Single Lens Reflex: Nikon or Canon?

[Nemesis]

no, kit lenses are $hit either way, Nikon's is just better, but still $hit. If you're using a kit lens to determin which entire brand to buy into, then use a P&S, the whole point of DSLRs is control and the ability to expand through lenses, if you buy a DSLr to only use the kit lens, the you would've been beter off with a superzoom P&S with manual controls. The exact oppostie of end of thread, if that staement is the end of the thread for you, then end of photography for you should be just around the corner.

**** in what aspect? Do you even know what you are talking about?

Do you consider them **** because they have a plastic body and not magnesium? How do you classify a lens as ****?

Personally if a lens can produce sharpness at full crop, with no fringing or chromatic abberation, then Id say its good lens. A lens is **** if it flares, is soft at all stops, and fringes like a mad man. ALL ED LEVEL NIKON KIT LENSES ARE SHARP. Im not talking about the junk 70-300 crap that are bundled in. Dont make blanket statements like that if you dont know what you are talking about or dont want to back it up with some evidence. All ED level kit lenses I have seen or used have been extremely great lenses. Saying that someone that has a kit lens in their bag is reaching the end of their photography career is an idiotic and pompous response.

[87 Turbo II]

**** in what aspect? Do you even know what you are talking about?

Do you consider them **** because they have a plastic body and not magnesium? How do you classify a lens as ****?

Personally if a lens can produce sharpness at full crop, with no fringing or chromatic abberation, then Id say its good lens. A lens is **** if it flares, is soft at all stops, and fringes like a mad man. ALL ED LEVEL NIKON KIT LENSES ARE SHARP. Im not talking about the junk 70-300 crap that are bundled in. Dont make blanket statements like that if you dont know what you are talking about or dont want to back it up with some evidence. All ED level kit lenses I have seen or used have been extremely great lenses. Saying that someone that has a kit lens in their bag is reaching the end of their photography career is an idiotic and pompous response.

Yeah, saying anyone with a kit lens in their bag sucks at photography would be dumb to say. Good thing I didn't say that. I said that buying a camera JUST for its kit lens and planning to ONLY use the kit lens wouldn't take them very far, and would be a waste of money. How could you let a kit lens determine your WHOLE system is what I was asking. Generally kit lenses are worse than most of the other lenses in the system ,short of the 70-300 4.5-5.6, 18-55 3.5-5.6, and 28-70 4.5-5.6 cheapos in all the systems which are utterly bad. Kit lenses feel cheap, don't focus as fast, have narrow apertures, and generally will produce a few optical problems. Lately Canon, Nikon, and Pentax have been dishing out decently sharp kit lenses, but they are generally not as contrasty, quick to focus, and DEFINITELY don't have the build of their more expensive siblings. Personally, kit lenses can be used to start off well, but I'd rather buy a camera body with no lens, and then buy a good prime to start with, such as the undeniably good and cheap 50mm 1.8 lenses.

All that aside, I'd rather start with the camera the meets my needs the most, and a crappier optic lens then when I am going to buy better lenses later on anyway. And if you don't plan on buying any lenses in addition to the kit lens, THEN you've wasted your money on a camera that can change lenses.

It'd be like saying "I'm more comfortable with Canon camweras, flashes, I've used them and liek the menu layout, Love the L-series lenses and I really think the camera body feels better in my hands. But I bought a Nikon cause the kit lens was better."

[james]

I said that buying a camera JUST for its kit lens and planning to ONLY use the kit lens wouldn't take them very far

nobody said anything remotely close to this though. i was agreeing with who ever said nikon kit lenses are better than canons, and you went off on me. the canon 18-55 -simply put, canon's worst lens ever made. i still use it though, cause i don't have anything wider than a 50, but i hate it. my nikon lens was great.

[87 Turbo II]

nobody said anything remotely close to this though. i was agreeing with who ever said nikon kit lenses are better than canons, and you went off on me. the canon 18-55 -simply put, canon's worst lens ever made. i still use it though, cause i don't have anything wider than a 50, but i hate it. my nikon lens was great.

I never went off on you. I agree with you. I went off on the guy who quoted you and said end of thread. Like that is the end all be all of choosing a system, the kit lens. As a matter of fact, I was wondering why you went ape**** on me, cause I wasn't even talking to you. Lastly, if you think the EF-S18-55 3.5-5.6 is the worst canon lens ever, you've yet to use a lot of the lower end lenses because it's one of the best sub $200 lenses(optically) they've made short of the 50 prime. You should try using the 28-90 3.5-4.5 III that comes packaged with the film Rebels, AWEFUL lens. I really don't feel I disagreed from you as much as you htink I did, I was gonig off the person who made it see like the kit lens is the reason to get a certain system, I think CONSIDERING the kit lens in a lit of requirements in a camera for your decision is a perfectly valid point. I think you just misunderstood me and I came off a bit harsh.