Better to just buy camera body and choose good lens?

[yani_g]

<p>Hello,<br />I'm planning to buy a nikon d5200, but I'd like your opinion about the different options I have:<br />1- Nikon D5200 + 18-55 VRII (USD 515)<br />2- Nikon D5200 + 18-105VR (USD 663)<br />3- Just the body (USD 454), where I was thinking I could add Nikon AF-S DX 35/1.8G (USD 217). Total USD 671.<br>

<br />I'm a beginner and I'd like to use the camera for general purposes, trips, indoors(dinners/friends), portraits, but I'd love to also be able to have good low light pictures. I've been doing some research and it seems that buying the camera+lenses kit wouldn't help that much. Do you really think I should start with them? Would it be good with the AF-S DX 35? Or is there other lenses that you could recommend?<br>

Thank you! I'd really appreciate your help.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>It is not an easy answer; some people are really fine with having just a single focal length, others will find it very limiting and will feel that they miss opportunities. It also depends on the type of photography, your style and approach. For travel, trips a zoom is might handy, for portraits 35mm may not work for you - and possibly for somebody else just the 35mm would work fine for all this work.<br /> Note that many people talk lowly about the kit lens, but it really isn't that bad. The 18-105VR is a plain good lens. Yes, their aperture may be an issue, but depending on your current experience, I'd start with those. The D5200 performs quite excellent at high ISOs, so the aperture may not need a problem, while a lack of flexibility is more likely to be an issue, frankly. For the money, personally I'd go for the 18-105VR.</p>

<p>But what gear do you have today, and if you look at your current photos, do you feel that with only a 35mm lens, you'd be fine and not miss too much?</p>

[User_276104]

<p>The 18-55 VRII lens does a great job, and costs ~$250 new. A D5200 body is ~$500 alone at B&H, so $15 more to get a very usable lens would be my choice. </p>

[dan_brown4]

<p>I'd get the D5200 and 18-55VRII package. That lens is getting excellent reviews. Avoid the lure of wide range super-zooms, they always carry some undesirable baggage. Shoot the 18-55 for a while, and see what other lenses you might desire later.</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>The VR function will give you the equivalent of at least 2 stops advantage handheld over a non-VR lens like the 35mm f/1.8, meaning that it'll be just as good at handheld low-light photography. (As long as the subject's not moving of course.) The extra $160 could also get you a reasonable tripod. ;-)</p>

<p>For general purpose use I think you'd also find the fixed 35mm lens a bit limiting Yani.</p>

[Matthew Currie]

<p>I have the 18-55 VRI with my D3200, and though it's not very pretty, it's really pretty decent, and getting the VRII for $61 more, in the deals quoted, seems like a good deal. Since it covers the range of 35 and 50 mm, which are the likeliest prime bargains, you can use it for a while and then decide what suits your needs most. </p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>for general purposes, trips, indoors(dinners/friends), portraits, but I'd love to also be able to have good low light pictures.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Essentially you need at least two lenses: the 35mm/f1.8 DX AF-S for low-light situations and a kit lens for general outdoor photography. There is no one lens that can do everything you want.</p>

<p>If you cannot afford everything in one shot, I would get the camera and a kit lens. Save some money to add the 35mm/f1.8 later on.</p>

[Richard Williams]

<p>I agree with Shun, and would probably get the 18-55 VRII. It has a trick retracting function, which makes it ridiculously small for a standard zoom (always handy for travel), and for $60 extra you can't really go wrong.</p>

[andylynn]

I'd take the kit lens. It's cheap and quite useful.

[Jochen_S]

<p>Another vote for kitlens(es in general). They are a great way to figure out which focal length you'll want as a prime later. If you come to the conclusion that 50mm is your favorite, the kit lens is entirely free / paying itself with the $$s saved on the more expensive 35mm.<br>

IMHO its never wrong to have kitlenses. They are light travel companions and in case you go wild end buying a lot of lenses and cameras there will be the dangerous* situations to shoot where you 'll wonder if you should risk a good lens or the expensive protection filter on it, which can cost as much as a kit zoom and maybe figure out that wagering a kit lens is the safer bet. *= I don't talk documenting front line war here. - If you risk your life(!) you don't need to fuzz over several 1000 $$s of f2.8 pro lenses. But how about the road trip on the nasty vibrator? Be it a pedal bike on cobble stones or a single cylinder, both are prone to rattle photo gear strapped to them apart and having the manufacturer's king of puzzles putting a fancy super zoom back together might cost you $250 easily. Or the sandbox or beach? Folks throwing water filled baloons? Dusty environments? Getting drunk?<br>

I here am no real friend of zooms. I mechanically wore my first set out within 4 years as a teen. Others didn't last for much more use either. General advice to beginners is "invest in lenses, not cameras" I subscribe to that POV when it is about rather solidly build primes. With zooms I am reluctant. - There are surely places for them in the world. - If somebody can backpack only one camera and plans a trip the 18 - 105mm will give more options than a 18- 55 and adding only a longer lens without 2nd body means hassle, more dust on the sensor and missed opportunities...<br>

Its really "each to their own." And nobody knows in advance where the mixing & matching might end.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>There's a lot to be said for the kitlens (written that way I always think <em>kittens</em>).</p>

<ul>

<li>They are usually near "loss-leaders" for the camera companies who want them good enough to keep novices coming back for more.</li>

<li>And they are usually very light and small compared to their 'big sisters' or a bunch of primes.</li>

</ul>

<p>Both make them a very good first purchase, and then they can (as the manufacturer wants you to do) be added to with faster, fancier lenses as your work and learning progresses.<br /> If you keep them (and their resale value is low - look for one that is being sold on eBay as an extra) they remain as great lenses for a "walkabout" when your back is sore and tired.</p>

[sjmurray]

<p>Yup, kit lens, especially for a beginner. Like Jochen said, they are a great way to figure out what focal lengths you like to use. I have several primes, mostly manual and specialty, and I find that my two kit lenses are what I use the most, even in low light (with a D7100). The 18-105 VR is very versatile, from landscapes to portraits, and very sharp. I also still use the 18-70 3.5-4.5 I originally got with my D70 ten years ago, and it performs great too. I do a lot of low light at iso 3200 most of the time and the noise is very minimal with the modern sensors. I haven't felt the need to get out lenses that are 1.4 or 1.8 etc. unless I'm wanting an extreme softness in the background. Both my kit lenses are very sharp wide open and I get very acceptable separation of the background in portraits.</p>

[Two23]

<p>Buy a used D5200 and 18-105mm VR. Used is the way to go.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

Kit lenses are also a marketing tool.<br>Make them versatile and cheap, and people will be tempted to get them as their first lens when they buy a new camera. Make them superb, and no customer will be in a hurry to get more lenses. Make them a bit less good and let people know about that, and as soon as funds permit people will be 'upgrading', spending more money. ("<i>good enough</i> to keep novices coming back for more" indeed.)<br>So generally, kit lenses are not the best, because manufacturers aim to make them so. They don't reckon on people telling each other that they are great performers and very sharp. ;-)

[pete_s.]

<p>I would avoid the 18-55 and 18-105 at all costs. If you just want to take some snapshots and never do much else they are fine. But if we are talking portraits or any type of serious photography they are not fine. And for low light they are not fine.</p>

<p>I would buy just the camera body and then add a 17-50mm f2.8 lens to that. Used one if needed to keep the costs down. Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 or Tamron 17-50mm f2.8. They come with stabilization (called VR, OS or VC) as well but it's actually not a must to have in this focal length.</p>

<p>These lenses are a lot more useful than the kit lenses. They are still light and small and cover the most useful focal length range, aka a midrange zoom. They can be used to shot in low light (kit lenses can't).</p>

<p>To use a prime lens like the 35mm f1.8 is possible even for someone just learning. Most smartphones are single focal lens but usually wider, similar to 19-20mm on a D5200. But there is also a risk that it might be to limiting at first. It depends on the person. Back in the old days a prime lens was the default lens the camera was delivered with. 35 to 50mm on film, equal to 24 or 35mm on a D5200.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>The 18-55 is perfect for a beginner.</p>

<p>Save up a few hundred bucks for the 35mm DX lens later.</p>

<p>I will say this, though. I had the 18-70 when I shot Nikon and found that I only really switched to the 35 in really low light. Not very often at all. It was worth the money (and I sold it for near what I paid for it) but it was not an everyday lens for me. Ymmv of course. I used my 70-300VR way way more. So AFTER you've owned the camera and shot with just the 18-55 for a while, THEN you may know better what lens you want next.</p>

[craig_shearman1]

<p>As said above, for $15 extra they are virtually giving you the 18-55 for free, so no reason not tot take them up on the offer. It's not the greatest lens but it's a perfectly usable lens and if you're a beginner a more expensive lens is unlikely to make any difference in your pictures until you learn more about the gear anyway. <br /><br />Once you've gotten everything you can out of the 18-55, the next lens I would buy would be a 70-200 2.8, followed by a 24-70 2.8 and eventually a 12-24 or, so preferably also 2.8. Those three are what I use every day and a pretty much standard outfit among many photographers, especially those shooting news (which means being prepared to shoot just about anything and everything). Everybody has their own preferences of course but those will cover about 90 percent of what most people shoot. Sigma or Tamron or Tokina are OK if you can't afford Nikon but I strongly recommend 2.8 -- better for low light and faster AF.<br /><br />Superfast primes are great -- I own a dozen or so from my pre-digital days -- but to me they are icing on the cake after you've bought the three bread and butter lenses. </p>

 

[john_narsuitus]

<blockquote>

<p>"Better to just buy camera body and choose good lens?"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It is good to buy a camera body and then choose a good lens; or you can buy the good lens and then choose the camera body.</p>

<p>When I needed to assemble a photo kit for shooting general subjects, I had purchased the normal and wide-angle lenses before I had even decided on the digital body.</p>

[john_narsuitus]

<p>If I were in your position, I would buy the body and an older version of the 18-55mm VR lens that cost less than USD 100. After about six months of using this lens, I would know if I needed more lenses. Knowing my shooting style, I know I would also need the following additional lenses:</p>

<p>a. zoom with longer focal lengths such as the 55-200mm</p>

<p>b. faster lens for low-light photos. Based on analysis of the images shot with the 18-55mm lens, I know that I tend to favor the 24mm focal length. Therefore, I would get a 24mm f/1.4 lens.</p>

<p>c. macro lens for shooting close-ups of small objects.</p>

 

[eric_arnold]

<p>the 18-55 VR is essentially $60 kitted with the body. that's the best deal going. buy that now and add a 35/1.8 or 50/1.8 down the line. </p>

[DavidRabinowitz]

<p>if the kit just costs a little more, you might as well go that route...it will give you an opportunity to get used to taking pictures...kits lenses are generally for beginners and if you get more serious about photography, you'll most likely want a better lens...as someone who is more serious about photography, I'll buy a cheapish (around $400.00) body and add lenses that can be 3x the cost of the camera body...you may also want to ask yourself how low light do you need...tradeoff, a light lens allows for lower shutter speeds when you handhold...a moderate weight lens may very well have a wider aperture and not all lenses do well at the extremes of aperture...all in all, the kits lens is so cheap, it's not really a big risk to go for it...</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Oh, I forgot to mention, <em>indeed</em>, that the manufacturers also depend heavily on lens snobbery to encourage later sales. :) There are always other members of your local photo collective to tell you to upgrade sooner, most of whom -by the way- have never actually used one of the kit lenses, which are a priori unsuitable (to them).</p>

<p>An examination of the objective data on various kit lenses at a site like Photozone.de will reassure you that you are getting more than your money's worth from these plastic "toys".</p>

[Ian Rance]

<p>Personally I don't think any of the Nikon lenses available today - and sold for the last 15 years - are 'bad' in that all of them are capable of excellent image quality. Even the 30-60 kit lens sold with the APS Pronea was sharp and had good colour. Sure, some don't meet some need such as fast aperture or long range zoom, however the slower lenses are lighter and work just as well on a tripod or support.<br>

I have the latest 18-55mm lens and I am honestly astounded by how good it is for the money. It is better than the non-folding version by quite a large margin - well worth the extra.</p>

[fredscal]

<p>As a general rule, within the same price range, a prime lens will perform better (in terms of sharpness and light) than a zoom, and a zoom will perform better than a superzoom.</p>

<p>So you should list your choices in that order :<br>

1. 35mm<br>

2. 18-55mm<br>

3. 18-105mm<br>

...were the first one gives you best quality and aperture, the last one most versatility, and the middle one a compromise between both.</p>

<p>Then there isn't an objective good choice. It's up to your approach to photography.</p>

 

[studio460]

<p>I love my refurbed Nikon D3300 and its 18-55mm kit lens, both, purchased for $399. It's sharp as heck and very compact. Sure it's slow, but its improved VRII works great. Order the optional HB-69 petal lens shade ($24.95), and it actually looks pretty cool! Here's the 18-55mm as shipped, without the HB-69 hood:</p>

<p><img src="http://studio460.com/images/HB69-3.png" alt="" width="700" height="467" /></p>

<p>In addition to the functional and cosmetic benefits, adding the HB-69 lends some additional protection to the front-element:</p>

<p><img src="http://studio460.com/images/HB69-2.png" alt="" width="700" height="467" /></p>

<p><img src="http://studio460.com/images/HB69-4.png" alt="" width="700" height="466" /></p>

<p>I took this 18-55mm shot at 1/10 of a second, handheld:</p>

<p><img src="http://studio460.com/images/D3300H-1.png" alt="" width="700" height="467" /></p>

<p>I now keep two DX bodies with me at all times as my "travel" kit (my pricey FX bodies stay at home in a safe unless they're working). For the long-end, I keep a 70-300mm VR FX Nikkor (bought refurbished for $249) mounted on my second DX body, a D3200 (also bought refurbished, also for $249). Although I'm "wasting" my FX-capable zoom on a DX body, it was cheap enough that I won't care as much if it gets damaged, lost, or stolen.<br>

<br /> Try checking stock at major online resellers for refurbished Nikon DX gear. There seems to always be plenty of it around, and they're often sold at significant discounts. All of the refurbished Nikon gear I've purchased always looks brand new, too! Most, I assume are customer returns and were likely hardly used, if at all.</p>