Yet another lens question: if you could only have 2 lenses...

<p>I have a D40 that came with the kit lens (18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G) and I want to upgrade but am on a budget. Which 2 other lenses would you get if that's all you could get? I usually do outdoor portrait for friends and family, some landscape/cityscape and macro. Would like the best all around lenses I can get right now for my moolah.<br>

Thanks in advance for answering!</p>

<p>For the D40 on a budget I'd get the AF-S 35mm f/1.8 DX, which we'll give you the angle of a standard lens, which I happen to like a lot. Then I'd get the AF-S 55-200mm.</p>

 

<p>What's your Budget?</p>

<p>Ditto Emilio- I just got a D90 and the 35mmf/1.8 DX is my favorite and so far, most used lens. It's very versatile, wicked sharp, and makes it easy to tote the camera around and get great pics without looking all touristy/paparazzi around town like the zooms.</p>

<p>I'd like to spend less than $500 for the first lens and maybe less than $1000 for my next one.</p>

<p>I have the two lenses Emilio mentioned, for my D90. Since they're both AFS they're perfectly compatible with a D40 as well, and they'd be my recommendations. (For the 55-200 you want the VR version.)</p>

<p>60/2.8 AF-S Macro or 85/3.5 AF-S Macro for both macro and portrait. Sigma 10-20/4-5.6 or the new 8-16/4.5-5.6 for landscape/cityscape. Selection is quite limited since you need AF-S (or equivalent - like Sigma's HSM) lenses with build-on motor to have AF with the D40. Could also get rid of the 18-55 and replace with Sigma 17-70/2.8-4 OS HSM. Maybe Sigma 50-150/2.8 for the portrait work.</p>

<p>Nikon 18 - 200 VR. Some may poo poo it, but it is a great lens if you want a wide range. It would tend to overwhelm your D40 though! Primes are great, but if you are limiting yourself to two lenses zooms will give you more bang for your buck. I also have the Tokina 11-16. I'm quite happy to have two lenses that cover 11 - 200 mm.</p>

<p>How about the Nikon <strong>18</strong>-<strong>70mm</strong> f/3.5-4.5 $450.00 & the <strong>70</strong>-<strong>300mm</strong> VR f/4-5.6G. $500.00<br>

Prices on Amazon</p>

<p>How about the Nikon <strong>18</strong>-<strong>70mm</strong> f/3.5-4.5 $450.00 & the <strong>70</strong>-<strong>300mm</strong> VR f/4-5.6G. $500.00<br>

Prices on Amazon</p>

<p>I can't see doing all that with two lenses, but more or less it can be done within your budget. Sell your current 18-55 & get the newest VR version. Add a 60/.28 macro (double duty macro/portrait), and an 85/1.8 for longer working distance portraits, headshots, etc. This is assuming you already own a steady tripod for the landscapes, of course. That 18-55 needs to be stopped down some to be all it can be.</p>

<p>I think it should be a strictly personal decission, you should buy the gear you think/feel you need for your own pourposes. If using your currently zoom you feel you need something different or more capable, or specialized, or whatever, it`ll be the time for searching.<br /> <br /> Personally, if I were owner of your gear, I`d look for a 35/1.8DX. When I used to use DX cameras I liked to have a 24/2.8AFD as the "standard" lens, but I probably would have prefered the new 35/1.8AFS. I like to have the isolating power and polivalence of a fast standard lens, specially for casual shooting. The smallest&lightest combo. My second lens was a 105VR.</p>

<p>This one taken with a 24AFD @ f2.8 -- With a 35/1.8 you still have 1+1/3 stop to get a shallower DoF.<br /> <small>(BTW, a very, very good wine... ) :D</small></p><div></div>

<p>Wow,</p>

<p>You have a D40 and want to spend 1500 on lenses?</p>

<p>FOr 1500, I'd buy a D90, a 70-300 VR, and a 35mm f1.8, then keep the D40 as backup or sell it.</p>

<p >I echo:</p>

<p >"<a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=5735871">Enrique Rabelo</a> <a href="http://www.photo.net/member-status-icons"></a>, Apr 15, 2010; 12:44 p.m.</p>

 

<p>How about the Nikon <strong>18</strong>-<strong>70mm</strong> f/3.5-4.5 $450.00 & the <strong>70</strong>-<strong>300mm</strong> VR f/4-5.6G. $500.00"</p>

<p>AH</p>

 

<p>For portraits the Tamron 28-75 2.8 is great. I believe the latest version has a built in AF motor which you need for a D40 to enable AF. The 50mm 1.8 can also be a great portrait lens on DX bodies but it won't af with your D40. The 35mm 1.8 is a good recomendation also I would also look at the sigma 30mm 1.4 and the sigma 50mm 1.4 if you like shallow DOF.</p>

<p>I'm wth Mr Hamm,</p>

<p>Right now you can get a new D90 with the 18-105vr and 70-300 Vr for $1369.00 delivered. As opposed to hanging more stuff on your D40 this seems like a great option. You will have a great backup camera and a more-or-less state of the art primary camera.</p>

<p>A Nikon 18-70 is $450?? That's for a used kit lens that's not fast and has no VR. For that money you could have a new Sigma 17-70/2.8-4.0 with VR, but I thought this was about lenses that go with an 18-55, not to replace it with a marginal upgrade. Second the Tamron 28-75 being a great lens, I have one on my F100, but this is DX and it overlaps the 18-55 by a lot.</p>

<p>I agree with Peter - it seems a bit odd to buy $1500 in lenses to go with a D40, even though one does usually spend more on lenses than bodies, and it's true that a D90 and 70-300 as a combo (there's a rebate going on for that) plus a 35/1.8 AFS lens comes to under $1500. Then sell the D40 on Ebay and use the proceeds toward something else.</p>

<p>I would suggest the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 VC ($650) and Sigma 50-150 f/2.8 ($750), but the macro would be missing, unless you're OK with cropping. I use this combination on two D70s bodies for events, concerts, portraits, landscapes, cityscapes, etc., filled out with a Tokina 12-24 f/4 and 70-300 VR.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I usually do outdoor portrait for friends and family, some landscape/cityscape and macro.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>misou, you have a fairly good idea of what you want to do. that's good, helps to make more specific suggestions/recommendations than just general ones.</p>

<p>your biggest limitations are probably the d40's lack of an internal focus motor and its small size. with that said, one lens i'd definitely recommend as a major optical upgrade to a kit lens is the <strong>tamron 17-50/2.8 VC</strong>. the compactness wont completely dwarf your d40, the low-light performance is great at 2.8, and the corners are sharp stopped down to f/8. plus, it will AF on a d40. a quite sensible option, when you think about it.</p>

<p>if close-up performance matters more than constant aperture, the <strong>sigma 17-70 HSM</strong> is capable of 1:2.3 magnification. and it's 2.8 at 17mm.</p>

<p>for landscapes and cityscapes, nothing quite beats an ultrawide. the <strong>sigma 10-20 HSM</strong> can be an excellent performer in the right situations (though UWAs take some practice getting used to, and are best shot on a tripod).</p>

<p>outdoor portraits: for $1000 you have a nice selection to choose from. usually outdoors means more room to move around, so a longer focal length can work here. you could even go with a macro in the 90-105 range, but there are some good zooms as well. with a small body like a d40, though, you will want to think about how well the lens balances on the camera (maybe add an aftermarket grip if you get something heavy).</p>

<p>my recommendations:</p>

<ul>

<li><strong>nikon 16-85 VR.</strong> pretty good all purpose lens with both wide and long reach. only minus is slow variable aperture (and price)--which makes it more difficult to throw backgrounds out of focus.</li>

<li><strong>nikon 70-300 VR.</strong> definitely a go-to outdoors lens and the price is right for the reach you get.</li>

<li><strong>tamron 28-75/2.8.</strong> a well-regarded, super sharp (at f/4 and beyond) compact fast zoom--did i say compact?--which makes a good landscape and portrait lens. make sure to get the BiM version if you go this route.</li>

<li><strong>tamron 90mm macro.</strong> legendary for its sharpness. works for portraits too. i think they make a version with a built-in-motor now.</li>

<li><strong>nikon 105 VR.</strong> does the same thing as the tamron 90, but with a squeench more reach plus VR and faster AF (nice for handheld, low-light portraits) at--ulp!--double the cost.</li>

<li><strong>sigma 50-150/2.8.</strong> a great lens for DX. covers the entire portrait range, smooth internal-focusing zooming action, lovely bokeh, super fast AF. could be a bit unwieldy on a d40, though, at 27.5 oz.</li>

<li><strong>nikon 55-200 VR.</strong> extends your reach to the portrait range and beyond in a compact package which is impressive stopped down to f/8-11. for the price it's actually quite good for landscapes, hiking, and travel.</li>

</ul>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>the Nikon <strong>18</strong>-<strong>70mm</strong> f/3.5-4.5 <em>$450.00</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>seriously? that's wayyy overpriced for that lens, which was $300-$350 when new. i had it, wasnt crazy about it, got the 28-75 and never looked back. now it sits all forlorn on my backup camera, waiting for the chance to redeem itself.</p>

<p>@Tim E. : the 11-16 wont AF on a d40. not so much of an issue for landscapes on a tripod, but the OP would likely be better off with the 10-20 in that field.</p>

<p>also, Peter H. makes a really good point about the d90 being a better all-around body than the d40. one thing with that is it opens up a lot of (relatively) inexpensive but good lenses, like the tokina 35/2.8 macro, the nikon 50/1.8, the nikon 85/1.8, the tokina 11-16 and 12-24, etc... as a matter of fact, i would get the tokina 35 over the nikon 35/1.8 any day--it's reputedly sharper at 2.8, has a much better build, does 1:1 macro with 5.5cm close-focusing, and only costs a little over $100 more.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>polivalence</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>lol, jose. had to look that up. it means versatile, no?</p>

<p>I have the Nikon D60 with 18-55 VR lens and 35F1.8. And the only lens I plan to add is the new Nikon 85mm F3.5 VR/Micro lens. So consider:</p>

<ul>

<li>Nikon 35F1.8 DX AF-S</li>

<li>Nikon 85mm F3.5 DX AF-S</li>

<li>upgrading your 18-55 to the VR version</li>

</ul>

<p>And you'll be left with a very compact, lightweight and still high-performance system.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Nikkor 17-55 2.8 + Nikkor 70-200 2.8 VR.</p>

<p>Sell everything, buy a D5000 + Tamron 17-50mm/f2.8 and another Tamron 90mm/f2.8 macro (and portrait) and you are well covered. </p>