About to buy a d40, which lens should I get?

[srapson]

Hi,

I'm a newbie to SLRs and photography as art, mostly point n' shoot memory

recording till now, but have found a passion for photography and want to step up

in the camera world. I'm about to buy a d40 and am trying to decide which lens

to get with it... Currently I'm looking at these Nikkor AF-S lenses:

 

18-55 f/3.5-5.6 - standard d40 kit lens

18-70 f/3.5-4.5 - kit lens for D80, sharper and faster than the d40 kit lens

18-135 f/3.5-5.6 - wider range of zooms, sharper and faster than the d40 kit lens

 

The kit prices for these (including a 4GB mem card & case) are $470, $615 and

$655, respectively. Or the body + mem card + case is $365 and I can go for some

other lens.

 

The AF-S VR 18-200 is well reviewed, but out of my price range. It's also been

suggested that a fast 50mm prime lens might be a good choice...

 

I'll be shooting primarily outdoors, mostly landscapes with some sports and and

some other errata mixed in. For the time being this will be my only lens, but I

have aspirations of eventually (in the semi-distant future) purchasing

additional lenses (wide-angle and telephoto come to mind).

 

So... suggestions? Thoughts on my current picks or votes on prime vs. zoom?

 

Sam

[srapson]

Sorry, the lens listing didn't split out how I expected...

 

18-55 f/3.5-5.6 - standard d40 kit lens

 

18-70 f/3.5-4.5 - kit lens for D80, sharper and faster than the d40 kit lens

 

18-135 f/3.5-5.6 - wider range of zooms, sharper and faster than the d40 kit lens

[bill_keane2]

The Nikon kit lenses generally tend to be quite good, better than what you'd expect. Are all the lenses you mention compatible with the D40 (only lenses with a built-in motor will focus automatically on the D40).

[heyjaehey]

If this is your first DSLR camera ever, then I would suggest to start with 18-55mm. That is such a great lens compare to what you are paying for. Or 18-70 could be also good. 18-70 is sharper than 18-55 is and give you better range.

[acbeddoe]

The 24-120mm VR is a nice lens and can be gotten at a reasonable price.   The 18-70mm is a very good lens.

[johnw63]

I don't know that the 18-135mm is any better than the 18-55mm. I've read some pretty good reviews of the short one. Not too many for the long one.

 

I'm eyeing the same choices. I think it would be best to get the 18-55mm and use the heck out of it, for at least a month. Then you won't be guessing what you need, for a next lens, you'll have a good idea. If you do shoots sports, but can't get close, you will eventually need something longer. I see people suggesting a combo of the 18-55mm and the 55-200mm

 

The 18-55 goes for about $119 and the 55-200mm goes for $169.

 

B and H has the D40 with the 18-55mm for $479. Add the 55-200mm and your at $648 and have a very wide range coverage.

 

Where have you seen the D40 go for $365 ?! New ? Grey Market ? Referbished ?

[lee_ricks]

I use an 18-70 every day. It is sharp and realtively fast. The question is, is it worth an additional $145.00 over the 18-55. I would say definately not.

 

I am going to assume that the $655.00 is affordable. In that case I would get the 18-55 for $470.00 and buy a 55-200 vr lens for $229.00 from B & H. This will total $699.00 and will give you a real working range. The VR will make your 200 very usable hand-held in fairly low light situations and still give you a nice telephoto for sports. You will, with the D40, have a 1/500th flash sync too. This is very important as you will soon see.

 

Forget the prime for now. You will find the these two lenses are as sharp as you could wish. Most of the carping about the sacred "primes" is from people who read MTF charts. They are people without rich inner lives and we don't like them very much.

 

Careful and get a USA model if you live in the US BTW. Gray market purchases are risky business. You are better off with a Cameta demo than a gray market new camera.

 

Good luck. I know you will be thrilled with your new camera whichever way you go.

[morganlashley]

I would look at the Tamron 17-50 f2.8.....buy one used....

[dcraton]

Sorry, the 24-120mm is soft and has a history of returns and not so good reviews. I had one for two months and sold it because I could not return it. Even sent it back to Nikon for optical adjustment. It's not just me, read Thom Hogan and Photozone.ne.

 

Agree with Rick. I would recommend at 18-70mm and a 55-200mm (either DX version). I chose the non VR version of the 55-20mm because I don't use VR, but a monopod and find I get much better pics.

 

BTW, you can now buy on eBay (don't diss me here) just a D40 USA sealed D40 cam bod from authorized Nikon dealers for around 360.00 and then choose your leneses.

 

Just my opinion. Happy hunting.

 

dc

[dcraton]

ps: only DX lenses will be fully functional on a D40.

[kari v]

18-55 f/3.5-5.6 or 18-70 f/3.5-4.5 will do just fine for starters. Shoot for a while and you'll see (literally) what you need.

 

Lee ricks: "Forget the prime for now. You will find the these two lenses are as sharp as you could wish. Most of the carping about the sacred 'primes' is from people who read MTF charts. They are people without rich inner lives and we don't like them very much."

 

They are also people who prefer f1.4 - 2 to f3.5 - 5.6...

 

Ok, yes, forget them for a while now, Sam, but perhaps some day you begin to feel that you're missing something with your f5.6 Mega-VR. Don't be a stranger in the prime land. ;)

[elliot1]

Image quality will be about the same for all three lenses. I prefer and use the 18-135 on mine. I have the 18-55 (excellent) and had the 18-70 a long time ago but found the zoom range too limiting although image quality is excellent.

 

The 18-70 is the heaviest of all three and this does make a bit of a difference on a D40.

 

I had the 24-120 years ago and also found it a little on the soft side. It will not autofocus on the D40 as it is not a DX lens.

[bjørn rørslett]

The D40 with the kit lens, 18-55 is a well conceived and functional package. I'd say it's ideal for getting into [D]SLR photography. Adding the 55-200VR a little later could be beneficial too, but is not mandatory.

 

After a while you'll be better informed what if any you miss in terms of features. Then, a decision as to what to purchase is much easier.

[heartyfisher]

Dont think the tamron 17-50 focuses on the d40.

 

Have a look at the new Sigma 18-200 OS which has image stabilization too. it reviews better than the nikkor 18-200VR (i have this lens) in terms of image quality.

 

I have the 18-70 and am very satisfied with it. but i hardly use it now that I have the 18-200VR. My brother in law has the 18-55 and I have had a play with it. its ok and can do better macro than both my lenses. but I find the range restrictive. I have seen review that say the 18-135 is the sharpest of the lot. My recommendation.. get the 18-70. that lens will out live your camera.

[acbeddoe]

Ah! the "only DX" myth again. I was told this by a store (Ritz) and didn't believe it. It's not so. All AF-S and AF-I lenses are fully functional on the D40/D40x, DX has nothing to do with it, it's the focus motor (lack thereof).

[srapson]

The $365, is a refurbished ebay auction buynow price. I've been mostly looking on ebay, though only at well-reviewed camera sellers (like Cameta).

 

I'm currently (briefly) in the US, but I travel extensively and live in New Zealand right now. I'm realizing this should have been mentioned before, there's a decent possibility that I will be backpacking (both in the traveling and hiking sense) with this camera so size, convenience and total weight are of some concern.

 

This also makes warranties a fairly minor issue to me as it seems they usually only apply to the US.

[srapson]

Also, as side notes, I don't think the Sigma 18-200 or the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 will operate on the D40.

 

Which brings up a small side topic, am I screwing myself by limiting myself to AF-S and Sigma HSM lenses?

[travishoover]

I have the d40x, and the 18-135mm lens. I love the lens, and I feel it produces very good photos. I take mostly shots of my 2 kids and family activities, and was able to take some good shots of my niece playing soccer. It is bigger than the 18-55, but I don't think it is significant. I have since added the 70-300mm VR, which was a refurbished lens. It performs very well, and I am happy with both lenses.

 

FYI, the Sigma 18-200mm OS will focus on the d40/d40x, as it does have the HSM focusing motor. If you look at the lens on Sigma's website, it is listed at the bottom under the available camera mounts the lens is offerred. It is less expensive than the Nikon 18-200 VR as well. The Tamron will not focus on the d40/d40x.

 

Also, I would not think twice about a refurb, as long as it is a Nikon refurb. My 70-300 VR is a refurb, and works flawlessly and looks like brand new.

 

If I were you, I would go with either the 18-135 or the Sigma 18-200 OS. I think you will like the extra reach, and then you can always add the 70-300 VR or another comparable telephoto zoom wich would be good for outdoor sports, etc.

[travishoover]

OK, I guess Sigma changed the page for the 18-200 OS lens a bit, so the HSM is not listed where I said it was anymore. But it is listed as 18-200mm f3.5-6.2 DC OS HSM in the main title for the lens. Here is the link for the lens: http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp?id=3329&navigator=6

 

I don't think you are shorting yourself by limiting your choices to AF-S or HSM lenses, as all of Nikons new lenses will likely bt AF-S, and Sigma is releasing a lot of HSM lenses to be compatible with the d40/d40x.

 

Hope this helps!

[eric_arnold]

as bjorn suggested, the 18-55/55-200 VR combo is an excellent starter kit. both are lightweight and perfect for travel. dont go too crazy with getting lenses right off the bat.

 

down the road, you can surely expect new AF-S and HSM lenses. there are some really good choices out there. i own the d80 and can use the wonderful tamron 17-50 and tokina 12-24 with it, but sigma makes reasonable HSM-equipped exquivalents for both those ranges (18-50 and 10-20). i also own the impressive sigma 50-150, which i love and which has HSM, but i dont think you need something like that immediately -- the 10-20 or 30 sigmas would probably be first on my 'future lens list' if i had a d40.

 

OT: it will be interesting to see whether nikon responds to the sigma challenge by issuing af-s primes, but i wouldnt hold my breath waiting for this to happen. they seem to be happy with the d40 niche as part of their overall strategy, i.e., if you want an entry-level camera, we'll toss you a few entry-level goodies at reasonable prices, but you have to pay more for the really good stuff. sigma has filled in a lot of the gaps -- their website notes in red letters which lenses are available to d40 users. but i dont think nikon is counting on d40 users to buy 17-55 and 70-200 dx lenses, when they're selling 55-200 VRs by the boatload.

[aldrich]

"ps: only dx lenses will be fully funcitonal on a d40"

 

As Charles said, total bunk. Go into any Ritz with your D40, or they will let you hold their sales model. They will put any lens you want on the camera and let you see for yourself. When choosing a flash for my D40x, somebody on this site told me the SB-400 flash "would only flash at 90 degrees vertical in landscape mode, therefore is useless." Sure enough, Rits plopped an SB-400 on my camera and sold me right there.

 

I know one lens that worked was the Nikon 24-120 mm f/3.5-5.6G AF-S VR IF-ED Nikkor Lens. Again, Someone else on this site told me "NO! Not DX! WIll not Work!" Bunk! Worked just fine in all modes.

 

To aid in your lens quest: The kit lens is amazing on the D40/D40x. I also use the 55-200 VR, and an old mid-80's 50mm f/1.8 prime (though that lens has to be used in manual, no metering available). Go with the kit lens and see what you need based on what that can't provide for you. Good luck!