A 70-300mm lens for a Nikon D40 ?

[benlonghair]

I have the Nikon 70-300VR. I love it, it's the lens that's most likely on my camera when I open my bag. Here's some examples (all fairly large files):

Late season honey bee.
Great Blue Heron
Green Heron
Praying Mantis
Wet Grass

It takes a little manual focus adjustment, but it's pretty sharp at f/8.

[TPF Sponsor]

[puyjapin]

dont get the f1.8, i have a d 40 with the 50m 1.4g, it autofocusses. in my opinion quite havdy when using it wide open or anywhere near that

[Vicelord John]

The 1.4 is also quite expensive.

[~myStical~]

oh no , I don't know which one to get anymore , mix responses. Are there any other lenses u guys know of that would come close to what I am looking for? As long as I can get a full body with the background out of focus, I am good. so please any other suggestions???

[KmH]

oh no , I don't know which one to get anymore , mix responses. Are there any other lenses u guys know of that would come close to what I am looking for? As long as I can get a full body with the background out of focus, I am good. so please any other suggestions???

Before you go spending money on glass, it's a good idea to have a passing understanding of how Depth-Of-Field (DOF) works since thats what your hoping to control with a lens purchase.

That way you can maximize your equipment budget.

PatrickCheung hit the nail on the head in mentioning the distance your subject is from the background has a lot to do with how blurry you can get the background.

Spend some time playing with a DOF calculator: Online Depth of Field Calculator to get a feel for how aperture, subject to lens distance, and subject to background distance effect DOF.

[GFreg]

I want to be able to shoot a full body from a distance, WITHOUT the need to be really really close to my subjects and get a nice depth of field.

Not necessarily. I don't use my tele much for portraits.

The 50mm will have the same effect.

This one ?
Nikon 50mm f/1.8 AF Nikkor

yup that will work for what you described. They are very inexpensive and are awesome. Everyone should have one.

Mixed messages going on here. Yes, while I agree with Vicelord John that the 50mm f/1.8 is an awesome portrait lens, it will not meet the criteria that you specified. You said that you don't want to get really close to your subject. You will need to be within a few feet of your subject with the 50mm. At f/1.8 you will get a good DOF. Since you are loking for more range you might want to consider the 85mm f/1.8.

Edit: Ok, I guess it really depends on what you consider to be really close. Let me put it this way, you won't be stepping on your models toes with a 50mm but if the extra reach is a big concern for you then know that you can still achieve a f/1.8 lens.

[Vicelord John]

I dont consider 6-8 feet to be that close.

[Dominantly]

If what you want is to be able to control the DOF in such a way as to make your subject just melt into a creamy blur (or Bokeh), then a 50mm 1.4 or 50mm 1.8 (cheaper but wont autofocus) would do that. OR you could pick up the AF-S DX NIKKOR 35mm f/1.8G lens that will auto focus on your DX body and will only run you $200 new..

[manicmike]

Another vote for the 50mm or 35mm.

[~myStical~]

THANK YOU GUYS SOOO MUCH !

After reading through all the posts , I have come down to the popular votes on Nikkor 50mm f1.8 , and 50mm f1.4 ( auto-focuses with my nikon d40) , and the 35mm lens.

Between the two 50mm lens , are there any other big differences besides the auto-focus?

50mm 1.8, 50mm 1.4 and 35mm .....
Just a comparison between these three would really help.

[Vicelord John]

well yeah, there is a huge difference. The 1.4 lets in a LOT more light due to being 1.4. Also, it costs almost three times as much.

[~myStical~]

well yeah, there is a huge difference. The 1.4 lets in a LOT more light due to being 1.4. Also, it costs almost three times as much.

Yes there is definitely a big difference in pricing, I had just checked. But not too expensive. Which is good

[~myStical~]

Thanks again everyone.