Question
Why are the lenses which are in a kit with DSLRs generally low quality lenses, or at least rarely match the quality of the DSLR body?
For example, a new Nikon D7000 ($1100) comes in a kit ($1300) with a 18-105mm lens. Even if this lens can be great for general usage on a Nikon D3100, it is obviously strange to see a $275 lens on a $1100 body.
It means that:
semi-professional photographers who will buy a D7000 - 18-105mm kit will need to replace the lens by a much more expensive 18-200mm VR2, or, if quality matters, a 24-120mm with, if needed, a wide-angle lens and telephoto lens.
non-professional photographers who will spend more money for a D7000 - 18-105mm kit will not gain too much comparing to cheaper DSLRs with a separate 18-105mm lens.
So, what am I missing?
Answer
I don't think it's 100% universally true that all kit lenses suck (5D Mark II kit came with a 24-105F4 IS which is a high-quality zoom lens).
Much of it has to do with information, sales, and the psychology of money.
Kits with 'low quality' lenses aren't targeted to semiprofessional/professional photographers. They are targeted to first time buyers who might not yet understand why a lens would cost more than a camera body. If camera kits only came with high quality lenses, first time buyers might balk at the nearly $2000+ price tag.
Kit lenses also simplify the buying process. Imagine being a first time dslr buyer; how overwhelming all those choices are. Having a pre-packaged kit makes it easy for newbies to buy a dslr, which increases sales.
And I suspect for many people, they are perfectly happy with the kit lens.
As photographers better come to understand the relationship between gear and results, it might be puzzling to us, why anyone would buy a cheap lens, but I do understand that not everyone is trying to take their photography as serious as we do. Some people just want to take photos. A kit helps them do that, in a cost-effective way.
Check more discussion of this question.
No comments:
Post a Comment