1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Need a walkabout lens for Nikon D40

Discussion in 'Photography & Video' started by DB_SamX, 8 Oct 2009.

  1. DB_SamX

    Sgarrista

    Joined: 17 Feb 2006

    Posts: 8,157

    Location: Winchester

    At the moment, I have the stock lens and a 50mm f/1.8d for my D40.

    I have started to take pictures of my friends' Sunday league football team informally and combining this with wanting a longer range walkabout lens anyway, I've been looking for a new lens with built in AF and considering those below.

    What will give me best value for money - preferably 2nd hand and <£175 unless the a more expensive one is worth it?

    I'm going to read some reviews but how do Nikkor lenses compare with Sigma ones?

    Nikkor AF-S VR DX 18-105 f/3.5-5.6G ED

    Nikkor AF-S DX 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 ED-IF

    (Nikkor AF-S VR DX 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED) - too expensive so prob out of question

    Sigma 18-125mm f/3.8-5.6 DC OS HSM

    Sigma 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 DC OS - I've spotted this new for £149!! Seems a bargain/wrongly priced - worth it if I can get it?

    Edited 20-11-09
     
    Last edited: 20 Nov 2009
  2. 86JR

    PermaBanned

    Joined: 19 Oct 2007

    Posts: 6,322

    Location: .

  3. syke

    Capodecina

    Joined: 18 Feb 2006

    Posts: 10,558

    Out of them i'd get the 18-105 myself, the 18-200VR is good, but its ~£350, so out of your budget. Not really a walkabout, but the 55-200VR is good, and cheap.
     
  4. DB_SamX

    Sgarrista

    Joined: 17 Feb 2006

    Posts: 8,157

    Location: Winchester

  5. syke

    Capodecina

    Joined: 18 Feb 2006

    Posts: 10,558

    Personally i'd rather two lenses, but that's because lenses that cover 18-200 aren't gonna be brilliant at one thing, but having two wont fit in your budget.
     
  6. DB_SamX

    Sgarrista

    Joined: 17 Feb 2006

    Posts: 8,157

    Location: Winchester

    To revive this thread, a combination of not photographing football lately due to the bad weather, and finding it harder to shoot as the nights draw in has led me to reconsider what to buy.

    I came across this: http://www.sigma-photo.co.jp/english/lens/digital/17_70_28_45.htm

    Sigma 17-70mm f2.8-4.5 DC HSM MACRO ~£250 new

    Would this be a worthy improvement/replacement over the 18-55 kit lens? Adv is obviously longer ranger, larger aperture and macro.

    However I am confused as the lens compatibility table at the bottom of the link says it still won't autofocus with the D40 despite HSM. Anyone know why? http://www.nikonians.org/forums/dcb...&forum=152&topic_id=13319&mesg_id=13319&page= lists it as AF. Or is there a non-HSM version?
     
    Last edited: 20 Nov 2009
  7. syke

    Capodecina

    Joined: 18 Feb 2006

    Posts: 10,558

    What about the Tamron 17-50, or do you need the extra length?
     
  8. DB_SamX

    Sgarrista

    Joined: 17 Feb 2006

    Posts: 8,157

    Location: Winchester

    Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II ?

    Hmmm, honestly not sure whether I'd benefit from the extra 20mm or the f/2.8 across the full zoom range but leaning towards the length.

    (Then there's the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di LD in MM which looks attractive but I think I'd miss the wide angle as I do shoot buildings/landscapes when on holiday.)
     
  9. Mud

    Mobster

    Joined: 13 Dec 2004

    Posts: 3,186

    Location: Bristol

    I find wider apertures more useful at longer focal lengths, and I'm sure I'm not the only one. Variable aperture zooms always seem a bit ass-backwards (for obvious reasons)...you tend to want small apertures at short focal lengths for landscapes/architecture/etc, and medium/large apertures at portrait length. 50mm on a crop sensor is quite usable for portraits. If in doubt, go for the fast glass ;)
     
  10. D.P.

    Caporegime

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 31,190

    Tamron 17-50 2.8 (new version has VC/VR)
    Nikon 16-85 5.6 VR has a very useful focal length, the 16mm is aweome.


    If you are looking towards an 18-105, which is a fine lens, due to the reach, then I suggest a 55-200 is a better investment.

    Having 2 lens to go the 16/18 - 200/300 is the way to go. The 18-200 type lenses sacrifice to much image quality. If this is a type of ens you would really like then I suggest bying a Canon G11 or some such instead.

    As a DX Dream team I have the 16-85 VR and the 70-300 VR. These 2 lenses cover an amazing focal length with very good quality. (I am slowly building up the 2.8 pro version, have the 80-200 2.8)

    The cheaper version is an 18-55 kit and 55-200.
     
  11. Snapshot

    Mobster

    Joined: 11 Oct 2006

    Posts: 4,102

    Location: Wiltshire

    The 18-135mm is a fine lens apart from producing more chromatic aberration than is ideal but I can't say I noticed it when I had one. I've now got a 16-85mm and really miss the extra reach of the 18-135mm.