« How to Learn Digital Photography? Try This New Guide! | Main | Black and White, or Color? HDR in Downtown Orlando... »

January 24, 2011


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Paul DeCesare

To me I just think that a kit lens should only be purchased by a beginner who is buying their first DSLR, with the understanding that they are going to need to save for a better lens IF they decide to stick with photography. Unfortunately we grossly under-emphasize the importance of the glass. People so often want to know how to improve the image QUALITY and because of our lethergy in stating the obvious about good lenses, they end up assuming that they need a "better camera". Same with film. Sensor technology is extremely good now, as was film in its day. Back then a Minolta X370 didn't improve the film's ability to capture light any more than a Nikon F4 did given all equal settings. IT'S ALL ABOUT THE GLASS. It's like we're afraid to say "yes, start saving your pennies, because the Canon 70-200mm is very expensive but the image quality is beyond what you could ever get with a cheap lens". It's gets so frustrating to hear someone say that they need a Canon 7D to get better picture quality than the Canon Xsi they currently use, yet the kit lens remains a constant. Granted, I do get far superior results on my 5D Mark II when shooting the Milky Way at ISO 3200 for 30 seconds, but that's a specific need that really does require a full frame sensor, but I certainly wouldn;t shoot it with a kit lens! In general, the improvement you gain by forever ditching an 18-55mm kit lens and getting something like the 17-40mm/4 is far beyond anything else you can do for image quality.

Whew! Thanks for listening!

The comments to this entry are closed.