Kit lenses have their uses.

[John Bragg]

Hi, I wonder if like me you make occasional use of a simple mid range zoom on your film SLR. The very first Nikkor lens I bought was a 35-70 f3.3-4.5 ais. It had flaws such as a tendency to move under the influence of gravity, given half a chance. That was a long time ago, but I still have the lens and it still gets used occasionally. Recently I bought the last incarnation of this lens in the form of the Af N version. It is the same basic optical formula, but the zoom ring is a lot firmer and it has more of a quality feel. It came to me courtesy of a Japanese ebay seller and is in true mint condition. It balances very nicely on my F100 and after a week of use I am quite impressed with it. It is not for low light use, but as a walkabout lens, it has a lot to offer. Its main virtue is close focussing and it does that very well. At 70mm it is a passable portrait lens and at 35mm it can take in a wide view. Despite the bad rep from Ken Rockwell, it has earned a place in my kit bag. It wont displace my prime lenses but it is the little lens that can.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Our family EOS300 came with kit zoom lens, the only lens we used on this camera for almost ten years, it never been an issue until I sold it 🙂 . Got 22-55 kit lens instead in 2019 and it is good lens even on FF digital.

 

[Retro-Grouch]

I'm a big fan of the Nikon 28-50 f/3.5. Of course, it has its limitations, but it's pretty sharp, light, and compact. And Mr. Rockwell reviews it favorably, so you know it's got to be good!

 

[Austintatious]

I have gotten decent results using various kit lens with both film and digital cameras. The 28-70 Sony FE kit lens that came with my A7II is not bad at all.

Oiling up the Wheels by Carlos Yashinon, on Flickr

The plastic fantastic Nikon 28-80 G kit lens works well with film and is even nice on APS-C bodies also. Ken Rockwell had nice things to say about it. Nikon N80 shot:

Salida Church Bell by Carlos Yashinon, on Flickr

 

[Sonnar Brian]

These days- I've given Kit lenses on cameras to friends with kids taking a photography course. Pick them up cheap, pass them on for a good use.
For an all-around midrange zoom- Nikkor AF-D 28~105 for $60, like new. It's very good on my Df, very low distortion.

 

[hap]

These days- I've given Kit lenses on cameras to friends with kids taking a photography course. Pick them up cheap, pass them on for a good use.
For an all-around midrange zoom- Nikkor AF-D 28~105 for $60, like new. It's very good on my Df, very low distortion.

I haven't tried mine on D750 but I will get around to it.

 

[Pál_K]

Many years ago I bought a Minolta Maxxum 7 - truly an amazing camera - and the only lens the shop had for it was the Minolta 35-70, which probably was a “kit” lens when that camera was introduced.

I took that outfit to a car show and, as I typically do, I’ll make at least one oblique photo from the driver’s side rear of the car, focusing on the instrument cluster. Well, from about 10 feet back and at about 40mm, these photos were tack sharp! Examining the image in detail, I could see every little tick mark on the gauges. That lens performed far beyond my expectations and probably matches those of a prime lens.

 

[AlwaysOnAuto]

I purchased a used Sony 28-70 'kit' lens as one of my first native lenses when I got a used A7ii. I took shots with it and wondered why people didn't like it. Great little lens for walking around with as it doesn't weigh all that much but renders pretty nice photos when used properly with care.

 

[Austintatious]

The Sony FE28-70 "kit" lens gets a DXO score of 22. The Sony Carl Zeiss Vario-Tessar T* 24-70 lens has a DXO score of 25 and cost $1200.00 or about five times as much as the 28-70 "kit" lens. Just saying 😀

 

[AlwaysOnAuto]

I only paid $100 for my copy.

 

[Retro-Grouch]

The Sony FE28-70 "kit" lens gets a DXO score of 22. The Sony Carl Zeiss Vario-Tessar T* 24-70 lens has a DXO score of 25 and cost $1200.00 or about five times as much as the 28-70 "kit" lens. Just saying 😀

And the Zeiss lens, though okay quality, certainly doesn't live up to the Zeiss name. In addition, it's not parfocal (meaning it doesn't hold focus as you zoom). A nuisance if you don't want to use autofocus. One more reason amongst many that I dumped the Sony system, since I was foolish enough to buy the 24-70.