New Nikon D40 user ...

alexisonfire said:
Robmiller owns a 18-200 :p
Click to expand...

robmiller said:
Yeah, I own one I like it lots, but for the price I think I'd rather have the 10-20 18-70 and 50.
Click to expand...

:) That's good. Means you have first hand experience with the topic of conversation. It amazes me how often people on here (forums in general not photography) go on about a subject without having used/been to/experienced the topic. :o

As I said different horses...

Panzer
 
I have to be honest i dont think the Nikon 18-70 is any better quality wise than the new kit lens. I wouldn't buy it unless you really want the extra length. that's the trouble with the D40 - all the lenses are very expensive or not available due to it needing AFS. Wish i'd got the 400D now. I've looked at lenses but nothing has really taken my fancy for the price.
 
At The Gates said:
I have to be honest i dont think the Nikon 18-70 is any better quality wise than the new kit lens. I wouldn't buy it unless you really want the extra length. that's the trouble with the D40 - all the lenses are very expensive or not available due to it needing AFS. Wish i'd got the 400D now. I've looked at lenses but nothing has really taken my fancy for the price.
Click to expand...

I haven't used the 18-70 but my understanding was that it IS better than the kit lens. Someone posted a review on here somewhere but I cant find it atm.
 
I have used both. The original 18-55 and an 18-70. There is not a huge difference in quality. The version 2 18-55 as supplied with the D40 is supposed to be better than the original one. I personally wouldn't bother upgrading it as the differences would be very small. You can still take good pictures with the standard lens.

I would use the cash to go for a wide angle or telephoto instead.
 
The 18-70 is worth it for build quality alone, IMO. It's a less obvious choice if you've bought the 18-55 and want to upgrade, but buying body-only and an 18-70 is much better than body + 18-55 kit IMO.
 
robmiller said:
The 18-70 is worth it for build quality alone, IMO. It's a less obvious choice if you've bought the 18-55 and want to upgrade, but buying body-only and an 18-70 is much better than body + 18-55 kit IMO.
Click to expand...

Yeah for sure, would be a better initial buy. To be honest i think if i get a new lens it will be for speed so i can shoot moving subjects easier in low light without a tripod. I've been looking at the Sigma 17-70mm f2.8-4.5 DC HSM or 18-50mm f2.8 EX DC HSM. Only problem is i've heard that they're not sharp at f/2.8 which kind of defeats the object of getting them. It's a shame Nikon seem to think it's acceptable to charge £1000 for their 24-70mm f/2.8G ED AF-S and 17-55mm f/2.8G AF-S IF ED DX. I'm sure they're sharper than the Sigma equivalents..not 4 times though..
 
Photography's like anything, though: as you move up, you pay increasingly more for smaller increases in quality and there are enough people out there who want or need "the best" to justify it as a business plan.
 
robmiller said:
Photography's like anything, though: as you move up, you pay increasingly more for smaller increases in quality and there are enough people out there who want or need "the best" to justify it as a business plan.
Click to expand...

Well said sir....

I had the 18-70 on my D70 (Daughter has it now) didn't think much to it, not as good as the older 28-105 I had from my F80. It had much to much distortion, a lot of barrel at the 18 end, and sharpness was average.
I've now to turn to the dark side..... Canon !!!;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom