Lens for Canon D40o

[MarlowTrips]

I'm just about to buy my first DSLR and I'm wondering what lens to get. I'm going to get the Canon EOS 400D and I've heard that the kit lens is pretty poor and worth replacing. So, I'm thinking of getting the body only and trying to choose between the Sigma 18 - 200 lens as one option and the Tamron 18-55 and 55-200 lenses as the second option. The Sigma option works out at about £100 more and I was wondering how the quality compares.

I'm worried that the Sigma might be too much of a jack of all trades so the image quality will be better with the two Tamrons. On the other hand I like the idea of having one lens to cover the full range. I'd really appreciate any thoughts.

Thanks.

PS - I'm on holiday in the states at the moment so the total price with Sigma lens is £500 and the Tamron option weighs in at £400.

 

[Cobra]

This subject has been covered in several threads if you do a forum search you should get a good idea, as to the quality The kit lens though is not too terrible and some good results have been had using it. I would play around with that for awhile until you feel comfortable using it. Once you get hooked it will cost you a fortune in lenses anyway

Try this for a start
http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=27064&highlight=18-55+kit+lens

Welcome BTW

 

[8utters]

For a first DSLR, a kit lens is fine to start with as Cobra said.

I used the kit lens on my 400D for a few months before upgrading, got some images on my website that were taken with it.

These were taken with the kit lens:

 

[Mart61]

Having gone thru a similar decision process when I got my D80 last year, it's worth getting the kit simply because the difference in price between lens and no lens (if even offered) is often about £20!

It's worth getting the kit lens, deciding what you like to shoot, upgrade and flog the kit lens (if you want too). It's what I did and the lens sold for about £60 - a good deal more than it cost me as part of a kit.