# Nikon Kit



## pimane (Jun 5, 2012)

Hi,

I'm going DSLR and thought buying the Nikon D5100.
After reading some posts and reviews I noticed that the kit lens, AF-S 18-55 VR, isn't so bad.
I thought of adding the AF-S 55-200 VR DX to the pack, since it's quite cheap (155) and complements the 18-55.
But after some further reading and thinking I came across some questions:
1. Is the option, the 2 lens, a good choice, mainly the 55-200 lens?
2. I can get the body with a 18-105 VR DX lens cheaper than with the 2 lens. Is this a better option? (I don't need to change the lens every time I want to take a portrait picture or a long range one... but I read this lens isn't very good...)
3. I want the camera, essentially to take picture to my kids (at the beach, at home, school parties - some with low light) and eventually some landscape and sports pictures (my daughter play volleyball and soccer). Nothing pro, just home use.. Initially I thought of buying the D3100 but the difference between the two cameras is just 80..
4. I also thought buying the Canon 550D but I went to a store and the ergonomic felt better on the nikon... I have small hands .
Should I go for the D5100 with the 2 lens kit or the 18-105 lens, or the D3100 and go for a better lens like the 18-200?

Thanks in advance,
Pedro


----------



## xj0hnx (Jun 5, 2012)

I'd imagine the 18-105mm is as good as the 18-55/55-200. With the 18-105mm you're sacrificing some range for the convenience of a single lens, so if that's worth it to you than it might be a better choice, IMO I'd go with the 18-55/55-200.


----------



## Solarflare (Jun 5, 2012)

Cant tell you what you are supposed to do:

Nikkor AF-S DX 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR - Review / Test Report
Nikkor AF-S DX 18-105mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED VR - Review / Test Report
Nikkor AF-S DX 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED VR II - Review / Test Report

Basically, the more range a zoom has, the more sacrifices you make in picture quality. Which should of course not be much of a surprise. Then again the sacrifice is probably more tolerable than these tests make it sound.


----------



## pimane (Jun 5, 2012)

For close ups is the AF-S 35mm a good lens? The AF 50mm is almost half the price but I doesn't have autofocus and since I'm a beginner I'd better stick to the AF-S lens...


----------



## xj0hnx (Jun 5, 2012)

pimane said:


> For close ups is the AF-S 35mm a good lens? The AF 50mm is almost half the price but I doesn't have autofocus and since I'm a beginner I'd better stick to the AF-S lens...



You'd be surprised how fast you can get passed auto focus if you're forced to practice.


----------



## Designer (Jun 5, 2012)

pimane said:


> For close ups is the AF-S 35mm a good lens? The AF 50mm is almost half the price but I doesn't have autofocus and since I'm a beginner I'd better stick to the AF-S lens...



The kit that you are considering is nearly the same kit that I bought, with the exception that mine is the D5000.  It came with both lenses, a small bag, and a cheap tripod.  I think both lenses are acceptable for the average hobbyist, and I think you will enjoy your kit.  

As to the 35mm for closeups, it is considered a "normal" focal length on this camera, that is approximately what you would see with your own eyes.  For portraiture however, a somewhat longer lens usually yields a better photo due to less edge distortion.  Most portraiture is done using lenses from 85mm to 105mm focal length.  Therefore, the longer zoom (55-200mm) is the one to use.

Later, if you wish to jump into the hobby with both feet, you can purchase "faster" lenses, of nearly any configuration you want.


----------



## pimane (Jun 5, 2012)

Is there any macro lens with VR?! The 105 has VR but it's very expensive... I need VR cause my hands seem like an earthquake... I shake a lot..


----------



## Solarflare (Jun 5, 2012)

Nikon calls Macro "micro".

There is also a 85mm Macro VR lens: Micro Nikkor AF-S DX 85mm f/3.5 G ED VR - Review / Test Report


----------



## pimane (Jun 5, 2012)

have to wait for Christmas for this one ...
on close ups does VR make a difference? on a 35mm or 50mm lens. it's mostly for portraits (my kids) indoor so probably won't be able to increase the shutter speed so it won't notice the "hand shake..".


----------



## pimane (Jun 5, 2012)

just another "big" question, if anyone can help me.... what's the main differences between the D5100 and the Canon 600D?
Movie quality and image quality?! I saw a review and the menus on the Canon are more friendly, but the sensor on the nikon is slightly bigger...
and .. is it worth thinking on the D3200? is it much better than the D5100? the price difference is 100&#8364;...


----------



## Blairg (Jun 5, 2012)

I am new also I just purchased a Nikon D5100 from bestbuy (a package deal)I love let me go back the first one I bought was the Nikon D3100 and it was very easy to operate it has a help dial.I just wanted the movable screen and a little better camera.


----------



## Ernicus (Jun 5, 2012)

pimane said:


> Hi,
> 
> I'm going DSLR and thought buying the Nikon D5100.
> After reading some posts and reviews I noticed that the kit lens, AF-S 18-55 VR, isn't so bad.
> ...



If money isn't an issue, then I'd say get both.  If you're trying to save on wasted spending.  I'd stick with the kit lens.  Main reason is because you need to learn how to use the camera.  While doing that, you'll learn what you want and don't want out of a lens, then you can make an educated purchase.  The included lens will work for you just fine, it's a very decent beginner lens.  I have the kit lens still on my D3100.   I now know after a few months of having it, what I need in future lenses.  Had I bought some at purchase time, I know for a fact I would have made two wasteful purchases.

I can say one thing though, you mentioned using it for kids/sports.  If sitting in bleachers, and even on sidelines at times, if you are hoping to zoom in...forget about it, especially from the bleachers.  It only gets 3x zoom, which won't get you close ups if that is what you are wanting.

My recommendation, being a new owner for a while now...stick with kit, use it, learn it, see how much you will actually use it; then decide what lens will be best for your application of your camera in your photography.


----------



## pimane (Jun 6, 2012)

Hi, found quite a bargain on the net... the D5100 + 18-55 + 55-200 only 589&#8364;... (quite cheap for europe...)
but there's only BIG problem... no VR lens, just DX lens.. the 18-55 wouldn't be a problem but I'm afraid that with my shaky hands I wouldn't be able to use the 55-200 without VR.
so it would actually be money thrown away.. since the D5100 + 18-55 VR kit costs 550&#8364;.. 
anyone has a 18-55 and 55-200 without VR? how do they perform? I read a post about the 55-200 lens that says it's quite good (for it's value) but without the VR it can be difficult to use without a tripod. as for the 18-55 the VR isn't so important but it's better with it.

regards,
Pedro


----------



## jrizal (Jun 6, 2012)

Can you only get the kit alone? On second thought, people used to shoot manually (no AF, VR, etc.) and photos came out fine. Also, the Canon 75-300mm without IS is still a cheap and popular lens oft bundled. So it may not be a waste of money at all.

BTW, the 18-200mm may be convenient but it is heavy (not really a problem) and costs more than my D3100 with 18-55mm kit lens and 55-200mm zoom.


----------



## pimane (Jun 6, 2012)

the weight it's a problem, since the machine is also for my wife to use.. she's used to our old Nikon F60 with a 28-80mm lens, which is quite light.
the problem with the 55-200 without VR is that in "full" zoom any kind of movement will probably blur the image... with VR that doesn't happen..
the D5100 + 18-55 + 55-200 no VR is 586&#8364;, with 18-55 no VR + 55-200 VR is 749&#8364;, with both lens VR is 799&#8364;..
but I can get the D5100 + 18-55 VR for 570&#8364; and the 55-200VR for 155&#8364;.. it's cheaper and I don't need to buy both lens now..
but for more 16&#8364; I can get the kit with both non VR lens.... it's a difficult decision..

also a new "baby" just came to town.... the D3200 with 18-55 VR lens cost only 10&#8364; more than the D5100... is it worth the change? I definitely won't use the 24Mpx.


----------



## orb9220 (Jun 6, 2012)

Yep don't get the 55-200 without VR. As Vr is really helpful at the longer focal lengths over 100mm or so.
I use 55-200vr as my main walkabout lens. 
And VR helps when shooting above that. VR on the 18-55 is not needed as much at the smaller focal lenghts.

And many balk at the kit lenses. But they hold up pretty well for the price/performance. Of course they are no speed demons or indoor lenses for kids that requires faster glass. But in good light they perform very well and a good start.

Only concern of the 18-105vr is won't do well at school events like sports,indoor stadiums or stage and sitting aways back. As all of them a tad slow and the 105 not long enough. 200mm many times not even long enough for outdoor sports from the bleacher.

Trying to cover too many situations and expectations where a more spendy zoom is needed or a faster prime for lower light and indoors is needed. As there is no one or two lenses that would cover all the situations you mentioned.
.


----------



## pimane (Jun 6, 2012)

orb9220 said:


> And many balk at the kit lenses. But they hold up pretty well for the price/performance. Of course they are no speed demons or indoor lenses for kids that requires faster glass. But in good light they perform very well and a good start.
> .



For indoor kids' photos is the AF-S 35mm f/1.8G or the AF-S 50mm f/1.8G good lens?

Just one more thing... The card... A "regular" class 10 is enough or should I go for a SanDisk Extreme Pro? The camera can be fast but if the card is slow there's no miracle...

Thanks,
Pedro


----------



## Alan92RTTT (Jun 6, 2012)

I got the D5000 with the 18-55 and the 55-200. Every trip I took it on I felt like I sent more time swapping lenses that taking pictures.  

I picked up the 18-105 and took it on a trip to Disney and have been using it for my main lens. I'm very happy with that decision. With the exception of Animal Kingdom where I knew I'd need the range of my 70-300 I did not even take a second lens. I never felt that the 105 was too short for a shot I wanted.


----------



## orb9220 (Jun 6, 2012)

pimane said:


> orb9220 said:
> 
> 
> > And many balk at the kit lenses. But they hold up pretty well for the price/performance. Of course they are no speed demons or indoor lenses for kids that requires faster glass. But in good light they perform very well and a good start.
> ...



Yes either is a faster good primes to have. I prefer the 35mm as the 50mm I find tight indoors and small spaces. The 35mm gives me a little more breathing room for indoors. But doing a lot of head & shoulder shots then probably the 50mm is a better choice.

And No on SD cards as the Camera doesn't write pictures to the card that fast so anything like a class 4 or also known speed of 133x or Ultra III or Ultra IV would be sufficient for pictures. Don't know the specs on doing Video tho and if it needs faster cards? Someone else can chime in.

And for me a good starting kit would be the 18-105vr or the 18-55 & 55-200vr either set and add a 35mm or 50mm f1.8 G AF-S prime to the mix. Also adding a flash like the SB-700 would do wonders for the slower zooms indoors.
.


----------



## pimane (Jun 6, 2012)

what's the "real" zoom on the 55-200 lens? how far can it photograph? Say my kid is playing 10yards away can I get a good picture?
Thanks,
Pedro


----------



## Mach0 (Jun 6, 2012)

pimane said:
			
		

> what's the "real" zoom on the 55-200 lens? how far can it photograph? Say my kid is playing 10yards away can I get a good picture?
> Thanks,
> Pedro



The real zoom ? It's 55-200 mm. If you mean distance, I'm not sure but 10 yards is fine. Good picture depends on your definition of good and skill level.


----------



## pimane (Jun 8, 2012)

Hi,

Right now I'm on a "tight" budget, so I'd like your opinion on which lens to buy...
I have in mind the 18-55 VR (from the Kit), the 55-200 or 55-300 and the 35mm.
Is the 55-300 worth the difference between the 55-200? If I get the 300 I'd probably won't get the 35mm or the 18-55.
The build quality on the 300 is better than on the 200 but is the zoom difference worth while? I'd probably use it to take pictures of my kids playing soccer.
How much use do people really give to the 200 or 300 lens? I currently have an IXUS 970IS and "it's fine" for taking all kind of pictures... some limitations but I can live it them..
Should I go for the 18-55 (530&#8364 + 35mm (170&#8364; 18-55/55-200 (723&#8364; 18-55/55-300 (795&#8364. I can get "latter" the 200 (180&#8364 or the 300 (300&#8364.. I wouldn't like to go over the 800&#8364; limit (less if possible...).
Thanks,
Pedro


----------



## Alan92RTTT (Jun 8, 2012)

I'd suggest looking at the 18-105 and get the 35mm with it. 

I used the 18-55, 55-200 combo for over a year. IMO the 55mm cut off point is annoying. Any place I went I needed both lenses and was always swapping them to get the pic I wanted. It just seems to work out to be an inconvenient point. I got the 18-105 just before Christmas and I am very happy with it.


----------



## Solarflare (Jun 8, 2012)

There is no 55-300 in my list of lenses useable by DX.

You probably talk about the Nikkor AF-S 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 G IF-ED VR 		which is not a huge update to the Nikkor AF-S 55-200mm f/4-5.6G IF-ED DX VR - but you can of course still use it if you ever switch to FX, and it seems to have a faster autofocus.


----------



## Alan92RTTT (Jun 8, 2012)

Their is a 55-300 Amazon.com: Nikon 55-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED VR AF-S DX Nikkor Zoom Lens for Nikon Digital SLR: Camera & Photo

I agree the 70-300 is much better. But it costs more too and if your on a budget that could be a problem. 

IMO the 18-105 and the 70-300 are a great pair.


----------



## Solarflare (Jun 8, 2012)

Drat, I need a better list.


----------



## JoshuaSimPhotography (Jun 8, 2012)

i actually have both of these cams, and my main one is the D5100, it is more configurable, efficient and practical, the D3100 is still great but the D5100 has all of its features...plus more! So 5100 is the way to go!


----------



## pimane (Jun 8, 2012)

The lens is on Ken Rockwell's dream team list  Nikon 55-300mm VR As is the 55-200mm.
The 18-105 is not a good lens since it's not as sharp as the 18-55 (Nikon 18-105mm VR).
Is the 18-55 without VR good for someone that has shaky hands?!
I had a F60 with a 35-88D lens and never got a blurred picture...
Thanks,
Pedro


----------



## pimane (Jun 8, 2012)

just another question, and sorry if it's to stupid.. real novice at this stuff...
a 55-200 lens as a "zoom" of aprox. 3.5x, a 70-300 of 4.3x and a 18-105 of 5.8x.
but the lens that "approaches" objects closer is the 300, right? it's the lens with the furthest range.. even the 18-105 has a 5.8x zoom..
if so, the 18-105 is not a "real" replacement for the 18-55 / 55-200 or 55-200. the replacement would be a 18-200, but that quite more expensive...


----------



## sleist (Jun 8, 2012)

The 18-105 is just as sharp, if not sharper than the 18-55 and it has a more useful range.  It the best kit lens currently available from Nikon.
It's so good, that it makes replacing it with the 16-85 a waste of money based on image quality alone.  It's a good value if purchased as a kit with a body.


----------



## pimane (Jun 8, 2012)

but if I want to take long shot pictures of sport events or something like that won't I need a 55-300 lens? 
the kit with 18-55 and 55-300 is only 60&#8364; more expensive than the kit with 18-105. and eventually cover 3x the distance..


----------



## sleist (Jun 8, 2012)

pimane said:


> but if I want to take long shot pictures of sport events or something like that won't I need a 55-300 lens?
> the kit with 18-55 and 55-300 is only 60&#8364; more expensive than the kit with 18-105. and eventually cover 3x the distance..



I was only responding to you statement:



> The 18-105 is not a good lens since it's not as sharp as the 18-55



Only you can know what you need.


----------



## pimane (Jun 8, 2012)

sleist said:


> I was only responding to you statement:
> 
> Only you can know what you need.



Thanks 
But for an extra 60&#8364; I think I'll have a more complete set with the 18-55 and the 55-300. And since 90% of the time I'll probably use the 18-55 the lens' weight might be an advantage.. I'll have a lot more weight on my back but not on my hand


----------



## Ernicus (Jun 8, 2012)

It's good to make a solid educated purchase...so having said that, after reading all of this...I really really think you are over-thinking things.  You don't even know how you'll respond to the camera yet...how much you'll use it...don't even know how to shoot.  I don't say that with any judgement or notions..just stating the facts.

My advice still...take a step back..breathe...don't get caught up in the technical side.  Buy the camera, with included lens, and learn.  You will quickly know what you'll need to add to your arsenal, if anything is needed at all.  You can always find good deals on used lenses online later on, which will save you money in the long run.  ;-)  so save your money now and worry about additional lenses later.


----------



## Ernicus (Jun 8, 2012)

...or go buy a few primes..that later you might realize you won't use and after they sit in your bag a while you can sell them to me for a great discounted deal.    yay me.  lol


----------



## pimane (Jun 8, 2012)

I'll probably use the prime since I take a lot of pictures indoors with low light, mostly portrait pictures of my kids.
My doubt is the "long range" lens... don't know if it's worth buying but since I take pictures of my kids playing sports and school show (probably over 20m from stage).. 
But I don't intend to make poster pictures so by shooting a 16Mpx photo with a 18-55 lens with good sharp I can probably get a nice closeup picture .. don't know...
But I understand your advice: use the basic kit and if I fell there's something "missing" get the proper lens for the job... and the lens of the package isn't that expensive.. probably more 30&#8364; or something without the 2 lens kit...

thanks for the advice.


----------



## pimane (Jun 8, 2012)

Ernicus said:


> It's good to make a solid educated purchase...so having said that, after reading all of this...I really really think you are over-thinking things.  You don't even know how you'll respond to the camera yet...how much you'll use it...don't even know how to shoot.  I don't say that with any judgement or notions..just stating the facts.
> 
> My advice still...take a step back..breathe...don't get caught up in the technical side.  Buy the camera, with included lens, and learn.  You will quickly know what you'll need to add to your arsenal, if anything is needed at all.  You can always find good deals on used lenses online later on, which will save you money in the long run.  ;-)  so save your money now and worry about additional lenses later.



What do you think is worth buying for my porpoise (take portrait pictures, indoor,...)? The prime or the 55-200 / 55-300?
Probably the 18-55 will do the job for most situations I'd use the prime, so this is my dilemma...

Thanks,
Pedro


----------



## sleist (Jun 8, 2012)

One thing about any zoom that only goes out to 55mm:  You may find you're switching to the 55-300 just to get shots between 55-85mm.  No way to know if your shooting style will make this a pain in the a$$ or not.  An 18-70, 16-85, or 18-105 paired with the 55-300 may cut down on lens changes while giving you a slighty larger apeture at 55mm (f/5.0 vs. f/5.6 for the 18-105 compared to the 18-55).


----------



## pimane (Jun 8, 2012)

but the 18-105 with the 55-300 is as expensive as the 18-55, prime 35 and the 55-300... so... for the price the pack with the prime is probably better... doknow


----------



## Alan92RTTT (Jun 8, 2012)

Nothing says you have to get all the lenses at the same time. 

Start with the 18-105 and maybe the 35mm and get a longer lens later.  I'd save for the 70-300 its better than the 55-300.


----------



## StandingBear1983 (Jun 8, 2012)

*pimane* - sounds like you need to do some testing...go shoot for a month with a zoom P&S or whatever zoom camera you have...after shooting watch your exif data in your computer with a photo viewer, then you can know exactly what focal lengths you use more often then others...by that i think you could make a better decision about what lens to buy.


----------



## pimane (Jun 8, 2012)

Has any one had any experience with Tamron 18-270 VC or 28-300 VC? Are they good lens? Ask this cause I can get them for about 350&#8364; each, which seams a bargain.
Thanks,
Pedro


----------



## Ernicus (Jun 8, 2012)

Kinda like watching a cat chase a laser pen....


----------



## pimane (Jun 9, 2012)

StandingBear1983 said:


> *pimane* - sounds like you need to do some testing...go shoot for a month with a zoom P&S or whatever zoom camera you have...after shooting watch your exif data in your computer with a photo viewer, then you can know exactly what focal lengths you use more often then others...by that i think you could make a better decision about what lens to buy.



My IXUS 970IS has a 6.6-33mm lens and I never use the digital zoom.
What's the equivalent to that lens on a DSLR?
Just asked about the tamron lens since they seem to be very good lenses (according to reviews) and at almost half the price.
There are 2 kits both the same price:
1. D5100 + 55-108 VR + pouch + 8GB SDHC card
2. D5100 + 18-55G II DX + 55-200G DX ED VR + tripod + backpack + 4G SDHC card
I'll probably get the 18-105mm (not bad macro and reasonable zoom) since the 18-55 has no VR. 
If latter I see that I need more zoom I'll complement with a 55-300mm (the 70-300mm is very expensive and big...).

Just one more thing (a bit off the topic): a friend of mine has a change of getting a D7000 body for 850&#8364; (used) with 10.000 pictures taken. Is that a good buy or, since the D7000 is almost 2 years on the market and nikon will be launching the replacement soon, it's better to wait a while for the replacement and buy the new one or the D7000 being sold at a lower price? (if the replacement will come out before September...).

Thanks,
Pedro


----------



## greybeard (Jun 10, 2012)

I have the d5100 with the 18-55 and 55-200 and for now I'm satisfied.  The 18-55 is OK as long as you stay at f/8-f/11.  It gets pretty soft wide open and at f/16-22.  My 55-200 is really pretty descent.  At f/8-11 it is  good and is OK at f/4.5-6.3....  If I were starting out now, I think I would spend the extra bucks and get the Nikkor 16-85 f3.5-5.6........  I spoke with a guy working for Lifetouch school pictures not too long ago.  He was setup in the hall way outside my band room taking prom pics.  He does this day in day out year round.  He was using a D300 with the aforementioned nikkor 16-85.   He had nothing but good things to say about this lens.


----------



## snowbear (Jun 10, 2012)

Solarflare said:


> There is no 55-300 in my list of lenses useable by DX.
> 
> You probably talk about the Nikkor AF-S 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 G IF-ED VR         which is not a huge update to the Nikkor AF-S 55-200mm f/4-5.6G IF-ED DX VR - but you can of course still use it if you ever switch to FX, and it seems to have a faster autofocus.


You can use FX lenses on DX bodies.  All I am using on my D40 are 24mm, 50mm and 105mm FX primes.


----------



## gryffinwings (Jun 10, 2012)

Alan92RTTT said:


> I'd suggest looking at the 18-105 and get the 35mm with it. I used the 18-55, 55-200 combo for over a year. IMO the 55mm cut off point is annoying. Any place I went I needed both lenses and was always swapping them to get the pic I wanted. It just seems to work out to be an inconvenient point. I got the 18-105 just before Christmas and I am very happy with it.


 I have to agree with this point, the 55mm cut off point is really annoying, I've been looking at alternatives. Most of the time I'm finding I need a bit more range and don't have it.


----------



## Solarflare (Jun 10, 2012)

snowbear said:


> Solarflare said:
> 
> 
> > There is no 55-300 in my list of lenses useable by DX.
> ...


 Yes ? I didnt claimed otherwise.


----------



## djacobox372 (Jun 10, 2012)

pimane said:
			
		

> what's the "real" zoom on the 55-200 lens? how far can it photograph? Say my kid is playing 10yards away can I get a good picture?
> Thanks,
> Pedro



On a crop sensor camera 35mm would be considered "normal" so 200mm would be 6x zoom. Good for shoulder-head shots at 10m.

Id highly recommend the 50mm f1.8 af-s g, if for no other reason as to give you a high standard to compare other lenses to.


----------

