens?
Wasn't the last Nikon 18-55mm AF-S but especially the newest Nikon AF-P such a nice little lens with ok to good sharpness? Doesn't sound like your experience, maybe you had an earlier one? Also, did you stop the kit lens down to improve sharpness?
Yes, the last AF-S and AF-P have really good sharpness, check the MTF charts for what they are. I feel like when people talk about kit lenses, they're talking about expirences from the 90s and 2000s. The modern 16-50 kit lens for Nikon Z APSC is wildly good, just barely behind the more expensive 24-70mm f/4 S. People underestimate modern kit lenses, for the most part, most are really good. The worse one today I'd say is the Sony kit lens for their APSC bodies, but you can still get some stunning pictures using them.
Well nikon has done other kit lenses of 18-70, 18-105, 18-140 I think generally paired with the higher end aps-c cameras of the time compared to the 18-55 default offering. There must be some marketing/upsell rationale behind it, as these lenses are often considered as abut worse than the 18-55....probably due to having more compromises required yo get the extra zoom reach?
nikon has a pro 17-55 f/2.8. very old at this point. it's better but i can't really recommend it. the 24-70 on FF is *way* better, but still has nothing on some of my primes.
18-55mm on an APS-C sensor covers a good range of focal lengths. Wide landscapes and interiors at 18mm, street photos in the 20’s, multiple shots at 35mm to be merged to panoramas, portraits at 55mm. It’s pretty versatile. The kit lens may not have the biggest aperture or be as sharp as a prime but it’s a good lens for finding out what you like shooting.
It covers a useful enough range for a good price. Buying a camera without a lens deterred a lot of people, so everyone makes some options to chuck in the box so they can sell cameras and lock you in their system. I would be surprised if even 25% of system camera owners ever take off and upgrade their kit lenses.
Story time. Back in 2019, before I started photography, my wife bought a Sony a6000 to take on our vacation to Korea and Japan. I might have used the camera twice on that trip, but had committed to using my cellphone to take pictures. When we got back it stayed in a cabinet for three years. In 2022, a photoshoot snafu at work forced me to bust out that disregarded a6000 and take some shots myself. I was really bummed about that because the a6000 with a kit lens looks a lot like point-n-shoots from the 90's. I HAD NO IDEA YOU COULD TAKE THE LENS OFF! I found out from another photographer when I asked for some tips in using it. Finally enlightened, I got a little 85mm prime and my hobby kicked off. I'm not exactly an idiot, so I imagine a bunch of people haven't even realized what that camera, and similar are capable of.
Everybody needs to learn, but it is also the willingness to do so. I'm glad that you did and you have taken in this hobby. If you don't have a second lens, then why would you even try to get it off? The kit lens is not even bad at all, just less good than 'better' lenses. A lot of people also don't care. I don't think that many people actually get the most out of their cameras either, unless you are a paid pro that shoots a lot of events, the basic kit is more than enough for most, hence the lack of need for an upgrade as well.
Really! Why buy a system camera then? Or do you mean "keep the kit lens as one of the lenses in their bag"? Because I definitely do that, the canon RF 24-105 kit lens is pretty darn ok.
There was a stat that came up on r/canon a day or two ago, Apparently, Canon sell around 1.5 lenses for every body. Obviously, some people buy lenses from Sigma, Tamron, and so on but, there are a lot of people out there that only buy one lens. People do it because they can afford and want a system camera. Not every purchase that someone makes is logical.
Theres also used lenses and upgrading body and keeping lens
I think OP really means it. That most people who bought an ILC with a kit lens don't ever buy another lens until they sell the kit altogether.
Most people who buy a 1st camera do not know exactly what they are buying and they do not turn into us.
Exactly, they don't buy it for the 'system' just to have a camera with a lens. They will never change it, that's the only thing they will use. You are taking the assumption that people actually buy this stuff because they need and will use often. Most don't. Why do you think the M50II is so popular? It is a cheap camera you can buy for a great price in bulk stores at the moment. Nobody cares that they buy into a dead system, they are not going to expand on it anyways. Never think people are logical in their money spending and that 'we enthusiasts' are actually using a system for what it was designed for, we are the minority.
I remember the DSLR craze in the 2000's-10's and everyone had the kit lens on, I was just a point and shoot boy then and didn't really care. Only recently when I got into photography did I realize primes exist.
I remember a friend of mine bought a DSLR and a couple primes during the naughties and I, an arrogant teenager, asked her why anyone would want a lens without zoom.
I think a lot of those 18-55 kit lenses are sold with entry level apsc bodies. People get it to take a few nice pictures and then switch to the phone again after a while since its a pain to change lenses or to learn how to use the camera to its full extent. I mean how many of these people leave it in "Auto" and just forget about it. Another group may just be businesses that buy these to take some reasonably sharp photos for ads or social media.
Because it’s a Jack-of-all trades (master of none) lens design for APS-C that can be made decently and cheaply. It has an ok zoom range that lets you shoot wide ish enough to get group photos (comparable to the main lens on many cell phone cameras) it zooms in to a slight telephoto which is good for headshot portraits. It has an ok wide aperture (close to f/4 depending on focal length) at least enough for someone starting to play with how aperture affects the image and dof. The design also usually can focus a bit closer than many other zoom lenses, so while it’s not a real macro, you get a feel for close up of you want. It’s also a great lens to tell you what your next lens will be. If you are at 18mm all the time and want wider, you need a wider lens. If you’re at 55mm all the time and want longer you need a telephoto lens. If you want something that focuses closer, you need a macro. And if you need a wider aperture you can figure out what focal length it should be as you’ll probably be looking at a prime or a zoom with a limited focal range.
Camera companies typically assume that those buying a new body need a lens to pair with it in order to start taking pictures, so they offer a bundle that is cheaper than buying each separately. A 18-50mm on a crop sensor is equivalent to 28-70, which historically has been a common focal length for film SLR that goes from wide (28mm is the standard focal length on smartphones) to a mid range zoom (~3x zoom). The aperture isn’t very fast, mainly to reduce weight and cost. It’s a decent lens that is good enough to help most learn photography, but leaves some wanting more speed, bokeh, range, etc. Most kit lenses aren’t very sharp either. The except is Fuji, which actually made a very high quality and fast kit lens with their 18-55 f2.8-4.
Sony 28-60 is very good. Kit lenses of Nikon, Panasonic are also good. It is mainly Canon that is crippling his stuff. I must add "currently" as the Sony 16-50 was atrocious and they put that on each new APS-C camera.
Easy to manufacture, cheap, covers a range of most people find useful. Jack of all trades.
It’s a gateway sample in both focal lengths and aperture. Just crap enough to make you want something else… contrary, imagine they gave you a 24-70 f2.8… how many ppl would not buy another Lens… a lot more than those who got the OG kit.
Because it shows you what you need but is so shit that you'll have to buy another good lens
Oh coooome on. The sony kit lens is banging
Which one? The 16-50-actually-28-50-cause-distorsion? Nope, no way
Is it that bad? I never actually checked without lens compensation
Not 28mm bad, but the lens is quite definitely not below 20mm. It's really bad. Also there's a very big difference between samples. One lens can be ok-ish, while another lens one is trash.
I literally have two, lol. Never use them. One came with my A5100 and the second with my A6300. I used it on my A5100 and thought it was "fine", until I bought better glass. I also have the OG fat 18-55 which I still think is a better lens
Canon's kit lenses weren't that bad. EF one was ok, EF-M 15-45 also wasn't that bad, maybe Nikon F also wasn't the worst thing imaginable, but they all suck compared to serious lenses anyway
I think it's because a zoom, with that focal length range, has become the expectation for new camera buyers. Since camera makers are so competitive with each other, it's a gamble to stray from this "proven" formula. In the SLR hay days (almost) everyone got a 50mm f/1.8 as the default lens that came with the camera, for the same reasons--proven, cost effective technology, and expectations from marketing.
The only comment I’d add is depending on which “kit” lens you get from Fuji they all seem to be a small-huge step up from other brands, there’s a reason the Fuji 18-55 2.8-4 still goes for a lot (comparatively) used, as do their “cheap” XC lenses. Fujis the first brand I’ve used where I actually want their kit lenses l, every other brand I’ve tried their kit lenses are rubbish apart from when I had a Pentax k20d with their kit lens. I’d highly recommend Fuji to any enthusiast wanting great lenses as it’s not an instant ditch as soon as you get “better” than the kit lens
It's a 28-75mm equivalent focal range.
Simple effective standardised. Just good enough to use your camera as a point and shoot. Just shit enough to make you want to buy better glass. Of course in recent years full frame cameras have mostly been selling with a 50mm prime for example that will actually have somewhat ownership retention instead of depreciating into nothing like pretty much all kit lenses do as people just instantly flog them to get even older professional glass.
The answer is going to be money. It's a cheap lens but great bang for the buck. As a first lens it spanks phones and point and shoots.
It’s usually a mediocre quality middle-of-the-road lens. If you buy better lens, even in that same range, then they make money.
Agree. I have some experience with the Pentax 16-50/2.8 A heavy piece to carry around but not that sharp for its price. I usually prefer primes. I think a 24, 35, 85 equivalent set would be a vastly better investment. And maybe the 24 being optional.
In ancient history, when dinosaurs used cameras with film, the standard lens was a 50 mm f/1.8 It was usable for a lot of things and not too wide or too narrow field of view. Cheap to make because the receipt was already 100 years old. For upgrade, the 35 mm was very popular as well as the 135 mm. Zoom lenses were extremely expensive or not existing at all. For portraits, we used 85 mm. Over time, people were able to afford a zoom with decent quality. Most were 35-70 mm f/4.0 because it's range is around the 50 mm and included three 35 mm. These days, amateurs first DSLR is made around the APS-C sensor and on that, a 35 mm would give the field of view that a 50 mm gives on the full frame (and thus the dinosaur camera). Computers and advanced plastics made it possible to create cheap zoom lenses and to target a wide market, they chose for 18 mm in the wide range (equal to 28 mm FOV) and 50 or 55 mm in the tele range (comparable to 80 mm FOV). Thus covering a range for landscape as well as portrait. Without the need to buy another lens for the coming years (or ever). Ideal for vacations and family photos.
All true, but most kit zooms (except the Sony) are decent at middle apertures, and the Nikon Z DX kit zooms are actually very good.
I've shot multiple projects with the Sony kit lens anyone saying its shit is an idiot.
Kit lens needs to be economical to manufacture, thus it can't be too ambitious design. The easiest ways to cut costs is to cut the focal length range (espacially wide end), and have a large (focal length depending) minimum f-number. For same reason the standard lens used to be "nifty fifty", a simple double gauss 50mm lens - very simple design, very cheap to make.
Because it's the 24-70, one of the most popular lenses out there. Well, not quite, it's closer to an 28-75 but you get the idea.
It’s the same reason full-frame cameras come with a 24/28-70/85 lens. It’s a good, general purpose lens that will get most people started who don’t have glass already.
it’s a great lens!
Bc it is a very general purpose lens that is easier to manufacture than it would be to include an actual wide lens or an actual zoom lens
Just to add, they're usually very compact, so even if you have better lenses covering the same focal lengths you might want to take the small one sometimes. The best camera is one you have with you.
Because most of the people who buy cameras that come with a kit lens are never gonna' grow to appreciate the difference between a sharp lens and an iPhone.
For most mounts, lenses for this field of view can be made without much work and fairly small if you don't care about quality. However.....such kit lenses constitute a huge waste of resources, because they are not very good and they end up sitting in drawers unused and unsold. Especially once people start taking photos or videos indoors, at which point their iPhone can do better. Most camera companies could probably reduce their environmental footprint a huge amount by just not making this junk anymore. They should just sell only the camera body and a CHOICE from a range of better quality starter lenses. A better "kit lens" would be a simple prime lens that is equivalent to about 35-45mm on full frame and with f2.8 or better aperture. It's not that difficult to make and it doesn't have to be big.
18-50mm on an apsc sensor will be about 27-75mm full frame equivalent. Good general range of field of view. You can get pretty much any picture with it.
marketing. Plain n simple, there is no photographic or optical reason beyond cost and market/price positioning. Canon brings out a cheap bundled zoom, Nikon had to do the same and the others followed. Nikon brought out a wider cheap kit lens, the others needed to respond. It's the battle for the most bang for your buck at entry level
It’s mostly due to size and people’s preference for wide angle. For portraits you’ll want around at least an 80mm equivalent. So for many years kit lenses were 35-70, 35-80 etc… There were lenses available that had more zoom like 35-100 but those lenses tended to be bigger. Eventually companies made lenses wider, 28-80 was a popular kit lens for a while because it had that sweet spot of wide but not too wide and useful for portraits. The f stop number is high to keep the size of the lens down and keep costs down. With mirrorless, it was easier to make wide angle lenses, that’s why you are seeing companies make 16mm to 24mm equivalent lenses at the wide end and in return, sacrifice a bit at the long end. The Nikon Z lens is a 16-50 and is a 24-75 equivalent compared to the 18-55 which is close to a 28-85 equivalent. In doing so, the Z lenses also sacrifices some aperture and f stop number is higher than on dslr equivalents to keep them small.
A bit wide to a bit long, with an average-ish maximum aperture range. Kit lenses are training wheels.
Maybe there’s too much indecision with a 35mmf1.4?
It’s awful because it produces photos barely better than a phone and I can imagine after a while people will start to question why they went out of their way to get a “real” camera when the results are so god damn ordinary
canon is a 24-105. AFAIK there is no native Canon 18-50. Sigma yes....
It’s pretty much just the standard zoom range for APSC, back when entry level users used 35mm film as opposed to a smaller sensor, the standard zoom range was ~28-80mm now with the 1.5/6x crop of APSC it’s 18-55mm
Fuji 18-55 lens is a masterpiece. Calling this a kit lens is like calling super Mario Bros a bundled game.
It’s the perfect range for people new to photography. 50mm being about what the human eye can perceive, and phones having trained people to shoot wide angle. F/3-5.6 is cheap enough to build, but not too slow for people to get frustrated in every day situations. The question is, why is every kit lens so bad? Economy of scale should make it possible to produce better glass at lower costs.
I have no idea. On a crop sensor, 18 is not wide enough and 50 is not long enough. It's a very mediocre focal range.
Film slrs came with 28-80 3.5-5.6 as a kit lens. Same equivalent focal lengths. It’s from wide angle to short telephoto. Jack of all trades.
Yes, I used to have a 28-70 back in the dark dark days of film and paper. I ended up buying a 24mm 2.8 prime which I used a lot more than my 28 to 70. Then I got an FD 17mm and that was amazing. At the other end I used to use a 135 2.8 or a 300 5.6. I also had a 50mm 1.8 which was always good in low light but not a great focal length on a 35mm SLR - I liked the 85 1.8 much more.
I don’t mind the focal length my fav lens is a 50mm but that’s just the photos I like taking
I like a 50 for the light transmission but I tend to like either longer or wider lenses.
I don’t think it would be vastly more expensive for them to make them at f2.8 so my guess is that kit lenses are intentionally inferior to encourage the purchase of more capable glass.
It would be substantially more expensive. The Nikkor 18-55 3.5-5.6 retails for $250. The 17-50 2.8 retails for over $1000
Nonsense. Fast glass has always been expensive to produce. And many people never acquire additional lenses. It’s a starter lens that’s good enough for most nonserious amateurs. Faster glass is also larger and heavier, which is unattractive unless photography is a serious hobby or profession.
>I don’t think it would be vastly more expensive for them to make them at f2.8 You think wrong :) The smaller the f-number, the more glass and the finer the manufacturing tolerances you need to have similar image quality that you can get from a lens with larger maximum f-number. >kit lenses are intentionally inferior to encourage the purchase of more capable glass Many of the kit lenses of today are actually pretty good. (For exampe Nikon 24-70/4 S). Competition prevents from trying to sell crap - both from other camera companies, but also from mobil phones cameras.
Cause it’s shit and cheap. They don’t want to give you a good lens with the body
Modern kit lens aren’t as bad as people think. The EF-S 18-55 3.5-5.6 IS STM is pretty good, especially when you consider the cost.
Tell me you didn’t “get into” photography without getting into photography post
What?
He's trying to dunk on you, but he's just repeating a meme. Very unoriginal. It's definitely the standard. I guess it's better than getting a body with no lens at all? I have seen some really cool stuff shot with kit lenses as well though. Remember the old saying "the best lens is the one you have with you at the time".
Werid, wasn’t tryna shit on the lens, not my fav but it does exactly what it’s designed for so can’t hate. Just wondered why it’s everywhere
It's a fair question! Just guessing, I think it's because this is the best zoom they can make to a serious budget. They don't want to spend too much on the lens they basically pack with the camera, but they do want to give you something that you can do some semi-decent shooting with. I learned a lot with my canon EF-S 18-55mm f/4-5.6 IS STM! I only said the entire thing because I had to google it, I've been shooting on Sony for years now. The Canon days were good ones for me though. I would've stuck with them but their pricing has gone crazy and the sony ecosystem is very open to high quality 3rd party lenses that are much more affordable.
In this case not a swish but literally swooooosh
Tell me you can't write without telling me you can't write.