Quoted: Right now I mainly shoot landscape and portrait. I am planning on shooting sports for the school newspaper if given the opportunity next year, and once I get a tripod I'm looking forward to lowlight and night shooting. I have been meaning to get a macro lens for the FE1, but that has been put off in favor of getting a D-SLR.
If I do decide to get the 18-55mm lens, why would I also want a 18-200mm lens? Wouldn't it make more sense to get something like a 100-350mm, or even get a light, high quality prime lens? |
Because the 18-55 is a freebie, basically anyway. It is the smallest lightest kit lens available for the best price, and the quality is good to boot. I am not aware that the D40x is available in body only. The 18-55 covers the medium wide shots to the short portrait shots and everything in between.
18-200mm VR:
The 18-200mm VR is far more versatile and you will love it for all it does well, it's only drawbacks are it's weight, especially compared to the camera body, and it's relatively slow aperture. The 18-200mm VR excels at shooting almost anything from landscapes to portraits, except in low light. It also does well shooting sports provided you have a nice sunny or mostly sunny day. I have one, and I love it for a good "do it all" solution. Perfect 2nd lens.
18-55mm:
It is light and nice, and it comes as part of the cheapest package. If you ever are out on a trek, you may not want to carry the heavy 18-200 with you, and the little 18-55 would be perfect. Unless you need telephoto or VR, the 18-55 would be a good selection.
Light high quality prime? There are a few to choose from, the least expensive being the 50mm f/1.8. That is the lens I started with a dozen years ago, and I still like it today even with the crop cameras. The 50mm f/1.8 is $110. I eventually traded mine for a $270 Nikon 50mm f/1.4 lens. The f/1.4 lens is more substantial, and gives you an additional stop. Neither lens shoots great wide open, but both shoot great stopped down 1 stop. Both lenses are great for low light, with the edge given to the more expensive 1.4. There are other wider primes, like the 35mm f/2 which is about $350, or the cheapest of the wider primes, the 28mm f/2.8D, which is $230 or so.
The longer primes, such as the 85mm f/1.8 start at $400 or so and go up from there.
Since you mention shooting for sports, I would recommend looking at the 80-200mm f/2.8 lens. It is a non VR lens, but is very good. Cost is about a grand. Adding VR drives the cost up another $700.
Why not start with the 18-55mm right now if money is tight, and then save for your next lens? I honestly think that the 18-135mm is going to be wasted anyway since it doesn't do anything that the 18-55 and, say, the 80-200mm would do.
The only one solution lens is the 18-200mm VR, IMO, and even that lens has weaknesses due to it's consumerishly small aperture.
ETA: Damnit! I posted this before remembering that we are talking about the D40x which must use AF-S lenses. That wipes out a bunch of the ones I mentioned. Specifically, most all of the fast primes, and the 80-200mm f/2.8. The only prime that you can easily use with the D40x is the 10.5mm fisheye, since MF is not an issue. You want fast primes, you'll have to get a D80.
The 70-200mm VR is available to you for sports, and for faster lenses, any zoom with a fixed f/2.8 aperture is going to be expensive.
I suspect that in the end, this wasn't much help. Sorry.