I want to upgrade my D40 lens but no idea wthat to get


Standard Member
I use to have a D40 but sold the body and kept the lens. I still use the lens on my D200 but want to upgrade to a better general purpose lens. I was looking at this NIKON 55-200mm~VR~AFS DX ZOOM NIKKOR LENS 55-200 mm on eBay, also, For Digital SLR, Camera Lenses, Photography (end time 08-Oct-08 15:17:54 BST)
but I have a feeling this would be the same quality as my current lens only with a bigger zoom and VR. Am I right?
What lens should I got for? I would like a good quality general purpose lens with VR. My price range is about $400 Max.
Thanks for the help


Active Member
If the kit lens you kept is the 18-55mm one then the 50-200mm would compliment it rather than replace it. If you want a general all purpose lens then the 18-200mm would be a better bet, it would still be the same aperture as the 18-55mm and 50-200mm.

The question you have to ask yourself is what type of lens would best suit your style of photography? Personally I have the same kit lens and the 50-200mm, I rarely use the 50-200mm as I don't need the zoom most of the time. I have now replaced the kit lens with a Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 lens as its much more suited to my style of photography (I like to shoot in low light and wide).


Standard Member
I'm looking for a general purpose lens that's better quality then my D40 lens. I do shoot quite wide as well, but this is so I can keep the F-stop high. I would like to be able to zoom more without having to drop the f-stop right down. I do shoot a lot of gigs as well so something that can handle low light would be good.
I know it would be hard to get a lens that can do both, so maybe one for general use and think about a low light one later on.
It's just that the D40 lens feels cheap, I'm trying old lenses on my D200 and the colours and tones are a lot better and feel a lot more solid.



Active Member
Well the Tamron 17-50mm is 2.8 all the way through the range which is the main reason I brought it. There is also the Sigma 17-70mm 2.8 but you can only get 2.8 at 17mm, then it starts to go higher once you start zooming. Then there's the Nikor 17-50mm 2.8 which is supposed to be awesome, but at £800 I would expect it to be.

Have you thought about a prime lens, the 50mm 1.8 is very good in low light and cheap at £80. Or you could go for the 50mm 1.4 but thats about £250.

The latest video from AVForums

Are the TCL MiniLED TVs better than OLED? TCL Interview with Marek Maciejewski | AVForums Podcast
Subscribe to our YouTube channel
Support AVForums with Patreon

Top Bottom