Digital photography

Because quite simply, there's nothing wrong with the stock lens, for your average individual, they don't tend to spend more on other lens when the current one that came with the camera already doing exactly what they wanted it to do.

unless they believe in the silly notion that better lens = better photography.

ed, wtf?

What he said, Ed. Of course there's 'nothing wrong' with the stock lens. But who is this 'average individual' you're on about? I think I'm probably one of them: photography is a hobby, albeit one I would like, with practice and experience, to take further. Within a few months of owning my D40 I decided I wanted more reach than the 55 mm (or, anticipating your comments, whatever that equates to in 35 mm/ full frame terms) the kit lens would allow so I got a longer, faster lens. Now I am about to replace the kit lens range with another fast lens as f/3.5 simply isn't fast enough for many applications. This is all on a low-end body which this 'average individual' got not knowing whether or not photography would become a serious interest.

"Better" is a very subjective term, but I can tell you that I get better bokeh, contrast and colour reproduction with my more expensive lenses than I do with the kit.