Nikon D40 Lens Upgrade

RatedF

RatedF

Messages
125
Name
Ryan
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi, sorry if there's countless threads on these i do apologise.
Currently got the kit lens 18-55. And want something bigger. Im only a begineer when it comes to Photography, and would like to get to know it abit better. Wanting a bigger lens for general use and sports events.
Im going to a WWE event soon, havent got the closest of seats and would like to be able to zoom in better than my standard lens did. What sort of Lens should i be looking at? Pref a Auto Focus one :)

Looking at spending no more really than £150.

Many Thanks

Ryan.
 
55-200 AF-s Nikon. Next lens after that is the 35 1.8. That set of lenses is the best budget trio you'll find and all work great on the D40.

Thanks
Rick
 
Ditto here, I have a D40 and the 55-200mm lens is the next logical step given what you want to photograph, try to get the VR version if you can. I got this, then the 35mm f1.8 next.

To answer your question about the lenses mentioned (and I know this is over simplifying, experts out there!) the 55-200mm is great for sports etc as you get closer to the action, being a telephoto zoom, but the caveat is you need good light (see below). The 35mm f1.8 has no zoom, but takes great photos in low light/indoors, as it's what's known as a fast prime: fast meaning the lens a large aperture (the f 1.8 bit: lower number = bigger aperture = better!), and prime meaning it can't zoom.

If you look at the aperture numbers of the 55-200mm it'll be something like f3.5 at minimum zoom, and f5.6 at the long end of the zoom, which makes this a "slow" lens. Slow lenses need more light, as the aperture is smaller than fast lenses, meaning they don't take pics in low light very well without flash. Fast tele-zooms (like the 70-200 f2.8) cost in the region of £1500.

What it boils down to is that every lens is a compromise in one way or another, but part of the fun of photography is messing around learning what lens will work best in a given situation. It's fun, honest :D
 
Last edited:
If you want more reach than the kit lens how about a 18-105mm.

These are just over your budget of £150 if you were to buy new, but since it is the standard kit lens with the D90 and D7000 you may be able to pick a used one cheaper as people are upgrading.

Neil
 
One slight advantage of sticking with the "holy trinity" of 18-55, 55-200 and 35/1.8 is that they all use the same filter size of 52mm, whereas the likes of the 18-105 don't. I'm on the lookout for an 18-105 myself, they don't seem to come up used too often.
 
plus buying the -105 would duplicate his entire -55 lens. Get the 55-200 for the same money and extend out to a reasonable telephoto range. the 55-200 in good light takes great pictures. The VR works as advertised. In fair light you can still get good pictures of still subjects. In poor light leave it home unless you have ISO 3200 or better. Also, with a set of close up filters the 55-200 can double up as a respectable macro introduction.

Thanks,
Rick
 
i was just in the exact same situation,

didnt have a huge ammount to spend on lenes so had to look for used, i bagged a 50mm prime for £50 and then a tameron 70-200 for roughly the same, both manual focus sadly,

i dont mind manual focus, infact i quite like it but for thos oppertune one off moments to end up with a blurry photo was starting to annoy me, so like anyone i looked into the as-f vr lenses, then it hit me why not get a body with the motor in rather than the expensive lenses, so i did just that - i bought a d80 body with built in motor, practically the d40 with a few more buttons and mega pixels, this was £250 off ebay, then i sold my d40 kit for £230 on ebay and now have a body that will auto focus all my lenses, i also bout a 18-55 vr and have a sigma 18-50 to sell on now,

just another option as then you have such a wide choice of lenses that wont cost the earth
 
casts_by_fly said:
plus buying the -105 would duplicate his entire -55 lens. Get the 55-200 for the same money and extend out to a reasonable telephoto range. the 55-200 in good light takes great pictures. The VR works as advertised. In fair light you can still get good pictures of still subjects. In poor light leave it home unless you have ISO 3200 or better. Also, with a set of close up filters the 55-200 can double up as a respectable macro introduction.

Thanks,
Rick
Click to expand...
Absolutely spot on, I used my 55-200 with an add-on dioptre lens as my introduction to macro before getting a dedicated lens. I've also got some rather nice outdoor pics at a wedding with the 55-200.

Basically I don't think you can go wrong with it :)
 
So in general the Nikon 55-200MM F/4-5.6 AF-S VR DX will suit my needs. By all means i'd like to get to know how the camera works properly e.t.c. Basically it'll be used for Indoor sports events, general use, and Holiday snaps. Will this be what i need? This caught my eye also/ http://www.amazon.co.uk/Tamron-AF-7..._fkmr0_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1298571437&sr=1-2-fkmr0? Any Good?
These are the conditions mostly ill be shooting in. http://s1204.photobucket.com/albums/bb417/RatedF11/?start=all
Sorry im dumb haha.

Many Thanks

Ryan
 
Last edited:
Not sure on how good the Tamron 70-300 is, but it's not got the image stabilisation of the 55-200VR, which is a very useful feature to have on a tele-zoom, especially if you're just starting out with longer zooms!

Nikon do a non-stabilized version of their 70-300 (search for Nikkor 70-300 'G')for around the same money as the Tamron, but it doesn't get particularly good reviews. The VR version costs around £400 new, and is a very nice lens indeed, one to think about when you get round to upgrading.

Oh, and there's no such thing as dumb, photography's like learning to drive: everyone had to start from scratch at some point :)
 
Ryan,

Given the budget you're talking about, the 55-200 is the best lens. It isn't great for indoor sports and motion, but it will be comparable to the kit lens you have now so far as light requirements.

The 70-xxx lenses from Nikon in your budget won't autofocus on the D40 and manual focus will be a pain in dark conditions with a dark viewfinder. Neither the Tamron nor the Nikon -300 have VR/VC. I'd rather have the 55-200 with VR and crop. VR doesn't stop subject motion, but none of the lenses you're considering will. At least with VR you'll have some shots at the lower shutter speeds for when the subjects aren't moving.

Thanks
Rick
 
Thanks for the many replys and such, money's been good to me recently, so can afford abit more for a lens now. £300 max. I was looking at the 50-300 and the 70-300VR nikon ones. Would these be the best bet, or too advance for me to use? Sorry.

Many Thanks

Ryan
 
In that case Ryan, Pick up a 55-200VR and a 35mm 1.8. They will serve you very very well.

I was in your exact situation a year and a bit ago, got the 55-200, then the 35 and only just moving the 55-200 on now due to purchasing another lens that covers the range. Perfect compliments to a D40.
 
Thanks for your reply, but i'd prefer to have the extra focal lenght tbh. Altho that lens does indeed have great reviews.
 
taz said:
Slightly off subject but will they actually let you in to the WWE with your camera kit?
Just a thought.
Click to expand...

Ive emailed arena and they said that SLR's are allowed, but can't be longer than 6" in lenght, ill just have to hide it i guess :shrug:
 
Charlatan said:
In that case Ryan, Pick up a 55-200VR and a 35mm 1.8. They will serve you very very well.

I was in your exact situation a year and a bit ago, got the 55-200, then the 35 and only just moving the 55-200 on now due to purchasing another lens that covers the range. Perfect compliments to a D40.
Click to expand...
Have to say, I agree with this totally. I've swapped out my 55-200 for a 70-300, never fancied the 55-300 as I'd need to bin it when if (when? Heheh) I go FF. But if was on a limited budget I'd happily stick with the 55-200 and 35, both are ideally suited to the D40, and the last 300mm of the 70- isn't all that great, IMHO.

I feel like a stuck record regarding the 35mm but I use mine a LOT more than a tele, its just a more useful day to day lens. For me, obviously YMMV :)

Oh and if you have a six inch limit (odd way to dictate what camera you can use, but hey), don't bother with the 70-300, as a FF lens it's a big beast!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top