Kit lenses frequently get a bad reputation as it is, but one photography instructor took things to the next level and banned them from her course. As is typical on the internet, outrage ensued.
A photography instructor at a university in North Carolina included a statement in the syllabus that they will not allow 18-55mm kit lenses in the course and students must find another lens to use or buy. It is explained in the syllabus that student work from past semesters has been licensed commercially and says that the kit lenses are low quality and will put students at "a serious disadvantage quality-wise." As a former instructor myself, I have to be honest that I don't necessarily disagree with the ban on kit lenses. I do, however, disagree with her reasoning.
Yes, some kit lenses can be of terrible quality. However, for students learning (and even beyond that, really), they are totally sufficient in terms of quality. Giving their explanation of the potential for getting a commercial license as a reason why students may want to upgrade lenses, instead of being required to upgrade, would have been a much better decision, in my opinion. Kit lenses aren't the worst offenders for poor quality lenses either, so without giving specific advice as to what they should get instead, they aren't exactly setting students up for success. Without knowing what is covered in the course, it could also be a missed educational opportunity.
That said, there are better reasons for limiting the use of kit lenses from a photography course in my book. I have never been a fan of zoom lenses for students. When I took my introduction to photography courses we were required to have a 50mm lens. I then went on to teach in graduate school, where I had no say over curriculum or equipment lists, and students were allowed to use any lens, the majority of which ended up being zoom lenses (and most were kit lenses). Changing focal lengths with your lens results in changes to plenty of other things, so it becomes more that students have to think about and consider at once, or they don't and their images suffer as a result. This is especially true with kit lenses since they have a variable aperture. Their aperture will change when zooming in and out, and they won't necessarily be thinking about or realizing that.
Prime lenses are a much better choice for students in my experience. It allows them to focus on the absolute basics of photography and learn things in steps, as opposed to having to juggle multiple concepts right off the bat. It also can stretch their creativity and force them to adjust in different ways when they have a single focal length, instead of simply being able to zoom in (or out) to whatever they are photographing.
I want to wrap this up with a few closing thoughts. First, I absolutely understand that some students will only be able to afford a kit lens, or perhaps they already had one on a family camera. Excluding such an affordable and accessible option will then exclude certain students from taking part in the course, which I agree is never good. Second, I don't know where this course fits within the photography curriculum of this particular university. My thoughts above are geared towards introductory courses, not advanced courses. If students already have a firm grasp of exposure basics, what focal length means and controls, and other such key concepts, then have at the zoom lenses!
What are your thoughts on the ban of kit lenses in courses? Share below!
I think most working photographers would be practical enough to admit that they could make an 18-55mm kit lens work if they wanted though.
Of course, but there is a reason that they generally don't.
Yeah, but what does professional choice have to do with a college photography class?
The original comment was suggesting that this sort of viewpoint is why she is a teacher and not a working pro. I was merely pointing out that almost all working pros also share the same bias.
I mean, I did when I started out. I didn't really have another choice. I worked magic with my kit lens for a couple of years until I could afford to upgrade to something better. I got my Canon 70-200 2.8L (no IS) back in 2014 and a Tamron 24-70 2.8 and I'm still using the same lenses to this day. When I was finally able to upgrade, I found that my image quality didn't magically get better: I just found it easier to get the results I wanted.
It is unreasonable, especially in the current environment, to be making these sorts of demands on students. It especially punishes marginalised peoples who just don't have the same resources and financial ability to upgrade.
While at the professional level, they would not be using a kit lens, in those cases, most pros tend to specialize in certain areas. For example, It is rare to see a pro who specializes in portraits and studio work, to also own a 600mm f/4. Often when they are learning, they will experiment with a wide range of things, but a few things will really appeal with them, while others will not appeal to them at all.
Often the learning process will allow you to experiment with different things and find where your creativity and skills shine brightest. Outside of very few use cases, photography is largely a creative field, and thus someone is unlikely to go professional in every single style.
If someone is taking a college course for photography, it really should provide many opportunities to develop technical skills, but most importantly, find their niche where their talent shines brightest in order to turn that into a career. Their major hardware investments will then focus on that area.
A cheap prime will not look much better than a kit lens, and in some cases, they can look even worse. For example, the nikon 35mm f/1.8 G crop sensor lens has better center sharpness than the 18-55mm af-p lens, but worse edge sharpness, and it has more fringing and longitudinal chromatic aberration, thus at the lower end, you're gaining and losing some quality as compared to the kit lens, for a wider aperture.
If their focus is on ensuring higher quality lenses as it seems to be the case based on the message, then they are likely getting students to invest heavily in gear before they have fully settled on a style and professional niche which may involve even switching camera systems to fit their needs.
While basic gear can get good results, at the pro level, time is also important since turnaround time heavily impacts their income, and high end gear often means less time spent correcting for optical issues.
Beyond that, even at the pro level, it does not mean all of the gear will be high end. For example, a friend of mine who work professionally, high end studio work for various companies (mostly for billboards). He has good gear, but on a vacation where he visited the city, his camera setup was a Sony A7r IV and a 28-200mm lens, and an off camera flash. He has other lenses and lighting gear, but packed lightly
Educators, regardless of what they teach tend to become infatuated with the authority they have over their students and the lesson plan. That is what is happening here.
"Changing focal lengths with your lens results in changes to plenty of other things, so it becomes more that students have to think about and consider at once, or they don't and their images suffer as a result. This is especially true with kit lenses since they have a variable aperture. Their aperture will change when zooming in and out, and they won't necessarily be thinking about or realizing that."
I've seen similar sentiments to this over the years and I always have to laugh. Because, you know, you can't just tell them "shoot at 'x' focal length and don't touch the zoom".
Yet another in a long line of stupidity out of university. In Canada a VP Research lost her job for pointing out that research showing global warming "might be positive for Canadian agriculture" was accurate! We shouldn't assume that any instructor is "right" only that they challenge us to learn.
Said instructor is a dumbass.
While kit lenses have their quality issues, they have improved greatly over the years. For example, consider the AF-P 18-55 VR from Nikon. While it won't hold up to budget primes, you can still get pretty decent results from it in terms of detail. For example, I captured the attached image using the kit lens (random toad in the yard). Random snapshot, but the detail and color is not anywhere near as bad as what would have been common many years ago with older kit lenses.
Kit lenses with decent zoom range are also good for learning because it allows people to work with a number of different focal lengths, then settle on some good primes for closer ranges, and probably a longer zoom lens for the occasional longer range shot. For example, it is better to use a kit lens for a while to see what you like most, then go with a quality lens in your favorite focal lengths where you will be spending considerably more money. e.g., getting the SP 45mm F/1.8 Di VC USD and enjoying some good OIS which works well for video use, and and being able to cheat on shutter speed a little when dealing with slower subjects :).
Edit: It seems the site scales down uploaded images.
Another example of university elitism and ignorance. I'd be willing to bet I've seen more exceptional images taken with a kit lens than this teacher has taken in her lifetime!
This saddens me. This is education, not a career. I run a studio and we only use the best lenses because we have hundreds of clients who pay for the sharpest images and the best colors. Quality matters. But when I was in my college classes, I used a kit lens and a cropped sensor and I thrived. Why? Because it was more about learning the gear and techniques and the art and less about the final result. And guess what? I'd argue that I learned more than other students because I had to jump more hurdles to achieve the same results. IMO this instructor should not be teaching and has lost (or never had) the right to educate. This is just the first step in breeding the most toxic form of photographers: gear heads.
My one word rebuttal to this nonsense? Fujifilm
Somewhat ironically, the lens with the cross through it at the head of the article is also a very good lens.
The professor is worried about whether beginning photography student’s work will be high enough quality for commercial licensing?
Am I the only one scratching his head on this wondering what the heck is going on here?
First, @Abby Ferguson, please leave the spin on the truth to get attention for the regular media. I think we had enough of the BS. We don't need it here.
Second, too bad. The 18-55 is a decent lens, but it seems that the instructor is speaking to advance/senior students so it makes since. The cost between a 18-55 and 50 prime is about $30, so it should not be a big deal. Plus, students will get a better experience with a 50 prime, so it isn't a bad call. I do agree about the reason. There are too many factors to consider, that a specific lens isn't the actual blame for a bad photo.
You seem to have misread the text, the person clearly says ‘your images will suffer by using this lens’
That is a straight up lie.
The main issue is that outside of issues such as increased barrel distortions, chromatic aberration (most budget primes do not improve in this area anyway) , and less fine detail, but unless the image requires a specific style that needs a specialized lens, e.g., needing a large amount of space around the subject but maintaining a very shallow depth of field, then a kit lens will not get anywhere near the look of an 85mm f./1.4.
But for most situations, the skills besides technical perfection, can be learned on a kit lens and borrowing specialty lenses for the situations that vitally need it. While technical perfection and getting the highest possible detail is desired. How many students are putting out work where commercially people are fawning over it but also saying, "if only he or she used a 50mm f/1.8 prime lens at f/8 to capture that photo in the studio, instead of 18-55 at 50mm f/8.
If I was taking an photography class, I I would want to keep my costs low, and save up for my exactly what I need when working as a pro.