New Nikon D40 Body just need lenses

[alvinyap]

<p>Welcome to the slr club!<br>

Do consider a 18-55VR for a start, then 55-200VR if you want more reach. Both of these are great for landscape purposes - landscapes are not only shot using wide angles - telephotos are great at isolating specific objects in the field. In terms of portraiture, well I'm not one to ask about this subject, both lenses do a decent job. You may need to look into a fast 2.8 zoom for improved subject isolation, if you need it or even a fast prime (50/1.4G comes to mind)<br>

These are great lenses for a D40, small, light, balances well, affordable. I've used both for a fair bit before migrating to my current setup. The 55-200vr is surprisingly good. Perhaps I got a good copy. I miss both of them when I'm out hiking - they are light, and good! If you are upgrading to a newer model DX camera, should carry right on along. Both should give you enough range to <em>figure out what you like</em> <strong>,</strong> then you can progress further.<br>

For me, these ranges are are not very useful as my favourite focal ranges start at 300mm. Play with the kit lenses then decide what kind of photography pulls you in, then acquire lenses that allow you to go delve further into your area of interest :)<br>

Alvin<br>

NB: If you do intend to stick on DX for a long while, consider the 16-85VR, I use it when I'm travelling, exploring new places etc. A bit expensive, but its got great IQ, nice build, great focal range, though it is a bit big on a d40 :P</p>

[john_ashby2]

<blockquote>

<p>I'd suggest the 50mm 1.8D. I got my D40 second hand (less than 1K pics on it. yay!) without the 18-55, but with the 50mm.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I got my 50mm 1.8D brand new around 1992. I use it on my D90 and it's still a fantastic lens. I just don't think I'd use it with a D40 because the manual focus would drive me crazy without a proper split ring focusing screen. I commented on that to a Nikon rep and he said it's no problem because the in-focus light still comes on in manual mode. I also have the 35-70mm D series kit lens from the same era but I never use that one because I've got the 18-200. I guess the moral is buy fast primes, you'll get more years out of them.</p>

<p>Out of curiousity, how do you know it has less than 1k pics on it? The lens doesn't have a counter.</p>

[lukerossknecht]

<p>A lot of people are mentioning newer lenses with VR, but if you are going to focus on landscape and portrait, do you really need those things? Chances are you will be using a tripod a lot of the time - another path you could take is to go the "old lens" route. The d40 by virtue of the way its built can mount almost any lens Nikon made, even non-ai lenses which 'better' Nikons cannot. There is a plethora of old, high quality lenses - if you don't mind manual metering (by guessing or by purchasing a hand held meter) and manual focus. Many of the older lenses are cheap, too - $60 or less each. Just another thing to think about. good luck!</p>

[peterd]

<p>I would be very careful with the lenses you look at. Check BH because many of them have warning and will not work with the D40\60. You need to check the details and specs carefully. Not sure if someone already covered that but I thought I should say it before you drop a bunch of money on a lens. Peter</p>

[eco_foto]

<p>I have the D40 with the18-55kit lens a 90mm.Tamron 2.5 with ext.tube,50mm.1.8 E series manual focus lens,70-300ED.lens & Kiron 1.5 teleconvertor,lots of filters I"m really good to go with these combinations</p>

[eco_foto]

<p>I should also have mentioned that if you purchase a 50mm.1.8 for the D40 try to get a manual focus model as the auto focus D model is sloppy when manualy focused and does not have the damping of the manual models.</p>

[mt4x4]

<blockquote>

<p>I am interested primarily in portrait type shooting and possibly some landscapes.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Although with portraiture and landscape you will do quite a bit of manual focusing, I would recommend a lens with AF-S so that you can still auto focus, in case you decide to use the lens for other types of shooting where auto focus might be nice.</p>

<p>For portraits I would recommend the 50 1.4 AF-S. It is an excellent lens, very sharp and on a crop sensor is actually a good focal length for head shots.</p>

<p>For landscapes, you probably want a wide zoom such as the sigma 10-20 or Tokina 11-16.</p>

<p>Another good option might be a macro lens such as the Nikkor 60 or the Tamron 90. These are sharp lenses that work good for portraiture but are also great to pack along if you are doing any type of nature photography.</p>

<p>I honestly don't see why you would need a lens with VR if you are mostly interested in portraits and landscape because you should be working on a tripod anyways. But the 16-85 is a nice little lens, I have gotten to play with one and was impressed by the speed of focus and the VR did really make a difference hand-held. Of course, with its small maximum variable aperture you won't have as much control over depth of field, and might be able to pull off a handheld shot in low light, if your subjects aren't moving much.</p>

<p>As far as price goes, you get what you pay for. I'd much rather have a 50 1.4 AFS than two kit zooms. But that is just me.</p>

[tveck]

The one I would buy again is my Sigma 17-70mm/2.8-4.5 Macro HSM, it is on my D90 all the time. The Nikkor 60mm Micro is also a very good lens, but you probably will need an overall lens. The Sigma 17-70 is in my opinion just as good on 60mm (but is not a real 1:1 Macro/Micro) and it is a real bargain.

[andrew_gale]

<p>I suggest, either the 50/1.8 or the 50/1.4G if you can afford it.<br>

The 1.8 wont have AF, the 1.4 will, but they are both superb lenses and I think that you must start with one of those.</p>

[trevans]

<p>Just my 2 cents here...<br /> <br /> I have (well, had... fixing) a D40 with the kit 18-55 AF-S (non-VR), the 55-200 VR, and the 35/1.8. All three lenses have served me very, very well so far (except the 55-200 can be fragile when dropped... :)<br /> <br /> I can say with absolute certainty that for the first six months of owning my first dSLR (or even SLR) that the kit lens was NOT the limiting factor in my education. Especially if you're doing landscapes, you will be stopping the lens down to f/8 or f/11 anyway so it's not like you actually need a fast zoom (unless you want a short depth of field, but that's typically more for portrait/macro stuff which generally use longer lenses).<br /> <br /> You'll be surprised just how close you can get with the 18-55, especially zoomed to 55mm. Your lens will be within inches of your subject. Learn macro shots this way with friendly targets (flowers instead of stinging insects), and then look into dedicated macro lenses if it's your thing. I find I rarely really need VR with this lens, and if I do, it's usually because I really should be using a tripod or flash. :)<br /> <br /> Use the 18-55 set to the focal lengths of the prime lenses people talk about here to see if you like them. You'll get a pretty good idea of how they act if you can avoid temptation to zoom and just set it to 30mm, 35mm, and 50mm. Of course you won't get the fast aperture, but you'll get an idea of how they handle.<br /> <br /> Try using your 55-200mm for portrait shots. At 55mm, it's f/4 which will yield a reasonably short depth of field. At longer lengths, the aperture goes smaller sure, but your focal length will really make up for it. Try portraits with this lens and decide if you like making portraits. Then buy a portrait lens (which can be the same as your macro lens, incidentally). I do find the VR helpful on this lens.<br /> <br /> I recently got the 35/1.8 and have done some shooting with it (primarily at my sister's wedding). It's a fun lens that frees you from the zooming and reframing and makes you move your feet. The very short depth of field it can give is also fun to play with. Manual focus override is a nice feature that the other two lenses I mentioned don't have.<br /> <br /> I really love the setup I have and I think it's a great, inexpensive way to learn. Stick with the cheap kit lens for now, learn to shoot the camera, learn to deal with holding it steady (they've done it for years without VR, after all) and have fun. Wait at least six months before you get the Expensive New Gear itch. :)</p>

[jeff_becker]

<p>Troy,<br>

I also own a D40 and I have the 2 kit lenses (18-55 VR, and 55-200 VR).<br>

I've had very nice results with each. Examples are included here (even though the reductions here don't do them justice). The one of my wife is with the 18-55 lens at a fixed focal of 20mm. For this I just used the 'Auto' setting which I normally don't use.<br>

The soccer photo was taken with the 55-200 VR at a zoom of 150mm. I used a Shutter Priority setting for this shot since I wanted to catch the action as quickly as possible.<br>

I have purchased a Tamrom 70-200 2.8 lens to make the action shots a little quicker, but it's more so for me to experiment with a faster lens and expand my hobby. The 55-200 VR provides GREAT shots!<br>

If I were you I would buy the two kit lenses I have, or pay the little extra to get them all into one lens (18-200 VR from Nikon). That 18-200 lens has nice resale value should you ever want to unload and upgrade to some 2.8 lenses.<br>

Jeff</p>

<p><img src="http://cvlightning.com/images/honeymoon/Shay01.jpg" alt="" /><br>

<img src="http://cvlightning.com/images/Misc/briley01.jpg" alt="" /></p>

[trevans]

<p>@Jeff - Beautiful work. I love the action shot of the girl (daughter?) and her expression. What was the aperture on that? It's worth pointing out, notice that even the humble 55-200VR managed a decent depth of field in that shot, throwing the ref and the opposing player out of focus. Wonderfully timed shot! Where was the beach shot taken?</p>

<p>Worth mentioning though, the 18-200 is <em>double</em> what you'd pay for buying the 18-55 and the 55-200VR seperately. Even if you bought them new (~$120 and $220 respectively) they don't match the price of the all-in-wonder (~$650). So far I haven't found changing lenses to be <em>that</em> much of a problem, so long as you just think ahead a little about what you're going to need.</p>

[jeff_becker]

<p>Tim, <br>

Thank you for the very nice comments. The soccer photo of my stepdaughter has the following specs:<br>

Lens: 55-200 VR with the shutter priority setting<br>

Aperture: 5.3<br>

Focus mode: AF-C<br>

Shutter speed: 1/1250<br>

Exposure comp: -0.3<br>

White Balance: Shade setting (gives it a much warmer look than the 'auto' setting)<br>

ISO 400<br>

....And Tim is exactly right. The 18-200 lens costs a few hundred dollars more than the 18-55 and 55-200 combined. It's only a minor incovenience for me to switch lenses also.<br>

The beach shot of my wife was taken in Runaway Bay, Jamaica in early April on our honeymoon. She's my favorite photo subject :)<br>

Jeff</p>