Should I buy this lens?

[ReefRockerLive]

I am in the market for a DSLR camera and have found the Nikon D40. For taking pictures of my tank, would buying the body and stock lens be enough or should I buy just the body and find a better lens?

I am looking at this lens to go with the D40.

RRL

 

[Robb in Austin]

That is the same setup I have and I get decent results with it.

Some tips: get a tripod(a good one if you can swing it, eg Bogen or better), turn your pumps off for coral shots, shoot straight through the glass to avoid distortions, use the histogram function to check exposure, use the self timer function.

Post pics once you are up and running.

As a warning though, you will want a macro lens eventually. If you can get the kit with the 18-55 and a good macro, do it!

 

[ReefRockerLive]

Robb in Austin, do you have any pics you can post so I can get an idea of what the lens are capable of?

RRL

 

[stdreb27]

If I were you I'd try to find a D50, it will be cheaper than a d40 and has more functions.
As far as a good microlens?
This is one of my favorite shots, with a nikor 105mm

 

[Robb in Austin]

Check out my thread down the page a bit. Titled "some pics I took".

Nice shot stdreb27!

 

[Toddrtrex]

That lens really won't work for tank pictures (( unless you are about 20 feet away )). I have that lens --- got it for a hiking trip --- and it just doesn't work well for fish tanks.

I have the D60, and use the stock lens ( 18-55 ) for all of my tank shots. Though I am saving up for a macro.

With the 18-55 lens you will be able to take really good pictures of your tank.

This was taken with the 18-55 lens.

The 55-200 lens is better for far away shots, I took these with it
Was about 20 feet away,

For this picture I used the 55-200 lens again, and was at least 100 feet away.

 

[Robb in Austin]

I'll agree that the 55-200 is great for distance shots, but it did just fine
for tank shots too. See the thread; all of them taken with that lens. I was, at most, 3ft away for all of them.

A macro would be better though. I'm saving too!

 

[Toddrtrex]

The one thing I don't like about the 55-200 lens for tanks is that if are you are any closer then 3 feet you can't get things in focus.

 

[ReefRockerLive]

Then for my purposes, I may be better off getting the stock 18-55mm lens?

 

[Toddrtrex]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12976496#post12976496 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by ReefRockerLive
Then for my purposes, I may be better off getting the stock 18-55mm lens?

I do. The main reason I got the 55-200 lens was because of my hiking trip I took. I don't want to count how many pictures I have taken of my tanks, but what ever that number is, they were all taken with the 18-55 lens. I am able to get full tank shots with it too. I think it is a very good overall lens. Heck I even used it 75% of the time on my hiking trip.

In the future you may want to get other lenses ( macro and/or 55-200 ) but, I don't see a need for it right now.

 

[Robb in Austin]

The 18-55 is better for everyday use, as Todd states, and even good tank shots. I find that "macro" shots are better with the 55-200. They are closer to 1:1 I find. They are both very nice lenses for kit lenses.

Do what I did and get both as part of the kit combo. I'd suggest getting the 55-200 VR version if you can. (Or, heck, splurge and get the 70-300 kit combo!) It sure is easy spending your money!

I walked out the door for ~$650, but it was part of a promotion that may have already ended.

Or do like I suggested earlier and get the 18-55 AND a good macro. Sigma and Tamron both make 105 and 90(respectively)/2.8 lenses for ~$450 that will out macro either of the kit lenses.