KnIgHtCoM

Based on his choice of the Nikkor 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6, I was referring to f/2.8 and that he would appreciate the faster lens over the f/3.5 and extra focal length.

BEAUTIFUL pictures UUronL! Thanks for sharing.

Richard in NC

I concur. Are those straight out of the camera or is there any post sharpening?

We also need to know the price range the OP is able and willing to spend. The above mentioned f2.8 lenses are great but they are big and expensive. You might be able to go used and save but I'm not sure that all older models would work on the D40. As mentioned above, look for the AF-S. Sigma HSM might be the equivalent with internal focus. I think Di is the equiv of Nikor DX, meaning for cropped sensors.

I have the Nikon 18-200 VR lens. Its very versatile and great with the VR but slightly less sharp than the 18-70 which is rated to have pro sharpness in a value lens. I had the 18-70 but bought the 18-200 to avoid changing lenses all the time. Plus my older 70-300 sucked so I wanted a better zoom. I have heard the new 70-300 VR is much improved.

IMHO, if you don't want/need much zoom, go for the 18-70 but if want a bit more zoom without quite the price or weight of the 18-200, go for the new 18-135VR.

FYI, in my opinion, f2.8 is great but f3.5-f4.0 is good enough for most situations (except very low light and purposely shooting narrow depth of field). But 5.6 and up can be very limiting in anything other than a full sunny day. All zooms vary throughout their range. I test any lens in a store to see what the max ap. is for normal ranges. For example, IIRC a Tamaron 28-300 was an f3.5-6.3. It was f3.5 in a very narrow range, going to f4+ at 28 and by 70mm it was over 5. By 120-150mm it was at f6.3. The Nikon 18-200 is a full stop faster thru much of its range allowing doubled shutter speeds.

info@trinityautosport

+1

sese

Thanks guys, you helped me a lot

I think I'm tending to a f/2.8 since I'm not taking photos exclusively on bright sunny days.

BTW I'm willing to spend about 500 ?.

BrianTx5

+2

glimmerchef

Beautiful pictures, congrats !

I use quite a lot the 18-200 DX (on a Nikon D-200), and it is an excellent all-purpose lens for everyday pictures, family, etc.
But when it comes to serious photography, it is a bit disappointing, specially because it is rather dark (I shoot at concerts mostly, and of course I never use a flash then) and it has also some vignetting (the corners of the picture are a little darker than the center) that can get quite bothering, even if you can easily get rid of vignetting now with tools like the fantastic Adobe Lightroom.

The Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8 is a perfect choice if you can afford it and dont need a long tele lens, in my opinion.

Also I stay faaaaar away from low-budget brands like Sigma, Tamron or others (Vivitar used to be big in France, to name just one) : they certainly are cheap when you buy them, but you'll end buying a better one some day and wont be able to resell them for more than a few $/?/?, so you'll have lost your initial investment. Also their service is generaly terrible, while you'll always get good service from Nikon or Canon.

Also, I agree with ImolaRedM : put more money in your lenses and less in your camera : when youcan spend more, you'll be very happy to get a better/more modern camera, and will probably still find some use for your other camera, and the lenses will last forever... I still use my Canon 135mm f/2.0 I got in the late 1970s, and it is still a perfect lens, specially when it gets really dark.

sese

Finally bought the Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4.5 DC Macro HSM and made a comparison between it and the D40 kit-lens AF-S Nikkor 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 GII ED. The difference is amazing:



On the left side Sigma and on the right Nikkor.



Both @
35mm
aperture 5.6
1/320 sec.
ISO 200

KnIgHtCoM

Interesting. Would love to see more comparison shots.

slickrick

I told you you can't go wrong with sigma..

southgate

amazing pics