Should I seize the Nikon 55-200 mm lens next to my Nikon D40? I am a point and shoot photographer, but am
I am a point and shoot photographer, but am in the flea market for a Nikon D40. So, basically, I don't know much almost lenses. One retailer is having a mart ($549) for the D40 that includes a 55-200 mm lens. Is this something that I should consider spending the extra money to buy? How is this lens different than the one the D40 comes with (18-55 mm)? I close to taking landscape and make-up type shots, mostly.
I am planning to buy the camera first and then swot up more about photography.
Answers:
On the do over side you want to use the 18-55mm, it has a pious wide angle to milieu telephoto range, but for character shots (like birds and other wildlife) the 55-200mm. You will find that the 18-55mm will be the most used of the two. If you can afford it, you may want to get the 18-200mm VR, so you enjoy all the focal length in one lens.
A knit I think you will find interesting.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/howto.ht... If you establish to get the 55-200, find the newer VR (vibration reduction) version, not the elder 55-200mm without VR.
Both 55-200mm lenses are totally different from the 18-55mm standard lens. They give you more telephoto reach--i.e. you can fantasize further away, like a bird surrounded by a tree or like using a telescope.
The 18-55mm is better for wider shots similar to landscapes, but it's not polite at all for those telephoto outlook shots which need more magnification.
The 55-200mm comes within two versions and Nikon is phasing out the elder, non VR version. Thus, you can pick up bargain on that lens. But I think have VR is better, because it reduces the effects of camera shake (very adjectives with telephoto) for sharper photos. If you're well brought-up at holding a camera steady, you don't need to attain the VR version, but most race aren't good at holding a camera steady, especially within poor lighting.
Hope this helps.