Nikon D40 users Lens help

[D40]

Thanks Garbz, I will start looking into the D80. Thanks for the help

 

[sabbath999]

The 18-200 is poor. It has a very long range but that's it. It has worse sharpness CA vignetting and massive distortion at the wide angle compared to the above listed much cheaper lenses. It suffers from lens creep, but at least it has VR, thank god too I mean there must be something in this to even remotely justify the cost.

Respectfully, I have a different opinion as an owner and long-time user of this lens.

We like our 18-200. I has no lens creep whatever (after 6 months of use and 30K+ pictures taken with it in temps from well below freezing to well above "hotter than heck"), but that is not to say that others in the line don't... only that the one that we own doesn't creep.

I don't have any idea how it would perform on shooting test patterns. I have never felt an artistic need to actually shoot a test pattern, since really they are kind of boring.... so I don't know anything about the distortions. I have never shot a brick wall in my life. Again, they are boring, and I really have no idea why anybody would want to.

You can use it to take good pictures, and carry one lens instead of 3. It is sharp, behaves well and the VR works exceptionally well.

I am not just being one of "those guys" who has to defend previous purchases. See my comments about my 105 VR Macro in other posts to support this.

The 18-200 VR is an everyday working lens for us, and we take a lot of pictures. Whether those pictures are of adequate quality is for y'all to decide.

Having said all of this, if I were in the original poster's position it would not be my next lens purchase. It is a "jacknife" lens, and an expensive one at that. If I were the original poster, I would keep the kit lens and get a 55-200 VR for cheap, and then go out and use the dog-snot out of my equipment... upgrading when the equipment becomes the limiting factor, and selling the D40 with the two lenses as a "kit", upgrading to the D80 (or the D90 by that time) or the D300 in a year or so.

No, I am not saying that the 18-55 Kit and the inexpensive 55-200 VR lenses are "the best money can buy", far from it. But you can take good pictures with them (the limiting factor is generally always the skill of the photographer, not the equipment... if this wasn't true, all you would have to do to be the second coming of Ansel Adams is to buy the most expensive equipment), and they are inexpensive. IMHO the 55-200 is a great lens "for the money"... keeping in mind that it is a slow, plastic consumer grade lens... but it is also just a few dollars more money than a Big Mac and a jumbo order of fries.

 

[D40]

Sabbath999: Thanks for another great answere, I really Like answeres that explain things and then give opinions. You do have a very good point about waiting a year or so for the new Nikons to come out before I upgrade. Now, if I can afford the 70-300mm VR do you think I should get it over 55-200mm VR? Thanks

 

[sabbath999]

My answer to that one is "depends". Sorry to give you that kind of an answer, but it is the truth.

I do not own either lens (I use other lenses for telephoto, including my beloved but totally unsexy Tamron 70-300 zoom and a Sigma "BigMa" 50-500), but I have shot with both of them on my D40 (thanks to my buddy Doug).

Both lenses are slow, consumer grade and have lots of plastic on them...

The 70-300 is larger, heavier and a twice as expensive. It does, however, feature Third Generation VR, as opposed to the 55-200's Second Generation. Nikon rates the third generation as up to 4 stops improvement,
and the second generation as up to 3 stops improvement.

The 55-200 is tiny (I was surprised at how small it was). It uses 52 mm filters on the front, so you know the glass isn't very big. It is very light, and easy to carry around.

Quality wise, the 70-300 is better. Then again, it costs twice as much. Neither lens holds a candle to Nikon Pro lenses quality wise, but we all know that... they are also a LOT less money and a lot smaller.

Ok, now, I will get back to my "depends".

I am not one of those "lens guys" who can thrown numbers out there, and who shoots test paterns. I have no idea which lens has the better barrel distortion or better chromatic aboration. Nor do I care. All I care about is which is the best tool for the job considering the cost.

The real differences in zoom lenses appear mostly on the "wide" end. The 15mm gap between the 55 and 70 of the short end sounds like a lot less of a gap than the 200 to 300 difference on the long end... but... in practice, it isn't.

Having said that, it is much easier to "zoom with your feet" on the short end than on the long end.

Like a lot of zooms, neither one of these lenses perform at their best at the extreme ends of their range (especially the long end). The 70-300 will take a lot better pictures at 200mm than the 55-200 wracked all the way out.

So... my question would be, how are you going to use the lens? If you are shooting mostly portraits, then either would work... but the 70-300 would be shooting mostly on the 70 end of it whereas the 55-200 would be in the middle of the range (the sweet spot).

If you are going to shoot sports (remember, both of these lenses are pretty slow and VR doesn't help at all with sports) the 55-200 doesn't auto focus nearly as fast.

Another issue to me that might mean absolutely nothing to you is the 55-200's manual focus system. It has the same AF/M switch that the kit lens does, instead of the MA/M switch. What that means is that with the 70-300 (like the 18-200 VR, the 105 VR Macro -- where that is absolutely critical -- and others in the line) you can just grab the focus ring and focus it where you want it. I come from a background of manual focus, so I use this a lot. People raised totally in the age AF might not find this an important feature.

Another big difference is that the mount on the 55-200 is plastic. I hate plastic mounts. I have no idea why camera companies do this, that little bit of metal can't be very expensive. VERY annoying.

No real help so far, you prolly already knew all of this.

To me, the dealbraker and decision maker is the fact that the 55-200 is a DX lens and the 70-300 isn't. That means that the 55-200 can only be used on DX digital cameras (or cameras like the new D3 set it DX mode... why in the world anybody would WANT to cripple a full frame sensor is beyond me though). Basically, it means "no film" and "crippled digital upgrade path".

Now, of course we are only talking about a $250 lens here, one with a plastic mount. Basically, it is a throw-away lens.

But... the 70-300 isn't. It will work on film, the new D3 (I, like many others, think that larger sensors that won't use DX lenses to their full extents, are the future of digital over the next 5 years), it is better built, focuses faster and is only $250 more.

I would (if I had the money) buy the 70-300 HANDS DOWN if you are serious about doing telephoto work but wanting to stay in a $500 or under budget shooting a D40 or D40x.

But that is me.

 

[D40]

Sabbath999: You came to a very similar conclusion I did as I read about the 2 lens. For me (like you) I hate the plastic mount, it just bothers me. 2: Like you said about the focus ring, I really don't like were they put it on the 18-55 and 55-200, very annoying. 3rd: I have heard the 70-300 performs better than the 55-200 in the 70-200 range. B&H has the 70-300 for around $479 so it looks like I will be shooting for that. As far as what I will be using it for, Portraits is some of it as well as in town events (Fair's, Outdoor Concerts, Small events) so it should perform well. Also zoo shots should come out great with that lens. You have been most helpfull and I appreciate it!

 

[shivaswrath]

so what did you end up getting?

I actually have the "throw away" 55-200mm Nikon with VR lens you guys were bashing, and to be honest, the lens is pretty amazing despite it's shortcomings. . .for $219 and it being the ONLY lens on my D40x, it's a good choice against the kit lens (for me). . .I am, however, on the prowl for a macro lens indoors since the 55 is a bit to intimate for my shots. . .

Glad to read that the 18-200mm Nikon VR II (or III) lens has some limitations, at $699 right now, it better give me a hand job since it's not a pro level lens and is charging near that. . .

 

[tedgtfan]

Sabbath999: Thanks for another great answere, I really Like answeres that explain things and then give opinions. You do have a very good point about waiting a year or so for the new Nikons to come out before I upgrade. Now, if I can afford the 70-300mm VR do you think I should get it over 55-200mm VR? Thanks

I can't say either way on the 18-200mm, but I upgraded to the 70-300mm vr and I really enjoy the lens. I also have the 55-200mm kit lens and just the extra 100mm really comes in handy. I rarely use the 55-200 anymore.

 

[itoncool]

It's not about bashing 55-200, it's a good lens, don't get me wrong but I would recommend the OP to go with the 70-300 (get the VR) too.

First, the VR II in 70-300 is better than VR I in the 55-200. Nikon claims to have 4 stops better with VR II, but I think you'll achieve 4 stops better only if you have a great hand-hold technique or VR in your hands. 3 stops faster is more reasonable, and that still a huge help.

2nd, 70-300VR has better built.

3rd, 55-200 is a DX lens, I'm not agains DX lenses, I own 2 DX lenses (17-55 & 12-24) and I love them, but if I have a choice between DX and non-DX, I'm leaning to the non-DX.

4rd, the gap between 55 to 70 is less noticeable, but between 200 to 300 is huge and very useful.

In the other hand, the 55-200 is cheaper, lighter and smaller, it's capable of producing great (I really mean great) pictures as well as the 70-300.

 

[shivaswrath]

well i got the 55-200mm VR lens ($219) as my first lens. . .but am trying to fill in the gap now, probably with either a 18-50 kit lens or Sigma 18-50 HSM f/2.8 lens, still trying to figure out the $$$!!

the 70-300mm with VR2 was out of my budget, as was the 18-200mm VR2; but I need to save up for something as I get better, right? thanks for suggestion guys. . .

 

[sabbath999]

I was reading through the question, about to answer it, thinking "sheesh, I answered a question JUST LIKE THIS ONE a week or two ago... can't people use search!"

Then I saw my ugly mug and realized it was a bumped post.

Sometimes, I am a complete moron.

 

[calbundy]

Noobie here. I have had the D40x for about a year and want a 70-300 lens for shooting gymnastics. We currently have a 55-200 lens (suggested to us by the shop that sold us the camera, Cord Camera) and need more zoom. I know absolutely nothing about all of the technical aspects of lenses and would like suggestions for the 300 lens for indoor gym shots. I don't want to spend tons of money, but have noticed that most lenses are $500+. Are there cheaper alternative brands, besides Nikkor, that will fit the bill? I don't quite understand all of the tech talk about lenses and assumed all were Auto Focus and assumed any lens would fit any camera (told ya I was a noob ).
Thanks

 

[KmH]

but they dont make AF-S primes

Sure they do:

AF-S 35mm f/1.8G ($200, new)
AF-S 50mm f/1.4G ($445, new)

 

[Darkhunter139]

I just picked up the 55-200mm VR lens from adorama.com yesterday refurbished for $149.95 on sale. I know you were saying you did not like the build quality but for that price you might change your mind

2166B Nikon 55mm - 200mm f/4-5.6G ED-IF AF-S DX VR (Vibration Reduction) Autofocus Zoom Lens - Refurbished by Nikon U.S.A.

Next I want some kind of wide angle lens for my D40 do you have any reccomendations?

 

[KmH]

I just picked up the 55-200mm VR lens from adorama.com yesterday refurbished for $149.95 on sale. I know you were saying you did not like the build quality but for that price you might change your mind

2166B Nikon 55mm - 200mm f/4-5.6G ED-IF AF-S DX VR (Vibration Reduction) Autofocus Zoom Lens - Refurbished by Nikon U.S.A.

Next I want some kind of wide angle lens for my D40 do you have any reccomendations?

How wide do you want to go and what's your budget.

You can find good used examples of the AF-S 12-24mm f/4G for about $700.

The AF-S 10-24 f/3.5-5.6G is less expensive but, obviously, is a variable aperture zoom and harder to find.

 

[Darkhunter139]

I guess my budget will probably be like 500 unless I could get something cheaper. Im willing to buy used and refurbished as well.