Kit lens or separate? One lens or two?

[stevage]

Hi all,
I'm very seriously considering entering the world of SLR for the first time (after 18 months with a fuji finepx f10) and will probably get the Pentax K10D. I've read the (excellent) lens info sticky thread, but just need some really basic advice on the choice of lens. My questions boil down to:

1) Are kit lenses bad? Is there any advantage to getting just the camera body and buying a lens (or lenses) separately? Giving that I have none already, would it be a mistake to get the basic kit lens first then spend more later?

2) Given a choice between one or two lenses that cover a given range (ie, 18-200mm, or 18-50 plus 55-200), which is preferable? I'm guessing that the 18-200 is much bulkier than the 18-50, but is this a major issue in practice?

My three main subjects are landscapes, travel and (low-light) social events. So I guess I have more need for lenses at the low-light, wide-angle end of the spectrum than a long zoom. But then, having never had a camera with decent zoom, maybe I would really get into it? Would a "prime" lens (which I understand to have wide aperture but fixed focal length) be a good idea, since I really like low-light flashless shooting?

A representative sample of lens options is here: http://www.digitalcamerawarehouse.com.au/category149_1.htm

Any advice gratefully appreciated. Thanks in advance!
Steve

[coldrain]

The 18-55 kit lens is not a great lens. So, I would get a separate lens instead.
The all in one lenses like a 18-200 are compromises. They sacrifice a bit of image quality for convenience.

For lower light possibilities and possible better optics, the more than one lens route is best.
The Pentax 16-45mm f4 is a particularly good standard zoom range lens. At B&H it is particularly cheap, around $300. A MUCH better alternative to the kitlens.
Other alternatives are the Pentax 16-50 f2.8 (not sure if it is available yet and Sigma 18-50 f2.8 EX DC Macro.

Of course a prime lens would be a good idea too. And I would (if funds are limitted for now) get a Sigma 70-300 f4-5.6 APO DG Macro to get some relativily good tele power for a very low price ($220).

[Chrisku13]

My thoughts on what you've described:

Go ahead and get the camera with the kit lens. It's better than most kit lenses, and it doesn't add much to the price. From there, you can determine if you would need something sharper when wide open for low light photography, and you can get a better idea of what focal length you use the most. If you need a decent telephoto lens, look at the Pentax 50-200. Great performance, and a nice price tag.

You'll hear some people tell you that the kit lens performs poorly, but all you have to do is get to know its mild limitations, and work towards overcoming them until you can get something that may suit your needs more.

Personally, I've seen great images from both these lenses, which I would be able to show you if a certain other forum's search function wasn't down.