D80 vs 400D/D40x

[Jestev]

I don't know how much the non AF-S lenses are since I haven't really researched them. YOu can get a 55-200mm AF-S VR lens for about $230. If you want a little more zoom and better quality lens in all aspects, you can get the AF-S 70-300 for around $470 from B&H. I decided to spend less on the camera body (D40) for now and invest the money in a quality lens like the 70-300 VR. This way when I eventually upgrade in a couple of years I'll have an overall better package. Plus the D40 w/ AF-S 70-300 VR lens won't be too shabby at all and will take excellent photos.

The 70-300VR is a pretty decent lens, but, because it's so slow, it isn't necessarily worth its price. This same thing can be seen in the 18-200VR.

 

[basil4j]

The 70-300VR is a pretty decent lens, but, because it's so slow, it isn't necessarily worth its price. This same thing can be seen in the 18-200VR.

Hmmm, I've heard those 2 mentioned alot.
I would think i'd need a bit of a faster lense for animal/bird photography?

I know there is no on size fits all lense, but what lense would one recommend as a starting point for each of the 400D/D40x/D80.

Ideally I wouln't want it to set me back much more than the twin lense kit for each.

 

[In2daBlue]

The D40 seems like it would serve your purposes if you just want to shoot landscape and animals. It takes fine images, especially if you have nice glass on the front. The lens will really matter more in terms of image quality than the camera body (between the D40 and the D80).

If you want to take your photography to different places though you may consider the D80. It will be a camera that will become outdated before you outgrow it, I would imagine. It does a lot and offers a lot of manual range.

 

[NateS]

The 70-300VR is a pretty decent lens, but, because it's so slow, it isn't necessarily worth its price. This same thing can be seen in the 18-200VR.

Because it's slow? Not trying to argue, but show me a better zoom lens that can reach 300mm and give sharp photos for under $500. Sure you can get a faster lens, but you'll be in for around a grand or more. For the money, the 300mm is a steal in my opinion and it's speed is the only downfall. I've seen hundreds of incredibly clear photos with the lens, including birds and other wildlife.

By the way, I'm being serious. Please show me if there is a better lens under 500 that covers similar focus range, and AF-S or HSM. If there is a better lens for the money, I'd like to find it before making my purchase in a couple months.

 

[NateS]

Hmmm, I've heard those 2 mentioned alot.
I would think i'd need a bit of a faster lense for animal/bird photography?

I know there is no on size fits all lense, but what lense would one recommend as a starting point for each of the 400D/D40x/D80.

Ideally I wouln't want it to set me back much more than the twin lense kit for each.

You don't need a faster lens than the 70-300 for bird photography. Do some searches. There are hundreds if not thousands of incredible photos taken of birds using this lens. I'll PM you a litle more info on where to search.

 

[basil4j]

That would be great thanks

 

[Jestev]

Because it's slow? Not trying to argue, but show me a better zoom lens that can reach 300mm and give sharp photos for under $500. Sure you can get a faster lens, but you'll be in for around a grand or more. For the money, the 300mm is a steal in my opinion and it's speed is the only downfall. I've seen hundreds of incredibly clear photos with the lens, including birds and other wildlife.

By the way, I'm being serious. Please show me if there is a better lens under 500 that covers similar focus range, and AF-S or HSM. If there is a better lens for the money, I'd like to find it before making my purchase in a couple months.

It all depends on what you use it for. If you need a telephoto lens for indoor things, or for when there's low light, the 70-300VR is most likely not the lens for you simply because it is too slow.

I'm hoping to get a new telephoto lens because I need a faster, better lens than what I have (70-300 f/4-5.6G) for indoor shots because I just started doing some shooting for a newspaper. I'm thinking about the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 simply because its cheaper and a little bit smaller than the Nikkor version. (I don't have tons of money to spend on nice glass.)

I've also used the 70-300 outside before when it was far too slow to capture any birds or anything. Even without the extra 100mm, a 70-200 f/2.8 is often a better choice simply because it is faster and has better IQ. If you want to freeze motion (often what you need to do in bird photography) a faster lens is essential. Granted extra focal length helps, but if your initial image is sharp and you have good IQ, you can crop a little bit. In bird photography, 300mm a lot of times isn't enough. Many big birders use 400mm+ primes and rarely use zoom lenses.

Granted my personal experience isn't with the new 70-300VR which has better optics and AF-S which certainly both make it better than my version, but it is still a slow lens (even slower than mine by a little bit) for a very large focal range/length.

Also, just because a lens is cheaper now doesn't necessarily mean you'll be saving money in the long run. If you think that you will be held back by it at some point, spend a little more and get something better.

If you don't think you'll ever be held back by the 70-300VR then go ahead and get it--don't let my posts stop you. I'm simply saying that from my research and personal experience a 70-300VR isn't always worth the money (like the 18-200VR), and that's why I ended up not buying one when I almost did a few months ago (both lenses actually). It all depends on what you want to pay, what you expect from your images, and what you expect for your photography in general.

 

[NateS]

Thanks, I'll have to check out the 70-200 f2.8. I didn't realize that it was comparable in price to the 70-300. Thanks for the info.

 

[basil4j]

Gotta run, but I have read your post and will absorb it

Thanks for the input! Keep it coming!

 

[Jestev]

Thanks, I'll have to check out the 70-200 f2.8. I didn't realize that it was comparable in price to the 70-300. Thanks for the info.

Oh, it's not in the exact same range, Nate. The Sigma is $600-800. It's worth the price difference of course, but it is slightly more. Sorry to mislead you there.

 

[NateS]

Oh, gotcha. Well saving the $500 is a reach for me, so saving a couple hundred past that might not be feasible for me. However, most if not all of my planned uses are for outdoors of squirrels, stationary birds in our backyard, zoo trips, etc... I really don't think I'll need the faster lens since I'll be outdoors on nice days when using this lens.

Anyway I'll agree that it's on the slow side but for my uses, it's probably the best bet. I'll probably eventually upgrade to a faster zoom but that will be many years down the road when/if our baby gets into sports.

 

[Jestev]

Oh, gotcha. Well saving the $500 is a reach for me, so saving a couple hundred past that might not be feasible for me. However, most if not all of my planned uses are for outdoors of squirrels, stationary birds in our backyard, zoo trips, etc... I really don't think I'll need the faster lens since I'll be outdoors on nice days when using this lens.

Anyway I'll agree that it's on the slow side but for my uses, it's probably the best bet. I'll probably eventually upgrade to a faster zoom but that will be many years down the road when/if our baby gets into sports.

Watch out for zoos. Over the summer, I went to the Dallas Zoo because I read about a competition there. It was always too dark to get anything good with my 70-300. I ended up getting Grand Prize in the competition (over pros, amateurs, and youth categories) after entering in the youth category with my trusty Nikkor 105mm f/2.5 AI-S. The winner shot was taken at f/2.5.

If you're saving up $500 and are thinking you may upgrade later, the extra few hundred dollars now makes more sense, in my mind. You'd pay $800 now versus $470 now plus $800 later (using B&H), but that may just be me.

Good luck and happy shooting.

 

[NateS]

Well, I could always get some money back out of the Nikkor lens selling it used. My problem is that with the new baby, the difference of $330 could take me 6 months or longer (maybe even a year) to save up. I'm not impatient by any means, but I'd like to have a nice zoom lens at least by this spring to take some good outdoor photos. I've seen some great shots with the new VR version handheld and you can hold a longer shutter speed with VR to compensate for the lack of speed.

 

[Jestev]

Well, I could always get some money back out of the Nikkor lens selling it used. My problem is that with the new baby, the difference of $330 could take me 6 months or longer (maybe even a year) to save up. I'm not impatient by any means, but I'd like to have a nice zoom lens at least by this spring to take some good outdoor photos. I've seen some great shots with the new VR version handheld and you can hold a longer shutter speed with VR to compensate for the lack of speed.

True it will make up a few stops, but I know I couldn't have gotten the shot even if I had the newer version. The exposure (f/2.5 at 1/320 sec, ISO 400) would have been hard to get using reciprocity on the 70-300VR, but the sharpness would have been even harder. AI-S primes are known for their sharpness.

I'm getting off topic... sorry. If you want the 70-300VR, don't let me stop you. Congrats on the new baby--hope you capture some great moments of his/her life with a Nikon.

 

[basil4j]

The D40 seems like it would serve your purposes if you just want to shoot landscape and animals. It takes fine images, especially if you have nice glass on the front. The lens will really matter more in terms of image quality than the camera body (between the D40 and the D80).

If you want to take your photography to different places though you may consider the D80. It will be a camera that will become outdated before you outgrow it, I would imagine. It does a lot and offers a lot of manual range.

Oops! Missed this one

Thanks for the thoughts. I do plan on taking photgraphy to 'different' places as you say, and possibly even sell my photo's (long term goal :mrgreen

The D80 would last me longer before I have to upgrade.

Is anyone using a D40x and selling thier photo's? For whatever, weddings, magazines etc?

It may be I chose the D80 over this 1 fact despite the coolness of the D40x

EDIT: Oh, and there are a few extra features I'd like to play with which the D40x seems to be lacking, eg Bracketing, more metering options, status LCD etc