New Lenses for nikon d40x

[pete g]

Hi every body....

I'm afraid its time for a lens upgrade but am a bit stuck and was hoping some of you wise readers may help:

Anyway here go's, I've got an D40x with two lenses the nikon 18-55mm VR and 70-200mm VR. The problem I've got is I think I've now out grown the lenses and think i can do better, IE quality lenses what I'm looking at and heres where i need the advise,I like the looks of the new Nikon 35mm F1.8G AF-S DX but wll I see the benefit that much over the 18-55mm VR worth the money, Second part is i,d like a nice portrait lens to accompany the 35mm...The amount of cash i'll have is about £300 cash and any thing id get from ebay for the other lenses so should be about another £150ish..i know the 35mm is £200 so that leaves me about £250-300 on a portrait lenses..........

thanks

[OsmosisStudios]

You've got the 70-200 f/2.8 VR? And youre not happy?

Youre gonna be dissappointed for a while.

[harrysixtie7]

Your 70-200 VR should be more than adequate for portraits, I personally wouldnt sell either and just add the 35mm to the collection.

[pete g]

Hi thanks for the reply it seems I'm reading to much,I think i've got a case of mad cow as my lense is 55-200MM F4.5-5.6G AF-S VR DX LENS and not the 70 Sorry

[dakwegmo]

If it's portraits you want, for your budget I would consider the Nikon 60mm f/2.8 Micro. It should be fast enough for lower light conditions, on cropped sensor body like your D40x, it'll be a good working focal length for portraits, and as a macro lens it has nice bokeh for smooth backgrounds. Plus, since it is a macro lens, you can use it for close up work if that interests you.

[OsmosisStudios]

That clears that up

The 18-55+55-200 pair is a great working group. The only thing youre really missing is a fast prime.

The 35mm youve mentionned does seem to fit the bill, and will give you a good working length for portraits. You could get the 50mm f/1.4 (it's an AF-S) but you'll be pushing close to $300-400.

[pete g]

Ok chaps many thanks to you all for the replys, i did have in mind the Nikon 60mm f/2.8 Micro and in the land of freedom {usa} to wish i lived there because over here across the pond the Nikon 60mm f/2.8 Micro £450.00 and thats about $675.00 also i did consider 50mm f/1.4 (it's an AF-S) but was told that the Nikon 35mm F1.8G AF-S DX was a better piece of glass......

thank all very much appreciated

[OsmosisStudios]

Who told you the 35mm was better? Hit them. Repeatedly.

[vandergus]

Yeah, if your just looking at the optical performance, I don't think the 35mm f1.8 is better than the 50mm f1.4. I have a 35mm f1.8 and it's a great lens, but the 50mm is probably better, as it should be. The difference in focal lengths, though, really keeps them from being direct competitors for the same spot in your bag. The 50mm would serve nicely as a short portrait lens while I think the 35mm is a better lens for general low-light shooting. Depends what you need.

[charlotteinkennesaw]

Pete,
I am also looking for a new lens for my Nikon D40X. The 35mm, F/1.8G AF-S DX, is that compatible to auto focus with the D40X? I know that the 50mm, F/1.8 does not autofocus with my camera. Thanks for your response.

Cheers,

charlotte

Originally Posted by pete g

Ok chaps many thanks to you all for the replys, i did have in mind the Nikon 60mm f/2.8 Micro and in the land of freedom {usa} to wish i lived there because over here across the pond the Nikon 60mm f/2.8 Micro £450.00 and thats about $675.00 also i did consider 50mm f/1.4 (it's an AF-S) but was told that the Nikon 35mm F1.8G AF-S DX was a better piece of glass......

thank all very much appreciated