Is it worth purchasing a 55-300mm lens for a Nikon D3100?

I'm going to purchase a Nikon D3100 camera with a 18-55mm Lens. Would it be worth my time and money purchasing an addiontal Lens to go with it? The camera and 18-55 mm Lens comes to £400 but the additional one would add about £200

I'm an amateur and this will be my first DSLR after years using a point and shoot basic camera.

If you can tell me why you want that extra lens then maybe. If not then see what that 18-55 does not do for you before you spend your money.

Tom… Think about it.

If you buy the 55-300 every time you want to take a long shot you'll have to change lenses. Every time you do that you're opening your camera. Every time you do that you could be allowing dust to settle on your sensor - not a good idea.

You'd be much better off buying an all around lens - 18-200, 28-200 like that. This kind of lens gives you the wide look at the bottom with a pretty good reach and you don't have to open your camera so often.

Of course there are going to be situations where you want more telephoto than 55mm. Is the 55-300mm a great choice? I have one, and I'm not quite sure. Sharpness is pretty good, usually, although by 300mm not great. I don't use this lens a lot. The 55-200mm is lighter and less expensive, and it has gotten slightly better reviews for its range. The 70-300mm AF-S VR (Nikon's good 70-300, not the cheap one) has gotten better reviews for sharpness and autofocus accuracy. It is more expensive, heavier, and bulkier. For travel a disadvantage of the 70-300 is not only the weight per se, but its greater front heaviness may require a heftier tripod head.

18-200mm AF-S VR II? Nice versatility without changing lenses, and mostly very good image quality. An 18-55mm combined with 55-200mm or 55-300mm will probably beat it for image quality viewed at 14MP.