Next Lens (and Camera) Purchase

[TickTockMan]

If you go with the XT (or better yet, the XTi) don't forget the lens compensation factor due to the fact that their sensors aren't full frame (unless you get one made specifically for DSLR's). I can't remember off the top of my head, but it's something around 1.5X. That means the 17-40 lens actually becomes something like a 25-60... which isn't really wide angle.

If you go with either of these cameras, I'd also highly HIGHLY recommend getting the vertical grip accessory. It makes a tremendous difference in handling.

I shoot an XTi with all Canon lenses (17-35L, 75-300, 28-105, and 70-200L). Mine are older lenses from when I carried an EOS 1n and an A2E. I don't shoot nearly as much as I used to, so I haven't upgraded to DSLR specific lenses.

The L series lenses are top notch. No weird color fringing or chromatic aberrations, tack sharp even wide open.

The guy I shoot with has an XT that is also a great camera, and he shoots the Tameron lenses. They are also good, but the build quality of the Canon is a bit more solid and precise.

OverlordXenu is 100% right though about the photographer making the picture. Lighting and composition is everything, equipment is secondary ... most of the time. Which is why I bought the 1n. Sealed body was a necessity for some of the sporting events I used to have to shoot in rain, sleet, snow and the occasional sandstorm for triathalons.

[gates_2]

1.6x on the XT... so the only really wide angle u can do is the 10-22- but thats not cheap

[Uncle Erik]

For walking around I like to use the Nikon 50mm f/1.8 prime on my D70s. No, it doesn't do wide angle, but was a hell of a deal for about $100 and has served me well for about 3,000 shots so far. On vacation in the Caribbean a couple months ago, that was the only lens I used. Could have used the telephoto and 18-70mm in a few places, but the 50mm worked out fine most of the time. I don't mind scooting around to frame stuff properly since moving gives me more perspective on subjects and more angles to see them from. For the price, I'd recommend picking it up. My father has a D40, and this makes for a nice, lightweight combo with sharp, excellent photos.

I don't know much about the wide angle lenses (yet), but there are several you could buy with enough left over for the 50mm prime.

[lan]

Originally Posted by M0T0XGUY

I've narrowed down my lens choice to either the 17-40L, or the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8. With the former, I expect better build quality, slightly better image quality, and a tighter quality control; but the latter offers more focal-flexibility and outright faster speed - assuming the lens is even usable at such a wide aperture.

You assume Canon has the better image quality and tighter quality control. That's not really the case IMO as there has been quite a bit of sample variation in the lenses I've tried.

Originally Posted by TickTockMan

The L series lenses are top notch. No weird color fringing or chromatic aberrations, tack sharp even wide open.

I disagree with this also. All lenses aren't created equal. I've gotten chromatic aberation sometimes.

[Towert7]

From the nikon Camp:
Nikon | Zoom Wide Angle AF Zoom Nikkor 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5D | 1998
Nikon | 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6G ED-IF AF-S VR Autofocus Lens | 2145
Both have IF, and thus should work fully on your D40.
Please note, that although that second lens may look darn close to the 18-200mm, it's designed for FF, so infer from that what you will.

Those would be the 2 I would look at for a wide angle to normal angle zoom lens. The 18-200 is more pricey, and is DX, for better or for worse. Although I have not used it (only seen pictures from it), my hunch is it's darn close to the 18-200VR.

They might not have as wide of an aperture as you would like, but at ~500$, that's about what you can expect in zooms unless you get primes, off brand, or some real old lenses.

The 17-55mm F/2.8 DX would also be nice, but it's more than you were looking to spend at around 1100$.

[M0T0XGUY]

Originally Posted by TickTockMan

...

OverlordXenu is 100% right though about the photographer making the picture. Lighting and composition is everything, equipment is secondary ... most of the time. Which is why I bought the 1n. Sealed body was a necessity for some of the sporting events I used to have to shoot in rain, sleet, snow and the occasional sandstorm for triathalons.

No argument there - a good photographer with an awful camera will always take better pictures than a novice with even the best DSLR on the market.

Of course, I've found that, even with my limited experience, large aperture lenses offer a sort of convenience factor which their smaller aperture counterparts lack - allowing for the taking of fabulous photos without a considerable amount of hassle. By that I mean, I've found it much more difficult to frame a successful shot (especially in poor lighting, or when photographing a moving subject) with my f/3.5-5.6 lens than with a friends f/2.8 lens. In almost every situation, that is, I've found myself taking better photos with less blur and a more professional quality when using a wider aperture lens such as the Tamron 17-50.

I realize that a more experienced photographer would have the ability to capture photos surpassing the quality of my own, and with a smaller aperture lens - but the easier it is for me to approach professional quality in my photography, the more value is yielded by a $600 lens investment.

[M0T0XGUY]

Just to toss out another possibility, assuming I stick with Nikon, how does the 24-85 f/2.8-4D stack up against other standard zoom lenses with similar focal lengths? I realize that the 2.8 aperture is not constant, and that the lens will probably lack sharpness unless stopped down considerably, but for $500 or so, this seems like a rather good deal.

[Towert7]

Originally Posted by M0T0XGUY

Just to toss out another possibility, assuming I stick with Nikon, how does the 24-85 f/2.8-4D stack up against other standard zoom lenses with similar focal lengths? I realize that the 2.8 aperture is not constant, and that the lens will probably lack sharpness unless stopped down considerably, but for $500 or so, this seems like a rather good deal.

It appears to be a lovely lens for the price.

[dj_mocok]

The thing is your camera is a D40, it won't focus with AF lenses, and 2.8 AF-S wide zoom lenses are $1000+ onwards.

Can't help you much there I'm afraid. Although if you don't mind doing manual focus, and not really a wide angle zoom, buying a used, well taken care of 37-70mm 2.8 is probably your best bet now in regards to price/performance ratio. Affordable lens won't get any better than that. Actually this lens was a pro lens a few years back, so really can't go wrong unless you want AF and super wide.

Switching brand in order to get other brand of so so lens is unwise.

About 24-85mm 2.8-4 lens, I don't have any experience with that lens, but I personally hate non-constant aperture zoom lenses.

[Towert7]

@dj_mocok. I think you ment 35-70mm, not 37. No biggie.

To the OP:
I think if you can hold out a few weeks, the 16-85mm VR nikkor (link) will be for sale. Again, not an ultra fast lens, but it covers the range you are looking at and has VR to boot.

It's interesting that you say you find it easier to frame pictures with a F2.8 lens compared to a F3.5. I haven't noticed any difference personally, but if you need an ultra fast mid range to wide angle zoom......... sadly....... they are pricey.