How useful is this lens? - 1
I'm interested in buying a Nikon D5100. The Nikon D5100 is normally $580, but for $760 you also get a "Af-S Dx Vr 55-200mm F/4-5.6g" lens with it. How useful is this lens? For $580 you get the standard 18-55mm lens. Is there really such a difference between these two lenses that it is worth spending nearly 200 dollars more to get the second one?
For information, I'm a beginner photographer but am learning and becoming more and more experienced. I like taking a variety of photos; outdoors, portraits, macro, etc.
What types of pictures will the second lens allow me to take that the first, basic one won't? I'm also considering saving for a good macro lens. Is it more useful to not buy the second lens, buy the $580 camera, and use the saved money for a macro lens?
Thank you.
Added (1). The second lens is $300 dollars by itself. By getting the combined package, I save over $100.Is it useful to therefore buy the package, and perhaps save the lens until I get more experienced? I'm only 18 and don't have thousands of dollars to spend though, and so want to only buy quite useful lenses that can be used often.
Frankly Hannah, I prefer a single lens solution. By that I mean one lens to cover say 18-200mm.
Every time you change lenses you are opening the camera to dust. People who change lenses a lot, especially out doors, often have sensor dust problems. This mean spots on your photos. The only to prevent that is to one never change lenses outdoors or use a single solution lens.
Also, since you're a beginner I, along with most of us regulars here, recommend getting just the
18-55. Use it for however long it takes you to become completely familiar with using a dslr. I'm not talking about shooting like a pocket toy, using the screen as your view finder, I'm talking about always using the view finder, being able to stay off of full auto all the time and using the controls for aperture, shutter speed, ISO, etc. Once you get there, then consider other lenses. However, I still recommend a single solution.
Think long and hard. The 55-200mm is a very useful piece of kit in skilled hands, and the deal presumably shaves a little off the price.
If you can't see the advantages of having one, maybe you should stick to the 18-55mm for now.
Lenses like that (18-55, 55-200) are all a bit rubbish, but they are very convenient.
If you want high quality lenses you have to get prime lenses, not zooms. ~Unless you have allot of cash that is.
If you don't care about the quality, and just want convenience, then you should buy a compact camera.
Ignore the comment about not changing lenses, cleaning the sensor is easy. And 'super zooms' like 18mm-200mm are about the worst lenses possible as far as quality is concerned.
if you want to play with some camera settings then check this site: http://online-slr.net/barn_scene.html
The smaller the number, the wider the angle of view. The 18-55mm lens will allow you to take landscapes and large group shots at 18mm (wide angle). At around 35mm (normal), you can shoot people, pets and most anything. Closeup portraits will be easy at 55mm (short telephoto). The second lens is a telephoto lens which will allow you to make distant objects seem close to you. The more mm, the closer. It's not that long though and you will soon find out that it will never be enough. The 55-200mm is great for capturing details beyond your reach.
In practice, the 18-55mm is the more useful. The 55-200mm, not that much. If you are coming from a point-and-shoot camera with lots of zoom, you will want to have that second lens though. You could forgo buying that second lens and instead use the extra cash to enrol yourself to a photo class or buy an external flash instead.