Digital cameras forum: One lens or two?

This all started with the people who are switching from a small camera to the DSLR cameras.
They are accustom to having a zoom lens that covers from wide angle to telephoto.

DSLR cameras have large lenses that can be quite heavy.
If you get a big zoom, you also get a lot of weight.
Handling a nose heavy camera all day, can be a drag.

Hang a DSLR camera around your neck that has a 18-55 lens and the camera will rest against your chest with the lens pointing straight ahead.
Put a 18-200 lens on the camera and it will be pointing down, due to the extra weight (nose heavy).

But zoom isn't everything you need to look for.
Lenses are also rated as to how much light they can collect.
That is the Aperture rating.
It is show as F-Stops.
A zoom lens that is rated at f/2.8 is much brighter that one that is rated at f/5.6
If you want to take pictures in a gymnasium under the lights, the f/5.6 lens is not going to do the job.

..
.

The superzoom lens also give up image quality. What they do give you is a great travel lens, but should not be the only lens you have. If you bought a DSLR then image quality and control are the main objectives, they're not a point and shoot.

Most DSLR owners also have a very nice point and shoot for convenience. I didn't buy my DSLR for convenience, but to be able to the tailor the settings and use the type of lens that will get the most out of the scene. Some people will have the 18-200 lens as their only lens and are quite happy with them, but I cannot understand why they would buy a DSLR just to cripple the speed, image quality, etc. just to have convenience.....that's what a point and shoot are for.

That lets us see the settings you used and we can learn:

Camera - Canon 30D
Aperture - f/2.8
Shutter - 1/8 second
ISO - 1600
Focal length 21mm (actual) 33mm (apparent)
Flash - No Flash

..
.

Dropping down to the D40 or D60 would give you the money to buy a 35mm F1.8 lens that just came out. It runs, I believe, $350. What do you think a D90 will give you that a D40 or D60 cannot. Just because it's the newest thing doesn't mean it's the best option for you.

You should also figure into your budget a good photo processing software, bag, extra battery, memory card, and if you plan to print then monitor calibration equipment. I would really recommend a book called "Understanding Exposure" by Bryan Peterson. You can have the best equipment in the world, it will not make your photos any better. I could buy the best cookware there is, but my food will still taste pretty much the same. If you learn, which there is a long learning curve, to use a DSLR and about photography then that will be the best thing you can do.

It has the focal length that is good for indoors, but it's not a macro lens. You'd have to cough up more money to do any close shooting with a dedicated macro lens.

You'll find that this hobby is not very cheap by any means, and that you'll end up spending more money down the line.

The 18-200 is a very capable lens, but indoors it will need a flash or buy the 35 F1.8. Either one will set you back. You can use the pop up flash, but why make the photos look like harsh snap shots.

Your Sony DSC V1 hot shoe flash will not work with Nikon D-SLR. You need to buy a Nikon flash or a third party flash designed for Nikon D-SLR. Nikon has excellent flash system, I'd suggest you stick with the Nikon flashes.

On a D40 and D60, the 50mm F1.8 does not autofocus, which is very debilitating.

It's the 35mm equivalent to 50mm, with the crop factor considered. It's only $200.

http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-35mm-AF-S-Digital-Cameras/dp/B001S2PPT0

I will pick the fast lens 35mm f/1.8 for indoor museum work, unless you plan on using tripod for longer exposure when using slow lenses. As you can see in my posted photo, the shutter speed at ISO 1600 and f/2.8 is still quite slow, but thanks to image stabilization, the image is still reasonably sharp(the photo was taken handheld without tripod). Anything slower than f/2.8 will likely show up blurry without a tripod. The 35mm on the D90/D60/D40 is essentially a normal perspective lens (considering a 1.5x crop factor).
As for the zoom lens, sounds like you mainly use it for zoo photos, so you will be shooting in broad daylight and the animals are not likely going to be moving at any fast speed. You can just buy a cheap kit telezoom.

If you are shoot in daylight, most D-SLR should not have much lag even if you use a kit telezoom like 50-200mm VR. A higher ISO should easily take care of the problem during overcast days. I don't do airport spotting, and don't know how high a quality image you need or how close a shot you need. There are many softwares like Photoshop and their plug-ins that can help to enlarge and crop, reduce noise, sharpen, correct lens abberations, and correct exposure, etc, should you need enhancement.
The Sony DSC V1 is very slow, especially in lower light. I had one years ago when it first came out, so I know how bad it is. The D-SLR will make the DSC V1 feel like a snail.

I agree with the two lenses theory and suggest that you get the 55-200 as a VR type to control the vibration problem with the longer lens. I also suggest that if you can find one, that instead of the 18-55 lens, get the better 18-70 lens. If, however, you want VR on the 18-55/70 lenses, you'll have to settle for the 18-55 VR version as Nikon never made the 18-70 version with VR, unfortunately.

It is better to invest in good quality glass, ie.f2.8 or lower with image stabilisation if possible as this is the item that gives you the quality image. The camera is secondary to this prosess to some extent. You still need a camera with a good image sensor, but no need for one which has more than say 6-8 million pixals, unless you intend to blow the image up beyond A3. I also agree with most peoples sugestion of two lenses rather than one, which goes from wide to super zoom, as the quality is compromised on this type of lens.

based on pics on dpreview of both the 50 and 35. My concern was in having the flexibility to go down to 18mm but as you point out 35 is probably a happy medium, and the price is of course good. The lone remaining issue seems to be, since I'm getting budget lenses (even though the 35 is a really nice one, I'm obviously not splurging on zooms), does that mean that it's not even worth upping to a D80, which I can get used for the same price ($500ish) as a new D60?

based on reading reviews of both. I understand the functionality argument, that for several hundred more it doesn't make much sense, but for the same price, if the D80 is indeed more robust/better quality (not to say the D60 is bad, which it does not seem to be) that would seem to be the better option. But if there is really no substantive quality difference then D60 is certainly fine.