Which would be the SMARTER choice??

[Viky]

Hi Guys,

I've been into photography as a small-time hobby since almost a year now. Have been using the Panasonic FZ5 which is a decent enough camera. But now, i guess, i can take the step into the DSLR world:)

I've done a lot of research recently and worked out the following two options:

Option - 1

1) $835 - Nikon D80 Body Only
2) $120 - Nikon AF-S 18-55mm DX G ED Lens (D40 Kit Lens)
3) $190 - Sigma 70-300mm APO DG Macro Lens

Total = $1145

Pros- Higher end body with better view finder, DOF Preview, 11 Area Focus, Higher resolution, larger choice of lenses.

Cons- Sigma is no where comparable to the Nikon 70-300VR in sharpness, 200-300 range is mostly soft, Lack of image stabilisation at 450mm (effective) is an issue:confused:

Option - 2

1) $615 - Nikon D40 + AF-S 18-55mm DX G ED Lens (D40 kit)
2) $475 - Nikon AF-S 70-300/4.5-5.6 VRII G-ED

Total = $1090

Pros- Better overall lenses, probablly better pics out-of-the-box, Slightly cheaper also.

Cons- No macro mode, Lower end body compared to the D80, good compatible lenses are more expensive, but then, I won't be buying any more lenses for a year atleast;)

Some would say that i should only buy the kit lens initially and go for the telephoto zoom later, but the fact that i've been so used to the 12x zoom of my FZ5 makes me paranoid about the 3x zoom of the kit lens:(

Am I a professional? No. A hobbyist:)
What type of pics i take? Landscapes, wildlife (at zoo), birds, some macros, people, cars, etc.

So guys, which would be the SMARTER choice of the above two options??

Any other suggestions / advice??

rgds,

Viky

[Rooz]

if you are going to budget that much, i'd say the d80 for sure.
the d40 is a great choice if you need to be even more conscious of your dollars.

dont underestimate that sigma lens, it has some great results. if you really want VR, then just settle for the body and short range lens and sort out the long end down the track. :)

[cdifoto]

First option. D80 is less limiting due to having the motor drive in the body. D40 lacks it, so you'd be stuck in manual focus if you want to invest in a few inexpensive but good primes. D80 would maintain autofocus.

You WILL want to get better lenses eventually, regardless of which of those kits you buy.

[fionndruinne]

There are some very decent options for the D40; the only real place you will find yourself smarting is in the dedicated macro category. There, though, you can decide for yourself whether you really need autofocus for a macro shot. Maybe you prefer it, maybe you don't.

Have you looked at the new DX II 55-200mm VR? It's a very inexpensive zoom lens with image stabilization, and for the price sounds to be more than okay. Retails for $250.

I approve of the D40 kit lens, either way. It's a nice little lens, with a good wide angle, fast focus, and bright and clear optics.

Sounds like you've been doing your research. As for the D80, you can't go wrong with it, unless you end up paying quite a bit more for features which you don't end up really cashing in on by making real use of.

[Viky]

I approve of the D40 kit lens, either way. It's a nice little lens, with a good wide angle, fast focus, and bright and clear optics.


Yes I've only read good things about this lens... thats the reason why even in the D80 option, i've dumped the 18-135 kit lens and gone with this one.:)

And yes, i had also looked at the 55-200VR, but i need 300mm minimum:confused: :confused:

[fionndruinne]

Whoa, really? 200mm's pretty darn nice; 300mm really gets you out there, but unless you're absolutely using a tripod, lack of stabilization will kill your long-range shots.

[coldrain]

The D80 choice for sure. Since you are looking at spending around $1150, my guess is you do not have very deep pockets now, or in the future, for photography equipment.

The D40 does not only lack the internal motor which will block quite a lot of prime and 3rd party zoom lenses, it also lacks a number of other options that you can only gain later on by buying a different body again. Like a better AF system, needed when you will want to track fast moving subjects. Or exposure bracketing, for when you want to experiment with exposure, or want to combine different exposures for landscape pictures with bigger dynamic range (called DRI or HDR).
It misses mirror lock up, a feature needed for slow exposures to prevent vibration of the mirror slapping up to show up on the photo as a slight softness. The D80 does not have real mirror lock up, but it has a semi mirror lock up, putting the mirror a part of a second up before the photo is taken, better than nothing.
And it misses a button to close the aperture, for when you want to check the depth of field you will get with a certain aperture. This can come in handy with for instance macro photography.
It misses direct buttons to white balance and ISO settings, which can become very annoying.

No telling which of these features you will start to need, when you are getting more into photography. The D80 just offers a LOT more.
Including a big view finder, two control wheels.

And the Sigma 70-300 APO DG Macro is not soft from 200-300, it loses resolution in the edge at 300mm. But your subject will be in the center, that is why you can get very decent results with this lens, even at 300mm. And why it is the best choice for the budget 70-300 lenses. The Nikon 70-300 VR does better in the edge at 300mm, that is true. And it offers VR. But you will be suprised at the Sigma's performance for its price.

Ideal would be to get the D80 with the Nikon 70-300 VR of course, but your budget is limitted.
But consider this:
If you in future will want to get a macro lens, you can get a top quality macro lens for the D80 already for around $250 (Sigma 50mm f2.8 DG). Sharp, great contrast and colour).
Or a Tamron 90mm f2.8 for around $450.
Or a load of other lenses including Nikon's own and very good 60mm f2.8 micro (great to also shoot portraits with!) for under $400?.

For the D40 you would only have two options that will AF: Nikon 105mm VR for about $700 and Sigma 150mm f2.8 for around the same. The Nikon is not the sharpest macro lens around. Nor the most contrasty. The Sigma is a great macro, but the high price will have to suit your budget.

Then if you would want to upgrade, later on, your 18-55 kitlens for a standard zoom or portait zoom with better optics or constant f2.8 max. aperture.
For the D80 you will have "budget choices":
Sigma 18-50 f2.8 EX DC Macro $430
Tamron 17-50 f2.8 Di II $450
Tokina 16-50 f2.8 DX $500(?)
Sigma 28-70 f2.8
Sigma 24-70 f2.8
Tamron 28-75 f2.8 (all three under $400)

For a D40 your options to upgrade would only consist of:
Nikon 17-55 f2.8 DX ($1200)
Nikon 28-70 f2.8 ($1500)

So, unless you think you will NOT want to upgrade lenses in future (experience on this forum shows that most people WILL want to upgrade, and most within a year), or unless your pockets are so deep that you can afford those two Nikon lenses which cost as much each as your budget is big now, the D80 route is the smartest route without a doubt.

Same goes for when you will want (non macro) primes, for for instance lower light photography or for shallow depth of field/smooth soft bokeh.
The D80 will give you options, which include the popular standard option (among many others):
Nikon 50mm f1.8 ($120) (nice for portrait stuff for instance)
Nikon 35mm f2 ($350?) ("standard prime", nice for anything including indoor shooting)
Nikon 85mm f1.8 ($400?) (great as longer portrait lens)

For the D40 your AF-ing choice would be limitted to a Sigma 30mm f1.4. Just short of a "standard prime".

I could make a similar list for a Canon XTi vs a Nikon D40, or a list about a Pentax model vs the Nikon D40.

The Nikon D40 is only a good idea if you are a "snap shooter" who will not grow and want to upgrade the 2 kitlens idea, or explore features other DSLRs offer (with reason). For others it will be a limitting camera.

[Viky]

Whoa, really? 200mm's pretty darn nice; 300mm really gets you out there, but unless you're absolutely using a tripod, lack of stabilization will kill your long-range shots.

Yup, thats one issue that i'm really worried about....:( :(

Someone who has this SIGMA would be able to give the right input regarding usability at full zoom..

[coldrain]

People have been shooting for DECADES with 300mm, without tripod. If light is low, yes the VR would come to help. But out doors on a sunny day (where the 70-300 will be used for anyway, is my guess) you really do not "need" VR.

I use a 70-200 f4 Canon lens, with 1.7x tele convertor. 200 x 1.7 = 340mm.
Does it have VR? No. Do I make many photos with 340mm? Yes. Handheld. So, while VR is a help at times, needed it most certainly is not.

[achuang]

Good post there coldrain, I agree with your suggestion. The lack of an AF motor in the D40 is a deal breaker for me, but that's because I use primes. If you don't plan to upgrade beyond kit lenses then you'd be fine with the D40 as it is a very capable camera. One other suggestion from me is to find a D50, they're probably still around and stores are most likely trying to get rid of them for cheap prices. It has a AF motor in the body so all the autofocus lenses will work with it. If you can afford it, then go with the D80.

[achuang]

People have been shooting for DECADES with 300mm, without tripod. If light is low, yes the VR would come to help. But out doors on a sunny day (where the 70-300 will be used for anyway, is my guess) you really do not "need" VR.

I use a 70-200 f4 Canon lens, with 1.7x tele convertor. 200 x 1.7 = 340mm.
Does it have VR? No. Do I make many photos with 340mm? Yes. Handheld. So, while VR is a help at times, needed it most certainly is not.

I shoot with a 70-300 lens that doesn't have VR and get acceptable results, and I was quite surprised when I used the lens at the FINA swimming championships recently. It was indoors, and I was shooting at ISO 1600 and shot in manual choosing my minimum shutter speed 1/320. I didn't want to go any lower as the action would be a blur. Considering that I should be shooting at at least 1/500 because 300mm x 1.5 crop factor the pic was still sharp. So it depends how stable you are, if you're like a rock then you might not even need VR and can save some money.

[Viky]

The D80 choice for sure. Since you are looking at spending around $1150, my guess is you do not have very deep pockets now, or in the future, for photography equipment.

The D40 does not only lack the internal motor which will block quite a lot of prime and 3rd party zoom lenses, it also lacks a number of other options that you can only gain later on by buying a different body again. Like a better AF system, needed when you will want to track fast moving subjects. Or exposure bracketing, for when you want to experiment with exposure, or want to combine different exposures for landscape pictures with bigger dynamic range (called DRI or HDR).
It misses mirror lock up, a feature needed for slow exposures to prevent vibration of the mirror slapping up to show up on the photo as a slight softness. The D80 does not have real mirror lock up, but it has a semi mirror lock up, putting the mirror a part of a second up before the photo is taken, better than nothing.
And it misses a button to close the aperture, for when you want to check the depth of field you will get with a certain aperture. This can come in handy with for instance macro photography.
It misses direct buttons to white balance and ISO settings, which can become very annoying.

No telling which of these features you will start to need, when you are getting more into photography. The D80 just offers a LOT more.
Including a big view finder, two control wheels.

And the Sigma 70-300 APO DG Macro is not soft from 200-300, it loses resolution in the edge at 300mm. But your subject will be in the center, that is why you can get very decent results with this lens, even at 300mm. And why it is the best choice for the budget 70-300 lenses. The Nikon 70-300 VR does better in the edge at 300mm, that is true. And it offers VR. But you will be suprised at the Sigma's performance for its price.

Ideal would be to get the D80 with the Nikon 70-300 VR of course, but your budget is limitted.
But consider this:
If you in future will want to get a macro lens, you can get a top quality macro lens for the D80 already for around $250 (Sigma 50mm f2.8 DG). Sharp, great contrast and colour).
Or a Tamron 90mm f2.8 for around $450.
Or a load of other lenses including Nikon's own and very good 60mm f2.8 micro (great to also shoot portraits with!) for under $400?.

For the D40 you would only have two options that will AF: Nikon 105mm VR for about $700 and Sigma 150mm f2.8 for around the same. The Nikon is not the sharpest macro lens around. Nor the most contrasty. The Sigma is a great macro, but the high price will have to suit your budget.

Then if you would want to upgrade, later on, your 18-55 kitlens for a standard zoom or portait zoom with better optics or constant f2.8 max. aperture.
For the D80 you will have "budget choices":
Sigma 18-50 f2.8 EX DC Macro $430
Tamron 17-50 f2.8 Di II $450
Tokina 16-50 f2.8 DX $500(?)
Sigma 28-70 f2.8
Sigma 24-70 f2.8
Tamron 28-75 f2.8 (all three under $400)

For a D40 your options to upgrade would only consist of:
Nikon 17-55 f2.8 DX ($1200)
Nikon 28-70 f2.8 ($1500)

So, unless you think you will NOT want to upgrade lenses in future (experience on this forum shows that most people WILL want to upgrade, and most within a year), or unless your pockets are so deep that you can afford those two Nikon lenses which cost as much each as your budget is big now, the D80 route is the smartest route without a doubt.

Same goes for when you will want (non macro) primes, for for instance lower light photography or for shallow depth of field/smooth soft bokeh.
The D80 will give you options, which include the popular standard option (among many others):
Nikon 50mm f1.8 ($120) (nice for portrait stuff for instance)
Nikon 35mm f2 ($350?) ("standard prime", nice for anything including indoor shooting)
Nikon 85mm f1.8 ($400?) (great as longer portrait lens)

For the D40 your AF-ing choice would be limitted to a Sigma 30mm f1.4. Just short of a "standard prime".

I could make a similar list for a Canon XTi vs a Nikon D40, or a list about a Pentax model vs the Nikon D40.

The Nikon D40 is only a good idea if you are a "snap shooter" who will not grow and want to upgrade the 2 kitlens idea, or explore features other DSLRs offer (with reason). For others it will be a limitting camera.

Thanks so much for explaining things in such detail... This has made my choice so much easier and simpler!!:)

Its the D80 Option for me:)

[Viky]

As posted by a SIGMA owner on another forum regarding the 70-300 APO:



I think keerthi has this lens. Hope he will shed some light on it .


My lens is up for sale!

Does that say enough .. Seriously, its a very good beginers lens. But after few months, you will grow out of it. If you have the money get a VR/IS lens in the same focal length range. If you have some more money left, go for 70-200 F4 lens

What do u say?:confused: :confused: :confused:

[cdifoto]

As posted by a SIGMA owner on another forum regarding the 70-300 APO:






What do u say?:confused: :confused: :confused:

I say yes, you will want to move away from that lens eventually. BUT you're spending under $200 for it. In the dSLR world you do not get much for $200. That's just how things are. That's why I said what I said in my first response.

IF you want top quality from the get-go, you need to have a MUCH bigger budget than $1200. $1200 can go into ONE lens if you're serious.

The $200 Sigma will be a good way to get your feet wet, considering your budget.

[Rooz]

of course depending on the condition it's in.
get photos of either end of the lens glass etc

[Rooz]

i can vouch for the tamron 90mm macro, i love this thing. the colour contrast and sharpness amaze me. it's my 2nd fave lens after my little 50mm which i love to bits.:)

[coldrain]

The only 70-200 f4 lens I know is the Canon Ef 70-200 f4 L (and its newer IS brother). I am pretty sure that one will not work well on any Nikon DSLR. I do not really get that post from that other forum :confused:

Like the kit lens, you may outgrow it. But it only costs $220, where will be the pain in that (as cdi pointed out)?

The D40 you will outgrow too.
So, my advice in your case would be: get the D80 with the 18-55 kitlens and 70-300 APO DG from Sigma, to learn and see what you will want to grow into in future. They both will be capable of very nice results, and will give you an idea for future lens wishes.
Unless you can stretch your budget $300 right now.

[Rhys]

Go for the better body. Maybe just stick with a lens in the range 17-85 instead of getting a long lens. Try to stick with Nikon for lenses too. They're a ton better than the independent lenses.

I have some Nikon film gear and Nikon lenses beat Tamron, Sigma etc hands down.

[Prospero]

I don't agree with Rhys here. Of the lenses in the 18-70 range, some third party lenses are in many ways a better choice. The Sigma 17-70, for instance will beat the affordable Nikkor lenses in almost every field except the focussing speed.
Also, the third party f/2.8 lenses offer a large apperture, for only a little more money than the Nikkor lenses in this range.
The only disadvantage of chosing a third party lens in this range is that it focusses a bit slower, not having a af-s or hsm motor.

When looking at the long lenses, the Nikkor 70-300VR is without a doubt better than the Sigma 70-300, but the Sigma is so much cheaper, that it is definitly worth the money.
The Sigma 70-300 is better than the older Nikkor 70-300 lenses, though.

[coldrain]

Rhys is "comparing" old memories of 1970's film SLR prime lenses to zoom lenses on a DSLR. If you actually would lay the film magnified to 100% DSLR pixel size side by side to the DSLR image, you would be surpised just how "bad" the film actually performed.

So, don't fall for the "it used to be so much better in the past" trap, which his comparison actually is.

If you want to compare primes with primes, fine. Just do it for real.
But just because you happen to like a prime lens you had during the 1970's/1980's says nothing about how any Nikon, Canon, Sigma, Tamron or what not lens performs.

[Rhys]

The Sigma 17-70, for instance will beat the affordable Nikkor lenses in almost every field except the focussing speed.

While I have limited experience of the current Nikon line-up having gone to Canon, I would like to point out that a slow focussing lens is a real PITA which is why all my future lenses are going to be USM lenses. My non USM lenses are slowly being sold to be replaced with USM.

[fionndruinne]

If you plan on picking up a fairly large arsenal of lenses and such gear, then the D80 is the smarter option. It all depends on what you end up doing. Don't completely discount the D40, though, just because a few people here have a dislike for it which passeth all understanding. While some of the things they say are correct, they are often blown out of proportion, or misleading terminology is used ("weak AF system" to refer to the fact that the D40 has only 3 AF points - while its AF system - more properly defined as the camera's mechanical focus ability, is a very robust and excellent performer).

For those of us who do not have the cash to build up a lens collection, there are several excellent inexpensive choices, and problems only crop up in macro or prime categories.

But go with what seems best - if I had the funds I would probably be planning for as wide a latitude as you seem to be.

[aparmley]

As posted by a SIGMA owner on another forum regarding the 70-300 APO:






What do u say?:confused: :confused: :confused:

I say I agree with her and I did. When I upgraded from my Sigma to the Canon 70-300 IS I was much happier and thought I should have just saved another month or two, bought the Canon, instead I shot with my Sigma for well over a year. After about 2 months I hardly ever used it and when I did it was really only between 70-200mm - due to the softness over 300mm.

True its cheap, $200 buys you this telephoto zoom based on that standard its pretty decent - but would I do it again, nope! I'd learn the most I could about photography, my camera, take hundreds of photos while I saved for the better 70-300 VR.

The kit lens (18-135) that comes with the D80 is as decent of a kit lens as you can find. I bought mine with and so far I haven't been disappointed in my choice - especially when shooting from 55mm-135mm - makes it a more versatile lens. Sure, it may have some weak areas but for the dough - it makes a lot more since getting the 18-135 than both the 18-55 and Sigma 70-300.

I'd like to add pick up the 50 1.8 too - its a must and a speedlight. But if thats not in the cards right now, at least get the prime (50mm 1.8) you'll be happy you did.

Best of luck the D80 is an exceptional camera, you'll really enjoy it.

[aparmley]

See this thread to find 2 images a Nikon Newbie made with the kit lens (18-135)!

http://www.dcresource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=30567

And here are two more snaps I made with the kit lens: Its a fairly good performer. I'm sure a better photographer and one who had more time could get more out of this baby but for the coin, its pretty good:

http://parmley.smugmug.com/photos/143437788-L.jpg

http://parmley.smugmug.com/photos/145363295-L.jpg

I don't have a ton of experience with it but I will say this its a fun lens, it has a versatile zoom range, and its more than enough to get you started.