nikon d40 camera and lens help

[Joel A]

so i want to buy an entry (beginner) level DSLR, and lots of people pointed me to the d40. I went over to my local bestbuy just to pick it up and compare looks and feels to the similar canon models (like XTI and XSI). I didn't think the whole "go pick them up and see which one you like" test would mean much to me.. but for some odd reason the Nikon was a lot more appealing to me as a first time DSLR user.

Now after that.. i want to get one. Now this will be used for all types of photography, not just reef tank.. but reef tank will probably be a lot of what i shoot with it.

So obviously i'm looking for a good general purpose lens.. and the "kit" lens it comes with is the 18-55mm... now that kit lens doesn't include the "VR" (vibration reduction) that is said to be critical because the D40 doesn't have vibration or anti camera shake capabilities built into it's body..

So one question i have is how important is this "VR".. can i get away without it.. or is it really important to have? Also, i was originally looking at the 18-70mm lens.. and it was very nice looking.. but once i saw it wasn't made with VR i stopped paying attention to it because i thought i needed it.. but maybe i don't?

What lens should i get for this as a relatively cheap (yet good quality) beginner lens?

Thanks.

 

[xtm]

The 18-70 is a legendary lens in the Nikon world. It came as a kit lens with the D70/D70s and is known for amazing image quality and good build. This is a great beginner lens IMO. It has been replaced by the newer 16-85 VR (also a great consumer lens)

Just an FYI- there's a VR version of the 18-55 kit lens also.

Now if you want a one-lens solution, the 18-200 VR could be the answer.. but personally, I hated that lens.

You really don't "need" VR until you get to 200mm, in my opinion. One thing to keep in mind also is that the D40/D60 can only autofocus with AF-S, HSM, and AF-I lenses as it does not have a built in AF motor.

 

[Robb in Austin]

I got a D40 kit last year, with the 18-55 and the 55-200. Both non-VR. I wish I had gotten the 55-200 in VR version. It would make life really nice when out shooting in the golden hours(early am, late afternoon, PM). It won't do a thing for tank pics, except fish pics. Maybe. Any good coral pics will require, for the most part, a tripod.

I have taken some nice tank pics with both of the lenses but for great pics like you see here you'll need and want a macro lens.

All that said, if you can, get the 18-200 lens for all around use and a macro. And the biggest card that will fit.

It's a great little camera. You'll love it no matter what you get.

 

[cougaran]

Im not a professional photographer but wanted a bit more of a camera than the standard digital and bought the same camera like u did w/ the 18-55. I also bought the 55-200 VR lens for it. I can count on my fingers the number of times i have used the 55-200. I have been on vacation and it was good for some long distance shots, but bear in mind it takes a bit to change lens out, as well as remembering not to put your damn fingers on the lens, you have to uncap the lens and thenre cap the other...for the most part I just shoot with the lens that you have. I've shot about 3 thousand pictures with the camera and am very satisfied with it.

Now for reef shots, i havent tried that yet, but if your worried about stabilizations then you need to buy a tripod or even a portable monopod for in the field-use, which I have and havent used..lol...

BTW a must have for a beginer is a backpack camera bag for this camera, its great for the camera lens and also good for packing a lunch in top half or putting a small video camera. I bought a tamrac backpack for it and love it.

 

[Joel A]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15264794#post15264794 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by xtm
The 18-70 is a legendary lens in the Nikon world. It came as a kit lens with the D70/D70s and is known for amazing image quality and good build. This is a great beginner lens IMO. It has been replaced by the newer 16-85 VR (also a great consumer lens)

Just an FYI- there's a VR version of the 18-55 kit lens also.

Now if you want a one-lens solution, the 18-200 VR could be the answer.. but personally, I hated that lens.

You really don't "need" VR until you get to 200mm, in my opinion. One thing to keep in mind also is that the D40/D60 can only autofocus with AF-S, HSM, and AF-I lenses as it does not have a built in AF motor.

yeah, that's what i had heard about the 18-70mm, all very good things about it's quality. I also liked the F 3.5-4.5 a lot more than the 3.5-5.6 (obviously) of the 18-55.

I was just concerned that without the VR in the 18-70mm, it wouldn't be what i wanted for my camera. I know that there is a 18-55mm with VR, would i be better suited with that then the 18-70mm?

Also, forgive me for being a noob guys... but what exactly does a macro lens entail? Like maybe some examples of one?

 

[latazyo]

a true macro lens gives 1:1 magnification

a lot of lenses use some sort of "macro" designation but are not true "macros" as we intend to use them, they simply indicate a smaller working distance than prior models

nikkor lenses that are "macros" will have the "micro" designation in the name, if you are unsure, check the technical specs

I have the 18-55 non VR and the 55-200 VR, IMHO they're both junk and don't get used that often, but if they're all you have then I guess they're going to be fine

I was going to recommend a few sigma lenses, but then I remembered you're on a D40 and they won't AF

 

[Robb in Austin]

I have the Sigma HSM 150/2.8 macro, it's a best of a lens and a beaut too, and it will autofocus on the d40.
Any Sigma with the 'hsm' designation will autofocus.

The Tokina 100mm/Nikkor 105mm/Sigma 105/Tamron 90 are all nice. Really, any true macro lens will be very nice. A nice clean used one of the above will run $250-350. (I'd say avoid the 50-70mm macros. They wont give you a lot of working distance.)

 

[areze]

tamron has the 60mm lens that will autofocus on the D40. there as will the tamron 17-50. any "all-in-one" lens that boasts something like 18-200mm or whatever, will end up being a bit lame at everything. itll still put out a fine photo, and its versatility is priceless for casual use. but it just wont match what a good short range and a seperate telephoto will do. and neither of them will match what a macro lens will do.

there are 5 lenses in the world.

wide angle, starting as little as 10mm, and ussually only zoom to maybe 20mm, often do not zoom at all.

short range

starts between 16-20mm, through 50-60mm. fairly wide angle, give up that 10-16mm range though, but gets you a little working room.

short telephoto starts 60-80 and goes to ~200mm. going to be too much indoors, but your go to lens outdoors.

big honking telephoto, 200 and up. wallets the limit here. few will need this lens, wildlife photography and papparazzi.

macro lens, I only see them around 50, 100, and then some variation of 150-200mm. they dont zoom.

anyway, those are my "groupings", when in doubt, if a lens promises to cover 2 or more of those categories, read up on it and then probably stay away. Ive never seen a review of such a lens that didnt finish with "is sure is functional, but its XXXX up close, and its XXXX far away, and in the middle, its just OK.

 

[latazyo]

thanks for the correction rob about the HSM

 

[xtm]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15265895#post15265895 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Joander123
I was just concerned that without the VR in the 18-70mm, it wouldn't be what i wanted for my camera. I know that there is a 18-55mm with VR, would i be better suited with that then the 18-70mm?

You know, when I first switched to digital (from film) I had the same thought - I wanted ALL my lenses to have VR. Knowing what I know now, I feel a little bit silly for wanting a VR on everything. Personally, I'd rather have a FAST glass than VR. VR will not freeze motion - it only corrects for camera shake. It's also useless for macros and tripod users. For most shots below 200mm, VR is not needed.

The 18-70 is leaps and bounds BETTER than the 18-55 VR. It has metal mount, has more range, has distance scale, and has better build than the 18-55. Don't get me wrong, the 18-55 is a good kit lens, but if you've used it for a few months you'll understand what I'm saying about the build. It's lousy plastic! You can't even use a polarizer on it properly because the front element moves when it's focusing.

In the future, you can add the 70-300 VR to your kit and you have everything covered, from 18-300mm!

Also, forgive me for being a noob guys... but what exactly does a macro lens entail? Like maybe some examples of one?

ok, "regular" lenses usually have a minimum focus distance of more than 1 feet, and even so, the subject will not fill the frame. For example, the 18-55 kit lens has a minimum focus distance of 1 ft. Meaning if you move your camera closer to the subject, it will NOT focus anymore. At 1 ft away, your coral looks tiny. True Macro lenses enable you to move closer at higher magnification.

 

[areze]

macro lenses are defined that at minimum focus, the focal point is represented onto the camera's sensor the same size as it is in real life. so you are photographing a dime, the image on the sensor will literally have the dime being the same size as the real thing. macro does not end there of course, there is a canon lens that is like 5 to 1. (meaning something 1mm big in real life, will cast an image on the camera sensor that is 5mm, allowing for greater detail.

At this time, I believe the canon MP-E or whatever its called, is the only lens that does this by design. all other macros I know of are 1 to 1.

VR "adds" 3-4 stops on a lens. meaning, atleast from your side of things, hand shooting a non VR lens at f2 would be like shotting a VR lens at f8 or something... doesnt sound like a bad thing. but it is a valid point that XTM made, the VR only compensates for camera shake. if your taking a photo of a moving subject, you still need the shorter exposure on that side of things.

most kit lenses and wide range lenses tend to be F4-5.6. aftermarket and high end lenses will be 2.8 or better. thats what your paying for. the 17-80 and 80-300 lenses are 4-5.6. the 17-50 and 70-200 lenses are 2.8, as are macro lenses. lenses you only buy once, a good lens will always be a good lens. a camera will always age, and in comparison is actually cheap. you can get a semipro dx format camera for the same price as just 1 good lens... you keep mounting average glass on new cameras, and you'll always have average pictures.

 

[tyoberg]

VR is pointless on a wide-angle lens (i.e 18-55mm). Being able to slow the shutter speed down under 1/30sec means you'll need very still subjects (and you ought to be on a tripod at that point anyhow).

I've got a 55-200mm VR. I don't really like it. Everytime I use it, I have to spend hours afterword trying to clean up the vignetting.

 

[areze]

all things equal, Id take VR.

unfortunatly the $$$ isnt equal Im still sure there are some situations that a VR lens would be superior. real pain is that they basicly thread a few hundred more dollars onto already expensive name brand glass. which IMO just makes tamron and sigma all the more attractive.

and for this reason I dont own a single nikon lens. only one I actually WANT is the 70-200mm VR. mostly because tamron and sigma trail by a good bit in that particular range. tamron is lousy focusing, and sigma is just lousy. might end up buying the old 80-200mm nikon that they still make since the VR is so retardedly expensive. another of those lenses that wont work on the newer no-motor bodies though, which concerns me in that what happens if they switch all the nikons to the AF-S mounts... nothing will focus anymore

 

[Joel A]

wow, thanks for all the feedback guys, it's been really helpful.

FWIW I'm still leaning towards the 18-70mm for my first lens.. then in the future upgrading to a telephoto 70-300mm and a macro lens of some sort.

 

[areze]

just be aware of the 17-55 and 70-200, they ARE better lenses. both in build and in speed. but they are also professional quality, metal bodies and coated glass and all that. so you will pay more for it.

 

[Joel A]

i'm aware of the 17-55 f2.8, but it's about 3-4x more than i'm looking to spend

 

[areze]

tamron isnt if you simply must have nikon, carry on of course.

but you can get the tamron 17-50 for 410$ right now, vs I think 300ish for the 17-80 nikon?

I too wish I could afford nikon pro lenses

 

[xtm]

There's nothing wrong with 3rd party glasses - as all of them, even Nikon has sample variations. The *only* thing about 3rd party lenses is the resale value - they don't hold much compared to a Nikkor.

With regards to your budget, have you considered prime lenses? You can get a 50mm 1.8 for $100 and the 35mm 1.8 for $199 and have two really REALLY sharp and fast glasses. Something to think about.

Also there are many other "consumer" Nikon glasses in the same focal range:

Nikon 18-105 VR
Nikon 18-135
Nikon 28-105
Nikon 28-120
Nikon 16-85 VR

I still recommend the 18-70 though.

 

[xtm]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15275423#post15275423 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Joander123
i'm aware of the 17-55 f2.8, but it's about 3-4x more than i'm looking to spend

The 17-55 is my all-time favorite lens. Stopped down at f/4 this thing is SO SHARP it's unbelievable and the color rendition is just breathtaking. Nothing compares to pro glass - you really get what you paid for. Some of my shots with the 17-55 at f/4:

 

[latazyo]

the 17-55s came down in price a while back when the D700 came out, I dont know if they've rebounded or not

the sig 70-200 2.8 is not junk

I would look into a sigma 24-60 2.8 if you can find one or a 24-70 2.8 if its wide enough

I absolutely love the 24-60