Gabbb said:
That focal length difference means the world when it comes to portraiture. Just don't waste money on the 1.4g, the new 1.8g is a lot better overall, even if many 1.4g owners deny it.

I didn't even know there was a 1.8g! Yes, it seems a great lens at half the cost of the 1.4.
I can only speak from my own experience of the 1.4, and no other lens I own/have owned produces colour and control quite like it. By all accounts in the review I just read, the 1.8g also does!

bmw_328ci said:
Is there a big difference between 35mm 1.8 and 55mm 1.8?

That focal length difference means the world when it comes to portraiture. Just don't waste money on the 1.4g, the new 1.8g is a lot better overall, even if many 1.4g owners deny it.

Peely22 said:
the 50mm 1.4 is a simply fab lens for portrait, and getting familiar with Aperture Priority.

Is there a big difference between 35mm 1.8 and 55mm 1.8?

the 50mm 1.4 is a simply fab lens for portrait, and getting familiar with Aperture Priority.

Portraits are best shot with short telephotos so on a DX best would be 85mm but your 55mm is still OK albeit at the short end of what is usable.

Can I use the 18-55 for portrait photos or should I get 35mm or 55mm? is it too much to get three lenses as a starter kit?

spraynpray said:
Ah, you could be right Donald. If so, he made a good choice (both feet are still good :-) ).

Yeah my both feet still good :). I went to best buy and tried the three cameras. I didnt like the d3200 i thought it was slow comparing to the others.Of course I liked the d7000 but moneywise I thought I will get the d5100 with these lenses so I will not lose too much money when I decide to upgrade to the d7xxx .

donaldejose said:
spraynpray: I read his post to say he bought the "D5100 kit" and the 55-200 lens. He didn't say he bought the D5100 body and the 55-200 lens. Thus, I assume he got an 18-55 or a 18-105 as part of the "kit". Therefore, he really has two lens which cover the range from 18 through 200. If he purchased a body only and the 55-200 lens only, he will need to add either an 18-55 or an 18-200. I sure he will find that out.

That's what I meant too, I thought it's obvious what he said. d5100 kit + 55-200..

Ah, you could be right Donald. If so, he made a good choice (both feet are still good :-) ).

spraynpray: I read his post to say he bought the "D5100 kit" and the 55-200 lens. He didn't say he bought the D5100 body and the 55-200 lens. Thus, I assume he got an 18-55 or a 18-105 as part of the "kit". Therefore, he really has two lens which cover the range from 18 through 200. If he purchased a body only and the 55-200 lens only, he will need to add either an 18-55 or an 18-200. I sure he will find that out.

Gabbb said:
Is the 18-105 a better lens than the 18-55? No. It's only foot self shooting if he doesn't need the longer reach.

Nature = distance usually, landscape = wide hence 18-105.

spraynpray said:
Well, you should have waited. You still need a lens that is best suited to those subjects. Tell me - did you ask the assistant and he advised you to buy that lens for those subjects? If so, take it back and tell him you want to change it for a different lens. The 18-105 (or if that is a little expensive, the 18-55) would have been the best lens for your budget and subjects.

Too quick on the trigger there, you shot yourself in the foot.

Is the 18-105 a better lens than the 18-55? No. It's only foot self shooting if he doesn't need the longer reach.

bmw_328ci said:
Hi

Thank you for your feed back. I decided to buy D5100 kit and 55-200mm lens. I will use it mostly for landscape,nature and cars. What do you think about my choice?

Well, you should have waited. You still need a lens that is best suited to those subjects. Tell me - did you ask the assistant and he advised you to buy that lens for those subjects? If so, take it back and tell him you want to change it for a different lens. The 18-105 (or if that is a little expensive, the 18-55) would have been the best lens for your budget and subjects.

Too quick on the trigger there, you shot yourself in the foot.

BMW_328ci: You have made a very good choice for a first DSLR camera. The kit lens (either 18-55 or 18-105) will serve very well for about 80% of your shooting and the 55-200 will serve very well for the rest. Although the 18-55 is very inexpensive, it is very, very good and when you set it to 55 and its closest focus point you will find it quite adequate for close up photography of items the size of flowers or wrist watches. Yes, it and those lenses have some limitations. For example, low light photography without a flash. You can pick up a 50mm 1.8 lens or a 35mm 1.8 lens for that later. For now, don't worry about the "limitations" of your equipment. Just learn to use all the ability it does have. Learn to do well everything it can do for you. A year from now when you feel confident you know how to use everything your camera and lenses can do and when you can produce fine photographs within the "limitations" of the equipment you have then you can start to ask yourself: what would I like to do that is impossible to do with this equipment? That will lead you to a list of features you really would use in addition to the features you now have. That list of additional features will tell you what body and lenses to buy next.

I don't get how anyone could recommend the 18-55 or 18-105...

the D7000 was/is my first DSLR, and I wouldn't recommend anything less for someone's first DSLR. The biggest advantage being the in-body motor so you could buy lenses that don't have motors in them, saving a bit of money on some pretty nice (old) lenses.

Quote "IMHO to go for a D7000 as a 'first' DSLR is not the right course to take. As the D3200 is newer AND cheaper than the D7000 you will lose less when you sell."
I disagree. I'm 100% sure if you check back on the prices in 6months. The D3200 will be a lot lower in price compared to the D5100 or the D7000. The D3200 is their absolute entry level camera so I think they will start dropping their prices soon...

I was in the same situation as you last year. In the end i bought the D5100 (back than it was a lot more expensive than it is now.
What I can advise you is not to be the 3200 because right now; I would get the D7000 if you have that kind of money (I didn't, but than it was even more expensive than now). Reasons to buy the D7000 over the D5100 are the focusing motor (something that i really miss; because i want the tokina 11-16mm; a lens which won't autofocus on the D5100). And of course the better body; which can be a plus but also a minus because if you travel a lot: the less weight the better. (And some other features but the image quality is the same).

Everybody always saying: buy the 3200 blah blah blah but the truth is if you are really into photography and a gadget nerd like I am that camera will feel a bit lowspec; I'm sure you can take amazing pictures with it; but you will soon aspire to something better...

I have to say that me having the D5100 for one year i already feel like I should upgrade. Maybe it's the same for everyone owning a dslr: always wanting to buy a better model...don't know.

So to conclude: if you have to money (and you are sure you're into photography) go buy the D7000. Or maybe wait a little until the D7100 comes out (but that could not be until december).

bmw_328ci said:
Hi

Thank you for your feed back. I decided to buy D5100 kit and 55-200mm lens. I will use it mostly for landscape,nature and cars. What do you think about my choice?

The d5100 has a fantastic dynamic range (in raw) that combined with the 18-55 lens is going to be enough for landscapes until you get to know what is it that you exactly need. Much superior choice to the d3100 for sure and possibly to the 3200 as well.

Camera wise, that will no doubt do the job nicely whilst you find your feet.
Your feet won't be doing much landscape with that range.

I find for landscape the best range is in the 15-25 bracket; ether from a 10/12-20/22, or a 17-55.

spraynpray said:
Exactly - you will be thinking too much about the gadget and not enough about the important creative stuff.

Agreed again - but the D3200 is current so you will lose less when you sell than if it gets replaced before you sell it like the D7000 will.

Still waiting to hear what your main subject matter is before we can recommend specific lenses.

Hi

Thank you for your feed back. I decided to buy D5100 kit and 55-200mm lens. I will use it mostly for landscape,nature and cars. What do you think about my choice?

Peely22 said:
Even the entry DSLRs are so jam packed with features you may get overloaded.
I miss my D40x, as it was so simple, straight forward, and you know what - pretty damn good.
2 years of my D90, and I still miss it!

Exactly - you will be thinking too much about the gadget and not enough about the important creative stuff.

Peely22 said:

IMHO, for a first DSLR, particularly if thinking of upgrading soon is simple-
A relatively cheap/2nd hand entry (D40x~£200!!?) and a fab lens Think more about the lens - how much zoom do I want; how wide do I want; how fast (wide aperture 1.4/2.8 etc)?

Agreed again - but the D3200 is current so you will lose less when you sell than if it gets replaced before you sell it like the D7000 will.

Still waiting to hear what your main subject matter is before we can recommend specific lenses.

PS - then sell your second hand low cost camera for pretty much what you bought it for!

Even the entry DSLRs are so jam packed with features you may get overloaded.
I miss my D40x, as it was so simple, straight forward, and you know what - pretty damn good.
2 years of my D90, and I still miss it!

If you buy a new camera, the next one will be out within the year, and so on...it's endless.
If you buy a new camera it will depreciate around 20% per annum, ongoing. The next model won't necessarily take better shots, but everyone will want it, dropping the price of the last.
If you buy a fantastic lens, after a year it will have dropped 10-15-20%, but that's pretty much where it stays if you look after it.

My favourite piece of kit is the 50mm 1.4. I bought it for £280 over three years ago, not long before my D90 (£800). The D90 is now £500, and the 50 1.4G is £289, second hand £230 (I'm not selling!)

IMHO, for a first DSLR, particularly if thinking of upgrading soon is simple-
A relatively cheap/2nd hand entry (D40x~£200!!?) and a fab lens Think more about the lens - how much zoom do I want; how wide do I want; how fast (wide aperture 1.4/2.8 etc)?

If you got the D7000 now though, as a first DSLR you would be mad to upgrade any sooner than 2-3 years. That's a mighty fine piece of camera!

i always follow my shpping rules
1. what am i need it for
2. how much i can afford
3. new or used
4. any resell Market
5. by now I pretty much know what I am going to buy

in yr case, I will try to find a used d7000 with a cheap lens , u will know which lens u really want when start to use it a lot.

IMHO to go for a D7000 as a 'first' DSLR is not the right course to take. As the D3200 is newer AND cheaper than the D7000 you will lose less when you sell.

Also, if you only get one lens don't get the 55-200 unless you only shoot sport or nature. 18-105 or 18-55 would be better but if you do go FX (by then you should know), then you would have to sell whatever DX lens you get.

What are your main subjects going to be? Tell us that and we can help more.

BTW you should have appended your question to one of the other threads on this subject.