next lens

Jestev · Oct 19, 2007

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

The larger the range of focal lengths that a certain lens has, the lower the image quality of the lens (on average). Because the 18-200 covers such a wide range, its image quality is slightly lower. Also, the 18-200 is still a pretty slow lens. The 18-200 also doesn't have the same level of optics (glass etc.) as the more expensive 17-55 because it is not in the "professional-level" that the 17-55 is. Of course, it isn't like you can't make great images with the 18-200. It's just not as good a lens as the 17-55.

There are many different interpretations of "image quality" but some of the most used are the level of sharpness in the image, the clarity of the image, the contrast in the image, the level of distortion caused by the lens, etc. Some also put the lens's speed into the "image quality" area (speed being largest aperture ex. f/2.8 in the case of the Nikkor 17-55 f/2.8 DX).

Amphoteric · Oct 19, 2007

where can I go online to learn about different lenses and all of the jargon means?

haris · Oct 22, 2007

Amphoteric said:
where can I go online to learn about different lenses and all of the jargon means?

try http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/nikortek.htm and http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/nikkor.htm

haris · Oct 22, 2007

currently i'm using the 18-55 and 55-200 kit lens..if i change to 18-200vr for my landscape/cityscape/general shot and sigma macro 105mm f2.8 for my macro shot, is it worth it? how about sigma 10-20mm HSM?

Jestev · Oct 22, 2007

haris said:
currently i'm using the 18-55 and 55-200 kit lens..if i change to 18-200vr for my landscape/cityscape/general shot and sigma macro 105mm f2.8 for my macro shot, is it worth it? how about sigma 10-20mm HSM?

Depends on what you mean by "worth it." Are you using photography as your profession? If so, then getting a Nikkor 17-55 f/2.8, Micro-Nikkor 105mm f/2.8, and Nikkor 12-24 f/4 (or 14-24 f/2.8) would make the most sense.

If you think that the slowness of the 18-200VR won't hold you back and don't want to spend a little more for a better IQ lens, go for it.

The Sigma 10-22 I've heard has some problems. I'd go with a Tokina 12-24. That's what I did and I don't regret it.

haris · Oct 23, 2007

are any good wide angle lens that is cheaper than the nikkor 12-24 and autofocus with nikon d40?

JerryPH · Oct 23, 2007

I own a D200 not a D40, but it looks like you are starting down the path I took in terms of lenses. When I bought the D200, I went right for the 18-200VR for a general lens and then I bought a Sigma 10-20 ultra-wide.

The 18-200 is a nice lens and if you are not going to get very serious about your photography will last you a nice long time. It does pretty well. Yes, the people that are a little more hard core will tell you that the picture quality is lower, and that is true, but it REALLY depends on what your needs are and what you are going to use it for.

For the beginner to intermediate photographer, it does a fine job. For the advanced photographer, you will hear them say that it focuses a little slower, and is "soft" or of lightly lower quality at either full wide or full zoom. I am very happy with it, even though I believe that I am starting to get into the higher end of the intermediate level and am bumping into it's limitations, I still find it a great walk-around lens.

You mentioned a wide angle, and I suggested the Sigma 10-20mm ultra-wide. An excellent lens that is a little expensive, but it does give excellent results and becuase it is a HSM model, will autofocus with your D40. I really enjoy this lens and if you go to places like flickr, you will see this lens has a very enthusiastic and happy following.

For macro work, I think that the Sigma 105mm F/2.8 has two good areas of expertise, one is macro work, and the second is for portraits. When most photographers take macro shots, they focus manually. If you decide on this lens, you will have no choice but to focus it manually all the time, as it is not HSM, but the results are very impressive with this 1 to 1 macro lens:

A simple RAM chip up close:

One small caveat... the 105mm is very good at portraits, but on our cameras, becuase of the smaller sensors, the 105mm becomes something akin to a 157mm, getting full body portrait shots means you have to stand quite far back, so the usage of this camera in terms of uses are limited a bit. A second thing is that this lens is so sharp, the tinyest of imperfections are visible. The smallest scratch, barely visible to the naked eye beomes very clear in macro mode. Scars, acne or skin tone changes are VERY clearly seen in portait shots. For example, looking at the chip above, one would think it would feel like sandpaper looking at it... but it feels very smooth. Thats the power of this lens... great detail.

Having said al this, my final suggestion is... for the beginner to intermediate photographer, I believe they will do well by you however, if you plan to get serious about your hobby, the weak area in your lens arsenal will be the 18-200 and as mentioned, to get something better, the functionality of the 18-200 may need to be replaced by at least two lenses. I've already invested in a Sigma 18-50 DC EX HSM Macro F/2.8 and see an increase in sharpness in my pics and it makes an especially nice portrait lens and a very good (but not excellent like the 105mm) macro lens. My next future lens consideration may be for something in the 50-200 F/2.8 range that is very sharp, but in the meantime I happily use my 18-200.

Just a little more food for thought.

Snyder · Oct 23, 2007

Jestev said:
Depends on what you mean by "worth it." Are you using photography as your profession? If so, then getting a Nikkor 17-55 f/2.8, Micro-Nikkor 105mm f/2.8, and Nikkor 12-24 f/4 (or 14-24 f/2.8) would make the most sense.

If you think that the slowness of the 18-200VR won't hold you back and don't want to spend a little more for a better IQ lens, go for it.

The Sigma 10-22 I've heard has some problems. I'd go with a Tokina 12-24. That's what I did and I don't regret it.

Ive been disappointed with the sharpness of the 17-55 a few times though it was at f/2.8