Turning the new low cost Nikon D40 Digital SLR into a powerful one lens, wide angle to telephoto, 11

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by george, Dec 7, 2006.

  1. george

    george Guest

    Now that Nikon has come out with the very compact and very affordable
    Nikon D40 Digital SLR, there are a lot of EVF camera users who are
    contemplating the move to the Nikon D40 Digital SLR. The base package
    price is of course very reasonable and the lens being offered in the
    package looks to be fairly adequate for most purposes, especially when
    the fairly inexpensive AFS DX Nikkor 55-200 lens is added to the
    system.

    The big question is of course, what will it cost to upgrade to a longer
    zoom range lens, so that it can be used as a one lens camera, just like
    the EVF super-zoom cameras it is replacing for many users. As you can
    see from the illustration above the AF-S DX VR Zoom-Nikkor 18-200mm
    f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED fits the bill very nicely, but the cost of the lens
    alone is nearly double the price of the camera (with the basic kit
    lens).

    For more of this article .........
    http://dpmac.com/nikon-d40/d40superzoom.html
     
    george, Dec 7, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Were I to go for a DSLR, the D40 would be high on my list (light and
    low-cost), and a long zoom with image-stabilisation would as well. Hence
    D40 + 18-200 VR would also be my choice. What would be missing (for my
    use) would be a very wide angle (perhaps I could likve with just 24mm eq.)
    and a vey fast lens for low-light use (perhaps 50mm f/1.8 - but would need
    to be an AF-S version).

    David
     
    David J Taylor, Dec 7, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. I'm pretty sure that the 50/1.8 would not work on the d40. I think Nikon
    aimed this body at a market that would fit a consumer zoom (eg 18-55, 18-70
    or 18-200) and pretty much never change lenses or use primes.

    cheers adrian www.boliston.co.uk
     
    Adrian Boliston, Dec 7, 2006
    #3
  4. george

    frederick Guest

    Metering will work on (Non AF-S) AF lenses, but AF won't.
     
    frederick, Dec 7, 2006
    #4
  5. The 50/1.8D will work fine on it but won't autofocus, since the body doesn't
    have the "screwdriver" coupling required for that.

    The kit lens is a prime lens, of course. You mean fixed focal length (FFL).

    I'll be using my 10.5mm fisheye on my D40. That won't autofocus either, but
    with that much DOF who needs it.

    Neil
     
    Neil Harrington, Dec 8, 2006
    #5
  6. "David J Taylor" <-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk>
    wrote in message [ . . . ]
    Nikon's new 70-300 VR looks more attractive to me and is a lot less
    expensive than the 18-200. Deliveries are supposed to start this month --
    I've got my order in for one.

    Yes indeedy. The 12-24 is a bit too pricey for me, but I'm fervently hoping
    Nikon is working on getting a lower priced ultrawide zoom in production. In
    the meantime, the 10.5 fisheye "de-fishes" very nicely with Nikon Capture 4.

    Not me. That's not enough wider than the 27mm (equiv.) you get with the kit
    lens.

    Yes. I have the 50/1.8D, great on the D70s but of course won't autofocus on
    the D40. I'd be happy if Nikon would produce something around that f.l. in a
    reasonably priced macro (Micro, in Nikonspeak) lens. It wouldn't be f/1.8 of
    course, but I'd be content with a stop or so less in a real macro lens.

    Neil
     
    Neil Harrington, Dec 8, 2006
    #6
  7. I showed a D40 yesterday, and the customer tried to use the LCD screen
    to compose, and asked about the video mode.

    They asked why it was $100 more than the D50
     
    Not Disclosed, Dec 8, 2006
    #7
  8. george

    RichA Guest

    The D40 serves very little purpose except to cut costs of production
    for Nikon. Why buy it over a D50?
     
    RichA, Dec 9, 2006
    #8
  9. Depends on how important size and weight is for you.
    If they cut out the mirror stuff, make it 2cm flatter and give it
    a movable LCD screen I'll buy one too. Even if it increases in price.

    Lots of Greetings!
    Volker
     
    Volker Hetzer, Dec 9, 2006
    #9
  10. george

    THO Guest

    I'm usually very anti-3rd party lenses but these days most people
    consider the Tokina 12-24 a much better choice than the Nikon. It's half
    the price (just under $500) and has nearly the same optical quality.
     
    THO, Dec 10, 2006
    #10
  11. Yes, I've been thinking about that one too.

    I've owned many third-party lenses over the years and still do own several
    (Sigma, Tamron, Tokina) in the Minolta A mount. Since switching to Nikon,
    though, I've stayed with Nikon lenses so far. I would rather pay some extra
    bucks for Nikon glass, just not that *many* extra bucks.

    I'm still hoping Nikon will produce something more reasonably priced. Of
    course anything like that will be secret until they're ready to announce it,
    so who knows? Maybe I will get the Tokina, which will probably result in a
    lower-priced Nikkor appearing the following week. :-/

    Neil
     
    Neil Harrington, Dec 10, 2006
    #11
  12. Eh? If "they cut out the mirror stuff" that would pretty drastically change
    the camera, don't you think?

    Neil
     
    Neil Harrington, Dec 10, 2006
    #12
  13. Yes.

    Volker
     
    Volker Hetzer, Dec 17, 2006
    #13
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.