Nikon D40 Announced?

[funkybudha]

As of November 16, 2006 1:30AM EST I see on http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php?cat=1 a quick blurb on the announcement of:

Nikon D40
Incredible Pictures...Even Easier
Nikon's smallest digital SLR camera ever!
Packaged with Nikon's superb 18-55mm
f/3.5-5.6G ED II AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor
lens.

There seems to be a new Nikon SB-400 Sppedlight flash as well.

When you click on either one of these links, you jump to Nikon's http://www.nikondigital.com/main.html?page=d40 website, but there's no updated link for the new products...at least, as of this moment.

[funkybudha]

Well, it looks like dpreview.com has the following hands on preview of the D40:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0611/06111603nikond40handsonpreview.asp

[goofball]

From what it appears, this camera won't support prime lenses properly. That alone, is enough reason to avoid it if you're serious about photography or getting into it with this camera.
The D50 is a better buy. Or the D70s.

[hightech]

The D40 appears to be a poor mans SLR. Personally, I would save up for the D80 with the decent VR lens. This combo should easily give the avg and amateur photographer all they need for a number of years.

I have played with the D50 and it is not too bad, but the D70 is a nicer camera. The new D80 is a step in the right direction for Nikon.

[rubberband]

meh, skip the D40. Pick up a used D50 for under $500 instead and get way more features and proper support for lenses. I love mine.

I did play with a D80 the other day though.. Loving the *HUGE* viewfinder. I'm thinking that might be my next upgrade.

[2000fordfocus]

OMG! D40 is not the biggest announcement~ The new SB400 is!!! Is will do wireless flash(aka CLS) at a low price!!! Damn it!! I can finally go wireless at a affordable price!! letz hope it will do a good job~

[thelefteyeguy]

im waiting for the D300...when it finally has VR built in the camera...eventhough it'd probably reduce the revenue flows from ppl getting new lens.

Nikon really needs to get their act together.

[TenzoR]

The D40 appears to be a poor mans SLR. Personally, I would save up for the D80 with the decent VR lens. This combo should easily give the avg and amateur photographer all they need for a number of years.

I have played with the D50 and it is not too bad, but the D70 is a nicer camera. The new D80 is a step in the right direction for Nikon.

I doubt the avg person or amateur photographer will even utilize the full potential of D50 let alone the D80. I'd skip the D40/D80 and get the D50. The savings from the D80 will allow you to buy a more selection of lenses.

The only thing I wish my D50 has is the lit LCD and more focus point. The second command wheel is useless to me since it takes me a long time to setup a shot anyways.

[warpdrive]

I agree that getting a D50 is still a better bet for most people with more room to grow. I can't imagine most people not being happy with the D50's capabilities (except for those who like to argue)

That SB400 would be a pretty cool addition if you want to build up a CLS system

[cipher]

WTH? Works with AF-S or AF-I lenses only? Also...what's with all these cheap lenses with plastic mounts? Is Nikon going ghetto?

[TenzoR]

WTH? Works with AF-S or AF-I lenses only? Also...what's with all these cheap lenses with plastic mounts? Is Nikon going ghetto?

well considering it's goign to be priced below D50 ...I think its fine that it only works with AF-S/AF-I lenses. Most of the majority buyer will probably use those lenses anyways. As for cheap lenses with plastic mounts? Well cost may be an issue but also weight. Nikon does have well built lens, but the price is quite $$ for some people

[CameraBill]

OMG! D40 is not the biggest announcement~ The new SB400 is!!! Is will do wireless flash(aka CLS) at a low price!!! Damn it!! I can finally go wireless at a affordable price!! letz hope it will do a good job~

The specs look bad. Fairly under powered, only takes 2 AA's. Not much of an upgrade over the pop-up flash. Money would be better spent on 3rd party flashes or older used Nikon flashes.

[robbiex1]

Ok, every take a deep breath and relax....this camera isn't for the hobbyist or serious amateur. It's targeted at drawing people into Nikon's SLR system people who are looking to buy a $400-$500+ point and shoot.

For the rest of us who are more advanced, don't sweat it, Nikon has the great D200, D80 and probably a soon-to-be-released D3H....

As for the SB400, it's enough for some people. If it's not enough for you, get the SB600. No problem.

Remember, Nikon is also trying to get a share of the entry-level SLR market, not just the advanced, pro and semi-pro.

[funkybudha]

Ok, every take a deep breath and relax....this camera isn't for the hobbyist or serious amateur. It's targeted at drawing people into Nikon's SLR system people who are looking to buy a $400-$500+ point and shoot.

For the rest of us who are more advanced, don't sweat it, Nikon has the great D200, D80 and probably a soon-to-be-released D3H....

As for the SB400, it's enough for some people. If it's not enough for you, get the SB600. No problem.

Remember, Nikon is also trying to get a share of the entry-level SLR market, not just the advanced, pro and semi-pro.

Agreed! I think it's a smart move on Nikon's part. The D40 is to Nikon as the Fit is to Honda. There are plenty of feature-rich models in Nikon's current line-up such as the D80 and D200 to meet the needs of the prosumer/enthusiast photographer.

Entry-level is as it should be - entry level features and priced accordingly. I would understand people's complaints about the D40's lack of features if it were to be called a D55 or D60 but it's not. It's meant to be pushed down market and draw in the interest of P&S users.

My only beef is their omission of an internal focus drive motor. I think it would've been really neat to market it to first time dSLR buyers by saying, "Hey, you can still use your father's old AF Nikon lenses." But I guess Nikon's marketing people figured that the majority of their intended D40 users' first (and probably ONLY) lenses will only be AFS.

Does that mean Nikon will come out with an AFS prime?

[klam]

I think the D40 is a good move for Nikon, because despite having a decently capable camera in the D50, the D50 is not the sales leader in the segment. Perhaps a cheaper model slotted under will help grab some additional sales.

Like the others have mentioned, the lack of motor drive reaffirms that Nikon's mount technology is outdated and lacks full compatibility throughout the line.

The Nikon prime lenses are outdated and they don't seem interested in advancing them.

They're selling a pretty bare bones DSLR, but it's not THAT much cheaper than the D50??

[robbiex1]

Based on this move by Nikon, my guess is that they are starting to phase out their screw-drive lenses. I bet in a few years they won't be making any screw lenses anymore.

I'm sure the more professional bodies will still support screw lenses, however, it looks like the low-end bodies won't any longer.

It's kind of like how Nikon's lower-end cameras can't meter properly with manual focus lenses....

Not necessarily a bad thing. How many future D40 users will ever venture to go out and buy expensive primes anyways? Most will be quite happy with the 18-55 AF-S and the 55-200 AF-S. Anyone not happy will not be happy with the D40 in the first place.

[MrWizard]

Nice. I was looking into getting a D-SLR and was looking at the D50. The D40 hopefully will be a more cost efficient option for me.

[TenzoR]

Not necessarily a bad thing. How many future D40 users will ever venture to go out and buy expensive primes anyways? Most will be quite happy with the 18-55 AF-S and the 55-200 AF-S. Anyone not happy will not be happy with the D40 in the first place.


I think Nikon will try to push the 18-135 and 18-200 more :)

[funkybudha]

I think Nikon will try to push the 18-135 and 18-200 more :)

Nikon sure doesn't need to spend an extra penny advertising to push the 18-200 given its incredible popularity.

This move with the D40 seems solely to increase/capture the entry level dSLR market = more revenue for Nikon.

My wish would be to bring down the cost of their lenses. I cannot see how a larger base of Nikon SLR users can help with bringing down the cost. Even through economy of scale, optics are optics - you just can't make a cheaper pro-level lens. Or can you?

[goofball]

My wish would be to bring down the cost of their lenses.

That's my wish as well. I'd love to have the 18-200 and 70-300, or 80-400 but it's just crazy how expensive they are. I will eventually have the 70-300mm to complement my 18-70DX and my 50mm f/1.8d but the 80-400 is almost 3 times the price.

[robbiex1]

If you were a computer programmer, how much is a good computer, including legitimate software? Probably run you in the thousands pretty easily.

Same thing goes for photography. If you're just a weekend twice a year shooter, then yes, $1500 for one lens is a lot. But if you rely on that lens day in and day out as many pros and semi-pros do, then the investment is well worth the return.

Cheap and pro hardly ever go together in the photography world.

[goofball]

If you were a computer programmer, how much is a good computer, including legitimate software? Probably run you in the thousands pretty easily.

Same thing goes for photography. If you're just a weekend twice a year shooter, then yes, $1500 for one lens is a lot. But if you rely on that lens day in and day out as many pros and semi-pros do, then the investment is well worth the return.

Cheap and pro hardly ever go together in the photography world.

Most computer programmers work for a company that pays for that software :cheesygri

Fair enough, I suppose.

Nikon D40 is listed on mostlydigital.ca already. They are a Nikon Authorized Dealer, so full Nikon warranty should apply.

$577 for D40 Body
http://www.mostlydigital.ca/detail.php?recordID=H55260&p_combined_search_field=nikon&currentRecord=137

$680.99 for Nikon D40 set with 18-55mm f3.5-5.6 G ED II lens
http://www.mostlydigital.ca/detail.php?recordID=H55261&p_combined_search_field=nikon&currentRecord=138

$893.99 for Nikon D40 set with 18-135mm f3.5-5.6 G IF-ED lens
http://www.mostlydigital.ca/detail.php?recordID=H55262&p_combined_search_field=nikon&currentRecord=139

The SB-400 flash is only 149. Very interesting, I may add this as a small light flash for portraits.
http://www.mostlydigital.ca/detail.php?recordID=H55263&p_combined_search_field=nikon&currentRecord=140

[Txiasaeia]

http://www.camera-warehouse.ca/product.asp?pr=D50

What's the point of spending $577 CAD on a crippled camera when you can get a D50 for $599 CAD - $20 more? I'm baffled. EDIT: "Crippled," as in I couldn't use my 50mm 1.8/d with it.

[goofball]

http://www.camera-warehouse.ca/product.asp?pr=D50

What's the point of spending $577 CAD on a crippled camera when you can get a D50 for $599 CAD - $20 more? I'm baffled. EDIT: "Crippled," as in I couldn't use my 50mm 1.8/d with it.

I think the biggest attraction to the D40 might be size. For those P&S type, they will probably feel more comfortable with it compared with a D50.

The LCD screen will also attract more. 2.5" is a good size. I would have liked to have had it on my D70s. Good resolution too.

I agree that the fact it doesn't like prime lenses rules it out for me (not an issue since I love my D70s) but for most, having a fixed zoom lens and getting nice bokeh, is probably not their biggest concern if they are really looking at the D40.

[NiMSo]

This is clearly aimed at the entry level crowd. Anyone beyond that will likely dismiss this body. I think Nikon is trying to pull in those P&S users who want to try DSLRs, but are wary of price and complexity. This is a good move for Nikon, since it'll draw more users.

But overall, I find that a move like this really cheapens the DSLR scene. Now everyone's going to have one. I would prefer to see DSLR cameras go into the hands of people who are serious about photography. DSLRs should be high end tools, not glorified P&S cameras...

[ynchu]

Mind you, some computer programmers don't even pay for their software... :lol: :lol:


Most computer programmers work for a company that pays for that software :cheesygri

Fair enough, I suppose.

[goofball]

But overall, I find that a move like this really cheapens the DSLR scene. Now everyone's going to have one. I would prefer to see DSLR cameras go into the hands of people who are serious about photography. DSLRs should be high end tools, not glorified P&S cameras...

To me, anyone that is going to spend the $600+ that this will cost with a basic 18-55mm lens, is pretty serious about photography.

To compare it to a P&S that costs around $500, it is obvious the D40 is going to look pretty enticing and all. The only thing is, that the P&S camera's in the $500 and up, all have manual features as well. So while the D40 is most definitely a step up from a $500 P&S (in most everything except for included optical zoom range), it's not a very enormous step up for someone who needs more than what a $500 P&S would give them, in terms of basic manual controls (aperture, shutter speed, WB, ISO, Exp Comp).

I know many will like this D40 but many more will not. A basic user will not get one of these once they find out how much additional lenses will cost, plus the size of the bag they'll need if they don't have a good walkaround lens like an 18-200. And give them the cost of the 18-200VR and i'm sure they'll be heading off to P&S land again.

Sometimes, a person needs one of these in their hands, finding out that it has underutilized potential, to give them the motivation to learn how to use it properly, and eventually, become a serious user.

Ultimately, the camera is but a tool, and the person behind the camera still needs to be good enough to take a good picture, regardless of whether it is a P&S or a DSLR in their hands.

[sfu_engineer]

To me, anyone that is going to spend the $600+ that this will cost with a basic 18-55mm lens, is pretty serious about photography.

To compare it to a P&S that costs around $500, it is obvious the D40 is going to look pretty enticing and all. The only thing is, that the P&S camera's in the $500 and up, all have manual features as well. So while the D40 is most definitely a step up from a $500 P&S (in most everything except for included optical zoom range), it's not a very enormous step up for someone who needs more than what a $500 P&S would give them, in terms of basic manual controls (aperture, shutter speed, WB, ISO, Exp Comp).

I know many will like this D40 but many more will not. A basic user will not get one of these once they find out how much additional lenses will cost, plus the size of the bag they'll need if they don't have a good walkaround lens like an 18-200. And give them the cost of the 18-200VR and i'm sure they'll be heading off to P&S land again.

Sometimes, a person needs one of these in their hands, finding out that it has underutilized potential, to give them the motivation to learn how to use it properly, and eventually, become a serious user.

Ultimately, the camera is but a tool, and the person behind the camera still needs to be good enough to take a good picture, regardless of whether it is a P&S or a DSLR in their hands.

Well a DSLR isn't just about manual settings. It's about the increased sensor size which allows for greater performance with high ISO (up to 3200 with the D40); and interchangeable lenses which provide much better optical quality and creative choice than stock 3x digital zoom on traditional P&S cameras.

I think with the D40, Nikon is trying to attract photo newbies who are attracted at the price and small size of this DSLR but once they buy it they will realize that some features are missing and 100% have to upgrade to newer models. However, with older low-mid end DSLR's such as the D50 and D70s one wouldn't really have a need to upgrade. But personally I love prime lenses (for their excellent optical quality to price ratio) and it would suck for me to not be able to use primes. However, a new DSLR user wouldn't know the difference between prime/zoom anyways.

[goofball]

Well a DSLR isn't just about manual settings. It's about the increased sensor size which allows for greater performance with high ISO (up to 3200 with the D40); and interchangeable lenses which provide much better optical quality and creative choice than stock 3x digital zoom on traditional P&S cameras.


True, the increased sensor size does give way to having a better high ISO picture quality but the Fuji's do pretty well with their Super CCD technology.

Most P&S have lousy quality at ISO 400.

I know a DSLR isn't all about manual settings but honestly, how many people don't use a manual setting of some sort with their DSLR? I don't know of any photographer that uses one of the preset modes, or auto, on their DSLR. Given that, I don't know anyone that uses a DSLR that uses a preset mode.

The interchangeable lens is the one place I think many are going to be turned off with going to DSLR. Pricewise, and the amount of options, they will not really understand it and may not want to bother. They're so used to super zoom (10/12x) and all that, to tell them that a 70-300mm is only 4.3x, they're probably gonna be turned off.

ISO 3200 is going to have so much quality lost, it's not really a viable option for regular use, and even in a pinch, I don't know if it would be worth it. ISO 3200 on the D80 is not that great, very visible graininess to the picture in most cases.

[TenzoR]

My wish would be to bring down the cost of their lenses. I cannot see how a larger base of Nikon SLR users can help with bringing down the cost. Even through economy of scale, optics are optics - you just can't make a cheaper pro-level lens. Or can you?

I don't see why any avg SLR would even need to go for a pro-level lens. It really makes sense to go pro lens if you are using it under utter more extreme condition that the prosumer/consumer lens can't handle or if your work requires it. Else for every other day any cheaper lens that Nikon produces will work fine. I'm currently sporting an 18-200 and 50mm lens. I know the weakness of the 18-200 and thr 50mm but honestly with these two lens I just swap them in and out pending on situation. I don't think I'll bother buying another lens until I can fully use these lenses. The only thing I may buy is the 16-50 Tokina to use for daily.

[weedb0y]

http://www.camera-warehouse.ca/product.asp?pr=D50

What's the point of spending $577 CAD on a crippled camera when you can get a D50 for $599 CAD - $20 more? I'm baffled. EDIT: "Crippled," as in I couldn't use my 50mm 1.8/d with it.

Doesn't it make more sense to go with Pentax K110d instead? Its atleast a real SLR instead of this wanna be SLR.

[weedb0y]

Nice. I was looking into getting a D-SLR and was looking at the D50. The D40 hopefully will be a more cost efficient option for me.

Try some other brand for better value.

I am a pro Pentax now cuz of the price/value ratio.

[CameraBill]

But overall, I find that a move like this really cheapens the DSLR scene. Now everyone's going to have one. I would prefer to see DSLR cameras go into the hands of people who are serious about photography. DSLRs should be high end tools, not glorified P&S cameras...

The market drives what cameras should be made. Not your elitest attitude. If you want to maintain your status go get a medium format cam. Nobody will be following you to that venture.



Nikon can also be levering higher end bodies with the ability to use screw drive lenses. It'll probably be pushed up higher in the Nikon line with every generation untill only the flagship SLR has it.

[robbiex1]

Try some other brand for better value.

I am a pro Pentax now cuz of the price/value ratio.

You buy a nikon to access nikon lenses and to enter into Nikon's system. I don't think anyone can deny that Nikon and Canon's systems are light years ahead of the rest.

In fact, if Nikon, Canon and now Sony target the low end and succeed, Pentax may be forced out of the DSLR business in a few years if they can't compete. Competition isn't just about making a good camera. Look at Minolta, the 5D and the 7D were good cameras and they still went bust.

[goofball]

In fact, if Nikon, Canon and now Sony target the low end and succeed, Pentax may be forced out of the DSLR business in a few years if they can't compete. Competition isn't just about making a good camera. Look at Minolta, the 5D and the 7D were good cameras and they still went bust.

I don't know if you could call it "bust". Sony bought Konica Minolta and the A100 is their first product from Sony/KM merger.

[weedb0y]

You buy a nikon to access nikon lenses and to enter into Nikon's system. I don't think anyone can deny that Nikon and Canon's systems are light years ahead of the rest.

In fact, if Nikon, Canon and now Sony target the low end and succeed, Pentax may be forced out of the DSLR business in a few years if they can't compete. Competition isn't just about making a good camera. Look at Minolta, the 5D and the 7D were good cameras and they still went bust.

Pentax has been in this for over 70 years boss. Thats why it doesn't make sense to get a Nikon D40 to not have access to Nikon's lenses? Don't you think?

That was my point, there is a better valued camera that offers more for the same price as the D40. I disagree that Nikon/Canon's systems are light years ahead of the competition. If that was the case, there would be no market for other manufacturers at all.

Look at the specs for K10d. Sony is still targeting the prosumer market and not the entry-level. The alpha is a $1000+ camera.

[weedb0y]

I don't know if you could call it "bust". Sony bought Konica Minolta and the A100 is their first product from Sony/KM merger.

exactly, signs of a fan boi.. :)

[spol]

The dp review of the D40 is finally finished.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond40/

I yet have to go to a store and try it myself to believe its comfortable enough for my fairly large hands.

[pm_john]

The D40 looks nice, but I have to see for myself. Good review btw.

[Txiasaeia]

Good review, but my original complaints of the D40 still stand: no support for primes and the fact that it's too light (yes, there is such a thing) means that if you want to take decent handheld shots in anything other than perfect 16 light, or if you want to use primes, cough up the extra money and get the D50.

On the other hand, the D40's menu is really gorgeous, and it does look a lot more compact than my D50. If I was buying a brand new kit today and didn't have any of the equipment I have now, I might consider a D40 and a Nikon 12-24 combo...

[goofball]

Good review, but my original complaints of the D40 still stand: no support for primes and the fact that it's too light (yes, there is such a thing) means that if you want to take decent handheld shots in anything other than perfect 16 light, or if you want to use primes, cough up the extra money and get the D50.

On the other hand, the D40's menu is really gorgeous, and it does look a lot more compact than my D50. If I was buying a brand new kit today and didn't have any of the equipment I have now, I might consider a D40 and a Nikon 12-24 combo...


It will still work with primes but the ones that are available now, they won't work in autofocus, you'll need to manually focus.

You can still use VR lenses which will allow for lower shutter speeds. I can handhold to about 1/30th or so with fairly good results. Obviously, I don't get 100% shots usable at that but I'd say about 75% are good. VR would allow me to get probably 1/15th or so but it varies from person to person. That's still pretty good and with a fast 2.8 lens, it would be enough for most situations you can find.

The D40 is not a terrible, but if you look at the possible intended market, it will work. There are alot of lenses that work (Nikon's AF-S and Sigma's HSM, and more will come) already.

[TenzoR]

I kinda wanna try the 18-55mm II lens :)

[goofball]

I kinda wanna try the 18-55mm II lens :)

Why?
Its pretty much the same as the 18-55 DX.

[TenzoR]

Why?
Its pretty much the same as the 18-55 DX.

Never had a chance to play with the 18-55 so I'm curious

I've only used 50mm and 18-200

but I've hardly been using 70mm+

[CameraBill]

The dp review of the D40 is finally finished.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond40/


dpreview's reviews feel as tainted as any magazine reviewing column. The things they nit pick on the "lesser" brands (ie non-nikon, non-canon) seem like flaws inherent in all cameras.
And when they pit the big N vs the big C the conclusion is always inconclusive. Me thinks they pander to the advertising revenue.

However the forums are very good for finding personal, anecdotal evidence and information. A while ago I asked about lens hoods on a digital body and I recieved about 8 different responses.

[radeonboy]

Never had a chance to play with the 18-55 so I'm curious

I've only used 50mm and 18-200

but I've hardly been using 70mm+

i used to have that 18-55mm (came with d50). nothing special and very plastic. shot pretty decent though. lots of struggle for low light though.

i replaced it with a used 18-70mm which is in every way better.

[goofball]

Never had a chance to play with the 18-55 so I'm curious

I've only used 50mm and 18-200

but I've hardly been using 70mm+

It's an ok lens. Nice cause it is light. Plasticky feel but that didn't bother me. Smooth zoom. Slow lens though but you expect that for a $150 zoom kit lens.

The 18-70 feels like a better built lens and it is sharper but it is much heavier in comparison (210g vs 390g). How it feels on the camera will depend on you. The copy I had was not a smooth zoom so ymmv. Very nice lens but you would have to decide if it is worth less than 1 stop (5.6 vs 4.5 at 55mm) for the extra bit. It has better optics.

Truth be told, I'd probably go with the 18-55 if you shoot alot at 18, it had less distortion which needed correction at 18, 3 times cheaper and lighter.

If you really like shooting though, you should get a 35 f/2 or 50 f/1.4 or f/1.8 if you haven't already. If you want a decent zoom, get a Tokina 28-70 f/2.8. It's not very good for group shots but it does give a bit of flexibility in terms of zooming with the lens as opposed to with your feet.

[2000fordfocus]

It's an ok lens. Nice cause it is light. Plasticky feel but that didn't bother me. Smooth zoom. Slow lens though but you expect that for a $150 zoom kit lens.

The 18-70 feels like a better built lens and it is sharper but it is much heavier in comparison (210g vs 390g). How it feels on the camera will depend on you. The copy I had was not a smooth zoom so ymmv. Very nice lens but you would have to decide if it is worth less than 1 stop (5.6 vs 4.5 at 55mm) for the extra bit. It has better optics.

Truth be told, I'd probably go with the 18-55 if you shoot alot at 18, it had less distortion which needed correction at 18, 3 times cheaper and lighter.

If you really like shooting though, you should get a 35 f/2 or 50 f/1.4 or f/1.8 if you haven't already. If you want a decent zoom, get a Tokina 28-70 f/2.8. It's not very good for group shots but it does give a bit of flexibility in terms of zooming with the lens as opposed to with your feet.

I disagree, 18-70mm is so much better than 18-70mm... AFS and non-rotating front element alone are worth every penny, as well, this lens is decent sharp at f4.5! You can't get sharpest with 18-55mm at such aperture~~

I have 35mm f2 and 85mm f1.8... not really a fair comparison to a 18-55mm or 18-70mm...

[goofball]

I disagree, 18-70mm is so much better than 18-70mm... AFS and non-rotating front element alone are worth every penny, as well, this lens is decent sharp at f4.5! You can't get sharpest with 18-55mm at such aperture~~

I have 35mm f2 and 85mm f1.8... not really a fair comparison to a 18-55mm or 18-70mm...

AFS isn't exactly the greatest unless you have a D40. Your 35mm isn't AFS, as far as I know, none of the primes are.

I never said the 18-70mm was inferior to the 18-55mm. I just don't think that it is 3 times better, or worth the price difference (159 vs 429 regular price at Henry's).

Sharpness is somewhat subjective, don't you think? I can get sharp pictures with 18-55 at f/4.5 but obviously not at 70mm or 55mm. I believe f/4.5 kicks in at around 32mm. 18-55mm seems to be sharpest at around f/5.6 - f/8.

I'm not saying the 18-70 is a bad lens or that no one should buy it. I would rather have the 18-55 + 50mm f/1.8 for cheaper combined cost.

[radeonboy]

I got it used in mint condition for a killer price, so I couldn't refuse getting the 18-70 over the 18-55. It's just soo much better, the motor is more silent and there is less hunting.

But no one is saying the 18-55 sucks. I deem it good.

[TenzoR]

If you really like shooting though, you should get a 35 f/2 or 50 f/1.4 or f/1.8 if you haven't already. If you want a decent zoom, get a Tokina 28-70 f/2.8. It's not very good for group shots but it does give a bit of flexibility in terms of zooming with the lens as opposed to with your feet.

I am looking at a tad wider prime lenses

I find my 18-200 hunts a lot during awkward lighting. I always have to focus it myself. Though I do love the versatility it brings me with such a wide zoom and telephoto zoom. I like walking around with my 50mm more though.

[goofball]

I am looking at a tad wider prime lenses

I find my 18-200 hunts a lot during awkward lighting. I always have to focus it myself. Though I do love the versatility it brings me with such a wide zoom and telephoto zoom. I like walking around with my 50mm more though.

how much wider?

You could look into the 14mm f/2.8, 20mm f/2.8, or 28mm f/2.8.

The 35mm is actually not bad. And given that it is f/2 over f/2.8, it's a bit better under low lighting.

[2000fordfocus]

AFS isn't exactly the greatest unless you have a D40. Your 35mm isn't AFS, as far as I know, none of the primes are.

I never said the 18-70mm was inferior to the 18-55mm. I just don't think that it is 3 times better, or worth the price difference (159 vs 429 regular price at Henry's).

Sharpness is somewhat subjective, don't you think? I can get sharp pictures with 18-55 at f/4.5 but obviously not at 70mm or 55mm. I believe f/4.5 kicks in at around 32mm. 18-55mm seems to be sharpest at around f/5.6 - f/8.

I'm not saying the 18-70 is a bad lens or that no one should buy it. I would rather have the 18-55 + 50mm f/1.8 for cheaper combined cost.

35mm and 85mm are way superior in terms of image quality!

You can't really justify price of a lens... 17-55mm f2.8 about 10 times more than 18-55mm, but you can't expect 10 times better...

[TenzoR]

how much wider?

You could look into the 14mm f/2.8, 20mm f/2.8, or 28mm f/2.8.

The 35mm is actually not bad. And given that it is f/2 over f/2.8, it's a bit better under low lighting.

I was lookign at 28 or 35, I haven't really tried either out

I mainly want to take nice picture with my girlfriend and I when we go on trips. The 50mm was kinda annoying since I had to move the tripod further away.

[goofball]

35mm and 85mm are way superior in terms of image quality!

You can't really justify price of a lens... 17-55mm f2.8 about 10 times more than 18-55mm, but you can't expect 10 times better...

Right but they aren't AFS either. No primes are AFS at the moment, not from Nikon. Sigma has HSM but Sigma has issues with backfocus on some of their lenses (30mm f/1.4 is common, which is too bad since it is a very good lens otherwise). Point being, just because the 18-70mm has AFS, it doesn't make it a much better lens.

Non-rotating front element is only necessary if you use a circular polarizer. Even then, it's not a huge deal to focus, adjust, then shoot. A circular polarizer only normally needs a 1/4 turn at the most.

I know you can't fairly say that the 17-55mm, being 10x more expensive, isn't worth it. Having f/2.8 at any focal length can be the difference between getting a shot and getting nothing but blur/uselessness. My point being, I have played with both the 18-70 and 18-55 and I can't justify the 3x price difference between the 2. The less than 1 stop of extra light the 18-70mm gets just doesn't do enough to get me a shot that the 18-55 can't.

[goofball]

I was lookign at 28 or 35, I haven't really tried either out

I mainly want to take nice picture with my girlfriend and I when we go on trips. The 50mm was kinda annoying since I had to move the tripod further away.

Why not look at a decent Sigma 28-70 f/2.8? It's not much more expensive than the 35mm f/2. You lose a bit of speed but you gain the ability to zoom optically with constant aperture.

[TenzoR]

Why not look at a decent Sigma 28-70 f/2.8? It's not much more expensive than the 35mm f/2. You lose a bit of speed but you gain the ability to zoom optically with constant aperture.

I was looking at TOkina 16-50mm f2.8 but that's like never coming out or something

[goofball]

I was looking at TOkina 16-50mm f2.8 but that's like never coming out or something

Yeah, you and everyone else is waiting for this lens.
The only thing with 16-50mm is that it might not give you the head/portrait shot without you getting too close to the subject. You'd want at least a 70mm to do that. Above waist, 50mm is good. For just the head/shoulders, 70-85mm is normally the range that falls into.
The 18-70mm covers a very nice range but it just isn't ideal for low light handheld shooting.

[2000fordfocus]

Right but they aren't AFS either. No primes are AFS at the moment, not from Nikon. Sigma has HSM but Sigma has issues with backfocus on some of their lenses (30mm f/1.4 is common, which is too bad since it is a very good lens otherwise). Point being, just because the 18-70mm has AFS, it doesn't make it a much better lens.

Non-rotating front element is only necessary if you use a circular polarizer. Even then, it's not a huge deal to focus, adjust, then shoot. A circular polarizer only normally needs a 1/4 turn at the most.

I know you can't fairly say that the 17-55mm, being 10x more expensive, isn't worth it. Having f/2.8 at any focal length can be the difference between getting a shot and getting nothing but blur/uselessness. My point being, I have played with both the 18-70 and 18-55 and I can't justify the 3x price difference between the 2. The less than 1 stop of extra light the 18-70mm gets just doesn't do enough to get me a shot that the 18-55 can't.


You should tell me something I dont know~!

AFS is important for moving objects, if you miss your focus, no matter how good your lens is, you will get crappy pictures. btw, polarizer is one filter that every photographer should have, not UV filter...

and regarding sigma 28-70mm f2.8... I have use it, the crappies fast lens I had ever use! seriously man, i didn't say this against you! is really crappy! f2.8 is like useless...

[2000fordfocus]

I was lookign at 28 or 35, I haven't really tried either out

I mainly want to take nice picture with my girlfriend and I when we go on trips. The 50mm was kinda annoying since I had to move the tripod further away.

ya, i had problem with my 50mm too! thatz why i sold it and got the 85/35mm combo, why better for portrait!

[spol]

What do you guys think of the 18-200 f/3.5-5.6G on the D40? Is it worth the price considering I won't need any other lens for a long long time?

[TenzoR]

Yeah, you and everyone else is waiting for this lens.
The only thing with 16-50mm is that it might not give you the head/portrait shot without you getting too close to the subject. You'd want at least a 70mm to do that. Above waist, 50mm is good. For just the head/shoulders, 70-85mm is normally the range that falls into.
The 18-70mm covers a very nice range but it just isn't ideal for low light handheld shooting.

yeah I don quite like the 70-85 range for portrait (mainly) because I just couple pics with my gf so no need for that range. I like something under 50

I still got my 18-200 so it's managable. But If the Tokina comes out I may just sell it.

[TenzoR]

What do you guys think of the 18-200 f/3.5-5.6G on the D40? Is it worth the price considering I won't need any other lens for a long long time?

it's a good general all purpose lens but

you have to figure out what you want to do with the camera then you can get the lens that you will use

I have the 18-200 but I only find my self using the lens 18-100 at most. Mainly 60 and under

[goofball]

What do you guys think of the 18-200 f/3.5-5.6G on the D40? Is it worth the price considering I won't need any other lens for a long long time?

That's not something I can say, your shooting habits will dictate what lenses you need. It is a great all purpose lens but to say you won't need another for a long time, that is up to you.

[goofball]

yeah I don quite like the 70-85 range for portrait (mainly) because I just couple pics with my gf so no need for that range. I like something under 50

I still got my 18-200 so it's managable. But If the Tokina comes out I may just sell it.

35 f/2 or something along those lines is nice. 20, 24, or a zoom but it definitely is good to have an aperture of 2.8 (constant).

If you do decide to sell the 18-200, I might be interested. If that Tokina ever comes out.

[TenzoR]

35 f/2 or something along those lines is nice. 20, 24, or a zoom but it definitely is good to have an aperture of 2.8 (constant).

If you do decide to sell the 18-200, I might be interested. If that Tokina ever comes out.

I'll let you know ;)

but that stupid Tokina lens is delayed for 6 month+ since the suppose release date of Nov 2006.

[spol]

it's a good general all purpose lens but

you have to figure out what you want to do with the camera then you can get the lens that you will use

I have the 18-200 but I only find my self using the lens 18-100 at most. Mainly 60 and under


Neither I need such a long zoom, the 18-135mm would be enough for me but doesn't have VR.

[Taiphun]

Hey TenzoR, about those Tokina lenses - I haven't been able to find a Canadian retailer for them, so I'm starting to look stateside.

I'm thinking about a 12-24mm f/4 wide angle - it's about half the price of the Nikon - what do you think about it?

Would you buy a Tokina from the US or would you rather get a Sigma or Tamron equivalent locally?

Thanks,

[TenzoR]

Hey TenzoR, about those Tokina lenses - I haven't been able to find a Canadian retailer for them, so I'm starting to look stateside.

I'm thinking about a 12-24mm f/4 wide angle - it's about half the price of the Nikon - what do you think about it?

Would you buy a Tokina from the US or would you rather get a Sigma or Tamron equivalent locally?

Thanks,

http://dvshop.ca/digcamera/wideangle.html

they are Canadian and in Toronto. I'm not sure anywhere else since I like to buy it locally despite it might cost more. Reason being that it'll be easier to deal with if there is something wrong and you can always tested out at the store.

If you want to read some reviews about wideangle there is tons on the internet. Example is http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/digital-wide-zooms/comparison.htm

but Ken is not known for his accuracy in test but he is more pratical I find.

[goofball]

Neither I need such a long zoom, the 18-135mm would be enough for me but doesn't have VR.

It's a good lens. There is some barrel distortion and vignetting at 18mm but most of it disappears at 24mm.
Sharpness is very good.
You could look at the 24-120VR but given the price difference between it and the 18-200VR, you may as well go for the wider and longer lens.
I was thinking of parting with my 18-135mm and going for the 18-200. If you want, we can try to negotiate a price. I've only had it for about 2 months, bought from Henry's (no grey market lens)

[spol]

It's a good lens. There is some barrel distortion and vignetting at 18mm but most of it disappears at 24mm.
Sharpness is very good.
You could look at the 24-120VR but given the price difference between it and the 18-200VR, you may as well go for the wider and longer lens.
I was thinking of parting with my 18-135mm and going for the 18-200. If you want, we can try to negotiate a price. I've only had it for about 2 months, bought from Henry's (no grey market lens)

I'm thinking of 18-55 II for now and then save for the 18-200.

[goofball]

I'm thinking of 18-55 II for now and then save for the 18-200.

That's not bad. Maybe if you don't care about changing lenses, you could go for the 70-300mm to get extra reach. Add an SB-600 flash for portrait work.

[spol]

I played around with the D40 today at futureshop, man this thing is really small. The grip was very comfortable but still small, I think I could live with that since the 2.5" screen and the menu looks awesome.

I'm not really sure if the 18-200 is a good match for the D40, this body is really small. The kit lens (18-55 II) was ok, it focused perfectly at all times even though the lighting was poor there.

[TenzoR]

I played around with the D40 today at futureshop, man this thing is really small. The grip was very comfortable but still small, I think I could live with that since the 2.5" screen and the menu looks awesome.

I'm not really sure if the 18-200 is a good match for the D40, this body is really small. The kit lens (18-55 II) was ok, it focused perfectly at all times even though the lighting was poor there.

well normally for such lens, you would hold on the lens as well for stability sake (despite it has VR)