lens suggestions?

goodoneian · Apr 13, 2008

i'm in the market for a new lens for my d40x, but i really don't know what to get. i currently use a sigma dc 17-70mm macro, so i would like to get something that can produce better and sharper images than it can (if possible, which i'm sure it is). i want to get something with around the same focal length as my sigma, but i don't really want to go over 1,000 dollars. what do you guys suggest?

photogincollege · Apr 13, 2008

You might be able to find a used nikon 17-55 2.8 for a bit under a grand. The only other thing I can think of is maybe a few primes if you dont mind switching.

passerby · Apr 13, 2008

Maybe you can post couple pictures that you regard them as not sharp enough, because different people seem to have different view of sharpness.

Applefanboy · Apr 13, 2008

I would recommend the Nikon 17-55 F/2.8

goodoneian · Apr 14, 2008

i like the 17-55 f/2.8 nikon, but that's a bit expensive. what about this lens though?

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/277227-GREY/Nikon_2144_12_24mm_f_4G_ED_IF_DX.html#

a decent amount cheaper than the 17-55. does anyone have any experience with this lens?

JimmyO · Apr 14, 2008

What will be the main use for this lens?

goodoneian · Apr 14, 2008

pretty much everything i guess. i don't really focus on any specific areas. probably for landscape more than anything though

JerryPH · Apr 14, 2008

Applefanboy said:
I would recommend the Nikon 17-55 F/2.8

VERY expensive, and ironically, not the sharpest lens out there. The Sigma 18-50 is much sharper, less CA, less distortion, 1/3rd the price AND has a 3:1 macro tossed in for free.

There were 3 pro photography magazines that tested out the Sigma, Tokina and Nikkor. All 3 did independant tests and all 3 came out with the same results:

#1 - Sigma
#2 - Nikkor
#3 - Tokina

'nuf said.

goodoneian · Apr 14, 2008

JerryPH said:
VERY expensive, and ironically, not the sharpest lens out there. The Sigma 18-50 is much sharper, less CA, less distortion, 1/3rd the price AND has a 3:1 macro tossed in for free.

There were 3 pro photography magazines that tested out the Sigma, Tokina and Nikkor. All 3 did independant tests and all 3 came out with the same results:

#1 - Sigma
#2 - Nikkor
#3 - Tokina

'nuf said.

yeah, i'm sure thats a good lens but i don't really want to spend almost 1200 dollars for it. the 18-50 seems nice, but what is the difference between it and the 17-70 sigma that i have now aside from the constant f/2.8 and slightly different focal lengths? the 10-20 sigma seems like a good choice to me, even though it has some distortion but that wouldn't really bother me

Laurence · Apr 14, 2008

Perhaps consider some of the older lenses with appropriate adapters, and you could get some wonderful primes for peanuts! Even lenses made in the 70s and 80s can show better corner-to-corner sharpness. For instance, my Zeiss Flektogon 20mm f:2.8 is awesome wide open, and the sharpness equals the modern lenses. Just a thought.

bla · Apr 15, 2008

A nice, lightweight, and sharp prime lens that will give you a 50mm focal length on your D40x is the Nikkor 35mm. It's also damn fast at f/2.0 and is a beauty to work with...pure awesome. At 50mm, it'll be a jack-of-all-trades lens that you can leave on your camera during the day-to-day. Of course, the choice depends on whether you need a faster, sharper lens at 50mm, since you already have this covered by the lens you currently own.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/92011-USA/Nikon_1923_Wide_Angle_AF_Nikkor.html

Another nice lens is the Nikon 55-200mm f/4-5.6 VR. The real kicker is that it'll cost you 200$, and you'll get a very decent telephoto with the very handy VR feature. The lens isn't perfect, unlike the above mentioned prime, but I personally think it's a steal for the price. Not to mention it'll provide you with most of your telephoto and portrait needs.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/486717-USA/Nikon_2166_55_200mm_f_4_5_6G_ED_AF_S.html

Since you lean toward landscapes, you may be edging toward a shorter focal length for a wider angle. I haven't really looked in this direction, since I've been sticking with my 18-55mm kit lens. It's not very fast, but landscapes don't move very much. (Though I sometimes consider getting the VR version of this).

Give any lens purchase some serious thought before committing yourself. Consider your style and possible subjects. If you plan on finding some wildlife, you'll need a telephoto. Architecture normally requires a wide lens. Photojournalism will go great with that Nikkor 35mm or a 50mm f/1.8.

Good luck on your search.

JerryPH · Apr 15, 2008

goodoneian said:
what is the difference between it and the 17-70 sigma that i have now aside from the constant f/2.8 and slightly different focal lengths?

Well, besides the obviously faster lens:
- its much sharper
- the colours come out a touch warmer
- less distortion
- less CA
- less suceptibility to flare
- it has a 3:1 macro

Oh.. the lenses that the 2 posts above are recommending do not autofocus. You would need to focus them manually on a D40.

notelliot · Apr 15, 2008

in addition to what jerry said about the 17-55 not being that sharp (it -is- sharp, but so was my 18-70), you don't want that much weight on the front of a d40. i tried my 17-55, 85/1.4, and (not mine) 14-24 on the d40 for kicks. great optics, poor feel. you'd always be fighting to keep it from falling forward.

if you don't need the 2.8 constant, i'd look into a used copy of the 18-70 (200 or less, EASY). it's the same as nikons 17-55 in all areas except build quality and speed.

i was going to say check out the 16-85, but the more i typed, the more i realized how poor a choice this would be. for the price alone. 18-70 does a better job in a lighter package, at 1/3 the price.

goodoneian · Apr 15, 2008

JerryPH said:
Well, besides the obviously faster lens:
- its much sharper
- the colours come out a touch warmer
- less distortion
- less CA
- less suceptibility to flare
- it has a 3:1 macro

Oh.. the lenses that the 2 posts above are recommending do not autofocus. You would need to focus them manually on a D40.

hmm alright i'll definitely look into it. it would be nice to have the f/2.8 at all focal lengths now that i think about it. and yeah, i noticed that those other lenses would have to be manual focus. not toooo big of a deal, but i'd much rather have auto focus.

and to notellioit: my sigma lens is somewhat heavy as well, which gets kind of annoying at times so thank you for pointing that out about those lenses

goodoneian · Apr 15, 2008

one more question, since the 18-50mm sigma has maximum magnification of 1:3, does that mean it can focus closer or something than the 17-70mm sigma's magnification 1:2:3? sorry if this is a dumb question i'm just not sure what it means