dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
Search similar:


uniqs
2110

inGearX
3.1415 9265
join:2000-06-11
New York

inGearX

Member

[Tech] most are bundles say 18-135mm & 70-200mm lens - why not just 18-200mm ?

most sales for DSLRs I see they bundle one zoom and another zoom lends ...

like 18-135mm & 70-200mm lens

isn't it a hassle to carry two lenses and switching them out ..

why not just offer one lens say 18-200mm?

examples:

»www.samsclub.com/sams/se ··· id=59092

»www.costco.com/CatalogSe ··· ord=dslr

»www.bjs.com/webapp/wcs/s ··· &x=0&y=0

why is that?

thank you..

cheeper
@comcast.net

cheeper

Anon

Re: most are bundles say 18-135mm & 70-200mm lens - why not just 18-200mm ?

the lesser kit lenses are cheaper, allowing lower price point for the whole kit.
the lesser kit lenses are faster (bigger aperture), thus brighter in the viewfinder and a bit better in autofocus.

but yes, the trend is to higher zoom ratios in kits.

assorted 18-300's are in the $1000. range. apertures 3.5 to 5.6.

the biggest advantage of having just one lens and not changing it is that you are rarely exposing the sensor. so it rarely gets dust on it. when you change lenses outdoors it's very common to get dust on the sensor and thus specks in all your images.

mk1_416
@start.ca

mk1_416 to inGearX

Anon

to inGearX
Price. A good Nikon 18-200 is around $1000 after tax. For that price you can get 3-5 of the "kit" lenses. The Canon is a bit cheaper but still more expensive than the camera that it would be a suitable kit lens for.

Tex
Dave's not here
Premium Member
join:2012-10-20

Tex to cheeper

Premium Member

to cheeper
said by cheeper :

the lesser kit lenses are faster (bigger aperture), thus brighter in the viewfinder and a bit better in autofocus.

?

mk1_416
@start.ca

mk1_416

Anon

said by Tex:

said by cheeper :

the lesser kit lenses are faster (bigger aperture), thus brighter in the viewfinder and a bit better in autofocus.

?

That had me a bit confused as well, had to go and check and no. Incorrect.
voxframe
join:2010-08-02

voxframe to cheeper

Member

to cheeper
said by cheeper :

the lesser kit lenses are cheaper, allowing lower price point for the whole kit.
the lesser kit lenses are faster (bigger aperture), thus brighter in the viewfinder and a bit better in autofocus.

Wrong.
The kit lenses are usually the cheapest junk they can throw on the camera. They are also usually the worst performing of them all.

The reason most people don't get a 18-200 style lens is because it's difficult (Read EXPENSIVE) to manufacture, while still maintaining acceptable quality, and usability (Light intake).

Has nothing to do with brightness in viewfinder, and certainly not focus as kit lenses normally have only passable focusing ability compared to high end models.

A GOOD 18-200 lens is going to be seriously (like 10X the price) more expensive than a standard kit lens. So no camera maker is going to slap a 1000$ lens on every camera, when you can easily put a 100$ lens on.

But back to the OP's post, yes you CAN buy a wide range lens like that (There are even some crazier ones out there) but you're going to pay a serious arm and a leg, it's going to lack light performance, unless you pay another arm and leg, and at that point, you're not going to want it.

Unfortunately it's nearly impossible to get a "have your cake and eat it too" lens. For the simple fact that the wider range you give it, the (exponentially) harder it becomes to manufacture while maintaining quality, thus the (exponentially) more expensive it becomes.

rcroning
D700 Rocks
Premium Member
join:2005-05-21
Winnipeg, MB

rcroning to inGearX

Premium Member

to inGearX
I can't agree that all kit lenses are garbage. The Nikon 18-70 was one of the better wide zooms out there. The 18-55 a few notches lower. The 24-80, one of the cheapest, has had rave reviews. So I wouldn't knock kit lenses. They make great starters.

As for the 18-200, as mentioned, you do lose a bit of image quality the higher the zoom ratio. That's because of the engineering restraints and not quality of glass used. The sweet ratio for good quality zooms has always been around 3x. The 70-200 (f/2.8) in most brands has always been the workhorse lens for most serious photographers. Note the 3x ratio?

I would suggest going with the two lens kit. It doesn't take more than a few seconds to change lenses so I don't see what the issue is. That being said, if changing lenses is really that much of a chore, get another body. That way you will have both available and may also reduce the dust-on-sensor issues that plague DSLRs and other changeable cameras.

Hayward0
K A R - 1 2 0 C
Premium Member
join:2000-07-13
Key West, FL

3 edits

Hayward0 to inGearX

Premium Member

to inGearX
As others have posted, zooming from wide angle to med tele is a complex and expensive thing to accomplish. Where as wide to norm and norm to tele can be dome much cheaper.

Though I do disagree that kit lenses are junk. Greatest thing ever certainly not, but junk is a bit extreme, most are quite adequate though maybe not the fastest greatest things ever but do a very adequate job in non extreme conditions.

I have been quite happy with various generations of the Pentax 18-55mm kit lens compact and reasonably fast at 3.5 Then again seen other makes that are on;y like 5.6 making them pretty useless in low light.