bro..
55-200 and the 70-300...
not constant aperture maaa....
of coz can get less than 1k...

70-200 is constant f2.8!

nub q

what difference with aperture? o.0

im not so sure about this
but just play with it you'll know
Nikon D series is a great machine to play with

[quote=pac1,Dec 31 2007, 12:03 PM]
If you already have 18-55mm kit lens, why still consider 18-70mm which overlap the range? Get the 55-200mmVR instead if you want more tele. Just my 2cents!

ya, reading your suggestion i ended up go buy 1 overall this lens is ok, feel plastic a bit , but the feeling can zoooom is great

so now i got kit lens + this 55-200 VR, if i wan to take potrait , which 1 gip me the best result, pls advice. sifu

aperture?
difference...
well...
the ones we always refer to as FAST lens...has an aperture of f2.8..
this means the opening is bigger for more light to enter...
so with a big aperture we can use higher shutter than if we are using smaller aperture...
also...the bigger the aperture...the shallower the DOF is...this is where nice bokeh happens...
so if u would use a normal lens...let say the 55-200....at 55 u get f4 as the biggest aperture...and at 200 u get f5.6...
so if u compare f4 and f5.6 to f2.8...thats more than 1 stop of light...
so with a f2.8 lens...u can get higher shutter...useful for sports/ action/ or in low light situation...=)

The difference is with bigger aperture, you'll get shallower DOF, background is blur out which can make your subject stand out from the rest easily without using zooming much, and you can use faster shutter speed in low-light condition without the help of flash light.

I'm no sifu, but I'll just share my opinions, both can be use for potrait shots, 18-55mm is good for full body+background potrait and hlaf-body potrait also can. 55-200mm is good for half-body and head potrait, and the more you zoom in, the easier you can make your subject stand out and blur the background. Just my 2cents!

This post has been edited by pac1: Jan 1 2008, 08:32 AM

[quote=s5000,Jan 1 2008, 08:13 AM]
[quote=pac1,Dec 31 2007, 12:03 PM]
If you already have 18-55mm kit lens, why still consider 18-70mm which overlap the range? Get the 55-200mmVR instead if you want more tele. Just my 2cents!

ya, reading your suggestion i ended up go buy 1 overall this lens is ok, feel plastic a bit , but the feeling can zoooom is great

so now i got kit lens + this 55-200 VR, if i wan to take potrait , which 1 gip me the best result, pls advice. sifu

[/quote]

if u want portrait...
18-55 is good....
but if u have spare cash...
go get the 50mm f1.8 it's only arnd 300+
if u have MORE cash...get the 85mm f1.8
even MORE cash left...get the 85mm f1.4 =)

wow, thanks for all advice given. yesterday when i was at photo shop , i also looking for 50mm f1.8. too bad is this lens do not cannot autofocus if i using d40x. am i right?

does any cheap potrait lens which support d40x 1

cheap?
no way...
muahahahha.a...
the only prime from nikkor thats able to AF with d40 is 105VR...
which is arnd 2.6k...=)

owh, but no choice student forking his own money for it.
damn, should've bought 350D hahahhaha

This post has been edited by MR.Shiney: Jan 1 2008, 12:20 PM

Ooh, someone is feeling some limitation with his machine already. Maybe you can get another body and use D40 for backup just like xandman!

i even have film body as backup! =)
rather than buying another body...let's say d300 for 5k+...
u can get a couple of good lenses with that kinda money...
but to tell u the truth...
i used my kit lens...ALL the time...
durin my travel....=)
still produces good pics...not constant aperture...no problem...
do go bang ur head on the limitation...instead...use it to ur own good!

even if u get 350d...it'll be the same prob...u still cant afford their fast lens...the L lenses!

This post has been edited by xandman: Jan 1 2008, 02:02 PM

mayb can try Sigma 30mm f/1.4

yeah nvm, will try to get that lens first then buy one
with constant aperture

yeah, no choice. bubye months of hard work as a waiter salary

canot zoom right?

shiney bro...
primes cant zoom...
but quality is awesome!

unless u planning for 14-24 or nikkor 24-70...
reviews state that it gives prime quality on a zoom! =)

12-24, 14-24 or 24-70 oso having killing price tag bro

This post has been edited by zzloo: Jan 1 2008, 05:41 PM

aduh...cheap thing no good,good thing no cheap mar...hehe...

cheap thing no good tats not 100% true la..

quite true
not all cheap things not good...
juz not as good as not cheap things la...

i should refrain myself from reading this thread often, the poisons for lenses are on every page...

lol..

This post has been edited by mindkiller6610: Jan 1 2008, 09:50 PM