same as on sony.

you can use a macro lens just like any other lens, the difference is just that its sharper than most normal lenses and focuses closer..

did you mean to say 40d? its totally different than d40, d40 is crap low end nikon and 40d is good canon(best camera for the price)

nope I using m42 adaptor with af
for canon you have to play with glue to make it confirm af for ya (or im wrong ?)

anywayz... I justy saying if he needs only for macro cheap option ever will be sony + m42 lenses.

Exactly, if the guy is a graphic designer then he probably wants true macro. A 50mm f/1.8 is not macro, and neither are any of the other lenses you guys were talking about... There aren't many choices for his budget, but the obvious two would be a used 60mm macro or a used 100mm macro (non L). The 100 is a better macro lens, but the 60 would be more useful on a crop sensor.

I would also agree about the 40D for his budget. A good starter kit would be a 40D, 100mm (or 60mm, but I'd rather have the 100) macro and go get a used 18-55 IS for $80 also.

What about Nikon D3100?

i have a d3100 and i like it.. would go for the d90 if i have had the money tho.. but where i am, its almost twice the price

Hmm then I may wait until summer to get cash enought

tbh tho, the d3100 is pretty damn good for its price.. even the kit lens is okay imo.. tho im buying the 35mm 1.8 soon

I'm working on Ferrari store web project 2.0 atm so after the job done I'll decide If can afford a d90 or must take the d3100.
Thanks everybody thoug