Took the DSLR plunge today

PattiPatti Registered Users Posts: 1,576 Major grins
edited July 12, 2007 in Cameras
A REAL newbie here...
Well, after much debate, gnashing of teeth, finger nails etc, I took the plunge today and bought a DSLR. I am such a novice photographer it's ludicrous to do but there you have it.
I've loved the zoom on my Olympus but find the photos more grainy than I'd like in concert situations (my joie de vive and what got me started with all this). I recently photographed the Police concerts in Vancouver but had to up the ISO to 1600 despite the image stabilizer feature on my SP550UZ. Most were pretty noisy but a few came out clear.
So, after thinking and rethinking, playing with different cameras, I settled on the Nikon D40X with 10.2 megapixels and took the Nikkor 18-135mm zoom rather than the 2 lenses option. I've sacrificed some zoom for the convenience of not having to switch lenses for wide angle shots. I also got the 50mm f/1.8D lense which was recommended for my hobby of photographing rock concerts (really clear bright portrait lense it seems). The Nikon felt really good in my hand and more or less had the features I wanted within my price range. It doesn't have image stabilizer but it should be less noisy and hopefully clearer at the higher ISO settings than my Olympus.

I'd be interested to hear from any other D40X users or anyone with comments about this model. Also interested in suggestions re managing the challenge of photographing at concerts - assuming one gets the camera by security. :wink

Thanks for your patience with a newbie.
The use of a camera is similar to that of a knife. You can use it to peel potatoes, or carve a flute. ~ E. Kahlmeyer
... I'm still peeling potatoes.

patti hinton photography
«1

Comments

  • richmoffittrichmoffitt Registered Users Posts: 27 Big grins
    edited July 1, 2007
    Wait, you were able to get a 50mm F/1.8 for the D40X? I thought that camera would only accept AF-S lenses...
  • SeymoreSeymore Banned Posts: 1,539 Major grins
    edited July 1, 2007
    Well... all Nikon/Nikkor lenses, other than AFS, will be MF on this body. But If you're wanting help with lenses on this body for dark situations, I would highly suggest you think about faster lenses. f/1.4 is good. f/1.8 is OK. And f/2.8 lenses are marginal, IMPO. YMMV.

    So, since it going to be MF, you may want to look for an pre-AI, AI or AIS 50mm f/1.4 Nikkor. Should be had for $100-150USD. Please also note that I don't believe that this body will meter with any of the above lenses and you'll need to be in Manual mode. At this point the histogram, and chimping, is your friend. If these lenses are not really an option for you, the AF 50/1.4D is running ~$250.


    HTH...
  • SeymoreSeymore Banned Posts: 1,539 Major grins
    edited July 1, 2007
    richmoffitt wrote:
    Wait, you were able to get a 50mm F/1.8 for the D40X? I thought that camera would only accept AF-S lenses...
    Rich... Any F-mount lens will mount on any Nikon digital body. With the D40(x) you will loose the ability to AF with non-AFS lenses... and loose the ability to meter with any of the older MF lenses.


    More clarity?
  • PattiPatti Registered Users Posts: 1,576 Major grins
    edited July 1, 2007
    Seymore wrote:
    Well... all Nikon/Nikkor lenses, other than AFS, will be MF on this body. But If you're wanting help with lenses on this body for dark situations, I would highly suggest you think about faster lenses. f/1.4 is good. f/1.8 is OK. And f/2.8 lenses are marginal, IMPO. YMMV.

    So, since it going to be MF, you may want to look for an pre-AI, AI or AIS 50mm f/1.4 Nikkor. Should be had for $100-150USD. Please also note that I don't believe that this body will meter with any of the above lenses and you'll need to be in Manual mode. At this point the histogram, and chimping, is your friend. If these lenses are not really an option for you, the AF 50/1.4D is running ~$250.


    HTH...

    Yes, I'm in manual focus with that lense. About the metering, and I qualify this with a reminder that I am soooo green with all this, how would you meter at a concert with the lighting as it is ie. constantly changing? I have my SP550UZ set at -1.3 in an attempt to cope with back lighting etc.
    Again, thanks for your patience with my questions.
    The use of a camera is similar to that of a knife. You can use it to peel potatoes, or carve a flute. ~ E. Kahlmeyer
    ... I'm still peeling potatoes.

    patti hinton photography
  • SeymoreSeymore Banned Posts: 1,539 Major grins
    edited July 1, 2007
    Patti wrote:
    Yes, I'm in manual focus with that lense. About the metering, and I qualify this with a reminder that I am soooo green with all this, how would you meter at a concert with the lighting as it is ie. constantly changing? I have my SP550UZ set at -1.3 in an attempt to cope with back lighting etc.
    Again, thanks for your patience with my questions.
    Well, with the changing lighting at a concert I understand that conditions will be difficult... at best. And if you're new/green with dSLRs... disregard the suggestion about older MF (everything) lenses. But I do suggest you keep with the AF/AFD lenses... if for no other reason but the lenses ability for the body to meter. And if you feel the need for more focal range, there is an 85/1.8 and 1.4 to consider.

    BTW, there is a difference between MF and manual settings. You know this, right? You want to show us some PICs that you've taken?
  • PattiPatti Registered Users Posts: 1,576 Major grins
    edited July 1, 2007
    Seymore wrote:
    Well, with the changing lighting at a concert I understand that conditions will be difficult... at best. And if you're new/green with dSLRs... disregard the suggestion about older MF (everything) lenses. But I do suggest you keep with the AF/AFD lenses... if for no other reason but the lenses ability for the body to meter. And if you feel the need for more focal range, there is an 85/1.8 and 1.4 to consider.

    BTW, there is a difference between MF and manual settings. You know this, right? You want to show us some PICs that you've taken?

    Thanks Seymore.
    Yes, I do know the difference between MF and manual settings. What's the difference between AF and AFD lenses?

    Here's my site to look at some concert shots with my Olympus. In order to get any help with camera movement (despite use of image stabilizer) I had to shoot at 16 00. You'll see the noise. Not many came out clearly enough. This Nikon doesn't have image stabilizer but I figured it will shoot more clearly at higher ISO than the Olympus.

    www.pattihinton.smugmug.com
    The use of a camera is similar to that of a knife. You can use it to peel potatoes, or carve a flute. ~ E. Kahlmeyer
    ... I'm still peeling potatoes.

    patti hinton photography
  • BendrBendr Registered Users Posts: 665 Major grins
    edited July 1, 2007
    Not to be contradictory, but I believe that in those kind of situations, a Canon is a much better camera to be using, if for nothing else, it has a much cleaner high ISO than the Nikon.
    http://bendr.smugmug.com
  • SeymoreSeymore Banned Posts: 1,539 Major grins
    edited July 1, 2007
    Patti wrote:
    Thanks Seymore.
    Yes, I do know the difference between MF and manual settings. What's the difference between AF and AFD lenses?
    Bookmark this link: http://www.nikonlinks.com/unklbil/nomenclature.htm It will serve you well down the road even...

    Patti wrote:
    Here's my site to look at some concert shots with my Olympus. In order to get any help with camera movement (despite use of image stabilizer) I had to shoot at 16 00. You'll see the noise. Not many came out clearly enough. This Nikon doesn't have image stabilizer but I figured it will shoot more clearly at higher ISO than the Olympus.

    www.pattihinton.smugmug.com
    OK... And I see that you do know what you're talking about re: noise and clarity. I suspect that with the 50/1.8 you'll still be able to keep the ISO around 800. But play with this aspect. And remember about your DOF when up close to your subject @ f/1.8. (read "narrow DOF") And when hand holding, the "reciprocal of the lens focal length when it comes to shutter speed". ie: no slower than ~1/50th sec for a 50mm lens. Please note that this is just a good general rule and not set in stone. YMMV.

    If this helps... THIS ALBUM (Acoustic Style @ the Veritas...) was shot on a D70 w/a MF Nikkor 105/2.5 @ ISO 800, f/2.5 & hand held. (oh... one exception. The wide shot from overhead.)


    Once again... HTH.
  • PattiPatti Registered Users Posts: 1,576 Major grins
    edited July 1, 2007
    Great info
    Thanks Seymore. Great lens reference and suggestions re settings. I didn't know the rule of thumb re inverse speed to lens size. How close is close to the subject to apply this rule in your view? In Vancouver I was in row 1 & 2 but I'm not always lucky enough to be that close. Depends on whether Ticket Bastard is looking favourably upon me at ticket purchase time. mwink.gif
    The use of a camera is similar to that of a knife. You can use it to peel potatoes, or carve a flute. ~ E. Kahlmeyer
    ... I'm still peeling potatoes.

    patti hinton photography
  • SeymoreSeymore Banned Posts: 1,539 Major grins
    edited July 1, 2007
    Patti wrote:
    How close is close to the subject to apply this rule in your view?
    Your distance to the subject, and DOF, has no bearing on the shutter speed. DOF (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_of_field) and your f-stop can be affected by your distance from the subject. But play, enjoy and learn. That's what's nice about this digital age we are in...
  • claudermilkclaudermilk Registered Users Posts: 2,756 Major grins
    edited July 2, 2007
    Bendr wrote:
    Not to be contradictory, but I believe that in those kind of situations, a Canon is a much better camera to be using, if for nothing else, it has a much cleaner high ISO than the Nikon.

    Not contradictory at all, that was my thought. This is why I went Canon over Nikon. Canon is the master of high ISO & the first choice for low light photography. At least I'm not the only one pointing this out.

    In any case, the fastest lens you can get will be important. The 50/1.8 mentioned is a good idea (all lines seem to have one, and they are all good, and cheap).
    Chris
    http://www.chrislaudermilkphoto.com/
  • PattiPatti Registered Users Posts: 1,576 Major grins
    edited July 2, 2007
    Ah well...
    claudermilk wrote:
    Not contradictory at all, that was my thought. This is why I went Canon over Nikon. Canon is the master of high ISO & the first choice for low light photography. At least I'm not the only one pointing this out.

    In any case, the fastest lens you can get will be important. The 50/1.8 mentioned is a good idea (all lines seem to have one, and they are all good, and cheap).

    The deed is done so a fast lense will have to do. Now what if I need or want to use a zoom?
    The use of a camera is similar to that of a knife. You can use it to peel potatoes, or carve a flute. ~ E. Kahlmeyer
    ... I'm still peeling potatoes.

    patti hinton photography
  • PattiPatti Registered Users Posts: 1,576 Major grins
    edited July 2, 2007
    Seymore wrote:
    Well... all Nikon/Nikkor lenses, other than AFS, will be MF on this body. But If you're wanting help with lenses on this body for dark situations, I would highly suggest you think about faster lenses. f/1.4 is good. f/1.8 is OK. And f/2.8 lenses are marginal, IMPO. YMMV.

    So, since it going to be MF, you may want to look for an pre-AI, AI or AIS 50mm f/1.4 Nikkor. Should be had for $100-150USD. Please also note that I don't believe that this body will meter with any of the above lenses and you'll need to be in Manual mode. At this point the histogram, and chimping, is your friend. If these lenses are not really an option for you, the AF 50/1.4D is running ~$250.


    HTH...
    Why is the f/1.4 good but the f1.8 only OK if a faster lense is what I should be looking for?

    Gratefully,
    Patti
    The use of a camera is similar to that of a knife. You can use it to peel potatoes, or carve a flute. ~ E. Kahlmeyer
    ... I'm still peeling potatoes.

    patti hinton photography
  • RhuarcRhuarc Registered Users Posts: 1,464 Major grins
    edited July 2, 2007
    Patti wrote:
    Why is the f/1.4 good but the f1.8 only OK if a faster lense is what I should be looking for?

    Gratefully,
    Patti

    THe 1.4 is a faster lens. Where apeture is concerned the smaller the number the larger the opening. Therefore more light can hit the sensor on a 1.4 lens than on a 1.8 lens.
    Photos | Blog | Twitter | Gear
  • SeymoreSeymore Banned Posts: 1,539 Major grins
    edited July 2, 2007
    Patti wrote:
    Why is the f/1.4 good but the f1.8 only OK if a faster lense is what I should be looking for?

    Gratefully,
    Patti
    Because @ f/1.4 your DOF is quite narrow. And if you get front row center, you may get a shot where only part of his face, or whatever you focus on, is in focus... But then again, playing with narrow DOFs can render some rather interesting shots.

    I guess I should quantify my "f/1.4 is good" statement... A lot of what I've discovered is that it depends on how much movement is on stage as far as how fast you need the lens to be. I've shot live stage @ 2.5 and 2.8, but even @ 2.8 you can get quite a bit of motion blur in the right situation.
  • PattiPatti Registered Users Posts: 1,576 Major grins
    edited July 2, 2007
    Rhuarc wrote:
    THe 1.4 is a faster lens. Where apeture is concerned the smaller the number the larger the opening. Therefore more light can hit the sensor on a 1.4 lens than on a 1.8 lens.

    Got ya. Now what about all the lighting from the show? How do you avoid everything being washed out by the light show if you're using a large apeture? The speed of the lense I assume helps but does a higher ISO compensate for that as well?
    Like I said, VERY new at this stuff.



    "Because @ f/1.4 your DOF is quite narrow. And if you get front row center, you may get a shot where only part of his face, or whatever you focus on, is in focus... But then again, playing with narrow DOFs can render some rather interesting shots.

    I guess I should quantify my "f/1.4 is good" statement... A lot of what I've discovered is that it depends on how much movement is on stage as far as how fast you need the lens to be. I've shot live stage @ 2.5 and 2.8, but even @ 2.8 you can get quite a bit of motion blur in the right situation."

    So, for July concerts I will be farther away and off the floor of the ACC in Toronto. Best to use my dandy little Olympus with the great zoom? I will have a railing in front of me to use as a bit of stabilization and hopefully shoot at a lower ISO than last time. The alternative is to use the Nikon with the zoom (which I'm dying to try out) but it's hard to give up that 18X optical zoom on the Olympus.

    Thanks for all your time with this. What a great site. You are all so helpful.

    Fondly,
    Patti
    The use of a camera is similar to that of a knife. You can use it to peel potatoes, or carve a flute. ~ E. Kahlmeyer
    ... I'm still peeling potatoes.

    patti hinton photography
  • sskoutassskoutas Registered Users Posts: 437 Major grins
    edited July 2, 2007
    based on what you've posted on your site using a point-n-shoot, I can't wait to see the results once you get familiar with your DSLR. Nice work!
    __________________
    Stephen Skoutas
    http://stephenskoutas.com
    sskoutas@gmail.com Certe, toto, sentio nos in kansate non iam adesse

    Please feel free to retouch and repost my images. Critique, Suggestions, and Technique tips always welcomed.
  • claudermilkclaudermilk Registered Users Posts: 2,756 Major grins
    edited July 3, 2007
    Patti wrote:
    The deed is done so a fast lense will have to do. Now what if I need or want to use a zoom?

    Understood--that's why I hesitated to point it out. ne_nau.gif

    I'm not as familiar with Nikkor's lineup, but I expect they have some excellent f2.8 zooms that the Nikon shooters around here can point you at... Harry? ...who else is on the Dark Side? mwink.gif
    Chris
    http://www.chrislaudermilkphoto.com/
  • jdryan3jdryan3 Registered Users Posts: 1,353 Major grins
    edited July 3, 2007
    Patti wrote:
    Like I said, VERY new at this stuff.
    Fondly,
    Patti

    You may want to pick up a copy of Bryan Peterson's book Understanding Exposure . It will easily and quickly go a long way towards explaining the triad of aperature size, shutter speed and ISO. Great rules of thumb on when to increase aperture vs slowing down shutter speed (and vice versa). And much more.
    "Don't ask me what I think of you, I might not give the answer that you want me to. Oh well."
    -Fleetwood Mac
  • PattiPatti Registered Users Posts: 1,576 Major grins
    edited July 3, 2007
    Thanks
    jdryan3 wrote:
    You may want to pick up a copy of Bryan Peterson's book Understanding Exposure . It will easily and quickly go a long way towards explaining the triad of aperature size, shutter speed and ISO. Great rules of thumb on when to increase aperture vs slowing down shutter speed (and vice versa). And much more.

    Thanks for the rec. I have his Understanding Digital Photography.
    The use of a camera is similar to that of a knife. You can use it to peel potatoes, or carve a flute. ~ E. Kahlmeyer
    ... I'm still peeling potatoes.

    patti hinton photography
  • NetgardenNetgarden Registered Users Posts: 829 Major grins
    edited July 3, 2007
    Patti, you will figure it out in no time. I found my old sony which offered manual settings and most of what a dslr offers, not much different. You'll love it. I'd stick with primes because they are better quality and allow larger apertures. If the lighting is really good onstage then you might get by at even f4. It just depends on the available light. generally you'd bring both the zoom and the prime, then you have options. You might want to some day get a VR lens [if thats possible to use on that camera, I don't know, as I use canon], the stabilized lenses allow for hand held down to about 1/20 sec. Have fun experimenting. Sometimes blurred action is cool looking also.
    .Linda's OCwildlife Galleries
  • PattiPatti Registered Users Posts: 1,576 Major grins
    edited July 4, 2007
    You are very kind. :curtsey

    sskoutas wrote:
    based on what you've posted on your site using a point-n-shoot, I can't wait to see the results once you get familiar with your DSLR. Nice work!
    The use of a camera is similar to that of a knife. You can use it to peel potatoes, or carve a flute. ~ E. Kahlmeyer
    ... I'm still peeling potatoes.

    patti hinton photography
  • JennrenselJennrensel Registered Users Posts: 9 Beginner grinner
    edited July 6, 2007
    Patti you will love your new toy. I have a D40. I have a couple VR lenses and they are well worth it. Especially if you are doing macro in my opinion. Have fun!
  • PattiPatti Registered Users Posts: 1,576 Major grins
    edited July 6, 2007
    The list grows....
    So now, thanks to my enablers, the wishlist of lenses grows... I was warned about lense addiction. rolleyes1.gif

    85mm f/1.8
    VR lenses.... where to start with these... hmmmm
    The use of a camera is similar to that of a knife. You can use it to peel potatoes, or carve a flute. ~ E. Kahlmeyer
    ... I'm still peeling potatoes.

    patti hinton photography
  • Art ScottArt Scott Registered Users Posts: 8,959 Major grins
    edited July 6, 2007
    Patti wrote:
    So now, thanks to my enablers, the wishlist of lenses grows... I was warned about lense addiction. rolleyes1.gif

    85mm f/1.8
    VR lenses.... where to start with these... hmmmm

    Watch the deals on the fleas market here and also on ebay......now I have shot with Nikon film cameras and also pentax, minolta, Hasselblad, and Kiev (a Russian Hasselblad) and now I am shooting with Konica Minolta 7D's....for my lenses I opted for Sigma for my 35mm cameras a long time ago.....because I got extremely sharp optics for less than camera brand prices......I shot to bodies with a narrow zoom on one (24-70 f2.8) and a longer zoom (70-210 f2.8) on the other.......for many years it was simply 2 bodies and a 70-210 zoom that I shot portraits and weddings with (sounds strange to have one lenses and 2 bodies...well it was the bodies I had trouble keeping alive, I was rough on them...... shooting 2-3 weddings per saturday + portrits during the week+ concerts when not shooting wedding and portraits, killed the bodies fairly quick) .....there are very good non camera company lenses out there that can save you tons of money.....if you can go to a camera store and shoot with a lens you are interested in all the better, even if decide to orider off the internet to save some bucks....or rent a lens for a weekend or a week....there has ben mention of a couple of lens rental places on this forum in the last couple of days.

    Have fun.....do not let things overwhelm you.....experiment it is not going to cost you anything except time....but take notes of your experimentations, so that you know what you did, right or wrong...it is documented.

    Here is a link to a page of my Portfolio.....the first 3 shots are film era, so no exif...however I do remember that they were all shot on Fuji 100 iso film, f5,6 and at or below 1/60 sec...not much below as I normally would not shoot below 1/20.....my normal shooting does not work with digital...the next 2 stage shots are digital with exif available......that may help you....they are of a dance festival and i was at the back of the concert hall running the sound for the show, so they are not as good as I had wanted, but are not at all bad either.
    "Genuine Fractals was, is and will always be the best solution for enlarging digital photos." ....Vincent Versace ... ... COPYRIGHT YOUR WORK ONLINE ... ... My Website

  • PattiPatti Registered Users Posts: 1,576 Major grins
    edited July 8, 2007
    Art Scott wrote:
    Watch the deals on the fleas market here and also on ebay......now I have shot with Nikon film cameras and also pentax, minolta, Hasselblad, and Kiev (a Russian Hasselblad) and now I am shooting with Konica Minolta 7D's....for my lenses I opted for Sigma for my 35mm cameras a long time ago.....because I got extremely sharp optics for less than camera brand prices......I shot to bodies with a narrow zoom on one (24-70 f2.8) and a longer zoom (70-210 f2.8) on the other.......for many years it was simply 2 bodies and a 70-210 zoom that I shot portraits and weddings with (sounds strange to have one lenses and 2 bodies...well it was the bodies I had trouble keeping alive, I was rough on them...... shooting 2-3 weddings per saturday + portrits during the week+ concerts when not shooting wedding and portraits, killed the bodies fairly quick) .....there are very good non camera company lenses out there that can save you tons of money.....if you can go to a camera store and shoot with a lens you are interested in all the better, even if decide to orider off the internet to save some bucks....or rent a lens for a weekend or a week....there has ben mention of a couple of lens rental places on this forum in the last couple of days.

    Have fun.....do not let things overwhelm you.....experiment it is not going to cost you anything except time....but take notes of your experimentations, so that you know what you did, right or wrong...it is documented.

    Here is a link to a page of my Portfolio.....the first 3 shots are film era, so no exif...however I do remember that they were all shot on Fuji 100 iso film, f5,6 and at or below 1/60 sec...not much below as I normally would not shoot below 1/20.....my normal shooting does not work with digital...the next 2 stage shots are digital with exif available......that may help you....they are of a dance festival and i was at the back of the concert hall running the sound for the show, so they are not as good as I had wanted, but are not at all bad either.

    Thanks Art. I'll check that out. Your idea of keeping a record of my experiments is a great one.
    The use of a camera is similar to that of a knife. You can use it to peel potatoes, or carve a flute. ~ E. Kahlmeyer
    ... I'm still peeling potatoes.

    patti hinton photography
  • PattiPatti Registered Users Posts: 1,576 Major grins
    edited July 9, 2007
    Lenses, lenses, lenses
    I was at a local photography shop's annual 'photo day' yesterday and talked to the Nikon rep there. Although he wasn't very forthcoming with assistance (missed an opportunity to get a newbie hooked big time) he did say that the D40x will meter with non AF lenses attached.
    The use of a camera is similar to that of a knife. You can use it to peel potatoes, or carve a flute. ~ E. Kahlmeyer
    ... I'm still peeling potatoes.

    patti hinton photography
  • SeymoreSeymore Banned Posts: 1,539 Major grins
    edited July 10, 2007
    Patti wrote:
    I was at a local photography shop's annual 'photo day' yesterday and talked to the Nikon rep there. Although he wasn't very forthcoming with assistance (missed an opportunity to get a newbie hooked big time) he did say that the D40x will meter with non AF lenses attached.
    Now, this IS interesting. I'll have to look into this and see what I find! I do know that the D40/D40x will mount pre-AI lenses. So if THE D40x will also meter with those lenses, this could be a cheap alternative to the D200 for a MF addict like myself...

    THANKS PATTI!!! thumb.gif
  • PattiPatti Registered Users Posts: 1,576 Major grins
    edited July 11, 2007
    Any news?
    Seymore wrote:
    Now, this IS interesting. I'll have to look into this and see what I find! I do know that the D40/D40x will mount pre-AI lenses. So if THE D40x will also meter with those lenses, this could be a cheap alternative to the D200 for a MF addict like myself...

    THANKS PATTI!!! thumb.gif

    Did you get any info yet? I was in a local shop to look at the 85mm f/1.8 and they talked me out of it, insisting that it won't meter. Grrrrrr The only fast lens I can get is the 18-200 AFS (2.8) zoom and it's way out of my price range.

    I'm going to regret not going for the D80 aren't I?
    The use of a camera is similar to that of a knife. You can use it to peel potatoes, or carve a flute. ~ E. Kahlmeyer
    ... I'm still peeling potatoes.

    patti hinton photography
  • ziggy53ziggy53 Super Moderators Posts: 24,132 moderator
    edited July 11, 2007
    Patti wrote:
    Did you get any info yet? I was in a local shop to look at the 85mm f/1.8 and they talked me out of it, insisting that it won't meter. Grrrrrr The only fast lens I can get is the 18-200 AFS (2.8) zoom and it's way out of my price range.

    I'm going to regret not going for the D80 aren't I?

    Patti,

    My father is a Nikon shooter, and if I understand the situation correctly, the Nikon D40 and D40X will only meter properly with an AF, AF-D, AF-I or AF-S type lens. If you are looking at the Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D Autofocus Lens it should mount and meter properly, but require manual focus. If you are looking at the older Nikkor 85mm f/1.8 AI, it will mount but requires that you meter the scene with an external meter (or guess the exposure) as well as manual focus (since it is a manual focus lens).

    Be sure to check out the compatibility chart here:

    http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d40/d40-performance.htm#lenses

    ... and the notes here:

    http://www.aiconversions.com/d70etc.htm
    ziggy53
    Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Sign In or Register to comment.