Why "Kit" Purchases?

[beano500]

Just wondered why there's always this preponderance to advertise "kits" when you buy a camera these days. Invariably you're not getting the best lens either for what you ultimately want or that is best in the range.

I think a lot of people get a dslr, with whatever lens is on offer from the dealer and then miss out on a whole lot.

Is it just that we all start out with whatever's stuck on the front? - I guess I did after all

I can remember being lucky enough to move up to my first proper slr - a Pentax SP1a - with it's "standard" lens, doing the same with some Cosina (either that was M42 mount or there was some other reason for the purchase) and then buying a wide angle lens for a Canon followed by a Canon body. That's when my buying pattern changed - lens first body next - and it would be the same if I were starting out today, I think.

I did the same when I moved from Canon to Nikon (for autofocus) because EF lenses were no longer compatible. I bought three lenses before I even got the first body, I think! 20mm, 85mm and a Tokina zoom to cover the middle. Still have all these lenses despite adding a second body and then changing to digital.

Yet still today if you pick up a magazine they want the punter to have a "kit" lens or even two! Yet there's a whole list of lovely optics in the next column to choose from!

Sorry - just a "Friday muse"...

Edited by beano500 on Friday 16th March 09:06

[julianhj]

We bought a kit because of budget contraints (30D with 18-55mm). We've been fortunate enough to have be lent some nice lenses by a very generous mate, which will be going back soon. I'll be buying a nice lens in the US before then, I hope. Probably a Tamron 17-35, as we like the one we've been lent. The other factor was that a kit was only marginally more than body only, so it made sense.

[bramley]

I think the price difference for say a 350d with or without kit lens was something like £30-50? iirc. When I got mine I chose the kit because I couldn't afford to upgrade at the time and frankly, my ability didn't warrant it anyway so I didn't feel I was missing out too much to begin with.

I think they end up being so cheap you might as well have it unless you specifically want body-only to use with either lenses you already have or, as my mate did, buy a 350d with 17-85 IS instead fo the kit lens.

I sold my 350d to a colleague when I upgraded and he won't notice any optical problems with the 18-55 kit lens...build quality maybe but it's fine for what he wants.

[poah]

the 18-55 is only a few bucks more than the body only so you get a kit to start off with. some people will upgrade so only need the body only or some people buy better lenses.

[V6GTO]

Back in the day the kit lens was worth having. I remember getting a Canon T90 with a 50mm f1.8.

Martin.

Edited by V6GTO on Friday 16th March 18:54

[james f]

as said above the kit is only 20 quid more for the camera i want but i plan to add some proper optics once i can afford its buy and large (unless your getting a D2Xs etc) lenses cost way more than the body

[beyond rational]

Quite a few people I know "just have to have a DSLR" even though they know little about how to use one properly and no real interest in trying - they equated a DSLR to mean quality and they seem to be the in thing. The kit lense for this kind of customer is great, they don't have to think about what lense they need and it is very cheap - unfortunatly it will probably never leave the front of their camera either.

[byker28i]

The thing with the canon lens is that it's only a small price to pay for the kit 18-55. I know it's a cheap plasticy lens, but it's surprisingly good for the money.