Prime lens for D40?

Top Geek

Forum Addict
Joined
Jun 23, 2006
Messages
10,837
Location
Canadaland :)
Car(s)
1995 Nissan 240SX
EDIT: Ugh, viper or whoever, please s/Macro/Prime/ in title
EDIT: thanks!

So, I'm thinking about buying a prime lens for low-light situations (mostly indoors stuff where using the flash is undesired). Only problem is, the only currently-available prime lens that will AF with the D40 is a $500 Sigma lens (ouch).

Nikon has a nice 50mm f/1.8 for around $150 (I'm sure I can find for less, too), but it's not AF-S/I (I'm still kicking myself a bit for not looking a bit lonqer and harder to get a camera with an AF motor in the body; can someone please console me by confirming that, at least, I invested in a good system by choosing Nikon? ;)).

Should I just buy the new Nikon lens and live with no AF until I buy a new body (probably a long way down the road) or just find a used MF prime on eBay (like this one, for example) for cheap? I guess, with the latter, I'd only be able to use M mode, though. Am I going to go mental not having AF in the kind of situations where I'd need to use a prime lens?
 
Last edited:

nomix

True Viking
Joined
May 26, 2005
Messages
7,293
Location
Norway
Car(s)
Tend do walk the 40 meters from my bed to lecture.
You've bought into a good system, as all systems are good. Nikon has a wide range of excellent lenses for any situation, just like the other systems. :p

As for the 50/1.8, for the price, I'd think about it even without AF. You've got a relatively nice VF, and MF isn't that bad anyway. And in time, you might buy a new camera. Though, you could wait for the Sigma 50/1.4 HSM that's coming.
 

BerserkerCatSplat

Hormone Induced
Joined
Jun 21, 2005
Messages
9,540
Location
Alberta, Canada
Car(s)
The Jeep of Theseus, Angry Wagon
You've bought into a good system, as all systems are good. Nikon has a wide range of excellent lenses for any situation, just like the other systems. :p
Says the guy who uses a system that can't be bothered to make fast primes at all. :p


Grab a Sigma 30mm f/1.4 (you can get them very cheaply used) and go nuts. The 50/1.8 is too long for most indoor situations anyway.
 
Last edited:

TopGearDog

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
500
Location
Iceland
Car(s)
Mondeo TDCI
Another option is saving up for a D80 because when the D90 comes in the fall, D80 prices will drop even more and will be really affordable and even cheaper 2nd hand on ebay.

The D40 is a great camera but you are missing out on some great cheap lenses because of the lack of screwdriver AF motor in the body. You probably could for now get a 50mm f/1.8 and manual focus it. I personally never use MF because the D70 viewfinder is so small and dark it's pretty hard, but i think the D40 one is better and your screen is better so easier to inspect focus using zoom.
 

Shadowness

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2005
Messages
1,111
Location
Midlands, UK
Car(s)
Caged Clio 182 Track Car
I would highly recommend the Nikon 60mm f/2.8. Fricking awesomely sharp, and I dont think it's too expensive. Cant remember what I got mine for.
 

Top Geek

Forum Addict
Joined
Jun 23, 2006
Messages
10,837
Location
Canadaland :)
Car(s)
1995 Nissan 240SX
Another option is saving up for a D80 because when the D90 comes in the fall, D80 prices will drop even more and will be really affordable and even cheaper 2nd hand on ebay.
I was thinking exactly the same thing.

...but i think the D40 one is better and your screen is better so easier to inspect focus using zoom.
The D40's viewfinder is pretty usable for MF and the focus indicator helps, too.

Grab a Sigma 30mm f/1.4 (you can get them very cheaply used)
Define "very cheaply" :blink:
 
Last edited:

nomix

True Viking
Joined
May 26, 2005
Messages
7,293
Location
Norway
Car(s)
Tend do walk the 40 meters from my bed to lecture.
True. But I get my film lenses cheap as chips and with OM mount for my manual film camera, and film cameras should be manual! :p

And I can use pretty much any lens mount except EOS with an adapter. :p
 

Top Geek

Forum Addict
Joined
Jun 23, 2006
Messages
10,837
Location
Canadaland :)
Car(s)
1995 Nissan 240SX
Says the guy who uses a system that's still making film lenses.
Aren't there certain things that film cameras are better for still better for? (eg.: star trails)
 

Plarf

Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2008
Messages
31
Location
Santa Barbara California
Car(s)
2003 Pontiac Vibe GT
Film still has its place, the wide range of film types is one reason, but digital is advancing to the point where it is very difficult to see the difference between the two, especially in the high end digitals. You can look for digital cameras to eventually be taken out by high speed HDvideo cameras where all you do is video tape a scene and then just remove the frames that you want to use as your photo,this is starting to happen in the sports world.
 

BerserkerCatSplat

Hormone Induced
Joined
Jun 21, 2005
Messages
9,540
Location
Alberta, Canada
Car(s)
The Jeep of Theseus, Angry Wagon
^We're seeing that for newsprinting, but I've never seen an HD capture that would stand up well to being printed on magazine stock. I'm sure it will happen in some fashion eventually, but for now HD capture still has a long, long way to go before it replaces still digital entirely.
 

Plarf

Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2008
Messages
31
Location
Santa Barbara California
Car(s)
2003 Pontiac Vibe GT
yes that's exactly what I meant :D that it is headed in that direction! Don't think it is to far away though, you might be suprised.
 

Dr_Q

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2007
Messages
1,084
Location
United Kingdom of Englandlandshire
Car(s)
Horse & Cart
I usually use my lens in manual mode anyway, I found it's far better for getting more accurate results. Don't get me wrong in moments of laziness (ok, more often than I would like) I use auto but I really shouldn't.
 

nomix

True Viking
Joined
May 26, 2005
Messages
7,293
Location
Norway
Car(s)
Tend do walk the 40 meters from my bed to lecture.
Aren't there certain things that film cameras are better for still better for? (eg.: star trails)
Well, slow 135-film can give you better dynamic range than even the best full frame digital cameras.

As for resolution, it's possibe to get something like 30-40mp with a frame of 135-film, but I can't quote any sources right now, as I can't remember them. But there are people in white coats that have made the maths, so I suppose it's correct.

Medium format film is can give you a lot more.

But where digital wins, is with practicality. It's a lot, lot more practical. Couple of years ago, my paper still used analog cameras and film. They scanned negatives regularily, and were happy doing it.

Now, a couple of years later, if you tell the image desk at my paper you've got negatives that need scanning, they get very, very grumpy.

And that is after all excluding developing the film etc.
 

Top Geek

Forum Addict
Joined
Jun 23, 2006
Messages
10,837
Location
Canadaland :)
Car(s)
1995 Nissan 240SX
^ Oh, I'm not denying that digital is a gazillion times more practical. Film is a pain to deal with.

Anyway, back to the topic at hand...
 

Top Geek

Forum Addict
Joined
Jun 23, 2006
Messages
10,837
Location
Canadaland :)
Car(s)
1995 Nissan 240SX
Shadowness didn't actually say whether he had the AF-S model or not. But, we already know that the non AF-S models will not autofocus with the D40[x]/D60.
 
Top