DSLR Photographers- advice please
I'm purchasing my first DLSR, the nikon d5100. This is for photography, not casual "oh, lets take some pictures of the kids" stuff. I was wondering which would be of better value: to purchase it with the kit lens, or buy it as a body only and get a better lens, such as the 55-300mm. My friend owns this and uses it as her main lens. She said it was around $200 (so cost isn't the issue). The question really is, which lens is the best for general use? Thanks!
Added (1). CORRECTION: meant 55-200mm
The 18-55 is the mainstay of the amateur photographer and many professionals, and its a great lens for 90% of your shooting. This will allow wide angle landscapes to a nice portrait length. By far the best lens you can choose from the two!
A 55-300 is more for wildlife, sports and specialist portraiture and its a very useful Lens for a whole host of things but its more specific as its minimum zoom is quite long to begin with. It would be useless if you wanted a group shot or to do a landscape.
LENS' A QUICK GUIDE:
The smaller the number in mm the wider the lens view. A guide for an APSC DSLR camera like yours is:
18-28mm is wide angle and landscape
28-40mm is general use street photography and group photo lens (most point an shoots default in this range)
35-55mm is portrait.
50-500mm is long reach telephotos for sports and wildlife etc or just when you can't get close enough!
a lens that has more than one number can zoom from one to the other. So an 18-55mm can do anything between these 2 values. If you have both an 18-55 and a 50-200 you'd be able to shoot just about anything you want with just 2 lenses.
You will need the 18-55 mm lens so you can shoot landscapes, groups, full body and head and shoulder photos. The 55-200 takes it from there when you start shooting sports, action and some wildlife.
If you want a one lens solution, then the Nikkor 18-200 mm may be the lens for you
I agree totally with both answers given already.
IF you just feel like you want the "best" lens available, regardless of cost, you might consider the Nikkor (Nikon) 17-55 f/2.8 DX lens. It costs three times what your camera body will cost, but it is far superior to the basic 18-55 kit lens. NO you don't need this, as the 18-55 kit lens is perfectly acceptable, but you will never regret owning it. Unless you move up to a full frame (FX) body some day.
Ace mentioned the 18-200 and it is the lens that I would buy if my budget only allowed one lens.
Dan gave a very comprehensive answer which I agree with.
There are three other points to consider.
Do you want a regular or PRO grade lens and yes there's a big difference and the saying always goes spend the money on glass before bodies. You will keep your lenses as you upgrade and change camera bodies. With poor glass your photos will always look bad despite how good the camera is.
Budget will be a factor and PRO lenses are much much more expensive.
You don't have to buy Nikon lenses you can get Tamaron or other which work with Nikon.
Zoom lenses are not as sharp all the way through from 55-300 for example they will have a "sweet spot" which is sharpest.
What is the minimum aperture of the lens this determines it low light ability. Smaller the number the better the lens and more expensive in general.
These are things a serious hobbyist or professional would consider and for the majority of the public a base Nikon lens will produce result the user will be happy with. But you did state you wanted more than just happy snaps.
Let's see this page.
you'll find more information about Nikon D5100.
https://sites.google.com/site/nikond5100dslr/
In your position I would start with an 18-55 kit lens. Instead of a 55-300 I'd get the 55-200mm instead. Overall it's a better lens, particularly at the longer end of the zoom range.
both lenses have suitable focal lengths for general use. The 18-55 would be used for wide angle shots, the other would take over the rest of the range into telephoto use.