What Lens? (D40)

syke · 22 Mar 2007 at 12:42

Looking to buy 1-2 more lenses (already got a kit lens and a 55-200mm).

I like to shoot landscapes/sport and wanting to slowly drift into astronomy too.

Im thinking of getting these two, but im not sure. What would you recommend?

My budget isnt too high as i want to try keep some money perhaps towards a D80 and more lenses at a later date.

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 G IF-ED VR Lens

Sigma 50mm f/2.8 EX DG Macro Lens

Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX DC HSM Lens

What do you recon?

Trying to decide two of the above. Any others you recommend?

alexisonfire · 22 Mar 2007 at 13:07

I would go for the 10-20 personally. If your after a lens for landscape and on a budget, the sigma 10-20 is the one

I currently own the kit lens, and have just bought the 10-20, and the 55-200mm you already have.

paddy · 22 Mar 2007 at 13:11

I would recommend the same - the 10-20 is a great lens,

You probably do, but you know the Sigma 50mm won't auto-focus on your D40

Geffen · 22 Mar 2007 at 13:14

I would also look at the sigma 10-20 for lanscape work but only if you feel your kit lense is not wide enough.

With regards to astronomical work then if you want to take shots of stars etc then i would buy a telescope and an adaptor so you can use your camera to take photo via it. If you want shots of the moon then you would really need a longer lense than 300mm. At 300mm the moon will be the size of 50 pence on a 7" by 5" photo which is far too small unless you crop a lot. To get moon shots i would look at 800mm or greater which would be out of your price range.

syke · 22 Mar 2007 at 13:19

paddy said:
I would recommend the same - the 10-20 is a great lens,

You probably do, but you know the Sigma 50mm won't auto-focus on your D40

Yes i know that

And im thinking about the 10-20 but just thinking whether or not its only restricting me to landscape.

alexisonfire · 22 Mar 2007 at 13:44

Also, if your after a 50mm prime, you might want to consider the nikon 50mm f/1.8, less than half the cost of the sigma.

EDIT: spelling

syke · 22 Mar 2007 at 14:09

alexisonfire said:
Also, if your after a 50mm prime, you might want to consider the nikon 50mm f/1.8, less than half the cost of the sigma.

EDIT: spelling

Had a look at that, good lens?

alexisonfire · 22 Mar 2007 at 14:13

Syk3 said:
Had a look at that, good lens?

Not used one myself yet, but everyone i speak to say that any photographer should have one of these. Excellent optics, and very good in low light from what i have read.

syke · 22 Mar 2007 at 14:14

alexisonfire said:
Not used one myself yet, but everyone i speak to say that any photographer should have one of these. Excellent optics, and very good in low light from what i have read.

Ah ok, was thinking about getting that a while back due to its price. May do now then.

robmiller · 22 Mar 2007 at 14:16

The Sigma 30mm f/1.4 is more expensive, but it's a more useful focal length (on a cropped sensor it's almost 50mm, so it's normal) and it's faster—plus it'll actually autofocus on your D40. I'd plump for one of those over a 50mm f/1.8, tbh.

alexisonfire · 22 Mar 2007 at 14:34

robmiller said:
The Sigma 30mm f/1.4 is more expensive, but it's a more useful focal length (on a cropped sensor it's almost 50mm, so it's normal) and it's faster—plus it'll actually autofocus on your D40. I'd plump for one of those over a 50mm f/1.8, tbh.

Well it is better, but its also almost 4x more expensive. Its not really wide enough for landscape, although it could be used for some, and it doesn't offer the focal range of a telephoto for sport photography. £200+ is a lot to spend on a lens just "to have when needed". Where as £60-70 for the nikon isn't

robmiller · 22 Mar 2007 at 15:02

alexisonfire said:
Well it is better, but its also almost 4x more expensive. Its not really wide enough for landscape, although it could be used for some, and it doesn't offer the focal range of a telephoto for sport photography. £200+ is a lot to spend on a lens just "to have when needed". Where as £60-70 for the nikon isn't

Lenses aren't just some dichotomy between ultra-wide and tele… "normal" lenses generate images that are closest to human vision, and are generally regarded as some of the most versatile. On top of that, the Sigma is significantly better in terms of image quality, a stop faster, actually normal on a cropped-sensor dSLR (unlike the 50 which occupies a sort of wasteland between normal and tele… far less useful), has better build quality, etc. etc.

I think it's more than worth the extra cash, but each to their own—I'm not trying to deny that the 50mm f/1.8 is a bargain, because it certainly is, I just think I'd personally get more value from the Sigma.

syke · 22 Mar 2007 at 15:16

Well either way ill probably get two lenses, and the Nikkor 50mm would probably fit in with a 10-20 or a new telephoto.

Im open to decisions, but for £60-70 the 50mm i think i would get anyway.

The reason for looking at the Sigma 50mm is because its Macro too.