D40 first lens VR or not.

ScottaRose

Member
Messages
16
Reaction score
0
Location
Seattle, US
Hello all,

Recent Canon convert! Just got a lovely D40 body, and am wondering about my first lens. I am an avid macro, landscape, peope guy and am probably wondering most about the walk-around lens from Nikon and Sigma, though other's ok if they work as well. I have heard great things about the kit lenses, and prices are good for VR for both, but am wondering if I would be better served by something like the new 18-105 VR, or the older 18-70 (non VR - but super sharp?)? I will eventually buy a longer lens and some primes, but for now am wondering where to start.

Am I missing any lens options?

Scott
 
The 18-105 and 18-70 are both nice. Actually I pretty much think of the 18-105 as an 18-70 with VR, apart from that I don't think the 18-105 have true ring type SWM.

Personally I think that VR is overrated, but it is definitely a nice to have thing.

If the bugdet allows my first choice would be the 16-85VR.

Don't forget that you also have the third party lenses like Sigma 18-50/2.8 and Tamron 17-50/2.8 that offers f/2.8 aperturefor not much more than the 18-105 or 18-70 cost. The Tamron also come in a VR (VC) version. Tamron does have lesser AF compared to Nikon and Sigma though.
Hello all,

Recent Canon convert! Just got a lovely D40 body, and am wondering about my first lens. I am an avid macro, landscape, peope guy and am probably wondering most about the walk-around lens from Nikon and Sigma, though other's ok if they work as well. I have heard great things about the kit lenses, and prices are good for VR for both, but am wondering if I would be better served by something like the new 18-105 VR, or the older 18-70 (non VR - but super sharp?)? I will eventually buy a longer lens and some primes, but for now am wondering where to start.

Am I missing any lens options?

Scott
 
VR is a good thing for for all slower lenses and if you shoot hand held most of the time ...

the lenses to consider as a walk-around are (all VR)

18-55
16-85
18-105
18-200

they are all in the same ball park optically but not price wise (16-85 and 18-200 are a good leap more expensive but also better built) ... my thinking is that once you're into a 3.5/5.6 zoom, you must get VR and you might as well go for the maximum range ... I sold my 16-85 recentlly (excellent lens) in exchnage for 18-200 (also excellent though a little less sharp in the edges)

BTW some people prefer to have less range and better optics (16-85) and will crop their pictures more aggressively which a 12MP camera will allow

same result ... differnt approach ... I thinbk you're still in a 3.5/5.6 lens and have all those limitations, so you might as well max range

final note: best deal $$$$$$/ compromise is the 18-105
 
as you now have a 18-55mm i would go for a 55-200mm vr if you need the reach and a 35mm f/1.8 which is superb with the little D40! It stays on mine most of the time, cracking little lense!!
 
too true ... I have 35/1.8 combined with 18-200 vr ... the 35mm is great for indoor shots and other special situations when I need fast lens
as you now have a 18-55mm i would go for a 55-200mm vr if you need the reach and a 35mm f/1.8 which is superb with the little D40! It stays on mine most of the time, cracking little lense!!
 
as you now have a 18-55mm i would go for a 55-200mm vr if you need the reach and a 35mm f/1.8 which is superb with the little D40! It stays on mine most of the time, cracking little lense!!
Yeah, the D40 Trinity (best bang for the buck combo for the D40, IMO)

... the 35mm will be mounted most of the time (95% of the time in my case); but its nice to have the 18-55vr and 55-200vr in the bag for when the need arises.
 
My guy Just bought a ( little used second hand but mint 18-105VR £150 ) loves its IQ brilliant, for the mony terrific , it is very sharp Indeed and a bargain around £200 new ,,the VR does keep things well --- sharp, and on our D40 's gives great color and clarity, I recommended.

We have other nice lenses amoung them some stand out as keepers the superbly usefull 18-200VR, and the exellent nice to use sharp as a razor 18-135 , but for the price this is the new best IQ for the money x uselfullness - nikon bargain buy lens , but just our point of view you understand..

Rhoda
--
I have my opinion and so I am allowed to give just my point of view
 
Thanks everyone,

It's really good to hear all the support for this little camera. I have shot with it a few times with my sister's camera and am wowed by it every time. My other current line of obsession is macro stuff. I am leaning towards getting an old manual 55 prime lens and some extension tubes for this. I sure have a lot of glass to buy!

Scott

 
Your pictures look pretty good. VR or non-VR I'm pretty sure you will take good pictures with either.

Good luck.
 
Hello all,

Recent Canon convert! Just got a lovely D40 body, and am wondering about my first lens. I am an avid macro, landscape, peope guy and am probably wondering most about the walk-around lens from Nikon and Sigma, though other's ok if they work as well. I have heard great things about the kit lenses, and prices are good for VR for both, but am wondering if I would be better served by something like the new 18-105 VR, or the older 18-70 (non VR - but super sharp?)? I will eventually buy a longer lens and some primes, but for now am wondering where to start.

Am I missing any lens options?

Scott
Only you would know for sure what focal length you would be best served by.

I think any of Nikon's consumer 18-xx(x) lenses are a good place to start. There aren't any significant IQ differences between any of them and they are all equally well regarded by their users and in most lens reviews.

With a D40 body and excellent walk around Nikon lens selection (and prices) I see no reason to purchase any other brand. (At least to start with)
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top