Why do entry-level DSLRs often come with a telephoto?

J-D-G · 12-22-2010, 12:41 PM

Hey

I was wondering why DSLR-packages with two lenses almost always include a telephoto? Im looking to buy the k-r or k-x and Im not sure if I should get a cheap additional telephoto, they cant be that good quality? Is it a good opportunity to get some more glass or is it just a way for the sellers to earn more money?

opiet70 · 12-22-2010, 12:53 PM

Well, it depends actually.

The whole point (in my opinion) is for the lenses to cover as much focal length as possible. That's why the 18-55mm and 50-200 or 55-300 seem to be in kits. In fact, if I were starting out again, I'd love to have the 55-300 come with my camera.

Some of the cheaper lenses perform adequately for what most beginners will use them for. The 55-300 has been mentioned by many people on this forum as one of the best quality lenses at that price point there is. Also, since most people starting out don't necessarily know what lens works best with their shooting interests, it give them a chance to learn.

I'd suggest you look at what you need for lenses, compare the reviews on each lens fitting that category, and see if it comes in a kit. I don't think you'll use any of the kit lenses, then just buy the body and spend your money on exactly what you need. If I recall correctly when I bought my K10D several years ago, the kit lens was heavily discounted in the package - which made it a solid deal for me.

SpecialK · 12-22-2010, 12:59 PM

As the camera comes with a "standard" zoom, it makes sense that people will want something longer for uses where the kit lens is too short. So, you have a choice of entry level telephotos.

The 55-300 provides better image quality than the 50-200. The "DA-L" designated telephotos do not have the quick focus ring, a distance scale, or a lens hood. They also have a plastic mount. A hood is highly recommended, but they are not cheap. A used "regular" 55-300 with hood can be gotten on the marketplace from time to time.

Howdy · 12-22-2010, 01:06 PM

I fully agree with opiet70!

I have the 50-200 kit lens and I must say it is a useful one. No, not the best quality but very small and light. I would get the 55-300 due to very favourable reviews and a bit longer zoom range. Even if you do not actually need a telephoto I think for this price it is a very sensible and useful addition (you do need a telephoto sometimes

)

In short - go for the kit set. Cheap, waterproof and of bearable quality. If you find you really do not like this lens, you can sell it with minimal loss.

Andi Lo · 12-22-2010, 01:12 PM

Originally posted by Howdy

In short - go for the kit set. Cheap, waterproof and of bearable quality. If you find you really do not like this lens, you can sell it with minimal loss.

+1, I would've gone with the kit when I bought k-x had it come in white. Correction though. The K-r and K-x kits are NOT waterproof!

Ira · 12-22-2010, 01:13 PM

If you look at the prices of the kit lenses, they're not expensive. They offer them so you can cover every situation right out of the box, so it's not about them making additional money.

You have to do the money math yourself and decide what you want in a body plus lens(es) kit, along with looking at examples and reviews of those lenses.

**Ash** · 12-22-2010, 01:17 PM

Telephotos are good selling points - makes good sense not only since the competition offers them, but also that they encourage buyers to consider using SLRs for what they were made for - changing lenses according to the shooting requirement. A single megazoom lens has both limited speed and limited optical quality, whereas the Pentax twin kit lens set are as good as you'll get anywhere else. The 50-200 is good, but the 55-300 better.

RioRico · 12-22-2010, 01:50 PM

Point in favor: Kit lenses are usually inexpensive. Whether they'll do what's wanted is another question.

Point against: Nobody is forced to buy a kit. But getting what's really wanted probably costs a bit more.

When moving from a great P&S to a dSLR, I asked myself, What do I want to do that I can't do with what I have? and the answers were ultrawide, ultralong, and low light. So the kit I bought with my K20D (and AF360) were the DA10-17 fisheye zoom, DA18-250 walkaround superzoom, and FA50/1.4 Fast Fifty. And 175 lenses later, those are still my most-used glass.

I later got a DA18-55, and a Tamron 60-300, but I just don't use that lens set much, because I do a lot of shooting between 35-70mm, and having to switch lenses at 50mm really slows me down. IMHO the 18-250 is the best 'kit' lens and has proved itself on many journeys to photo-ops large and small. It's the general-purpose lens. All others are specialty items.

Why are telephotos included in two-lens kits? Tradition. Market research. A way to sell more lenses. Include an 18-55 and 50-200 that n00bs will be persuaded to 'upgrade' with much more expensive cousins right away -- this keeps managers & owners happy. I hate this whole 'upgrade' concept. DON'T get a starter kit that you'll soon discard (expensively). DO start with lenses that do what you want. And if you don't know what you want, you'll probably end up with something you *don't* want. Bother...

grainbelt · 12-22-2010, 02:15 PM

From a marketing perspective, I think the telephoto kits are a hedge against the superzoom buyer - why go DSLR when I can get this 12X superzoom? Well, we can bundle your DSLR with a telephoto to cover the same range.

**boriscleto** · 12-22-2010, 02:16 PM

Originally posted by SpecialK

A hood is highly recommended, but they are not cheap. A used "regular" 55-300 with hood can be gotten on the marketplace from time to time.

The genuine Pentax lens hood is not cheap, but the chinese knockoff is about $10 on eBay.

hcc · 12-22-2010, 02:33 PM

Originally posted by RioRico

When moving from a great P&S to a dSLR, I asked myself, What do I want to do that I can't do with what I have? and the answers were ultrawide, ultralong, and low light. So the kit I bought with my K20D (and AF360) were the DA10-17 fisheye zoom, DA18-250 walkaround superzoom, and FA50/1.4 Fast Fifty. And 175 lenses later, those are still my most-used glass.

I later got a DA18-55, and a Tamron 60-300, but I just don't use that lens set much, because I do a lot of shooting between 35-70mm, and having to switch lenses at 50mm really slows me down. IMHO the 18-250 is the best 'kit' lens and has proved itself on many journeys to photo-ops large and small. It's the general-purpose lens. All others are specialty items.

DO start with lenses that do what you want.

I strongly second RioRico's comments. You should ask yourself what you want to shoot and consider what lenses you need. In doing so, it is a good advice to go the your local shop and try the camera with a range of lenses that you mihgt be interested. You will get a first hand feel for the weight of the camera + lens and the ease to shoot.

Coming from several ultra-zoom P&Ss, I chose the DA18-250mm as my first lense and I use it nearly 75% of the time. I bypassed the kit lenses, save some money and decided to go to the most flexible all-around lens. I have no regret and am confident that it was the best choice...

Later I slowly built up a collection of quality lenses to complement my needs...

Food for thouhgts...

Ratmagiclady · 12-22-2010, 02:46 PM

The short answer is: People really like em. They might get bored with talk of all the prime lenses in the world, but give em a zoom (of any size) and they'll have a good time. When I worked retail, too, well over half the people wanting SLRs wanted to get photos of their kids playing sports, or something similar, or they'd be happy with point-and-shoots.

(Kit zooms are kind of handy for me, anyway, despite me being all 'serious.' It so happens that I like really-high-quality fast primes of moderate length. While I'd just as soon have nicer of what zooms do, it's just not where my emphasis is on a limited budget, so a consumer wide or a nice cheap tele zoom can come in handy, as long as it's not awful. It's not where I want to spend hundreds or carry pounds, so I have a kit zoom for a real wide on digital till I can spring for a DA 21.

)

grainbelt · 12-22-2010, 03:23 PM

Originally posted by Ratmagiclady

While I'd just as soon have nicer of what zooms do, it's just not where my emphasis is on a limited budget, so a consumer wide or a nice cheap tele zoom can come in handy, as long as it's not awful.

I'd love a DA * 60-250. I'd use it maybe five times a year, so I can't justify it. The DA 55-300 is just fine for the times I need some reach - I know its limits, and work within them. The results aren't completely embarrassing.

sterretje · 12-22-2010, 10:20 PM

It should be forbidden

Entry level cameras should come with a prime lens in the 30mm to 35mm range.

But on-topic:
Nothing stops you from investing straight away in a 60-250/4 or a 70-210/2.8 combined with a DA15 or DA21 for the wide angle needs and a FA31 as the normal/fast lens

Because whatever reasoning you have for the telezoom will also apply to the 18-55 kit lens

wlachan · 12-22-2010, 10:30 PM

I think newbies are naturally attracted to teles (for whatever reasons). The problem is that newbies might not foresee the hassle of carrying more gear and switching lenses in the field. IMHO, something like 18-135 will be many times more practical than 18-55+70-200 but having 2 lenses for roughly the same price must be a better deal right? But how could they understand when they knew practically nothing.

12-22-2010, 12:41 PM	#1
J-D-G New Member Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 5	Why do entry-level DSLRs often come with a telephoto? Hey I was wondering why DSLR-packages with two lenses almost always include a telephoto? Im looking to buy the k-r or k-x and Im not sure if I should get a cheap additional telephoto, they cant be that good quality? Is it a good opportunity to get some more glass or is it just a way for the sellers to earn more money?

12-22-2010, 02:46 PM	#12
Ratmagiclady Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: GA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 13,563	The short answer is: People really like em. They might get bored with talk of all the prime lenses in the world, but give em a zoom (of any size) and they'll have a good time. When I worked retail, too, well over half the people wanting SLRs wanted to get photos of their kids playing sports, or something similar, or they'd be happy with point-and-shoots. (Kit zooms are kind of handy for me, anyway, despite me being all 'serious.' It so happens that I like really-high-quality fast primes of moderate length. While I'd just as soon have nicer of what zooms do, it's just not where my emphasis is on a limited budget, so a consumer wide or a nice cheap tele zoom can come in handy, as long as it's not awful. It's not where I want to spend hundreds or carry pounds, so I have a kit zoom for a real wide on digital till I can spring for a DA 21. ) Last edited by Ratmagiclady; 12-22-2010 at 02:53 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
New Sony entry-level DSLRs - A290 / A390	jhaji	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	6	06-14-2010 10:21 AM
KX entry level?	Racing Widow	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	8	11-18-2009 01:22 PM
new entry level body will be..	miriya	Pentax News and Rumors	25	09-06-2008 09:34 PM
Entry level Pentax 67?	germar	Pentax Medium Format	13	06-30-2008 08:17 AM
Entry level pricing better than ever	regken	Pentax News and Rumors	5	10-21-2007 08:28 AM

12-22-2010, 12:53 PM	#2
opiet70 Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Dallas, TX Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 499	Well, it depends actually. The whole point (in my opinion) is for the lenses to cover as much focal length as possible. That's why the 18-55mm and 50-200 or 55-300 seem to be in kits. In fact, if I were starting out again, I'd love to have the 55-300 come with my camera. Some of the cheaper lenses perform adequately for what most beginners will use them for. The 55-300 has been mentioned by many people on this forum as one of the best quality lenses at that price point there is. Also, since most people starting out don't necessarily know what lens works best with their shooting interests, it give them a chance to learn. I'd suggest you look at what you need for lenses, compare the reviews on each lens fitting that category, and see if it comes in a kit. I don't think you'll use any of the kit lenses, then just buy the body and spend your money on exactly what you need. If I recall correctly when I bought my K10D several years ago, the kit lens was heavily discounted in the package - which made it a solid deal for me.

12-22-2010, 12:59 PM	#3
SpecialK Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: So California Photos: Gallery Posts: 16,480	As the camera comes with a "standard" zoom, it makes sense that people will want something longer for uses where the kit lens is too short. So, you have a choice of entry level telephotos. The 55-300 provides better image quality than the 50-200. The "DA-L" designated telephotos do not have the quick focus ring, a distance scale, or a lens hood. They also have a plastic mount. A hood is highly recommended, but they are not cheap. A used "regular" 55-300 with hood can be gotten on the marketplace from time to time.

12-22-2010, 01:06 PM	#4
Howdy Forum Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Poland Posts: 86	I fully agree with opiet70! I have the 50-200 kit lens and I must say it is a useful one. No, not the best quality but very small and light. I would get the 55-300 due to very favourable reviews and a bit longer zoom range. Even if you do not actually need a telephoto I think for this price it is a very sensible and useful addition (you do need a telephoto sometimes ) In short - go for the kit set. Cheap, waterproof and of bearable quality. If you find you really do not like this lens, you can sell it with minimal loss.

12-22-2010, 01:12 PM	#5
Andi Lo Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia Posts: 2,924	Originally posted by Howdy In short - go for the kit set. Cheap, waterproof and of bearable quality. If you find you really do not like this lens, you can sell it with minimal loss. +1, I would've gone with the kit when I bought k-x had it come in white. Correction though. The K-r and K-x kits are NOT waterproof!

12-22-2010, 01:13 PM	#6
Ira Inactive Account Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Coral Springs, FL Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,216	If you look at the prices of the kit lenses, they're not expensive. They offer them so you can cover every situation right out of the box, so it's not about them making additional money. You have to do the money math yourself and decide what you want in a body plus lens(es) kit, along with looking at examples and reviews of those lenses.

12-22-2010, 01:17 PM	#7
Ash Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toowoomba, Queensland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,920	Telephotos are good selling points - makes good sense not only since the competition offers them, but also that they encourage buyers to consider using SLRs for what they were made for - changing lenses according to the shooting requirement. A single megazoom lens has both limited speed and limited optical quality, whereas the Pentax twin kit lens set are as good as you'll get anywhere else. The 50-200 is good, but the 55-300 better.

12-22-2010, 01:50 PM	#8
RioRico Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Limbo, California Posts: 11,263	Point in favor: Kit lenses are usually inexpensive. Whether they'll do what's wanted is another question. Point against: Nobody is forced to buy a kit. But getting what's really wanted probably costs a bit more. When moving from a great P&S to a dSLR, I asked myself, What do I want to do that I can't do with what I have? and the answers were ultrawide, ultralong, and low light. So the kit I bought with my K20D (and AF360) were the DA10-17 fisheye zoom, DA18-250 walkaround superzoom, and FA50/1.4 Fast Fifty. And 175 lenses later, those are still my most-used glass. I later got a DA18-55, and a Tamron 60-300, but I just don't use that lens set much, because I do a lot of shooting between 35-70mm, and having to switch lenses at 50mm really slows me down. IMHO the 18-250 is the best 'kit' lens and has proved itself on many journeys to photo-ops large and small. It's the general-purpose lens. All others are specialty items. Why are telephotos included in two-lens kits? Tradition. Market research. A way to sell more lenses. Include an 18-55 and 50-200 that n00bs will be persuaded to 'upgrade' with much more expensive cousins right away -- this keeps managers & owners happy. I hate this whole 'upgrade' concept. DON'T get a starter kit that you'll soon discard (expensively). DO start with lenses that do what you want. And if you don't know what you want, you'll probably end up with something you don't want. Bother...

12-22-2010, 02:15 PM	#9
grainbelt Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Minneapolis Photos: Albums Posts: 587	From a marketing perspective, I think the telephoto kits are a hedge against the superzoom buyer - why go DSLR when I can get this 12X superzoom? Well, we can bundle your DSLR with a telephoto to cover the same range.

12-22-2010, 02:16 PM	#10
boriscleto Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: North Syracuse, NY Photos: Gallery Posts: 16,475	Originally posted by SpecialK A hood is highly recommended, but they are not cheap. A used "regular" 55-300 with hood can be gotten on the marketplace from time to time. The genuine Pentax lens hood is not cheap, but the chinese knockoff is about $10 on eBay.

12-22-2010, 02:33 PM	#11
hcc Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Brisbane, Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 4,002	Originally posted by RioRico When moving from a great P&S to a dSLR, I asked myself, What do I want to do that I can't do with what I have? and the answers were ultrawide, ultralong, and low light. So the kit I bought with my K20D (and AF360) were the DA10-17 fisheye zoom, DA18-250 walkaround superzoom, and FA50/1.4 Fast Fifty. And 175 lenses later, those are still my most-used glass. I later got a DA18-55, and a Tamron 60-300, but I just don't use that lens set much, because I do a lot of shooting between 35-70mm, and having to switch lenses at 50mm really slows me down. IMHO the 18-250 is the best 'kit' lens and has proved itself on many journeys to photo-ops large and small. It's the general-purpose lens. All others are specialty items. DO start with lenses that do what you want. I strongly second RioRico's comments. You should ask yourself what you want to shoot and consider what lenses you need. In doing so, it is a good advice to go the your local shop and try the camera with a range of lenses that you mihgt be interested. You will get a first hand feel for the weight of the camera + lens and the ease to shoot. Coming from several ultra-zoom P&Ss, I chose the DA18-250mm as my first lense and I use it nearly 75% of the time. I bypassed the kit lenses, save some money and decided to go to the most flexible all-around lens. I have no regret and am confident that it was the best choice... Later I slowly built up a collection of quality lenses to complement my needs... Food for thouhgts...

12-22-2010, 03:23 PM	#13
grainbelt Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Minneapolis Photos: Albums Posts: 587	Originally posted by Ratmagiclady While I'd just as soon have nicer of what zooms do, it's just not where my emphasis is on a limited budget, so a consumer wide or a nice cheap tele zoom can come in handy, as long as it's not awful. I'd love a DA * 60-250. I'd use it maybe five times a year, so I can't justify it. The DA 55-300 is just fine for the times I need some reach - I know its limits, and work within them. The results aren't completely embarrassing.

12-22-2010, 10:20 PM	#14
sterretje Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Roodepoort, South Africa Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,561	It should be forbidden Entry level cameras should come with a prime lens in the 30mm to 35mm range. But on-topic: Nothing stops you from investing straight away in a 60-250/4 or a 70-210/2.8 combined with a DA15 or DA21 for the wide angle needs and a FA31 as the normal/fast lens Because whatever reasoning you have for the telezoom will also apply to the 18-55 kit lens

12-22-2010, 10:30 PM	#15
wlachan Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Canada Photos: Albums Posts: 2,625	I think newbies are naturally attracted to teles (for whatever reasons). The problem is that newbies might not foresee the hassle of carrying more gear and switching lenses in the field. IMHO, something like 18-135 will be many times more practical than 18-55+70-200 but having 2 lenses for roughly the same price must be a better deal right? But how could they understand when they knew practically nothing.