Lenses for D40?

Gliebert · Dec 12, 2006

I picked up the D40 in a circuit City and this camera is
small and light and you would never leave it at home.
However, the lens situation is a little difficult.
Besides the 55-200, is there any reasonably priced
Nikkor lens to put on it, after the kit lens?
I don't see one.
Does Nikon intend to introduce reasonably priced lenses
that compliment this camera?
The 70-300 VR is around $500.
Something in the 200-300$ range would be nice.

Steve82 · Dec 12, 2006

Nikkors:

http://www.pricegrabber.com/search_attrib.php/page_id=545/form_keyword=nikon%20lens%20afs/sortby=priceA

Sigmas (don't know how many have been verified to work with D40):

http://www.pricegrabber.com/search_attrib.php/form_keyword=nikon%20hsm%20lenses/topcat_id=/page_id=545/lo_p=0/hi_p=0/sortby=priceA

deanx0r · Dec 12, 2006

Check out the Sigma 30mm f/1.4.

It's sharp, it's fast, well built, and there is no other alternatives in its price range.

--
http://anh.bi.home.comcast.net/

michaeladawson · Dec 12, 2006

One man's reasonable price is another man's expensive lens. I would consider $500 to be reasonable and $200 to be consumer grade and not worth purchase. However, that's just me and I don't want to get into some debate on all the good cheap lenses out there.

Anyway, here is a list of the more reasonably priced AF-S lenses for the Nikon mount. I may have left a couple out.

55-200 f/4-5.6 AF-S (Nikon, $170)
12-24 f/4 AF-S (Nikon, $900)
18-70 f/3.5-4.5 AF-S (Nikon, $265)
18-55 f/3.5-5.6 AF-S (Nikon, $155)
18-200 f/3.5-5.6 AF-S VR (Nikon, $750)
70-300 f/4.5-5.6 AF-S VR (Nikon, $530)
24-120 f/3.5-5.6 AF-S VR (Nikon, $515)
24-85 f/3.5-4.5 AF-S (Nikon, $350)
18-135 f/3.5-5.6 AF-S (Nikon, $400)
30 f/1.4 HSM (Sigma, $429)
50-150 f/2.8 HSM (Sigma, $679)
10-20 f/4-5.6 HSM (Sigma, $500)
14 f/2.8 HSM (Sigma, $900)
150 f/2.8 HSM (Sigma, $600)
180 f/3.5 HSM (Sigma, $660)
50-500 f/4-6.3 HSM (Sigma, $999)
12-24 f/4.5-5.6 HSM (Sigma, $690)
17-35 f/2.8-4 HSM (Sigma, $480)
100-300 f/4 HSM (Sigma, $900)

--
Mike Dawson

martino · Dec 12, 2006

I was @ samys camera in LA on suday checking out the D40, and the Nikon
rep said Only Nikon lens would work on the D40 no sigmas tamron or any
other brand.
the staff at samys camera seemed just as shocked as I was!

michaeladawson · Dec 12, 2006

Very interesting if true. Can anyone who has a D40 confirm this?
--
Mike Dawson

Parisis · Dec 12, 2006

Op

the 18-55 and 55-200 with an SB400 or 600 flash should make a nice system with the D40. If you are really interested in a lot of reasonably priced lenses ,you should take it back and get a d50. There certainly was no lack of warnings about the limitations of the d40.
--
Check my Photo Blog
http://parisea.blogspot.com/

tdkd13 · Dec 12, 2006

Nikon and Sigma are the only company's currently making F mount lenses with internal focus motors. There have been several D40 users who have said they have no problems with Sigma's HSM lenses.
Ted

--
http://photobucket.com/albums/y260/tdkd13/

Gliebert · Dec 12, 2006

Okay, maybe closer to 300.
why not a 70-300 ED non vr?
I was really just wondering if Nikon may bring out some more lenses
that will work with the D40.
The reviews on the 55-200 are not that great.
Just trying to find a solution that I could afford.
I like the feel and look of the camera and would like
to make it work for me.

Frank C. · Dec 12, 2006

tdkd13 said:
Nikon and Sigma are the only company's currently making F mount
lenses with internal focus motors. There have been several D40
users who have said they have no problems with Sigma's HSM lenses.
Ted

the Sigmas work fine.

tdkd13 said:
--
http://photobucket.com/albums/y260/tdkd13/

gmosc · Dec 12, 2006

Sorry Gliebert, but you've been had. You are the perfect example that the "nay sayers" were warning about. I love the response where after you specifically say 200-300 someone says get the Sigma. If I'm not mistaken, it costs around 500 dollars. I'm not sure you're gonna get any of the help you were hoping for, but unfortunately, Gliebert, you are apparantly NOT the target market for this camera. You weren't supposed to want anything more than the kit lens.

It's gonna cost you 500 bucks a pop for lenses and more, unfortunately. Sorry. Consider taking it back and reading some more before it's too late.

Guy Moscoso

Gliebert said:
Okay, maybe closer to 300.
why not a 70-300 ED non vr?
I was really just wondering if Nikon may bring out some more lenses
that will work with the D40.
The reviews on the 55-200 are not that great.
Just trying to find a solution that I could afford.
I like the feel and look of the camera and would like
to make it work for me.

Frank C. · Dec 12, 2006

deanx0r said:
Check out the Sigma 30mm f/1.4.

It's sharp, it's fast, well built, and there is no other
alternatives in its price range.

if you can come to terms with it's so-so bokeh and
the fact that 30mm is just too wide for portraiture, then
yes it is a decent lens, personally I would put up with
Nikon 50f1.8 and its manual focussing instead of the
Sigma....

deanx0r said:
--
http://anh.bi.home.comcast.net/

da_locator · Dec 12, 2006

Do you have a D40?

Frank C. · Dec 12, 2006

sigmas work fine part 2:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1034&message=21101603

Gliebert · Dec 12, 2006

I didn't buy it, just looked at it in the store.
I might wait awhile.

gmosc · Dec 12, 2006

Gliebert,

Whew, good to hear we misunderstood your "picked up a D40" statement. I dreading the posts of people who might want more than the kit lens and don't have the cash for the AF-S lens they need.
Keep looking and reading. You'll find your niche.

Guy Moscoso

Gliebert said:
I didn't buy it, just looked at it in the store.
I might wait awhile.

deanx0r · Dec 13, 2006

Portraits seem to be just fine with the 30mm, which translate into a 45mm in 35mm format, without any visible distortion.

50mm (75mm!) doesn't offer enough room for street photography. It's almost borderline with telephoto IMO. Even with the 30mm seems too tight in some situation.

As for bokeh. I have no idea what's good or bad bokeh. To me this lens allow me to take very sharp pictures in very low light situation. After playing with the kit lens for a while I realized that there is no substitute to light imo, and in tight situations, a picture is better than no picture at all.

Frank C. said:
deanx0r said:

Check out the Sigma 30mm f/1.4.

It's sharp, it's fast, well built, and there is no other
alternatives in its price range.

Click to expand...

if you can come to terms with it's so-so bokeh and
the fact that 30mm is just too wide for portraiture, then
yes it is a decent lens, personally I would put up with
Nikon 50f1.8 and its manual focussing instead of the
Sigma....

Member said:

--
http://anh.bi.home.comcast.net/

Click to expand...

--
http://anh.bi.home.comcast.net/

Gliebert · Dec 15, 2006

So, let's say I was going to spring for a 18-200 VR, or a 70-300VR,
would you go for the D40, or D80?

Steve82 · Dec 15, 2006

Gliebert said:
So, let's say I was going to spring for a 18-200 VR, or a 70-300VR,
would you go for the D40, or D80?

If you are serious enough to put $1300 into lenses, then why would you be interested in the cheapest possible body?

Steve82 · Dec 15, 2006

Steve82 said:
Gliebert said:

So, let's say I was going to spring for a 18-200 VR, or a 70-300VR,
would you go for the D40, or D80?

Click to expand...

If you are serious enough to put $1300 into lenses, then why would
you be interested in the cheapest possible body?

Whoops! missed the "OR"

Are you ever going to shoot in lower light conditions? If the answer is "yes", then you shouldn't consider the D40 until Nikon updates their primes to include AF-S.

Lenses for D40?

Forum Enthusiast

Senior Member

Well-known member

Forum Pro

Leading Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Forum Enthusiast

Frank C.

Guest

Veteran Member

Frank C.

Guest

Member

Frank C.

Guest

Forum Enthusiast

Veteran Member

Well-known member

Forum Enthusiast

Senior Member

Senior Member

Keyboard shortcuts