Lens package?

[NeedForSpeed]

I have been lurking on this forum for a weeks now and have been looking elsewhere and have learned a lot. I've always been interested in photography but paintball, my other hobby sucked up ALL of my money. I've decided its time to sell most of my paintball gear and get into photography finally. I have a lot more paintball gear that I dont need anyway. ha

I am looking into two different Nikon d80 packages.
One includes an 18-50 lens and a 55-200 lens.
The other for $40 more includes an 18-135 lens.

I will be using this camera just bout anywhere I go, to take photos of paintball, racing, soccer, baseball, biking, skating, nature hikes in the mountains, swamps, and old buildings/barns/warehouses, that are out around here. Pretty much everything but taking great pictures of sports is I guess my top priority.

I've read reviews on the 18-50 and it sounds like a GREAT lens but without VR the 55-200 lens will be harder to take pictures with at 200mm.
The 18-135 could be an all-in-one until I go for more lenses but I would think I may need that extra 65mm?

What sounds like a better deal?

 

[JimmyO]

I was in a similar situation a little while back. I was looking to get a zoom lens for my d40x (that came with the 18-55mm) I could either get the 55-200, or replace the kit lens with the 18-135mm. I opted for the later. Its a great walk around lens and it was really nice not having to worry about switching lenses. I did try both of them out and (for me atleast) there wasnt that big of a differnce between 135mm, and 200mm to make it worth it

 

[TamiyaGuy]

It all depends on your preference. It's very nice having a walkaround lens to handle most subjects, but there have been times where I really needed that extra 65mm, and made me thankful I got the 55-200. But then again, it takes me a good minute to switch from one lens to another, so if you think you'll be constantly changing the lenses, then go for the 18-135, no question. I prefer the 18-55 and 55-200, though, even though I have an even cheaper Sigma 55-200.

Also, as long as you're shooting in daylight, it's really easy to get 1/250s even at ISO 100 or 200.

 

[Mav]

If you won't mind having to switch lenses and carrying an extra lens around, get the 18-55 and 55-200 combo. They'll be sharper in their respective ranges, have better image quality, and less distortion. If you would mind, get the 18-135. It's still sharp and has great image quality, but trades off in the distortion department. There's lots of it, but you might only notice if you're taking photos of buildings and architecture. Most of the time distortion doesn't bother me, but there's tools out there to fix it if you have some photos where you want to straighten things.

 

[chrisburke]

i paintball to, for the wildcards, in canada.... what are you getting rid of??? To bad you cant do both

 

[NeedForSpeed]

Thanks for the help. I'm leaning more towards buying both of the lenses but I still have some time to decide.

As far as paintball goes, I will still be playing. I just don't need a Quest, Shocker, two Autocockers, and a mag. I also don't need three tanks. I should have a decent amount of money for the camera equipment and will just play paintball less.