Lens recommendations for new DSLR owners

I'd like to confirm and add that the 50mm 1.x lens is a great versatile lens to have in your collection. I have a 50mm 1.7 for My Minolta Maxxum 5D and I have to remember I have other lenses in my bag because I use it almost exclusively.

another really great lens to have is a good Mid-range. Something that covers between 24-135 (depending on the lens) I personally have a 28-105 F4-5.6 by Tamron that I picked up for under $100 USD and I enjoy the flexibility to go a descent wide angle, and still have a mid telephoto reach. A great "walk around" lens that you can have to cover alot of different situations without having to switch lenses every 5 minutes. (I use this for performing/stage work because of this flexibility) Image quality is considerably good for being a budget lens, has decent Bokeh on the telephoto end of it, because of the 5.6 aperture, it's a little slow indoors when shooting w/o flash so I would recommend it mainly for outdoor use. It also has a minimum focus distance of 1.7 feet so you can still get in pretty close and shoot some interesting macro/close up shots

but a 50mm 1.x lens... would be up there in my recommended Must Haves.


Quick Edit: Most of my shots on any of my posts will have been taken with one of these 2 lenses. since they are the first two I grab habitually.

 

This is a very timely thread for me. I am in the market for a DSLR and I thought it would be necessary to buy a macro lens to get good photos of my dolls. But if I am understanding these posts regular lenses will do fine. Does anyone see a need for a macro lens? I can save a lot of money and get a more expensive camera if I don't need to buy one.

 

No, a macro lens is not "Required" to take photos like this. what would be best to look for in a lens is minimum focus distance and magnification ratio (i think that's what it's called) some lenses even have a built in "macro range" that is a grassroots form of a macro lens that could help. but a pure macro lens, no not necessary.

 

if you like to see your background get shorter lens. but if you want your backgrounds to be blurred i recommend a longer lens. i have a 75-300mm lens and it works wonders on backgrounds. the subject is crystal clear and the background is out of focus. also look at the highest shutter speed and the lowest f-stop. that kind of combination will do the same thing as a long lens.

 

i said that as well. lol

 

Just to add a side note, on the whole longer lens/ shorter lens topic:

Longer lenses are great for images that require a flattening of the depth perception. The longer you go. the less you will have that.. "this is close, that is far" effect.

the "Normal" Lens range (I would be as brave to say 35-75mm. 50mm being "true Normal") don't stretch, nor shorten perspective giving you a pretty true to life depth perception.

where shorter (wide) lenses ( it becomes very evident at anything below 24mm) will start to stretch your depth perception, and could cause things that are actually close to seem farther away.

In extremely short lenses (Below 18mm) it's seen as a fish-eye effect.

On Most occassions, you will also see that zoom lenses have a longer Minimum focus distance, than a shorter lens. (short lenses can be from 12-19 inches, where longer lenses can start at 3-6 feet and keep getting longer) So how you want your image to feel can be modified by how you frame your photo with a different lens.

For example
* pulling random numbers off my head*
being 2 feet away with a 50mm may frame an image the same as being 8 feet away with a 200mm but the depth perception will be a little different.

OK my Theoretical rant on the Mechanics of lenses is over

 

I haven't tested it on my dolls yet but I use an AF Nikkor 70-30mm telephoto usually. They make your life easier when it comes to blurring the background and focus. the range is great even though you have to step a little farther from the subject for a close-up because it's a telephoto

 

I just started on a DSLR for shooting. I find that the Nikon 50mm 1:1.8D lens works very good. Captures details and had a good zooming range, a good portrait lens, still fair for taking doll pictures. Much more prefered than 60mm which price up about $200-$300AUD. My lens was bought new in the shop for $250AUD.

I find that with things such as blurrying the background , you just need a larger aperture. So even though these portrait lenses don't zoom, but as they are for portrait they take very good detail without zooming. Zooming lens are harder to control as you are standing far away from the object and you hands would be shaky, unless you have a tripod, if you zoom in on the object it's very easily to generate a photographers' hate "THE SHAKE".

 

I wondered if anyone had recomendations for Nikon lenses? I'm looking to purchase a D40, but I'm not sure if I should take the kit or maybe just the body with a different lens..(Maybe I'll get more lenses in the future, but I'm on a limited budget now so I'm just looking for one nice lens to start out with), thanks for any help!

 

I shoot Nikons and would recommend buying the D40 WITH the kit lens. Which ones are being offered in kit form? The Nikon digital lenses are good, solid workhorses. I've been impressed. A prime lens would be a nice addition - perhaps a 50? It depends upon the range of the kit lens.

 

A quick note, before I launch into this mongo post:
Lenses for your SLR/DSLR are like dolls. Get to know the one you have first before you start shopping for another one, and don't buy them so fast that you get overwhelmed. It's easy to do.

Okay.

For those in the Pentax family (*ist, k100/k10d), I suggest the 18-55mm f3.5 kit lens. It's a good lens, reasonably sharp, that goes from wide angle to about what your eyes see. If you can only have one lens for a while, it's a good choice.

I've also invested in a Pentax 100mm f2.8 macro prime, and received a Pentax DA 40mm "pancake" prime for Christmas last year. I also have a Pentax FA-80-200mm zoom for intermediate telephoto use and, stepping out of autofocus, I have a Sigma 80-300mm zoom with a doubler that my father used when he was a reporter.

(For those not in the Pentax world, Pentax DSLRs will happily work with most lenses ever made for Pentax K mounts, which date back to the 1970s.)

One may notice that I have a thing for Pentax lenses. That's true. When I started with the 18-55 and the 80-200, I kept noticing that they gave me the sharpest pictures and the best color, at least in my opinion. So when I started getting into primes, I stuck with them.

Those new to DSLRs probably are wondering what the heck I'm nattering on about. Okay. The measure of a lens is its focal length. A good reference point is that, assuming your eye was a frame of 35mm film, your eye's lens is most similar to a 50mm prime lens with killer autofocus and very wide angle. (The optics in properly functioning human eyes are incredible, in no small part because your brain takes the images you get and stitches them together in a panorama in realtime. It also does 3d, but that's an entirely different kettle of fish.

If the lens's focal length is greater than 50mm, it's a telephoto lens. It's bringing distant objects in closer. If it's less than 50mm it's not telephoto, and is probably a wide angle lens. The longer the telephoto (higher focal length), the narrower the field for the same sized lens.

A zoom lens has components inside that move, thus allowing the lens to change from being, say, an 18mm wide angle lens, to a 55mm slight telephoto lens. This lens is described as an 18-55 zoom. A prime lens, by contrast, has only one focal length, as in my 40mm pentax prime.

So why doesn't everyone use zooms? Well, lots of people do exactly that. It lightens their camera load, certainly saves money, etc etc. But there's a catch. The other number in a lens' characteristics are the f stop.
lens The f-stop value on a lens tells you how many stops of light you lose in the lens. The glass elements in a lens are not perfectly transparent. Some light is lost from one end of the lens to the other. The amount of light lost is measured in F-stops. The more glass elements in a lens, the more light is lost, and because they are more optically complex, a zoom lens has more elements than a prime. So my 18-55mm f3.5 zoom lens, while wonderfully flexible, loses more light than my 40mm f2.8 prime.

There's another catch. The more elements you put in a lens, the harder it is to make the lens focus really sharply, and the more distortion creeps into the lens system. There's no number to measure this (uhh ... that I know about, at least) but for some applications, your eyes will tell you.

So when I got primes, it was because I wanted the very sharpest pictures I could get (of dolls, of course) and wanted to have maximum flexibility of light. (It's much easier to throw excess light away than try to make up for insufficient light. If anyone asks, I'll go into why more light is good, although I've touched on it in other photo threads.)

One other little thing.

Bear in mind that many DSLRs have a multiplier they add (because their sensor is smaller than a frame of 35mm film) to your lens, but the lenses are still sold as though you're using them with film. Thus, my 40mm prime, when multiplied by 1.5, which is my camera's multiplier, is really a 60mm prime. This is great when you're shooting airplanes flying overhead or other distant objects - it's getting more focal length for free. You're still stuck with the increase in focal length when you hook a 10mm wide angle lens onto the camera and wind up with a 15mm, somewhat less wide angle result. In the Pentax world, that multiplier seems to be 1.5 for all their cameras.

So. Pictures

18-55mm zoom

100mm prime


40mm prime (er. Actually, this is with my manual 50mm f 2.0 prime, but the lenses are pretty similar.)

 

Good video. His website also has lots of interesting reviews, wherein he goes into the various distortion modes of lenses in great depth.

http://www.cameralabs.com/

-Jim

 

Correction; the F-stop is the ratio between the size of the aperture/center pupil of the lens and effective focal length. So, what it really means is that the larger that the lens' center pupil/aperture is, the more light passes through to the film or sensor, and the smaller the aperture is, less light passes through.

The reason why cheap lenses, and kit lenses usually have a changing F-stop number depending on the focal length (the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/3.5-5.6) because of the quality of the optics inside the lens; bigger aperture means a bigger barrel to bring the light through, which in turn means more glass, which again means more distortion, which leads to special glass elements. After this huge sum of variables, you end up with a pretty expensive lens. This is the main reason why cheaper lenses have a changing F-stop number in zooms.

Oh, and changing the aperture effects your focal depth (the area where things are sharp), too; a bigger aperture (smaller F-stop -number) or longer focal length means a smaller focal depth, while a smaller aperture or wider focal length expands your focal depth.

 

Ahh. Yes, that makes sense. Thanks.

-Jim

 

I totally second the idea of buying one lens at a time. I actually made th emistake of buying two lens when I bought my camera and I regret it. I have a 75-300mm lens which I never use and I am thinking of selling. The lens itself is too long for me and find for what I do, useless. I am in the process of getting a 18-75mm possibly or a 30mm f/1.4.

Personally, after shooting for a year with my 50mm f/2.5 macro, I've found that my use for Doll and Street photography vary. It's perfect for doll stuff, but for Street Photography, I am not close enough usually, thus the wider (28mm) need. But I only realized that after experimenting and actually using the camera this long... and really knowing what I wanted to use the camera for other than doll shots.

You can spend $$$ on lens, ridiculous amounts of money on them, but why? Had I known what I did when I first got the camera, I think I would have done very different things. When you can buy a prime lens, 50mm f/1.8 for under $100, I probably would have done that instead of the macro. Or perhaps I would have gotten the 105mm macro and then, the 30mm f/1.4 because I work in low light most of the time.

And that's the other thing you need to think about is your light usage. Will you be using it outdoors most of the time? Indoors? Some of the zooms are awesome, but there is a trade off for light and speed. I realize with doll photography, speed isn't always an issue, but light is. Unless you will be 100% of the time will always be outside, keep this in mind.

Tamron has a great sight that show the different focal lengths over here. It might help you get an idea of what sorts of lens are out there and how far they go.

If you aren't on flickr, I would highly recommend it. There, you can usually click on "more details" on most shots and see what camera and lens that was used, as well as the EXIF data on the picture. This helps a lot when you are trying to figure out what camera and lens you want to buy.

 

For curiosity's sake, here are two pictures of the same doll taken with my two lenses in similar light:



First with the so-called kit lense, the lense that came with my kit.



And with Canon 50mm/1.8, the lense that I cannot recommend high enough! I hope these pictures show the difference that choosing the lense can make!

 

A prime lens will always be the first and best choice for this sort of work. However, your "test" isn't really fair to your kit lens as it exposed that image at an f-stop of 5.6 which is a marked difference from the exposure on the prime at 3.5. What happens with that body if you allow it to choose what it thinks is best exposure details?

Thanks for posting!

 

That's funny, I thought I took the both pictures at the same f-stop value, but maybe the camera body (or my clumsy hand) changed the value. *pats her kits lense* Sorry, pal...I'll edit my post a little bit

 

A general question for those with 50mm f/1.x lenses... with a typical DSLR 'magnification' of 1.5x (75mm effective) and a typical specified minimum focus distance of around 45cm on those lenses, how do you find that works for getting close ups of dolls? At the moment I only have two P&S cameras so it's hard for me to work out the 75mm equivalent settings on them for comparison. My concern is that, particularly for smaller dolls, it will be hard to get close up pictures of them with such a lens. And those with longer focal length and/or macro options tend to be a lot more expensive...

Actually, it would be helpful if someone can take/post a photo of a doll (state size!) with the above configuration at minimum focus distance to show the maximum "closeness" that can be achieved.

Edit: I just tried to calculate it and I'm not sure if I got it right, but I make it about 22cm on the longest dimension, or roughly 2.5x a 60cm doll's head height. Is that about right? It seems to fit from the pics earlier in the thread but the distance they were taken at is unknown for now.

 

To (kinda) answer my own question above, I borrowed a Canon 350D from work. Pictures taken indoors early evening, natural lighting only but no direct sunlight. The front of the lens was placed approximately 45cm from Rooney's feet. Rooney is approx. 6.5 inches or 16.5 cm in height to ear tips in these pictures. Note both these lenses can be used closer than 45cm, but I used them at 45cm to get a feel for what the 50mm f/1.x lenses typical minimum distance would be like. Photos were taken at maximum resolution/quality jpeg and resized to 800 pixels on longest side for display here.

Canon EOS 350D, EF-S 18-55mm II (I think this is the kit lens) used at 55mm. f/5.6 ISO800


Canon EOS 350D, EF-S 60mm USM macro f/2.8 ISO800


For general comparison, following are pics taken with a Fuji S5700 bridge camera, which is currently my main camera. Also a Panasonic FX33 which is an ultra-compact point and shoot.

Fuji S5700, zoomed similar to above, macro mode f/3.5 ISO800


Panasonic FX33, fully automatic mode zoomed similar to above


So to answer my own question, this confirms my suspicion that the 50mm f/1.x lenses might not be able to get closeups of smaller dolls. But for general screen viewing it'll be ok to crop down from a large image. It is interesting to see the different in image noise levels comparing the bigger sensor in the Canon to the smaller one in the others.

 

I would agree with you Popo. I use my nifty-fifty lens and sometimes really can't get in close enough. However, it is still the lens I use most. It works well in low light, is very reasonably-priced for the quality and gives wonderful bokeh. I am still going to use it as my main lens, but will be getting some macro extension tubes to use for those rare occasions that I need a really close close up.

 

To follow up on my earlier posts above, I have now got the Sony A350 and 50mm f/1.4 lens. I'm still getting to grips with everything, but I'm thinking now the lens is not suited to photographing smaller dolls as feared. By smaller, I mean 20 cm or less, since most of my family are anthros. To get at all close, you have to work near the minimum focus range. With aperture set to f/1.4, the depth of field is so shallow that I'm finding it very difficult to get the subject in good focus. Dropping the aperture to f/2.0 or smaller helps a lot, but of course why get a fast lens if I'm not going to use it as such? I haven't yet done much with the lens and 60cm dolls, where this may be much less of a problem.

 

The issue isn't about focusing on a point, but that locations other than that point go out of focus very rapidly. At f/1.4, the difference in depth from nose to outside the eye is enough for one to be in focus where the other is not.

I have been researching this more, and the conclusion I came to is that unless I can rewrite some laws of physics, there is no practical way around the shallow depth of field at wide apertures. So I have no choice but to accept that and use smaller apertures to control this effect. I'll have to play about some more, currently thinking there is likely to be a sweet spot in the region of f/2.x.

Again to reiterate, this only applies to smaller dolls. Bigger dolls means you can go further away, and the increased distance gives you more depth of field (all else being equal).

 

Has anyone ever shot with the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Lens?

 

Thanks for all the responses.

@Nikita, hmm I see but I plan on taking outdoor shots of other things too and I hear the 100mm one would be better for nature photography. (actually I hear 180mm would be best but its so heavy! lol).

@dollmania, thanks those are some nice comparison pics but I'm more interested in pics of the same range and aperture setting, I wanted to know how they compare.

I did more research and I found a lens review website for canon that was pretty helpful The digital picture, heres a pic comparing the bokeh effect of 3 lens, the 180mm, 100mm and 60mm.


I found that 60mm is would probably be best for strictly doll photography/portrait but 100mm would give more flexibility for outdoors and other photography as well.

 

On the 100mm fixed focal length lens, there is a practical consideration. It's fine if you want relatively close up shots, but if you want bigger picture or group shots, you will have to move back a fair bit to get everything in shot. A zoom would be more practical if you're not sure how much space you have. As a macro lens, 100mm is nice I have the Tamrom 90mm, and it means the minimum focus distance isn't as close to the lens as would be the case with shorter focal length lenses.

 

oooooooo do you own a xti? i am definitely going to look into this lens.

 

Ill throw in my two cents. For great lens prices http://www.adorama.com/ has great customer service and great products. I got my telephoto lens there and showed everyone up. Im jealous of all these canons. Ive worked with both Nikon and Canon as a professional product photographer Canons ALWAYS outperform.

 

i use Nikon and the lenses i use are
50mm f 1.8 ,
FX 24-70mm f 2.8,
macro 60mm f 5.6

 

I hope it's alright to post this here, but I was planning on getting either the Rebel Xsi or the Xti in the future (As of right now I am undecided as to which one I'll wind up with) but I am curious...

Is it better to skip out on the kit lens and instead buy the body with a different/'better' one? I'm no expert when it comes to cameras and I won't pretend to be, but my friend has an XSi/450D with the kit lens, and all of her photos look fine to me. But I was thinking of finding something more suited for taking photos of dolls (both indoors and out).
As of right now I don't think I'd be using it for anything but doll photos, although I am planning a trip to Ireland so if I have the camera by then I would certainly bring it with.

 

The kit lens is a great place to start. You're not going to get much better similar zooms without spending much more money. As others have said on the thread, you might also consider the EF 50mm f/1.8 II in addition to it. It's cheap, fixed and not a zoom but does allow more light, which could make the difference in lower light conditions.


While I'm here, I'd like to write a little about the Sony/Carl Zeiss 16-80mm f/3.5-4.5 with a doll photography perspective. I got this the same time I got the Sony A350 about 7 months ago. At the time I didn't think it was amazing, but since then I've tried a lot of camera kit and now appreciate how it fits relatively. The zoom range is close to ideal for indoor doll photography. At the wide end you can take large group shots even fairly close up. The long end is great for close ups. Sharpness is great throughout the range. The main downside is this isn't a cheap lens...

 

Alrighty, thanks for the tips guys! X3

Also, now I have a question for my friend, who is looking into upgrading from her kit lens She is interested in the [ Tokina AT-X 100mm f/2.8 PRO D Macro Lens ] for her Canon XSi and we were wondering if anyone had some input on it?

 

I do believe she has read reviews, she first saw it in a camera magazine she has and they said good things as well. Thanks a bunch for the links, they were very useful/informative. c:

Mkay, sorry for all my random questions! ^^; I don't mean to be such a pain. XD I just want to be sure I'm on the right page... But we were looking at the 50mm/1.x lenses, and I was personally looking between the 1.8 and the 1.4 versions. Which would you all recommend? My friend and I are both interested in them, and it is a totally newbie question for me to ask, but how much difference is there in the 50mm/1.4 and the 1.8 lenses?

 

Thanks a lot Nikita, you've been extremely helpful.

Right now money really isn't much of a concern, so I was originally looking at the f1.4. I just wanted to know if was worth it before I made any final decisions. c: I just need to decide on a body first, but that is a bit OT for the thread so I won't go there. XD

 

Hi, I have a Nikon D90 with a Nikkor 18-200mm 1:3.5-5.6 G lens.
I'm having an extremely hard time taking photos of my doll! If her face is in focus, everything else is blurry.. and if everything else is in focus, her face is blurry.

Any suggestions on a lens I could get for my camera that would make taking pictures of my doll easier? I was thinking that a lens with hardly any zoom might help, but I'm not very sure.

 

What aperture are you using? It sounds like you're getting a really shallow depth of field. That happens when your aperture is very large (which is, counterintuitively, represented by a small number), especially if you're zoomed in a lot. You should be able to get a much deeper depth of field with that lens by switching to a smaller aperture (higher number).

 

I've switched to a smaller aperture, but that unfortunately means less light- which is not good. when I shoot in manual mode, I've tried using these settings:
ISO: 400
shutter speed: 125
aperture: 9
but, it's just too dark, even in the sunlight. and then, of course, in non-manual mode... you can't choose the aperture.

usually my aperture is at 4.1 or 5.6 or anywhere in between, just so I can get enough light in.

 

Well, with a small aperture you're going to get the shallow depth of field no matter what you do. If you don't zoom in it should help a little, but it won't eliminate the problem if you want more stuff in sharp focus. In order to get enough light with a smaller aperture you're going to have to use a slower shutter speed -- that's just how those things go. If it winds up too slow to hand-hold your camera, you can use a tripod or rest it on a stack of stuff, and use the self-timer so you can take your hands away before the shutter releases.

I actually never use an ISO over 200, myself, so your ISO seems really high to me. I try to stick to 100 whenever possible.

Your camera SHOULD have an aperture priority mode, where you can set the aperture and the camera will adjust everything else for itself. There should also be a shutter priority mode, and a few other modes. It would probably help you to give the manual a good read-through to get familiar with all the different shooting modes.

 

I had set the ISO high to compensate for the small aperture, I usually shoot in an ISO of 125, to avoid ANY noise. (although my camera can go up to 3200 xD)

I forgot about aperture priority mode, though. in my old camera, it was just for adjusting aperture and nothing else... but this one is a lot different.
and yes, I probably should go read the manual xD I just wanted to know /what/ to look for.

 

Don't worry too much about eliminating all noise. Any modern DSLR will give a decent result at ISO400. The D90 has a good reputation for high ISO noise so don't be afraid to use higher settings. Remember the image doesn't need to be "perfect" as long as it's good enough for the job.

 

I never tried lenses on my SLR before, I might try that out once my doll arrives ^^

Thanks for this useful thread!

 

I've heard a lot of really good things but the D40 but a bit of caution - some Nikon lenses will not autofocus with it, that particular model does not have the autofocus built in so it will only work with the lenses that have the autofocus system built into the lens itself which limits it to the more recent AF-S line. It will work just fine with the kit lens & the newer DX format lenses, this would probably only be problem if you had some old lenses from 35mm film cameras you wanted to use.

some good info & lens recommendations at this link here (I find this a useful site overall, especially for Nikon info)

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d40.htm

BTW hi, I am new here I was recommended to this forum by a good friend who just got her first BJD which has me swooning and I'm looking forward to having fun doing photo shoots when I finally get some BJDs, sigh, now I'm still in the "saving up my $$ and deciding" phase as I'm a bit broke due to my major hobby, photography (I'm kinda semi pro, I do some portraits & weddings and mainly do concert shots for bands) Forthe last 2 years I've been using a Nikon D200 mainly with the 18-200 VR and my old standby 50mm f.1.4 and just recently got my "dream setup", a Nikon D700 and some nice glass (24-70mm f/2.8, 700-200mm f/2.8 and Tokina macro 100mm f/2.8 and 80-400mm)

 

I have one of these for the Nikon mount and I just love it, I picked it up because I was very impressed with a lot of shots I saw taken with it and it was much cheaper than the corresponding Nikon macro.

Check out this flickr group for some wonderful examples shot with this lens, this is what sold me

http://www.flickr.com/groups/tokina100mmmacro/

 

I so appreciate this thread, thank you everyone who has posted! I have a Canon Rebel XTi and was going to ask for a macro lens for my birthday, but maybe I already have one? It's an EFS 18 - 55 mm that came with my kit. I think my problem is the shallow depth of field issue, even when auto set to "macro" (icon of a flower), so I'll need to change my aperture. What would you all recommend if I'm photographing tiny dolls, i.e. 10" and under? Thanks for being kind to a real newbie!

 

I hope it's OK to ask for a small advice. I have chosen a Canon EOS 1000D camera, but now I face several options for the starter kit. I have had a digital camera (a Canon IXUS), but not a DSLR one, so I'm a tad lost.
There are the following:
Canon EF S 18-55mm F3,5-5,6
or Tamron AF 18-200mm F3,5-6,3 Di II

The basic kit offered actually has no lens included, so I can choose something at the store ^_^;
What I'm planning to shoot:
- dogs and animals in general (motion and standing)
- dolls (MSD's, maybe tiny)
- most probably landscapes, since the place I live at offers lots of dramatic scenery ^_^;
I will be mostly "working" outdoors, and maybe indoors during the colder months, if this helps.
I'm doing the reading (this thread has given some wonderful ideas as well), but perhaps someone could take the time and help me out ^^; Thank you!

 

It doesn't sound like you need too much zoom capability, so the Canon 18-55 IS would seem a good choice. Do make sure it is the IS version, not the older one without IS. The IS version is sharper, and the stabilisation built in can be very handy in low light. There should be a 1000D kit with the 18-55 IS, which should offer best total pricing.

The Tamron 18-200 has a longer range, but is not regarded well for image quality. Its strength comes in if you need a longer zoom range without changing lenses, at the cost of quality.

The great thing about DSLRs is that you can get more lenses later as and when you find you need more and can afford it!.

 

I agree -- the kit lens is a great starter lens. It's not the best lens in the world but it's certainly good enough for a hobby photographer most of the time. I figure my kit lens was a good investment because I'm not a good enough photographer that the lens itself is detracting from my photos. XD I still have a while to go before my photos are good enough that you can pick out, say, the lens not being as sharp as it could be or something.

Like popo said, once you outgrow the lens you can invest in others. IMO the kit lens is pretty versatile, and gives you a good idea of what you're going to want when you DO buy a new lens... even if it turns out what you want is a better 18-55mm lens! I think it can be hard to know exactly what you're going to want from a lens until you've really played around with the camera for a while.

 

Popo, Chibaraki, thank you for the info!
I have just checked, and the kits offered have the old 18-55 lens, without the IS. So I'll be buying the "blank" + the IS 18-55 lens then
Maybe a year later I will invest in something else, like a macro (if I suddenly want to get shots of ants and other insects), but right now I really want to have something good to play with ^_^