next lens

[Hill202]

I think that brings you back to the 18 - 200 that some do not recommend. I have no experience with that lens.

 

[NateS]

I have no experience with that lens either. If I wanted one lens that I could leave on for most shots, then that would probably be my choice. I however don't mind swapping lenses for different needs, so I'd rather the 55-200mm VR and my kit lens both.

 

[haris]

any good lens for close-up? can i just use ultra wide angle or zoom lens for close up? or do i need a special macro lens?

 

[sabbath999]

any good lens for close-up? can i just use ultra wide angle or zoom lens for close up? or do i need a special macro lens?

Well, to do really top quality close up work (bugs, flowers, etc.) with a D40 you need a macro specific lens, one that is 1:1 like the Nikon 105 AF-S VR (if you care about autofocusing... which really isn't as big of a deal with macro since manual focusing is required a lot of the time to get it right).

There are many options, it just depends on how much money you want to spend. The 70-300 AF-S VR is a good lens, crisp and sharp with VR... for the money, the 55-200 AF-S VR is a good lens (considering it is only $250). Both are slow, however, so shooting fast action in low light isn't going to work.

There is the previously mentioned 18-200 AF-S VR, which is a nice lens (JIP's head is about to pop off when he reads this) that is kind of "jack of all trades, master of none"... but it is very overpriced for what it is. I own one, and have shot extensively with the other two (which I borrowed).

Personally, I use the kit lens, the 105 AF-S VR Macro or my Sigma 50-500 "BigMa" on my D40 (talk about OVERKILL on a tiny camera body).

Honestly, if I were you, I would consider taking that money and upgrading to the D80 instead of buying a bunch of slower, expensive lenses for your D40... the D80 can use a lot more lenses, like my beloved (but dirt-cheap... as in $100 brand new) Tamron 70-300 Macro.

This opens up a lot of options such as the 50mm 1.8 for $100, as well as most of the used AF lenses out there from the last 20 years of Nikon's system including some very, very inexpensive fast primes.

 

[itoncool]

No, you don't need any macro lens if you don't shoot macro that much.

I'm not a big fan of 18-200VR either but to me it's not a bad lens, you must to realize that every lenses have their own characteristic and none of them is perfect.

18-200VR is not the sharpest or fastest lens, but it's not made for that, and the result is still much better than any similar lens from any 3rd parties. Still good optics. These are the sharper & faster lenses : 17-55DX, 17-35, 28-70 or 70-200VR. (I put out primes)

18-200VR has Lighter weight and Compact size, you can compare it with any of those lenses above, and you have the winner, the 70-200VR is the worse.

18-200VR has a very versatile focal length, 18mm to 200mm, Practical, you just need 1 lens, it covers all you need for everyday use.
All of those above are sharper but look at the focal length, if you want to cover 18-200, at least you're going to need 2 of them.

18-200VR is cheaper, you want a better optic & wider aperture? then go with one of those above but you must spend more on any of those lenses, and again you need to buy 2 if you want to cover the range.

I would say, 18-200VR is practical, compact, convenient, light weight, versatile, and (not great but) good optic. Whether to buy it or not is up to you haris

 

[Hill202]

Well, to do really top quality close up work (bugs, flowers, etc.) with a D40 you need a macro specific lens, one that is 1:1 like the Nikon 105 AF-S VR (if you care about autofocusing... which really isn't as big of a deal with macro since manual focusing is required a lot of the time to get it right).

There are many options, it just depends on how much money you want to spend. The 70-300 AF-S VR is a good lens, crisp and sharp with VR... for the money, the 55-200 AF-S VR is a good lens (considering it is only $250). Both are slow, however, so shooting fast action in low light isn't going to work.

There is the previously mentioned 18-200 AF-S VR, which is a nice lens (JIP's head is about to pop off when he reads this) that is kind of "jack of all trades, master of none"... but it is very overpriced for what it is. I own one, and have shot extensively with the other two (which I borrowed).

Personally, I use the kit lens, the 105 AF-S VR Macro or my Sigma 50-500 "BigMa" on my D40 (talk about OVERKILL on a tiny camera body).

Honestly, if I were you, I would consider taking that money and upgrading to the D80 instead of buying a bunch of slower, expensive lenses for your D40... the D80 can use a lot more lenses, like my beloved (but dirt-cheap... as in $100 brand new) Tamron 70-300 Macro.

This opens up a lot of options such as the 50mm 1.8 for $100, as well as most of the used AF lenses out there from the last 20 years of Nikon's system including some very, very inexpensive fast primes.

I wish I had talked to you before I purchased the D40.

 

[sabbath999]

18-200VR has Lighter weight and Compact size, you can compare it with any of those lenses above, and you have the winner, the 70-200VR is the worse.

I am assuming that you mean that the 70-200 2.8 VR is "worse" in that it weighs more, costs more and has a more limited range... because in such minor things as image quality, speed, build, reliability and optics it is vastly, VASTLY superior to the 18-200 VR. They should not even be mentioned in the same sentence, the 18-200 should get down on its proverbial knees and bow in silent respect to the greatness that is the 70-200 2.8 AF-S VR.

 

[JIP]

why?

The 18-200 is a total waste of $700. It is soft at the extreme focal lengths I have no experience with this lens (I would not go anywhere near it) my info is from th ereviews I have read and experience with many other lenses of similar extreme focal lengths. Also I Can think of many lenses that are sooooooo much better for $700 (or more).

Mabye this 2.8

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/300487-GREY/Nikon_2148_10_5mm_f_2_8G_ED_DX.html

or how 'bout this (Not comp with D40 but still a 2.8)

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/92012-GREY/Nikon_1940_Telephoto_AF_Nikkor_180mm.html

There are so many por-grade lenses available for $700 or less why waste that money on a marginal at best lens.

 

[itoncool]

I am assuming that you mean that the 70-200 2.8 VR is "worse" in that it weighs more, costs more and has a more limited range... because in such minor things as image quality, speed, build, reliability and optics it is vastly, VASTLY superior to the 18-200 VR. They should not even be mentioned in the same sentence, the 18-200 should get down on its proverbial knees and bow in silent respect to the greatness that is the 70-200 2.8 AF-S VR.

Yes sabbath999, what I was trying to say is (70-200VR is the worse) in term of weight and size ONLY.
I separate each aspect in each sentences. I put several faster and sharper lenses (17-35, 17-55DX, 28-70 & 70-200VR) in one sentence. What I forgot to mention is the build quality and reliability, and all those lenses are way beyond 18-200VR.

 

[Jestev]

Lenses can last for decades; bodies last a couple of years.

My suggestion would be, if you can pay for it, get the Nikkor 17-55 f/2.8 DX. It is a beauty of a lens, has pretty good macro-ish abilities, has a wonderful focal range, built wonderfully, works on every DX-mount (its AF-S so it works on the Dinky40, too)... you won't be upset with your choice except for when your credit card bill comes.

The Nikkor 18-200VR is a pretty good lens for the vast range it covers, but it really isn't near the same league as some lenses that can be had for its price or slightly higher.

 

[sabbath999]

Lenses can last for decades; bodies last a couple of years.

My suggestion would be, if you can pay for it, get the Nikkor 17-55 f/2.8 DX. It is a beauty of a lens, has pretty good macro-ish abilities, has a wonderful focal range, built wonderfully, works on every DX-mount (its AF-S so it works on the Dinky40, too)... you won't be upset with your choice except for when your credit card bill comes.

The fact that lenses can last for decades but bodies last a couple of years is the reason I am not a fan of DX lenses... because I believe that the non-cropped sensors like the new D3 are the way of the future, which will make DX lenses obsolete. I own an 18-200 and a kit lens that came with my D40. My wife uses the 18-200 and loves it, so that is good enough for me... whatever it takes to make her happy. The kit lens is a $100 throw in that I could not care less about.

Every other lens I buy will be full frame compatible, so I am not limited to my choices of bodies in the future.

 

[Snyder]

Alright im going to stick up for the 18-200 vr lense, I took this photo with the 18-200, This is a great lense for aerial photography if you only have one camera. The D200 is perfect for taking photos in an F-16 with the very tight space inside.

 

[haris]

what about the ultra wide lens?

 

[Jestev]

The fact that lenses can last for decades but bodies last a couple of years is the reason I am not a fan of DX lenses... because I believe that the non-cropped sensors like the new D3 are the way of the future, which will make DX lenses obsolete. I own an 18-200 and a kit lens that came with my D40. My wife uses the 18-200 and loves it, so that is good enough for me... whatever it takes to make her happy. The kit lens is a $100 throw in that I could not care less about.

Every other lens I buy will be full frame compatible, so I am not limited to my choices of bodies in the future.

That is very true, but I would be very surprised to see the FX-format completely eliminate the DX-format within the next 5-10 years. I suppose it could happen, but I would pretty surprised.

The new Nikkor 24-70 is quite a great lens. I could really see buying that lens and using it on a DX-format sensor and switching to my Tokina 12-24 when I wanted a wider angle. It would work well on both my film and digital SLRs with a pretty great range. The only problem is that it is more expensive by the 17-55 (although I guess at this price range is $500 really that significant... I think so) and it is not very wide on my current DX-format D50. I can't really see myself switching to a pro-level FX-format for a long time, if ever. So, a DX-format lens makes the most sense. Granted, FX may come down into consumer/prosumer levels eventually, but I can't see that happening too soon. Perhaps the OP sees similarly.

To the OP: if you can afford the Nikkor 17-55DX, go with it. I've heard good things about the Tamron 18-50 f/2.8. You could try the Nikkor 18-200, but it isn't as optically powerful as some other options.

 

[haris]

To the OP: if you can afford the Nikkor 17-55DX, go with it. I've heard good things about the Tamron 18-50 f/2.8. You could try the Nikkor 18-200, but it isn't as optically powerful as some other options.

what do you mean by 'isn't as optically powerful as some other options'?