[sydneyaudio]

wakeride74, I have a D40 and the Sigma 30mm F1.4. Quite simply it takes much better pictures than the kit lens and works very well in low light. The flip side is that it is quite heavy and changes the balance of the D40 - I got used to it after a while. The only other issue is that on occasion it has taken a few attempts to focus properly, mainly in low light close up portraits.

I also have a SB400 speedlight. If your goal is to take indoor shots, this speedlight works very well when bounced. It is a dramatic difference compared to the onboard flash and may be what you are after.

For what you have described I would recommend trying a speedlight first.

 

[Rico-San]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eagle_Driver /img/forum/go_quote.gif Actually, there is no 80-200mm f/2.8 Nikkor zoom lens with the VR feature. There is, however, a 70-200mm f/2.8 AF-S Zoom-Nikkor with the VR feature -- but that lens costs at least $1,500. The sub-$1,000 80-200mm has neither VR nor the AF-S feature, and so requires manual focusing when used with the D40(x). This is because the D40(x) does not have an autofocus motor in the body, and the 80-200 does not have an autofocus motor in the lens.

Heh, I stand corrected!

 

[HardHeadCase]

Yeah, a speedlight,,,...

 

[Joshatdot]

I've been reading this guys site for years...he knows what he is talking about, I highly recommend you check out his site

KenRockwell.com

 

[uppis]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joshatdot /img/forum/go_quote.gif I've been reading this guys site for years...he knows what he is talking about, I highly recommend you check out his site KenRockwell.com

x2, Kenrockwell.com is absolutely great, he has review about almost every lens for Nikon. I have spent hours and hours just reading his site..

 

[dan1son]

Quote:

Originally Posted by uppis /img/forum/go_quote.gif x2, Kenrockwell.com is absolutely great, he has review about almost every lens for Nikon. I have spent hours and hours just reading his site..

I'd be fairly careful how you take what Ken Rockwell says... and NEVER mention his name on a photographer forum (it leads to bad things, I made that mistake once). If you take his information the way he tells you to take it he's fairly fun to read (read his About page on his site, he calls his own site a hoax). He isn't, however, a very reliable voice in the photographer world... He "reviews" things to be used the way he uses them, which, by most of his examples, is to shoot static landscapes. He also has a section where he shows that a $150 camera takes as good of pictures as a $5000 camera. Read his stuff for entertainment, but be careful with the technical aspects.


That being said. I use a 50mm f/1.4D on my D40 with very good results. I've found I have very little trouble focusing it on fairly static subjects including people. It is considerably slower to focus (gotta use the green dot), but after using it a while I have found it to be fast enough for slow, or non-moving objects.

The only real downside I've had with it is the fact that I can't hand the camera to anyone else with that lens on it. It takes too long to train them how to focus it. The green dot is hard to explain to someone not familiar with the camera.

Here's a sample... ISO200 f/1.4 1/500th, available light.

 

[HardHeadCase]

50mm 1.4,,,?????? What an amazing thought. Why didn't I think of that?

 

[bigshot]

Ken Rockwell is one of the few straight shooters on the internet when it comes to reviewing equipment. He doesn't just spit out numbers and charts, he tells you practical info that you can use. It's all based on personal experience. The reason he's chided in photo forums is because photo forums are populated by "gear heads" who expend all their energy on technical trivia and never go out and shoot pictures. Rockwell delights in sticking pins in their hot air and they don't like it.

The simple truth is, an inexpensive camera CAN take as good pictures as a professional camera. Rockwell is dead on with that observation, and it can't be emphasized too much.

See ya
Steve

 

[Arainach]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif Ken Rockwell is one of the few straight shooters on the internet when it comes to reviewing equipment. He doesn't just spit out numbers and charts, he tells you practical info that you can use. It's all based on personal experience. The reason he's chided in photo forums is because photo forums are populated by "gear heads" who expend all their energy on technical trivia and never go out and shoot pictures. Rockwell delights in sticking pins in their hot air and they don't like it. The simple truth is, an inexpensive camera CAN take as good pictures as a professional camera. Rockwell is dead on with that observation, and it can't be emphasized too much. See ya Steve

Exactly what I was going to say. Don't confuse the mass dislike of Rockwell as meaning he's wrong - he just knows how to annoy the Internet's photo trolls. Photography is 80% Composition, 19% Knowing how to take the shot (i.e. how to manipulate shutter speed and aperture to your advantage), and maybe 1% equipment. A good photographer will be a good photographer regardless of what camera you put in his hands.

 

[dj_mocok]

But seriously, if you're gonna spend the money on something like 50mm 1.4 for your D40, why wouldn't you just get the Sigma 30mm 1.4 which cost only a tad more expensive and enjoy the AF instead of manual focusing using Nikon 50mm 1.4 (and better bokeh too)?
I personally think that the Sigma makes pleasant, smooth background blur.

If both of them would AF with my camera, then It would be more difficult to decide (because of price and range), but in this regards, I think I'd get Sigma over Nikon one without a doubt.

 

[dan1son]

Quote:

Originally Posted by HardHeadCase /img/forum/go_quote.gif 50mm 1.4,,,?????? What an amazing thought. Why didn't I think of that?

Real classy.

I was trying to emphasize the fact that the prime lenses aren't impossible to use on the D40. The D40 won't autofocus that lens, so I was explaining that it's still a useful and nice lens on that camera. You'll figure out that people here aren't trying to steal your thunder... we just want to help.


As far as Ken Rockwell. I very much enjoy reading his stuff and will continue to, but I know at the beginning I was taking what he said a little more literally than I should have. He has some good stuff to say and can really help in making some decisions. I just tend not to use him as the end all be all of my purchases. After all, my uses are much different from his.

Under certain circumstances a cheap P&S camera can take as good of photographs as a high end DSLR, but only under those circumstances. I recently printed out large prints taken on a trip with a 4megapixel P&S of Ireland landscapes that wouldn't have looked any better on a brand new D300, at least not at the size I printed them. But I have many shots taken indoors with my D40 with no flash that would have been completely impossible to take on any cheap P&S. A P&S can not replace a nice DSLR unless you always stay within the confines of the capabilities of the P&S.

Kind of like listening to music on iPod earbuds. They probably sound just as good as GS1000s with 64kbps voice only podcasts.

A great photographer will be capable of producing great photographs with any camera... they just won't attempt the same shots if they know the equipment can't do it.

 

[HardHeadCase]

I wasnt tweaking on you Dan1son,,,,,alot of my suggestions were denounced as stupid,,,,,50mm 1.4 ,,,,,,,,speedlight,,,,etc. But it seems now that more people are joining in, and that maybe some of my suggestions are not with out merit. Hell one guy told me that a bright lens like a 1.4 as compared to a 1.8 would not allow you greater depth of field. Was like talking to a brick wall. I agree and second your thoughts on this matter.

 

[haibane]

Quote:

Originally Posted by HardHeadCase /img/forum/go_quote.gif I wasnt tweaking on you Dan1son,,,,,alot of my suggestions were denounced as stupid,,,,,50mm 1.4 ,,,,,,,,speedlight,,,,etc. But it seems now that more people are joining in, and that maybe some of my suggestions are not with out merit. Hell one guy told me that a bright lens like a 1.4 as compared to a 1.8 would not allow you greater depth of field. Was like talking to a brick wall. I agree and second your thoughts on this matter.

Did I ever denounce you. Nope...

 

[dan1son]

Quote:

Originally Posted by HardHeadCase /img/forum/go_quote.gif I wasnt tweaking on you Dan1son,,,,,alot of my suggestions were denounced as stupid,,,,,50mm 1.4 ,,,,,,,,speedlight,,,,etc. But it seems now that more people are joining in, and that maybe some of my suggestions are not with out merit. Hell one guy told me that a bright lens like a 1.4 as compared to a 1.8 would not allow you greater depth of field. Was like talking to a brick wall. I agree and second your thoughts on this matter.

I'm not sure if anyone denounced your suggestions. There seemed to be some backlash in the way you mentioned that non Nikkor lenses were crap and how every lens with larger aperture is "better", but I don't think your suggestions themselves were ever in question.

Sigma, Tamron, and Tokina all make fairly decent, and in some cases steller lenses. Some examples are already in this thread.

The aperture doesn't necessitate a better overall lens. It will, however, give you the possibility to let more light in. Also, a larger aperture doesn't lengthen the depth of field, it shortens it. So if someone told you an f/1.4 wouldn't give you a greater depth of field over an f/1.8 they were correct.

 

[HardHeadCase]

Wrong: Same two cameras, same picture, same lighting,,,,,the 1.4 will be able to use a smaller aperture setting as compared to a 1.8 and afford you greater depth of field. A cheaper darker lens will not give you greater depth of field. The smaller the aperture you are able to use, the greater the depth of field.

This comes from the manual for a old Nikon F

Depth of field refers to a zone extending in front of and behind the plane of sharpest focus. Within this zone, blur (or unsharpness of the image) will be negligible and everything can be accepted as being in sharp focus. It extends a greater distance behind the subject in focus than in front. Depth of field depends on three factors: focal length of the lens, lens-to-subject distance and taking aperture. The smaller the aperture and the shorter the focal length of the lens, the greater the depth of field (for example, wideangle lenses have more depth of field than telephotos). Also, the closer the subject, the smaller the depth of field. These three factors can be adjusted independently or in combination to give the photographer creative control over the final picture.

Also....the difference between a 1.4 and a 1.8 is not only the size of the aperture but the light handling capability of the lens,,,MORE BIGGER GLASS,,,,which lets more light in and allows you to use a smaller aperture and get more depth of field. Is there anyone here that doesn't understand this now?????????????????? I never said a bigger aperture would give you greater depth of field. A larger aperture gives you less!!!!!!!!!!!