Upgrading to a DSLR best lens options?
I have a Digital camera a Panasonic DMC FZ8 and am going to get a DSLR. I only want the one lens a 28-270 or 18-200. Reading reviews many people say these can give soft images. My question is considering the sensor on DSLR's are so big would the images even soft ones be better quality than my digital camera at 7MP. The bodies i'm looking at are the Nikon D3100 and Canon EOS 500D. Has anyone has expierience with theses lens and body combinations. Yes i know L series lenses and prime lenses are best but way out of my price range.
Added (1). Mainly i take landscapes the occasional rock concert and anything i see just walking around. I have 432mm in 35mm terms and sometimes thats not long enough and cropping losess quality.
The 18-55 that comes as standard with these models is a good starting-point, but look out for deals that could include a 55-200 as well.
The longer the zoom, the greater the compromise, so a twin-zoom kit isn't a bad option giving reasonable quality with the minimum of inconvenience.
The likes of an 18-200 has to do too many things to excel at any of them.
What kind of photography? The wide range zooms will have a lower image quality than narrower.
Go for something around the 24- 105 range. You can always add another lens later if you need to.
The advantage of Nikon and Canon is that you have a huge range to choose from. These lenses will follow you through if/when you decide to upgrade your camera body later.
I have Canon stuff, but I expect Nikon are as good.
The lenses make a huge difference in image quality. The zoom lenses with a huge range typically have more glass of lower quality in them. Think of taking your current camera and taking a photo through a glass window as compared to taking it from the other side of the glass. The lower quality of the glass will affect the overall image. So if you had identical cameras, one with a long range zoom and one with a high quality lens, you would see a difference. Image sensor size also plays a big part in image quality, so if the lens was at least as good as the lumix you would see improved image quality. I tried the sigma 28-300mm when I first started out. I was not happy with the image quality. It was better than a typical point and shoot though. My opinion is you are better off using two lenses to cover that range than one. For example the 18-55mm and 55-250mm.
One problem is that 200mm @ 5.6 or 270mm @ f6.3 is really slow, so slow that for what you hope to use it for, there isn't really a great practical use for it.
I would say the Nikon 18-200 is the best 18-200 out there, but it's not exactly difficult to be the "best" 18-200…
If you want quality don't consider lenses with high zoom ranges.
They are wasted on a high quality camera.
Or, if you want those lenses you dn't need to spend too much on the camera.
Both of those are nearly 10x zooming range so you won't get high quality results as from a shorter range zoom.
For best results use prime lenses. You can buy second hand from good photo dealers.
A lot of studios are run successfully with second hand lenses and cameras.
Neither of those lenses is much good for rock concerts and they have limited use for landscapes.
They are picture-snappers lenses, not photographers lenses.
Shooting rock concerts… 35mm and a scanner or learn all about manual control on the digital camera.