Question to photo guys

[Tenacious K]

So I'm getting a d40 soon and I'm wondering what extra equipment I would need to shoot fairly good MX photo's? It would be mostly from the side of the track type of stuff so nothing needing a huge lens I'm assuming? I'm guessing the stock lens that comes with the d40 won't be ideal? Thanks for any help

[Tubesteak Cowboy]

Well, for me what I use most is a 24-70mm and a 70-200mm. I have a 15mm fisheye, but that's not really practical, not for me anyway. It is nice for bmx stuff though. I'm sure Nikon has equivalents to these lenses.

[Tenacious K]

Would a 24-70 be a lot different than a 18-55?

[Tyler4]

The 70-200mm VR is a good one to start with.

[Tenacious K]

Can't find any 24-70's or 70-200's but are these any good?
Kiron 70-210mm zoom lens or Nikon 200 f4

[Derek]

The 70-200mm VR is a good one to start with.

Start? You slay me. :lol:

I wish I had money.

[Tenacious K]

Another thing, is the d50 much better than the 40?

[Derek]

Another thing, is the d50 much better than the 40?

It's way older, so no.

And dont fall for teh D60. It's teh d40x in drag. Not worth the money.

[YamahaRacin27]

Start? You slay me. :lol:

I wish I had money.

Haha I was thinking the same thing when I saw that. I've been shooting forever and haven't nutted up to buy a 70-200 yet.

Kris, if you ask me, go for the Nikon 70-300. This is a good action lens at a very affordable price. I have been shooting moto with that lens for a while and enjoy it for the price I paid for it. I have the 18-55 and it blowsss to shoot moto with. You have to be practically right next to your subject to get something good. The 70-300 will capture stuff from a much more realistic distance.

[Tenacious K]

There are quite a few good 70-300's for cheap. Are there many pos/neg differences between the 300-200? Killer site btw(471mx or what ever it was). Never really looked at it before.

[YamahaRacin27]

Thanks, it's 271mx. But I'm soon to change the domain name. Numbers are quite overrated and homosexual in many ways.

Anywho, there's a very large difference between the 300/200. First of all, the price, obviously. You'll be lucky to find a new 70-200 under $1500-1600. You can get a 70-300 brand new for under $150 if you look in the right place. There's a huge list of things that make these lenses drastically different but I'm not going to type it when you can just google it or something. I find the 70-300 to be a very good lens for the cheap price, though, so I suggest you hit it up.