buying new lens for d40

[ilauzirika]

hi fellow enthusiasts,

I looking for a new lens for my d40. I have a low budget (about 200$) and I was thinking about this two.


sigma 55-200 (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/335763-USA/Sigma_684306_55_200mm_f_4_5_6_DC_Lens.html)

Nikon 55-200 (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/381797-USA/Nikon_2156_55_200mm_f_4_5_6G_ED_AF_S.html)+.

Tamron 55-200 (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/416566-REG/Tamron_AF015N700_55_200mm_f_4_5_6_Di_II_LD.html)

thanks for your inputs

[Eastside Parkway]

Go with the Nikon.

[Jeff Anderson]

I vote for the nikon as well, but I think you may have to go with nikon anyways to retain autofocus capabilities. I believe the d40 requires AF-S lenses that have the focus motor built into the lens as there isnt one in the camera.

[ilauzirika]

I vote for the nikon as well, but I think you may have to go with nikon anyways to retain autofocus capabilities. I believe the d40 requires AF-S lenses that have the focus motor built into the lens as there isnt one in the camera.

True I haven't thought about that, well thats a clear choice. Nikon is the way to go

Thanks for the input.

[Jeff Anderson]

do some searching though, the third part lens makers may be adding support for cameras like the d40 but I dont know. I didnt see it mentioned on the two you linked though. I'd probably still go nikon anyways, I've heard mixed reviews on both sigma and tamrons. Is there a place near you, you can take your camera to and test these lenses out?

[ilauzirika]

I will look if i have the chance to test them in a camera shop nearby.

Thanks

[sinapps]

Spend an extra $30 above your budget and get the VR version of the Nikon: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/486717-USA/Nikon_2166_55_200mm_f_4_5_6G_ED_AF_S.html

[DivotDan]

I was just about to say the same thing as sinapps.

On a different note, the lens is so light its hard to shoot in the 150-200 range at long distances. I have the non-VR that I got as a part of my D40 kit (along with the 18-55 which I love). The optics are super clean but it's near impossible to shoot w/out a tripod at long distances. By long distance I mean like over 20 ft. VR should help with some of the mechanical blur on the shorter distances.

If money was no option I'd def go with the F2.8 pro VR version as you get 3-4 times the amount of light at 200mm. Heavier too so should help stabilize it, although some people might consider this a disadvantage. Granted, the pro version cost 10x as much as this one so if you are on my kind of budget that lens will just stay a dream.

At $150, you might as well buy it and if you don't like it turn it around on ebay or something.

Oh yeah, the Nikon version is the only way to go.

[ilauzirika]

Spend an extra $30 above your budget and get the VR version of the Nikon: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/486717-USA/Nikon_2166_55_200mm_f_4_5_6G_ED_AF_S.html

thanks, great, I will do my best to get over the budget and consider this lense.

[Jeremy Ordan]

I would suggest saving money and once you get to the $400 ballpark you can pick up a used 80-200 f/2.8 from KEH or Ebay.

Just my opinion.

[DivotDan]

To get an AF-S 80-200 (so that it will auto-focus on the D40) will cost you a lot more than $400.