I know there are many posts about which camera or lens to buy, and I've been reading them for the past few days, but I thought I would ask for some more direct advice based on my specific interests. I'm in Japan for the summer and looking to buy my first DSLR. I've pretty much decided on the Nikon D40, but there are lens kits to choose from. For about 462$ I can get the camera with the 18-55mm lens that seems to be highly rated from what I've been reading. For about 645$ I can get a kit that has the former lens and an additional 55-200mm lens with vibration reduction which also seems to be well recommended. Basically for 183$ I would get the extra lens with VR. This seems to be about the same price if I were to just buy the lens separately, so the question is whether the extra lens offers enough to justify getting both, or if I should just get the single lens. Or whether there is a different lens at about the same cost that would be a better choice. I'm a grad student so I don't have a whole lot of money to spend, but both kits are within my price range. I'm not very steady, so the VR sounds especially appealing, but I don't know if that single feature justifies getting the other lens since things like faster shutter speed should similarly compensate for unsteady hands. I'm planning on taking a lot of pictures of Japan, including temples, shrines, gardens, city streets, forest, etc. I imagine the 18-55 should be good for these if the lack of VR isn't a big issue. I also want to take very close up shots of plants, flowers, and insects though. I think a higher focal length is better for these kind of pictures(?) and unsteadiness may show up more strongly at such close range(?), so the 55-200 VR seems like it would be especially effective for these shots. But maybe the 18-55 is effective enough for that too?