New here.. hi and question

[Ambrya]

Hello..... been looking over this site and am finally gonna post.... Lots of talented photographers on here so hopefully i don't embarrass myself too badly... lol

I just purchased a Nikon D60 18-55mm VR kit... my first DSLR camera and am still learning my way around it. This kid also came with a 55-200 VR lens which i haven't even opened yet because i'm still trying to learn how to just use the settings on the camera.

I guess my question would be what's the main difference between these two lenses and any suggestions and the best filters for the 18-55. (is the UV filter really necessary?)

Thanks so much in advance for your advice and help
and nice to meet everyone

~Ambrya~

[pafindr]

Hello Ambrya and welcome to PR!

[Frog]

Welcome Ambrya.
The main difference in your lenses is magnifying power and width of field of view.
Your 18-55 will take wider pics. Your 55-200 will bring things closer in.

UV filters are debatable. I'm pretty sure those lenses have hoods so I don't think uv is necessary and just decreases the quality of your glass. You may want to look into a circular polarizer lens. Helps get those nice blue skiesand stop reflections of of water.
Also, I would suggest using Nikon's digitutor linkds. You cans sit there with your camera in hand and go through each function one step at a time. I find it much easier to use than the manual.
You'll see a link to it in the Nikon sticky.....Just click your d60 and it will take you there....here's the sticky
Nikon DSLR "Digitutor" Links

[Franglais]

I leave my cameras in some sort of auto mode most of the time (P is my favourite). When I realise the camera is doing something wrong for a given situation then I dive into the instruction manual and change the settings. I haven't explored all the possibilities of my D60.

The 18-55 is fine as a general-purpose walk-around lens. For some subjects you want to reach out more and just take a part of the scene (sports, picking out detail on landscapes, head-and-shoulders portrait, etc.).

I leave a UV filter on most of my lenses for protection. However careful you are, you still get dust on the front of the lens, which has to be wiped off (carefully, with a folded Kleenex) from time to time. I prefer to wipe off the filter rather than the lens itself.

[jetrim]

Welcome to the forums Ambrya!
I think this is a question best answered by asking another question... How do you plan to use the camera?
I spend a lot of time outdoors, and sometimes take my camera into places it might be advisable not to (old abandoned buildings, the beach, construction sites, etc...) as a result, I tend to think of my UV filters as little $19 insurance policies. I have scratched and had to replace the one on my 28-80mm, and if it hadn't been on, I would have been replacing the lens (and this was with a hood, Frog).

If you don't plan to use your camera like that, then you are probably fine without the UV filter. If you are going to use it around the house, in a studio setting, at the local park, or on vacation you'd likely be spending money you didn't need to, but stuff like this can happen to anyone.

regarding the 18-55 vs the 55-200, as the others have said, the bigger the number, the closer it brings things to you. For example, if you see a bird on a branch in a tree - at 18mm you will get a photo of the whole tree with a black dot on the branch, at 55mm you will get 25% of the tree and be able to tell it's a bird, at 200mm you will get a photo of the bird that fills the frame with the detail in his feathers showing, and the little red berry in his beak clearly visible. That's really the only difference.

[Grandpaw]

Welcome to the forums and the site! The two addresses that I have below will give you some idea about the difference in strength of the lenses and also how changing the settings on your camera effect the outcome of your picture, Jeff

Comparing strengths of lenses
http://www.usa.canon.com/app/html/EF...al_length.html

Learn how changing settings on your camera effects the picture
http://dryreading.com/camera/index.html

[Dougjgreen]

I have scratched and had to replace the one on my 28-80mm, and if it hadn't been on, I would have been replacing the lens (and this was with a hood, Frog).

BTW, a scratch on the front element of a lens is no reason to have to replace it. A single scratch on the front glass will virtually never have any impact whatsoever on your images. Even a whole bunch of scratches will likely only have a very minor effect in terms of increased flare an decreased contrast. And this can be dealt with by - I kid you not, filling in the scratches with black opaque india ink. Good luck trying to sell a lens like this, but in terms of actual use, they are perfectly useable.

[Ambrya]

wow... thank you all sooo much for the info... been looking around the site and i really like it... everyone is really helpful and constructive and i like that... i'm just learning here and not easily offended as some are so i will welcome all the helpful insights from people that actually know what they're doing
I now understand the difference between the lenses i just have to get used to the 55-200m one now.... time to take it out....
Thanks again and hope to get to know all of you better

[nikonshopping]

Hello.. I'm newbie too!