Nikon D40 vs. D60, which one?

[Hmac]

From a marketing standpoint, I'm sure Nikon has tried to evaluate how many D40 owners want a prime lens, and whether or not it's a smart marketing move to address that demand, whatever it is. I suspect the majority of D40/D40x purchasers are satisfied with their kit lens.

If Thom Hogan's predictions are correct and the D40/D40x goes away, leaving the D60 as the bottom of the lineup, the whole issue of Nikon revising their prime lens lineup in order to accommodate a single low-end camera becomes much less urgent.

 

[cube]

Looking at what some people need, there sure should be a D50/D70/D70s replacement.

 

[nicholasjh]

if i probably won't be using autofocus very often, and taking into account that i hav an 18-55 3.5-5.6, what would be the best lens, prime or otherwise, for now and the future? i know that everybody shoots different things, but what are some people's personal preference, that is reasonably affordable? i was thinking a nikon AF 50mm 1.8, but i don't really know.

 

[Hmac]

The reason for the popularity of the 50mm lens in general is that, on a 35 mm sensor/film frame, it gives about the same field of view as the human eye. That was then...now, on a camera where the image circle is cropped by a factor of 1.5, it would take a 35 mm focal length lens to provide that function - the 50mm lens is now actually a telephoto lens. The attractiveness of Nikon's legacy 50mm f/1.8 lens is that it's dirt cheap and very sharp. As Nikon begins the switch to full frame, maybe the 50 mm will become even more popular to the point where updating it with Silent Motor focusing would make sense, but it's likely to cost quite a bit more.

 

[nicholasjh]

The reason for the popularity of the 50mm lens in general is that, on a 35 mm sensor/film frame, it gives about the same field of view as the human eye. That was then...now, on a camera where the image circle is cropped by a factor of 1.5, it would take a 35 mm focal length lens to provide that function - the 50mm lens is now actually a telephoto lens. The attractiveness of Nikon's legacy 50mm f/1.8 lens is that it's dirt cheap and very sharp. As Nikon begins the switch to full frame, maybe the 50 mm will become even more popular to the point where updating it with Silent Motor focusing would make sense, but it's likely to cost quite a bit more.

so does that mean my "DX" 18-55 at 50mm will be less than the non-DX AF 50mm f/1.8? thats what seems to be the drift from the website and from research. either way, the 50mm 1.8 seems pretty good, but i'm sure theres plenty of other primes out there.

i was looking at the new sigma 50mm 1.4 hsm but then it came out in australia for 10 000...

EDIT: it's only $700- mustve been changing the site.

 

[Hmac]

so does that mean my "DX" 18-55 at 50mm will be less than the non-DX AF 50mm f/1.8? thats what seems to be the drift from the website and from research. either way, the 50mm 1.8 seems pretty good, but i'm sure theres plenty of other primes out there.

i was looking at the new sigma 50mm 1.4 hsm but then it came out in australia for 10 000... is there any justification for that price outside of hsm? hsm means it can autofocus with d40 and i guess its also quicker and quieter, but most pros probably dont use autofocus very often... i know i won't and i'm just starting!

Yeh, your DX zoom at 50mm will give a field of view that's equivalent to a 50 mm lens. The Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 will give you a field of view equivalent to a 75 mm lens.

I don't know much about Sigma lenses. I have a Nikon 50mm f/1.8. It performs well, but frankly I never use it. I like zooms.

IMHO, it's not so much that the Sigma lens is expensive, it's that the Nikon is cheap. It's an all-plastic body and it's made in China. Especially by comparison to the pro lenses, it looks cheap and it feels cheap. It's a good value, no question, but IMHO the fact that it provides a nice crisp image for $110 USD is the most attractive thing about it.

 

[Poncho]

To quote Ken Rockwell:

"Personally I prefer Nikon's least expensive D40 over the D60 or D40x. The D60, D40x and D40 are actually exactly the same cameras, differering only slightly in their internal electronics, but differing greatly in their prices.
The D60 is actually a D40 body with a few more card-clogging pixels, a VR lens and adaptive dynamic range, but a slower maximum shutter speed with flash. Since the D60 is half as light sensitive, the D60 has to use twice as long a shutter speed or a larger aperture, which makes it more likely to make a blurry picture than the D40. Save your money and get the D40 instead."

See: http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d60.htm

 

[66217]

Yeh, your DX zoom at 50mm will give a field of view that's equivalent to a 50 mm lens. The Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 will give you a field of view equivalent to a 75 mm lens.

I'm almost 99% certain that what you are saying is incorrect. The crop factor would always exist in non full-frame cameras. What DX lenses have is that Nikon made something in the construction of the lens that permitted them to make a 12-24mm lens for example.

So with the 12-24, you get a wide end of 18mm. Not 12mm.

Also, I have the understanding, that if you put this lenses in a full-frame camera, it would loose the wide end. Because the FF camera would need to cut out the corners of the image for it to appear correctly.

 

[cube]

??

Sigma has since a long time a FF 12-24mm lens, but it's f4.5-5.6, not f4 like Nikon's DX.

 

[66217]

??

Sigma has since a long time a FF 12-24mm lens, but it's f4.5-5.6, not f4 like Nikon's DX.

I was talking about Nikon DX lenses. That being DX doesn't means that a 50mm DX lens would not have the 1.5x crop factor.

In fact, the DX means that it is a lens constructed for digital cameras without FF. It helps make a different construction to obtain wider lenses who conserve the sharpness and quality.

 

[cube]

But you can EFFECTIVELY go wider on FF than on DX.

 

[66217]

Of course. But that's the whole point of DX, to bring digital SLR closer to FF cameras. It'll never be the same, but it do brings you closer.

If you got a D3 with a 14-24, you'll be able to go wider than a D300 with a 12-24 DX.

 

[ChrisA]

Yeh, your DX zoom at 50mm will give a field of view that's equivalent to a 50 mm lens. The Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 will give you a field of view equivalent to a 75 mm lens.

Here is how to figure it out yourself. Then you don't have to depend on advice you get here, half of which is wrong.

Draw a scale diagram. A 50 mm lens acts just line a pin hole whould if placed 50mm away from the sensor. You can draw a picture.....

The DX frame is 24m wide, Draw a 24mm long vertical line on paper. For a 50mm lens draw a dot 50mm to the left of the line centered relative to the line connect the ends of the line to the dot making an equilateral triangle. The angle at the vertex that point left s the len's angle of view.

 

[66217]

Here is how to figure it out yourself. Then you don't have to depend on advice you get here, half of which is wrong.

Draw a scale diagram. A 50 mm lens acts just line a pin hole whould if placed 50mm away from the sensor. You can draw a picture.....

The DX frame is 24m wide, Draw a 24mm long vertical line on paper. For a 50mm lens draw a dot 50mm to the left of the line centered relative to the line connect the ends of the line to the dot making an equilateral triangle. The angle at the vertex that point left s the len's angle of view.

I am confused. Now I don't know if what I said is correct. Could you explain a little further what exactly DX is?

 

[nicholasjh]

Yeh, your DX zoom at 50mm will give a field of view that's equivalent to a 50 mm lens. The Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 will give you a field of view equivalent to a 75 mm lens.

i'm still pretty sure you're right, despite what people have said. The 50mm 1.8 can be used as a kind of medium telephoto prime around 75mm on a DX body, but once i get a full frame it will be normal view.

that's what pretty much every informational website says.

 

[66217]

OK, I'll leave some links for people to read. I still maintain my point: DX lenses don't change the actual field of view on a non FF digital camera. A 50mm focal length would always be that, you can't change that. What happens is that Nikon DX lenses go wider.

So, a 50mm DX lens, and a 50mm non-DX lens, would give you the same field of view on the D300/D80/D60/D40, etc.

Link 1

Link 2

Link 3

Link 4

 

[leighonigar]

Just for clarification, the 18-55mm DX will give the same field of view, when set to 50mm, as the 50mm prime, when on the same, DX camera. The image circle is probably too small on the DX lens to do the comparison on film/FX.

As the sensor is 1.5x smaller than film a 50mm on DX (digital, except D3, Kodak etc) has the same field of view as a 75mm lens would on a film camera.

This is all. I think people get it, but there seemed to be a bit of muddling.

 

[nicholasjh]

ok cool, i get it now...

so, the question now is, what lens is best as my next option, keeping in mind a fairly low budget?

 

[66217]

ok cool, i get it now...

so, the question now is, what lens is best as my next option, keeping in mind a fairly low budget?

I would first suggest to wait some time and really see what you are missing with your current lens. It might be you need a faster lens, a good lens for landscapes, or a good portrait lens, a telephoto, a micro lens, etc.

What do you like the most to take photos of?

 

[nicholasjh]

ahhh... well i haven't had much chance to go out yet, weather's been bad and i've been pretty busy. so at the moment i guess it's a lot of things- flowers, street, beach, dogs at beach, sunset and landscape.

i probably shouldnt make a decision until i've been out and about, but does anyone hav a lens recommendation for any of the things i mentioned?

nick

 

[nicholasjh]

Thread Closed

thanks everyone

 

[cube]

ok cool, i get it now...

so, the question now is, what lens is best as my next option, keeping in mind a fairly low budget?

I just got a Sigma 17-70 in mint condition for a D70 at a very nice price.
But it's not HSM. To get something similar on a D40/D40x/D60 I would have had to spend $100 more for a used Nikon 18-70, or $150 more for a new Sigma with HSM.

Also these Sigmas open at f/2.8 at 17mm, which the Nikon can't do at 18.

Also, while DxO supports the older Sigma and the Nikon on the D70/D70s, only the Nikon is supported on the D40x/D60, and none of these on the D40.

http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/46-...-70mm-f28-45-dc-nikon-review--lab-test-report

http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/46-...18-70mm-f35-45-g-if-ed-dx-review--test-report