Two lenses better than one?

[vrsmxtb]

I've decided which DSLR I'm going for, the Nikon D5100, but am wondering about lenses.

The two packages I've seen are the body and 18-105mm, or for another £50 I can get 18-55mm and 55-200mm.

My question is, as a complete DSLR novice, would it actually be beneficial to be restricted to one lense to begin with? I've heard the 18-105mm Nikkor lense is significantly better quality than the 18-55 and 55-200 combo lenses, and whilst bulkier, is a great all purpose set-up.

Thoughts, is two really better than one for an extra £50? Or stick with the single, more versatile lense. I'm planning to do a real mixture of photography, but with a particular interest in landscape / outdoor scenes.

[DIW35]

I don't know Nikon systems at all, or the lenses you mention, but from a personal viewpoint I would always give preference to one good lens over two mediocre ones.

[eltawater]

Take the 18-105, save the 50 quid and put it towards a better telephoto or a prime lens instead.

[_rubinho_]

Most deals with the 55-200 have the non-VR version which you don't want. If you do look at the two lens package, ensure it is the VR version of the 55-200.

[vrsmxtb]

_rubinho_ said:

Most deals with the 55-200 have the non-VR version which you don't want. If you do look at the two lens package, ensure it is the VR version of the 55-200.

Actually it's Amazon and they are both VR lenses which is attractive.

[9.3]

I have the D5100 with the 18-55VR and 55-200VR. They are both cracking lenses which belie the price. I like the extra length of the 55-200 over the 18-105.

I tried uploading a couple of samples here via Photobucket to show the sharpness, but for some reason the uploaded result here looks really soft - anybody know the reason for this?

[eltawater]

OP: I started with a D3100 and the 18-55VR six months ago before adding the 55-200VR. I have since sold both lenses in favour of an 18-270mm and 35mm prime.

My only regret is that I didn't do it sooner as both lenses blow the 18-55/55-200 combo away. I keep the 18-270mm on all the time on walkabout, and swop to the 35mm for portraits etc.

Having said that and having been to my first airshow, I'm developing a bit of an itch for a 150-500mm sigma......

[GetCarter]

9.3 said:

I have the D5100 with the 18-55VR and 55-200VR. They are both cracking lenses which belie the price. I like the extra length of the 55-200 over the 18-105.

I tried uploading a couple of samples here via Photobucket to show the sharpness, but for some reason the uploaded result here looks really soft - anybody know the reason for this?

I've read here that Photobucket squash the hell out of ones photos. Most here use flickr (I use neither)

[LongQ]

GetCarter said:

9.3 said:

I have the D5100 with the 18-55VR and 55-200VR. They are both cracking lenses which belie the price. I like the extra length of the 55-200 over the 18-105.

I tried uploading a couple of samples here via Photobucket to show the sharpness, but for some reason the uploaded result here looks really soft - anybody know the reason for this?

I've read here that Photobucket squash the hell out of ones photos. Most here use flickr (I use neither)

Not sure about that. Most of my stuff posted on here is hosted on photobucket.

However if you are working with the FREE account they do restict you to 'Internet' sizes and will adjust what you throw at the to suit the size that you choose. How to choose is not blatantly obvious in the interface.

Add to that the possibility that PH is crushing the incoming image to display at 750 pixels wide (or whatever the limit is) and things may start to look messy. Much more so if the purpose of the post is to show how sharp something is! Should still be better than running the Thumbsnap gauntlet though.

You could try uploading 2 files. One to act as a large, unmolested "thumbnail" in the post and another of much larger size (Photobucket allows up to 2048 pixels on the long side) to be pulled up on demand when clicking through. Unless you have something that really does need to be seen very large to appreciate the sharpness or colour detail that should do the trick.

[_rubinho_]

eltawater said:

OP: I started with a D3100 and the 18-55VR six months ago before adding the 55-200VR. I have since sold both lenses in favour of an 18-270mm and 35mm prime.

My only regret is that I didn't do it sooner as both lenses blow the 18-55/55-200 combo away. I keep the 18-270mm on all the time on walkabout, and swop to the 35mm for portraits etc.

Having said that and having been to my first airshow, I'm developing a bit of an itch for a 150-500mm sigma......

That's what I use on my D5100, Tamron 18-270mm 90% of the time and Nikon 35mm for low-light etc. My 18-55 kit lens is in a drawer in case I ever need a spare.

[andy-xr]

9.3 said:

I tried uploading a couple of samples here via Photobucket to show the sharpness, but for some reason the uploaded result here looks really soft - anybody know the reason for this?

Try resizing the photo down to 700px

[Simpo Two]

And then resharpening to taste. 'Sharpening' is related to image size (and if you shoot JPG has already had a dose applied, so what you see is not just lens but camera function)

[Kermit power]

I also know nothing of Nikon lenses, but given your expressed primary interest in landscapes and outdoor scenes, you may find that you quite quickly get frustrated with only having 18mm at the wide end. I find that I rarely photograph anything much above about 85mm (with the exception of my 100mm Macro lens), but do make a lot of use of my Sigma 10-20mm for just the sort of thing you're interested in.

Given that, if it were me, I'd probably go for the 18-105 to provide all the walkaround length I'd really need, then have up for a 10-20mm for the landscapes.

[vrsmxtb]

Thanks for all the input - I'm going for the single 18-105mm lense, the £50 saved goes halfway towards the few accessories I need and I want to live with the camera a while before deciding what other lenses I'd like, and get quality ones.

[Jetl3on]

LongQ said:

GetCarter said:

9.3 said:

I tried uploading a couple of samples here via Photobucket to show the sharpness, but for some reason the uploaded result here looks really soft - anybody know the reason for this?

I've read here that Photobucket squash the hell out of ones photos. Most here use flickr (I use neither)

Not sure about that. Most of my stuff posted on here is hosted on photobucket.

However if you are working with the FREE account they do restict you to 'Internet' sizes and will adjust what you throw at the to suit the size that you choose. How to choose is not blatantly obvious in the interface.

Add to that the possibility that PH is crushing the incoming image to display at 750 pixels wide (or whatever the limit is) and things may start to look messy. Much more so if the purpose of the post is to show how sharp something is! Should still be better than running the Thumbsnap gauntlet though.

You could try uploading 2 files. One to act as a large, unmolested "thumbnail" in the post and another of much larger size (Photobucket allows up to 2048 pixels on the long side) to be pulled up on demand when clicking through. Unless you have something that really does need to be seen very large to appreciate the sharpness or colour detail that should do the trick.

Photobucket now trialling the new `True Original` service, no compression, exactly as it was taken (apparently).

[LongQ]

Jetl3on said:

Photobucket now trialling the new `True Original` service, no compression, exactly as it was taken (apparently).

I think on the paid for account it's not a problem but the free account has 'typicalInternet Sized Files'. It may have changed in recent days of course but to be honest for something to link to now and again 2048 is probably adequate.

I'll have a browse around when I get an opportunity. Ta.