D40 lens advice

I bought a D40 awhile ago and I'm extremely pleased

Now I've got to the stage of thinking of a new/additional lense and am
looking at the 70-200/300 focal length. I am confused though ...

I know the D40 uses new fangled motorised lenses, but I am not sure which
lense, other than Nikon lenses, will be compatible and include autofocus.

I tried a Sigma 70-300mm lense in a shop today, but the sales person told me
the only way to get a lense for the D40 that maintains the autofucus feature
was to buy Nikon lenses.

Is this true?

Thanks

Simon

On Sat, 26 May 2007 20:51:03 GMT, Plebism wrote:

I know the D40 uses new fangled motorised lenses, but I am not sure which
lense, other than Nikon lenses, will be compatible and include autofocus.

I tried a Sigma 70-300mm lense in a shop today, but the sales person told me
the only way to get a lense for the D40 that maintains the autofucus feature
was to buy Nikon lenses.

Is this true?

I found this in an archived message, and if accurate it means that
you have to make sure that you consider only Sigma's hsm lenses. As
for what "hsm" means, my guess is "high speed motor".

From: nospam
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
Subject: Question about lens...
Date: Wed, 02 May 2007 12:36:39 -0700
Message-ID:

. . .

i tried the sigma 18-200 at the sigma booth at a trade show a while
ago. it is bigger than the nikon, it doesn't have sigma hsm focusing
(so it won't autofocus on a nikon d40/d40x),

In article , Plebism
wrote:

I bought a D40 awhile ago and I'm extremely pleased

Now I've got to the stage of thinking of a new/additional lense and am
looking at the 70-200/300 focal length. I am confused though ...

I know the D40 uses new fangled motorised lenses, but I am not sure which
lense, other than Nikon lenses, will be compatible and include autofocus.

I tried a Sigma 70-300mm lense in a shop today, but the sales person told me
the only way to get a lense for the D40 that maintains the autofucus feature
was to buy Nikon lenses.

Is this true?

is anything a salesperson says true?

the only lenses that will autofocus are nikon afs and sigma hsm lenses
(and for some reason, the sigma 80-400os which is not hsm).

here's a list:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1034&message=21699045

in the range you are looking, there are the following lenses:
nikon 70-200vr/2.8
nikon 70-300vr/4-5.6
nikon 55-200vr/4-5.6
nikon 55-200/4-5.6
sigma 120-300/2.8
sigma 70-200/2.8 macro
sigma 100-300/4

i highly suggest getting a lens with stabilization, and the 55-200vr is
quite inexpensive - around $250. the non-stabilized version of the
55-200 is only $80 or so cheaper, and stabilization is well worth the
$80 difference. for more money, the 70-300vr is longer and the
70-200vr has a constant f/2.8 aperture.

there are also rumours of several new nikon lenses being announced
sometime soon. it is reasonable to expect that they'll all be afs
lenses and will autofocus with the d40/d40x. of course, it is not
(yet) known when (or if) the rumour is true and what it might include.

"nospam" wrote in message
...
In article , Plebism
wrote:

I bought a D40 awhile ago and I'm extremely pleased

Now I've got to the stage of thinking of a new/additional lense and am
looking at the 70-200/300 focal length. I am confused though ...

I know the D40 uses new fangled motorised lenses, but I am not sure which
lense, other than Nikon lenses, will be compatible and include autofocus.

I tried a Sigma 70-300mm lense in a shop today, but the sales person told
me
the only way to get a lense for the D40 that maintains the autofucus
feature
was to buy Nikon lenses.

Is this true?

is anything a salesperson says true?

the only lenses that will autofocus are nikon afs and sigma hsm lenses
(and for some reason, the sigma 80-400os which is not hsm).

here's a list:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1034&message=21699045

in the range you are looking, there are the following lenses:
nikon 70-200vr/2.8
nikon 70-300vr/4-5.6
nikon 55-200vr/4-5.6
nikon 55-200/4-5.6
sigma 120-300/2.8
sigma 70-200/2.8 macro
sigma 100-300/4

i highly suggest getting a lens with stabilization, and the 55-200vr is
quite inexpensive - around $250. the non-stabilized version of the
55-200 is only $80 or so cheaper, and stabilization is well worth the
$80 difference. for more money, the 70-300vr is longer and the
70-200vr has a constant f/2.8 aperture.

Thanks for that, I have found a Nikon 55-200 non VR for £110 but as you say
... the VR is more expensive .... around £180.

Is it really worth the extra money ..... you mean better image results?

Simon

"Plebism" wrote in message
.uk...

Thanks for that, I have found a Nikon 55-200 non VR for £110 but as you
say .. the VR is more expensive .... around £180.

Is it really worth the extra money ..... you mean better image results?

Simon

Absolutely, definitely and most emphatically, yes. :-)

/M

"Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!)" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 27 May 2007 08:22:56 GMT, in rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
"Plebism" wrote:


Thanks for that, I have found a Nikon 55-200 non VR for £110 but as you
say
.. the VR is more expensive .... around £180.

Is it really worth the extra money ..... you mean better image results?

Only YOU can answer this question. You need to ask yourself given what
subjects you wish to photograph in what conditions would image
stabilization be useful? Think about low light situations with stationary
subjects.

This is a valid point ... as if the VR is purely image stablising then thats
quite a chunk for 80 quid more (about $150)

I think Ill wait for the time being ... im on my hols in July and that is
when I need the lens for

Thanks

Simon

I think it's Hyper Sonic Motor just means the motor is in
the lens and doesn't rely on the motor in other Nikon bodies.


darkroommike

ASAAR wrote:
On Sat, 26 May 2007 20:51:03 GMT, Plebism wrote:

I know the D40 uses new fangled motorised lenses, but I am not sure which
lense, other than Nikon lenses, will be compatible and include autofocus.

I tried a Sigma 70-300mm lense in a shop today, but the sales person told me
the only way to get a lense for the D40 that maintains the autofucus feature
was to buy Nikon lenses.

Is this true?

I found this in an archived message, and if accurate it means that
you have to make sure that you consider only Sigma's hsm lenses. As
for what "hsm" means, my guess is "high speed motor".

From: nospam
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
Subject: Question about lens...
Date: Wed, 02 May 2007 12:36:39 -0700
Message-ID:

. . .

i tried the sigma 18-200 at the sigma booth at a trade show a while
ago. it is bigger than the nikon, it doesn't have sigma hsm focusing
(so it won't autofocus on a nikon d40/d40x),

On Mon, 28 May 2007 09:36:08 -0500, darkroommike wrote:

I think it's Hyper Sonic Motor just means the motor is in
the lens and doesn't rely on the motor in other Nikon bodies.

Well, yes, and thanks for pointing out that hsm doesn't literally
stand for "high speed motor", although it may well allow faster
focusing that those that use the DSLR's motor to focus. And while
some might prefer some types of motors to others, the fact that a
lens has a motor of any type should mean that it will allow AF to
work with the D40/D40x.

nospam wrote:
In article , Plebism
wrote:

I bought a D40 awhile ago and I'm extremely pleased

Now I've got to the stage of thinking of a new/additional lense and am
looking at the 70-200/300 focal length. I am confused though ...

I know the D40 uses new fangled motorised lenses, but I am not sure which
lense, other than Nikon lenses, will be compatible and include autofocus.

I tried a Sigma 70-300mm lense in a shop today, but the sales person told me
the only way to get a lense for the D40 that maintains the autofucus feature
was to buy Nikon lenses.

Is this true?

is anything a salesperson says true?

the only lenses that will autofocus are nikon afs and sigma hsm lenses
(and for some reason, the sigma 80-400os which is not hsm).

here's a list:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1034&message=21699045

in the range you are looking, there are the following lenses:
nikon 70-200vr/2.8
nikon 70-300vr/4-5.6
nikon 55-200vr/4-5.6
nikon 55-200/4-5.6
sigma 120-300/2.8
sigma 70-200/2.8 macro
sigma 100-300/4

i highly suggest getting a lens with stabilization, and the 55-200vr is
quite inexpensive - around $250. the non-stabilized version of the
55-200 is only $80 or so cheaper, and stabilization is well worth the
$80 difference. for more money, the 70-300vr is longer and the
70-200vr has a constant f/2.8 aperture.

there are also rumours of several new nikon lenses being announced
sometime soon. it is reasonable to expect that they'll all be afs
lenses and will autofocus with the d40/d40x. of course, it is not
(yet) known when (or if) the rumour is true and what it might include.

I second this - I've been very happy with the 55 - 200 VR
lens - it is sharp, it is easy to zoom, comfortable to hold
etc. I'm using it on the D40X

Louise

Plebism wrote:

"nospam" wrote in message
...
In article , Plebism
wrote:

I bought a D40 awhile ago and I'm extremely pleased

Now I've got to the stage of thinking of a new/additional lense and am
looking at the 70-200/300 focal length. I am confused though ...

I know the D40 uses new fangled motorised lenses, but I am not sure
which
lense, other than Nikon lenses, will be compatible and include
autofocus.

I tried a Sigma 70-300mm lense in a shop today, but the sales person
told me
the only way to get a lense for the D40 that maintains the autofucus
feature
was to buy Nikon lenses.

Is this true?

is anything a salesperson says true?

the only lenses that will autofocus are nikon afs and sigma hsm lenses
(and for some reason, the sigma 80-400os which is not hsm).

here's a list:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1034&message=21699045

in the range you are looking, there are the following lenses:
nikon 70-200vr/2.8
nikon 70-300vr/4-5.6
nikon 55-200vr/4-5.6
nikon 55-200/4-5.6
sigma 120-300/2.8
sigma 70-200/2.8 macro
sigma 100-300/4

i highly suggest getting a lens with stabilization, and the 55-200vr is
quite inexpensive - around $250. the non-stabilized version of the
55-200 is only $80 or so cheaper, and stabilization is well worth the
$80 difference. for more money, the 70-300vr is longer and the
70-200vr has a constant f/2.8 aperture.

Thanks for that, I have found a Nikon 55-200 non VR for £110 but as you
say .. the VR is more expensive .... around £180.

Is it really worth the extra money ..... you mean better image results?

Simon

YES - and you can shoot at slower speeds, counting on the VR
to compensate - my expeirence is that it usually does.

Louise