would this be a good lens to shoot my kids indoors with lowish light or would the 35 1.8 or 50 1.8 be better... i do like to shoot macro also (it's fun!)... thanks! .. oh i'll be using d3100 shooting mostly jpeg for facebook.. thanks again!
would this be a good lens to use for my kids inside in lowish light? or would the 35 1.8 or the 50 1.8 be better... i do like to shoot macros also (it's fun) Thanks!.... oh i'll be using a D3100 that does pretty good with higher ISO... also just shooting JPEG for facebook mostly.
I am considering this lens because its cheap and i wanted a good all-round lens to take some macros and some street photography with.. Since I don't have either the 35mm or the 50mm I think this would be a perfect choice for me.. I am certain I'd be happier with the 85mm macro and 35mm for street photography but Im on a tight budget..
Please let me know if my reasoning is good or not..
I haven't purchased this lens and don't I will anytime soon. Anyway, I'm just assuming it's probably gonna be for 'casual macro' or for those situations where you don't actually need the 1:1. And maybe for general photography since it's not that far away from 35mm on DX.
I'm seriously considering this for purchase, BECAUSE. I am on a tight budget of $350 and under, and I've been looking for a macro lens. I've been using the 18-55 nikkor lens with a macro filter for macro shots, which is terrible. And with that you have to be about an inch away, with this lens it says it's closest focusing distance is 6.4 inches which is a huge upgrade for me. I do wish I could buy a slightly more expensive lens like the 60mm macro but I think this might have to do for now.
i would go with the 60mm or the 105mm if your going for your first macro... i think im going to get one because I need something wider than the 60 sometimes.
Oh hey, the dimensions and the focal length and the macro ability seem to lend its self quite nicely to underwater stills and videos. I have no means to test my theory though
i think this is a fantastic lens esp since you gain the benefit of close-ups with the versatility of a 40mm focal. Yes you need to be close for 1:1 magnification but you might not need this all the time. 50mm is going to be more general purpose but this 40mm macro will be more fun than the 50mm even at the cost of a stop and half of light.
I'm only 16 so I can't really afford any big macro lenses and seeing as I haven't got the 50mm yet which was on my to-buy list, I think I might get this instead. At least then I can use it for some amateur macro but also use it like a 50mm. anybody agree?
Think my 16-85 is a funny but i can get it to focus at 20cm from a subject at 85mm not the 40cm (i think) nikon say it will do? I cant really see the point in this new 40mm 2.8 lens.
I agree with Dom. This was a weird one for Nikon to announce. If I was shooting DX I would get the AF-S 60mm micro for about the same price as this (£300ish)
I wish i Nikon would update the 85mm f1.8...i would buy a (cheapish) AF-S 85mm f1.8 in a heartbeat! :)
Hi Dom! I was strongly considering this lens on Jared Polin's recommendation. What I want it for is something between the 35 1.8 and the 50 1.8, for a standard fast lens. I think it will be great for portraits and street photography (the 50 is just a bit too long), and the macro abilities will be great because I love shooting photos of small models, flowers, and I am soon going to be trying food photography. If you disagree and can suggest a bit option for this, please let me know! Thanks Dom.
@TIRanald do u have the 35 and 50? If so, I say don't bother, just use the 35 for street. The 50 for portrait and get a 100mm macro. The focal lengths ate too similar for those other lenses. Unless ur gona sell them?
This lens has the same working distance as that of AF-S 60mm lens. thats apprx 5cm from front of the glass. It looks like a good lens for portraits, food and floral photography. My father does photograph lots of flowers(wild) so I might buy this lens for him as it has weather sealing and is more compact than the Af-S 60mm lens.
seriously , I'm just going to get the 50f1.8G for cheaper. I already have the 35mmf1.8 and honestly getting a 40mm lens would just be a waist of money in my opinion.
Nikon make this kind of lens just for the money - a cheap macro for people who just bought their first DSLR and want to have an other lens to and they say : 'Ooh - I love macro and I don't want to spent to much money' : This lens is just perfect for that.
.. that isn't a bad lens so far looking. Of course reviews reviews reviews, the proof is in the pudding and image quality is kinda what we seek isn't it.
Also, it doesn't matter that you can't use the max aperture when shooting close up. If you did, the DoF would be unpractically shallow. I'm often shooting at f32 and above in macro mode, and still only achieve sharp focus for a few mm.
Dom, don't be like Ken Rockwell - those charts are really pretty simple. It gives an idea of the lens' ability to resolve detail at various apertures as you go from the centre to the edge of the lens. As you can see from that chart, like most lenses, it resolves best in the centre and worse as you move towards the edge.
Personally i would just want this for pictures of flowers, and cute foods my girlfriend makes haha, possibly also pet birds , not sure on that though.
Interesting. I've been wanting to get a real macro lens for a while now, as I am starting to tire with my cheapy extension tubes on my 50 1.8.
I have a question for you Dom if you don't mind. I know with longer focal lengths comes greater depth of fields at the same apertures for general photography. But when it comes to macro photography (true 1:1), does that still hold true? Would a 105 shot at 5.6, focused to 1:1 have a greater depth of field than say this 40 shot at 5.6, 1:1 aswell? Thanks.
@NeoKobalt it would have a much shallower depth of field. just like with any lens, a 200mm has a very shallow depth of field compared to a 11mm when shooting the same object from the same distance
I don't think I will be buying this, but after hearing your thoughts I want a macro lens I love getting close to stuff but I don't know which to go for I got a d7000... any extra thoughts would be great :)
@everitt11 The Nikon 105mm Macro lens is sweet - a little expensive, but rent one or go to a camera shop w/your camera and take a few pics - it's really nice.
that you need to get very close to you subject is a good point = ) I agree for bugs it might be a problem ^^
unluckylion 1 month ago
To each his own yo
jeostin1989 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
would this be a good lens to shoot my kids indoors with lowish light or would the 35 1.8 or 50 1.8 be better... i do like to shoot macro also (it's fun!)... thanks! .. oh i'll be using d3100 shooting mostly jpeg for facebook.. thanks again!
QuadTap 4 months ago
would this be a good lens to use for my kids inside in lowish light? or would the 35 1.8 or the 50 1.8 be better... i do like to shoot macros also (it's fun) Thanks!.... oh i'll be using a D3100 that does pretty good with higher ISO... also just shooting JPEG for facebook mostly.
QuadTap 4 months ago
I am considering this lens because its cheap and i wanted a good all-round lens to take some macros and some street photography with.. Since I don't have either the 35mm or the 50mm I think this would be a perfect choice for me.. I am certain I'd be happier with the 85mm macro and 35mm for street photography but Im on a tight budget..
Please let me know if my reasoning is good or not..
KGaspiii 4 months ago
I haven't purchased this lens and don't I will anytime soon. Anyway, I'm just assuming it's probably gonna be for 'casual macro' or for those situations where you don't actually need the 1:1. And maybe for general photography since it's not that far away from 35mm on DX.
JC040696 5 months ago
I'm seriously considering this for purchase, BECAUSE. I am on a tight budget of $350 and under, and I've been looking for a macro lens. I've been using the 18-55 nikkor lens with a macro filter for macro shots, which is terrible. And with that you have to be about an inch away, with this lens it says it's closest focusing distance is 6.4 inches which is a huge upgrade for me. I do wish I could buy a slightly more expensive lens like the 60mm macro but I think this might have to do for now.
trw1996 6 months ago
i would go with the 60mm or the 105mm if your going for your first macro... i think im going to get one because I need something wider than the 60 sometimes.
photoboy2005 7 months ago
It's not whichever term we want to use, just use the right terms...
akumodd 7 months ago
Looks like this is going to be £250 in the UK, which is alot more than the 35 and 50, at this price is it a bit disapointing?
mpsje 7 months ago
Oh hey, the dimensions and the focal length and the macro ability seem to lend its self quite nicely to underwater stills and videos. I have no means to test my theory though
TheIamfrustrated 7 months ago
Jacobs are selling it at £250
Skirgey 7 months ago
i have macro 60mm f2, by Tamron.
i think it is only lens that is f2, isn;t it
estrm 7 months ago
@estrm there is a NIKON 35mm f2 a 200mm f2 in Canon and NIKON. Canon also has a 135 f2 & 100 f2
Dombowerphoto 7 months ago
i think this is a fantastic lens esp since you gain the benefit of close-ups with the versatility of a 40mm focal. Yes you need to be close for 1:1 magnification but you might not need this all the time. 50mm is going to be more general purpose but this 40mm macro will be more fun than the 50mm even at the cost of a stop and half of light.
leeh0795 7 months ago
I'm only 16 so I can't really afford any big macro lenses and seeing as I haven't got the 50mm yet which was on my to-buy list, I think I might get this instead. At least then I can use it for some amateur macro but also use it like a 50mm. anybody agree?
SadXAdam 7 months ago
Think my 16-85 is a funny but i can get it to focus at 20cm from a subject at 85mm not the 40cm (i think) nikon say it will do? I cant really see the point in this new 40mm 2.8 lens.
benallenphotography 7 months ago
I agree with Dom. This was a weird one for Nikon to announce. If I was shooting DX I would get the AF-S 60mm micro for about the same price as this (£300ish)
I wish i Nikon would update the 85mm f1.8...i would buy a (cheapish) AF-S 85mm f1.8 in a heartbeat! :)
iamchrisphoto 7 months ago
Hi Dom! I was strongly considering this lens on Jared Polin's recommendation. What I want it for is something between the 35 1.8 and the 50 1.8, for a standard fast lens. I think it will be great for portraits and street photography (the 50 is just a bit too long), and the macro abilities will be great because I love shooting photos of small models, flowers, and I am soon going to be trying food photography. If you disagree and can suggest a bit option for this, please let me know! Thanks Dom.
TIRanald 7 months ago
@TIRanald do u have the 35 and 50? If so, I say don't bother, just use the 35 for street. The 50 for portrait and get a 100mm macro. The focal lengths ate too similar for those other lenses. Unless ur gona sell them?
Dombowerphoto 7 months ago
its funny that I have a tamron lens that says macro, but its not really macro because the focal distance is 6 feet... WTF
jwdesign336 7 months ago
@jwdesign336 Are you sure it is a 1:1 macro?
Intiom 7 months ago
Your voice is really funny at 6:01
prospathw 7 months ago
This lens has the same working distance as that of AF-S 60mm lens. thats apprx 5cm from front of the glass. It looks like a good lens for portraits, food and floral photography. My father does photograph lots of flowers(wild) so I might buy this lens for him as it has weather sealing and is more compact than the Af-S 60mm lens.
1986Chaitanya 7 months ago
lol i dont really get the point of this lens, but its not that expensive, so i cant complain
ny1fanta 7 months ago
already have a Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 .. getting another 2.8 within that zoom range would just be a waste
pulasthibandara 7 months ago
seriously , I'm just going to get the 50f1.8G for cheaper. I already have the 35mmf1.8 and honestly getting a 40mm lens would just be a waist of money in my opinion.
piperpilot26 7 months ago
Half of me thinks this is a wast of time for a lense but I may get it so I can try it.
martenfisher1 7 months ago
Nikon make this kind of lens just for the money - a cheap macro for people who just bought their first DSLR and want to have an other lens to and they say : 'Ooh - I love macro and I don't want to spent to much money' : This lens is just perfect for that.
This is for Nikon just a commercial thing.
(I suppose so..)
arthurke1993 7 months ago
.. that isn't a bad lens so far looking. Of course reviews reviews reviews, the proof is in the pudding and image quality is kinda what we seek isn't it.
masticina 7 months ago
Also, it doesn't matter that you can't use the max aperture when shooting close up. If you did, the DoF would be unpractically shallow. I'm often shooting at f32 and above in macro mode, and still only achieve sharp focus for a few mm.
SLRist 7 months ago
Dom, don't be like Ken Rockwell - those charts are really pretty simple. It gives an idea of the lens' ability to resolve detail at various apertures as you go from the centre to the edge of the lens. As you can see from that chart, like most lenses, it resolves best in the centre and worse as you move towards the edge.
SLRist 7 months ago
Personally i would just want this for pictures of flowers, and cute foods my girlfriend makes haha, possibly also pet birds , not sure on that though.
Defictionalize 7 months ago
I can think of so many lens that would have been better to produce for a DX sensor!. Will I purchase this?! Nope.
Itchhhh 7 months ago
Interesting. I've been wanting to get a real macro lens for a while now, as I am starting to tire with my cheapy extension tubes on my 50 1.8.
I have a question for you Dom if you don't mind. I know with longer focal lengths comes greater depth of fields at the same apertures for general photography. But when it comes to macro photography (true 1:1), does that still hold true? Would a 105 shot at 5.6, focused to 1:1 have a greater depth of field than say this 40 shot at 5.6, 1:1 aswell? Thanks.
NeoKobalt 7 months ago
@NeoKobalt it would have a much shallower depth of field. just like with any lens, a 200mm has a very shallow depth of field compared to a 11mm when shooting the same object from the same distance
Dombowerphoto 7 months ago
@Dombowerphoto Hi! quick question for you which one better low noise D300 or D7000? ty verymuch!
Jepraw 7 months ago
I don't think I will be buying this, but after hearing your thoughts I want a macro lens I love getting close to stuff but I don't know which to go for I got a d7000... any extra thoughts would be great :)
everitt11 7 months ago
@everitt11 The Nikon 105mm Macro lens is sweet - a little expensive, but rent one or go to a camera shop w/your camera and take a few pics - it's really nice.
PhlipOutPhoto 7 months ago
@PhlipOutPhoto I don't mind about saving one or two wage packets I've always just wanted to get closure to anything with great sharp details :)
everitt11 7 months ago