Finally =]

[r3g]

Im going to be ordering my XTi on monday after about 2 months of waiting (next day shippin of course). As you can see from my sig was was planning on getting the Kitlens + the Simga 18-50mm F2.8 EX DC MACRO. My Question is can the Sigma Lens replace the kitlens all together? because if so ill just order the XTi body and sigma at the same time both with next day shipping.

[cwat212]

That lens is better than the kit lens. No doubt.

The kit lens can take great pictures. It needs more light though.

Do not think that the kit lens is all out crap..... You will not need or use the kit lens if you own the Sigma. They are the same focal lengths but the Sigma is F2.8 throughout.

[r3g]

Cool.. I wanted to make sure because of the fact that the Sigma has macro mode and didnt know if that kept it from doing some things that kitlens can do. Ill be ordering the XTi body and Sigma monday morning =) cant wait!

[kombizz]

I do agree with cwat212 about the Sigma lens which is much faster than the kit lens.

[r3g]

the XTi can take 4gb CF right?

[nqjudo]

Yes, the sigma lens is a great replacement for the kit lens. I chose the 17 - 70 myself. The 17 - 70 is reviewed at www.photozone.de Not sure about the 18-50. You might think of taking the $ that you save by not buying the kit lens and pick up a 50mm f/1.8 I can't say enough good things about that lens for the price. I would have been picture-less on a few occasions without it where no flash was allowed.

The XTI can handle 4G CF cards no problem as well. Personally I use 2g cards. The last time I bought CF, 2G were about the best value for the money. When the card is full I copy it to my Wolverine portable drive. I have 60G of storage for about 100$ (on sale). I think my model is the flashpac 7000. It's been really great to have around, especially when shooting RAW. Highly recommended.

Anyway, congrats on the purchase. Hope you have a lot of fun. Let us know how it goes.

[r3g]

thats good, id get a 2gig but im really paranoid about running out of space while shooting and i plan on using RAW a lot. ive got over 1TB of storage on my gaming machine so space is no biggy [= . after some thought though im really not in the position to spend 400 bucks on that sigma lens just yet so im going to go ahead and get the kitlens + a 50mm since they are so reasonably priced. my budget is only $900. any suggestions on a good 50mm prime?

[coldrain]

There is only one option, isn't there? The EF 50 f1.4 will be a bit too expensive if you can't yet afford the 18-50 f2.8 macro Sigma. So the Canon 50mm f1.8 mkII is what is left.

[r3g]

Canon 50mm f1.8 mkII it is.. looking for one right now.


Edit: on secodn thought i did some reading and i think ill save up and get the 1.4

[aparmley]

As you can see from my sig was was planning on getting the Kitlens + the Simga 18-50mm F2.8 EX DC MACRO.

That remark and your sig = lots of :confused:


Congrats on whichever DSLR your purchased - prepare for the addiction. :eek:

[r3g]

That remark and your sig = lots of :confused:


Congrats on whichever DSLR your purchased - prepare for the addiction. :eek:


haha yaaaaa... i got the D40 instead last minute. im hooked already.. im taking pictures of anything now, i need to go somewhere lol

[coldrain]

haha yaaaaa... i got the D40 instead last minute. im hooked already.. im taking pictures of anything now, i need to go somewhere lol
I guess you decided you did not want a 50mm lens nor an affordable standard zoom replacement for the kitlens afterall then. Because with the D40 you will be out of both, because of the missing AF motor... strange.

[r3g]

I guess you decided you did not want a 50mm lens nor an affordable standard zoom replacement for the kitlens afterall then. Because with the D40 you will be out of both, because of the missing AF motor... strange.


i dont mind spending the money for good lenses. and as for the prime.. are the never going to make one with AF or have they just not done it yet? if anything i can get a 30mm f/1.4

[fionndruinne]

Yeah, Coldrain is sad now that another D40 owner has been inaugurated. Not that his opinion is correct, since the 50mm prime will work fine with manual focus, and the 55-200 AF-S for $175 is a nice, sharp lens, and the new lens of the same type with VR is due out the end of this month.

[DonSchap]

A major LEFT turn!

A Nikon D40 ... over the Canon XTi?

Yes, it is a brave new world, I guess. I'm just not that brave!

I might have been able to swallow a decision to go with the SONY A100 over the XTi, but the D40? Uhh ... budget well for the motorized lensing.

[r3g]

It fits me better, spend hours with both of them. The whole lens thing really doesnt bother me and its not like the XTi's IQ is WAY better. Not $200 better anyway... Its my 1st dSLR so there will be much time in the future to get a leet camera [=

[coldrain]

i dont mind spending the money for good lenses. and as for the prime.. are the never going to make one with AF or have they just not done it yet? if anything i can get a 30mm f/1.4
You seem to already have a problem with $200 more on a body, are you sure you are prepared to "spend good money for good lenses"?
The ONLY option you will have to actually upgrade your kitlens will be the Nikon AF-S 17-55 f2.8 DX. Do you know what that will cost you?

$1200.

Or if you do not care about wide angle:
The Nikon AF-S 28-70 f2.8

You know what that costs?

$1500.

Not sure why you wanted to save $200 on the body. Did you realize what it will mean?

The Canon XTi and Nikon D80 would have had the $400-450 options of the Sigma 18-50 f2.8 EX DC Macro, the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 Di II and the Tokina 16-50 f2.8 DX. You will not have these options on the D40.

Or for portrait zooms, the Sigma 24-70 f2.8 and Tamron 28-75 f2.8 that are between $300 and $400 or so.

If you would have gone Canon, you would also have had the possibility of the Canon EF-S 17-55 f2.8 IS USM. For $1000. $200 less than that Nikon, a bit better in certain areas (at 55mm contrast and sharpness, and CA) and with image stabilization.
And for portrait zoom the Canon EF 24-70 f2.8 L, also for around $1000.

So, saving on the body (with less resolution, way less complete) you have cut any real upgrade path short. To save an initial $200.
Like Jeff Keller wrote, Nikon does not expect D40 owners to upgrade from a cheap 2 kitlens kit. All in all, to me it does not seem to be the smartest $200 you ever "saved". Including the fact that if you want to try out what RAW can do for you, you will need to pay an extra $150 for Nikon's RAW conversion software.

[r3g]

It wasnt a matter of money that made me take the nikon it was the camera itself. Like i said it fits me better. I wont be going crazy on lenses for this camera anyway, when the time comes im going to step to a better camera and give this one to my nephew. I took all this into account at the time of the purchase. I was looking through the list of AF Lenses compatible with the D40 and not all of them were 1000+ dollars. Im sure the top of the line ones are but my skill isnt to the point where i a top of the line lens. By the time i really get into buying lenses seriously Ill have anothing camera.

[coldrain]

It wasnt a matter of money that made me take the nikon it was the camera itself. Like i said it fits me better. I wont be going crazy on lenses for this camera anyway, when the time comes im going to step to a better camera and give this one to my nephew. I took all this into account at the time of the purchase. I was looking through the list of AF Lenses compatible with the D40 and not all of them were 1000+ dollars. Im sure the top of the line ones are but my skill isnt to the point where i a top of the line lens.
I am well aware that not all lenses that will work on the D40 are $1000+ lenses.
But you were thinking about better lenses in the kit-lens range before, and to achieve that you do have to spend $1000+.

That and the fact that once you learn a bit more about photography and taking photos you will quickly bump into the D40's shortcomings, compared to an XTi or D80.

All that aside, I do hope you will have a lot of pleasure of your new D40.

[r3g]

That and the fact that once you learn a bit more about photography and taking photos you will quickly bump into the D40's shortcomings, compared to an XTi or D80.

And when that happens Ill get a new camera. Dont get me wrong i totally see your point and im not trying to argue or tell any of you your wrong. imade my choice over the course of about 2 months. If i was planning to keep it for a good while I defiantly would have gone for a XTi or D80. I like treating myself to new toys lol, its amazing how much money you can spend when you have a good job and dont have to pay rent :cool:

[fionndruinne]

You know, those (like myself) who buy a D40 are quite likely to be people who can't afford a D80 (or its ilk).

By that logic, we're also going to be the ones who use less costly, consumer-grade lenses on our camera, because we don't have the bucks to fire off on $1500 lenses.

Make sense? Of course we know there are better things, but it's beyond my capabilities, personally. So it'd make perfect sense to evaluate a D40 owner's lens choices with that in mind.

In other words, the couple of inexpensive 55-200mm's, the more costly but decent 70-300mm, et cetera.

Once we have the cash to fling on $1500 lenses, and are that concerned about the shortcomings of our camera, what's $1000 for a D80? Almost pocket change.

Coldrain, you keep evaluating a D40 purchase as if it were the only camera we'll ever buy. For a P&S upgrade, though, it does its work! Do you expect a P&S user to migrate to a single SLR and stay there?

[coldrain]

You know, those (like myself) who buy a D40 are quite likely to be people who can't afford a D80 (or its ilk).

By that logic, we're also going to be the ones who use less costly, consumer-grade lenses on our camera, because we don't have the bucks to fire off on $1500 lenses.

Make sense? Of course we know there are better things, but it's beyond my capabilities, personally. So it'd make perfect sense to evaluate a D40 owner's lens choices with that in mind.

In other words, the couple of inexpensive 55-200mm's, the more costly but decent 70-300mm, et cetera.

Once we have the cash to fling on $1500 lenses, and are that concerned about the shortcomings of our camera, what's $1000 for a D80? Almost pocket change.

Coldrain, you keep evaluating a D40 purchase as if it were the only camera we'll ever buy. For a P&S upgrade, though, it does its work! Do you expect a P&S user to migrate to a single SLR and stay there?
You are twisting it around.
It is MY point that people who consider a D40 will not be able to get a $1000+ lens. You say it now yourself, like some kind of counter argument.

And that is where the big negative point of the D40 lays. You can NOT consider the $400 lenses (they miss the internal motor), because only $1200+ lenses are avaiable which do not rely on the Nikon internal motor.

You are pointing out the exact same point I am making time and time again. Simply said: there is NO relativily affordable better alternative for the kitlens, for that you need to get an XTi, K100D, 30D, K10D, A100 or D80.

It is nice you point at the cheap and not overly good 55-200, but it does not perfrom better than the 18-55 kitlens nor is it a replacement for it (totally different focal range). Also the 70-300 VR is a totally different focal range.
And as you point out, for most D40 owners budget will be limitted.
A $220 Sigma 70-300 APO DG Macro will not be an option, so all that is left is going for the twice as expensive 70-300 VR.

[fionndruinne]

And that is where the big negative point of the D40 lays. You can NOT consider the $400 lenses (the miss the internal motor), because only $1200+ lenses are avaiable which do not rely on the Nikon internal motor.

What are you talking about? The lenses I mentioned are AF-S. They do auto-focus. If you're only talking about replacing the kit lens, I'm not going to do that, because it's a very decent lens, better than the one offered with the XT/XTi. Once I acquire a zoom, then plenty of perfectly functional MANUAL lenses are available, the 50mm f1.8 prime for one.

I really don't see how you have such a hard time with this. I'm desiring lenses which don't overlap the kit lens. As I just stated, I am working with less-than-top-of-the-crop options. That's why I am purchasing the D40. What's not to understand here?

[sjseto]

fiondruinne and ReG_00, congrats on your D40 purchase and soon-to-be-purchase, respectively. I don't understand why people seem to feel the need to criticize your decision after the decision's already been made. You did the research, you know what the D40 can and can't do, and you chose what you felt was best for you. And that's all that really matters.

Happy shooting, and let's see some pictures!

Stephanie

[DonSchap]

fiondruinne and ReG_00, congrats on your D40 purchase and soon-to-be-purchase, respectively. I don't understand why people seem to feel the need to criticize your decision after the decision's already been made. You did the research, you know what the D40 can and can't do, and you chose what you felt was best for you. And that's all that really matters.

Happy shooting, and let's see some pictures!

Stephanie

As much as it is a noble thing to buy a new DSLR ... when I walk into store and the guy behind the counter starts laughing about the cheaper costing D40 and then the "double-whammy" of the higher costs involved in simply upgrading the lensing ... I'm sorry, but that gives me great pause.

As much as we may disagree ... "Coldrain" is dead-on with this. Why would you buy this effectively dead-end camera body ... if you can't buy anything "reasonable" to slap on to improve your photography? Every improvement lens is over a $1000. I'm sorry, but that's just screwy!

It's a come on ... and certainly offers no reasonable buy-back in the process. Personally, I call it the "New Nikon-trap" ... and don't have much respect for any salesmen that doesn't explain this rather expensive problem unsuspecting customers are getting wrangled into it.

Hey, it's my opinion ... but most definitely YOUR money! Spend wisely. ;) In the is case, it's not what's up front that counts ... but what bites you in the backside, later on.

Oh, here's two-pennies ... you'll need 'em. :cool:

[r3g]

fiondruinne and ReG_00, congrats on your D40 purchase and soon-to-be-purchase, respectively. I don't understand why people seem to feel the need to criticize your decision after the decision's already been made. You did the research, you know what the D40 can and can't do, and you chose what you felt was best for you. And that's all that really matters.

Happy shooting, and let's see some pictures!

Stephanie



thx, im enjoying it very much! good thing im not looking to replace the kitlens =)

[sjseto]

As much as we may disagree ... "Coldrain" is dead-on with this. Why would you buy this effectively dead-end camera body ... if you can't buy anything "reasonable" to slap on to improve your photography? Every improvement lens is over a $1000. I'm sorry, but that's just screwy!

Personally, I don't disagree with you. One of the reasons I chose a D80 is for the flexibility in lens choice that it gives me. But you know what? I don't speak for everyone. Neither do you. We have different priorities. Other people, believe it or not, might be perfectly happy with the kit lens and, say, the new 55-200 (which is definitely NOT over $1000), and they might be fine with the limited lens choices available to the D40, and are perfectly happy to manual focus with the ones that won't autofocus. I know it's hard to believe, but it's true. And, not every user wants or needs a plethora of lenses. The horror!

Hey, it's my opinion ... but most definitely YOUR money! Spend wisely. ;)

Oh, here's two-pennies ... you'll need 'em. :cool:

And that's my point. Some people get this strange satisfaction from mocking the purchases that other people make. To each their own.

Stephanie

[r3g]

the only thing that erked me whats the lack of 50mm AF lenses but i did some digging and found that the Sigma 30mm 1.4 DC is an excellent lens and because its effectivly 45mm its not that far off from a 50mm prime. thats problem solved for me. im not spending 1000 dollars because im not ditching the kitlens. when i mentioned changing the kit lens in the beginning of the thread that was for the XTi not the D40. i try not to feel like im taking shit form people when i post on forums but its pretty hard in this case. like sjseto said we all have different priorities, the D40 fits mine...

[SpecialK]

Hey ReG:

Don't let people rain on your D40 parade.

[DonSchap]

Look, YOU ... whomever you are ... by virtue of the fact you're cognizant of what you do are fully entitled to dispose of your income (or credit) in just about any way you see fit (barring any illegal practices).

This advice was merely offered in a totally advisory capacity (there are no kickbacks involved) and you are taking it as some kind of personal attack. Believe me, it's not personal ... it's just trying to be practical. The advice given would be the same for anyone planning or actually doing this.

You definitely are not going to convince "the washed" that this is a good plan for starting into photography with a DSLR. It's kind of like buying a car without headlights ... and the only headlights you could put on it cost $500 EACH! Sure, the car drives, but when nighttime comes ... better park.

The common wisdom of experience and research are the real points, here ... but if you insist on climbing this problematic mountain, in deference to the offered advice, don't expect other people to stand up and cheer the decision. That just doesn't happen.

Personally, I usually say, "Enjoy your camera" ... but when the time comes ... and you will know when it does ... don't ever say that others didn't try to warn you. The effort is to head off issues before they happen ...

and that is all.

Oh look, here comes the rain again ...
22596

Happy snaps! :D

[r3g]

Look, YOU ... whomever you are ... by virtue of the fact you're cognizant of what you do are fully entitled to dispose of your income (or credit) in just about any way you see fit (barring any illegal practices).

This advice was merely offered in a totally advisory capacity (there are no kickbacks involved) and you are taking it as some kind of personal attack. Believe me, it's not personal ... it's just trying to be practical. The advice given would be the same for anyone planning or actually doing this.

You definitely are not going to convince "the washed" that this is a good plan for starting into photography with a DSLR. It's kind of like buying a car without headlights ... and the only headlights you could put on it cost $500 EACH! Sure, the car drives, but when nighttime comes ... better park.

The common wisdom of experience and research are the real points, here ... but if you insist on climbing this problematic mountain, in deference to the offered advice, don't expect other people to stand up and cheer the decision. That just doesn't happen.

Personally, I usually say, "Enjoy your camera" ... but when the time comes ... and you will know when it does ... don't ever say that others didn't try to warn you. The effort is to head off issues before they happen ...

and that is all.

Oh look, here comes the rain again ...
22596

Happy snaps! :D


dont think your advice was given in vain because i hear u loud and clear. if i was planning on using the camera for a long period of time i would take it back 2morrow but thats just not the case. when i hit the camera limits its time to replace it. i thank you for your advice.

[fionndruinne]

My plans are to buy a 55-200mm to extend the reach from the 18-55mm, and then a 50mm prime (for better-looking close-ups). I know the 50mm won't auto-focus, but since zooming isn't an issue with a prime, manual focusing shouldn't be a terrible biggie. Given my budget limitations, do you think this will cover a lot of ground?

Keep in mind that Nikon will quite likely produce more AF-S lenses for the D40's market in the near future.

[r3g]

My plans are to buy a 55-200mm to extend the reach from the 18-55mm, and then a 50mm prime (for better-looking close-ups). I know the 50mm won't auto-focus, but since zooming isn't an issue with a prime, manual focusing shouldn't be a terrible biggie. Given my budget limitations, do you think this will cover a lot of ground?

Keep in mind that Nikon will quite likely produce more AF-S lenses for the D40's market in the near future.


why not just get the Sigma 30mm 1.4 DC AF and be 5mm short? a lot of people on the nikon forum swear by it and prefer it over 50mm primes in most cases. thats what im getting. its nicely priced too =)


$395.00 here:
http://www.adorama.com/SG3014NKAF.html

[fionndruinne]

That's $400... the 50mm f1.8 is $110. I know nitpicking over the price is a bad thing to do with quality glass, but it should be great for holding me over until I can afford more (and the price is such that I shouldn't need to worry about replacing it).

[Rooz]

lol the ususal suspects making the usual d40 comments. enjoy your d40. :)

i love don's attempt to say it's not personal. he calls it a "nikon trap" and basically calls anyone that buys one a fool, but hey...it's not personal. lol too funny don. at least CR is transparent.

[DonSchap]

Look, no one is making anything up here ... these are legitimate issues that should be addressed at time of sale ... not after someone has bought the darn thing and then goes looking for lensing, later on. That feels rude, makes the poor guy who bought it really mad and the chances of going back to the same sales guy for another dip in the mud ... unlikely.

The sales event is personal, but I didn't design this problem, either, so I refuse to take any responsibility for it. Your buddies at Nikon created it. Take it up with them. It's their design.

I would like to suggest I and others are just helping to point out this ... uh, SHORTFALL. You may not agree with the answers or opinions ... but do not suggest for one second anyone really cares about what gets bought ... if it works out, I say fine ... if not ... well, you at least knew what was coming.

Low bridge? :eek: Duck!

The bottom line, you do as you wish! Acch! :(

[r3g]

lets play nice now people.. lol

[Rooz]

not after someone has bought the darn thing and then goes looking for lensing, later on.

this is such a crock. is it a limitation ? sure but is it as crippling as you point out ? absolutely not. do i have the d40 ? nope. so was i limited in my lens choice in any way due to lack of internal motor ? nope. lo and behold what lens's did i choose ?

does the 18-200 VR work ? yupp
does the 70-300 VR work ? yupp
does the 10-20mm sigma work ? yupp

not to mention you're tamron diII 17-50mm f2.8 which you seem to sell to anyone wanting to ask. does this lens work on a d40 ? just curious, looking forward to your answer. :)

the only thing a d40 owner won't have on AF that is essesntial kit is the 50mm prime. but hey, thats life, can't have everything you want. there are some lens made by canon i love but can;t have and vice versa. get over it and pick up a 30mm f1.4 sigma instead. maybe you can help them write to nikkor to complain ala tokina for the alpha. :D

i;m not getting upset nor am i "not playing nice". i'm just pointing out some urban myths that just seem to be growing and growing. perhaps you should read the site reviews of IQ for this little cam. dp and jeff on this site rate it pretty dam highly.

the only trap that is a certainty is ignorance. have a nice Easter. :)

[nqjudo]

ReG_00 - Just reading though this thread and it seems like you are getting a lot of opinions thrown at you. No matter what, take lots of shots and remember to have fun. I spent a few hours shooting this morning and I consider it time very well spent even though the results weren't that great. I was completely immersed for a time. It was a great getaway and It didn't really matter what type of equipment I was using.

I couldn't help but notice the post that you made about being able to afford a lot of toys because you make good coin and don't have to pay rent. Unless you are rent free because you own your own house outright, don't be blind to the fact that this is a great opportunity for you to squirrel away some serious cash - an opportunity that you would be foolish to ignore. I don't claim to know you or your personal situation but I know a lot of people who would kill to be back living with their parents rent free like yourself (or whatever situation you are in). I have never heard anyone claim that they wouldn't have saved more money during that time of their life. Don't think that the future is that far away. It comes knocking... very quickly.

[Ray Schnoor]

not to mention you're tamron diII 17-50mm f2.8 which you seem to sell to anyone wanting to ask. does this lens work on a d40 ? just curious, looking forward to your answer. :)
While this lens will "work" on a D40, it will not auto focus since it does not have an internal AF motor. You just have to manually focus it.

Ray.

[r3g]

ReG_00 - Just reading though this thread and it seems like you are getting a lot of opinions thrown at you. No matter what, take lots of shots and remember to have fun. I spent a few hours shooting this morning and I consider it time very well spent even though the results weren't that great. I was completely immersed for a time. It was a great getaway and It didn't really matter what type of equipment I was using.

I couldn't help but notice the post that you made about being able to afford a lot of toys because you make good coin and don't have to pay rent. Unless you are rent free because you own your own house outright, don't be blind to the fact that this is a great opportunity for you to squirrel away some serious cash - an opportunity that you would be foolish to ignore. I don't claim to know you or your personal situation but I know a lot of people who would kill to be back living with their parents rent free like yourself (or whatever situation you are in). I have never heard anyone claim that they wouldn't have saved more money during that time of their life. Don't think that the future is that far away. It comes knocking... very quickly.



having much fun thx! i know exactly what you mean. im pretty careful when i do spend money, so i may drop crash on toys a lot but i always make sure ive got money in the bank incase i ever need it. im only 19 so im living with my mom while im going through college.

[Rooz]

While this lens will "work" on a D40, it will not auto focus since it does not have an internal AF motor. You just have to manually focus it.

Ray.

really ? :confused:

ps: it was a rhetorical question. i was taking the piss mate. ;)

[coldrain]

Just setting 2 things straight:

Manual focussing is not all the easy, since DSLRs miss a split focus screen.
So, do not think it will be all that easy to hit focus exactly manually with a 50mm f1.8. Manual focussing without a split focus screen just is hard. especially with non-static subjects.

2nd thing: The 30mm Sigma is NOT 5mm off from a 50mm f1.8. The 50mm f1.8 will be 50 x 1.5 = 75mm, a lens that will be nice to shoot portraits with.
The Sigma 30mm f1.4 will be 45mm. That is 30mm difference.

If your goal is to have a "standard prime" your best bet is the good Nikon 35mm f2. It is a bit better lens than the Sigma 30mm, it comes closer to a standard prime for an 1.5x crop sensor camera (52.5mm).
But it will not work on a D40 (not with AF anyway) obviously.

[Rooz]

if your picking the 30mm or the 50mm lens to put on the same body, then the difference is gonna be 20mm. pretty simple. not sure who said they though the 30mm was only 5mm differet. the 1.5X factor you are talking about is completely irrelevant if you're putting it on the same body so your point is totally redundant.

NX is a "limitation" for any nikon DSLR, not just the d40, and i have no problem paying the extra money for an intelligent and accurate RAW processor over the standard package "make do" software which is essentially the same concept as a kit lens. it'll get you by, but it aint the bee's knees.

capture NX is a far more advanced program than your standard package RAW software. if you;re gonna shoot RAW then you are more likely to use an aftermarket PP program anyway. in fact i see alot of people here use CS2, not the cheapest software around, in fact 10x capture NX. so another redundant point.

[Ray Schnoor]

Manual focussing is not all the easy, since DSLRs miss a split focus screen.
So, do not think it will be all that easy to hit focus exactly manually with a 50mm f1.8. Manual focussing without a split focus screen just is hard. especially with non-static subjects.
While I will agree that manual focussing is not all that easy with non-static subjects, I prefer to use manual focussing for most if not all of my macro work. All of these subjects are static/stationary, though, and I have never had a problem getting an exact focus on the 1st shot. I can't say whether or not the same can be said for portrait/distance work, since I prefer to use AF on all of these subjects.

Ray.

[DonSchap]

Personally, I don't know how well people manually focus without a manual focus grid in their camera ... which happened to be a knock on the Canon 20D when I bought it, but I can tell you that if your camera was designed to autofocus ... then you better have one of these grids or be ready for some really awful images.

I really did try to use a "manual" lens on the EOS 20D and was rewarded with serious diopter considerations. My eyes aren't what they used to be. Without that split-screen grid ... it is hard as heck, in subsdued lighting, to get a clear and accurate focus.

Katz-Eye (http://www.katzeyeoptics.com/cat--Nikon-DSLRs--cat_nikon.html) offers these.

22632
For D40/D40x


Hey ... just thought I'd point that issue out before you go all MANUAL focus on each other. Sheesh!

22633
Manual Focus w/o split screen ......................... Auto focus! Gosh! :eek:


Okay, okay ... this may be a little disingenuous, but you kind of get the idea. ;)

Another investment in your ... cheaper solution.

[r3g]

if your picking the 30mm or the 50mm lens to put on the same body, then the difference is gonna be 20mm. pretty simple. not sure who said they though the 30mm was only 5mm differet.




ya that was my bad, i didnt the crop factor for the 30mm and forgot to for the 50mm -_- . newbie mistake :rolleyes:

[Jonathan Gingerich]

I have a strong suspicion that ReG_00 either owns a Hasselblad with a full set of Zeiss lenses, or maybe a Vivatar digital. I doubt he's bought a D40. The thread is just too conveniently posed to wind up coldrain...

JG

[r3g]

note i do in fact have a D40

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y1/regp/DSC_0001.jpg


i hope im not missing your sarcasm :cool:

[fionndruinne]

*chuckles at ReG_00*

I don't know as to those manual/auto focus comparisons; that's one person's attempt. I'll have to try it myself. But I am sure I remember reading that the D40 will notify you when the object is in focus even when focusing manually.

... Edit: now that I think of it, diet Mountain Dew should never enter proper focus anyway!

[sjseto]

My eyes aren't what they used to be. Without that split-screen grid ... it is hard as heck, in subsdued lighting, to get a clear and accurate focus.

Somehow, I suspect that ReG_00 is much younger and I imagine has much better eyes than you. The onset of presbyopia is at least 20 years away for him. I think he can muddle through the unbearable chore of having to manual focus.

Stephanie

[DonSchap]

Low light autofocus will even hunt back and forth, trying to resolve the image. There is a certain minimum amount of light that has to be present for it to work properly, unless you have an AF-assist lamp built into your camera.

The earlier diet-focus comparison was an extreme example and truly not representative of the results you may be able to acheive manually. Again, it depends a lot on your eyes and visual accuity.

You may want to get a focusing target and just start shooting it, attempting a MF on your own. Just disable the AF and have at it. Then, re-enable the AF, take another and compare the two.

Both sharp? Cool.

No? Uncool. -> Better get that split-screen grid from Katz-Eye.

Being blind in one eye and deaf in the other ... does takes its toll, Steph


22637
This is the result of Mt. Dew ... go diet

[sjseto]

Being blind in one eye and deaf in the other ... does takes its toll, Steph

And my apologies for assuming that your deficient eyesight was simply due to age (although if you're deaf in the other eye I have to ask how good the hearing in it was in the first place...or is that a joke that has gone completely over my head? ;) ). My eyesight isn't the best either...had a retinal detachment in the right eye several years ago. I used to be right eye dominant...but that's no longer the case. Left eye works fine, albeit with correction.

My point is that ReG_00 or anyone else may not have that same problem with manual focusing as others. I like to manual focus sometimes even with my AF lenses. Of course it's slower but for some subjects it won't matter.

Stephanie

[fionndruinne]

... and for a prime lens like the 50mm f1.8, it won't necessarily take much more time than adjusting the zoom on a non-prime (once I develop some skill at it), will it?

[DonSchap]

It's all light-hearted amusement, Steph. My eyesight is adequate for photography ... but it is aged. I have seen many things ... and the blind and deaf reference was supposed to be ... a sad attempt at irony.

The bottom line in manual focus is lighting and contrast. If you do not believe this, try focusing manually or automatically on a blank wall. You will notice the problem pretty quick, as the focusing ring goes back and forth, hunting for something to align with. If you look on your lens, it is graduated (usually in meters and feet), so that you could maually set it to the approximate distance you are trying to focus to. Other than sonics, this is about the only way you could acheive focus on such an item.

Having a split-focus screen in your camera, like they did in most earlier 35-film cameras, allowed you to focus quite accurately without having the camera detect you focus. Without the screen, you are really at a distinct disadvantage. Would it work on the blank wall ... it is still an optical conundrum, so probably not.

I HIGHLY recommend getting one of these screens if you are planning on manually focusing on a routine basis, no matter how good your eyesight may be. It does what it does, every time. You know you are in focus and when you press the shutter release ... you have the capture you focused for ... and not the guy standing behind your subject.

I'm sure the marketing departments of all the camera manufacturers know darn well this is a problem and have eliminated the screen because they want to sell NEW autofocus lenses and not have us recycling the manual focus ones. It was a simple change ... that we, as photographers, are now forced to correct, to have this non-option.

[Honest Gaza]

Slight change in direction here.....

Has anyone purchased and used one one of the "replacement" focus screens that Don provided a link to ?

I know I have a lot less success when trying to MF over AF (even in reasonable light)....wondering if it is worth robbing my kids piggy bank.

[sjseto]

... and for a prime lens like the 50mm f1.8, it won't necessarily take much more time than adjusting the zoom on a non-prime (once I develop some skill at it), will it?

While I wouldn't take action shots with it, I don't find it difficult at all. The only thing is that I have to rotate the focus ring a bit more than with most of my other lenses. But it still isn't difficult. If you need help you can use the focus indicator in the viewfinder. I know that not everyone likes to rely on it, but sometimes it comes in handy.

Stephanie

[sjseto]

It's all light-hearted amusement, Steph. My eyesight is adequate for photography ... but it is aged. I have seen many things ... and the blind and deaf reference was supposed to be ... a sad attempt at irony.

Ah, got it. Jokes and such do have a tendency to go flying right over my head. ;)

The bottom line in manual focus is lighting and contrast. If you do not believe this, try focusing manually or automatically on a blank wall. You will notice the problem pretty quick, as the focusing ring goes back and forth, hunting for something to align with. If you look on your lens, it is graduated (usually in meters and feet), so that you could maually set it to the approximate distance you are trying to focus to. Other than sonics, this is about the only way you could acheive focus on such an item.

Having a split-focus screen in your camera, like they did in most earlier 35-film cameras, allowed you to focus quite accurately without having the camera detect you focus. Without the screen, you are really at a distinct disadvantage. Would it work on the blank wall ... it is still an optical conundrum, so probably not.

I'm not sure why one would want to take a picture of a blank wall, but I see your point. :) While I know that the split-focus screen would probably make things easier, I don't think I've ever had a problem getting an in-focus photo when focusing manually, without one.

Stephanie

[DonSchap]

Slight change in direction here.....

Has anyone purchased and used one one of the "replacement" focus screens that Don provided a link to ?

I know I have a lot less success when trying to MF over AF (even in reasonable light)....wondering if it is worth robbing my kids piggy bank.

The whole point of bringing up the AF/MF issue is because the Nikon D40 cleverly provides the photographer with plenty of opportunity to be a "manual focus" hero with a lot of the standard (non-EFS) autofocus lenses. I figured this information could prove handy for some.

In a nutshell, of course. :D

[Rooz]

The whole point of bringing up the AF/MF issue is because the Nikon D40 cleverly provides the photographer with plenty of opportunity to be a "manual focus" hero with a lot of the standard (non-EFS) autofocus lenses. I figured this information could prove handy for some.

In a nutshell, of course. :D

yeah...having to manually focus a 50mm lens is worth necking yourself over. :rolleyes:

[DonSchap]

Don't get me wrong ... I can actually remember the days when autofocus didn't exist. I lived with it in my photgraphy for nearly 15-years. Every lens was manual focus, until the MINOLTA MAXXUM AF system came along, in 1985.

If you check my gear list, I still have many components of the original system, being one of the first to make the transition. It was berated as expensive, unreliable, slow ... heck, you name it, it got labeled ... but I'll tell you one thing ... you could focus in the dark, with either the AF2800 or AF4000 flash attached. No other camera had that capability. It was a quantum leap in photography ... and hard to ignore. In fact, today, it is a standard by which all cameras are compared to.

It's kind of funny, now, seeing all the hub-bub about autofocus and having to "resort" to manual focus :eek: . Not that long ago ... manual focus was all you had ... that and a DOF (Depth of Field) chart.

Maybe the Nikon D40 is just keeping folks on their toes. Oh, we could only hope. LOL

[T06]

Manual focus isn't 'that' hard, christ all piddly mighty guv, you aint some whingeing poms now are yis!!!!:D :D :D

[fionndruinne]

Well, my turn to say finally! Got my D40 today, and have just started muddling my way through the literature. It's a beauty, though... after years of old point-and-shoot!

... and for the sake of posterity and all, I tried filling the buffer on continuous mode, Large Normal jpegs... 100! A long string at 2.5 fps, then it eventually slowed to about 1.2-1.5 fps.

[r3g]

good stuff! im itching for a macro lens myself :( .. soon enough i guess lol

[coldrain]

good stuff! im itching for a macro lens myself :( .. soon enough i guess lol
Another thing about where the D40 was not the best of choices though: macro lenses.

For a D80 or XTi there are many that will AF, that are relativily affordable (all between $250 and $500 or so).
Short list:
Canon EF-S 60mm f2.8 USM
Nikon 60mm f2.8
Canon 100mm f2.8 USM
Sigma 50mm f2.8
Sigma 70mm f2.8
Sigma 105mm f2.8
Tamron 90mm f2.8
Tokina 100mm f2.8

More expensive macro lenses include:
Canon 180mm f3.5 L USM
Nikon AF-S 105 f2.8 VR
Tamron 180mm f3.5
Sigma 150mm f2.8 HSM
Sigma 180mm f3.5
Nikon 200mm f4

If you had a D80 or XTi or K10D/K100D, you could have a very good very affordable macro lens that will AF when needed for $250, the amazing Sigma 50mm f2.8. Amazing because it performs as well as any macro lens, yet is very affrdable.
You could get a Tamron 90mm f2.8 if you want a "100mm class", for $400 ($90 mail in rebate with B&H), or Canon 100mm f2.8 USM for $470 if you would have a Canon DSLR.

I know many will chip in saying that you may as well manual focus and blah blah blah, but I do do quite a lot of macro photography, and I do manual focus at times, yet I also know that I rely, and need to rely, on AF often too.

So, what is left for the D40?
The Sigma 150mm f2.8 HSM has its own motor on Nikon mount, and will AF. It costs a but under $700. It is a GREAT lens though.
The Nikon AF-S 105mm f2.8 VR. It is not the sharpest macro lens around (in fact, it is the least sharp macro after the 200mm f4), but it has VR which can be nice when you handhold macro shots (I do that all the time).
It costs a bit under $800.

As you see, the macro lens choice is quite limitted for a D40(x), and the lenses that are left are quite expensive. And since you found $200 more on the body a bit much, $700 for a macro lens may ouch a bit.
IF I had a D40, I would choose the Sigma 150mm. It simply is an awesome lens. Super sharp and well made.

[Ray Schnoor]

For a D80 or XTi there are many that will AF, that are relativily affordable (all between $250 and $500 or so).
Short list:
Nikon 60mm f2.8
Tamron 90mm f2.8

I know many will chip in saying that you may as well manual focus and blah blah blah, but I do do quite a lot of macro photography, and I do manual focus at times, yet I also know that I rely, and need to rely, on AF often too.


blah blah blah, I have the 2 lenses listed above and I will agree that these are very fine lenses. I will also say that blah blah blah I am not sure if I have ever used AF with these lenses in the 2 yrs(Nikon) or 4yrs(Tamron) and thousands of macro shots since I have owned them blah blah blah.:D I'm sure that it is possible that I have used AF at times, but I can't think of any right now.

Ray.

[r3g]

Just wondering... Since in most of the macro work i do the subject is going to be stationary. Am i really going to rely on AF the majority of the time? Ive been practicing MF on things like my dog and nephew because its a skill i want to have under my belt. I agree its not "easy" especially when they are moving (and when they move they move quick). But even though its not always 100% accurate with the help of the green focus dot and some practice i think its something i have the potential to be pretty good at.

[Ray Schnoor]

Just wondering... Since in most of the macro work i do the subject is going to be stationary. Am i really going to rely on AF the majority of the time? Ive been practicing MF on things like my dog and nephew because its a skill i want to have under my belt. I agree its not "easy" especially when they are moving (and when they move they move quick). But even though its not always 100% accurate with the help of the green focus dot and some practice i think its something i have the potential to be pretty good at.
I've never really paid much attention to the green focus dot when I have the camera in MF mode, so I just looked and it does indeed turn to a solid green when the subject is in focus.

I might also point out that I take most if not all of my macro photos with the camera mounted on either on a tripod or a macro-stand.

Ray.