question about 18-55mm kit lenses

[chaloots]

Am considering a basic DSLR, like a stock Nikon D40 or Pentax K100D. Primarily, it'll be used for photographing close ups of parts. Plumbing parts, in sizes ranging from a ½" handle screw up to a complete kitchen faucet.

Most all shots will be at a distance of no more than two feet, with the objects placed in one of those white nylon 'light houses' designed to eliminate some shadows, illuminated by hooded incandescent spots from above and behind. The cropped images will ultimately be used in both on line and print catalogs, where accurate detail reproduction will be important.

Being more a P&S type, I understand that optical zoom factor is a prime motivator in a purchase selection. I also realize either SLR choice will have both a much larger sensor area and wider angle feature than most any P&S's. What I am unsure of is how fine detail the Nikon or Pentax will be able to capture using the stock 18-55mm lenses of those objects at that distance in that environment.

So my question is, how well do you think the included kit lens with this Nikon or Pentax will do for what I plan on using it for? Am I fooling myself into thinking the one lens will be able to do it all or would an additional (or substitute) macro and/or zoom lens be required?

[SpecialK]

I would suggest skipping the kit lens and get what some people refer to as a "nifty fifty" - a 50 mm "prime" (no zoom) lens. They can be had for about $100 or so. With the $50 you save by getting the camera body only, the lens in not much more, but will give better quality shots. If you were going to get really close and shoot small nuts and bolts, a macro would be the way to go - for $300-500 or so....

Note that the D40 has no focusing motor in the body, so if you want to autofocus you will need the "AF-S" variety of lens. Some people manage to focus manually, however. The D50 body (if you can still find one) may have better lens choices.

Here's a 50mm Nikkor lens:
http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-50mm-Nikkor-Digital-Cameras/dp/B00005LEN4/ref=sr_1_5/002-5782300-6148057?ie=UTF8&s=photo&qid=1178138511&sr=1-5

Here's a Pentax 100mm macro:
http://www.amazon.com/Pentax-100mm-Samsung-Digital-Cameras/dp/B0002YE65Y/ref=sr_1_1/002-5782300-6148057?ie=UTF8&s=photo&qid=1178138778&sr=1-1

[DonSchap]

One of the problems with a 50mm f/1.8 prime is that the minimum focus distance is 1.5 feet (18-inches)!

Even a 28mm f/2.8 prime can only get you to about 11.5 inches.

On the cheezy "kit lens", it's also an unbelievable 11-inches! That can obviously get you a lot closer. It's not an expensive MACRO, but what do you want for a mere $75?

Believe me, I am no fan of the "kit lens", by any stretch of the imagination, but when you need to get close ... real close, it does it like almost nothing else.

Even the TAMRON SP AF17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di-II LD Aspherical (IF), considered by some to be one the best in its class and costs $429, the Minimum Focus Distance (MFD) is only 10.6-inches.

Now, last year, SIGMA stepped up after the introduction of the TAMRON 17-50, and re-released their version, the 18-50mm F2.8 EX DC MACRO, which gets the nod for the shortest MFD, 7.9 inches. It's slightly cheaper than the TAMRON and may be the best choice for this application.

So, when it comes to MFD ... for a mere $75, the kit (OMG!) gets it done! Just use some light. :D

WHO KNEW?

[SpecialK]

True, the Nikon 50 might be a bit distant for the smaller fixtures.

However, since you plan to be on a tripod (making the Pentax SR function unnecessary), you could get a K110D instead (no other difference) for almost $100 less, and get a moderately priced macro such as this:
http://www.sigma4less.com/sess/utn;jsessionid=15463aa57dcc3f6/shopdata/0010_Lenses/0020_Fixed+Focal+Length/0010_Macro/product_details.shopscript?article=0100_Sigma%2BNo rmal%2B50mm%2Bf2%3D252E8%2BEX%2BDG%2BMacro%2BAutof ocus%2BLens%2Bfor%2BPentax%2BAF%2B%3D28SG50F28DPX% 3D29
which focuses to under 8 inches, or one of Don's suggestions.