Upgrading Lens

alexisonfire · 22 Jan 2007 at 14:27

Hopefully in march i will be upgrading the stock lens on my D40. When i was buying my camera, i was aware that only certain lens would fit the camera (only Nikon AF *AFAIK*). This was my first dslr, and pretty much my first camera, so i wasn't expecting to find the kit lens so limiting, so early on.

So i've been looking around some sites at different lens, and have pretty much no idea what im looking at. All i understand really is the small mm's let you see things from far away, and the big mm's let you see in close. I also understand that the numbers after 18-55mm, for example, means something to do with aperture. (f/4-5.6 for example.)

So im looking for a telephoto lens, something thats going to give me some decent zoom, but im looking for something that will give me similar flexibility that the 18-55 gives aswell (wide angles).

Budget of around £200, these are what i've been looking at so far:

Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 APO Macro DG (Nikon AF)
*£190-£200*

or

Nikon 70-300mm f4-5.6G
*£170-£180*

Which of these would you recommend and what are there main differences, if any?

I have also seen this lens:
Sigma 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 DG Macro (Nikon AF)
*£220-£230*

Am i right in thinking this is going to give me similar functions as my kit lens, but still give decent zoom?

Sorry about the essay and thanks

hoodmeister · 22 Jan 2007 at 15:00

You're looking in the wrong direction - none of these lenses will autofocus with your camera.
You need to be looking at Nikon AF-S lenses, or Sigma HSM lenses.

nolimit · 22 Jan 2007 at 15:03

your budget of £200 is very limited, so you have to think carefully what type of photography you would like to do.

If sport e.g cars, bikes the lenses you have mentioned below are not good enough and you will be dissappointed with the result.

If wildlife is your thing, you will fair little better.

alexisonfire · 28 Jan 2007 at 19:06

Sorry to bring this relatively old thread back to life, but i've been thinking about what lens im actually after, finding the limits of my 18-55mm kit lens, and wondering about what im mainly photographing.

After much thought, Im mainly taken photos of cars at the moment (stationary portrait style), occasional landscape, and macro photos.

After reading up, im starting to think that a 50mm prime lens would be best for taking photos of cars, as most of the time i don't need the zoom, and can normally compose the photo myself, rather than the camera composing the photo for me. Would a f-stop of 1.8 give decent enough quality?

Am i right in thinking that a 50mm prime would also fair well with landscape photos? Obviously i wouldn't have the option of being able to zoom in, but cropping the photo afterwards would fix this.

I guess the only reason i wanted to go for a telephoto lens before was because it would have been nice to have the zoom if needed. Maybe later i'll go for a 105mm prime, or save up for a 18-200mm f3.5.

Could i have some recommendations for a decent 50mm prime lens then :cool:

the nikon 50mm f1.8 looks a good price, is there a sigma equivalent for similar money?

Spankyou very much

robmiller · 28 Jan 2007 at 19:18

You'll want something wider than 50mm for most landscape stuff. Your kit lens fills that niche focal-length-wise, so long as your happy with the quality I guess.

alexisonfire · 29 Jan 2007 at 01:51

Is only being able to manual focus with the 50mm prime going to annoy the hell out of me? Im guessing im going to need a steady hand. I can get the nikon 50mm f1.8 for just under £70 including delivery which sounds like a bargin. :confused:

Or should i save up a bit more for the 18-70mm f3.5-4.5 AF-S which is going to allow me to use AF, give me the depth of field i want for landscape, 50mm like the prime, and the zoom for when i need it? Decisions decisions :confused:

Techincally the 18-70mm should give me better photo quality and more flexability, but is it worth the extra money over the kit lens + 50mm prime? :confused:

Sol · 29 Jan 2007 at 03:16

The aperture has nothing to do with quality/sharpness really, although usually the smallest (largest opening) number isn't the sharpest. It has to do with the amount of light the lens lets in, each fstop halfs the amount of light if I remember correctly. Therefore the 50mm 1.8 lens is one of the cheapest excellent lenses you can get for low light photography for your camera. The manual focus only aspect would peev me off although it is not essential for that particular lens.

A larger aperture + in this case 50mm focal length also lets you have some fun with depth of field, where you can throw focus to wherever you want. Really good for potraits too. You can see some stupid photos regarding this is my sig, specifically the photos with darts and the one of my brother, they were both taken with the 50mm. Most the other photos on there are with the 18-70.

I have a moderate telephoto at 70-210, the 50mm 1.8, and a 18-70 kit lens. They all have their uses. Definitely get the 50mm lens in my opinion, it's an excellent lens to have. The 50mm will be sharper than the 18-70 but it will obviously not be as dynamic, you will have to "move your feet" instead of zooming.

I recommend getting them both or at the very least the 50mm 1.8.

Oh and you should be able to get the DOF for landscapes with your current kit lens, usually a higher number is better not the lower number. There's something about Hyperfocal distance for lanscapes too, although I am a total noob and have no idea how to work this yet, plus most of my lenses don't have the damn markings. They both have the same lower focal length so they will show you the same width. If you want a lens specifically for landscapes then check out the Tokina 12-24 which is wider. Get a tripod if you are doing a lot of landscapes too! I wish I brought mine, thinking of buying one for £7 here but no doubt it will drop my camera.

Going to Borobudur on Friday this week so I'll need something for that!

Logsi · 29 Jan 2007 at 07:36

I highly recommend the Sigma 17-70mm, i have just recently got this lens and its extremely good!

This lens would effectively replace your kit lens.

Josh

alexisonfire · 29 Jan 2007 at 12:59

5bjoshua said:
I highly recommend the Sigma 17-70mm, i have just recently got this lens and its extremely good!

This lens would effectively replace your kit lens.

Josh

Its not HSM so won't AF with my camera.

I think im going to go for the 50mm f1.8, and hope that the manual focus isn't going to annoy me that much. As its only £70, its not a huge chunk of money. Then in march i will get the 18-70 to replace my kit lens. I still need to get some filters, and have seen a hoya circular polarizing filter for £15, and a UV for £8 + free delivery :eek:

As im going to be doing a lot of potrait work without a flash, im probably going to be using a strong natual light (sun) or something like street lights. Is a lens hood going to reduce glare in this situation, and would you recommend me getting one?

~Sol

If you want a decent tripod for not to much money, i recommend a TP323.

Its light weight to carry, but extremely sturdy when on the ground. It has spirit levels, and a hook bottom middle to hang something heavey on for when it gets windy. Pan and tilt is fast and easy to use. It can go from about 2.5ft tall to just over 6ft. Its about £38 delivered and a quick google will lead you in the right direction.

Sol · 30 Jan 2007 at 03:30

To be honest if you are doing lots of potraits, even outside you will still want a flash to fill in the shadows in their faces. If you have the sun in their face then they will be squinting. On-board flash might suffice though.

A lens hood is useful if the sun is in front of the camera, the more direct the worse the flare potentially, your hand could do the same job though. Lens hoods are good for protecting the lens, probably better than a UV filter to be honest. I heard one guy dropped his D70 off a cliff and only the lens hood was damaged when he found it later on. Only thing is they are a rip off for what they are, you probably wouldn't need one for the 50mm since it's cheap and unless you are shooting at the sun then I can't see it being much use. The 18-70 kit lens comes with one packaged.

A polariser is definitely worth it, UV's not so much to be honest. The polariser would help with reflections and glare but then you lose stops of light due to the darkening of the filter. Thing you have to watch is that obviously you get different filter sizes, think I only have one for my 18-70 and it's a 67mm. You can get step up or step down rings to make them compatible with other lenses but I think you are better getting the largest (for your biggest lens) to begin with. It should say on the lens top or bottom what size it is.

Yeah I have a nice tripod already (Velbon carbon fibre Sherpa PRO CF-631EL with Manfrotto 486RC2 Compact Ball Head) - cost me a fortune

, I just haven't got one with me in Jakarta. No point buying one over here that costs much and they don't have a wide selection anyway.