Better to just buy camera body and choose good lens?

[pete_s.]

<p>Just keep in mind that if you want to shoot people indoors or in low light without using flash, the kit lens wont cut it. It's to "slow".</p>

<p>Slow in this case is photography slang for too small aperture or put another way the glass inside the lens is too small so it will not let in a lot of light. So it has nothing to do with how fast the lens works. It the amount of light the lens will capture.</p>

<p>A prime lens like the 35mm f1.8 will be very good for this and a zoom with a constant aperture of f2.8 will do a great job in most cases.</p>

[studio460]

<p>Pete said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>Just keep in mind that if you want to shoot people indoors or in low light without using flash, the kit lens wont cut it. It's to "slow".</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>True. It's just that the 18-55mm is such a bargain when buying it in a kit--it's almost like getting a $250 lens for free. Of course its uber-slow, variable-aperture has very limited use indoors or in other low-light situations. This is why I also keep an AF-Nikkor 50mm f/1.4G with my DX bodies for low-light shooting (the 50mm f/1.8G is a good alternative). An ideal DX "street" lens (though it's actually an FX lens) is the new AF-S Nikkor 20mm f/1.8G when used as a fast 30mm-equivalent on a DX body. The only problem is its relatively high price. This would be my first choice as a walk-around/street photography lens for a DX body.</p>

[sjmurray]

<p>Contrary to what Pete S. just stated about the undesirability of "slow" kit lenses: I used to think that too, until sensors got better and one can now shoot comfortably at almost any iso you need up to 12,000 or so. I used to use fast prime lenses exclusively in the old film days. My standard with 35mm was Tri-X at 400-800 iso, shooting in living room light at 1/30 sec. wide open at f 1.4. That always seemed to work quite well. In 2005 with the D70 I found I could shoot indoors easily at iso 1600, and the kit lens became usable. I still used bounce flash and fill flash at times when needed. Now, with the D7100, and any modern sensor, the "slow" kit lenses are quite usable, especially the ones with VR, allowing you to shoot at 1/15 sec hand held. I shoot routinely now with the kit lenses at iso 3200 and sometimes 6400 at night in living room lighting. There is no color noise and some "grain" which is way smaller than Tri-X, btw. I have plenty of examples in my folders here, so I back up what I say. I would get a kit lens to start with for the same reasons everyone else is saying in this thread. You can branch out later after you get a feel for the focal lengths and type of photography you want to do. All lenses suffer from sample variation and some will be less sharp, especially used lenses. I have seen expensive high end lenses used that were really bad, so just test out used lenses before buying. The two kit lenses I have are very sharp. </p>

[pete_s.]

<blockquote>

<p>It's just that the 18-55mm is such a bargain when buying it in a kit--it's almost like getting a $250 lens for free.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It's a bargain but regardless of that the OP mentioned low light and indoors (dinners) etc. So even if the 18-55 is just $60 in the kit OP looked at, it will not be suitable for the intended use.<br>

<br>

Better to realize that if you want a zoom you have to have a f2.8 for that kind of shooting. A used 17-50 2.8 can be had from $200, a little more if you want stabilization. <br>

<br>

Better to save those $60 and use it towards a lens that will work. If you have a 17-50 f2.8 the kit lens will not get much use as it covers the exact same focal length and the 17-50 f2.8 lenses are not big and heavy either. There are A LOT of used 18-55 up for sale too so I don't think it will be easy to sell it either.<br>

</p>

[pete_s.]

<blockquote>

<p>Now, with the D7100, and any modern sensor, the "slow" kit lenses are quite usable, especially the ones with VR, allowing you to shoot at 1/15 sec hand held.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Only for stationary subjects. Standard indoor lighting is EV5. That pushes you straight to iso 6400 just to get 1/30s @ f5.6. And EV5 is not really low lighting and 1/30s will not really freeze much motion.<br /> <br /> I mean I shoot FX and I run into the limit of f2.8 all the time. If the OP wants to do low light photography the kit lens will be crazy limiting.</p>

<p>PS. And your comparison with film is a not really true. Standard in the days of B&W film was f1.4 primes and you'll push to iso 3200 when needed. And you used a tripod when needed and VR doesn't do anything better than a tripod. So compared to B&W film shot at f1.4 @ iso 3200 you'll have to push your camera to ISO 51200 if you use the kit zoom at mid-to long range wide open (f5.6). Not possible, not even D4S can go there.</p>

[sjmurray]

<p>Pete, your experience is quite different from mine. I did standard developing with indoor shooting and Tri-x, not pushing to iso 3200! Just look at my 70's folder. I have not found the kit lenses that limiting shooting in living room lighting. I am shooting people in normal situations, not sports or stage stuff. I have lots of examples. If you want to shoot in a dark room with almost no light, sure, a fast prime is needed. I think the OP should just start with a kit and then decide what types of demands he needs for a lens. </p>

[pete_s.]

<p>Steve, I'm not sure that our experiences are that different. I had a look at your 70s folder and you have a lot of nice images in there. Most of them are however posed so no need to push a lot since you can get away with a slower shutter speed.</p>

<p>But I found two other images among your other shots that describe what I'm talking about. I hope you don't mind that I link to them here.</p>

<p>The first one is a wedding buffet shot: http://www.photo.net/photo/8433057&size=lg</p>

<p>The second one is a Iris with Uncle Nick, http://www.photo.net/photo/17744759&size=lg</p>

<p>Looking at the exposure information, both of these are shot in the same lighting levels, EV4.</p>

<p>The wedding buffet shot is wide open on a kit zoom at iso 1600. What's interesting about this is that there is lot of subject motion. That's because Steve had to go down to 1/10s shutter speed which is too slow for anything moving. And obviously people are not moving especially fast around a buffet. The image was shot fairly wide so the kit lens didn't have to go to f5.6. This image is older so a modern camera could have been pushed to iso 6400. Which would have made the subject motion OK with the same composition. Zoom in a little on someone and you have to up the shutter speed as well as the kit zoom now goes to f5.6 And then we are in trouble. A little less light than what is here and you're also in trouble with the kit lens.</p>

<p>Now take a look at the second picture with the baby in it. Same lighting level but Steve shot it at f2, iso 3200 and 1/125s. We are "zoomed" in on the subject with a 50mm lens but 1/125s is plenty to freeze any motion and iso 3200 is fine on this modern camera. However it is shot at f2. With a kit lens like the 18-55 we would have been forced to f5.6 at this focal length. We would bump the iso to max, iso 6400. What would the shutter speed be? Well, 1/30s. That would mean that their heads would be a blurry from subject motion, unless they were static, but kids seldom are. So could an f2.8 take this shot equally well. Well, almost. We would shoot at f2.8 and bump the iso to 6400 or lower the shutter speed to 1/60s. Regardless we would be fine. A kit lens though would have meant trouble.</p>

<p>Now, the setting Steve used above are IMHO the right ones for the lens he used. I have shot many, many blurry pictures from subject motion and I would say that the second image is great and the first one less so. But it's not the photographer, it's just the limitation of the equipment. So anyone who want to capture images like the second one needs a fast lens f2.8 or faster. If you just want to take images like the one from the wedding buffet that are a little blurry then a kit zoom is fine. As we see these are not shot in dark rooms just lit by a single candle light or something like that. It's just ordinary indoor lighting levels.</p>

<p>I have no problem people buying kit lenses but if they want to shoot people in social situations which usually are indoors you need a faster lens if you want good results. Or you need to use flash. </p>

[sjmurray]

<p>Pete, good examples. My point is that the wedding buffet shot, was done with a D80. With a current dslr one could use much higher iso and a higher shutter speed could be used. In the wedding buffet shot, the blurring of some of the people is not necessarily "bad" anyway, and I welcome some of the effects that result of simply using a camera with its limitations. There are some shots in my portfolio where I used f1.8 at 1600 iso and still had to use 1/8 sec. I'm not saying I never need a fast lens, but for the majority of stuff I do, which is basically snapshots of people, my kit zooms suffice. </p>

[glen_h]

<p>When I only had one lens, the one I bought when I bought my FM, it was AI 35/2.0, and maybe still my favorite lens, especially for indoors. For DX, then, I would choose a 24mm lens. </p>

<p>If the OP really is only taking dinner pictures, then maybe the kit lens won't ever be useful, but that is pretty rare. At lunch time, there might be enough daylight, though. Personally, with a D200 I find available light with the usual zoom lenses to be enough most of the time, unlike with film where I often used flash.</p>

[vics]

<p>I recently did a pretty extensive, if un-scientific, survey on flickr of current 18-55mm kit lenses from Sony, Canon, Pentax and Nikon. To my eyes the Nikon was the very clear winner. Disappointing for me, as my digicam is a Sony. I think the D5200 with the kit lens would be all you'd ever need.</p>