A wider lens? The 28mm is the equivalent of 42mm and isn't nearly wide enough for shooting much indoors. Look into either a fixed 20mm (30mm equivalent) or a zoom starting at 17 or 18mm.

thank you!

Im now looking at a 18-50mm lens, just found out how expensive this all is!

To get the best pics, what of the 3 lenses would you use for what?

Hope you dont mind me asking!

Instead of the 18-55mm lens you may consider the 18-70mm; optically the 18-70mm is better and two lenses would cover the range from 18 to 300mm without any gaps.

I use the 18-70 lens and it does a nice job for the money.

Quote:
Im now looking at a 18-50mm lens, just found out how expensive this all is!

To get the best pics, what of the 3 lenses would you use for what?

Instead, I would suggest just one or two lenses. I recently added the D200 to the arsenal, and while I have a nice collection of single focal length manual lenses from the film era for serious work, I also wanted a convenient zoom for casual, walkin' 'round shooting - I chose the 18-135mm. It is inexpensive, since it is made and sold in great quantity, highly versatile and produces nice quality. I think it is great value for the money.

Had it been in stock, I would have rather bought the 18-200 with Vibration Reduction. However, this lens is approaching three times the price, and focal lengths beyond 135mm become a challenge to use. VR certainly is a great aid at this end.

For most first time buyers, I would recommend just buying the 18-135mm. Shoot with it for a few months. You may find that you will not ever need a second lens. If you do, the need should have become clear at that point.

Ask yourself what do you want to do, that the 18-135mm does not do? When you can answer that question definitively, you pretty much know what you should buy to supplement it.

In my case, I feel a great need for a much wider angle lens. My choice comes down to four - Nikon's f-4.0, 12-24mm, a 10-20mm from Sigma, and one each from Tamron and Tokina. The Sigma is half the price of the Nikon, and is substantially wider. The Nikon is said to have the edge in sharpness and build. The Nikon has a consistent maximum aperture of f-4.0 while the Sigma is f-4.0 to f5.6. Since it is a lens that will get enormous amounts of use, I am inclined to pay the premium and go with Nikon. YMMV, of course.

If the capability of the 18-135 is maxed out, I could understand someone also going for a very fast lens for low light photography, a macro lens for extreme close-ups, or perhaps a very long lens for photographing very small critters in the wild. All of these lenses require a high level of skill on the part of the photographer, and serve quite specialized needs.

It is a matter of defining the needs clearly and finding a lens that meets them. Being specialized, these lenses lack versatility, so it is pointless to put thousands into a telephoto for bird photography unless you have the degree of dedication to really learn to use it well and constantly.

Many world renowned photojournalists and documentarians carried only a moderate wide angle, normal lens and short telephoto and produced some of the greatest photography ever. This range would be covered by a 24-60mm zoom. Extreme lenses are no guarantee that you will get better pictures, and are far more of a challenge to use well.

No matter how great the technology, it is no better than the photographer using it. The 18-135mm may seem like a modest lens, but I shot nearly 4GB of images with it yesterday and got many shots that I will be proud to show forever. The percentage of "keepers" is almost embarrassingly high.