Which D40 to buy?? Help!!!

[[XC] 2long4u]

I'm stuck. I need some help.
In ebay there are refurbished kits for the D40.
I can get one with a 18-55 lens for $430
or one with a 18-55 and a 55-200 for $540
or one with a 18-55 and a 70-300 for $650.
Is it worth it to get the better lens's?
The more expensive one comes with a hard case and a bunch of other crap too.
There is one 55-200 and it is at $275 for the lens only.

[[XC] 2long4u]

No opinion soulburner/maxxxracer?

[disruptfam]

whats the diff between d40 and d40x?

[Dy'nei]

whats the diff between d40 and d40x?

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond40x/

"Differences compared to the D40

* 10 megapixel sensor
* Lower base sensitivity (ISO 100 vs ISO 200)
* Auto ISO option includes ISO 200
* Faster continuous shooting (3 fps vs. 2.5 fps)*"


@[XC] 2long4u: Take a look at a few reviews, see if you think the price difference is worth it, and if you think you need the extra zoom of the 70-300.

55-200:
http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/46-nikon--nikkor-aps-c/246-nikkor-af-s-55-200mm-f4-56g-if-ed-dx-vr-review--test-report
http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1088/cat/13
http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Nikkor_DX_55-200mm_VR/

70-300:
http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/46-nikon--nikkor-aps-c/250-nikkor-af-s-70-300mm-f45-56-g-if-ed-vr-review--test-report
http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/992/cat/13
http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Nikkor_70-300mm_VR/

[Soulburner]

I believe these are all the non-VR versions based on the prices. In that case I would consider the updated VR lenses depending on your budget. The 55-200 is very good, and the 70-300 is even better. The 55-200 VR is $220. (http://www.17photo.com/product.asp?id=2166) and the 70-300 VR is $475 (http://www.17photo.com/product.asp?id=2161).

[Nate P.]

I'd get the D40 with the stock 18-55mm lens and get a 55-200mm VR or 70-300mm VR separate. I hear the VR feature is really good.

[[XC] 2long4u]

Ok. I may get the package with the soft case, hard case, wide angle lens and tripods.

[Soulburner]

Don't get one of those packages off of ebay. You will never use most of the stuff, and its extremely low end anyway. The tripods are usually $5-15 deals and any "wide angle" or "telephoto" lens will never be seen on a photographer's camera.

I would buy from one of the following:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/
http://www.amazon.com/
http://www.17photo.com/default.asp

[MaxxxRacer]

I didnt reply sooner because I was at disneyland with my GF and d40x. I'll post the pics tommorow (got about 400).

dotn get the package deal. for the D40x I got the package deal (just beacuse it was cheaper than the non-package) and its not worth it. I dont use ANY of the stuff it came with.

Order from a non-ebay place with a good reputation. If you buy from a private seller on ebay and you need to get the camera repaired under warranty you CANT. You need the origional receipt or a copy of it from the dealer. If you buy from a ebay store you can get this (like I did) but its a hassle. And if the ebay store goes out of buisness your screwed.

dont buy the 55-200 or 70-300 non VR lenses. They are not worth it. Futhermore, the 70-300 non VR is a completely different lens than the one I got. It absolutely sucks where as the 70-300VR is an awesome lens.

[Soulburner]

Yeah I forgot to mention that it's not just the VR added on that makes it different. Being a newer lens, it is also redesigned and tweaked and is actually a physically and optically better lens most of the time compared to the older non-VR lenses.

[[XC] 2long4u]

Thanks, this is all good advise. I could just go to Best Buy and pick up one for the price of those links. :shrug:

[Nate P.]

2long4u;2908276']Thanks, this is all good advise. I could just go to Best Buy and pick up one for the price of those links. :shrug:
:up:

[[XC] 2long4u]

Best Buy is effing with me. I wait to get one till I'm sure thats what I want and where I want to get it. I go in the one by my work and they are out of stock. :(
I will have to stop by another one on the way home to get it.

[[XC] 2long4u]

This camera is pretty nice!
Here is a pic with the lens that came with it. It was set to very vivid colors.
76469

[MaxxxRacer]

very nice. glad you like the camera.

[Soulburner]

The colors are good, actually it looked a lot better at home on my BenQ. I'm in a coffee shop with the 1720 and it isn't calibrated so it's a bit more dull.

Did you get the 18-55 kit?

[[XC] 2long4u]

Yup. Just came with the 18-55 lens, body, caps, and a strap.
This is the nicest camera I've ever had. I love the fact I can take a pic in low light without a flash and it still comes out great.

[[XC] 2long4u]

Okay, I won a 8GB ipod nano from doing a survey for one of my suppliers. I am going to sell it on ebay and put that money towards a 55-200 VR.
The review was great for this lens. It was a better buy then the 70-300 VR.
They said the 70-300 was a great lens but it wasn't worth the price difference, and if you were going to spend that kind of money to just get the 18-200 VR which I guess is a kick ass lens.

[Soulburner]

The 70-300 VR is better in every regard.

Its all up to how much you want to spend, and they are proportionately spaced from each other in price.

They are both excellent for the money though, and neither is under/overpriced.

I don't agree with whatever review you read...the 18-200 is a superzoom and it costs $680 which is no where near the other two. I am finishing testing one and it will probably go back.

[MaxxxRacer]

[XC] 2long4u, if you dont want to spend the money for the 70-300VR, then do NOT try it. If you do try it, you will forget the 55-200 ever existed. Thats what happened to me. Personally I was never too impressed with the 55-200, but it was a good option. but after trying the 70-300 I knew I had to buy it.

And as soulburner said, the 18-200 is a VERY useful lens, and there are times when I wish I had its versatility, but optically the lens is worth about 150 dollars. Virtually every currently sold lens from Nikon is optically better than the 18-200.

[[XC] 2long4u]

These are the reviews I read. I thought they were put together very well.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/55-200mm-vr.htm
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/70-300-vr.htm
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/18200.htm
Edit: I'm not saying its not a great lens. It just looks like the price/performance ratio is a little high.
Here is some more pics.
77199

77200

77201

[Soulburner]

[XC] 2long4u, if you dont want to spend the money for the 70-300VR, then do NOT try it. If you do try it, you will forget the 55-200 ever existed. Thats what happened to me. Personally I was never too impressed with the 55-200, but it was a good option. but after trying the 70-300 I knew I had to buy it.

And as soulburner said, the 18-200 is a VERY useful lens, and there are times when I wish I had its versatility, but optically the lens is worth about 150 dollars. Virtually every currently sold lens from Nikon is optically better than the 18-200.
I'm actually not sending it back due to its optical performance. It is sharp enough for most people. However I have 2 gripes with it:

1. Strong Field Curvature at 24-35mm. This is driving me nuts, and I can't live with it.
2. My lens has dust inside - which should have never happened being assembled in a clean environment.

Also, I would never read Ken Rockwell's reviews when looking to buy a lens.

[[XC] 2long4u]

Is he an idiot or something?

[Nate P.]

2long4u;2941874']Is he an idiot or something?
No, but I would say he is heavily biased and bends the truth a bit. He also mixes his opinion in with fact. He's good to read for tips on technique and such, but maybe not product reviews.

[MaxxxRacer]

No, but I would say he is heavily biased and bends the truth a bit. He also mixes his opinion in with fact. He's good to read for tips on technique and such, but maybe not product reviews.

good analysis of Ken. His point of view is a bit sqewed compared to most photographers and the general public at large.

[[XC] 2long4u]

What do you guys think about the pics of the iris?

[[XC] 2long4u]

I just won a 50MM 1.8 on ebay. It is local and the guy hasn't got back to me yet. I will like this lens as I can put it in front of my other 2 lenses for different macros and use it by itself for low light. Plus I heard it is a really sharp lens.

[Soulburner]

It is a great lens - but you do know that it will not autofocus on the D40 because neither the D40 or the 50mm primes have a focus motor, right?

[MaxxxRacer]

It is a great lens - but you do know that it will not autofocus on the D40 because neither the D40 or the 50mm primes have a focus motor, right?

If he didnt, he does now.

A friend at work let me borrow his 50mm 1.8. Its pretty nice on the D300, but doesnt gather as much light as I thought it would. The bokeh is very nice though. Got some cool shots of the cat. I will post later.

[[XC] 2long4u]

Yea I know. :( Thats too bad. When it is attached to the other lenses for macro it will be set to infinity. I also needed the manual lens so I wouldn't have to hold open the aperture.
@MaxxxRacer, the 50MM 1.4 would be much better but also a lot more money. Don't they make a 1.2?

[MaxxxRacer]

1.4 is as low as Nikon goes I think. Ya, the 1.4 is alot more money, but if you want low light, then the D3 + F1.4 is the way to do it.

Eventually My setup for work will be..
Nikon D3
Nikkor 24-70mm F2.8
Nikkor 70-200mm F2.8 VR (unless Nikon release an update that fixes the vignetting and soft corners issue with this lens on the D3
Nikkor 50mm F1.4 or 85mm F1.4 - Not sure which will work best on the D3. Probably the 50 because I wouldnt be using it for portraits.
Nikon SB-800 w/ LumiQuest Softbox (for indoors) or minus the softbox for outdoor shots.
and possibly the 12-24mm F2.8, but I dont know if I will have much use for that. I will rent it and try it out before I commit to that.