[wakeride74]

My wife and I just bought this Nikon D40 package from Wolf Camera and while I have yet to try the larger lens I have already been reading around about the amazing differences average joe's like me are getting from lens upgrades. I'm already getting great shots but just want to make sure I'm not cutting myself short on what this camera can do by using $100 lenses.

We take a lot of low light, night and indoor shots so I just wanted to ask some of the pros here now that I have a decent camera if there is a specific lens I should consider as a great all-purpose lens for someone coming from a point and shoot world.

 

[RYCeT]

How much is your budget?
Once you got serious on lens, it can be very expensive. To get a good try what a good lens can do for you, try Nikon 50mm f1.8. It's cheap (around $90-$110) but it's sharp and will get you a quality near pro lens.
Tamron 17-50 f2.8 is another good budget lens which should be better than your current lens (18-55).
Not everyone need a pricier lens. Try the tamron, if you can't see the difference with your current lens, than be happy with it since it have saved you lots of money.
Once you go down the upgrade path on camera, it will cost you more than your headphone hobby.

 

[wakeride74]

Probably around $350.

I am pretty happy with the 18-55 that I have but I was reading about the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 HSM lens where people were taking shots in very low light and at night with great results and w/out the flash popping up or having to do any enhancements after the fact. Also lots of comments about images that were super sharp/crisp and colors coming through very nicely.

The low light thing is a big deal for me as I want to get shots of what I see indoors/low light/at night w/out using a flash while maintaining the true colors, light level and sharpness. Asking too much?

 

[HardHeadCase]

here is an example of what you will never see on a kit purchase. Large aperture lenses allow more light into the camera and that gives you 2 advantages. more depth of field and more light (using the flash less and being able to record at slower speeds as apposed to a darker lens) EG,,,50mm 1.8 is darker and much less desirable than a 50mm 1.8,,,,,,the lower the number the bigger the aperture and the better the lens

Nikon USA: AF NIKKOR 50mm f/1.4D

Also the bigger the lens the smaller the aperture will be. a 50mm is available in a 1.4 but a 180mm will never be available in a 1.4 aperture. Even if you found one it would cost as much as a small car. Another point is Zoom lenses are convenient, however they will typically have a smaller aperture than a fixed focal length lens. I have always had Nikon products and my favorite all around lens was a 135mm. Its great for tooling around with out a bag full of lenses and if you need to take a portrait of someone just stand a few feet back. I see Nikon has a 50mm 1.4, a 105 2.0 and a 135 2.0 for your camera. I say for all around stuff get a 50mm 1.4 for indoors and a 135mm 2.0 for trips to the zoo or whatever.

Your low light indoor shots will be much better with the 50mm 1.4

Sorry, one last thing. Always Always Always use Nikon lenses,,,,off brand lenses are like the free ear buds that come with Duracell batteries. Unlike some of the other SLR makers Nikon is a lens manufacturer and the difference in quality will be night and day.

Don't buy any Sigma or Tamron crap,,,,big mistake....

CameraAddict.com - Nikon*Normal AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D Autofocus Lens

 

[dj_mocok]

Quote:

Originally Posted by HardHeadCase /img/forum/go_quote.gif here is an example of what you will never see on a kit purchase. Large aperture lenses allow more light into the camera and that gives you 2 advantages. more depth of field and more light (using the flash less and being able to record at slower speeds as apposed to a darker lens) EG,,,50mm 1.8 is darker and much less desirable than a 50mm 1.8,,,,,,the lower the number the bigger the aperture and the better the lens Nikon USA: AF NIKKOR 50mm f/1.4D Also the bigger the lens the smaller the aperture will be. a 50mm is available in a 1.4 but a 180mm will never be available in a 1.4 aperture. Even if you found one it would cost as much as a small car. Another point is Zoom lenses are convenient, however they will typically have a smaller aperture than a fixed focal length lens. I have always had Nikon products and my favorite all around lens was a 135mm. Its great for tooling around with out a bag full of lenses and if you need to take a portrait of someone just stand a few feet back. I see Nikon has a 50mm 1.4, a 105 2.0 and a 135 2.0 for your camera. I say for all around stuff get a 50mm 1.4 for indoors and a 135mm 2.0 for trips to the zoo or whatever. Your low light indoor shots will be much better with the 50mm 1.4 Sorry, one last thing. Always Always Always use Nikon lenses,,,,off brand lenses are like the free ear buds that come with Duracell batteries. Unlike some of the other SLR makers Nikon is a lens manufacturer and the difference in quality will be night and day. Don't buy any Sigma or Tamron crap,,,,big mistake.... CameraAddict.com - Nikon Normal AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D Autofocus Lens

I have to disagree with you there especially the bit about 'never ever buy Sigma/Tamron because they are crap'. In the right hands, some 3rd party lenses can take excellent pictures and blow your pants off. Actually in some case, Tamron can be superior in terms of image quality compared to the Nikon part (eg. Tamron 90mm dimacro vs. Nikon 105mm macro). If you do your research, they are actually so many great lenses coming from Tokina/Sigma/Tamron if you can get over the brand generalisation.
If you meant the build quality, try holding a Tokina 12-24mm f/4 and it will open your eyes.

Secondly, I don't think 50mm 1.4 is really a good lens for wakeride since it won't auto focus with his D40.

Wakeride, to answer your question, there is no such thing as 'all around low light performer lens'. You have all around lens (this is also relative) and you have low light performer lens. What I consider all around lens is something like Nikon 24-70mm 2.8 AFS - but that costs a fortune, and it's not a low light performer at all (well maybe, if your camera is D3).
In your case, if you want low light performer lens for your D40, I think the only viable option (and can be considered as 'all around') is Sigma 30mm 1.4. Fits your budget perfectly too. And yes, you can auto focus with your D40.

Also if you are not really using the kit lenses, just sell them and get one better lens. What I don't like about camera shops is they often try to sell you this 'bundle' crap to beginners just to make money. First of all, you don't necessarily need to cover ALL focal length (one of the most common false perception for beginners), just get one basic lens, and shoot with it, and after you are used to it, ask yourself, what kind of shooting you do the most, and what range do you ACTUALLY NEED, and then get the best you can afford from that point.

Me, I never need to shoot anything over 70-80mm (maybe once in a while), but it's never gonna be often enough for me to buy an extra lens for it. That's why I put my money in the range that I like the most. Whereas if I did mostly wildlife, I'd probably just get something like 70-200 or 80-200 and one short prime instead of covering the whole nine yard range. Hope you get the point. But for casual family walkaround use, just get range around 18 to 80 max.

 

[fabool]

Quote:

Originally Posted by HardHeadCase /img/forum/go_quote.gif the lower the number the bigger the aperture and the better the lens

That is absolutely not true! There's plenty of lemons that have a large (smaller number) aperture. For example, the general consensus seems to be that among the best models of 50mm Nikkors the 1.8 is a tad sharper than 1.4 corner-to-corner - not to say that the 1.4 is bad, but a smaller aperture lens can be better in sharpness, contrast, flare resistance, etc. and when comparing all of these, a small aperture difference might not be so important after all.

That said - don't except miracles even with large aperture lenses. You most likely won't be able to take sharp handheld shots in dim light even with the best gear; sometimes a tripod or flash is just necessary. I think your two kit lenses are good - get a cheap prime and see how you like its performance. The 50/1.8 AF Nikkor should be available cheap.

 

[HardHeadCase]

If you guys want to use cheap after market lenses on your nikon bodies then thats great. Maybe you can get a FartBox and a giant wing for you car as well. Recommending a darker lens is just plain unintelligent. If I was wrong about the lens mounts then I am sorry,,,I am sure wakeride can look at the Nikon website and find the lenses that match his camera. I just took a look at your kit and for indoor low light maybe the 600 speedlight would go well with the lenses you have,,,,for now. Not sure what your budget is but get a lens and the speedlight.

 

[Old Pa]

Quote:

Originally Posted by HardHeadCase /img/forum/go_quote.gif If you guys want to use cheap after market lenses on your nikon bodies then thats great. Maybe you can get a FartBox and a giant wing for you car as well. Recommending a darker lens is just plain unintelligent.

This is so uninformed as to be ridiculous. While I grew up photographically through the period when aftermarket lenses provided unacceptable results, and in full realization that there still is some awful optical dreck still being peddled, lenses from Tamron, Sigma, Tokina and others now represent optical excellence and true value. In certain cases, they provide the absolute best lenses for Nikon/Canon DSLRs. You would do well to inform yourself from the optical bench results availble from Popular Photography and Imaging and other reputable testers/reviewers. BTW, the additional light transmission of large aperture (small F#) lenses is of no benefit in achieving additional depth of field, as that effect increases with the smallness of the exposure aperture (large F#).

That being said, I've been really impressed with the Sigma DC 18-200mm F3.5-6.3 D. I've been using it as the single lense with my Nikon D70 light travel package. With a Sigma DG polarizing filter, Tiffen 0.6 neutral density filter, a LumiQuest SoftScreen for the D70's flash, and a Gitzo G1568 carbon monopod with ReallyRightStuff locking head, it provides a convenient little system which covers 90% of my travel photo circumstances. The Sigma proprietary vibration control circuitry effectively adds two stops of exposure latitutde. And it's in your price range at reputable e-discounters. My only question would be compatability with the D40, but that was my objection to the D40 from its introduction. You're doing yourself a favor in checking it out.

 

[JaZZ]

Quote:

Originally Posted by HardHeadCase /img/forum/go_quote.gif Always Always Always use Nikon lenses,,,,off brand lenses are like the free ear buds that come with Duracell batteries. Unlike some of the other SLR makers Nikon is a lens manufacturer and the difference in quality will be night and day. Don't buy any Sigma or Tamron crap,,,,big mistake....

I clearly disagree. Tamron, Sigma and Tokina make some excellent lenses -- some of them are better than comparable Nikon lenses.

The Sigma 4-5.6/10-20, the Tamron 4.5-5.6/11-18 and the Tokina 4/12-24 offer better optical performance than the Nikkor 4/12-24 -- at half the price.

TheTamron 2.8/17-50 and the Sigma 2.8-4.5/17-70 offer similar optical performance as the Nikkor 2.8/17-55 (the latter with the AF motor indispensable for the D40, though) -- at about ¼ the price.

The Sigma 3.5-6.3/18-200 (and ...OS), the Tamron 3.5-5.6/18-200 and the Tamron 3.5-6.3/18-250 offer better optical performance than the Nikkor 3.5-5.6/18-200 -- at about half the price.

Of course I haven't measured them myself, I just rely on the ColorFoto tests.


Wakeride...

...a 50 mm prime may not be an ideal universal/standard lens for the D40 (with its APS-format sensor). As it represents the equivalent of 75 mm in the full format, it's rather a portrait lens. The Sigma 30 mm USM (equivalent to 45 mm) on the other hand may be a better option, if it's as good as it's said to be.

Always keep in mind that you need lenses with built-in AF motor, so with two exceptions the above-mentioned zoom lenses aren't recommended for your D40 (if you set value on the AF function).

 

[haibane]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JaZZ /img/forum/go_quote.gif I clearly disagree. Tamron, Sigma and Tokina make some excellent lenses -- some of them are better than comparable Nikon lenses. The Sigma 4-5.6/10-20, the Tamron 4.5-5.6/11-18 and the Tokina 4/12-24 offer better optical performance than the Nikkor 4/12-24 -- at half the price. TheTamron 2.8/17-50 and the Sigma 2.8-4.5/17-70 offer similar optical performance as the Nikkor 2.8/17-55 (the latter with the AF motor indispensable for the D40, though) -- at about ¼ the price. The Sigma 3.5-6.3/18-200 (and ...OS), the Tamron 3.5-5.6/18-200 and the Tamron 3.5-6.3/18-250 offer better optical performance than the Nikkor 3.5-5.6/18-200 -- at about half the price. Of course I haven't measured them myself, I just rely on the ColorFoto tests. Wakeride... ...a 50 mm prime may not be an ideal universal/standard lens for the D40 (with its APS-format sensor). As it represents the equivalent of 75 mm in the full format, it's rather a portrait lens. The Sigma 30 mm USM (equivalent to 45 mm) on the other hand may be a better option, if it's as good as it's said to be. Always keep in mind that you need lenses with built-in AF motor, so with two exceptions the above-mentioned zoom lenses aren't recommended for your D40 (if you set value on the AF function).

Sigma is the only one I would use aside from the standard canon lenses I have been using. I have seen clear degradation of quality on my friend's rebel and on my 5d I haven't used anything but the old nikkor lenses(adapter) and canon. To the OP, a huge problem you are going to run into with that camera is you are going to need an AFS lens in order to accomplish auto focus. so the majority of the lenses recommended here mean noting as stated by the most recent poster. You can't buy a 50 1.8 and get the focus nor many others. If you want an extremely wide lens the sigma 30 1.4 is a good choice. For your budget you are extremely limited as to what you can buy which is why I hate the fact that nikon sells you a camera and makes you buy expensive glass.

For the person that posted about optical quality of other lens manufactures. I still see problems with some, but I complain more about the build quality of the lenses. Then again though i dislike the 50 1.8 nikon cause its plastic and I had it give way before my filter did when I dropped my d2h on accident. Favorite nikon lens if going Manual focus would be the 105 f2.5 Ai'd. I can send you one for a good deal if you like, but you would need to take off the canon adapter I have on it if I can't get it off first.

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by HardHeadCase /img/forum/go_quote.gif If you guys want to use cheap after market lenses on your nikon bodies then thats great.

The same sort of "it must be better because it costs more" mentality that pervades the sound forums here is common in photo forums too. The truth is, above a certain level of quality, you start paying for things like brand name and ruggedness, not better looking pictures. There are good lenses and terrible lenses in the Nikon line too. Better to look at the reviews than the brand or price.

See ya
Steve

 

[ilikemonkeys]

I'd say start simple and get a normal lens.

Do not start with a zoom.

 

[ozz]

i was sorta under impression that nikor was some of the finest lens
available not that others were inferior.

 

[ilikemonkeys]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ozz /img/forum/go_quote.gif i was sorta under impression that nikor was some of the finest lens available not that others were inferior.

Geez.....now all the Canon guys come out of the woodwork.....thanks.

I"ll take my Leica M5 with a Sumicron 35/2 over any Nikor though.

(just had to throw that in)

 

[HardHeadCase]

Oh no....Tamron makes better lenses than Nikor,,,,,,bunch of Donkeys.