Wide vs. Normal Zooms - There can only be one!

[Sn00bies]

It looks like you made a mistake in getting rid of the 18-55. so you might have to bite the bullet and buy the Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 to replace the kit lens you sold, but with a much more-versatile and capable lens that will allow you to shoot without flash under more situations.

To be honest, I planned on using the extra money I got from selling the 18-55 non-VR to buy the 18-55 VR. After more thought though, I figured I probably wouldn't be happy with the 18-55 in large part because of the slower aperature. I appreciate your input though. Perhaps I'll just have to make do with what I have and wait until I can afford one of the previously mentioned lenses.

 

[Mike_E]

18-70mm and a flash should get you through to Jr. High School.

You can do Art with your wide or your 50 or whatever else but what you need just now is a lens that will document the beginning of a life that will be Dear to you.

18mm will get everyone in the birthday party in a normal sized room. 70mm will be fine for candid snaps and head shots and everything in between will allow you to frame well enough to keep from driving yourself crazy.

Nikon's 18-70 is a great lens and plenty fast enough with a flash. I have a 28-80mm f2.8 that is a wonderful lens but for a normal house is just a tad too long.

Congrats on the new edition!!

 

[blash]

What you have now looks like it covers a pretty good range...

Seconded...

Back in my old film days, my common kit was 20, 35, 105 (13, 23, 70 in DX terms). I rarely used or wanted anything else (I also had a 55 Micro and a 300 for use when the task required them). Today I shoot with the equivalent, in DX terms, of a 16-55 and rarely find myself using anything other than the long and short ends and occasionally want more of either.

In terms of focal lengths covered, I could be happy with your kit. The only thing missing would be speed at the wider end of "normal". The 20mm long end of the wide zoom is a perfectly fine FL for general use, but the f/5.6 can be a bit limiting. If you can add a faster lens in the gap I'd suggest you do it. If its a case of losing the 10-20 to get speed in the middle I wouldn't unless it was at less as wide as a 16mm (my preference).

+1 to this answer. For film/FX, I use a 24mm f/2.8 prime, a 50mm f/1.4 prime, and I'm saving up to buy one of Nikon's very nice 105mm f/2.8 VR macro primes. Walking around with primes really teaches you that some huge zoom range isn't needed: you walk out with a 24mm prime and end up taking photos that better suit the 24mm range; walk out with a 50mm prime, and end up taking photos that better suit the 50mm range, etc. For your daughter, your 50mm f/1.8 will probably suit you just fine - if you need something a little wider then pick up the 35mm f/1.8 DX lens for $200 to get the traditional 'normal' effective focal length on digital.

 

[JerryPH]

My favorite walk-around lens (my Tamron 17-50mm f2.8) has been in the shop for 3 weeks (don't ask :greenpbl

Let me guess... the screws under the first element came loose and damaged the inside? If this is what it was, I was reading about this issue 2 years ago when I was researching the Nikkor 17-55, Sigma 18-50 and Tamron 17-50. It was easy to fix if you caught it early... but once that screw or 2 fell out, instant damage to the innards of a lens.

In any case, I'm sure glad I got the Sigma, it was the one that on the same year, in 3 independent photo magazine articles beat out both the Tamron and Nikkor in a 3-way shootout.