Buying a Nikon D5300, should I buy w/ the 18-140mm kit lens...

[bearcatfan1976]

and a prime lens like the 50mm f/1.8 or should I skip the kit lens and just get the 50mm and a zoom lens like the 55-200. My main uses will be takings photos of my 2 and 4 year old in our dimly lit house as well as taking photos of them outside while they are playing. My 4 year old is playing soccer now so I would like a zoom lens to take some photos of him. This is my first DSLR so I'm pretty ignorant on this topic. Any help at all would be greatly appreciated.

 

[GlennW]

and a prime lens like the 50mm f/1.8 or should I skip the kit lens and just get the 50mm and a zoom lens like the 55-200. My main uses will be takings photos of my 2 and 4 year old in our dimly lit house as well as taking photos of them outside while they are playing. My 4 year old is playing soccer now so I would like a zoom lens to take some photos of him. This is my first DSLR so I'm pretty ignorant on this topic. Any help at all would be greatly appreciated.

Your other choice is the new 18-55VR2 kit lens.

Neither kit lens would be good indoors in a dimly lit house. In a normal lit house with plenty of daylight you may get something. With the 18-55 move in a lot closer.

Any of the lens would be good to start and test if you like 35, 50 mm better. For small children the 35 1.8G may be fine.

for outdoor soccer, a lot depends where you are shooting from & where the action is. If you stand behind the goal, you may be able to cover 1/2 of the close area but be lost at the other end. From the sideline the 18-140 will zoom in if you can follow the action. THe 18-55 from 35-50-55 may be enough for some sideline shots. Depends if you can run with the ball to follow the action or be set in one spot?

For sports a better option would be the 70-300 VR so you can really zoom in & have a faster focus.

 

[flee2010]

If you have the budget, go for it. If not, get the standard kit lens - being a zoom, it is a lot more versatile than a fixed focus lens. It would also be a good lens for travel and street photography.

The 50mm f/1.8 might be a little too long for indoor shots (unless your house has large rooms!). The 35mm f/1.8 should be a better option for those low light shots.

For outdoor soccer photography, something like the 70-300 VR would give you the versatility to shoot a variety of shots.

 

[nearly-an-old-codger]

Welcome to DPR

If your house is really dimly lit then a Flash like the SB700 will be of good use. It works well in auto mode and use the bounce and reflector built into the flash unit. The flash also has a built in focus assist for dim conditions.

In your place right now, I would go for a one lens solution such as the 18-300 which will cover your needs for a while.

There is a learning curve on DSLR's and you will go a long way with that kit.

You can branch out later.

One problem with a f1.8 lens for beginners is getting focus right at f1.8 as the depth of field is quite narrow.

My 2 cents

Enjoy your kids and whatever kit you go with.

Brian

 

[paulski66]

Back in the day, when I got my d80, I got the kit lens and a 50mm f/1.8. I used the 50 a lot more than I used the kit lens. That said, the kit was nice to have around in a pinch.

 

[Andrew 3]

Speaking from experience with our little one I would start with 1 mid-range zoom and an SB-700. Of our, relatives, friends, and other homes we visit there is never enough artificial light to keep ISO low enough and shutter speed fast enough. Now that yours are past the infant stage flash is not a concern (for those who don't like to use it with infants who aren't sleeping). Starting out, don't try and limit yourself to working around primes and artificial light, it's an exercise in futility. With limited light and primes your fighting against yourself with shallow depth of field and raising ISO higher and higher. Sure most cameras are very good at high ISO these days but you absolutely do lose dynamic range, introduce noise, and reduce overall image quality the higher you go compared to generating and controlling the light you need with the speedlight.

What I also found, at least with our child, is the more you move around the more they are interested in what you're doing vs allowing you to capture what they're doing. The zoom helps you get the right framing, or different types of framing, without moving around. No such help from primes in that same scenario unless you want to crop each shot to taste.

Get a book on flash photography, learn how to use the speedlight, and shoot shoot shoot. Once you're comfortable you'll be able to figure out for yourself what lenses you need next based on specific things you can't do. Nobody else can tell you what lenses you need. Also, don't fall trap to the desire to cover the "range" of focal lengths. Pick the right tool (lens) based on the job it needs to complete.

I wish someone had mentioned all that to me when I purchased my first real camera.

 

[NorCalAl]

The 18-140 I find to be a very good lens, no qualifications. Adding either a 35/1.8 or 50/1.8 would make a nice kit. Since you're shooting a crop, I'd personally go with the 35, but either is good. My wife is using that and after adding the 70-300VR, can shoot pretty much everything from the grandkids to the zoo.
--
The Mad Prophet - philosopher, cyclist, and photographer

 

[Araldite]

For the price of the D5300 you could get a D7000 or pay a bit more and get the D7100 with the 18-105' Later get the 55-300 and your covered for everything. The D7100 has excellent low light capabilities.

 

[Mystery member]

The 18-140 I find to be a very good lens, no qualifications. Adding either a 35/1.8 or 50/1.8 would make a nice kit. Since you're shooting a crop, I'd personally go with the 35, but either is good. My wife is using that and after adding the 70-300VR, can shoot pretty much everything from the grandkids to the zoo.

I know this is a Nikon Lens forum, but although the 18-140mm is a good lens (standard issue on my 7100), the Sigma 17-70mm is a very good alternative to one of the kit lenses. Somewhat faster than the Nikon 18-140mm and is nice and sharp with good colour rendition.

BTW, some recent tests that I have been doing might be of interest. I added some paint selector cards to my resolution target, and compared the colour rendition with the original. I chose a range of colours going from pastel to subtle.


Sigma 17-70mm. Chart photographed at 2x normal distance.; x200 for LPPH.

 

[whyamihere]

and a prime lens like the 50mm f/1.8 or should I skip the kit lens and just get the 50mm and a zoom lens like the 55-200. My main uses will be takings photos of my 2 and 4 year old in our dimly lit house as well as taking photos of them outside while they are playing. My 4 year old is playing soccer now so I would like a zoom lens to take some photos of him. This is my first DSLR so I'm pretty ignorant on this topic. Any help at all would be greatly appreciated.

I suppose the best answer really depends on what your available budget is, on the whole. The 18-140mm is going to be pretty decent for daylight outdoor or very well-lit indoor situations. It also has a decent range for most close-to-medium distance situations. As soon as the lights/sun goes down, you're going to find yourself cranking up the ISO to capture images, especially when you're talking about trying to capture images of young children. The apertures on the 18-140mm (as well as the 55-200mm) aren't that big, so they don't let in a lot of light. To properly capture motion in dimmer lighting, you'll have to set a higher shutter speed along with a higher ISO sensitivity.

The 50mm f/1.8G will be a decent performer in lower light situations, and, with a little skill, you can capture plenty of action with it. The only downside is, as obviated by it's single focal length, it's not an ideal lens for every situation, such as close quarters or photos where you want to include more of the landscape, which is where a wider angle lens would come in handy.

What's also worth mentioning is the 55-200mm isn't exactly known for it's sharpness. If I were buying a 24MP camera that had no optical low-pass filter, I'd want a set of lenses that can possibly take the best advantage of that feature. I don't think the 55-200mm would ever come into consideration. Then again, I don't plan on making prints to fill the side of a bus, and I'm betting you won't be, either. (Just for reference, an 8" x 10" print at 300dpi is a 8MP image.) But, still, a sharper lens would at least allow for cropping an image & retaining quality, if you need it.

If I were in your position, and I had a reasonable amount of cash available, I'd get the following lenses:

Nikon 50mm f/1.8G for low-light indoor

Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4 or 17-50mm f/2.8 for good-to-moderately-dim indoor/outdoor

Tamron 70-300mm f/4-5.6 for outdoor sports

True, if I had unlimited funds, I'd get a bunch of f/2.8 zooms, the best prime lenses ever, and a D4S to match, but I'm assuming you're going with this camera for a number of reasons, and I figure these lenses will be a good match. None of them are awfully expensive, they're all better than the base products available (some by a decent margin), they can often be had on sale or used (I only have one lens I've ever purchased new, the rest has come used via Amazon, B&H, or Adorama), and they'll produce pleasing images.

I hope this has been helpful.

 

[bearcatfan1976]

and a prime lens like the 50mm f/1.8 or should I skip the kit lens and just get the 50mm and a zoom lens like the 55-200. My main uses will be takings photos of my 2 and 4 year old in our dimly lit house as well as taking photos of them outside while they are playing. My 4 year old is playing soccer now so I would like a zoom lens to take some photos of him. This is my first DSLR so I'm pretty ignorant on this topic. Any help at all would be greatly appreciated.

I suppose the best answer really depends on what your available budget is, on the whole. The 18-140mm is going to be pretty decent for daylight outdoor or very well-lit indoor situations. It also has a decent range for most close-to-medium distance situations. As soon as the lights/sun goes down, you're going to find yourself cranking up the ISO to capture images, especially when you're talking about trying to capture images of young children. The apertures on the 18-140mm (as well as the 55-200mm) aren't that big, so they don't let in a lot of light. To properly capture motion in dimmer lighting, you'll have to set a higher shutter speed along with a higher ISO sensitivity.

The 50mm f/1.8G will be a decent performer in lower light situations, and, with a little skill, you can capture plenty of action with it. The only downside is, as obviated by it's single focal length, it's not an ideal lens for every situation, such as close quarters or photos where you want to include more of the landscape, which is where a wider angle lens would come in handy.

What's also worth mentioning is the 55-200mm isn't exactly known for it's sharpness. If I were buying a 24MP camera that had no optical low-pass filter, I'd want a set of lenses that can possibly take the best advantage of that feature. I don't think the 55-200mm would ever come into consideration. Then again, I don't plan on making prints to fill the side of a bus, and I'm betting you won't be, either. (Just for reference, an 8" x 10" print at 300dpi is a 8MP image.) But, still, a sharper lens would at least allow for cropping an image & retaining quality, if you need it.

If I were in your position, and I had a reasonable amount of cash available, I'd get the following lenses:

Nikon 50mm f/1.8G for low-light indoor

Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4 or 17-50mm f/2.8 for good-to-moderately-dim indoor/outdoor

Tamron 70-300mm f/4-5.6 for outdoor sports

True, if I had unlimited funds, I'd get a bunch of f/2.8 zooms, the best prime lenses ever, and a D4S to match, but I'm assuming you're going with this camera for a number of reasons, and I figure these lenses will be a good match. None of them are awfully expensive, they're all better than the base products available (some by a decent margin), they can often be had on sale or used (I only have one lens I've ever purchased new, the rest has come used via Amazon, B&H, or Adorama), and they'll produce pleasing images.

I hope this has been helpful.

Really appreciate the help from everyone. Guess it would help if I mentioned a budget. I'm hoping to stick to $1500 or under. I decided on the D5300 since it is my first DSLR and it seemed to be the best middle of the road DSLR for a biginner. From what I've gathered no one seems to be a big fan of the Nikon 55-200mm. So it looks like I should go for the Nikon 70-300mm or the Tamron 70-300mm. It also appears that I should go with the Nikon 35mm f/1.8 over the 50mm f/1.8? Also should mention that I will probably keep the camera on the auto settings until my first photography class at the end of this month. Again, I really appreciate the help. The wealth of knowledge on this site is amazing.

 

[NorCalAl]

Agreed and like you, I'm picking up the 17-70 tomorrow. I've been going back and forth with the 24-105/4 OS and then getting the 18-35/1.8 or going with the 17-70 and a couple nice primes and I'm taking the latter route. I've always bought the biggest and "best" and therefore heaviest lenses out there, resulting in bag weights of absurd proportions.

This time, I'm going for a better mix of quality while being weight-aware. I've bought/sold some 40-50 lenses over the past ten years and I'm hoping to build my buy and hold kit.

Wife is shooting the D5300 with 18-140 and 70-300. I'm using the D7100 with (soon) the 10-20, 17-70, Tokina 10-17 fisheye, Sigma 30/1.4 art and (when it becomes available) 50/1.4 art and either a Nikon 105VR or Sigma 150 OS for macro.

 

[Mystery member]

Agreed. I'm going with the 17-70 and a couple nice primes. I've always bought the biggest and "best" and therefore heaviest lenses out there, resulting in bag weights of absurd proportions.

This time, I'm going for a better mix of quality while being weight-aware. I've bought/sold some 40-50 lenses over the past ten years and I'm hoping to build my buy and hold kit.

Wife is shooting the D5300 with 18-140 and 70-300. I'm using the D7100 with the 10-20, 17-70, Tokina 10-17 fisheye, Sigma 30/1.4 art and (when it becomes available) 50/1.4 art.

I think you'll find the Sigma 10-20mm and 17-70mm are a good combination. I normally use them together on my D3200 as a travel kit. I use the 18-140mm and a couple of primes on my D7100, and that is my learning tool. The 17-70mm worked without problems on the D7100, although it seemed slightly less well focussed when tested on resolution charts. Probably a minor calibration required, but I didn't bother as the lens was always intended for the D3200.

I bought my gear in the last year, and I'm assuming that it will last me for quite a while.

 

[nearly-an-old-codger]

I just got a D5200 body only, not much behind the D5300, for USD 469 via Cameta/Amazon. (a supposed refurb but brand new as far as I can tell).

This will leave a huge lens/flash budget.

For a number of years, camera IQ has improved but not by the leaps and bounds that many would have you believe. Look at previous generation refubs for great deals.

Make sure you buy the right lenses. They depreciate far less than camera bodies.



Regards



Brian

 

[Greg A A]

and a prime lens like the 50mm f/1.8 or should I skip the kit lens and just get the 50mm and a zoom lens like the 55-200. My main uses will be takings photos of my 2 and 4 year old in our dimly lit house as well as taking photos of them outside while they are playing. My 4 year old is playing soccer now so I would like a zoom lens to take some photos of him. This is my first DSLR so I'm pretty ignorant on this topic. Any help at all would be greatly appreciated.

The 18-140 is a good sharp do everything lens. If you get this lens or any other lens that's a little big around it will block part of the pop-up flash, at least it does on my D7100. The black spot is untenable so you really need a flash for indoor. The external flash is really a better way to go anyways because it moves the flash up from the lens reducing the chance of red eye. The least expensive way, and not a bad flash as I read, is the SB-300 for $146 at B&H. I would go with the 18-140 kit lens to give you versatility and have the external flash for your indoor low light family pictures.

Have fun with it! Now's the time to catch those moments with your kids. You might also find that photography could turn into an interesting hobby in itself.

--

f8 and be there

 

[Redlegvzv]

..... The least expensive way, and not a bad flash as I read, is the SB-300 for $146 at B&H. I would go with the 18-140 kit lens to give you versatility and have the external flash for your indoor low light family pictures.

Have fun with it! Now's the time to catch those moments with your kids. You might also find that photography could turn into an interesting hobby in itself.

--

f8 and be there

I agree that an external flash is a must. I recommend the SB400 over the SB300. The SB400 is plenty small, inexpensive, and uses AA batteries which are much much better than the two AAA batteries that the SB300 uses. The two are priced within a couple of bucks of one another.

For a bit more than $1500 you can buy the D5300 (that was my choice) and the Nikon 28-300 lens. I personally have found this lens to be a true do-all, and with the D5300 and that camera's low-light capabilities I doubt that you will ever take the 28-300 off of the camera for your intended uses. I am very impressed with the 18-300. Your choice of the D5300 is a good one.

--
Redlegvzv

 

[Greg A A]

..... The least expensive way, and not a bad flash as I read, is the SB-300 for $146 at B&H. I would go with the 18-140 kit lens to give you versatility and have the external flash for your indoor low light family pictures.

Have fun with it! Now's the time to catch those moments with your kids. You might also find that photography could turn into an interesting hobby in itself.

--

f8 and be there

I agree that an external flash is a must. I recommend the SB400 over the SB300. The SB400 is plenty small, inexpensive, and uses AA batteries which are much much better than the two AAA batteries that the SB300 uses. The two are priced within a couple of bucks of one another.

For a bit more than $1500 you can buy the D5300 (that was my choice) and the Nikon 28-300 lens. I personally have found this lens to be a true do-all, and with the D5300 and that camera's low-light capabilities I doubt that you will ever take the 28-300 off of the camera for your intended uses. I am very impressed with the 18-300. Your choice of the D5300 is a good one.

 

[YRUNVS]

Really appreciate the help from everyone. Guess it would help if I mentioned a budget. I'm hoping to stick to $1500 or under. I decided on the D5300 since it is my first DSLR and it seemed to be the best middle of the road DSLR for a biginner. From what I've gathered no one seems to be a big fan of the Nikon 55-200mm. So it looks like I should go for the Nikon 70-300mm or the Tamron 70-300mm. It also appears that I should go with the Nikon 35mm f/1.8 over the 50mm f/1.8? Also should mention that I will probably keep the camera on the auto settings until my first photography class at the end of this month. Again, I really appreciate the help. The wealth of knowledge on this site is amazing.

I'll go against the grain a bit and suggest a bit of a disposable lens kit, if it is feasible in your area.

Going with the 35 1.8 DX as a good available light lens, and the 18-55VR and 55-200VR purchased used.

I would recommend a flash as others have, but I'll leave the decision of SB400-SB700 to you.

You will have 18-200 covered in two lenses which you should be able to get for less than 300 for both. After you've done a bit of shooting and taken a class, I think you'll be better situated to decided for yourself where the 2 kit lenses are lacking for your shooting, if they are. If the 18-55 and/or 55-200 don't meet your needs, you should be able to re-sell them for what you paid for them. Shuffling lenses may be a bit of a hassle, but may save over-investment in a lens you realize doesn't suit you particularly well.

The 35 1.8 and 50 1.8 lenses are both gems for the price, on DX and indoor shooting I prefer the wider angle of view, but both are great for the price.



Good luck in your decision.

 

[Roger J. Buffington]

I wasn't sure which of the SB300 and SB400 was better, just trying to keep the price reasonable to encourage getting the flash. I use the older SB800.