# A 70-300mm lens for a Nikon D40 ?



## ~myStical~ (Dec 20, 2009)

I want to be able to shoot a full body from a distance, WITHOUT the need to be really really close to my subjects and get a nice depth of field. 
So, Looking to buy a longer focal length zoom lens, like a 70-300  for my Nikon D40. What do you guys think ? Would a 70-300mm lens help me achieve what I want? Can you guys give me some suggestions on lenses? 

Here are some example as to what I want to be able to achieve. 

Full body - DOF
Spring on Flickr - Photo Sharing!
Going somewhere on Flickr - Photo Sharing!
Wondering on Flickr - Photo Sharing!
FrÃ*Ã°a on Flickr - Photo Sharing!

Nice DOF close ups. But  I want to get something like this without the need to be very close to the subject.

Unnur Birna on Flickr - Photo Sharing!
Cool on Flickr - Photo Sharing!
Attitude on Flickr - Photo Sharing!

I was considering a 70-300mm lens...but if you guys have any other suggestions. I would be more than happy to listen to you guys. If you can please also list the pricing and where to buy.


----------



## Vicelord John (Dec 20, 2009)

I have the Sigma 70-300 and while I like it, I've been thinking about getting some nikon glass. They are fun lenses for landscape and portrait shots. They get really soft at 200+ at higher f stops unless you buy relly pricey glass is what I've found.


----------



## ~myStical~ (Dec 20, 2009)

Vicelord John said:


> I have the Sigma 70-300 and while I like it, I've been thinking about getting some nikon glass. They are fun lenses for landscape and portrait shots. They get really soft at 200+ at higher f stops unless you buy relly pricey glass is what I've found.


 

I'll look into it definitely.


----------



## Wolverinepwnes (Dec 20, 2009)

I personally got the sigma lens a couple of years back, and while its a good starter lens, as mention passed 200 its soft and really hard to shoot with at slower shutter speeds due to no vibration reduction, so if you can get the Nikon 70-300mm VR, i would definately recommend it over any third party brand!!!!! the VR is very important if you're not shooting with a tripod


----------



## ~myStical~ (Dec 20, 2009)

So is it the right kind of lens for the type of photos I want to take ??


----------



## Vicelord John (Dec 20, 2009)

Not necessarily. I don't use my tele much for portraits. 

The 50mm will have the same effect.


----------



## ~myStical~ (Dec 20, 2009)

Vicelord John said:


> Not necessarily. I don't use my tele much for portraits.
> 
> The 50mm will have the same effect.



This one  ? 
Nikon 50mm f/1.8 AF Nikkor


----------



## Vicelord John (Dec 20, 2009)

yup that will work for what you described. They are very inexpensive and are awesome. Everyone should have one.


----------



## ~myStical~ (Dec 20, 2009)

Vicelord John said:


> yup that will work for what you described. They are very inexpensive and are awesome. Everyone should have one.



Oh really ? :meh: How much do they go for?


----------



## ~myStical~ (Dec 20, 2009)

Are these the same one ?
*50mm f 1.8 AF Nikkor, great deals on Cameras Photo, New on eBay!*


----------



## Vicelord John (Dec 20, 2009)

yup.


----------



## PatrickCheung (Dec 21, 2009)

i'm by no means a pro, and i havent really used a telephoto lens before, but my understanding of getting that nice depth of field is that you have the be close to the subject... and the background has to be far off.  the closer you are to the subject, and the farther the background is... the nicer looking your bokeh will be... at least thats what i've understood from my reading and my own shots.  but of course, i may be wrong, so... if i am... someone please correct me (the last thing i want to do is give false information)! 

that said, from what i understand, using a telephoto like a 70-300 might give you the effect (or at least a similar effect) of those full body DoF shots you posted, but probably wont give you the nice bokeh seen in the close ups you posted... unless you have a LOT of space between your background and your subject...


----------



## PatrickCheung (Dec 21, 2009)

oh and also, the AF 50mm f1.8 wont autofocus on your D40... i've wanted one for a while, but it wont autofocus on my d60, and i dont have the money to buy a body with a built in focus motor (and i wont have that money anytime soon) so i havent picked it up yet.


----------



## Vicelord John (Dec 21, 2009)

So manual focus it. Not that hard to do.


----------



## PatrickCheung (Dec 21, 2009)

of course  but i already have the old e series 50 f1.8.  i dont really need the metering either, so i'm set for now  

plus, i'm not telling him not to buy it  just warning him.


----------



## benlonghair (Dec 21, 2009)

I have the Nikon 70-300VR. I love it, it's the lens that's most likely on my camera when I open my bag. Here's some examples (all fairly large files):

Late season honey bee.
Great Blue Heron
Green Heron
Praying Mantis
Wet Grass

It takes a little manual focus adjustment, but it's pretty sharp at f/8.


----------



## puyjapin (Dec 21, 2009)

dont get the f1.8, i have a d 40 with the 50m 1.4g, it autofocusses. in my opinion quite havdy when using it wide open or anywhere near that


----------



## Vicelord John (Dec 21, 2009)

The 1.4 is also quite expensive.


----------



## ~myStical~ (Dec 21, 2009)

oh no , I don't know which one to get anymore , mix responses. Are there any other lenses u guys know of that would come close to what I am looking for? As long as I can get a full body with the background out of  focus, I am good. so please any other suggestions???


----------



## KmH (Dec 21, 2009)

~myStical~ said:


> oh no , I don't know which one to get anymore , mix responses. Are there any other lenses u guys know of that would come close to what I am looking for? As long as I can get a full body with the background out of focus, I am good. so please any other suggestions???


Before you go spending money on glass, it's a good idea to have a passing understanding of how Depth-Of-Field (DOF) works since thats what your hoping to control with a lens purchase.

That way you can maximize your equipment budget.

PatrickCheung hit the nail on the head in mentioning the distance your subject is *from the background* has a lot to do with how blurry you can get the background.

Spend some time playing with a DOF calculator: Online Depth of Field Calculator to get a feel for how aperture, subject to lens distance, and subject to background distance effect DOF.


----------



## GFreg (Dec 22, 2009)

~myStical~ said:


> I want to be able to shoot a full body from a distance, *WITHOUT* the need to be really really close to my subjects and get a nice depth of field.





~myStical~ said:


> Vicelord John said:
> 
> 
> > Not necessarily. I don't use my tele much for portraits.
> ...





Vicelord John said:


> yup that will work for what you described. They are very inexpensive and are awesome. Everyone should have one.



Mixed messages going on here.  Yes, while I agree with Vicelord John that the 50mm f/1.8 is an awesome portrait lens, it will not meet the criteria that you specified.  You said that you don't want to get really close to your subject.  You will need to be within a few feet of your subject with the 50mm.  At f/1.8 you will get a good DOF.  Since you are loking for more range you might want to consider the 85mm f/1.8.

Edit:  Ok, I guess it really depends on what you consider to be really close.  Let me put it this way, you won't be stepping on your models toes with a 50mm but if the extra reach is a big concern for you then know that you can still achieve a f/1.8 lens.


----------



## Vicelord John (Dec 22, 2009)

I dont consider 6-8 feet to be that close.


----------



## Dominantly (Dec 22, 2009)

If what you want is to be able to control the DOF in such a way as to make your subject just melt into a creamy blur (or Bokeh), then a 50mm 1.4 or 50mm 1.8 (cheaper but wont autofocus) would do that. OR you could pick up the AF-S DX NIKKOR 35mm f/1.8G lens that will auto focus on your DX body and will only run you $200 new..


----------



## manicmike (Dec 22, 2009)

Another vote for the 50mm or 35mm.


----------



## ~myStical~ (Dec 25, 2009)

THANK YOU GUYS SOOO MUCH !

After reading through all the posts , I have come down to the popular votes on Nikkor 50mm f1.8 , and 50mm f1.4 ( auto-focuses with my nikon d40) , and the 35mm lens.

Between the two 50mm lens , are there any other big differences besides the auto-focus? 

50mm 1.8, 50mm 1.4 and 35mm .....
Just a comparison between these three would really help.


----------



## Vicelord John (Dec 25, 2009)

well yeah, there is a huge difference. The 1.4 lets in a LOT more light due to being 1.4. Also, it costs almost three times as much.


----------



## ~myStical~ (Dec 25, 2009)

Vicelord John said:


> well yeah, there is a huge difference. The 1.4 lets in a LOT more light due to being 1.4. Also, it costs almost three times as much.



Yes there is definitely a big difference in pricing, I had just checked. But not too expensive. Which is good


----------



## ~myStical~ (Dec 25, 2009)

Thanks again everyone.


----------

