DSLRUsers.com

Hi folks,

Just wanting some advice, I own a Nikkon D40 and am learning alot about it. I'm looking to get another couple of lenses for it down the track and am not sure what to buy. I mostly photo my kids and landscapes buildings etc and find I am shooting alot inside in lower light. I also have a Sb600. I'm looking at getting th 12-24mm F4 lenses and also tossing up between the 24-70mm F2.8 and the 18-200mm. I think that the 24-70mm would be better because of the F2.8 but is it overkill for the D40 as the D40 is only a DX sensor? Also does the F2.8 give me far better shooting ability in low light compared to F3.5? Any help would be appreciated.

B

I dont have a lot to add.

Lenses are soemthing that you can have for lifetime. If you can afford the 24-70 grab it and you will have it forever. It is a different beast to the 18-200 which is a great walk around lens.

The 24-70 is fantastic in its range. I dont have one but had the chance to play with it and a D3. Super fast focus silent .

I think you need to decide exactly what you want to use it for? Are you happy to change lenses as required. Will you upgrade the D40 in the future?

I'm saving for the 24-70 and at $2190 it aint cheap, but I do miss the versitilty of the 18-200, of whick I have sold.

Sorry this was wishy washy, but if you can afford the 24-70 grab it. Search the forum for it there is plenty of good feedback for both.

Regads
MATT

I've had the lens for about a fortnight.

One of the random photos here. http://www.flickr.com/photos/grev/3142889837/

I use the 24-70 on the D200 (DX). It works a treat. It works well for portraits when you don't mind the subject being aware of the camera. I prefer the extra reach of the 85 here though, so I am not as "In your Face". It is also a great GP landcape lens, though you will miss being able to go wider (you can always crop for tighter, but it's hard -not impossible mind- to add stuff). I team it with the Sigma 10-20, so I don't miss the wide end, so long as I remember to pack both lenses. It is probably less useful for buildings, but It depends what you are shooting here. A tilt-shift lens (Nikon call them perspective control (PC)) is best here. Or an ultrawide so you can get all the building in from not too far away.

I used the 24-70 for all the photos in this thread:
http://www.dslrusers.com/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=35252&p=378401

The 18-200 is also a great lens for its purpose. It does nothing brilliantly, but it does a more than reasonable job of everything, from macro to motor sports. If you have one, it will probably live on the camera. Mine did.Of course, there is always a specialist lens that will do any specific task better. I think of it as a travel lens. The one you use when you can't be bothered to change lenses, or can't afford the weight or volume penalty of multiple lenses. I passed mine on with my D70s, and definitely have it on my wish list (Unless I go FX first)

Faster lenses mean the difference between getting a shot and not getting it. f/2.8 is not a lot faster than f3.5 but it IS much faster than f/5.6, which is where the 18-200 is for much of its range. It is also MUCH faster than f/8 where the 18-200 is at its best. Also, fast lenses are expensive. That means they are made for professionals, which, in turn, means they tend to be better at all apertures than slower lenses. The 24-70 will give you a better result at f3.8 than the 18-200 at f/3.8 (f3.8 is the maximum for this lens at 24mm. f/5 is its fastest at 70mm)). Of course the 18-200 will give you a result at 18mm, and 200mm which the 24-70 cannot.

One point that's not yet been mentioned is that fast lenses are heavy.

Which the D40 is not.

I would be concerned about the potential for accidental damage to the D40 (or the lens) through mishandling of this combo.

If you are seriously considering this lens, my first question would come back to your body, and I'd be curious to know how long you've had the D40 for, and perhaps why you chose this body?

Thanks for all the replies,

I bought the D40 for size, weight and price about 4months ago. It's my first Dslr so I thought I would test the waters at the entry level to see how much I enjoyed playing with and down the track upgrade the body if necessary. I almost bought the D80 but reading the reviews on the D40 I decided to save some money on the body and spend it on lenses. I am enjoying the D40 but am quickly realising the limits of the kit lens. The post on possible damage of this combo is what I'm looking for advice on because the body is very light compared to the lens. I thought the 24-70mm would be a great lens exspecially when upgrading to maybe a D300 in a few years.
b

If you put your location in your profile (a requirement BTW) some one nearby may even let you try out the combo.

I own this lens as well (from the Xmas meet it seemed like everyone does these days) and it is a real cracker. I actually had my first taste of this lens on the front of a D40x and that felt quite nice in the hand, and have recently placed mine on the front of my best friends brand new D60 (both of these cameras are approx the same weight as the D40 - varying in by a few grams here and there). Image quality wise the 24-70mm f/2.8 will wipe the floor clean of the 18-200mm but the 18-200 will have better range.

I vote the 24-70mm especially if you already have a 55-200mm (J Davis has been proving this lens is VERY good when used properly http://dslrusers.com/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=35259). If you miss the wider end then grab that 12-24 (Tokina (11-16mm f/2.8 or 12-24mm f/4) if you dont mind manual focusing)

its quite unusual for someone to be deciding between either an 18-200VR and a 24-70/2.8.

1. there is a 1200 price difference, (just about the cost of a d90)
2. there is a MASSIVE weight difference
3. there is a MASSIVE optical quality difference.

seems to me you;re a bit unsure of what you really need. if i were you this is what id be doing:

1. leave the 24-70 for now. its expensive and imo will feel grossly unbalanced on a d40.
2. i'd sort out your low light issues with a 50mm f1.4 afs. it will AF on the d40 and is 2 stops faster than 2.8 anyway.
3. get a sigma 10-20mm for you're wide angle. (cheap, wide, fun and will AF on the D40)

the 24-70 isnt going anyplace, when you decide to upgrade bodies you can always look at it then. for now, enjoy what the benefits of the 50/1.4 will bring. its an outstanding lens and will feel far more balanced on a d40.

If you are thinking of upgrading to a D300 in a couple of years and you already use a DX format camera, wouldnt you be better off with an 17-55 2.8 AF-s
The focal range works out to be 25-82, much the same what the 24-70 would be on a full frame camera.

Just a thought

Mick

Maybe try the Sigma HSM equivalent in the meanwhile ?

Excellent respones guys,

Just the sort of info I'm chasing. I also just found that the 50mm f1.4 will AF on the D40 so this is a definite option as well. I'd like to just have a few really good lenses that cover all I shoot. The more I research it the 18-200 won't do what I'm looking for. I realise the price difference but I'd rather get the right lens for the job once even if it costs more iniatially as it will keep.

Thanks again for all th responses, I'm getting closer to working out what I need.
ps I'm in Brisbane.

b

The new 50 1.4 AF-S will for sure, not the previous versions of the 50....so...be careful there.

I think you are supposed to add your specific location to your profile. ie suburb and city.

kiwifamily wrote:The new 50 1.4 AF-S will for sure, not the previous versions of the 50....so...be careful there.

Correct.

I think you are supposed to add your specific location to your profile. ie suburb and city.

Correct again.

kiwifamily wrote:The new 50 1.4 AF-S will for sure, not the previous versions of the 50....so...be careful there.

I think you are supposed to add your specific location to your profile. ie suburb and city.

Ok hows that for a location, I'll get there slowly.

ahh, cool. you are not far from me.

I have a 24-70, so, if you would like to give it a go at some stage I'd be happy to meet up somewhere.

boeing wrote:Ok hows that for a location, I'll get there slowly.

Perfect.

kiwifamily wrote:ahh, cool. you are not far from me.

I have a 24-70, so, if you would like to give it a go at some stage I'd be happy to meet up somewhere.

And that is but one reason why we insist upon this.