Lens upgrade for Nikon D40.

Status
Not open for further replies.
V

vinaycm

Discoverer
Iam looking forward to a lens upgrade to my Nikon D40 which is currently having only the kit lens.

After some searching, i've stumbled upon this one..

Sigma 55-200mm f/4-5.6 DC Telephoto Zoom Lens

Price is 6.25K via KMD & is pretty much within my budget.

These are the doubts that i have regarding this lens:

1) Will it autofocus with the D40 (have inbuilt focusing motor)??

2) How is the performance & image quality of the lens?

3) The price seems pretty cheap, does it also mean that equally low on performance also?

4) The lens dont have OS. Will it hamper the image quality that much that i should be saving for a lens with OS/VR.

5) Is it worthy for 6.25K?

6) Any other choice of lens with similar zoom & almost the same price range?

Please post in your valauble comments/suggestions..
 
1) NO

2) For the price, it seems okay. There are some noted color issues, but small ones. Again, I have no hands-on experience with this lens. Just a general googling.

3) Performance in terms for lens means, good image quality and color capture. This lens seems sharp enough though color issues and some other issues in higher zoom ends are noted.

4) OS/VR are good options but have not been that developed to be a necessity. I have VR lens and I use VR function very rarely. Doesn't make much sense to spend some extra cash for something just-so-optional.

5) The build quality of this lens is noted as mediocre to poor. It seems it even has issues with barrel movement. It's plastic body, which is expected given the price. But I've seen better lenses in terms of build quality in that range, even by Tamron.

6) I would suggest going for Nikkor 55-200 VR lens. Since it's available locally and it's great lens. Of-course this goes over your budget as it costs around 10k last I checked. But it's much better lens and it's completely D40 compatible. If budget is really, really an issue then another option would be Tamron AF55-200 Di-II lens, it's compatible with D40, comes cheap and has very good performance. I had this lens and I liked what it offered. I missed for long time when I lost it in last Ladakh trip, so you can safely say it was good for the price I had bought (6k locally). It doesn't have VR/OS stuff but it was sharp all across. At top end (200mm) the sharpness slightly low compared to 55-130 range but still pretty good for general use.
 
I dunno bout nikons in general but, I'd avoid all lenses without IS/VR. At focal lenghts of 200, it is ESSENTIAL even if you have your body against a wall or something.
 
Yeah stick with the Nikon 55-200mm VR lens. My friend picked one up for 9.3k from Fort a couple of months back. I belive any lens > 100 focal length needs IS.
 
BF1983 said:
I belive any lens > 100 focal length needs IS
Click to expand...

I understand... and I say I would agree, partially.

In my (entirely) personal opinion, unless you have really shaky hands or quite heavy lens, you don't "NEED" IS/VR/OS. It helps but still not as great as using proper support or tripod. Of-course comparing convenience of shooting without tripod will be unfair. But I've taken many shots in low-lights without tripod or fast lens, using available support and some practice.

Having said that I should also say that, I'm slowly transitioning to the point where I would start need IS/VR/OS. As my smoking habit has starting taking it's toll on my hands and they seem to loosing their steadiness. That's entirely off-topic, yet somehow related.
 
Heh, you need all the IS in the world to make sure photos are not blurred in low light :P I have trouble taking pics in low light with a steady body AND IS.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom