suggestions for first lens purchase

[sdfs]

hi

so far all i have is the d40 with the kit 18-55mm lens which is great but i looove shooting in low light and would love to be able to get more sharper images at 1/30 and lower but i was also looking for a lens maybe with a bit more zoom not neccesary but this would be nice so far im linking the
18-55mm VR exept are they even out yet havent seen any reviews

or the 18-200mm exept this is way to big and heavy ( travel alot need something quick and light)

the 18-135mm looks nice exept i would expect bad perfomance in low light since no VR and not fast enough

thanks

 

[Chuck Yadmark]

well there is the strongly rumored 16-85 3.5 - 5.6 vr

which maybe will serve your purposes unless you're intending to shoot moving things at low light in which case you're better served with a sigma 30 f1.4

--
http://www.sportsshooter.com/cyadmark
Ann Arbor, MI USA



Always tempted to chime in the lame posts, but I don't feed trolls

 

[sdfs]

this sounds liek a very nice lens will it better then the 18-55mm due to the langer range focal 16-65mm ?

by the way how are sigma lenses are they better quality then nikon lenses i have heard that its best to stick with nikon lenses if u have a nikon camera

 

[Chuck Yadmark]

this sounds liek a very nice lens will it better then the 18-55mm due
to the langer range focal 16-65mm ?

well that remains to be seen, but it could be

by the way how are sigma lenses are they better quality then nikon
lenses

in general, no. but some are decent
have heard that its best to stick with nikon lenses if u

have a nikon camera

that's how I feel but there is no 30 1.4 nikon

--
http://www.sportsshooter.com/cyadmark
Ann Arbor, MI USA



Always tempted to chime in the lame posts, but I don't feed trolls

 

[sdfs]

oh i c thanks for the help so far i im thinkgin about waiting for that rumor lens it seems that it might have the VRII too bad its only f/3.5 but hopefully the vr will help combat against low light

hey how is the 24-120mm would u recomend it against the rumor lens its not as wide as i would ,like but its a nicer zoom

 

[[email protected]]

get the 50 f1.4 or 50 f1.8.

For longer reach, get the 70-300 VR zoom.

The 18-200 zoom is not heavy.
The 600 f4 is heavy.

maljo

 

[Neocon]

Second the 50mm f1.8 lens. It is compact and two stops faster than the kit lens at the wide end and over three stops faster at the long end.

 

[rollakid]

get the 50 f1.4 or 50 f1.8.

maljo

Not unless he's okay with Manual Focus. He did say he uses a D40 right?

 

[mlmusto]

85 1.8

 

[sdfs]

yea i read about that lens but its not one im looking at due to the fact that i have a nikon d40 so i need a lens with af-s lol i coulint imagine manual focusing for every signle shot thats why i started to look at the VR lenses to bad none most of themm are f/3.5 none smaller

 

[RaptorUK]

That is just soooo funny . . . . . 18-200mm VR heavy . . . try walking around all day with a D2X, 200-400VR and monopod . . . and bag on your back with spare batteries and other lenses . . .

The 18-200mm is NOT a heavy lens . . . 560g is just over 1lb.

hi

or the 18-200mm exept this is way to big and heavy ( travel alot
need something quick and light)

thanks

--
Take a look at my album . . . http://www.F1Album.com

 

[headgear]

Nikon 35mm f2. I find the 35 is very good for indoor low light shots. You might find the 50mm 1.8 to be a liitle long for alot of indoor shots.

 

[Nikonparrothead]

Since you already have the 18-55, rebuying the same lens as the 18-55VR is not the best move (they're out, I own one). The new rumor lens, the 16-65 VR MAY be useful to you but it really depends on the focal length where you want to shoot and where the light falloff begins. Sure, it starts life at 3.5 but when does it hit F4, let alone 5.6.

You may want to seriously look at the Sigma 30 1.4 as your best low-light option, if that focal length fits your need. Or wait six months and see what Nikon and other lens manufacturers have up their sleeves.

--
'Nice pen, bet you write good stories with it.'

 

[fraserj1]

hi

so far all i have is the d40 with the kit 18-55mm lens which is great
but i looove shooting in low light and would love to be able to get
more sharper images at 1/30 and lower but i was also looking for
a lens maybe with a bit more zoom not neccesary but this would be
nice so far im linking the
18-55mm VR exept are they even out yet havent seen any reviews

You already know that your hands are tied somewhat in owning the D40 in that you need to purchase AF-S lenses to retain AF, which eliminates many fine lenses that are not AF-S lenses.

This might be out of the question, but have you considered trading it in and buying maybe a D50 or even a D80 instead? Yes the D80 is a bit more expensive, but will open you up to many more lens possibilities.

Also, how are you defining low light? Low light shooting with a flash or low light landscapes on a tripod it shouldn't matter much if you're using a lens with a very wider aperture because you really don't need fast shutter speeds in those instances. Yes, with low light shooting with a flash having wider apertures will allow you to balance the ambient light with the flash better, but that's not always that big a deal.

I shoot low light landscapes on my tripod at f/5.6 to f/11 all the time and at those apertures it really doesn't matter what lens I'm using (aperture-wise that is) in this low light situation.

or the 18-200mm exept this is way to big and heavy ( travel alot
need something quick and light)

Yes, this lens is a bit heavy compared to some other lenses, but it also covers a very wide range. This doesn't really help you in the low light situation with its maximum aperture of 5.6 @ 200mm, but for the average not terribly demanding non pro this lens is a very capable do it all (almost) lens. In fact, this might be a close to perfect travel lens.

the 18-135mm looks nice exept i would expect bad perfomance in low
light since no VR and not fast enough

For a lower end lens, this is pretty nice but like the 18-200 isn't really a low light lens.

 

[sdfs]

well by low light i mean shootign with no flash so im assuming VR would helpso would a faster lens but i have to chose one or the other since both cant be had personally i like the d40 due to its size even if it doesent have a internal focusing monitor (w/e its called) i can live with that beacuse maybe later on in the future when i have had enough play with it il upgrade

but i due travel alot and carry my cameera every whareso sometimes weight is an issue ( i carry everything with me lol paranoid of it getting lost) so that is why i chose the d40 i like the 18-200mm VR but its quite expensive and im not sure if its a good lens for no flash photography the rumored 16-85mm vr sounds very nice and hopefully it will be the one for crisp noflash photogprahy

 

[fraserj1]

well by low light i mean shootign with no flash so im assuming VR
would helpso would a faster lens but i have to chose one or the other
since both cant be had

Don't assume anything......

You still really haven't defined low light. What is your intended use? Low light landscapes? Low light cityscapes? Low light people pics? Why can't you use flash?

A lot of what you should buy depends upon what your intended subject is. If you want to do people pics in low light, then VR isn't really going to help you much because VR will only counteract blur caused by camera movement. If your subject moves, VR can't fix that.

If you are taking night shots of unmovable objects - buildings, mountains, people standing still, then VR would probably do ok.

 

[Aldor]

You really need to explain more about what you intend to shoot. If you wan a great all around lens for both low light and good light pictures have a look at the Sigma 18-50/f2.8 or the sigma 17-70f2.8-4.5.

I have the latter but the 18-50 is faster trough the range for low light, then there is the sigma 30mm/f1.4 which is very good for low light pics without flash, its not very good for holiday/all around pictures tho(no zoom).

VR lenses will only help you shoot subjects that aren't moving as VR only eliminates camera shake. To get faster shutter speeds you need a faster lens.
--



http://www.flickr.com/photos/14807929@N05

 

[sdfs]

You really need to explain more about what you intend to shoot. If
you wan a great all around lens for both low light and good light
pictures have a look at the Sigma 18-50/f2.8 or the sigma
17-70f2.8-4.5.
I have the latter but the 18-50 is faster trough the range for low
light, then there is the sigma 30mm/f1.4 which is very good for low
light pics without flash, its not very good for holiday/all around
pictures tho(no zoom).
VR lenses will only help you shoot subjects that aren't moving as VR
only eliminates camera shake. To get faster shutter speeds you need a
faster lens.

well bassicly you said it i need a great all around lens that will help me counter act caamera shake at low shutter speeds the faster the lens is will also help when shooting portraits i like the the rumored nikon 16-85mm good range for me i think with VR but unofortunately the aperture doesent open as big as i would like

but i think i might go with that lens when it comes out due to the other feature later but the sigma seems very tempting that you are talking about the 17-70mm f2.8-4.5 very very tempteing