D5500 + 18-140mm + 35mm???

[eugeniogurrea]

Hi fellows!

I’m evaluating buying a Nikon D5500 body.
And my first pick for lens is the 18-140 and the 35mm f/1.8g.

Then, I doubt between the 35mm f/1.8g and the 50mm f/1.8g…Which would be your pick/suggestion?

If, for example, I choose the 35mm, would be the 18-140 a good complement for a basic kit bundle for general purpose? Or the 18-105? Or what else?
Keep in mind that it would be my first DSLR gear…

I wait for your comments and suggestions.

Thanks in advance!

Eugenio

[Wingman]

Your choice of lenses depends on your intended usage. If you are doing portrait photography, the 35mm f1.8 would be best since on a DX body it is equivalent to a 50mm lens which is ideal for portraits. I use a 18-300mm zoom which I like when I travel since I don't have to carry many different lenses. The 18-300mm produces decent images at f8 and at most of the zoom range (except the 300 mm), but in general is quite acceptable for my general purpose use. I imagine the 18-140mm would perform just as well except for the addition zoom.

If you can afford it, you can always get both!

Jehan

[kazuya]

personally i would always recommend the 18-200 f/3.5-5.6G DX VRI or II
i think (and others) its one of the best all-rounders you can get

[TCav]

I'll say that jack-of-all-trades-and-master-of-none lenses tend to have lower image quality, especially at the extremes of their zoom ranges, and especially at the edges and corners, than multiple lenses of less ambitious zoom ranges.

To be fair, I'll also say that the Nikon that kazuya mentioned is one of the best of its kind.

[NHL]

Kind of surprising no one mentioned the Tamron 16-300 with VR:
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/tam...vc-pzd-macro/4

I went hiking for several miles in the Sedonas and if you need one lens that can do everything then this is IT, as I left all my other expensive gears in the car or at home: http://forums.steves-digicams.com/la...ck-sedona.html

Even good for birding too:

[TCav]

I don't like to mention lenses for which SLRGear.com and PhotoZone.de haven't published objective test results, though sometimes I'll refer to DxOMark.com test results, even though I find their results are sometimes contradictory.

This is a link to DxOMark's test results for Tamron's 16-300, 18-270, and SP 70-300.

https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compa..._1105_281_1105

In some respects, where their ranges overlap, the 16-300 is better than the 18-270, while in others it is not. But neither are ever as good as the SP 70-300.

[NHL]

Where they don't overlap is where a landscape photographer cares the most about:

16mm -> 84.06 degree field of view
18mm -> 77.40 degree field of view

270mm -> 6.11 degree field of view
300mm -> 5.50 degree field of view

i.e. A negligible difference of less than 1 degree FOV @ 270/300mm (where you can make up for with a small crop)
But a huge deficiency at 18mm where you can not add back what you didn't capture with that tiny 2mm difference in the first place...

-> As for the SP 70-300 you can forget it as one needs to carry another lens to cover for the shorter focal lengths that this particular one doesn't offer!

[TCav]

Originally Posted by NHL

-> As for the SP 70-300 you can forget it as one needs to carry another lens to cover for the shorter focal lengths that this particular one doesn't offer!

I believe the OP is already considering the possibility of getting multiple lenses, and if image quality is a major consideration, it's certainly the way to go.

[NHL]

I'm just speaking from experience hiking the dusty desert trails of Sedona as I left my higher IQ primes in the car or at home.

-> Can't afford to carry the extra weight or stopping to change lens when the rest of the group are moving to scale rocks and crossing streams

[TCav]

Originally Posted by NHL

-> Can't afford to carry the extra weight or stopping to change lens when the rest of the group are moving to scale rocks and crossing streams

I got it. You chose to forego image quality for convenience. That might not be the OP's choice, though.