D40 stock?

[Markw]

Does anyone have shots taken with the D40s stock lens without any PP? I would love to see them as examples.

Mark

 

[Markw]

Sorry, didnt realize I posted in the wrong thread/forum.

Mark

 

[Markw]

Ok, well lets restate that and say any nature & wildlife pictures taken with the stock lens.

Mark

 

[TrickyRic]

I still use my 18-55mm Nikkor for close up shots and have no problems. What troubles are you experiencing?

My post processing generally only extends as far as recrops, dust removal, and the occasional exposure enhancing that comes from stubbornly refusing to work with Flash unless absolutely forced to do so. My shots can be found at http://picturepostbox.com/TrickyRic/1/profile.php or http://trickyric.etsy.com.

 

[Markw]

Not any. I am deciding whether to buy the body and different lenses or the body with the lens and buy more lenses ontop of it.

Mark

 

[TrickyRic]

Ah I see.

I use the standard 18-55mm Nikkor that comes with the D40, and a 55-200mm matching lens. These days you can get the 200 in a VR model but at the time of my purchase it wasn't available. To this date I've had no need for a longer range lens and since I'm mostly a nature photographer, the specifications of both lenses are fine 99% of the time. For the price, I don't really think you can go wrong with Nikkor.

Be warned however, that you'll likely find yourself switching lenses more often than you'd like. If you're not comfortable with the greater risk of having to clean your camera sensor and you don't mind paying some extra cash and carrying a heavier lens around, you might want to look at the 55-200 Nikkor or similar.

Oh, and it's worth noting that 18-34mm isn't nearly enough of a range to take decent wide angle shots. It's really only useful for close up shots. If you want to dabble with wide angle, you might want to leave out the 18-55 entirely and get say a 28-200 lens and a wide angle lens.

 

[epp_b]

Image quality has more to do with lenses and the thing behind the camera than bodies.

Oh, and it's worth noting that 18-34mm isn't nearly enough of a range to take decent wide angle shots. It's really only useful for close up shots. If you want to dabble with wide angle, you might want to leave out the 18-55 entirely and get say a 28-200 lens and a wide angle lens.

Huh? That doesn't make very much sense. 28mm is wide on a full frame, but not on a crop frame. 18mm is when things start to get wide on a crop frame.

 

[Overread39 2]

I agree - really good lenses are worth far more than a really good camera body!
Though for the record one should never fear changing lenses whilst shooting - you are using an SLR camera for the advantage of interchangable lenses so take advantage of it. Modern editing can take out most dustspots with ease - and if you are in a horrible situation (like a duststorm) then just use a small bag held over the kit whilst you change and you should be fine.
For nature so far all I have is my 70-200mm and a 1.4 teleconverter - I find that a very good combo when in zoos and sactuaries - out in the field I find it a little short (one needs very good fieldcraft skills to really get those closer shots). 300mm is often the best or most used wildlife focal range, though if you are looking at a 300mm lens with zoom you really do need to be careful since many of them are cheap end lenses -- made to do a lot for very little - and thus are generally soft lenses.
And yes your kit lens will be fine for landscape shots - the only step up would be something like a 10-20mm sigma lens for some really wide angle shots,

 

[TrickyRic]

Huh? That doesn't make very much sense. 28mm is wide on a full frame, but not on a crop frame. 18mm is when things start to get wide on a crop frame.

I was meaning that for wide angle photography, 18-34 doesn't get you very far. I use my 18-55mm lens for close up shots, i.e. shots where the subject is right in front of you and you need a sharp focus.

 

[Markw]

So any opinions on the sigma or tamron 70-300 lenses?

Mark

 

[Markw]

bump.

Mark

 

[epp_b]

I was meaning that for wide angle photography, 18-34 doesn't get you very far. I use my 18-55mm lens for close up shots, i.e. shots where the subject is right in front of you and you need a sharp focus.

Oops, sorry, I misread your comment. Forget it

Although, I still don't get what you're trying to say here:

Oh, and it's worth noting that 18-34mm isn't nearly enough of a range to take decent wide angle shots.

Anyway, the 18-200mm has gotten great reviews and it's a fantastic range to have all in one lens. 18 is reasonably wide on APS-C and 200 is good general-use telephoto.

So any opinions on the sigma or tamron 70-300 lenses?

Nikon makes a 70-300G lens for $150 MSRP. It won't AF on the D40, but I'm considering it myself just because it's a decent telephoto lens for so cheap. Apparently, it makes for a great lens as it goes soft between 200 and 300mm and has a rounded, 9-blade aperture.

 

[Markw]

I will have to consider it, but I really like the idea of autofocus. So, now what about the Tamron or sigmas? And dont think im not unappreciative of it because Im still asking about the other brands, I am. I just would still like to know. Thanks though.

Mark

 

[agrteknolan]

Does anyone have shots taken with the D40s stock lens without any PP? I would love to see them as examples.

Mark

Here you go:

http://www2.agrtek.net/2008/07/15/aimee-close-up/

EXIF information model NIKON D40 exposureTime 10/600 s fnumber f/5.6 isoEquiv 200 flashUsed Yes focalLength 55 resolution 3008x2000 Original



http://www2.agrtek.net/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/dsc_0986a.jpg

 

[Markw]

Did you use the body flash or external flash for this? BTW. beautiful shot.

Mark