Hi I have some questions about lenses!

[Captain_Slow]

Ok then I'll go with the 18-140 but that will leave me no money for other lenses and accessories!

 

i'd pick up a $10 uv filter to protect the front element of your lens so you don't have to keep on putting on and taking off the lens hood. 

[.spider.]

i'd pick up a $10 uv filter to protect the front element of your lens so you don't have to keep on putting on and taking off the lens hood.

There are a lot of situations in which you don't want to degradate your image quality with a $10 filter.

[Captain_Slow]

There are a lot of situations in which you don't want to degradate your image quality with a $10 filter.

 

lol you really think you'll see the difference of a UV filter witha 5300 and a kit lens?

[Silvercall]

My personal advice.... Just get the 18-55 and the 55-200. Or if you want to shoot in low light, the 18-55 and one of the primes, the 35mm is nice but it depends if you want the reach of the 50mm or not. If you want, check out photos online taken with those lenses and see of you are happy with the results. The best thing for you right now is to learn the basics.

[skylane]

f/1.8 is a good reason.

Not in itself. Unless he needs low light non-flash indoor use or he needs a very shallow fov - getting a bounce flash with his 18-55 kit is going to produce much better indoor photos than a f1.8 anyday.

[skylane]

 Stop worrying about sharpness. 

+1

 

Good advice. People that actually take photographs don't need to worry about sharpness because in reality in post end products you can't tell ANY difference - that is printed in most consumer prints or/and especially online output. Never upgrade bodies or lenses unless you have a specific reason for the upgrade. Most of the time you won't see any difference. The 35 f1.8 is a great lens but I think you'll be better served with something like a SB400 flash that you can bounce. My advice is always look through all your top rated photos and see which focal length you use most often and whether it's indoors/outdoors - then consider how you can make it better.

[.spider.]

Not in itself. Unless he needs low light non-flash indoor use or he needs a very shallow fov - getting a bounce flash with his 18-55 kit is going to produce much better indoor photos than a f1.8 anyday.

IMO available light looks always better than using a flash even with a lee filter. 

Available light is the only way to capture the actual lighting.   

And the possibility to use a wide aperture for a shallow dof is always nice to have. 

[skylane]

IMO available light looks always better than using a flash even with a lee filter. 

Available light is the only way to capture the actual lighting.   

And the possibility to use a wide aperture for a shallow dof is always nice to have. 

I think it all depends on what you mean by "available light" -  in the vast majority of time, indoor lighting is horrible for photography; in terms of temp (most of the time its mixed lighting), angle, level of diffusion, ect. I definitely agree that it takes more work/thought with lighting setup to create a more natural look with speedlights, strobes, or lamps. But when do we never adjust ambient lighting - indoor or outdoors - to best serve our needs?