Is it ok to get camera with this lens?

Nikon d3200 camera body http://www.amazon.com/...00MH6S1EW/

with this nikon 55-300mm lens
http://www.amazon.com/...003ZSHNCC/

what do you think? Is it good to get?

You'd be better with an 18-55mm as a first lens. This is a good supplement to a standard lens, but a lousy replacement.

That lens that you're buying is a telephoto lens, you won't be using 55-300mm as general purpose lens. You should get that 18-55mm that you're getting with the cam or a 35mm f/1.8 general purpose prime for everyday photos and videos. Actually, that 35mm will be the best rather than the 18-55mm. You can get the Body + 35mm + 55-300mm if you want a good start. If you need more help with the bundled offers at discounted price, feel free to mail me.

Get the camera with the 18-55mm lens. It's a great all-purpose lens that will serve for the vast majority of everything you want to photograph. As you gain experience, you'll begin to know what, if any, other lens you might need, and it might not be a 55-300mm.

This is not a good buy. The 55-300mm is a not-bad telephoto, but you can get that anytime, and the price is not likely to go up on that one. As others have pointed out, it will not be useful for the majority of your pictures.
Buying the D3200 body-only would be a waste of money. Besides the fact that it is highly suspect, because Nikon normally only packages it with the 18-55mm anyway, and the third party vendor is of unknown reputation.
You can buy the standard package with all new real Nikon components from Amazon as seen here for $446.95.
http://www.amazon.com/...007VGGFZU/
That is $62 more than the $384.95 body-only package, and you can't get a new lens by itself for only $62.

No! A person buys just the body when he already has a body and lenses. The purpose of "another" body is to be able to shoot subject matter with two different lenses. Buying the way you propose is cutting you out of the wide angle end of the standard short zoom lens normally sold with cameras. That's why DSLR cameras are sold with a 18-55mm lens.
I recommedn you look at the 50-200mm or thereqbout, and a macro lens and maybe a portrait lens (50 or 70mm). You should have all these lenses when thinking about buying into this "DSLR" erperience! Ask yourself if you are prepared for these extra expenses. If not then consider a good quality "bridge" type camera in the $400price range.

https://cutefroggy.me/nikon-d3200-bundle

That would be good only for wildlife or some sports (i.e. Things at long distance), but no good for normal, everyday photography of friends and similar. If it also has the usual "kit lens" of 18 to 55mm then that kit lens would cover the normal day-to-day photography. It is expensive to buy that "kit lens" as a separate item - as a "new buy" that sort of lower-end DSLR is always sold with the kit lens.

This is not a good first lens. Like others have mentioned, get the 18-55mm first.

If you specifically want a long zoom, consider an "all-in-one" lens, such as an 18-300. These are more expensive, but you do get the entire range from wide to telephoto in one lens. There are also cheaper options from third-party brands, such as Sigma and Tamron (the Tamron 18-270 is a pretty decent cheaper option).

A nice, fast lens will also allow you to get nice blurry backgrounds. A good example is the 35mm f/1.8 or the 50mm f/1.8.

As a first-time camera owner, No. You need the 18-55mm lens that comes with all of the DSLR cameras on the market now. You need to practice, The 18-55mm lens is good for everything for you.

If you really want a zoom lens, Try getting the 15-85mm lens. It's good for practicing.
Far distance zoom lenses such as the 55-300mm you mentioned above are more shaky, So if you're taking a picture from a far distance you will get a lot of images that aren't right. You need a tripod. And the lens stabilization won't help you at all in that case.