Nikon's New D40 - reviews available, list of compatible lenses available

[Abstract]

85mm f1.4 Nikkor:


From http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/nikkor_85_14/index.htm .
That is for a lens that costs 1200$.

85mm f1.8 Nikkor:


From http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/nikkor_85_18/index.htm .
That is for its 480$ sibbling!

The f1.8 simply outperforms the expensive f1.4.

Funny thing about reviews is that they only test a single example of each lens for the test and base their results on that. Note that a review site (SLRgear, maybe) tested the Nikon 12-24 mm f/4 and said it was soft or something, but that they probably got a bum lens. They even said it.

Photozone.de has also reviewed a few bad copies of Nikon lenses (or lenses made for the Nikon mount) and said that they'll try testing another copy. I forget the exact lens, though.

I generally read the user reviews, particularly those who said they did their own performance tests. I know they're not as controlled as the review site tests, but the fact that there are more people testing their lenses at different apertures/settings is a good thing.

 

[Clix Pix]

Abstract brings up a really good point here. Testing a lens under limited, controlled conditions is not really the same as seeing results from users who are producing images with that lens on a frequent basis under real-life conditions. Earlier I referred to the 85mm f/1.4 as the "cream machine." There is a reason for that. Someone who is well-known on both DPreview and Nikon Cafe dubbed the lens this when he began using it for portraits and other work, finding time and time again that he was really amazed and pleased with the incredibly creamy bokeh this lens produces. Sterile lab tests are going to show certain results, yes, but nothing beats the real-life examples shown by someone who is actually using this lens over and over in his portraiture work...... Others who have also used that 85mm f/1.4 lens, myself included, totally agee with the assessment of it as having a wonderfully creamy bokeh and producing outstanding results.

I agree with Silentwave that it would be fun to pair the D40 with some of the non-AF-S lenses to see how they'd work with it. For a pro or a knowledgeable serious amateur, working with a non-AF-S f/1.4 or f/2 lens in manual focus is no big deal and could reap great rewards with the D40 if, as mentioned, it performs really well in low light. The 35mm f/2? Sure, slap that baby on the D40 and let's see what she can do! Yeah, let's see what the 50mm f/1.2 can do, too. How about the Noct? (OK, not only have to fiddle with manual focus, have to use an external light meter to get an accurate reading since it wouldn't meter with the D40.) Oh, and that pancake 45mm lens....I can just see how adorable that would look on the D40! Bet it would perform really well, too!

I have to admit, though, even though she's an AF-S lens, I'd really hesitate before putting the D40 on my "Bertha" (200mm f/2)!! She is one honking big lens! The poor little D40 would get lost.....!! Seriously, though, I'd hesitate to hang any really heavy lens off that D40. It looks pretty small to me. Nonetheless this sounds like a camera which has a lot of potential packed into it, even with the parameters Nikon has set on it.....

 

[coldrain]

Funny thing about reviews is that they only test a single example of each lens for the test and base their results on that. Note that a review site (SLRgear, maybe) tested the Nikon 12-24 mm f/4 and said it was soft or something, but that they probably got a bum lens. They even said it.

Photozone.de has also reviewed a few bad copies of Nikon lenses (or lenses made for the Nikon mount) and said that they'll try testing another copy. I forget the exact lens, though.

I generally read the user reviews, particularly those who said they did their own performance tests. I know they're not as controlled as the review site tests, but the fact that there are more people testing their lenses at different apertures/settings is a good thing.

A bum lens does not test great at f2.8 and not so great at f2 and down!
A bum lens will have a problem with optics alignment, or a problem with its AF circuitry (not with this lens though, since it is not an AF-S lens.).
The ONLY thing that changes when making the aperture smaller.... is the aperture. So it is really strange to even suggest the not so good performance in certain points of this lens is due to a sub par sample. The lens performs excellent above f2.8.

The f1.8 85mm just is the better lens at smaller apertures, pure and simple. Just because it has the Nikon name on it does not mean it has to be perfect, even though at times some people do seem to think that.

 

[Clix Pix]

The f1.8 85mm just is the better lens at smaller apertures, pure and simple. Just because it has the Nikon name on it does not mean it has to be perfect, even though at times some people do seem to think that.

Just because YOU think the 85mm f/1.8 is better than the 85mm f/1.4 doesn't make it so.... Have you ever handled either lens? Used either of them extensively?

Since your credibility is questionable I'll accept the opinions of the many who actually have used both lenses, especially those who have sold their f/1.8 versions in favor of the f/1.4..... And I will happily continue to use my own excellent 85mm f/1.4.

 

[pdxflint]

Well, concerning the 85mm 1.4 vs. the 1.8 lenses... I'd be willing to say that either one of them would be a better lens when in the hands of a talented photographer, and a worse lens in the hands of a lousy photographer.... so, photographer talent could be like a metaphor for f-stop...

Cameras and lenses don't take photographs - people do. Talent, creativity, problem solving, energy, patience, persistence, and a hunger to keep pushing the envelope of your limitations (both personal and equipment) all are factors probably as important as the resolution lines on a lens test. Probably more important, but I'll temper my judgement here...

 

[Abstract]

A bum lens will have a problem with optics alignment, or a problem with its AF circuitry (not with this lens though, since it is not an AF-S lens.).
.....So it is really strange to even suggest the not so good performance in certain points of this lens is due to a sub par sample. The lens performs excellent above f2.8.

Just because it performs good enough (for you) at f/2.8 does not mean it performs as good as the ones that most other people get, which is why I read user reviews from people who give an extensive post on what they got. I'm not looking for MTFs or something, but something that indicates that they tested the sharpness of the lens at different f-numbers, at least.

For example, there's a lens I read about (I really can't remember which one, but it was a Photozone.de), where the lens performed great and gave what seemed to be sharp photos everywhere except at the bottom left corner when the lens was used wide open. It was very very obvious that something was wrong with the sample of the lens they received for review. If stopped down to, lets say, f/4 and smaller (ie: f/5.6, f/8), the lens performed fine, even at the bottom-left corner, which wasn't sharp at all when wide-open. The corner still didn't test as sharp as the rest of the image, but it wouldn't be noticeable when printed unless the print was highly scrutinized.

From your explanation, this couldn't be true.



Either way, I hate arguments about lenses. I have taken photos with my 18-55 mm kit lens that have fooled better photographers than myself into thinking that I was using a much more expensive mid-range Nikon.

 

[fireball jones]

Well, concerning the 85mm 1.4 vs. the 1.8 lenses... I'd be willing to say that either one of them would be a better lens when in the hands of a talented photographer, and a worse lens in the hands of a lousy photographer.... so, photographer talent could be like a metaphor for f-stop...

And on this, my guess is there will be ~0 D40 owners that buy a 1.4f lens.

 

[Clix Pix]

And on this, my guess is there will be ~0 D40 owners that buy a 1.4f lens.

However, there may be D40 owners who already HAVE an f/1.4 lens because they use other cameras....

 

[Clix Pix]

Either way, I hate arguments about lenses.

Coldrain is what on DPreview they call a "measurebator," one who seems to be more keenly interested in reading reviews and nitpicking lenses to death instead of just getting out there and shooting pictures and enjoying photography.

 

[coldrain]

Coldrain is what on DPreview they call a "measurebator," one who seems to be more keenly interested in reading reviews and nitpicking lenses to death instead of just getting out there and shooting pictures and enjoying photography.

Coldrain is merely reacting to your posts and the claims you made about this particular lens, and he gave an opinion actually based on something, and he actually gave you a source that is verifiable by you. Not just hear-say. No anecdotes. Anyway, I have noticed the short time I have been posting here you like to make me into a Canon fanboy. While I already have been very positive on the Nikkor 28-70 f2.8. And very negative about the Canon EF 17-85 IS.
But I do base the opinions I have on things, they are not based on a brandname badge or some misplaced brand loyalty.
My favorite camera is my Nikon Nikkormat FTn, which belonged to my dad. My current camera is indeed a Canon EOS 350D. Which was chosen by me for its qualities, not for its brand name badge, nor for its look-what-I-have factor.

Now, how should we call Clix Pix? a "Nikon zealot"? Or just "Nikon fan-girl"?
If it had been a Canon lens I said something negative about, or a Pentax lens, or if this was a thread about a Canon EOS 5D, you would not be posting your rants like you do, and you would not have resorted to name calling by lack of real arguements.

If you want to see some of my photographs, I will be happy to post some.

 

[Clix Pix]

Thing is, Coldrain, you came on this site like gangbusters and with an obvious attitude, posting in much the same way as you did on DCRP before you got kicked off there. I notice you haven't returned to that site, even though the suspension/temporary ban has been lifted....

 

[Abstract]

Actually, I think he was been OK. He knows what's good and what's not, and he hasn't been unfair to Nikon. I just happen to disagree with him on some levels, especially the one where website or magazine reviews are actually important. But if he can tell that my photos were taken with a Nikon rather than a Canon, or a particular Nikon lens rather than the Canon equivalent model, I'll concede. Again, these reviewers do an extensive job using one sample of a lens. Why user reviews don't matter more actually annoys me. They don't give me fancy graphs, but they do have eyes and can tell me which lens is sharp, and at what f-number (if they're sharp at all). Take 10 quality user reviews from FredMiranda.com, average them out, and you've got yourself a substantial review for that lens.

Hey, if many people have reported getting a Tamron lens has a rep of back-focusing, or never seems to be critically sharp at any f-number, I want to know, even if a reviewer at Photozone.de got a good sample of that lens and didn't notice this problem that many users have been observing. A fancy graph given by one reviewer shouldn't change anything other than sales numbers. If there are a lot of users reporting the same negatives of a lens, that's when it should hurt Nikon or Canon. Otherwise, the lens might still be good.

Not many photographers have bad things to say about the Nikon 85 mm f/1.4, and if the pros don't think it's bad, then I don't care. I doubt they'd have a negative thing to say about that lens if they were to only judge the lens by the photos it has taken. Once they start looking at graphs, I stop understanding how those graphs have to do with photography.

(unless they actually photographed the graph, sort of how DPReview tests resolution with new cameras, although I don't care much about that either, as I don't rate myself so highly as a photographer, and my camera's ability kicks my ass anyway.)

If you want to see some of my photographs, I will be happy to post some.

*grabs the ruler*

Ok, which one of you wants to go first? Oh wait....Clix Pix is a girl.


I'm outta here.

 

[coldrain]

Your silly stuff does not touch or hurt me, silky pix. You have exposed yourself already as a Nikon zealot, and you it seems will attack anyone who has a negative word/opinion/fact about a Nikon product. If you want to be that way, fine. It only makes yourself look bad though, and unreliable as source of dependable information.

Anyway, this thread never started out to be whether a 85mm f1.4 from Nikon is recommendable or not. I only reacted to what was said about it.
This thread is about lens compatibility of the Nikon D40, and in that light I am of the opinion that the lack of primes, even the most basic standard ones that cost not too much (and as such would be a logical partner to the D40), the Nikkor 50mm f1.8 (cheap, good portrait focal length) and Nikkor 35mm f2 (good standard lens), which are incompatible with the AF system of the D40, make the D40 not a very recommendable camera at this point in time.

Adding to that the incompatibility of good affordable lenses from third parties like the Sigma 18-50mm f2.8, the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8, and all other 3rd party lenses that use the Nikon internal AF motor that is found on every other Nikon DLSR, make this camera not a very attractive option. It forces people who want to upgrade from the mediocre cheap zoom lenses like the kit lenses, the nikkor 55-200, even the 18-200 VR which is actually not a stellar lens optically, into the very expensive realm of higher end Nikon lenses that happen to sport AF-S motors. I know that some in this thread keep on claiming that is not a problem for professionals, but thsi camera is hardly targetted to professionals. Its ageing 6mp is not sufficient for the ever evolving requirements of professionals and their clients, and it misses many features real professionals would not want to do without.

So, what we end up with is a camera for people witha limitted budget, and for the moment those people get deprived from good lenses designed with limitted budget in mind. So... would I recommend a D40? No, I would not.

A DSLR from Nikon without internal motor to save cost is like an Apple MacBook requiring you only being able to use the standard iApps or forcing you to upgrade to Apple Pro apps, not allowing you to run any third party applications of yoru choice, simply because Apple would want to cut corners to not have make Rosetta run on an Intel MacBook.

I know AF-S is the way to go. Canon made that decision in the 1980's with the introduction of the EOS series. Pentax is introducing a similar concept with its new lens range. But until the internal motor really has become redundant, it only shows a lack of respect for the customer to drop it, and it makes the D40 a handicapped Nikon DSLR. This and the fact that a good Nikon RAW convertor costs an extra 150$ make the Nikon D50 (internal motor so no problems with lenses) and the Canon EOS 400D/XTi (no problems with lenses, good convertor for free) much more logical choices for beginners. And of course the Pentax K100D, which puts in camera image stabilization into the deal too.

 

[0007776]

Does anyone know if the D40 can be modded to take infrared pictures?

 

[coldrain]

As far as I understand it, (almost) all cameras have an infra red filter in front of the sensor. It is not do-able to remove it yourself. Cameras that have the filter removed need a filter on the lens that removes infrared for normal photos.

You can make infrared photos by getting a filter that filters everything except infrared, and make do with what ever infrared is allowed to pass through the filter in front of the sensor. These filters that filter everything except infrared are confusingly often referred to as..... infra red filters. Success depends on how strong the camera model's infrared filter actually is.

 

[0007776]

As far as I understand it, (almost) all cameras have an infra red filter in front of the sensor. It is not do-able to remove it yourself. Cameras that have the filter removed need a filter on the lens that removes infrared for normal photos.

You can make infrared photos by getting a filter that filters everything except infrared, and make do with what ever infrared is allowed to pass through the filter in front of the sensor. These filters that filter everything except infrared are confusingly often referred to as..... infra red filters. Success depends on how strong the camera model's infrared filter actually is.

I know that there are some places that remove the filter over the sensor and replace it with an infrared filter, I was just wanting to know if anyone was doing it for the D40 yet.

 

[Silentwave]

Lifepixel isn't doing it yet, but I bet they will shortly.

 

[drlunanerd]

One thing I've only just learnt, in researching the D40, is that all Canon EOS cameras also do not have a lens motor in the body as they made the decision to design all their auto-focus lenses with internal motors years ago.

It seems to me that Nikon need to pull their finger out and produce more AF-S lenses, in particular their prime offerings. I'd be surprised if they don't start doing so this year.

Having said that I'm seriously looking at buying a D40, as the only non-AF-S lens I own is the 50mm 1.8 that I rarely use, and usually find too long when I do.

 

[Silentwave]

You might wnat to consider the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 if you don't already have it to serve like a modern-day 50mm with HSM (AF-S)

 

[kendi]

Question Regarding Nikon D40 compatible lens

I am interested in purchasing a 55-200mm f/4-5.6G ED AF-S BR DX Zoom Nikkor Autofocus Lens. What I need to know is if it is, in fact, compatible with my Nikon D40 DSLR camera, and if so, how well it performs. I am interested in mainly macro photography and portrait photography, and the 85mm lens that was recommended for this type of photography is not compatible with my camera. Well, it could be if I wanted to use it in the manual mode, but I am not comfortable with that. Can anyone tell me if this particular lens will render good macro photography, good portrait photography, and will it blur the background slightly when taking portraits? I will gladly accept any advice.

 

[taylorwilsdon]

I am interested in purchasing a 55-200mm f/4-5.6G ED AF-S BR DX Zoom Nikkor Autofocus Lens. What I need to know is if it is, in fact, compatible with my Nikon D40 DSLR camera, and if so, how well it performs. I am interested in mainly macro photography and portrait photography, and the 85mm lens that was recommended for this type of photography is not compatible with my camera. Well, it could be if I wanted to use it in the manual mode, but I am not comfortable with that. Can anyone tell me if this particular lens will render good macro photography, good portrait photography, and will it blur the background slightly when taking portraits? I will gladly accept any advice.

Are you serious?
This thread did not need to be bumped. However, yes, it is. That lens will work fine.

Your camera works with new Nikon Af-s lenses.

 

[kendi]

@ taylorwilsden: I'm not certain what the "Are you serious?" comment was in reference to, but I certainly hope I did not offend you or anyone else by asking my question. I do thank you for your answer, and if anyone else has any suggestions regarding another lens that will work as well or better, I would like to hear from them, too. Thank you, everyone, for your time.

 

[kendi]

@ mrkramer: I have an acquaintance who had his D40x modified to take only infrared shots. So yes, it can be done, but I don't know where or who you would take it to. Best of luck!

 

[taylorwilsdon]

@ taylorwilsden: I'm not certain what the "Are you serious?" comment was in reference to, but I certainly hope I did not offend you or anyone else by asking my question. I do thank you for your answer, and if anyone else has any suggestions regarding another lens that will work as well or better, I would like to hear from them, too. Thank you, everyone, for your time.

What I meant is that this is a very old thread and not the appropriate place to put a new question. There was alot of fighting in this thread with a now banned member, so its probably not a good one to bump. (notice its from 2006...)

If you want that range, I would only get the VR version because its only a few dollars more and the image stabilization is nice.

 

[kendi]

What I meant is that this is a very old thread and not the appropriate place to put a new question. There was alot of fighting in this thread with a now banned member, so its probably not a good one to bump. (notice its from 2006...)

If you want that range, I would only get the VR version because its only a few dollars more and the image stabilization is nice.

If you will notice, I have only just joined this forum, so I obviously did not realize it was an old post. I do thank you for your assistance, however, in the future you could possibly phrase your answers in a more kind manner. As I stated before, I did not mean to offend anyone, and I certainly did not mean to post in the wrong area, so you'll have to please forgive my ignorance in such dealings.

Thanks again for your advice as it was extremely helpful and I wish you all the best.