New to Nikon D40 - should I invest in SB-400 or 55mm-200mm lens first?

[loriprima]

<p>Hi,<br>

I just recently bought a D40 kit, and have about $250 in budget for additional equipment. I mostly am taking photos of people (indoors & outdoors), flowers, and landscape at this point and just learning the ins and outs of the camera. Can anyone recommend if I should pick up the SB-400 (or SB-600) or the Nikon 55mm-200mm VR lens as my first purchase beyond the kit? Thanks!<br>

Lori</p>

 

[richard_thomas9]

<p>You are better off getting the 600, 400 is too limited. If I was you, I would get the 35mm 1.8 for now then get the flash next.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>I would first try to figure out what you miss the most. The 55-200 will work well for portraits and flowers, for indoors a better flash is a near must-have... So which of the 2 has more immediate appeal to you? Given your interests, I'd lean towards the 55-200VR, but ultimately, only you can tell.</p>

<p>As for the SB400 or 600... Well, it can bounce flash of the ceiling, which is really important. Beyond that, it's a lot like a pop-up flash. Sure the SB600 is a far more capable unit, and not that much more money. BUT... the SB400 is nice small, the SB600 not really.</p>

<p>And the indeed 35 f/1.8 should shortlisted as well!</p>

[joe_a2]

<p>Lori.... Since you are just starting out, I would tend to suggest the 55-200 first. It will give you a full range of focal lengths that provide different perspectives and isolation when desired. As you use it, keep in mind that long focal lengths aren't just for far away. Use them on close subjects, too, to isolate your subject. But as you learn the ins and outs, concentrate on getting the most out of natural light first.</p>

<p>Don't rule out the non-VR 55-200mm. You can get one on theBay for under $100. Remember, VR doesn't steady your subjects if they move. The non-VR is arguably a better learning tool as it requires you to learn solid techniques to "Reduce Vibration". And you can always sell the non-VR (and get most of your money back out of it) and move into the VR if you (and your budget) think you need it. But don't fall back on VR like a crutch.</p>

<p>When the time comes to add artificial light to your mix, I too would suggest the SB-600. And then the 35mm f/1.8 AF-S that Richard suggests, so you can incorporate depth of field control into your compositions.</p>

<p>PS. Want a cheap "SB-400" in the meantime? Buy a plain white ping-pong ball, and cut a small rectangle out of it so it will fit over your pop-up flash. Cut the hole the size of the "lens end" of the pop-up flash so that the flash lens ends up about 1/3rd of the way into the ping-pong ball. Secure it with a piece of tape, and presto!, you'll have a 79 cent flash diffuser.</p>

[elliot1]

<p>You can get a new SB-400 (EXCELLENT flash and a perfect match for the D40 in both size and weight) and used non VR 55-200mm (EXCELLENT lens) well within your budget. When you have the extra money for the VR versions, you should be able to sell the non VR lens for about what you paid for it.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>If you shoot indoors a lot, I would get a good flash first.</p>

<p>The SB-400 is extremely popular among casual photographers because of its small size and fairly affordable price. However, it has limited flash power and the fact that it cannot be flipped up for bounce flash in the vertical orientation is, at least for me, a deal breaker. Using the SB-400, you'll be forced to use direct, straight on flash in a lot of occasions, thus leading to ugly contrast and shadows.</p>

<p>The problem with the SB-600 is that it is failry big on the D40. If you haven't done so, I would visit a camera store and put one on your D40 to see whether you like that combination or not.</p>

[zack_lau]

<p>How are your people pictures? If you get dark faces with a light background a flash will help immensely. But, if they come out fine, then I'd get the 55-200mm VR zoom--a great lens. </p>

[munim]

Get the SB-600. You can bounce light off ceiling sideways. Then get a used 55-200 or 35mm f/1.8.

[jeannean_.]

<p>Good advice given. I bought my D40 kit a few months ago and this was my progression... 35mm f/1.8 (great little lens for the price and I rarely need a flash indoors with it), then the 55mm-200mm VR (found a like new one locally for a good price), then a tripod, and finally a used SB 600 with a diffuser from a member here (the ability to bounce flash in different directions was the reason I went with the 600 over the 400). I really haven't used the flash much since the 35mm f/1.8 does such a good job with low light, but a tripod is needed if the light is really low. For people candid shots indoors, you will most likely need a flash. I take more pics outdoors, so the 55-200 gets a lot more use than my flash. Next on my list is a macro lens...I have a feeling there will always be something on my wishlist. ;-) Best of luck with your decision.</p>

[loriprima]

<p>Thanks, everyone! You've given me a lot of good advice to consider. Right now I'm going to check prices for the 35mm f/1.8 lens and the 55-200mm VR/non VR to see what's out there as new/used/refurbished. I'm also going to take my D40 to a local shop where I can try the SB-600 for size. The SB-600 is something I think I'll be able to grow with as my technique improves.<br>

I'll let you all know what I ended up picking up!<br>

@Zack, the faces seem to be ok thus far. Haven't had a problem with darkening or shadows. <br>

@Joe, thanks for the ping pong ball advice! I might try that over the weekend!</p>

[ramon_v__california_]

<p>toss up of priorities here, lori. if you shoot more people indoors you will need the sb-600 ($200). but you will be limiting yourself without nice flower shots, not to forget very good portraits, without the 55-200mm (get the VR version --$200 mint/used). good point in your looking at growing with the SB-600. for sure you will. i use the SB-600 on my D40 but with the 18-70mm lens and the balance is great. that's a lot longer and heavier than the 18-55 kit lens so a trip to your local store is a good idea. it might just be top heavy (or even ugly) for you............you will be limiting yourself with creativity with the SB-400............</p>

<p>if you get the 35mm f/1.8 right away, you are giving up a lot more of your preferences. you can have fun with it later.</p>

[davidlong]

I liked the SB-400 on my D40. If you're really worried about bouncing vertically, also consider an SB-400 plus a TTL cord vs. the 600 sitting on the camera.

[eric_arnold]

<p>flash or lens?</p>

<p>comes down to which you need more, based on your shooting style.</p>

<p>if you're shooting a lot of outdoors, landscape-y stuff, the 55-200 would come in handy for when you need more reach. i'd get the VR model over non-VR. it really makes a difference at longer focal lengths.</p>

<p>however, if you're shooting a fair amount of people shots indoor, then it makes more sense to get a flash over a telephoto zoom.</p>

<p>in the case of sb-600 vs. sb-400 (i have both), if i were you i'd get the 400. it balances better on a d40. with its small size, you're much more likely to use it. also, it's really easy to use and doesnt have the confusing (to a newbie) control layout of the bigger, more powerful flash.</p>

<p>with a d40, the sb-600 will be much heavier and will really weigh your camera down, so you're less likely to want to lug it around. it would really only be a better choice for you if you are shooting events where you need more power, or a lot of portraits where you need horizontal bounce capability. if that's not you, you dont need it.</p>

<p>another thing about a flash is when you are shooting in bright daylight, people's faces can be obscured by shadows. applying a little bit of "fill flash" will expose them properly. the sb-400 is really good at this, since it has less power than the 600. with the 600, i have to dial down the settings in manual for fill flash, an additional step which takes additional time. with the 400, i just shoot confidently in iTTL.</p>

<p>however, a flash wont help you with available-light shots. a fast prime is what's needed for these.<br>

that's where the 35/1.8 would be great.</p>

<p>so, i would proritize according to what you find yourself wanting to do more: have more reach for landscape and portrait shots; take better flash photos than with the pop-up flash; or take better no-flash pics indoors.</p>

[trevans]

<p>I'm with Eric, get the SB-400 first.</p>

<p>Can't do pretty flower pictures with the kit lens? Bullox! The kit lens focuses EXTREMELY close and I use it for Macro much more than my 55-200VR.<br /> I think if you buy a non-VR, you will have a hard time selling it once you're done with it. It's not THAT much more to get the VR and it's sorta like trying to sell otherwise-identical trucks, one with 2WD and one with 4WD. Sure, the 2WD carries stuff, but it doesn't hold its value as much and well, why get 2WD when 4WD is available? :)</p>

<p>I bought the D40 + kit 18-55, 55-200 non-VR (traded it in on the VR), 55-200VR, SB-400, 35/1.8, SB-800, and 17-55/2.8, in that order. It's amazing the difference the flash makes indoors. Seriously, unless you're printing big, just shoot the SB-400 horizontally, bounced, and crop the shots.</p>

<p>The 55-200VR I really only found useful outdoors, and the SB-400 only really useful indoors (or on the occasion where you need fill flash like Eric said).</p>

<p>Just think about what you're going to use it for the most.</p>

<p>Oh and I use the little 35/1.8 all the time!</p>

[frank_skomial]

<p>Your camera has already built-in popup flash of nearly same capabilities the SB-400 could bring to you. SB-400 is better than what you already have, but not too much better. SB-400 has no sufficient power for any real light bouncing, unless you are willing to boost ISO.</p>

<p>I suggest get the VR zomm lens first, you will have more fun, and less frustration.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>SB-400 has no sufficient power for any real light bouncing, unless you are willing to boost ISO.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>this is a bit misleading, if not erroneous. the sb-400 can comfortably bounce from a 3-4m distance to a ceiling of 10-15 ft. that is certainly enough to make a difference in many situations in which it will likely be used. also a diffuser--for softer, more natural-looking portraits--is available for the sb-400, while diffusing light with a pop-up flash requires a funny-looking jury-rigged system which wont work as well. the sb-400 just fits the d40 so perfectly, it's well worth getting for that camera. in addition, raising the flash limits vignetting with wide lenses and lessens the possibility of red-eye. you can use the pop-up flash for daytime fill, but the sb-400 is better at it.</p>

<p>but as to whether you will be better served by adding a telephoto or fast prime instead of a flash, it really depends on shooting style. i wouldnt want to be without an external flash myself, especially for indoor pics, but YMMV. between the sb-400, 55-200 VR and 35/1.8, i dont think there's a bad choice here, so it's a matter of what direction bests suits you right now. ultimately, you may want to get all three, which would be IMO an excellent entry-level kit until you are ready for a more full-featured body (if and when that happens).</p>

 

[frank_skomial]

<p>and below link is about the frustration I mentioned, when getting SB400 flash, ...</p>

<p><a href="http://www.photo.net/beginner-photography-questions-forum/00U5tC?unified_p=1">http://www.photo.net/beginner-photography-questions-forum/00U5tC?unified_p=1</a></p>

 

[frank_skomial]

<p>The SB400 is not raising enough light and will cause a shadow at the bottom of the picture with lneses like Nikkor 14-24/2.8, and Tokina 12-24/4 with original hood lens attached, and perhas with similar lenses.</p>

[kris-bochenek]

<p>I would get SB600 new or used, and 35 f1.8 lens since you are shooting mostly people this lens will be great it will allow you to open to 1.8 so you can get nice blured backgrounds<br>

but OTOH you can get 55-200 as well good lens but I'd shoot for 35mm</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>The SB400 is not raising enough light and will cause a shadow at the bottom of the picture with lneses like Nikkor 14-24/2.8, and Tokina 12-24/4 with original hood lens attached, and perhas with similar lenses.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>that would be a reason to get the 600, not the 55-200. but the 400 doesnt vignette even at 12mm on the tokina with no hood and the pop-up flash certainly would vignette. in any event, since the OP has an 18-55, with which the 400 will work perfectly, i'm not sure why its even necessary to mention the 14-24 or 12-24 at this point.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>I really haven't used the flash much since the 35mm f/1.8 does such a good job with low light,</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>...and this would be a reason to get the 400. trust me, you'll use it more with your current body than the bigger, more awkward-to-carry flash.</p>

[loriprima]

<p>I'm having a hard time finding the 35mm f/1.8, backordered at a couple of sites I visited and don't see any used deals either....still have that one on my wish list!<br>

Tim - I've been happy with the macros with the kit lens! Obviously it has limitations, but for a novice, I'm ok with the results so far.</p><div></div>

[tobycline]

<p>Lori, another vote here for the SB-400 over the 600. The 600 is huge in comparison, for a little more power and the ability to bounce a vertical shot. The reason for a D40 is to go fast and light, not to be bogged down with a huge (maybe geeky?) flash on top of it. </p>

<p>The 35/1.8 is nice, but bounce flash will often look better than a picture indoors of a party at 1.8, where only 6 inches is in focus. The bounce will look like light coming from the ceiling. Instead of giving you suggestions of things you didn't ask for, to answer your question, I'd get the SB-400 first, and then the 55-200. Keep it light and simple, and you'll be happiest.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Here is an image showing off a brand new D3000 photo.net has on loan from Nikon USA with the 18-55mm VR lens on the left and a D40 with the 35mm/f1.8 AF-S on the right. Those two DSLR bodies are very similar in size.</p>

<p>On the D3000 I mounted an SB-600 (left) and on the D40 I mounted an SB-900. Putting the huge SB-900 on such a tiny DSLR is kind of ridiculous, but I think the SB-600 is quite reasonable on top of the D40 or D3000. However, I am not going to tell you whether you'll like that combo or not; that is why it is best to check that out yourself, perhaps at a camera store.</p>

<p>I took this picture with just one SB-800 bouncing off the ceiling. I think the result is quite reasonable with merely one shoe-mounted flash.</p><div></div>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Here are the same two cameras and flashes, but the D3000 with the (smaller) SB-600 is on the right side. I captured this image with direct frontal flash on purpose. See the harsh light on the cameras creating very high contrast and some ugly shadows.</p>

<p>That is why I have a lot of reservations about the SB-400 which has limited bounce power and cannot be rotated upward in the vertical orientation. However, about a year ago I checked it on Amazon.com, and I was very surprised to see well over 100 positive comments on it (and I am sure there are a lot more by now). Clearly the SB-400 is very popular among casual photographers. A lot of those folks may not even be aware of the problems with direct flash unless you point that out to them in side-by-side comparisons such as this one.</p><div></div>