Reading mode: Light Dark

Lenses for D40

Go to last post
L

littleredhead

Forum Enthusiast
Messages
332
Reaction score
0
Location
Derbyshire, UK
Hello all

Took my D40 out and about Cambridge city centre at the weekend to shoot some pics of the fabulous architecture around there (will post some pics later on) but found that the D40 lens kit (18-55) to be a bit restricted when trying to zoom in on parts of buildings that we couldnt access (for example, Kings College from the 'backs' when the college was closed to the public).

I'm thinking about adding another lens to my set up and was wondering if the best thing would be to get Nikon 18-200 VR and sell my kit lens so I have the one lens for everything or whether to keep the kit lens and get a Nikon 55-200VR in addition to my kit lens.

Any thoughts, suggestions?

If I did sell the 18-55, what price do you think I'd get for it? Difficult to say I know but I'm assuming not a lot because all and sundry who have got the D40 kit already have this lens...

--

Complete and utter DSLR newbie so please be patient with me if I ask dumb questions!
 
You will get about £60 for the lens on Ebay.

Realistically you have 4 options:

a) 18-200 VR - expensive and in short supply. Will cost you circa £500

b) Go with the 55-200 VR. Trouble is as you have found your existing lens is too short so you will spend alot of time swapping. Not ideal with a DSLR. Will cost your circa £200 on Ebay

c) Get a used 18-135. You can get one for around £160 on Ebay. The lens would have been near perfect for you Cambridge tour. This lens works very well with the D40 (The 18-200 is a bit heavy). Downside is you have no VR but you do have a light weight very sharp 7.5 x zoom

d) Get a used 18-70 lesn from Ebay - Cost about £120. Not that much of an improvement in terms of zoom range on the 18-55.

I would go for option c). Net cost if you sell the 18-55 will be around £120 and you will have a really neat package. Later you can add the 70-300mm lens if you want.
--
Chris Elliott

Nikon D Eighty + Fifty - Other equipment in Profile

http://PlacidoD.zenfolio.com/
 
That's great, many thanks.

I didnt even think about the 18-135 lens - I've heard so many people raving about the 18-200 or 55-200VR that it didn't even register!

--

Complete and utter DSLR newbie so please be patient with me if I ask dumb questions!
 
My 55-200VR is the lens that stays on my camera most of the time, with only occasional swaps for the 18-55. If you find that you're mostly using the long end of your 18-55, you might not be changing lens between those two as often as you now think.

Also consider the 70-300VR, available in the US for $500. Along with your 18-55 kit lens, it would give you a broad range with only a small gap.
 
The Nikon 55-200mm VR offers the greatest value, and is a perfect compliment for the kit lens which is quite good as well. I think that combo will meet your needs quite well.
 
So what's the general consensus between the 18-135 and the 55-200? Is one better than the other or is it a case of each is good for different things?

I'd say that I use both ends of the 18-55 (excuse the non-tech speak - I cant think how to phrase it properly!) equally but would just like that extra bit of zoom on the occasion that I can't get close enough to my subject.

I'd also like to get into landscape photography - in this context, would one of the above lenses outshine the other?

Thanks for all your help!

--

Complete and utter DSLR newbie so please be patient with me if I ask dumb questions!
 
Personally, I use the 200 end of my 55-200VR a lot, and often want more reach. But for landscapes, you'll want the wide 18mm end, or wider, so for a single lens solution, short of popping for the 18-200, the 18-135 sounds like your option (though I haven't used it). But really, swapping lenses isn't a big deal, you already have the 18-55, and the 55-200VR is an absolutely great lens relative to the low price.

Many people opt for an ultra wide lens for landscapes, to get really expansive views. The Sigma 10-20 HSM is motorized so it will auto-focus on your D40, and is a favorite of many people here. It costs about $500 in the US.
 
troscoe said:
Personally, I use the 200 end of my 55-200VR a lot, and often want
more reach.
Click to expand...
In that case, how about keeping the 18-55, and adding the 70-300VR? The missing 55-70 is not really a big deal.
troscoe said:
But for landscapes, you'll want the wide 18mm end, or
wider, so for a single lens solution, short of popping for the
18-200, the 18-135 sounds like your option (though I haven't used
it). But really, swapping lenses isn't a big deal, you already
have the 18-55, and the 55-200VR is an absolutely great lens
relative to the low price.

Many people opt for an ultra wide lens for landscapes, to get
really expansive views. The Sigma 10-20 HSM is motorized so it
will auto-focus on your D40, and is a favorite of many people here.
It costs about $500 in the US.
Click to expand...
--
Patco
A photograph is more than a bunch of pixels
 
Yep, autofocus would be good as I am (currently) completely pants at manual focus!

I have heard about the Sigma 10-20 - think that might be one to think about for the future...
troscoe said:
Many people opt for an ultra wide lens for landscapes, to get
really expansive views. The Sigma 10-20 HSM is motorized so it
will auto-focus on your D40, and is a favorite of many people here.
It costs about $500 in the US.
Click to expand...
--

Complete and utter DSLR newbie so please be patient with me if I ask dumb questions!
 
Patco said:
troscoe said:
Personally, I use the 200 end of my 55-200VR a lot, and often want
more reach.
Click to expand...
In that case, how about keeping the 18-55, and adding the 70-300VR?
The missing 55-70 is not really a big deal.
Click to expand...
True. I reccomended that option to the OP, littleredhead, who is the one considering whether to sell the 18-55. I am considering the 70-300 in the future, but there are other things on the wish list first. Thanks, though.
 
troscoe said:
troscoe said:
In that case, how about keeping the 18-55, and adding the 70-300VR?
The missing 55-70 is not really a big deal.
Click to expand...
True. I reccomended that option to the OP, littleredhead, who is
the one considering whether to sell the 18-55. I am considering
the 70-300 in the future, but there are other things on the wish
list first. Thanks, though.
Click to expand...
Ah, yes! Don't put the 70-300VR is too far down your list - it's a great one!

--
Patco
A photograph is more than a bunch of pixels
 
I purchased the Sigma 10-20 at the same time as the D40, and can recommend it for certain situations. But, as other threads have reported, you have to take more care with it to avoid distortion, and some landscapes can be too "empty" because of the huge perspective.

I bought the 18 - 135mm on Ebay secondhand for £160 and it has replaced the kit lens for general walkaround. I would thoroughly recommend it as a one lens solution, that fills several needs for me, e.g., flowers as isolated subjects and candid shots of people at parties etc (in reasonable light). It does have some darkening at the corners (vignetting), so don't frame too tightly with it. The D40 + 18-135 is still a lighweight combination.
 
Recent UK review said the 55-200VR was good value, but not that sharp. It said if you want it as part of a "starter kit" it would give you good range and the VR will help, but it's not as sharp as the 18 - 200 VR

In terms of IQ it is similar to the 18-135

Only saying what the review said, but then again they could be wrong.

Its all about expectations!

Ian
 
My advice for you is the 18-55 + 55-200 VR. Not what I have but sometimes wish I did. Such a great inexpensive small/light combo.

I've been very pleased with the 18-135 and 70-300 VR combo for about 6 months now. I owned an 18-200VR briefly when my local store got one in stock - sold it on Ebay after 1 week (made 50 bucks wahoo:). I wanted to like it, but truthfully I much preferred my combo. Price was not the big issue for me; weight was.

IMO the 18-200 didn't balance well at all on the D40 - weighs more than the body and diminished one of my favorite qualities of the D40. I don't mind the 70-300 weight because of the difference in the way I balance the camera (left hand with the longer lens) and it's not on my camera nearly as much walking around.

However, if you are into architecture, I wouldn't necessarily recommend the 18-135 due to some distortion at wide angles. Most of it can be corrected with PTlens, and for my landscape and people shots I have no issues whatsoever. But architecture, well...not so sure.

Before I sold my 18-55 (after I got the 18-135) I did some comparison testing and was very impressed with the 18-55 - sharp and no noticeable distortion. Didn't need both and preferred 18-135 versatility.

I saw the 18-135 as sharper than the 18-200 but with more distorion. VR worked great - I could handhold a fairly sharp still image at 1/4s !! I have pretty steady hands so I really don't need VR under 100mm or so.

Anyway, don't go mad with deciding - they're all pretty good and I've found selling these quality lenses on Ebay is pretty easy if you change your mind later.
 
IDB said:
Recent UK review said the 55-200VR was good value, but not that
sharp. It said if you want it as part of a "starter kit" it would
give you good range and the VR will help, but it's not as sharp as
the 18 - 200 VR

In terms of IQ it is similar to the 18-135

Only saying what the review said, but then again they could be wrong.

Its all about expectations!

Ian
Click to expand...
I keep recommending it as a great value. I would hope that lenses that cost many times the price of the 55-200VR would at least have some advantage in IQ, though IIRC, reviews of the 18-200 speak of inconsistant results at different points in its broad range. But for a small fraction of the 18-200VR price, I'm quite impressed with the IQ of the 55-200VR. Some examples:

A backyard bird, taken at 200mm, where the lens is supposed to be the softest:



And a bug close-up, taken with the Nikon 3T close-up filter (which should degrade the IQ somewhat) fitted to the 55-200VR:

 
Thanks for all this info - very useful!

Is there a lot of difference between the 55-200 and the 55-200VR? (I'm on a tight budget and ££'s mean a lot to me!)

--

Complete and utter DSLR newbie so please be patient with me if I ask dumb questions!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top