18-55mm + 55-300mm OR 18-200/300mm?

[blackpearl]

I just got my first DSLR Nikon d5100, and was looking at a few possible future purchases.

I like the idea of a single all-in-one lens but I'm worried about the image quality. Technically, two dedicated short zoom lens (18-55mm + 55-300mm) will offer better quality than a single 18-300mm lens. I want to know how bad is the image, if any?

Secondly, since the Nikon 18-300mm is exorbitantly priced, I will probably have to go with tamron or Sigma which are half-priced. I've read a few reviews and they seem to be decent and comparable in performance with the Nikon ones.

I have another idea. Maybe I can get a 18-135mm and forget about the 300mm end?

So what do you guys suggest? I don't want to make a bad purchase.

Also, what kind of lenses do you carry about with yourself?

 

[sujoyp]

best combo is Nikon 18-105 + nikon 70-300 VR

18-200 cost 40k and 18-300 cost 50k up soo they r out

Now if u want a third party all in one lens then get Tamron 18-270pzd or Sigma 18-250 OS HSM II they also cost around 37-45k ...but are bit better then cheapo ones

 

[blackpearl]

Nikon 18-105 + nikon 70-300 may sound good but if I have to lug both of them around, I better get 18-55 (which I already have) and 55-300 for Rs20K

Tamron 18-270pzd or Sigma 18-250 OS HSM II are nearly as expensive as Nikon.

There is Sigma 18-200mm for Rs18K.
Tamron 18-270mm non-PZD costs Rs27K

Those are within my range.

My question still stands: is it worth it to get an all-in-one lens at a premium?

 

[Faun]

18-105 is a decent one for starters.

If you are looking for best image quality then later go for prime lenses.

 

[sujoyp]

ok if u dont want to lug them then more better combo is Tamron 17-50 2.8 Non-VC + nikon 70-300 VR =50k

Those cheap all zoom lenses will give u poor pic quality...softness at full zoom at bigger f nos and maybe fringing etc ...dont go that way
The best all in one lens is either 18-105 or the costly ones

 

[blackpearl]

okay, I read some reviews on 55-200 and 55-300. The general consensus seems to be that 55-200 produces sharper pictures and the extra 100mm on the 55-300 is not worth it as the image quality is low at the long end. In any case, there isn't much difference in "magnification" between 200mm and 300mm.

I haven't made up my mind yet, but the following combo looks fantastic:

55-200mm as a walkaround lens
35mm 1.8 for wide angle/low light interior shots

This will reduce the bulk considerably while allowing me to cover a wide range. I personally don't prefer anything lower than 35mm as it produces too much distortion, so I don't mind losing out on the 18-35mm range.

So what do you say?

Also, I need a Flash.

 

[sujoyp]

now i have a 55-200 and i love it coz its light and its easy to use as well sharp enough...

not using 18-35mm range is ur choice...i wont leave it personally..

but yes bulk will reduce considerably

 

[blackpearl]

How is that YN-465 flash you are using?

 

[sujoyp]

YN465 is good...good power and I have no problem at all...I bought if for 2900 last year from ebay.com.

You can also go for YN467-II recently one of my friend bough one for 5k in india.