Lenses to go with D3100

[senorpyz]

I am looking to buy a D3100 when it's released. However, I'm not sure what I should buy as far as lenses.

I would like to have a regular and telephoto lens.

I was thinking I would buy the camera w/ the 18-55mm it comes with then either buy this lens:
Amazon.com: Nikon 55-200mm f/4-5.6G ED IF AF-S DX VR [Vibration Reduction] Zoom Nikkor Lens: Camera & Photo

or this one:
Amazon.com: Nikon 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED IF AF-S VR Zoom Nikkor Lens for Nikon Digital SLR Cameras: Camera & Photo

Which one should I buy in addition to the included one? Obviously the 70mm-300mm is twice the price.

Also, should I buy just the body and buy my normal lens seperate? If so, which lens should I buy?

The most I want to spend total on lenses is about $300-500 (I know this is a tight budget as far as lenses go but I am new to DSLR photography and don't have that much money)

[IABoomer]

Think about the types of things you want to shoot before shelling out money on lenses. There's lots of good advice here for lens suggestions based on application.

For example, if you want to shoot sweeping landscapes, the 70-300 is probably the wrong lens and you might be happier with a 14-24 wide angle. If you're going to shoot sports, possibly outdoors or inside under low light, you'd probably be unhappy with the f/4-5.6 lens and would want to consider an f/2.8 lens instead, despite the additional cost.

[Shokinen]

You could also look into the new 55-300mm which as been release to complement the 18-55mm kit lens. It's an entry level lens so the price should be interesting and the lens will suit most people need.

AF-S DX NIKKOR 55-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED VR (5.5x)| Nikon

[dcclark]

I second what IABoomer said: Don't spend your money on lenses until you know what you want to do. The 18-55 is a very good starter lens, and it goes from fairly wide to fairly telephoto. You can experiment a lot with that range, and then see where you're spending most of your time: wide? Get a wide angle. Telephoto? Look at one of the telephotos mentioned above. Right in the middle? Do you want more blurred backgrounds? Then maybe a prime is for you, to take portraits.

[Exiztence]

I heard the 55-300 will also be sold as a kit-lens with the D3100 (together with the 18-55mm)?
If so it would be a good choice to go for that one.

Following the advice of IABoomer:
I also wanted to start with a two lens kit; the D5000 with 18-55mm and 55-200mm, but I'm terribly happy I chose a Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4. It's a sharper lens (compared with my brother's 18-55mm) and after shooting for a while I found out that I have no need for a telephoto lens.
I'm now into street photography and bought myself a 35mm prime lens instead and that lens is great as well.

So you have to ask yourself: What am I going to shoot photo's off. If you're going to shoot wildlife or if you want to grab an object from it's surrounding and frame it isolated from it's surroundings. Get a tele.

If you're not sure about what to shoot yet: Get the 18-55mm or an alternative with the money you'll save and start with that. You can always get another lens later.

EDIT: Basically what dcclark said. (too late)

[senorpyz]

Thanks for all of the suggestions guys.

Well I would like to shoot a bit of wildlife. Also, I would like to take some pictures of my school's cross country and track teams. However, I guess I should probably just buy the camera and see what I end up using it most with.

[dcclark]

Yeah, buy the camera first.

If you do end up wanting to shoot wildlife and sports, you want two things in a lens:

1. A really long lens (300mm is probably not enough. It might be OK, but you want 400+mm at least).
2. A fast lens (Usually f/2.8) which will let you take fast enough shots to avoid blur.

The 55-300, with a maximum aperture of f/4.5, is definitely not that! But then again, the best choice is probably going to be very expensive.

[casanovawa]

hey, i am tossing up betwen getting the Panasonic FZ100/Canon 30 super zooms or a Nikon 3100... i like the zooms of the point and shoots and not having to change over lenses when travelling... but instead of getting the kit 18-55 and 55-200mm lenses i see you can get a Tamron lens that does 18-250mm (F 3.5-6.3) for about $280 and get a 3100 body for about $600....

Just wanting to ask, are tamron lenses any good as having a lense (that doesn't go to the lengths of the super zooms admittedly) but still does wide angle and decent telephoto all in one lense so less hassle when travelling with carry bags and all is appealing... maybe eventually i could save up to get a longer lens....

i see you can also get a Sigma lens 28-300mm f 3.5-6.3 for just over $200...

things i usually like photographing are landscapes and cityscapes (night shots especially), family photos (but maybe a bit of portrait shots with the subject in focus but background nicely out of focus) and just a zoom for catching all the minor details of buildings and other things when travelling....

[casanovawa]

bump, bump, bump