Nikon lenses

1080ski

1080ski

Active member
i just ordered a d40 and i think im going to buy a bigger lense for it come wintertime. the 18-55 should be fine until i want to shoot skiing.

when the time comes, what are good lenses that work with the d40? my photo teacher let me use her 100-400 (i forget the first # but i know it went to 400) and it was pretty sweet to use for skiing, but is it really necessary for most shots?

im not too educated on lenses, but if you could point me in the right direction i would appreciate it a lot.

ill post up some pictures when my camera gets here and i have some time to shoot a little bit.
 
im more afluent in canon lenses, but nikon has preety much the same lenses, so

for cheap the 70-300's arent bad

for more the 70-200 if you werent using the farther reach's of the 100-400

400mm if you were
 
i dont mind spending bills on glass, but i really dont know how much lenses cost. keep in mind though, it will be going on a d40, not the nicest camera ever...

i would like to keep it under 300? is that reasonable? i have no idea, so imnot sure how much im willing to spend
 
you could get a shitty 70-300 for that, but i would bump it up to around 500 you can get a decent 70 300
 
Sigma 70-300 f4-5.6 APO DG , my first lens, and i would highly recommend it, you can pick it up for around $300
 
You can't argue something that is so innately true. Look at what you guys are suggesting for him to buy, expensive lenses before he has learned even the basics. Sure it's nice to stand from one place and get different shots just by zooming, but if you can't make quality photos with a standard lens, what makes you think he can get quality from a "better" lens?
 
i am going to maturely disagree with this because honestly when it comes to glass to dont want to be cheap, sure on your body you can go a bit cheap but not on glass. Secondly $300 is like the cheapest you can get a new lens. My lens right now is $2400, $300 may seem like a lot but glass gets much more expensive (SADLY). My buddy who was just starting got the 70-200 f4 which is a great lens, so in terms of lens you need strong quick glass...but very very sadly you are going to have to pay out of the ass for it
 
while i may be a noob at dslr's, dont think that this is my first time with photography: i took 4 years of it in highschool (B&W film) and know how to use aperature, ISO, shutterspeed, etc... i know about framing and lighting and everything, but i never had my OWN camera, so i never had to think about the lenses i was using because if i wanted a telephoto lense, i would ask somebody and they would let me borrow theirs (mainly my photo teacher).

so, i personally think it would benefit me to get a somewhat decent lens, but would use this mainly for skiing and some other things. most of the time the camera will be used with the 18-55.

but please dont take me for a beginner photog: i am by no means an expert, however, i do know about photography and have decent knowledge on how to shoot, so i dont want a shit lense.

 
i have a d40 as well with a 18-55 and a 55-200 that came in a package. its the cheapest telephoto you could probably get with it. i dont use it for skiing much unless shooting from a chair like this picture shot at 165mm f5.6 i use 55-200 more for backpacking and shooting wildlife or anything along those lines. plus i dont think a lot of the higher end lenses work with the d40. i would save up for a nicer body and nicer lens like i'm doing
1222982049DSC_0215cropcurve.jpg

 
LOL. I'm sorry you spent 2400 on lens that creates uninteresting photos. I'm not attacking your photos, but I find them kinda cliche, no offense if that's what you're into, to each his own.

Secondly, don't try to tell me how much glass is, I'm fully aware of how much lenses are. I'm just saying spend money on more important things than a tele photo such as flashes and PW's. If I had 2400 laying around I certainly would not have spent any of it on new lenses, it would have been transceivers, flashes and gas. I recall this being at least the second time you have brought up how much you spent on this one lens, the lens to end all lenses by the way you flaunt how much you spent on it. Congratulations.

 
fair enough, yes i understand your point of view, bringing that lens into the equation doesn't really help the situations i was just trying to give another side to the argument. I didn't spend $2400 eithier, i totally agree i dont think i would ever spend that much on a lens...i am a uni student .....haha principle is you cant go cheap on glass, i mean theres a wide range of prices for it, so you are bound to find something
 
And I re-read my post, I came off like a total jackass, but that's nothing new for me, it's the internet.

But I what I meant to say if that's not the kinda photography I'm into, nothing I shoot could ever justify using a focal length over 85mm.

Sorry for calling your photos uninteresting, I'm sure you'd say the same thing about what I shoot.
 
no, you mis-understood.

you said that " you

guys are suggesting for him to buy, expensive lenses before he has

learned even the basics. Sure it's nice to stand from one place and

get different shots just by zooming, but if you can't make quality

photos with a standard lens, what makes you think he can get quality

from a "better" lens?"

my comment that "i dont want a shit lense" was referring to this post, meaning, i dont want the crappiest lense that i can buy (and im buying a longer lense). i know very well that a 50 mm lense is great, and infact, in the 4 years i shot in HS, i used mainly 50 mm: its just that i am looking at buying (not sure if i will yet) something where i can zoom in a bit more, and i dont want this new lense to be shit.

so, if you dont want to read that- i didnt call the 50 mm lense shit, i said i dont want to buy a shitty lense.

hopefully that cleared things up a bit
 
Unfortunately I shoot mainly film and don't have a scanner, so I don't have anything recent on my computer. Here's an old shot if I can imbed right.

2908032639_3a65011d3b.jpg


2840909870_1cd59c63d7.jpg


 
Don't remember the full setup but it was something like a vivitar 285 to the left and right and an sb-28 behind the backdrop.
 
Chroniclines is on point about everyting. Get a 50mm with a nice aperture range and you'll get much better.
 
Whoa, someone agreed with me. But honestly that lens rarely leaves my body, unless I'm throwing the 16mm on to have some fun.
 
I would highly recommend the Nikon AF-S 18-200mm lens... it's an awesome all around lens and it works great for most shots. It also works very well with the D40... it's what i'm shooting with and I really like it.
 
thanks for a response to the question, and not a debate haha. + K and ill check the lense out for sure
 
word, camera shit is expensive. yesterday a buddy of mine asked if my 580 flash was $30..

I wish it were!
 
save up and get the nikon 18-200mm f3.5-5.6 VR lens. its like $700 but its such a sweet one lens set up. I never use anything past 200mm and its nice not having to switch out lenses all the time with that one. and its a DX lens so it will work well with the d40 sensor
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top