D300 or more lenses added to my d40

[zakery portfolio]

well first of you should see some of my work

Flickr: Zakery Portfolio's Photostream

that is my new flickr account..

all photographs there were taken with a nikon D40 with a 55-200mm lens

my question is should i buy a D300? or just more lenses for my D40?

i would really like a D300 with a 55-300mm lens or something like that but i dont know if its worth it.

if i dont reply on forums feel free to email me, or send me a pm on flickr

 

[epp_b]

If it's a question between a body or lenses, the answer is usually "lenses". In what ways do you feel the D40 limits you that a D300 won't?

It seems that you like shooting subjects from afar, to which the 55-200 is well suited. Personally, the 55-200 would be far too long to be my only lens. Without knowing what sort of photography you want to get into, I'd suggest the cheap-as-chips-but-good-optics 18-55 and also the best-lens-ever-for-the-price 50/1.8.

 

[anubis404]

Get a 70-200 F2.8 instead.

 

[Apex]

^I second that

 

[Pure]

For $1475 you can get a brand new D300 from BH.
For $1598 you can get a brand new 70-200mm f/2.8 from BH.

For $123 more than a D300, you can get Nikon's best tele-zoom lenses that will last much longer than a D300 body.

Lenses are made to last many many years, bodies only a few years.

Basically, invest in glass, not a body and work from there.

 

[Mike_E]

While you're sorting it out, get a used 18-70mm AF-S. Get a feel for some different ranges. You may find that you like Very wide lenses and go in that direction.

 

[jlykins]

Everyone says lenses before bodies, but at some point the body does limit you. The image processing power of the body along with the iso capabilities... I would get a D300 if I were you. If you want a 70-200 2.8 save a little and pick up the Tamron 70-200 2.8. Great piece of glass and costs about $700... Great photos by the way.

 

[dEARlEADER]

Everyone says lenses before bodies, but at some point the body does limit you. The image processing power of the body along with the iso capabilities... I would get a D300 if I were you. If you want a 70-200 2.8 save a little and pick up the Tamron 70-200 2.8. Great piece of glass and costs about $700... Great photos by the way.

yeah... i'll play devils advocate and go with that....

faster fps to get that perfect zoo moment
14 bit raw for greater image post processing
higher iso capabilites if it isn't so sunny out
mirror up for greater sharpness
higher pixel count for more aggressive cropping
a focus motor for greater lens flexibility

and a great many more....

Looks like you have a great copy of that little 55-200. You might want to look for a lightly used D300. They are not so expensive anymore since everyone is jumping ship for the full frame D700. Maybe suit it up with a used Nikkor 80-200 and you are not into much extra money. That Tamron 70-200 is slow but it's really sharp.... a good alternative...

 

[jlykins]

Ah, the Tamron isn't that slow. It's a little slower than the Nikkor, but I shot Gymnastics with it fine.

 

[NateS]

yeah... i'll play devils advocate and go with that....

faster fps to get that perfect zoo moment
14 bit raw for greater image post processing
higher iso capabilites if it isn't so sunny out
mirror up for greater sharpness
higher pixel count for more aggressive cropping
a focus motor for greater lens flexibility

and a great many more....

Looks like you have a great copy of that little 55-200. You might want to look for a lightly used D300. They are not so expensive anymore since everyone is jumping ship for the full frame D700. Maybe suit it up with a used Nikkor 80-200 and you are not into much extra money. That Tamron 70-200 is slow but it's really sharp.... a good alternative...

I'll agree with all of the above as well. A 70-200 VR on a D40 would be nice, but tracking a moving subject will be a lot easier with more than 3 focus points and the 3d tracking that the D300 has. Not to mention everything else that was listed above. D300 and save for the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 and you'd have a pretty nice combo I think.

 

[dEARlEADER]

I'll agree with all of the above as well. A 70-200 VR on a D40 would be nice, but tracking a moving subject will be a lot easier with more than 3 focus points and the 3d tracking that the D300 has. Not to mention everything else that was listed above. D300 and save for the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 and you'd have a pretty nice combo I think.

lol... can't believe I forgot to mention 50 thousand focus points with an insane focus tracking engine...

as for the Tamron.. I'm not putting it down... It's a fine 3rd party 70-200... If I were picking 3rd parties, I'd go with the Tamron. However, get see any good reason to pass up the flawless Nikkor 80-200 for the same price (aside from 10mm).

 

[Early]

The downside to more glass is you have to decide what to lug around for a shoot. Twas me, I'd save my butt off to upgrade to the D700, then maybe by the time I have enough, Canon and Sony would have put enough pressure on Nikon to drop the price, or the Yen to drop in value.

 

[dEARlEADER]

The downside to more glass is you have to decide what to lug around for a shoot. Twas me, I'd save my butt off to upgrade to the D700, then maybe by the time I have enough, Canon and Sony would have put enough pressure on Nikon to drop the price, or the Yen to drop in value.

lol... you on crack?

Nikon won't drop their lens prices by any significant margin.... they will remain unreasonably high in price for all eternity..

 

[AlexColeman]

Well, it all depends if you are feeling limited by the your current kit.

 

[Early]

lol... you on crack?

Nikon won't drop their lens prices by any significant margin.... they will remain unreasonably high in price for all eternity..

I'm talking about dropping the price on the D700.