Buying new lens for my D40 - help?

[ecnal]

I have a d40 with the kit 18-55 3.5-5.6. I've taken some nice photos with it, but I want something that can give me more range. I'm not looking to spend a ton, a couple hundred maybe.

I was looking at the Nikon 55-200 AF-S VR 4-5.6, but the 4-5.6 worries me a little. I tend to take alot of wildlife shots which sometime require speed, but I've heard some negative things about the speed (or lack thereof) of the 55-200. Can anyone comment on this? I know it doesn't really go together, a budget and a lot of light.

I know that this is my first seperate lens purchase and at this point it's not like I'm a professional.

Just looking for some opinions on this!

Thanks!

 

[dxqcanada]

Shooting wildlife under good lighting conditions does not require a fast lens.

If you are expecting to shoot under low light conditions (in forested areas, dawn/dusk, overcast ... etc) then you will need a wider aperture than f/5.6.

Yes, faster lenses take a toll on the wallet ... even a Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 is not cheap.

f/2.8 zoom lenses are very expensive.

I compromised by finding a used Sigma AF 300mm f/4.0.

 

[Josh220]

The 70-200 f/2.8 by Nikon is a nice lens. :mrgreen:

I'll be getting mine in the next few weeks. But you will definitely pay for a good lens. The 55-200 lens is fine for most amateur hobby photographers, as long as you don't need it for any of the above mentioned low-light situations.

You may not get the best images with the 55-200, but can you justify spending $1800+ for a lens to get better performance? You have to weigh your needs and what will benefit you most.

Personally I am getting the 70-200 because my 18-200 doesn't have enough reach, and I'd prefer to have quality glass when I upgrade rather than getting something like the 70-300. With a teleconverter I'll get over 500mm zoom while still being able to handle low light, fast shots, etc.

 

[ecnal]

Thanks guys!

I'm gonna go with the 55-200 with VR, which from what I hear is worth the money on a lens over 100mm or so.

 

[Sachphotography]

Actually... for what you are looking I would have to say the Sigma 70-300 f/4-5.6Ed would be a good lens. It is about 209 New and it works great with the D40. The lens is very bright and has good glass. Check it out here
Sigma | 70-300mm f/4-5.6 APO DG Macro Autofocus Lens | 5A8306

It is good and will not take a toll on your wallet. It also has a range of 70-300 allowing for more zoom compared to the 55-200. I have done a lot of outside animal and Macro work with this exact lens and have been very please with it. For the money I have yet to find a better one. I had the 55-200 and now have the 55-200 VR and I like the sigma lens better in comparison. Check it out. I think you will like it. I personally guarantee you will like that lens for what you are looking for. IT is built like a brick and has good ED glass.

 

[Montana]

The 70-200 f/2.8 by Nikon is a nice lens. :mrgreen:


Personally I am getting the 70-200 because my 18-200 doesn't have enough reach, and I'd prefer to have quality glass when I upgrade rather than getting something like the 70-300. With a teleconverter I'll get over 500mm zoom while still being able to handle low light, fast shots, etc.

Uhhh...what? :er:

 

[ecnal]

I was thinking about the Sigma, but I think I've decided on the 55-200 for now. The main reason being price, or rather, payment.

My work has a 'rewards' program for referring customers. You get points and you can use those points towards an online catalog of stuff, or gift cards.

And I already bought 200$ worth of gift cards to best buy. And they don't sell the Sigma lens (not that I can find on their website, anyways).

So I think I'm already locked into the 55-200.

 

[ecnal]

Unless, of course, someone wants buy but two 100$ Best Buy giftcards.

 

[SrBiscuit]

The 70-200 f/2.8 by Nikon is a nice lens. :mrgreen:


Personally I am getting the 70-200 because my 18-200 doesn't have enough reach, and I'd prefer to have quality glass when I upgrade rather than getting something like the 70-300. With a teleconverter I'll get over 500mm zoom while still being able to handle low light, fast shots, etc.

Uhhh...what? :er:

i was confused by this as well...the reach is the same, but the range is different, no? and won't a teleconverter degrade your IQ?
i don't know much in this area, so i could be way off.:blushing:

 

[benlonghair]

I've got the Nikon 70-300 5.6 VR. It's basically a 450mm lens. Great piece of glass, I picked it up for $460. Well worth it, imo. The VR is great and, while it is a light hog, its nice and sharp.

 

[inTempus]

The 70-200 f/2.8 by Nikon is a nice lens. :mrgreen:


Personally I am getting the 70-200 because my 18-200 doesn't have enough reach, and I'd prefer to have quality glass when I upgrade rather than getting something like the 70-300. With a teleconverter I'll get over 500mm zoom while still being able to handle low light, fast shots, etc.

Uhhh...what? :er:

i was confused by this as well...the reach is the same, but the range is different, no? and won't a teleconverter degrade your IQ?
i don't know much in this area, so i could be way off.:blushing:

Yeah, that comment was way out in left field.

The "reach" between the two lenses is the same (200mm). A teleconverter will force you to go up a stop, so you loose your fast aperture setting. And you don't get "500mm", the "crop factor" doesn't change the focal length, only the field of view.

 

[Josh220]

Uhhh...what? :er:

i was confused by this as well...the reach is the same, but the range is different, no? and won't a teleconverter degrade your IQ?
i don't know much in this area, so i could be way off.:blushing:

Yeah, that comment was way out in left field.

The "reach" between the two lenses is the same (200mm). A teleconverter will force you to go up a stop, so you loose your fast aperture setting. And you don't get "500mm", the "crop factor" doesn't change the focal length, only the field of view.

Same difference. It'll still be acting like a 500mm with the teleconverter. Granted the 70-200 isn't "turned into" a 300mm, but it does act as 300mm on a DX body due to the crop factor. I didn't think it was that confusing, I just assumed everyone knew the DX vs. FX affects on lenses. My mistake for not clarifying.

 

[dxqcanada]

Lens focal lengths are always the same no matter what sensor size you have.
Lenses made specifically for non Full-Frame sensors have a smaller circle of illumination.

A smaller sensor has the same effect as cropping a Full-Frame image.
It makes the appearance that the focal length is longer.

 

[Josh220]

Lens focal lengths are always the same no matter what sensor size you have.
Lenses made specifically for non Full-Frame sensors have a smaller circle of illumination.

A smaller sensor has the same effect as cropping a Full-Frame image.
It makes the appearance that the focal length is longer.

That's what I stated in my previous post. It doesn't turn the focal length into something new, but it does act longer. 1.5x crop means you add 100 onto 200. Obviously it's not going to change the lens, we are talking about 2 separate pieces of equipment. One cannot physically change the other. It does however change it's affect on the image, hence why I stated the 70-200 will act as a 300mm. With a teleconverter, it will act as over 500mm.

Again, I should have clarified but I assumed everyone knew this. Regardless, it is besides the point because it does not pertain the the intent of this thread, and should not have been taken so far off topic. If you'd like to debate about how the 1.5x crop factor impacts lenses, create a new thread and I will be happy to give my input.

 

[dxqcanada]

Josh, sorry about that ... I think I was reading something else while replying :er:

... I think this Post ended some time ago.