and please use their services
Beginner Choosing a camera
- Thread starter Pearsonia
- Start date
-
- Tags
- dslr light low new camera
- Messages
- 33
- Name
- Colin
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Second hand or new.
is that just for a DSLR and lens or will you need anything else, memory cards etc.
is that just for a DSLR and lens or will you need anything else, memory cards etc.
- Messages
- 4,182
- Name
- Paul
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Depends what you really want to do with it and as Colin says, is that budget just for body or - as I'm assuming - body + lens.
You could get a cheap second hand body plus nice 50mm (or 35mm) fast prime for about your budget. Good (but not brilliant) high ISO performance would include the Sony A58, Pentax K5-ii as well as the usual suspects from Nikon/Canon. I think the former of those last two big brands usually has better high ISO capabilities, although that may not hold as true at the budget end, where you're very definitely looking. Sony and Pentax can be had for about £250 body-only, possibly less.
But here's a bit of a leftfield idea: how about a Sony RX100? It's a compact (although possibly one of the best ever made) but it has surprisingly good high ISO performance and the fixed zoom lens goes as wide as f/1.8 at the wide end, I think. It's about £250, give or take.
You could have a really good play with it and decide whether you want to get more into photography as well as decide what your new, higher budget might be at that point. When you make that next leap, you can either keep your super little compact as a "always have it with you" camera or sell it for nearly what you paid.
You could get a cheap second hand body plus nice 50mm (or 35mm) fast prime for about your budget. Good (but not brilliant) high ISO performance would include the Sony A58, Pentax K5-ii as well as the usual suspects from Nikon/Canon. I think the former of those last two big brands usually has better high ISO capabilities, although that may not hold as true at the budget end, where you're very definitely looking. Sony and Pentax can be had for about £250 body-only, possibly less.
But here's a bit of a leftfield idea: how about a Sony RX100? It's a compact (although possibly one of the best ever made) but it has surprisingly good high ISO performance and the fixed zoom lens goes as wide as f/1.8 at the wide end, I think. It's about £250, give or take.
You could have a really good play with it and decide whether you want to get more into photography as well as decide what your new, higher budget might be at that point. When you make that next leap, you can either keep your super little compact as a "always have it with you" camera or sell it for nearly what you paid.
- Messages
- 2,616
- Name
- Glenn
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Well 'What Camera' seem to like the D5200 and for sure it's likely to meet your needs as a beginner in my view. Does seem to be on your budget limit with the 18-55mm kit lens, which will get you started, but may not be the highest quality. Have a think about what you want to take pictures of and why you think you want to start with a DSLR rather than a compact camera.
For example, I used film SLRs for something like 35-years. When I first tried digital photography I used a 2MP compact camera and it took pretty good photos (someone visiting my house just today commented very favourably on a shot on my wall taken with said compact). However, i used to get frustrated with the slow focusing speed and shutter delays. So, I returned to the SLR format via a Canon EOS 20D, very nearly went with a Nikon D70S instead and may well have done so if there were any around at the time. I still have the 20D and have a number of shots on the wall at home from it's 8MP files. My main camera right now is a Canon 50D which is not everyone's favourite, but it works for me. My next camera is likely to be a 7D MkII, this will go nicely with the lenses I have and will I think be a nice step up.
What I'm trying to say is this, photography is not defined by the camera but instead by the photographer and the subject. Pretty much any current camera around your budget point will take pretty amazing pictures. The main advantage of the SLR format is that it offers a lot of opportunities to grow into a system through adding lenses etc. This can become quite expensive, but rewarding too. Good luck.
For example, I used film SLRs for something like 35-years. When I first tried digital photography I used a 2MP compact camera and it took pretty good photos (someone visiting my house just today commented very favourably on a shot on my wall taken with said compact). However, i used to get frustrated with the slow focusing speed and shutter delays. So, I returned to the SLR format via a Canon EOS 20D, very nearly went with a Nikon D70S instead and may well have done so if there were any around at the time. I still have the 20D and have a number of shots on the wall at home from it's 8MP files. My main camera right now is a Canon 50D which is not everyone's favourite, but it works for me. My next camera is likely to be a 7D MkII, this will go nicely with the lenses I have and will I think be a nice step up.
What I'm trying to say is this, photography is not defined by the camera but instead by the photographer and the subject. Pretty much any current camera around your budget point will take pretty amazing pictures. The main advantage of the SLR format is that it offers a lot of opportunities to grow into a system through adding lenses etc. This can become quite expensive, but rewarding too. Good luck.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 33
- Name
- Colin
- Edit My Images
- Yes
One more question, what sort of low light images.
Night sky shots, pub band following shots, or wet Scottish day shots, etc.
Night sky shots, pub band following shots, or wet Scottish day shots, etc.
OP
- Messages
- 5
- Edit My Images
- No
Both the body and lens.
That's an interesting idea actually.
What would be the main drawback of a more compact camera rather than a DSLR?
Thanks for the advice!
Shots like this:
Obviously the photographer is very skilled but being able to achieve results like this with practice would be perfect.
In other words, skyline shots but with foreground.
- Messages
- 4,182
- Name
- Paul
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I have to say, there's limited downside to buying a second-hand RX100 from a reputable seller. As far as I can tell (worth double-checking), it will fit on a tripod, it will be ok for lower-light stuff and can take a hotshoe (albeit clunkily) so flashes etc. can work as they would with a full DSLR.
The downside is the single lens which it not interchangeable. It means you won't be able to get particularly long shots (100mm is longest length, I think) but it's perfectly adequate at the wide-angle where the lens also opens up quite wide to allow for shallow depth of field shooting (ideal for low light, or those attractive selectively-focused portraits etc.)
It won't be as good in really low light as a DSLR - as in hand-held, faster shutter-speed stuff, but the image above may well have been a tripod shot, even though it doesn't have a very slow shutter speed (from the lack of light trails on cars etc). More conventional night-time photos set up on a tripod can be achieved on most cameras as you can simply expose them for longer if the sensitivity is lower.
I'll be honest and wish I still had a decent compact to "take anywhere". Sometimes I don't want to lug my DSLR and they always say the best camera is the one you have with you. Starting off with such a camera means you can try different styles of photography at very low entry cost before deciding whether (and how) you might wish to invest further. And I reckon you'll keep that go-anywhere compact even after then.
- Messages
- 33
- Name
- Colin
- Edit My Images
- Yes
OK, jaw dragged back up from the floor.
The photographer is incredible skilled but he also has an amassing lens to make that picture possible.
Unfortunately amazing lens also equates into a very expensive lens.
However we all have to start somewhere and a good body will give you a good start. I don't really have a clue as to which lens would be best but a zoom in the 55-200 range would be my guess to get that DOF.
The photographer is incredible skilled but he also has an amassing lens to make that picture possible.
Unfortunately amazing lens also equates into a very expensive lens.
However we all have to start somewhere and a good body will give you a good start. I don't really have a clue as to which lens would be best but a zoom in the 55-200 range would be my guess to get that DOF.
- Messages
- 3,356
- Name
- Wez
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Have a look what the 18-55 kit lens can do.
When people say it's good for beginners, it usually puts the beginners off! I like to show them this image that was taken with an 18-55 kit lens (not my pic, I would credit the photographer if I could remember who it was!).
Start with the kit lens and get used to the DSLR format before deciding what you need next. It's okay for us to tell you what you need but we can only recommend. You will know eventually what lens you require
When people say it's good for beginners, it usually puts the beginners off! I like to show them this image that was taken with an 18-55 kit lens (not my pic, I would credit the photographer if I could remember who it was!).
Start with the kit lens and get used to the DSLR format before deciding what you need next. It's okay for us to tell you what you need but we can only recommend. You will know eventually what lens you require
- Messages
- 3,509
- Name
- Simon
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Have a look what the 18-55 kit lens can do.
When people say it's good for beginners, it usually puts the beginners off! I like to show them this image that was taken with an 18-55 kit lens (not my pic, I would credit the photographer if I could remember who it was!).
Start with the kit lens and get used to the DSLR format before deciding what you need next. It's okay for us to tell you what you need but we can only recommend. You will know eventually what lens you require
View attachment 58992
Got to agree with your comment about the Nikon 18-55mm kit lens, there's some excellent photographs taken with them. I have owned a few and never really found them lacking for my needs and certainly wont be, when starting off with a DSLR.
Myself, I think when you're ready to buy a prime you will have an understanding of what focal range your use most with the kit lens. When I started with a DX camera I preferred 50mm over the more popular advised lens the 35mm, after looking at what focal length I used most..
A quick goole and and see what Flickr throws up with the kit lens > https://www.flickr.com/search/?text=nikon 18-55
Last edited:
- Messages
- 4,182
- Name
- Paul
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Just to go back to the OP again for a moment...
I haven't emboldened the above - it was in the OP like that. I'd ask what you mean by low light images - you've given us one example, but how about some of the types of image on this page: http://photographycourse.net/lessons/low-light-photography/
Low light might mean slow shutter speed, it might mean high ISO, or it might mean huge aperture. Or a combination of the three. Even the cheapest camera and lens combo will do the first, a reasonably modern body will do the second but primes or expensive zooms might be required for the third. If we knew what sort of low light photography you wanted to do, we could advise better. Simple night trails and/or easy astro could be achieved with the cheapest compact!
I haven't emboldened the above - it was in the OP like that. I'd ask what you mean by low light images - you've given us one example, but how about some of the types of image on this page: http://photographycourse.net/lessons/low-light-photography/
Low light might mean slow shutter speed, it might mean high ISO, or it might mean huge aperture. Or a combination of the three. Even the cheapest camera and lens combo will do the first, a reasonably modern body will do the second but primes or expensive zooms might be required for the third. If we knew what sort of low light photography you wanted to do, we could advise better. Simple night trails and/or easy astro could be achieved with the cheapest compact!
LC2
Negan
- Messages
- 10,451
- Name
- Tim
- Edit My Images
- Yes
To be fair Paul ( @pjm1 ), as the OP has given an example of the types of shot in post #6 we do have something to extrapolate from.
To me that looks like something suitable for urbex, specifically in the 'high stuff' category.
The posted image is really a bit small to see, but I *think* I can see light trails (so long exposure), and with the deep DoF, that's either stacked (I doubt it) or a long exposure with a small aperture.
A lot of the (night time or low light) urbex I've seen has been taken with a tripod so whilst youmight initially think FF and prime would be ideal, it's not really a requirement.
I think if this were my aim and I was starting from scratch, I'd be looking for:
Looking on dxomark, there isn't much between the d5200 & d5500 (in fact in some tests the d5200 looks to come out on top (high iso believe it or not!)
I'd be tempted to go with a d5200 and kit 18-55 which comes in at just north of 300 notes at a certain sarf london based grey emporium, which leave some money left over for cards and maybe a gorillapod (or a gorillapod copy)
Edited for some of my speeling mistakes
To me that looks like something suitable for urbex, specifically in the 'high stuff' category.
The posted image is really a bit small to see, but I *think* I can see light trails (so long exposure), and with the deep DoF, that's either stacked (I doubt it) or a long exposure with a small aperture.
A lot of the (night time or low light) urbex I've seen has been taken with a tripod so whilst youmight initially think FF and prime would be ideal, it's not really a requirement.
I think if this were my aim and I was starting from scratch, I'd be looking for:
- Nikon or Sony crop sensor (Crop for the size and Nikon/Sony for the ability to pull back underexposed images far more cleanly than Canon)
- Kit lens initially, followed by a wider lens when funds allowed (being a canon user, I don't really know Nikon lenses (or Sony other than you can fit Nikon lenses with an adapter)
- Gorillapod
Looking on dxomark, there isn't much between the d5200 & d5500 (in fact in some tests the d5200 looks to come out on top (high iso believe it or not!)
I'd be tempted to go with a d5200 and kit 18-55 which comes in at just north of 300 notes at a certain sarf london based grey emporium, which leave some money left over for cards and maybe a gorillapod (or a gorillapod copy)
Edited for some of my speeling mistakes
Last edited:
- Messages
- 888
- Name
- Steve Bennett
- Edit My Images
- No
Shots like this:
Obviously the photographer is very skilled but being able to achieve results like this with practice would be perfect.
In other words, skyline shots but with foreground.
Looks like a composite of 2 separate images, the lens perspective for the foreground is different to the city in the background, which was taken with a very wide angle or fisheye lens.
OP
- Messages
- 5
- Edit My Images
- No
I believe a combination of the three, where the sensor is picking up as much light as possible (which might refer to the exposure)?
Yes this is a perfect description, images where light is far away (if that makes sense)To be fair Paul ( @pjm1 ), as the OP has given an example of the types of shot in post #6 we do have something to extrapolate from.
To me that looks like something suitable for urbex, specifically in the 'high stuff' category.
The posted image is really a bit small to see, but I *think* I can see light trails (so long exposure), and with the deep DoF, that's either stacked (I doubt it) or a long exposure with a small aperture.
A lot of the (night time or low light) urbex I've seen has been taken with a tripod so whilst youmight initially think FF and prime would be ideal, it's not really a requirement.
I think if this were my aim and I was starting from scratch, I'd be looking for:
- Nikon or Sony crop sensor (Crop for the size and Nikon/Sony for the ability to pull back underexposed images far more cleanly than Canon)
- Kit lens initially, followed by a wider lens when funds allowed (being a canon user, I don't really know Nikon lenses (or Sony other than you can fit Nikon lenses with an adapter)
- Gorillapod
Looking on dxomark, there isn't much between the d5200 & d5500 (in fact in some tests the d5200 looks to come out on top (high iso believe it or not!)
I'd be tempted to go with a d5200 and kit 18-55 which comes in at just north of 300 notes at a certain sarf london based grey emporium, which leave some money left over for cards and maybe a gorillapod (or a gorillapod copy)
Edited for some of my speeling mistakes
A tripod is certaintly a requirement, along with a Gorillapod!
I had my eyes set on a D5200 but do you think i'd be better off going with the D5300 which has a slightly higher ISO rating (and wifi but that's not really needed by me, just nice to have)
Also as you use Canon, do you think the 7D is worth the extra money (around £200 more than the D5300 for a used one)? I could always save a bit longer.
Also thanks for the advice on the RX Paul, I will definitely look into a more compact alternative but for the time being, the ability for me to to buy a new lens for the body would be very useful (eg for wide angles and being able to swap it over also it'd allow me to experiment more)
Thanks!
Last edited:
- Messages
- 23,607
- Name
- Toby
- Edit My Images
- No
Based on the OP's requirements the Nikon DSLR seems to be the best camera for their requirements as entry level Nikons have better noise/high ISO/long exposure handling than the rivals. Also they have significantly better dynamic range which will also help with shots like they want to achieve.
Cameras like the RX100 are really great (I've had one and now have the G7x) but they're no match for a DSLR in low light. They're obviously noisier (in high ISO and long exposure) but also autofocus can struggle in low light. Autofocus is also no match for anything moving, if the OP takes other things other that nightscapes.
Cameras like the RX100 are really great (I've had one and now have the G7x) but they're no match for a DSLR in low light. They're obviously noisier (in high ISO and long exposure) but also autofocus can struggle in low light. Autofocus is also no match for anything moving, if the OP takes other things other that nightscapes.
LC2
Negan
- Messages
- 10,451
- Name
- Tim
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I'm not a Nikon expert, I just went by the detailed (not high level) stats on dxomark. It's worth a look, just make sure you ignore the summary scores and drill into the sections of the camera's functionaliity you will be using. For the shot you posted, "Dynamic Range" across the iso range is going to be important.
You should also look at the lenses and their quality at higher f-stops (you are probably going to be using something over f/8 to keep everything in focus, paired with a long shutter speed and as low an iso as you can go). That said you'll be starting with the kit lens so I wouldn't worry too much.
A handy tip when you decide to upgrade is to look at the "T-Stop" value of the lens mounted on your camera body (T-stop is the amount of light,you want the number to be as close to the f-stop as possible).
You should also look at various review sites, I quite like dpreview, but there are plenty of others out there (though you need to take some with a pinch of salt...)
I suppose that's the long way of saying I don't really know
Short answer to this is "no".
The Canon 7D is a sports camera and notorious for noise when you don't get the exposure right. For the sorts of shots you've shown, you won't need the 7fps & more advanced focus tracking of the 7D, you'll want something more forgiving of bad exposure and with a higher megapixel count to allow cropping.
Don't get me wrong, the 7D is a great camera. I have one and take it with me to motorsport or airshows in preference to my full frame kit. Usually with a big lens bolted on the front. But if I'm going to be confronted by low light, the 7D stays in the cupboard.
I'm going to massively generalise now (and probably attract flames) but...
Canon -
Pros: Best lens line up around
Cons: Sensors are not as good as the ones in Nikon/Sony (nothing is bad, but not quite as good).
Nikon -
Pros: Along with the Sony they have the best sensors out there and are more forgiving of bad exposure than Canon
Cons: Far more limited choice of lens
In your shoes, rather than upgrade the body, I would be looking at putting any extrra money towards a sharper lens such as the Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 (though as you probably won't be wanting to shoot wide open, going for an f/1.8 might be a waste of money). Standard advice is to use the lit lens until you know exactly where you need/want to upgrade.
- Messages
- 143
- Edit My Images
- No
I would recommend learning more about photography to be honest (not meaning to sound insulting). Then you would realise that there are many more choices than "DSLR" or "compact". These days:
1. DSLR. Best quality if full format, but big, bulky, expensive and the cost of decent lenses can be huge
2. Mirrorless system: slightly smaller sensors but much smaller, and more likely you'd carry it everywhere - will replace DSLRs
3. Enthusiast compact: fixed lens, but usually reasonable size sensors and you can carry it everywhere (the Sony RX100 referred to is one such)
4. Bridge/superzoom: range from reasonable size sensor (the large Lumix FZ1000) to small sensor types; great range but more restricted quality especially low light
5. Phone: much more limited, but improving all the time, e.g. iPhone 6
In your case, either go for an enthusiast compact (the Sony RX100 III has been superseded so is a great price; likewise the Lumix LX7 though its sensor is smaller) and get to know it well; or 'future proof' yourself by starting a mirrorless system, e.g. Olympus or Panasonic m4/3 system, where there are already good ranges of lenses. Don't jump in the deep end with a DSLR which - if you want low light capability - you won't do on the budget you've got.
- Messages
- 79
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Looks like a rooftopping shot from a GoPro to me.
I'd disagree with the above comment that mirrorless is anywhere near replacing DSLRs and the industry figures published at the end of 2015 back that up. They are a good option where size & weight is more important than outright quality, lens range & support. Different systems for different needs.
I would advise, based on the guy's budget, the Canon G7X rather than a 4 year old inferior RX100. The G7X has the same sensor as the RX100-III but is cheaper and better in every respect except the EVF.
For the money, you're not going to get a decent DSLR or mirrorless so maybe something like the G7X is the way to go.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 26
- Name
- Jon
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I'm a beginner who has just spent pretty much that exact same budget on a Nikon DSLR and have very quickly realised my camera was a piece of equipment it was going to take me quite a while to learn how to use. I hadn't figured out the sheer number of different settings I can change on it and the amount of buttons was pretty daunting. It's a hell of a lot to learn on the camera and I also have to learn how to get the effects I want in my photos.
My advice would be do a bit of research in to the cameras in your price bracket, both new and second hand and have a look at the pros and cons of them. There are some great comparison websites out there for you to look at the ISO performances. Such as this for example, where you can swap cameras in and out to compare. http://cameradecision.com/compare/Canon-EOS-550D-vs-Nikon-D7000
Also be aware that a good lens costs a fair bit as well.
Almost everyone on here will know more than I do, but that's how it's panning out for me.
OP
- Messages
- 5
- Edit My Images
- No
Thanks for the advice man!
My friend recently got a 1200D and it took us both a good 30mins or so to work out how to get it to work correctly, I guess it all comes down to practice.
And I know, glass is more expensive than the bosy in most cases.
Some lenses for the D5300 exceed $2000 and the body+kit lens is only $550.
- Messages
- 94
- Name
- Kevin
- Edit My Images
- No
Hi
I have a canon 600D with lens, 2 battery's 2 cards, cables, software and remote control that I'm selling low shutter count.
If you would like to PM me I can send you more details and some pictures of the camera with price (well within your budget)
Kevin
I have a canon 600D with lens, 2 battery's 2 cards, cables, software and remote control that I'm selling low shutter count.
If you would like to PM me I can send you more details and some pictures of the camera with price (well within your budget)
Kevin
damianmkv
Uh oh, a fruit basket!
- Messages
- 6,190
- Edit My Images
- Yes
@forklift trading outside of the classifieds is against the rules 
General
General
- You can only use the classifieds if you are an established member.*
- No trading anywhere except for the classifieds.
- Messages
- 1,962
- Name
- chris
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Just a heads up and some advice but you could get into trouble canvassing a sale on an advice thread. I'm not trying to be clever or be a kill joy but the mods will suspend you so put the camera on the classifieds and deal there for safety's sake. Just trying to help.
- Messages
- 1,962
- Name
- chris
- Edit My Images
- Yes
No problem, it's a rule of the forum and I didn't want you to get into trouble.
- Messages
- 26
- Name
- Jon
- Edit My Images
- Yes
The D5300 was what i was looking at for a long time but I ended up with a near new D7100. It doesn't have the modern flippy screen or wifi but I can use older lenses as it has an internal lens motor which was what I fancied. That and it's slightly bigger an I have massive hands.
I've managed to get a couple of basic lenses by buying very old cameras with lenses on the german gumtree equivolent and then selling the camera only back on there for a little less. Bit naughty but I'm not made of money.
- Messages
- 143
- Edit My Images
- No
I missed the crucial word "eventually". Some pros already use mirrorless in preference to DSLRs, and for quality, a mirrorless m4/3 system matches an APS-C DSLR (slightly smaller sensor but there's little in it).
Well, except that in more than one review the G7X trailed in behind both the Sony and the Lumix (x100). He wouldn't get the Lumix on his budget but he would get the Sony.
- Messages
- 2,497
- Name
- Chris
- Edit My Images
- Yes
$2000? Some cost over $16,000
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/918849-REG/nikon_2205_af_s_nikkor_800mm_f_5_6e.html
- Messages
- 3,509
- Name
- Simon
- Edit My Images
- Yes
$2000? Some cost over $16,000
Then you have some cameras, like Blads, costing $45,000 , they are a lot more expensive than lenses
> http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/searc...34&setNs=p_PRICE_2|1&N=4259332394&srtclk=sort
- Messages
- 2,497
- Name
- Chris
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Then you have some cameras, like Blads, costing $45,000 , they are a lot more expensive than lenses
Yeah but they're 10 a penny. I have 4 hanging round in the cupboard.*
*this might not be true (though having looked at the sample images at 100% from the top blads and the phase one, I would LOVE to have one!)
big soft moose
Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy...
- Messages
- 20,964
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- Yes
superzooms arent great optically usually , so i'd suggest you aim to change the 18-200 for a 17-50 and a 70-300 eventually , but the first thing is to learn to use the camera then see what you want to specialise in before you make any more lens decisions
LC2
Negan
- Messages
- 10,451
- Name
- Tim
- Edit My Images
- Yes
It really depends on what you want to shoot, but I'll at the following into the mix for consideration if you need good low light lenses.
Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 Art (Around £550 new currently - Supposedly the IQ on shots taken with these at 35mm, blown up to 50mm surpasses Sigma/Tamron 17-50s at 50mm).
Sigma 50-100mm f/1.8 Art (Pre-Orders seem to be around £800 - This may come down after release when the day one premium has been removed - We've yet to see real world reviews on this one though).
I don't have either, but am seriously considering the 18-35mm for my crop bodies.
Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 Art (Around £550 new currently - Supposedly the IQ on shots taken with these at 35mm, blown up to 50mm surpasses Sigma/Tamron 17-50s at 50mm).
Sigma 50-100mm f/1.8 Art (Pre-Orders seem to be around £800 - This may come down after release when the day one premium has been removed - We've yet to see real world reviews on this one though).
I don't have either, but am seriously considering the 18-35mm for my crop bodies.
- Messages
- 4,182
- Name
- Paul
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Thanks for all the help guys!
Got myself a used D5300 with Tamron 18-200mm lens, at the bargain price of £320
Which lens would you recommend I save for?
Thanks again, this forum has been amazing in terms of information!
Hi Pearsonia, well done on your new purchase!
Best thing to do is use something like Lightroom and catalogue your images in that. Ideally rate your images as well, as your culling the ones you don't want to keep. After a month or two, you should be able to do a filter of all your images by focal length range and you'll be able to see what sort of lens you might want to invest in that way. In due course, you'll probably realise yourself what you're missing - whether that's wider aperture stuff for shallower DOF or a faster lens for low light... but it's essential to build an understanding of what you're shooting most and what gets you going. No point in going for a super sharp 135mm fast prime if almost all of your shots to date have been in the 18-35mm range
FWIW that lens you have, whilst imperfect at a lot of things... does an awful of lot of things. So it's a decent lens to start out with and not a bad backup to have for those occasions in the future when you only want to take the one lens with you.
From this point on, you can look at primes or zooms, as well as more specialist lens such as macro (super sharp and close-focusing). I have a mixture and my recommendation is to ensure each new lens has a purpose with respect to what it's superseding. If it's just GAS then fine (if you can afford it) but otherwise it's better to know when you'll use the new lens and when you'll be sticking with what you have...
Oh, and enjoy