Recommend me some Nikon lenses to go with a D40x?

[||||||||||]

I know this is long, so I have made BOLD the parts that are important or questions that I have and would like answered.

Brand new here, so first I will introduce myself. My name is Chris. I am in no way a professional photographer nor do I claim to be. Just an average guy with a Nikon DSLR who loves taking pictures. I don't think I am an amazing photographer, but on the same token I don't think I am horrible. I would call myself average at best in the grand scheme of photography, though I have been told I take some professional looking photos (not that it makes me a professional, nor does it mean I agree with that assessment, just what I have been told).

That being said, I am getting bored with my current setup and wanted to slowly add some new lenses.

Here is my current setup:

Body:
-Nikon D40x

Flash:
-Nikon SB-800 Speedlight (just picked this up and have been playing around with it quite a bit)

Lenses:
-Nikkor AF-S DX 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR
-Nikkor AF-S DX VR Zoom 55-200mm f/4-5.6G IF-ED (basically, the two lenses that came with the D40x as an optional package when it was purchased new)

I wanted to add some form of the following lenses to my setup:
-Macro lens (this is probably what I am missing most right now, and am dying to pick one up)
-Some type of prime lens for portrait taking
-Maybe a wide angle lens of some sort
-Fisheye lens (though I think this would probably get the least amount of use, so I can't see paying that much for one)

Lately, I have been thinking about getting the below lens as well:
Nikon Imaging Products AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-140mm f 3.5-5.6G ED VR

Reason being, is that I like to take a lot of photos of my travels around Europe. I find that I am mostly using my 18-55 while traveling around, but I carry my 55-200 zoom lens (which is rather big and a PITA to carry) and switch them out a few times a day at least to take some pictures when the 18-55 just won't give me the reach I need or want. I thought that the above lens would be a good alternative that would give me the features of both lenses (maybe minus some of the reach of the 55-200mm) and would allow me to only carry one lens around with me all day. Then I could keep the other two lenses for when I know I am going to be taking general photos of no so distant objects, and then the 55mm-200mm for when I know I will be taking nothing but pictures where I need the extra reach.

Am I on the right track here, or am I missing something?

Now keep in mind, I am not rich, but I know lenses are expensive and I would expect to spend a decent amount for a good lens. Question is, do I need a $3000 lens? No, I don't. I would like a decent Macro, and a decent Prime, but the rest I am basically just looking to get the best lens for $300 (used) or so. If it absolutely isn't possible to get anything but garbage for $300, I would spend a little more.

So my main question is: what lenses would everyone recommend for me that would satisfy what I said I needed or wanted above? Are there any other lenses you think I would need or would ever want?

Thanks in advance.

 

[AKUK]

There are a lot of macro lenses out there and you also have the option to convert lenses via the use of reverse adapters and extension tubes. If you wanted to kill two birds with one stone, I would look at the Tamron SP 90 f/2.8 VC USD. A fantastically sharp lens that actually out performs the significantly more expensive Micro Nikkor 105mm f/2.8 VR. It also would be a great portrait lens too. I have the Nikkor, which is great but, I purchased it before the SP90 VC was available. I would have bought the Tamron if given the choice at the time.

If money is really tight, then you could invest in a 50mm f/1.8G and a set of Kenko AF Extension tubes. This will move the lens further away from the body and give you pretty powerful magnification. More so than the SP90 alone. Of course, if you are photographing really tiny insects, then a standard macro lens won't really cut the mustard. For example, a jumping spider 5mm in size will still be tiny in the frame with either of these set ups. For something that small, I would suggest looking at an old 28mm lens and reverse mounting it on the camera with an adapter. This gives crazy magnification, especially with extension tubes.

You will not have any in-camera metering or auto focus but, you can just chimp your exposure. If used in conjunction with off camera flash (especially one still attached via a bracket to the camera, then your exposure should remain constant once dialed in, as the very shot working distances will render the inverse square law moot. If you kill all ambient light with the shutter and aperture combo and only flash is being recorded, then you again won't have to worry about exposure changes and will also have much crisper images due to the action stopping power of the flash.

As for the wide angle lens, I wouldn't bother changing out your kit lens, unless you want an ultra wide angle. Then again, with a tripod, you can simply do panoramic shoots and stitch the images together later in Photoshop. Also, virtually all advantages of a wide aperture lens like a Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 can be overcome with a tripod too. As for a fish-eye lens, I simply wouldn't bother. You can create that effect inside Photoshop.

Personally, I would seek out the Tamron SP90 VC. If you can't stretch to a new copy, look for a mint condition one on eBay. It will serve equally well for flowers, larger bugs and of course portraits. I doubt you'll be disappointed with it, put it that way.

As for the 18-140mm, again, I wouldn't bother. If you want an all-in-one lens, sell the kit lens and your 55-200mm an buy either the 18-200mm or 18-300mm. The 18-140mm is going to offer you no benefits other than combining the other two and losing 60mm of zoom. Absolutely not worth doing.

Hope that helps.

 

[goodguy]

For macro you can do the 40mm Nikon, its made for DX body and is cheap.
For portrait and low light Nikon 50mm 1.8G
Since you have an old camera with very poor low light performance I will recommend only fast glass, slow glass will limit you to day light only.

 

[Overread]

Few thoughts:

1) I would not get a macro lens for macro photography with a focal length shorter than 60mm (50mm at a push but its not ideal). Once you drop below 60mm the working distance (distance from lens front to subject) gets very small indeed. This makes its hard to shoot and even harder to light (because you will be overshadowing the subject and you've very little space to fit in lighting options).
The 90mm mentioned above would be a great place to start and 90mm is a very well recommended starting focal length for macro work.
(for reference I own a 35mm, 65mm, 70mm and 150mm macro lenses - the 35mm is a nice little close up lens but I never use it for full macro shots unless its really the only thing I have to hand).

2) Fast glass (ergo lenses with a large maximum aperture - ergo small f number) are going to give you more light to work with; but on the flipside wider apertures means bigger glass which means more weight. You can lose a good chunk of that weight if you go with prime (single focal length) lenses instead of zooms. Sometimes those fantastic fast glass options just don't end up being as suitable as the slower lenses. It's really up to your own situation and fitness and how you want to and can shoot; so part of this is a judgement call on your part.

 

[KmH]

slow glass will limit you to day light only.

Not for every genre of photography, since the OP has a SB-800 speedlight.

If you get the 18-140 you can sell the 18-55.
The 55-200 you have is an OK lens but if you get the 18-140 I would sell the 55-200 too. The difference between 140 mm and 200 mm is about 1.5 steps.

 

[||||||||||]

Thanks for all the replies! Very helpful information in here so far. I do have a few more questions that have arose from reading these replies:

1. If I were to get the 18-200mm lens and sell my 18-55 and 55-200, am I losing any quality by basically combing the focal length of the two lenses into one? In other words, am I sacrificing anything, or is it literally like having the same two lenses in one package? I really like the idea of having one lens instead of two to carry around, as these two lenses get a lot of use when I am travelling around and I hate having to lug an extra lens, but if anything is being sacrificed by doing so, I will just keep what I have. Also, how does the 18-200 compare in size to the 18-55 and 55-200?

2. Is Tamron a step down from Nikon lenses in quality, or are they basically on par with what I might expect from a Nikkor lens? I like the idea of buying all Nikon lenses (can't explain it, and my logic is probably flawed anyways) but I would certainly consider an alternate brand of lens if quality is on par for a cheaper price.

Other than that, great advice so far. I definitely like the idea of killing two birds with one stone and getting a combination of portrait lens and macro lens, so I would give the Tamron SP90 a big consideration as long as you all say quality is on par with Nikkor Macros of a similar focal length.

One last question I have, not about lenses, but I don't want to make a new thread. I currently have the D40x as stated. It's perfect for me, as it is a smaller size which I like (more portable) does everything I need it to and more, and best of all, I am used to it and know how to use it (to some extent). I do at some point (it will probably be the last thing I buy, after lenses) want to upgrade my body. What would be a good upgrade from the D40x whose price would be justified by the quality of the upgrade? I don't use my camera for work (though at some point I wouldn't mind doing wedding shoots or automotive shoots on the side for some extra cash) and I like the somewhat smaller more portable size.

 

[goodguy]

18-200mm is a superzoom.
All superzooms are softer then regular kit lenses. They bring great flexibility but you pay with image quality, personally I wouldnt recommend them.

Tamron and Sigma make good lenses but some are better then others.
Some third party lenses are not as good as Nikon's, some are on par and some are actually better then Nikon's.

Upgrading the D40x ?
That would be a good idea, I have the Nikon D60 which I believe carries same sensor as your does and the low light capability of it is very poor and limiting!
Unless you use a flash low light is simply out of the question, noise is already there at 800ISO and 1600ISO is simply not recommended. 400ISO is really the highest I will go with it and get good clean image.

What to upgrade to ?
Any new Nikon camera you will upgrade to will be a huge upgrde from where you are now.
Nikon D3300 is the cheapest I would recommend and its a very good modern camera with impressive low light performance and image quality.
Above it you have the D5300 which was just replaced by the D5500, the D5300 is a step up from the D3300 and is also highly recommended.

If you can go higher you have the D7100 which currently is the best crop sensor camera Nikon makes and above it you are moving to the full frame section.

 

[AKUK]

With zoom lenses there are usually compromises to be made in some form or another. Because of the focal length range covered the lens has to correct for optical aberrations and distortions, etc. Sharpness usually takes a hit, often at the longer end, unless you pay big bucks for professional glass. The 18-200mm VRII is a pretty well regarded lens and if you've been happy with the 55-200mm VR up to now, the 18-200mm VR won't disappoint. They are convenient and flexible and that is why you buy a super zoom. Most professionals won't touch them because they want faster focus or faster apertures or greater sharpness. However, there are some legends like Jay Maisel who uses a 70-300mm VR at around ISO 1600 for street photography and his work is fantastic. Very few lenses nowadays are lemons and once stopped down even standard kit lens apertures produce very decent image quality.

Years ago Tamron, Sigma and Tokina were all considered the poor man's alternative to the OEM glass of Nikon or Canon. However, in recent years this is no longer the case. As Goodguy mentioned, all make lenses that are inferior, on par or better than some Nikon glass. This means that Nikon makes lenses that are inferior, on par or better than 3rd party lenses. Just because a lens is Nikon branded, it doesn't mean you have the best lens available. The SP90 VC is sharper than the Micro-Nikkor, especially at smaller apertures which is where most macro takes place due to the shallow depth of field and working distances. Tamron's 70-200 VC is also extremely good and virtually on a par with the Nikkor, despite being about £500 or more cheaper. That's nothing to be sniffed at.

Sigma have also gone to town on their glass of late, with their 35mm and 50mm f/1.4 art lenses delivering staggering resolving power even wide open. The latter is almost as good as the Zeiss Otus which is about £3k. Not bad for a lens that can be had for around the £600 now. The thing to do is look at what lens you require for your photography, then seek out the best for the price point. Some people just feel happy that they have a Nikon branded lens on their camera and "would never consider buying anything else", which is a ridiculous notion and a case of "fanboyism".

If you are looking to upgrade your camera body, then I too would suggest the D3300. I had one here and marveled at the size of it. Very diminutive and lightweight. Fantastic image quality and for the money, one of the best bang for buck cameras out there. The D5300 and D5500 are also worth a look too. The D7100 is a superbly well made camera and has a lot of professional features. Whether you'd use them all or not is something you'd have to ask yourself and whether buying something that much more expensive is actually going to benefit your photography.

 

[Braineack]

the D40 is smaller than the D3300 Feature wise it's the same camera with a MUCH better sensor.

OP what do you ultimately wanna shoot? the 18-200 pretty much just solves a convience factor.

 

[||||||||||]

OP what do you ultimately wanna shoot? the 18-200 pretty much just solves a convience factor.

Good question.

Right now, the things I enjoy shooting, or want to shoot are:
1. My travels around Europe. Everywhere I go that I haven't been before that I feel is worth photographing, I have my DSLR with me. Pictures I take include buildings, architecture, statues, landscape, inside of cathedrals, art inside of museums, etc.

2. I am a car guy, and therefore am into automotive photography. Right now, my automotive photography mostly includes cars at a standstill, posed for the picture. I have yet to take some "in motion" pics at a race track, but would like to venture into that category in the near future.

3. Close-up pics of family. This is why I want a dedicated prime "portrait" lens.

4. "Around the house" pictures. This is pretty vague, but basically I use my camera for many typical everyday photos. I figure the 18-55mm lens is perfect for this. Need to sell something and post it online? I grab my DSLR to take listing photos. Need to take a picture of something for reference later? I use the DSLR. Something wrong with the car that I need to take a picture of to ask a question a forum about it? DSLR it is..etc.

5. I haven't actually been able to do this yet, because I don't have a capable lens, but I have had several instances where I wanted to do some very closeup photos and haven't had a Macro lens to do it with. The biggest one I can think of is when I wanted to take some close up photos of a couple of my watches, i.e. of the dial and hands. I've had a couple other instances where I have needed a macro lens, and didn't own one.

That is basically the extent of my use right now. But, I would like to venture into wedding photography on the side to make a little extra cash, and maybe doing some automotive shoots on the side as well. Ideally, I am trying to get a dedicated lens for everything I might ever need them for. A ton of money is involved in that, I know, so I am trying to start slow, with maybe a macro/portrait combination

 

[AKUK]

1) The 18-200mm will cover virtually all scenarios. An 18-300mm more so. Lowlight situations involving landscapes and architecture can be overcome with the use of a lightweight travel tripod. You can get some very good quality ones for very little money on eBay. If you don't have one yet, check out the Q666. £50 and converts into a monopod as well. Very lightweight and well built. A friend of mine has one and I was very impressed to say the least. It comes with it's own ball head too for that money!

2) Car photography. Static object, so again tripod mounting is your best bet. Other than that a circular polarizing filter to remove unwanted reflections from the bodywork would be a step in the right direction if you don't have one already.

3) Any lens can be a used as a portrait lens. Obviously the more wide angle and close you go, the more distorted and unflattering it looks. It can be fun but if you want as aesthetically pleasing compression, go for a longer focal length, whether that's with a prime lens or a zoom.

4) Kit lens is fine around the house for general snaps. Even a lowlight prime often isn't enough in dark corners, so additional light sources are a better option that using a low light lens and still having to raise ISO up really high. Using a wide aperture prime and upping your ISO will result in soft images, unless you drop some serious dough on something like the Sigma 50mm Art, which is stupidly sharp wide open.

5) If you can't stretch to a dedicated macro straight away, invest in some AF extension tubes. You'll be amazed at what a difference this can make. You can get some for under £50, although I'd plump for the Kenko ones.

Lastly, wedding photography is something I would think long and hard about before venturing into. In nominal light conditions, any camera with decent optics will be fine but, since most take place inside churches or registry halls which often have heinous lighting, you need fast glass and a body that can handle high ISO. Some places don't allow you to use flash either, which is a double whammy. Not only that, if someone hires you to record their big day and your images suck as a result of your equipment not being up to the job, don't be surprised if you get sued. A car shoot you can take your time and always do over. You don't have that luxury with wedding photography.