I bought a nikon d3100 and i find it doesn't have the best pics with the 18-55?

So i was wondering what would be the best lens to buy keeping in mind i take pics of kids, portraits, and family events. Is it ok if i get just prime lens with no auto zoom or is it much better with the zoom.

The 18-55 in either Canon, which I own, or Nikon isn't touted as the best lens out there. I'm told
that a Nikon 18-200 is a pretty good lens. My Canon 28-200 is my primary lens that I use for almost everything.

Keep in mind that if you keep practicing, you will get better photos. The 18-55mm is a fantastic lens to use. I don't think it's a problem with the lens, necessarily- try to learn to shoot in M mode, where you set the shutter speed, f-stop and ISO; this should get you better results.

As for another lens: prime lenses can get you better results because they are sharper and better in low light, but of course they lose the versatility of a zoom.

A great prime lens could be the 35mm f/1.8 AF-S, for about $290-300. You'd have to search to find one, or buy used, because it's out of stock in many, many online stores.

Another possible lens is the 50mm f/1.8D or f/1.4D (depending on your budget- the 1.8 is about $140, the 1.4 is about $380). However, those last two would only manual focus with the D3100- still usable, but if you think you'd rather have autofocus, you'd have to spring for the 50mm f/1.4G AF-S, which costs over $500. There are rumors that Nikon is releasing an AF-S 50mm f/1.8 in the future, which will also autofocus with the D3100, but you'd have to wait a few months if or when it will be released.

Plus, you may find the 50mm too long for everyday use. I'd suggest you try out taking pictures only at 35mm on your lens for a day, and then at 50mm for a day, to see which focal length you prefer.

A versatile, but expensive, zoom is the Nikon 18-200mm VR lens, which costs over $800, depending where you get it from. I don't think image quality will be any better than your 18-55mm, but it will certainly be more versatile.

Overall, a prime lens will give your better, sharper, image quality, but your 18-55mm isn't at all bad either.

The 18-55 is actually a decent lens, much better than it used to be.

anyway, one lens that you may be interested in the AF-S 50mm f/1.4G lens from Nikkor. Its great for portraits, and moderate general use.

I have that camera as well. The 18-55 lens, the one it comes with, is actually a good lens. You'll probably just need to play around with the settings and check out a few photography books. I just did a 2-hour outdoors session with my brother and his girlfriend in the historic district of our city. Trees were blooming with pink flowers. Weather was beautiful. I got ot a lot of great shots! But I didn't get those shots with the auto setting. Try the portrait settings w/ and w/o flash and with different lighting. Try the action setting (looks like a stick figure running). And try adjusting it manually versus using the automatic settings. And of course, boosting the colors, especially in kids pictures, also helps. I hope this helps.

PS- You may already know this-- ask women to wear makeup WITHOUT SPF. SPF will make them look really washed out.

It's not super wide or very long and it's slow and soft in comparison, but if you're not getting good pictures out of it then it's your fault, not the lens.

I just got back from shooting the company president, the president of the rural action committee, and the mayor doing a ribbon cutting ceremony in the blaring sun. I used my 18-55 lens because that hard sun is a situation where that lens can perform well. I used flash to fill in the shadows in the hard sun. I would never bring that lens with me to do dancing in the theater. I also didn't bring my fast primes to do the ceremony in the sun.

Yes, a $2000 fast prime will give you sharper pictures than your 18-55. But if you can't find a use for the 18-55 you are using it wrong.