I have owned my D40 for almost a year now and learned a few things about it, but I still feel extremely new to photography and am slow to figure out what I need. I have been using the kit lens (non-VR) 18-55. I want to upgrade this lens to get better pictures (help the user with better equipment). I primarily take vacation shots. Any recommendations? Thanks!!

Without meaning to be so superior, but honestly unless you're suffering from camera motion problems, an upgrade to get better pictures is highly unlikely to work out, especially for "vacation pictures."

It'll help to see an example of a picture that you're not happy with, along with its EXIF data (shutter speed, aperture, ISO, etc).

Here's why I don't think an equipment upgrade is going to help much:

1) the 18-55 is a pretty high quality lens. It's not "the ultimate" but what it does, it does very well. More than a few people have upgraded to a "proper professional lens" and discovered that the image quality difference is barely noticeable in many if not most cases. (Note that I'm not saying that the better and more expensive lenses don't have a purpose, just that in many circumstances they're not much BETTER.)

2) to me, "vacation shots" are often outdoors, usually in relatively bright light. Correct my impression if this isn't your vacation! And often if you don't have a lot of light, a flash is usable anyway. In these conditions, you're using the "best part" of the lens, namely somewhat stopped down.

There are a variety of ways to throw money at the problem, but I'd advise doing an analysis of what's wrong first (posting a sample is the first step in that process) as you wouldn't want to throw an $1800 lens at the problem only to discover that the issue isn't the lens...

_____
Brian... a bicoastal Nikonian and Team Member

My gallery is online. Comments and critique welcomed any time!

You might consider the 18-200mm Nikkor. I don't know if it's significantly sharper than the lens you have now but the wide zoom range will give you much more flexibility in how you frame your shots. This in turn helps you learn the effects of various focal lengths, and you might find you tend towards certain focal lengths.

I have a D40 with the kit lens, then I got 55-200mm and carried those 2 lenses for a while but found frequently changing lenses interrupted my flow. Then I got a 18-200mm Nikkor (the first version) and love it. It's not a perfect lens but so flexible and great learning tool. I've seen used ones going for $500-550.

For indoors or low light the 35mm f1.8 DX is great.

...Mike

My website | My Nikonians gallery

Thanks! I am leaning towards the prime lens now or just upgrading my kit lens to the same with VR.

Thanks for the info!

>Thanks! I am leaning towards the prime lens now or just
>upgrading my kit lens to the same with VR.
>
>Thanks for the info!


It's your money, and if you want the VR version of what you already have then go ahead but I really don't think that it is a wise purchase.

VR is of course nice to have but really comes into its own with longer focal length lenses than the 18-55mm. You have to ask yourself if this upgrade will allow you to get shots which you can't with what you already have and I would suggest that it won't. I would go further and say that if camera shake is an issue with the 18-55mm then you would be better advised to improve your technique (which will cost nothing) than to spend money on a technical solution.

You really need to decide what you want to shoot which your current lens doesn't allow.

If you want more range at the telephoto end get the 55-200mm. The VR version will be preferable in this focal length range. This is an inexpensive lens which offers pretty good image quality but of course you may get sick of lens swapping and carrying it around with you.

If you want a "one size fits all" walkaround lens then get the 18-200mm. This is a tradeoff between convenience (excellent since you will never miss a shot while changing your lens and you will not have to carry any other lenses most of the time), image quality (slightly lower that what you now have but still perfectly acceptable) and price (high compared to the other options).

If you want to take more low-light shots without having to use flash and to experiment with the creative use of selective focus then get the 35mm f/1.8.

Hope this helps

Thanks! I agree - my technique is horrible. I am not a true photographer in the sense that I spend time setting up to get the proper photo. I am a snap in continuous shoot in a hurry and hope one comes out kind of photographer...vacation photographer. This is why I was wondering if the VR made a difference since I often have shaky hands. Yes - my technique is horrible, but I have an impatient husband who is absolutely not into photography and I am semi-impatient myself. Does the prime lens help with low-light outdoors as well as low-light indoors? Would it make enough of a difference to not have to carry a tripod? I never have, but bought a cheap mini one for taking on vacation. I know I sound like an idiot with all of my stupid questions, but please keep in mind that I am not a professional yet still want great pictures with minimal effort. I will say - I am learning more and more all the time so my technique is gradually improving!

Firstly, if used correctly the 35mm f/1.8 will help with low light shots anywhere.

That "F/1.8" means that the lens can let in a lot more light than your kit lens when its diaphragm is all the way open. This in turn allows you to shoot at a higher shutter speed than with your kit lens which in turn reduces the likelihood of camera shake. The trade off with this large aperture is that when shooting wide open you get a far narrower area of acceptable focus. This can be a good thing because it allows you to focus selectively, by which I mean it will allow you (for example) to take a shot of your impatient husband with his face in focus and the background as a pleasing blur thus removing potentially distracting elements from the shot.

As far as technique is concerned I would suggest that there are two things which you need to look at to move you away from the "spray and pray" approach and which will improve your photography beyond recognition. Neither of these should cause you any issues as far as lack of patience are concerned, indeed I think that the reverse will be true.

The first is to learn a bit of theory. If you have an understanding of the fundamentals of how the medium works, a few seconds of thought before raising the camera to the eye will allow you to make informed decisions on what settings to use for the shot. You need become familiar with the relationships between light level, aperture, shutter speed and ISO and how they affect depth of focus, camera shake and image quality. It sounds a lot but in fact it's really straightforward.

The other key thing that you need to work on is practical. It is the oft-neglected but vital foundation of all technique - how you stand, hold the camera and release the shutter.

Get a grasp (forgive the pun) of these basics and you will be better equipped than 90% of people who take photographs no matter what kit you are carrying.

Tripods are useful, there is no doubt about that, however they are less essential nowadays with digital capable of acceptable quality at high ISO and improving your technique will benefit you far more than carrying one, particularly when patience issues will make setting one up and putting it away an issue!

I too have a partner who is challenged as far as photography related patience is concerned but fortunately she walks a lot slower than I do and has got used to me striding ahead to get a shot, by the time she catches up I am ready to walk hand in hand with her again.

Thanks again for the info! I am trying to learn the basics, but it is a lot to take in at once! I know aperture sets the amount of focus/background blur and shutter speed sets the amount of "action" captured and exposure compensation allows for more or less light in. ISO still confuses me as does how the different number scales in each of those categories correspond to what I am trying to do, but gradually learning. Again, thanks for the advice!!

>Thanks! I am leaning towards the prime lens now or just
>upgrading my kit lens to the same with VR.
>
>Thanks for the info!

My daughter, now in her mid 40's, has always taken poor photos mostly caused by camera shake. Her hands are a little shaky. She wanted to take good photos of the grand kids growing up so I bought her a nice P&S with image stabilization (VR) and her photos immediately got better. Much better. While I think VR will help there are also a couple things to watch out for. First check out what shutter speed your poorer photos were taken at. Raise up the ISO setting to increase the shutter speed. If you are taking vacation photos I doubt you are making 16X20 prints so the increase in noise will probably not even be noticed. Next when taking a shot, slowly push in the shutter release, don't stab at it. And lastly I do recommend the VR lens. My D60 kit lens was the VR version of the 18-55mm. It is a wonderfully sharp lens and a real bargain.

Len

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Thanks! I have learned all kinds of tips and tricks from you guys!

I have a D40 and a few D80's. Can't reasonably explain that. Anyway, I love the 18-55 kit lens. It always made great shots on the D40, and still does. Got the 18-135 kit lens with the D80's. I actually went to the trouble of geting the VR 18-55 and VR 55-200 lenses simply because they make great pictures, the VR helps in low light, and they are very light to carry around on the D80's. As was previously posted, your dissatisfaction may very well revolve around issues other than that/those lenses.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

I would agree that getting a "better" lens may not change your images much. I would also agree that the 55-200mm lens would be a good addition to what you have. Both lenses offer very good image quality and are a bargain.

Alan