Taking decent landscapes of pretty things is cake. Spray and pray.

What is your budget for a new lens?

I suggest everyone start with the 28-75mm 2.8 Tamron and the 50mm 1.8. If you have a bigger budget, you may want to go with Nikon's 18-200mm VR lens.

If you have the money I would definitely buy it, but that is in part because I hate using a point and shoot to take pictures. It just doesn't feel right to me.

I am one of the many who has taken Guitarsoup's lens advice--I both both of the ones above. But for a trip I might just get the Tamron lens and save the 50mm for another time.

I've got probably an extra 250-300, I want to make sure I've got enough to get a bag. I'd been kicking around getting the Nikon 55-200 (or the Sigma/Tamron equivalent).

Is there a Canon equivalent to the 18-200 VR? I have a friend with a d200 that loves it. Would you recommend going with a sigma or tamron version of this lens?

There is no other equivalent to Nikon's 18-200 VR lens. I shot with it in India and didn't particularly like it. I don't really like zooms with that much range and I don't like slow lenses. But those are just personal preferences. Most people will love that lens because you don't have to switch anything around when you are taking snapshots.

250-300 really isn't enough to get a bag and a lens. Good bags start at 80-100. That Tamron lens I mentioned is great and it is about 300 new.

You could always rent the 18-200 (or a 70-200/300 to go along with the kit lens) for your trip, and save up for one later if you like it. Check out Rentglass.com for reasonable weekly lens rentals.

Renting doesn't really appeal to me that much. I'd be a nervous wreck about something happening to it. I'm gonna have to do a little number crunching to see what I can get for this. I'm willing to bet I'll at least get the camera. Thanks for the help.

Maximus_Meridius,

One really important consideration about the D40 is that it will not autofocus with the majority of Nikon (and Nikon mount) AF lenses - to be specific, only the AF-S Nikon lenses and HSM Sigma lenses will work. Tamron has announced that they are working on some new lenses that will autofocus on a D40, but I haven't seen any actually around yet.

Anyways, autofocus may be something that's not very important to you, but it's *awfully* handy, esp. with the viewfinders on cheaper SLRs.

As a side note, I would suggest that you get the 55-200. There's two versions, with and without VR (a system that moves an element in the lens to counteract any camera shake that might occur while you are taking a picture). Both versions are AF-S and will autofocus properly on a D40. I have the VR version, and it is impressive for the price - nothing amazing, mind you, but a good choice if it's what you can afford.

That's interesting, Edison, I didn't know that. That doesn't make a lot of sense, though, why would they make the D40 different from the rest of their cameras?

Simple: to save money.

All older Nikon AF lenses focused using a motor that is mounted in the camera body itself - a motor turns a screw-like thing on the lens mount, and that turns the focus ring. All EOS/EF mount Canon lenses have always had motors mounted on each lens that the body controls electronically - and, as it turns out, there are some advantages to doing it this way.

So, the difference between AF-S/AF-I/Sigma HSM lenses and all of the older Nikon AF lenses is the fact that there's a motor mounted on the lens for the camera to use, and, as such, the camera dosen't need to use it's internal AF motor. Since AF-S, etc. lenses are becoming more common, Nikon saved money by simply not including an AF motor on the D40 at all. It can still focus the lenses that have a built-in AF motor, just not the ones that rely on the camera body's AF motor to work.

The problem with this is that almost all of the AF-S lenses seem to fall into one of two groups: very cheap lenses designed to go with new cheap DSLRs (like the 18-55mm and 55-200mm you've mentioned) or very expensive lenses that are taking advantage of the faster focus speed and other benefits of having the focus motor mounted inside the lens (like the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 AF-S VR, which sells for ~$1700 new). Most lenses in between (such as the 50mm f/1.8 and Tamron that Guitarsoup suggested) still rely on the body AF motor simply because Nikon/Tamron haven't gotten around to updating them yet.

At any rate, I honestly think that if you get a D40 + 18-50mm Nikkor + 55-200mm Nikkor, you'll be quite happy. The 18-55 will work well for wide angle landscape shots, and the 55-200 will get you zoomed in quite a bit to take some good wildlife shots. Obviously, there are downsides to buying a D40, but you can get great deals on it if you look around. For example, if you look here:
http://www.slickdeals.net/permadeal/12276/Nikon-D40-Digital-SLR-Kit-with18-55mm-lens---Nikon-55-200mm-zoom-lens-549
you can get a D40 + 18-50 + 55-200 non-VR for about $550.

Is there any advantage to ponying up for the VR version of the 55-200 Nikkor?

Well, you'd have VR.

and your wallet would be a bit lighter than if you didn't....might make it bulge less too which could relieve some back pain

Lol, that's what I get for asking an ambiguous question.

Buying the VR version will cost a couple hundred bucks, is the VR worth it at price, or is it something a novice isn't really going to need?

The best review that I've seen comparing the two is:

http://www.bythom.com/55200lens.htm

Personally, I'm not at all sure VR is actually worth all that much on this lens.. that said, the difference in price is only around $70. For that much, I'd almost recommend buying the VR lens merely on the off chance you actually like it - when a lens is as slow as the 55-200 is, the ability to take a (potentially) more usable picture at a slow shutter speed could save you at some point.

Get the VR. At some point you'll wish you had it and ask yourself why you didn't just give up a few coffees from star bucks, or a few dinners out to get it.

I have the 18-200VR and like it a lot (but it has it's limitations - (not good for portrait work at all). But for just about everything else it's fantastic.

Opinions on this package? Buddy of mine (Canon guy) buys all his stuff from these guys. Seems reasonably priced w this lens. This lens is not available as bundle w the Rebel,and must be purchased separately..$500.00 difference between Rebel and 40d w this lens. $700.00 difference if only purchasing the body.

http://www.canogacamera.com/detail.aspx?ID=42600

I'm not a fan of that lens. Check resellerratings before you buy from those guys.

I would stick with keh, bhphoto, adorama. They have low prices and great service.

If you want to spend that kind of $$ you should be looking at a D60 or D80 to compare, not a D40.
You can get a D60 and the 18-200VR for $1310. That would be a better comparison than the D40 with a kit lens and then purchasing another.

The D80 would add $100 to that price. The D40 would subtract $140 from that price (and you’d have the 18-55 kit lens).

GS do you know of anyone in Houston that rents L series glass? A guy in the DFW area that does motorsports photography pointed me to some places up there that do for about $50.00 a weekend. Thanks!

sorry. I've never rented a thing.

Jac, you might try Light Tec in Houston. I rented from them about a month ago, and they seemed to be OK. They are in kind of a hole-in-the-wall place, but have a decent selection.
http://www.lighttec.com/houstonrental.html#

I've been looking at the Olympus E-510. LiveView, 10 MP, in camera image stabilization (making add-on lenses cheaper), auto-dust remover....

Does anyone know more about the whole Fourth Thirds lens system they've adapted?

2K

2k
I am pretty sure that is just their version of the sub full frame sensor. I think it is pretty similar to the one that Sony is currently using.

Thanks.

I actually just pulled the trigger on a Sony a300 on Saturday.

Circuit City had it for $499 with the 18-70 mm kit lens, and for another $99 you got the Sony 75-300 mm lens as well.

(this guy: http://www.amazon.com/Sony-75-300mm-4-5-5-6-Compact-Telephoto/dp/B000DZH9H4/ref=cm_cr_pr_sims_t)

Seems like a great deal. 10.2 MP, LiveView on the LCD, two lenses, 9 point AF...

2K

There's a $200 Instant Rebate on the Canon 40D right now, if anyone else is interested.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/518207-REG/Canon_1901B004_EOS_40D_SLR_Digital.html

I'm jumping back into the photography game. I just order the Canon 40D from B&H, the following lens, and an 8GB card to start off with.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000H38ANO

Next up, a flash and a bigger zoom lens.

I'm stoked. I haven't used my old SLR in years, but I remember how much fun I used to have with it.

[This message has been edited by Rex Racer (edited 5/21/2008 7:56a).]

I just found out that I have access to the 70-200 L IS lens

this makes my day much better

My Canon 40D arrived today, along with an 8GB CF card. Unfortunately, my lens is still in the mail.

Man, I can't wait to take my first photo with this baby.

Just curious, Rex, but why get a hoss of a camera and a cracker jack lens?

quote:

---

why get a hoss of a camera and a cracker jack lens?

---

this made me laugh out loud

quote:

---

Just curious, Rex, but why get a hoss of a camera and a cracker jack lens?

---

There is nothing wrong with that lens. It's a sweet deal for the money. And it's just a starter lens. Rest assured that I will be buying more glass soon.

What are some good photography books? I think this thread mentions somewhere about Scott Kelby's Digital Photography and Understanding Exposure, both of which I have read.

Depends what you are trying to learn.

Everything