How should I spend $1000?

[Phayke]

I have a D40 with kit lens and a 35mm 1.8 prime lens as my main. I also have an SB200 speedlight. I want to invest in gear for portraits, night photography and urban photography. What is the best way to improve my gear with a $500-1000 investment? Should I upgrade to a full frame or a newer crop frame camera? Any lenses? I was considering a wide angle for energetic environments. Any suggestions appreciated, I don't know much about newer deals.

[KenRC51]

I think a zoom lens might be nice, 18-200? I would tell you to get the 24-70 but thats is about $1700. It is my favorite lens to use.

[Almond.Butterscotch]

good luck finding a FX body for $1000.

Also, don't get the 18-200mm. It's junk.

What are your needs? Night photography often calls for a tripod- get a decent pair of legs and a head. Next on my list is the 105mm macro- a nice telephoto and a great macro all in one.

[scootermcq]

Originally Posted by Almond.Butterscotch

Also, don't get the 18-200mm. It's junk.

Kinda harsh n'est pas?

One of my favorite lenses. Probably not the right lens for the OP's needs, but far from junk.

[inkista]

Just me, but ditch the SB-R200 (assuming that's what you've got) and get a real speedlight. At least an SB-600, if not an SB-700 or SB-900. You want swivel for bouncing.

Lens-wise, I think your 35mm f/1.8 can do all three of your interests: portraits, night photography, and urban photography, so I don't think you need new glass.

As Almond.Butterscotch mentions, a good tripod and cable release will probably help you more with night shooting than new glass, and $1000 for a full frame on the Nikon side of the fence is a Big Ask. On the Canon side of the fence, you could pick up a used 5D classic for that, but then you'd have to get a whole new slew of lenses, and you'd be limited to the more expensive full-frame lenses.

The 18-200 is very versatile when it comes to framing and lens changes, and as scootermcq states, it's not junk. But it has optical compromises to cover the huge zoom range. For what it is, the performance is outstanding, but it's got some weird distortion and CA issues, and is about the same level of performance as your 18-55 VR kit. If you know how to work within its limitations, you can get some great stuff with it. But those limitations (mostly the max. aperture) could also irritate you.

[Almond.Butterscotch]

Originally Posted by inkista

and is about the same level of performance as your 18-55 VR kit

Oh I disagree with that (unless of course the VR version of the 18-55mm is REALLY terrible compared to my non-VR version). I borrowed a friend's 18-200mm for a week-long trip to NYC a good many months ago and absolutely hated it. I much prefer having a separate 18-55mm and 55-200mm. The distortion on the 18-200 is unbearable.

[KenRC51]

Originally Posted by Almond.Butterscotch

Oh I disagree with that (unless of course the VR version of the 18-55mm is REALLY terrible compared to my non-VR version). I borrowed a friend's 18-200mm for a week-long trip to NYC a good many months ago and absolutely hated it. I much prefer having a separate 18-55mm and 55-200mm. The distortion on the 18-200 is unbearable.

If you use lightroom 3, you can fix the distortion. LR3 already have most profile for Nikon and Canon lenses for distortion fix.

[Almond.Butterscotch]

It only kinda helps for the 18-200 at closer focus points. The PTLens plugin and Photoshop's lens distortion filters work better, but it's difficult to really correct that strange mustache distortion without losing something or another elsewhere.

[scootermcq]

Originally Posted by Almond.Butterscotch

Oh I disagree with that (unless of course the VR version of the 18-55mm is REALLY terrible compared to my non-VR version). I borrowed a friend's 18-200mm for a week-long trip to NYC a good many months ago and absolutely hated it. I much prefer having a separate 18-55mm and 55-200mm. The distortion on the 18-200 is unbearable.

It's possible that you got a bad copy? Like inkista pointed out that if you know the limitations and work within them, then it is a wonderful general purpose lens. I would not use it for real portraits, or a wedding but as a walk around or vacation lens I love it. The feedback on various sites is also too positive to judge this lens by one copy. I would go as far as saying it is equal to the 18-55 and I have owned both the VR & non VR previously, and both were good lenses. I think you played with a dud 18-200

Here is a recent example of that lens. I have not done any lens correction in post, and the subject fills the frame so you can see how much distortion there is. If you go to the larger image, you can also see the detail, sharpness, color and contrast the lens can provide.

[SwissJon]

If you do get a dud from new, is it easy to get Nikon to exchange? Are they able to run checks to test? (I'm asking because I think my 16-85 might be a bit of a lemon)