Need a walkabout lens for Nikon D40

Soldato
Joined
17 Feb 2006
Posts
8,622
Location
Winchester
At the moment, I have the stock lens and a 50mm f/1.8d for my D40.

I have started to take pictures of my friends' Sunday league football team informally and combining this with wanting a longer range walkabout lens anyway, I've been looking for a new lens with built in AF and considering those below.

What will give me best value for money - preferably 2nd hand and <£175 unless the a more expensive one is worth it?

I'm going to read some reviews but how do Nikkor lenses compare with Sigma ones?

Nikkor AF-S VR DX 18-105 f/3.5-5.6G ED

Nikkor AF-S DX 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 ED-IF

(Nikkor AF-S VR DX 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED) - too expensive so prob out of question

Sigma 18-125mm f/3.8-5.6 DC OS HSM

Sigma 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 DC OS - I've spotted this new for £149!! Seems a bargain/wrongly priced - worth it if I can get it?

Edited 20-11-09
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
18 Feb 2006
Posts
10,601
Out of them i'd get the 18-105 myself, the 18-200VR is good, but its ~£350, so out of your budget. Not really a walkabout, but the 55-200VR is good, and cheap.
 
Soldato
Joined
18 Feb 2006
Posts
10,601
Personally i'd rather two lenses, but that's because lenses that cover 18-200 aren't gonna be brilliant at one thing, but having two wont fit in your budget.
 
Soldato
OP
Joined
17 Feb 2006
Posts
8,622
Location
Winchester
To revive this thread, a combination of not photographing football lately due to the bad weather, and finding it harder to shoot as the nights draw in has led me to reconsider what to buy.

I came across this: http://www.sigma-photo.co.jp/english/lens/digital/17_70_28_45.htm

Sigma 17-70mm f2.8-4.5 DC HSM MACRO ~£250 new

Would this be a worthy improvement/replacement over the 18-55 kit lens? Adv is obviously longer ranger, larger aperture and macro.

However I am confused as the lens compatibility table at the bottom of the link says it still won't autofocus with the D40 despite HSM. Anyone know why? http://www.nikonians.org/forums/dcb...&forum=152&topic_id=13319&mesg_id=13319&page= lists it as AF. Or is there a non-HSM version?
 
Last edited:
Soldato
OP
Joined
17 Feb 2006
Posts
8,622
Location
Winchester
Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II ?

Hmmm, honestly not sure whether I'd benefit from the extra 20mm or the f/2.8 across the full zoom range but leaning towards the length.

(Then there's the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di LD in MM which looks attractive but I think I'd miss the wide angle as I do shoot buildings/landscapes when on holiday.)
 

Mud

Mud

Soldato
Joined
13 Dec 2004
Posts
3,186
Location
Bristol
I find wider apertures more useful at longer focal lengths, and I'm sure I'm not the only one. Variable aperture zooms always seem a bit ass-backwards (for obvious reasons)...you tend to want small apertures at short focal lengths for landscapes/architecture/etc, and medium/large apertures at portrait length. 50mm on a crop sensor is quite usable for portraits. If in doubt, go for the fast glass ;)
 
Caporegime
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
32,058
Tamron 17-50 2.8 (new version has VC/VR)
Nikon 16-85 5.6 VR has a very useful focal length, the 16mm is aweome.


If you are looking towards an 18-105, which is a fine lens, due to the reach, then I suggest a 55-200 is a better investment.

Having 2 lens to go the 16/18 - 200/300 is the way to go. The 18-200 type lenses sacrifice to much image quality. If this is a type of ens you would really like then I suggest bying a Canon G11 or some such instead.

As a DX Dream team I have the 16-85 VR and the 70-300 VR. These 2 lenses cover an amazing focal length with very good quality. (I am slowly building up the 2.8 pro version, have the 80-200 2.8)

The cheaper version is an 18-55 kit and 55-200.
 
Soldato
Joined
11 Oct 2006
Posts
4,479
Location
Wiltshire
The 18-135mm is a fine lens apart from producing more chromatic aberration than is ideal but I can't say I noticed it when I had one. I've now got a 16-85mm and really miss the extra reach of the 18-135mm.
 
Top Bottom