My first DSLR

[Rajdeep Banik]

Please do NOT underestimate the importance of a lens buddy. Get a decent enough lens. The 18-55 is the bare minimum, but a very potent lens nevertheless. I'd recommend it over the 50mm prime for a beginner. The 50 mm prime is a very different kind of lens. It calls for patience and doesn't do low light all that well, not to mention the hassle of framing a shot in tight corners or family meetings. Also keep in ind that the 18-55 (canon atleast) is a pretty capable pseudo-macro lens. In all for a beginner I'd vote for the 18-55 over the 50mm prime anyday. The chances are just too hight that you will be severely disappointed if you take the jump straight to a prime.

Ok, will buy the 18-55 if nothing else comes up, but I am more interested in macro and micro photography. I tried taking photos with my PnS through my microscope, but the results were not so good So, anyone here ever done micro-photography?

 

[sujoyp]

yup I have done macro photography....in dslr world you need a macro lens for that...the most popular macro lens is tamron 90mm 2.8 costing 22k ....you can get a used one for 15-16k

 

[pranav0091]

Ok, will buy the 18-55 if nothing else comes up, but I am more interested in macro and micro photography. I tried taking photos with my PnS through my microscope, but the results were not so good So, anyone here ever done micro-photography?

Okay. But I'd like you to know this. Typical macro lenses have focal lengths around 90mm like Sujoy mentioned. That SEVERELY limits its paracticality for anything else. You will be able to get some pretty good protrait photos if you ask your subject to stand at just the right distance. To give you an idea of how it'll be think of your PnS PERMANENTLY set to 5x zoom and walking around with it taking photos. How much will you like your PnS if you cant change its zoom to anything except 5x ? Thats roughly how using a 90mm Macro would feel like.

Thats also the reason why I harp so much for the 18-55 IS variants. The canon one (and so I guess even the Nikon one) can focus as close as [25 cm - length of lens in cm] centimeters. It isnt macro, but its pretty good for a beginner. And surely vastly more versatile than a 90mm macro. I'm not dissuading you from buying a macro, but ~20k is a serious investment and you should be aware of what you are jumping into. If macro is so important to you that you are willing to buy a lens thats pretty much useless anywhere else, then sure, you'll love the dedicated macros.

ANother option would be the 18-200mm lenses. Good ones cost ~27k (I guess) and they are very versatile. They cover a decent zoom range (near wideangle to near telephoto) and though they can be bested by dedicated lens at either of the 18mm and 200mm ends, they are probably your best bet for your particular use-case. Get a D3100 + Sigma 18-200 if you think thats fine. That should be ~50k I guess.

 

[sujoyp]

yes like pranav said you start with a 18-55 lens 1st...start the practice...try to make use of it in different conditions...understand why do people use 50mm for portraits and why do you need 90mm-150mm for macro shots....go slowly...there is lot to learn

a 90mm micro lens can also be good for butterflies and some portraits ...but its again restrictive.

I have a 55-200 zoom lens which I find very flexible for most of the things...

 

[Rajdeep Banik]

Ok, will get a 18-55mm lens with the D7000. Thank you guys for clearing my doubts.
And one more question, in D7000, the autofocus motor is in the body, while in other models, it needs to be on the lens itself. Does that means I can get a cheaper 18-55 lens without the AF motor & the camera will do it for me? Is this kind of lens available?

 

[sujoyp]

no there is no 18-55 without AF motor....the good thing is u will save a lot while getting 50mm or other non AFS lenses .