New camera... (is this a good price?)

[Poisonus Yeti]

I'm in the market for a entry level DSLR camera and I was looking at the Nikon D40 (I like the feel of this camera). I noticed that I can get this camera with the 18-55mm and 55-200mm lenses for $550. I won't be doing any professional photography by any means but I would like a high quality camera for things like vacations etc. Down the road I'd like to get a macro lense like the Tamron 90mm. This lense will work well with this camera, yes? I am aware that the camera won't be able to auto focus with this lense, but is that a concern when shooting macro photos?

Does anyone have any advice to offer? Is this a good price for this kit or would I be better off taking a different route?

Thank you for your help!

 

[Phyl]

That is a fine price for a decent entry level camera. You'll be able to use the Tamron 90 in manual focus mode, which will be fine for taking tank macros.

It sounds like it suits your needs just fine.

 

[BlueCorn]

Just make sure that you check any vendor with http://resellerratings.com

There are lot of sleazy camera dealers on the net.

 

[Poisonus Yeti]

Thank you for the reply, Phyllis.

Thanks for looking out, Beerguy. I found this deal at BH Photo. It's normally for $650 but there is a $100 instant rebate.

 

[Phyl]

I love B&H photo. They know me by credit card number. LOL.

 

[Poisonus Yeti]

Haha Phyl, they will probably know me soon enough!

I'm not wasting money on these lenses though am I? Because I can also get it with just the 18-55mm lense for $70 cheaper...

Or is the 55-200mm lense worth that?

 

[NeveSSL]

The 550-200mm probably isn't the best lens ever, but I would venture that you'll have enough fun with it to justify $70 more. Just my $0.02, tho!

Brandon

 

[maroun.c]

Guess it would be just silly to skip on the 55-200 Vr for 70 USD.
Check it's price standalone and you'll understand what I'm talking about.
It is not the best lens around but with VR and covering from 55-200 it will serve for more than what you mention here.
As for the 18-55 whcih is still a good lense for the price, I would check if you can get an offer for an 18-70 witht he 55 200, this was you would have less a bit more reach with the shorter zoom to decrease the amount of lens changes. so basically if you can get a good deal for the 18-70 and 55-200 that would be a good choice. 18-135 would still be a solution if there are any deals in that region. I chose to go with the 18-200 VR which would cost yo ua bit more but would be great for the convenience of carrying only one lens and not needing to change lenses every now and then.
The combo you describe is a failry good one that would offer a solution for what yo uintend to use the camera, but maybe not for indoor shots where yo uwould need to work mostly with the 18-55 which is a bit slow (3.5 or 4.6 max opeining?) and does not have VR so here is an advantage for the 18-200 as you get VR for that range. Still VR will not be able to freeze motion of your subjects so I found I needed a faster zoom 50 mm 1.8 or 1.4 for 100-300 usd are two sharp and cheap choices but those will not autofocus with your camera. I went with the 50mm 1.4 and then got a cheap but also sharp Tamron 17-50 2.8 but those will not AF with your body so here's where you start to realize that what you samved with teh D40 you pay on buying more expensive lenses to have them autofocus with your body. While that might not be really important for Macro it might be for other types of picture taking. So consider what yo ureally want to take pictures off and what lenses you will need in the future beofre making your purchase. Sorry for rambling but I guess this gives you an advance notice of what yo uwill be facing months from now before being comited to your choice.

 

[Phyl]

Good glass comes at a heafty price tag. The 17-55 would be the lens I'd get if I didn't care about the 1200$ tag that goes along with it. For the long end the 70-200 can't be beat, but it is HUGE and 1600.

In leiu of spending THAT, the 18-55 & 55-200VR is a good combination. As said above, the 18-200 is a good lens and the price tag is still consumer so you don't have the massive price staring you in the face. It might well be worth the convenience to you to "upgrade".

For tank macros you'll want a 105 (or non-Nikkor alternative), which will run you another good chunk unless you stick to the non-AF models (nothing wrong with that if Tank is all you'll use it for).

 

[TitusvileSurfer]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12425609#post12425609 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Poisonus Yeti
Haha Phyl, they will probably know me soon enough!

I'm not wasting money on these lenses though am I? Because I can also get it with just the 18-55mm lense for $70 cheaper...

Or is the 55-200mm lense worth that?

Bodies come and go...glass is forever. I suggest you disregard all those mediocre lenses and buy quality. You won't have that camera in 10 years but you'll still use the same lenses in 20.