Save money for camera or lenses

D

DynamicLine

Suspended / Banned
Messages
45
Name
Tim
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi All,

Just wondering what peoples thoughts on this are?

I've got a D40x with a couple of kit lenses and I've got access to a Nikon 18-200VR...
I'm now starting to do shoots more seriously now for a couple of ££ and I'm wondering if i should invest in better lenses or a better camera?

The shots are always good with this equipment but would decent prime lenses take my game to the next level... or is there no point unless there's a decent camera to match?

Many thanks
 
Hmm, I still use my D60 (which is basically identical to your camera) occasionally and still get great shots from it so would probably look at the lens route first.

It depends entirely on what you want to shoot but in your situation I would probably get a 35mm f/1.8 as a good fast normal lens (and it's what I usually have fitted to my D60).

If you were going to go new body route then something like a D90 or D7000 would be a worthy upgrade (personally I wouldn't bother with a D3100 or 5100).
 
Why have you got a couple of kit lens? You only need one.

I used to have the d40x it takes lovely pictures, infact at iso 100 i preferred them to my d5100. There biggest weakness is there high iso performance. This is one feature that has come a long way since the d40x. If you don't shoot in low light and don't find this a problem i would keep the d40x. I nice fast prime like the 35mm f1.8 is alway a great low cost option for nice sharp images. They can be picked up for under £150, this will also help with the d40x's low light short comings.
 
Get better lens first!!! shots can be dramastrically improved by the quality of a lens....

if your planning to upgrade the body aswell i'd have a rough idea of what i was potentially getting as to make sure the lens were compatible with the next handset etc

what sort of things do you shoot generally??
 
I've done a couple of friends weddings and I've been asked to do a baby naming ceremony in a couple of weeks time. Other than that it's just general stuff that i like...
I guess most shots are of people and general portrait rather than landscape.

so - it looks like a 35mm f/1.8 AF-S would be a good choice for starters
 
DynamicLine said:
I've done a couple of friends weddings and I've been asked to do a baby naming ceremony in a couple of weeks time. Other than that it's just general stuff that i like...
I guess most shots are of people and general portrait rather than landscape.

so - it looks like a 35mm f/1.8 AF-S would be a good choice for starters
Click to expand...

Yeah the 35mm is a great start. Another great low cost investment is yongnuo yn-465 flashgun for £40 on ebay great for weddings
 
cool thanks - i've already got the jessops 360afd which works very nicely
 
I was genuinely shocked when I went from the kit lens to a 50mm f1.4. I knew it would be better but the difference in image quality was massive. I've also since invested in a second hand 17-55mm f2.8 and it is simply amazing. Some might say its way too good to have strapped onto the front of an entry level camera like the D3000 but its a great combo, certainly a much bigger improvement than if I'd thrown the money at a new body, which is probably what I'd have done if it wasn't for the advise given out on here.

What's you budget?
 
Budget is limited, but the price of the 35 prime isn't too devastating
 
You can make your money go a bit further if you are willing to buy second hand. I'm guessing you won't have access to the classifieds yet but it's a great place to buy as most of the people on here seem to look after their gear.
 
Some of the second had stuff on here looks brand new anyway! Enjoy whatever you buy!
 
DynamicLine said:
Not fussed about second hand so will defiantly check the classifieds when I've got access
Click to expand...

If you're happy buying second hand, have a look a Mifsuds website - here's a link to their used Nikon section. http://www.mifsuds.com/acatalog/Used_Nikon_AF_Lenses.html .

In your situation, I would definitely make sure any lenses I bought were full frame compatible, since you obviosly have plans to go pro and FF is the way to go. That means looking for Nikon lenses not designated DX, Sigmas designated DG and I think Tamron's designation for DX lenses is DiII. To be compatible with your D40, you need AF-S Nikons or HSM Sigmas. Not sure of Tamron's equivalentbut a decent shop (which Mifsuds are) will be able to advise. There's an exception to the FF compatible rule though! You're after a 35mm prime - the FF f/1.4 is £1,477 but the DX f/1.8 is considerably cheaer at just £149! Some difference! They don't appear to have either available 2nd hand at the moment.
Of course, other 2nd hand stockists exist but I have Mifsuds in my favourites since they're relatively local to meand I can get there to examine anything I'm interested in. MPB Photographic who advertise on this forum for example and they seem to have plenty of 35mm f/1.8 AF-S Dx lenses 2nd hand to chose from. http://www.mpbphotographic.co.uk/used-equipment/used-lenses/used-nikon-fit-lenses/?viewall=1
 
Great stuff - thanks Nod.

I 'accidentally' bought myself the 35mm f/1.8 last night :) really looking forward to playing with it!

Need a decent, entry/mid level tele to complement it now!

Just don't tell the missus ;-)
 
:thumbs:
 
Enjoy! :thumbs:
 
Tunbridge said:
I was genuinely shocked when I went from the kit lens to a 50mm f1.4. I knew it would be better but the difference in image quality was massive. I've also since invested in a second hand 17-55mm f2.8 and it is simply amazing. Some might say its way too good to have strapped onto the front of an entry level camera like the D3000 but its a great combo, certainly a much bigger improvement than if I'd thrown the money at a new body, which is probably what I'd have done if it wasn't for the advise given out on here.

What's you budget?
Click to expand...

I second this. Big difference and well worth the investment.
 
Tunbridge said:
I was genuinely shocked when I went from the kit lens to a 50mm f1.4. I knew it would be better but the difference in image quality was massive. I've also since invested in a second hand 17-55mm f2.8 and it is simply amazing. Some might say its way too good to have strapped onto the front of an entry level camera like the D3000 but its a great combo, certainly a much bigger improvement than if I'd thrown the money at a new body, which is probably what I'd have done if it wasn't for the advise given out on here.

What's you budget?
Click to expand...

You've done exactly the right thing, a friend was telling me he was at a Motorsport event

One guy had a D600 with a 70-300VR on it

There's nothing wrong with either of those products but not in that combination

A D300S and 70-200 Vr + 1.4TC would be a better way of spending £2500
 
wack61 said:
You've done exactly the right thing, a friend was telling me he was at a Motorsport event

One guy had a D600 with a 70-300VR on it

There's nothing wrong with either of those products but not in that combination

A D300S and 70-200 Vr + 1.4TC would be a better way of spending £2500
Click to expand...

When I shoot motorsport (as an amateur), I use my D700 with a 70-300 on it.

Surely, with the crop factor of the D300, using a telecon is a waste of time and IQ for the same apparent reach that the 70-200 on a 1.5x crop gives compared to the 70-300 on FF?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top