I used this lens for a day and I returned it, traded it in for a 50mm f1.8. It's a nice lens, really sharp, but when I took it outside to take macro shots of flowers, I was very disappointed. The focus distance is not 6 inches from the front of the lens, probably the sensor because at 1:1, you have to be within an inch of the object you want to take a picture of.
That means you block your own light and that ruins the macro shots.
This lens is so controversial to me D7000 so the af-s isnt that big but its micro vs 1.8? is the micro worth almost $100? Its not that the micro is too close(40mm) im just wonder price wise if its worth it since i want to do video a micro would come in handy enough for the price especially since the cheaper has f1.8?
@thedontmoney Check out the 60mm with no VR too. For macro shots, VR is almost pointless so for the same price, I'd rather get a 60mm f/2.8 than a slower 85mm with VR.
If you buy the 35mm f/1.8G, you could simply buy a $4 reversal ring off of ebay and start shooting macro with that. Operate the aperture manually with your left hand, take photos with your right.
@JaredPolin just got this yday..will test it by saturday...just wondering if i add extension tube..will it give me the same quality?..im still waiting for my extension tube though..
@quarlo just because it doesn't appeal to you doesn't mean it isn't good for other people. This is a great beginner macro for people who don't want to spend hundreds of dollars on a lens
sounds like a good thing for the rest of us(including me)as im just about to migrate to nikon from olympus, i love the 4/3 lenses but the bodies are just not keeping up
Well, if it was no useful at all, why do Nikon spend their time and money to research and produce it??
it can do portraits,landscape,general purposes and macro.The only thing suck about the macro is that you have to get too close to the subject (about 6.4 inches I believe) to shoot , but it's just insects that move,flowers don't,so you can only NOT Shoot Insects.
It's a whole world of Macro out there, not just insects that need to me macro !!!
"which is basically a macro lens". Nikon is the only manufacturer of which I'm aware which actually uses the term correctly. Think about the difference between microeconomics and macroeconomics to better understand these root words. A fisheye or ultrawide would be a macro (capturing a very large view) lens. A very close-focusing, narrow-ish field of view lens would be a micro (examining a small sample) lens.
I am new to the dslr world and have been using the kit lens with the D3100 till now, I wanted to buy a single focus lens but I am confused between the Nikon 35mm f/1.8G AF-S DX and the Nikon 50mm f/1.8G AF-S, please help
@dpkrnk Not much difference between the two. They are both general purpose lens with the same aperture. Your just going to have to pick one. I will say though that you will get tighter shots with the 50mm. Personally Im going for the 50.
As a 'just about to buy a nikon d3100’ kinda guy, I'm VERY interested in what my best second ls should be... Emphasis on video, since that's a primary thing I'm gonna use it for... Is this THAT lens? Btw, love the fro :)
I'm picking this one up as a standard walk around. I have the 35 1.8, but having the ability to take the occasional macro shot is a great convenience. I'll still be using my 35 for night photography and some portraits where a more shallow depth of field is desired.
Hi Jared I Hope you can this lens with the NIKON 3100 since a lot of us have it as our started DSRL..... Actually some test shoots of 50mm f/1.8G VS 40 mm micro 2.8 Would give lots of extra points to your review......Thanks a lot !
U.S. ORDER To SHUT DOWN MILLIONS of CHRISTIAN Websites SHOCKS WORLD! JESUS IS COMING!Get raptured not suffer the great tribulation.LISTEN TO DarrellMyatt1963 IN YOUTUBE.
I already have the 35mm 1.8 (which i love!) ... im interested in the macro properties of the 40mm... should i be considering trading in the 35mm for the 40mm?
@mongooseaardvark Keep both! the 40 is a great walk around lens and having the macro ability with you all the time is awesome. The 35 is still great for low light and shallow depth of field. I have the 35 as well and I plan on getting the 40.
hey jp, i hear nikon is caming out with a micro four thirds line. i wanna hear your views on this. personally i think micro 4/3s is a waste of time since crop sensors are already chopping the data but thats me.
35 1.8, 50 1.8 is 10000000x better already for the simple fact.. it's 1.8! macro with a 40mm lens is fail because you need to get so close to your subject that you'll block out all the light coming and you'd be in a very awkward position shooting
and since the majority of people don't care two hoots about macro photography, you could just pick up a ZOOM lens like a 17-50 2.8 for the same price.. hey what.. it's stil 2.8 at 40mm..
@tomfewchuk agreed, the best macro lenses are at 100 or so mm so you dont have to lick your subject. at only 40mm you are so close that you have to bump the iso up and use flash which will produce a crappy image.
@tomfewchuk We don't know the quality of the lens yet. But plenty of people use a 60mm macro on full frame every day. For people looking to try macro for 279 its going to be a great option. Also a 17-50 2.8 is over 600 bucks so its a lot more expensive. With that said your not going to get 1 to 1 with a 17-50.
@JaredPolin yea that's true but i've seen some cheap 17-50s (like tamron) for $300 used but still good condition, and i reckon you're either serious about macro photography (105 2.8s) or not, so getting this inbetween lens which won't do a great job of macro but can sort of be used for potrait work/low light/everyday is a bit of a waste cos of the lame aperture and funny focal length
@tomfewchuk You're an nay-saying close-minded idiot... comparing it against the 35mm 1.8? ..two lenses for two different purposes, yeah it has short working distance but that doesn't mean you have to shoot 1 : 1 all the time....there's 1 : 1.5, 1 : 2, 1 :3 (then crop) ...more working space huh?and for added info, shorter FL macros like the 40mm is easier to hand hold
" majority of people don't care two hoots about macro photography" ? Then why does Nikon and Canon still make macro lenses
@NixxerJixxerWixxer mm sure i'll admit they have different purposes but since macro photography is something that professionals with a passion for it would do well and KEEP on doing, i think i'd leave it to them with their 105s, but that's just me. and personally i'd recommend a 35 or 50 to a beginner any day, macro is just a novelty, plus really, who would want 2.8 over 1.8?! :)
@tomfewchuk you've clearly never used the 60mm f/2.8. And you clearly "don't care two hoots about macro photography" because you obviously assume that the goal of a macro lens is to always be at the maximum magnification and closest focusing distance.
Sadly you're wrong on all points. Even that this is disadvantaged over the f/1.8 lenses, because a micro lens is pretty much useless at such a wide aperture.
Why the vitriol over something you clearly don't understand? I feel embarrassed for you.
@tomfewchuk So what lenses do you recommend for amateur photographer like me who want to shoot micro, portrait and food photography use for DX format camera?
@TheMorgalion if you're an amateur, i can reckon you're not going to be doing just those things, you're going to be shooting people as well in heaps of diff situations including night when a 50 1.8 or 35 1.8 will be very useful, it's silly how jared was saying this could be THE lens to get for a beginner because it's not versitle enough for the price
if you seriously think you're just going to be doing macro photography get the 40mm but personally a fast prime or a 2.8 zoom is the way to go
@tomfewchuk Yeah thats the dilemma for me right now. I can't fully decide between the 50mm 1.8 or this new 40mm. Probably going to go for the 50 though.
@tomfewchuk Thats my thinking about the 40mm. Its a shame that its not a going to be a 2.8. It would make for a killer lens if it was a 1.8. Ok so the final question is, 35mm or 50mm. I emailed Ken Rockwell and he replied this morning telling me that he would choose the 35 over the 50.
@onishchuk4 mm ken loves his 35 too much haha, i'm a canon shooter at the moment so i'd be going straight away for the 50 since it's the cheapest (in canon) but it's a toss up for nikon. i'm assuming you're shooting on a cropped sensor so the 50 would be a sweet potrait lens, where as the 35 will be a nice everday lens. since i'm more familiar with 50s, i'd go with that at this point and the 1.8 AF-D is floppin cheap, over the AF-G
@tomfewchuk I guess I'll have to just go back to camera store and have a little bit more time with both. And yes I do have a ASP-C camera. I'm looking for that lense that takes really sharp images, has great bokeh, and can be used in a variety of situations whether for portrait or landscape.
@onishchuk4 yea cool cool, one piece of advice though.. try them out at the store, shoot heaps of different things and see which one you like best.. then BUY ONLINE! like ebay or something else, sooo much cheaper, guarentee it! :)
both lenses will be sharp and have sweet bokeh, the 35 slightly less just cos the focal length is smaller but still pretty awesome
@tomfewchuk Yeah definitely online. I utilize dealnews, so I'm good. Best Buy had the 35mm for $155 shipped back in may, and that was the lowest price ever for that lens, new or refurbished.
@tomfewchuk not necessarily. depending on the situation? Based on the PRESS release, it's stated that the working distance is about 6.4 inches. For me, that's quite good. If I'm not mistakened, the Tamron 90mm 2.8 macro's working distance is about 4.25 inches? 6.4 inches won't necessarily block out ALL of the light coming. and please, you think everyone can buy glasses like those? you think about it.
Hum,a 40mm 2.8 macro, I would prefer either the 35mm 1.8 or the 50mm 1.8 since they're both faster than the 40mm 2.8 and probabbly shaper at 2.8 that the 40mm since all lens normally when wide open tend to loose sharpness and in the "cheaper" lenses that is pretty normal.
Ok its a micro 2.8 for 279 bucks but its not something I would get since 40mm micro is not that good for macro photography and I would get the cheaper 50mm 1.8D or the 35mm 1.8G, and save for a macro or rent to try one out.
Can't wait to see you test shots with this. I need a macro for selling stuff on eBay. Right now I am using the Nikkor 19-200 and it does OK. Would like to know if this will make shooting small objects in a lightbox easier and better.
@AZNGRINGO84 same situation here.. just gonna wait for a review since its almost august- tempted by the f 1.8 of the 50 but tempted b the micro of the 40 :S
WOWOW how fast you are about preview!!! It posed in Amazon 1 hour before you did this video!!! Thank You!! To buy the 40mm 2.8 of the 35mm 1.8 for my d7000?... [I have the old 50mm f1.8 - this is my dad old lens...]?
Very Interesting lens, might have to ditch my cheapy extension tubes on my 50 1.8 for one of these.
Question, in terms of the macro realm, would say the 105 2.8 micro have a greater depth of field than say this 40 2.8 (or any other shorter micro)? I've been looking for a way to increase my depth of field without having to always resort to focus stacking or crazy tight apertures.
When they announced the lens my thoughts were " What would Jared think of this lens ??? Will he recommend this lens in his preview video " and my thoughts were right
This might be the first Micro Nikon in my bag. Will wait and see what other have to say before I take the plunge. Been on track to the Holly Trinity set....one more to go (14-24).
I know it doesn't matter. But N(eye)kon or N(e)kon? I've always called it N(e)kon. Don't tell me I've been wrong all these years! I thought my dad knew what he was talking about lol
@JaredPolin Also this lens has almost the same working distance as that of Af-s 60mm nikkor. So this lens is great for DX users who want a compact macro.
this or 35mm?
AwesomeAlex420 1 day ago
Love the intro!
AppleAddict99 2 months ago
i love your intro in this video! hahaha! Its so refreshing
lgx22 4 months ago
40mm or 35mm I compare both in my video
iderren 4 months ago
will it work on the d90?
kadengoalie 5 months ago
Oh... I'm assuming you're not a big fan of the 70-300mm VR.
MobiusCoin 5 months ago
I used this lens for a day and I returned it, traded it in for a 50mm f1.8. It's a nice lens, really sharp, but when I took it outside to take macro shots of flowers, I was very disappointed. The focus distance is not 6 inches from the front of the lens, probably the sensor because at 1:1, you have to be within an inch of the object you want to take a picture of.
That means you block your own light and that ruins the macro shots.
khorus2112 5 months ago
This is the new go to lens over both the 50 and 35 if are just buying into DSLR for the first time.
Destructoid76 5 months ago
just got my 40mm f/2.8 yesrday..will test it this saturday....
filcanucks 6 months ago
This lens is so controversial to me D7000 so the af-s isnt that big but its micro vs 1.8? is the micro worth almost $100? Its not that the micro is too close(40mm) im just wonder price wise if its worth it since i want to do video a micro would come in handy enough for the price especially since the cheaper has f1.8?
TheNxtLife 6 months ago
@JaredPolin How about the 85mm 3.5 for macro, compared to the 40mm 2.8 or the 50mm 1.8. A bit more money, but much less than the $1,000 105mm 2.8?
thedontmoney 6 months ago
@thedontmoney Check out the 60mm with no VR too. For macro shots, VR is almost pointless so for the same price, I'd rather get a 60mm f/2.8 than a slower 85mm with VR.
khorus2112 5 months ago
If you buy the 35mm f/1.8G, you could simply buy a $4 reversal ring off of ebay and start shooting macro with that. Operate the aperture manually with your left hand, take photos with your right.
MutilatorOfCookies 6 months ago
@MutilatorOfCookies its still not the same, not true macro, but i will be testing this lens soon enough.
JaredPolin 6 months ago 3
@JaredPolin just got this yday..will test it by saturday...just wondering if i add extension tube..will it give me the same quality?..im still waiting for my extension tube though..
filcanucks 6 months ago
@JaredPolin waiting for your review of Nikon 40mm
preferadult 5 months ago
i guess youll never review it
finishtostart1234567 6 months ago
@finishtostart1234567 Dude it just came out yesterday. Relax.
onishchuk4 6 months ago
@quarlo just because it doesn't appeal to you doesn't mean it isn't good for other people. This is a great beginner macro for people who don't want to spend hundreds of dollars on a lens
H2pachecO3 6 months ago
Eh. Not exciting. Where's the 18mm 2.8 prime for DX?
quarlo 6 months ago
sounds like a good thing for the rest of us(including me)as im just about to migrate to nikon from olympus, i love the 4/3 lenses but the bodies are just not keeping up
sneekylinux 7 months ago
Well, if it was no useful at all, why do Nikon spend their time and money to research and produce it??
it can do portraits,landscape,general purposes and macro.The only thing suck about the macro is that you have to get too close to the subject (about 6.4 inches I believe) to shoot , but it's just insects that move,flowers don't,so you can only NOT Shoot Insects.
It's a whole world of Macro out there, not just insects that need to me macro !!!
Bad lens?? I think not
Blackjack0919 7 months ago
sorry jared,i have joined the dark side(Canon). MUHAHA
lilboirocksSUPREME8P 7 months ago
Hopefully they come out with an 85 1.8G soon
dollarbill125 7 months ago
"which is basically a macro lens". Nikon is the only manufacturer of which I'm aware which actually uses the term correctly. Think about the difference between microeconomics and macroeconomics to better understand these root words. A fisheye or ultrawide would be a macro (capturing a very large view) lens. A very close-focusing, narrow-ish field of view lens would be a micro (examining a small sample) lens.
jonkun227 7 months ago
I am new to the dslr world and have been using the kit lens with the D3100 till now, I wanted to buy a single focus lens but I am confused between the Nikon 35mm f/1.8G AF-S DX and the Nikon 50mm f/1.8G AF-S, please help
Thanks!
dpkrnk 7 months ago
@dpkrnk Not much difference between the two. They are both general purpose lens with the same aperture. Your just going to have to pick one. I will say though that you will get tighter shots with the 50mm. Personally Im going for the 50.
onishchuk4 6 months ago
Are you guys all Nikon guys or can a Canon hound come in and chat sometime :)
sumitino 7 months ago
As a 'just about to buy a nikon d3100’ kinda guy, I'm VERY interested in what my best second ls should be... Emphasis on video, since that's a primary thing I'm gonna use it for... Is this THAT lens? Btw, love the fro :)
badhorsie777 7 months ago
u r the best!!!!!
Polandres 7 months ago
I'm picking this one up as a standard walk around. I have the 35 1.8, but having the ability to take the occasional macro shot is a great convenience. I'll still be using my 35 for night photography and some portraits where a more shallow depth of field is desired.
Fisheyland 7 months ago
THX out of Swizerland...Fro.. since i get the e-mail from nikon i waited on your preview ;-)
in2coming 7 months ago
Hi Jared I Hope you can this lens with the NIKON 3100 since a lot of us have it as our started DSRL..... Actually some test shoots of 50mm f/1.8G VS 40 mm micro 2.8 Would give lots of extra points to your review......Thanks a lot !
Boy22100 7 months ago
I was a beginner then i got a crap lens ;( . Whats a good lens for sports and mainly skateboarding?
danipodz 7 months ago
@danipodz 10.5mm fisheye is great for skateboarding especially video.
Fisheyland 7 months ago
Isn't it funny how Nikon just released this lens with out telling anyone, one day it didnt exist and BAM its here. Kudos the Nikon :D
nerwin 7 months ago
Super Fro ! tadaaaaa
TheyCallMeSkillz 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
U.S. ORDER To SHUT DOWN MILLIONS of CHRISTIAN Websites SHOCKS WORLD! JESUS IS COMING!Get raptured not suffer the great tribulation.LISTEN TO DarrellMyatt1963 IN YOUTUBE.
TheENTERRAPTURE17 7 months ago
I already have the 35mm 1.8 (which i love!) ... im interested in the macro properties of the 40mm... should i be considering trading in the 35mm for the 40mm?
Is there a point to having both?
Well either way ill wait for a sniff test :P
mongooseaardvark 7 months ago
@mongooseaardvark Keep both! the 40 is a great walk around lens and having the macro ability with you all the time is awesome. The 35 is still great for low light and shallow depth of field. I have the 35 as well and I plan on getting the 40.
Fisheyland 7 months ago
hey jp, i hear nikon is caming out with a micro four thirds line. i wanna hear your views on this. personally i think micro 4/3s is a waste of time since crop sensors are already chopping the data but thats me.
jh3835 7 months ago
Smells like - "Don't buy it"
mnedman1 7 months ago
this is probably the worst lens ever..
35 1.8, 50 1.8 is 10000000x better already for the simple fact.. it's 1.8! macro with a 40mm lens is fail because you need to get so close to your subject that you'll block out all the light coming and you'd be in a very awkward position shooting
and since the majority of people don't care two hoots about macro photography, you could just pick up a ZOOM lens like a 17-50 2.8 for the same price.. hey what.. it's stil 2.8 at 40mm..
think about it people
tomfewchuk 7 months ago
@tomfewchuk agreed, the best macro lenses are at 100 or so mm so you dont have to lick your subject. at only 40mm you are so close that you have to bump the iso up and use flash which will produce a crappy image.
jh3835 7 months ago
@tomfewchuk We don't know the quality of the lens yet. But plenty of people use a 60mm macro on full frame every day. For people looking to try macro for 279 its going to be a great option. Also a 17-50 2.8 is over 600 bucks so its a lot more expensive. With that said your not going to get 1 to 1 with a 17-50.
JaredPolin 7 months ago 12
@JaredPolin yea that's true but i've seen some cheap 17-50s (like tamron) for $300 used but still good condition, and i reckon you're either serious about macro photography (105 2.8s) or not, so getting this inbetween lens which won't do a great job of macro but can sort of be used for potrait work/low light/everyday is a bit of a waste cos of the lame aperture and funny focal length
tomfewchuk 7 months ago
@tomfewchuk You're an nay-saying close-minded idiot... comparing it against the 35mm 1.8? ..two lenses for two different purposes, yeah it has short working distance but that doesn't mean you have to shoot 1 : 1 all the time....there's 1 : 1.5, 1 : 2, 1 :3 (then crop) ...more working space huh?and for added info, shorter FL macros like the 40mm is easier to hand hold
" majority of people don't care two hoots about macro photography" ? Then why does Nikon and Canon still make macro lenses
NixxerJixxerWixxer 7 months ago
@NixxerJixxerWixxer mm sure i'll admit they have different purposes but since macro photography is something that professionals with a passion for it would do well and KEEP on doing, i think i'd leave it to them with their 105s, but that's just me. and personally i'd recommend a 35 or 50 to a beginner any day, macro is just a novelty, plus really, who would want 2.8 over 1.8?! :)
tomfewchuk 7 months ago
@tomfewchuk you've clearly never used the 60mm f/2.8. And you clearly "don't care two hoots about macro photography" because you obviously assume that the goal of a macro lens is to always be at the maximum magnification and closest focusing distance.
Sadly you're wrong on all points. Even that this is disadvantaged over the f/1.8 lenses, because a micro lens is pretty much useless at such a wide aperture.
Why the vitriol over something you clearly don't understand? I feel embarrassed for you.
jonkun227 7 months ago 2
@tomfewchuk So what lenses do you recommend for amateur photographer like me who want to shoot micro, portrait and food photography use for DX format camera?
Thanks
TheMorgalion 7 months ago
@TheMorgalion if you're an amateur, i can reckon you're not going to be doing just those things, you're going to be shooting people as well in heaps of diff situations including night when a 50 1.8 or 35 1.8 will be very useful, it's silly how jared was saying this could be THE lens to get for a beginner because it's not versitle enough for the price
if you seriously think you're just going to be doing macro photography get the 40mm but personally a fast prime or a 2.8 zoom is the way to go
tomfewchuk 7 months ago
@tomfewchuk Okay Thanks \m/en!
TheMorgalion 7 months ago
@tomfewchuk Yeah thats the dilemma for me right now. I can't fully decide between the 50mm 1.8 or this new 40mm. Probably going to go for the 50 though.
onishchuk4 6 months ago
@onishchuk4 yea i'd say go with the 50, just because there'll be more situations you want the 1.8 aperture than you'll want macro
tomfewchuk 6 months ago
@tomfewchuk Thats my thinking about the 40mm. Its a shame that its not a going to be a 2.8. It would make for a killer lens if it was a 1.8. Ok so the final question is, 35mm or 50mm. I emailed Ken Rockwell and he replied this morning telling me that he would choose the 35 over the 50.
onishchuk4 6 months ago
@onishchuk4 mm ken loves his 35 too much haha, i'm a canon shooter at the moment so i'd be going straight away for the 50 since it's the cheapest (in canon) but it's a toss up for nikon. i'm assuming you're shooting on a cropped sensor so the 50 would be a sweet potrait lens, where as the 35 will be a nice everday lens. since i'm more familiar with 50s, i'd go with that at this point and the 1.8 AF-D is floppin cheap, over the AF-G
tomfewchuk 6 months ago
@tomfewchuk I guess I'll have to just go back to camera store and have a little bit more time with both. And yes I do have a ASP-C camera. I'm looking for that lense that takes really sharp images, has great bokeh, and can be used in a variety of situations whether for portrait or landscape.
onishchuk4 6 months ago
@onishchuk4 yea cool cool, one piece of advice though.. try them out at the store, shoot heaps of different things and see which one you like best.. then BUY ONLINE! like ebay or something else, sooo much cheaper, guarentee it! :)
both lenses will be sharp and have sweet bokeh, the 35 slightly less just cos the focal length is smaller but still pretty awesome
tomfewchuk 6 months ago
Comment removed
onishchuk4 6 months ago
Comment removed
onishchuk4 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tomfewchuk Yeah definitely online. I utilize dealnews, so I'm good. Best Buy had the 35mm for $155 shipped back in may, and that was the lowest price ever for that lens, new or refurbished.
onishchuk4 6 months ago
@tomfewchuk you need to think about it not us...
PriMedPOC 6 months ago
@tomfewchuk not necessarily. depending on the situation? Based on the PRESS release, it's stated that the working distance is about 6.4 inches. For me, that's quite good. If I'm not mistakened, the Tamron 90mm 2.8 macro's working distance is about 4.25 inches? 6.4 inches won't necessarily block out ALL of the light coming. and please, you think everyone can buy glasses like those? you think about it.
JC040696 6 months ago
Jared your roundoff is terrible :p
Spilf 7 months ago
Good thing you didn't break the chair :D
JimKhai 7 months ago 2
@JimKhai its ok i have a back up chair.
JaredPolin 7 months ago 13
How many times did you fall before the final video?!
Loustechworld 7 months ago
@Loustechworld 1 take only!!!!
JaredPolin 7 months ago 9
Hum,a 40mm 2.8 macro, I would prefer either the 35mm 1.8 or the 50mm 1.8 since they're both faster than the 40mm 2.8 and probabbly shaper at 2.8 that the 40mm since all lens normally when wide open tend to loose sharpness and in the "cheaper" lenses that is pretty normal.
Ok its a micro 2.8 for 279 bucks but its not something I would get since 40mm micro is not that good for macro photography and I would get the cheaper 50mm 1.8D or the 35mm 1.8G, and save for a macro or rent to try one out.
fingerboardpt 7 months ago
Hey, I got the 35mm 1.8, is it good?
GuitarBHL 7 months ago
i love the taped off "canon" on the chair
fapposkid 7 months ago
Froo-aaaow, knows photo xD
homesickatjordan 7 months ago
...I just got the 35mm f/1.8G... But IF i CAN i would get it. And I am excited because I use a D5100. :D
chakracannon97 7 months ago
Can't wait to see you test shots with this. I need a macro for selling stuff on eBay. Right now I am using the Nikkor 19-200 and it does OK. Would like to know if this will make shooting small objects in a lightbox easier and better.
harrybean2006 7 months ago
@jjeessss13 at least i have a band u fkn troll donkey
eleven38 7 months ago
this puts me in a weird position. With the new 50mm f1.8G and this new lens I'm not sure which to get.
What would be better for portraits jared? the 40mm seems more versatile but the faster speed of the 50mm seems to be very useful.
I'm just not sure what to get...
AZNGRINGO84 7 months ago
@AZNGRINGO84 same situation here.. just gonna wait for a review since its almost august- tempted by the f 1.8 of the 50 but tempted b the micro of the 40 :S
Fogducker19 7 months ago
whats the best portrait lens
ARMANiix2008 7 months ago
So micro and macro are the same?
aizhol 7 months ago
@aizhol yes it is the same!
shintotz 7 months ago
40mm Micro???? just doesn't make sense...
lukasgisbert 7 months ago
It will probably distort, won't it? Just asking.
han1990sel 7 months ago
I got my new 50mm f/1.8G yesterday. When I conducted the sniff test, I concluded it smelled like a 50mm f/1.8G lens.
matthewt2010 7 months ago
Just bought a 35mm 1.8...should have wait
schismirt 7 months ago
@schismirt just return it
kmedina419 7 months ago
YEAH Lens Review!!
dmm1987 7 months ago
Still can see the brand Canon brand name through that tape
OMGwtfBS 7 months ago
WOWOW how fast you are about preview!!! It posed in Amazon 1 hour before you did this video!!! Thank You!! To buy the 40mm 2.8 of the 35mm 1.8 for my d7000?... [I have the old 50mm f1.8 - this is my dad old lens...]?
PapaRoach262 7 months ago
thanks for the heads up
usframe 7 months ago
can i use that lens on my Nikon D80?
svgv88 7 months ago
@svgv88 on all nikon cameras.
JaredPolin 7 months ago
@JaredPolin it includes DX and FX cameras?
AmitMusicStaz 7 months ago
@JaredPolin no?, not full frame..
skidgalning 7 months ago
@svgv88 i think not for full frame nikon camera.;)
ven1018yt 7 months ago
This may sound very dumb , but you can manually focus also correct ?
MrFloppywaffles 7 months ago
@MrFloppywaffles If you can make it auto then for sure it can be on manual ! :)
KiMoOoZ100 7 months ago
@MrFloppywaffles all lenses will focus manually on the camera.
JaredPolin 7 months ago
jezz what a quack
jwdesign336 7 months ago
Very Interesting lens, might have to ditch my cheapy extension tubes on my 50 1.8 for one of these.
Question, in terms of the macro realm, would say the 105 2.8 micro have a greater depth of field than say this 40 2.8 (or any other shorter micro)? I've been looking for a way to increase my depth of field without having to always resort to focus stacking or crazy tight apertures.
NeoKobalt 7 months ago
you may brake the chair.. it says "Canon" XD
afeklol 7 months ago 7
@afeklol ha, its a canon video chair so its ok.
JaredPolin 7 months ago 13
@JaredPolin where can i get these chairs? :)
ChiefMusican 7 months ago
Is Allen doing International shipping?
It's 249.99 pound in the U.K., which is way too expensive!
henryee 7 months ago
Would this be a good lens for shooting street or should I just stick to my 35mm?
jasonkmcdonald01 7 months ago
Canon Chair :( =))
GobarPlace 7 months ago
Wish canon would make an affordable macro lens like this sounds its going to be.
DanKPhotography 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
What's the difference between Micro and Macro?
Aaron16 7 months ago
a CANON chair? are you serius??? :-/
froschi 7 months ago 4
@froschi Well spotted.
Hynee 7 months ago
$279 NICE
Omanjack 7 months ago
what would you say
the tamron 60mm f2 or this?
deadlymindcontrol 7 months ago
@jjeessss13 woowwww...
MultigrainPie 7 months ago
Think they will ever consider putting VR in a prime? Would like to have it for hand held video.
MandrakeCigars 7 months ago
I have the 50mm 1.8 AF-S, would this be one to pick up, or are the two too similar?
theJayzusss 7 months ago 3
nice entrnce my friend!
demo8 7 months ago
When they announced the lens my thoughts were " What would Jared think of this lens ??? Will he recommend this lens in his preview video " and my thoughts were right
thumelen 7 months ago
This might be the first Micro Nikon in my bag. Will wait and see what other have to say before I take the plunge. Been on track to the Holly Trinity set....one more to go (14-24).
golf007sd2 7 months ago
YES! the fro is back!
DubaiNoob 7 months ago 24
Awesome, you got a canon-chair! :)
aleksandersandstrom 7 months ago
Nikon is actually doing justice for our DX bodies.
xxAO2012xx 7 months ago
I know it doesn't matter. But N(eye)kon or N(e)kon? I've always called it N(e)kon. Don't tell me I've been wrong all these years! I thought my dad knew what he was talking about lol
esgimasd 7 months ago
@esgimasd its neekon
whoknows2fly 7 months ago
@whoknows2fly Thanks.
esgimasd 7 months ago
Should I get it for my D3100 if I already have the 35mm f/1.8? I like macro photography but I guess I could get some filters.. :-??
TechDude997 7 months ago
@TechDude997 you could get it in addition to. I wouldnt do the filters for macro ever.
JaredPolin 7 months ago 3
that was one awesome jumping entry....Long live Fro
bizupatel 7 months ago
I have to get one.. :)
TechDude997 7 months ago
I've already picked up the 35mm and 55mm 1.8G cause they were affordable. I think I spent under $400 total because of sale prices.
JHVH1 7 months ago
Finally the perfect lens i was waiting for! now i can go all around without having to change my lens for a macro shoot! Prefect!
BLStudios15 7 months ago
YAY
BlackR92 7 months ago
Isn't 40mm way too wide for macro photography? Or at least for really small subjects?
GrimsditchImages 7 months ago 4
@GrimsditchImages its like a 60mm so it will be fine.
JaredPolin 7 months ago
@JaredPolin Also this lens has almost the same working distance as that of Af-s 60mm nikkor. So this lens is great for DX users who want a compact macro.
1986Chaitanya 7 months ago
@JaredPolin I thought you only had to multiply FX lenses by 1.5. Is this incorrect do you have to do it to all lenses ,dx included?
nickwoo2 7 months ago
@nickwoo2 all lenses
Dombowerphoto 7 months ago
@GrimsditchImages dont use a 40 mm for macro, for macro at least 60 mm for flowers and stuff like that and for small animals 90 mm or more
AxCYeR 7 months ago
awesome ! got to have one.
QuarterCrawl 7 months ago
@QuarterCrawl u can call allen ask to be put on the list or pre order via the amazon link on my web site.
JaredPolin 7 months ago
oh this is great, finally a decent micro lens for ultra close ups that i can actually afford.
GMSamuelRhine 7 months ago
Jared i think it's smell like WaWa ;-)
onlineahmeds 7 months ago
Sweet....for my D3100....shooting for a month now with the kit lens.....would like something new now....and this may be it.....
moviecrazy808 7 months ago
Second ;-)
onlineahmeds 7 months ago
nice canon chair
SLVRwill7 7 months ago
I didn't know this was a DX lens?
FadedFocusFotography 7 months ago
@jjeessss13 if u have nothing to say, save your "first" comment for video game reviews and justin beiber videos...... u teenager
eleven38 7 months ago 30
@eleven38 If* you* Justin* Beiber* you* For a self proclaimed adult you should be able to spell correctly.
EamonOregan 7 months ago
Comment removed
komaldino8 7 months ago