Author Topic: Lens advice (Read 1225 times)

mrt · **on:** November 14, 2007, 12:38:45 PM

Lens advice

on: November 14, 2007, 12:38:45 PM

Have got bugger all money (child on the way!) and want to upgrade from the 18-55 kit lens which came with my D40.

Really want something to be able to give me a better zoom/macro.

Basically, I have seen a Sigma 55-300 lens (telephoto and Macro), although no AF-S so is this really a pain?!? I think mainly I would be using it for Macro work tbh. There is also a Tamron one, both of which I have seen for under £100.

Alternatively, I have seen a 55-200 Nikkor lens VR AF-S for ~£140 (not retail, but auction site).

Having bugger all money, what would be most fun on such a tight budget, or would you recommend something else. Financially, I am not going to have the several hundred pounds to play with for lens for quite some time so was wondering what others have done with really tight budgets. Had to really rally around to get the D40 in the first place.

Thanks (as always)

Mongoose · **Reply #1 on:** November 14, 2007, 13:11:15 PM

Re:Lens advice

Reply #1 on: November 14, 2007, 13:11:15 PM

Ive not heard of the Sigma 55-300.

There are two lenses in that sort of range and budget which are particularly well regarded as value tele-macro offerings:

Sigma 70-300 APO (usually ~£150) (note the APO, there is a non-APO version which is less good)
Tamron 70-300 Di (usually ~£110).

The fact that you have a D40 complicates matters a bit, since you can only autofocus lenses which are AF-S compatible. Tamron dont make these, Sigma call them HSM but it doesnt look like they do the 70-300 with HSM.

With the pathetic viewfinder on the D40, I would stick to lenses which it can autofocus, so the Nikor 55-200 is probably your best bet. Only problem there is the macro probably wont be as good. The VR will be a real help though, I wouldnt be without the SR on my Pentax having had it for a few months.

For real macro, you cant beat a dedicated macro lens. Im not sure how the D40 reacts to pre-AF lenses though, so I hesitate to offer my usual recommendation of a Tamron 90mm F2.5 Macro in Adaptall mount (second hand). These are cheap and very very good, but I dont know if it will work with your camera.

Serious · **Reply #2 on:** November 14, 2007, 15:51:01 PM

Re:Lens advice

Reply #2 on: November 14, 2007, 15:51:01 PM

Pervertedly a longer zoom doesnt equal a better macro lens. Using a greater magnification gives a more distant minimum focus which counters the whole point of trying to use a long lens in macro mode. Personally you need two different options, a telephoto lens and some way of getting a better macro on the standard one. Several options available including reversing a 50mm on the end of it, varying macro filter lenses or tubes. Basically you can virtually use any 50mm providing you can find a reversing ring that fits both filter rings on the lenses. The results from this can be very impressive.

Mongoose · **Reply #3 on:** November 14, 2007, 19:07:36 PM

Re:Lens advice

Reply #3 on: November 14, 2007, 19:07:36 PM

true but both the 70-300 lenses I mentioned focus to 1:2 "macro". Purists will argue that less than 1:1 isnt really macro at all, but I argue that what most people want when they say "macro" is close ups of such things as butterflies. This requires ~ 1:3.

If he goes for the 55-200 then a 50 mm reversed on the front of the 55-200 is probably the best bet.

Whichever way you cut it, the 18-55 is a terrible macro lens no matter what you do to it.

mrt · **Reply #4 on:** November 15, 2007, 08:27:19 AM

Re:Lens advice

Reply #4 on: November 15, 2007, 08:27:19 AM

So, if you had to choose between the Sigma and the Tamron, would the Sigma be worth the extra few quid? Also, not sure what APO is?

Thanks guys for all your help!

Mongoose · **Reply #5 on:** November 15, 2007, 13:28:46 PM

Re:Lens advice

Reply #5 on: November 15, 2007, 13:28:46 PM

APO is short for Apochromatic (SP?).

It means the lens design has been optimised using special glass elements to minimise chromatic aberation, which is the effect which causes blue and red halos around subjects away from the centre of the frame.

Since its a slightly higher end feature, lenses with it tend to also be generally better made.

The Tamron is an LD lens, which stands for Low Dispersion and as far as I can determine is Tamrons designation for the same thing. Half the battle with comparing lenses from different companies is figuring out what all their acronyms actually mean!

I have never used either lens personally, but the Sigma has a better reputation. Whether or not its better enough to warrent the extra cash Im not sure.

If I was buying, Id want to try out both. If I couldnt try out both, Id probably go for the sigma.

Hope this helps

News:

Author Topic: Lens advice (Read 1225 times)