Beginner 40mm macro focal length

JonnyH89

JonnyH89

Messages
70
Name
Jonny
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi,

I'm starting photography as a hobby and I'm interested in macro shots. I was thinking about buying the nikon 40mm 2.8 micro but I'm worried that 40mm is too short.

I've been reading a lot over the last few weeks and the focal length on macro seems to simply increase the distance you can be for an equivalent shot.

Is the 40mm going to be too difficult to get good lighting with if my lens is nearly on top of the subject or will it be ideal for a beginner to try without spending nearly double on the larger focal lengths?
 
Last edited:
JonnyH89 said:
Hi,

I'm starting photography as a hobby and I'm interested in macro shots. I was thinking about buying the nikon 40mm 2.8 micro but I'm worried that 40mm is too short.

I've been reading a lot over the last few weeks and the focal length on macro seems to simply increase the distance you can be for an equivalent shot.

Is the 40mm going to be too difficult to get good lighting with if my lens is nearly on top of the subject or will it be ideal for a beginner to try without spending nearly double on the larger focal lengths?
Click to expand...

Check this out Jonny: http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/we-need-you-in-draft-want-to-get-into-macro.551944/

Its started by one of our TP members @Tintin124 , great macro guide and cool guy all round. Don't got for something expensive when you dont need it and maybe not even like macro - when you can get amazing shots for £10-£100 without an additional lens, i.e. your kit lens or just a 50mm f1.8 (if you're a canon person) - kit lens will produce <amazing> results with extension tubes or a Raynox clip-on filter.

Hope to see some photos of yours in the Macro section fella (y)
 
Thanks Carl, I had looked at the close up filters and things but saw cheap ones on ebay and amazon and really believe in "you get what you pay for" so that put me off.

I'm using a Nikon D3200 with the 18-55mm kit lens which is 52mm. I'm not sure of what brands to aim for and would prefer to use as few extra adapters as possible, so i'll have a look for some branded close-up filters.

I was thinking that the 40mm macro would provide both macro and better bokeh than the kit lens with it being 2.8, but if the close up filters do the job I could buy a 1.8 to use for bokeh.

EDIT: just reading your blog now and looking at your shots, if I can get shots anywhere near the quality of those I'll be a happy man.
 
Last edited:
JonnyH89 said:
Thanks Carl, I had looked at the close up filters and things but saw cheap ones on ebay and amazon and really believe in "you get what you pay for" so that put me off.

I'm using a Nikon D3200 with the 18-55mm kit lens which is 52mm. I'm not sure of what brands to aim for and would prefer to use as few extra adapters as possible, so i'll have a look for some branded close-up filters.

I was thinking that the 40mm macro would provide both macro and better bokeh than the kit lens with it being 2.8, but if the close up filters do the job I could buy a 1.8 to use for bokeh.

EDIT: just reading your blog now and looking at your shots, if I can get shots anywhere near the quality of those I'll be a happy man.
Click to expand...
for macro, you'll be shooting at least F4, most likely F5-F20 depending on how much light you'll get as the close you get with the lens, the narrower the DOF appears, you wont be shooting macro at F1.8 or F2.8 - the nifty fifty F1.8 is a cheap, quite sharp lens and is a great purchase with a raynox

sorry to hijack it with photos, but so you can see (the nifty fifty is £80), plus a raynox £40

shot at F13
14712601424_895eddd90c_b.jpg


F20 on the 50mm lens
14524330449_2dbeaf5d6d_b.jpg



F10 on nifty fifty
14519458247_fbcf1f5e8f_b.jpg


if I shot any of these at F1.8 or F2.8, there'd would only be a slither of in-focus object and would look awful unless I got what I wanted in focus - dead on focus. These are full view-finder filled - on a canon 600d crop sensor.

Try it on the cheap first to see if you want to get into macro. Check out bryn's thread I posted earlier and just ask any questions - we're here to help :)
 
They look great, need to try find some raynox now.

I wasn't really thinking of the 1.8 for macro, more for normal bokeh but maybe this is the noob shining through and me just wanting the options for as many different styles of photography as possible.
 
Last edited:
The 40 mm might be ok but I think the working distance from you to the subject may be quite short. Raynox deffo recommended, I got the cheap eBay and they are pants. Ext tubes is a super cheap way or reverse ring, Tintin124 can show you some very very close macros with those.
 
I had ordered the raynox from amazon but cancelled for now as I cant make up my mind. I think it's either the 40mm 2.8 micro or get a 50mm 1.8 and the raynox. Going to call in to a camera shop during the week and see if they will let me play with the 40mm to see how restricted the light will be at the working distance.

I don't think I would like extension tubes as I'd want the more expensive ones to keep the connection between body and lens and then there's more chance of dust when changing the tubes.

Thanks for taking the time to reply, its great having a chat about this stuff.
 
Hi

We've the Sigma 50mm Macro lens and for what we do, it's great and does us fine. Great results and a nice lens to use. I'd certainly recommend one.

I would say though, it really depends on what you want to shoot - if you were looking at Insects / life etc, you'd be better off with at least 100mm lens or adapters to the 50mm as well...
 
As for bokeh as you keep bringing it up. In macro F8 is equivalent to F4 roughly. Basically as you get closer so does the effective length of dof gets reduced. Check out my flickr as most shot with F11 and plenty of bokeh on show. :)

Edit: Will post some pictures with bokeh save your look through too much.
 
Last edited:
andyred said:
Hi

We've the Sigma 50mm Macro lens and for what we do, it's great and does us fine. Great results and a nice lens to use. I'd certainly recommend one.

I would say though, it really depends on what you want to shoot - if you were looking at Insects / life etc, you'd be better off with at least 100mm lens or adapters to the 50mm as well...
Click to expand...
Thanks I'll get a look at it, don't think I'll be shooting that many insects. Will be mostly flowers and other random objects.
 
andyred said:
Hi

We've the Sigma 50mm Macro lens and for what we do, it's great and does us fine. Great results and a nice lens to use. I'd certainly recommend one.

I would say though, it really depends on what you want to shoot - if you were looking at Insects / life etc, you'd be better off with at least 100mm lens or adapters to the 50mm as well...
Click to expand...

That may well be the case but for someone wanting to try macro what's the point in spending £100s for lens that is not better optically than what you already own (in macro shooting) with a cheap as chips adapter.
 
JonnyH89 said:
Thanks I'll get a look at it, don't think I'll be shooting that many insects. Will be mostly flowers and other random objects.
Click to expand...

I'm not all about the bugs. :) :LOL:

Check out the outdoor album. Even the more reason not to spend £100s
 
Last edited:
Tintin124 said:
As for bokeh as you keep bringing it up. In macro F8 is equivalent to F4 roughly. Basically as you get closer so does the effective length of dof gets reduced. Check out my flickr as most shot with F11 and plenty of bokeh on show. :)

Edit: Will post some pictures with bokeh save your look through too much.
Click to expand...
I'll check it out, I have a controllable led table (diffused 4cm squares) which I plan on using as lighting to see what happens.

I'm obsessing about the bokeh a bit as I want to make sure I can get a good blend of colours.
 
Tintin124 said:
That may well be the case but for someone wanting to try macro what's the point in spending £100s for lens that is not better optically than what you already own (in macro shooting) with a cheap as chips adapter.
Click to expand...

JonnyH89 said:
I had ordered the raynox from amazon but cancelled for now as I cant make up my mind. I think it's either the 40mm 2.8 micro or get a 50mm 1.8 and the raynox. Going to call in to a camera shop during the week and see if they will let me play with the 40mm to see how restricted the light will be at the working distance.

I don't think I would like extension tubes as I'd want the more expensive ones to keep the connection between body and lens and then there's more chance of dust when changing the tubes.
.
Click to expand...

This and I offered another option for Jonny for what we use...

Everyone is different and it's good to have lots of different options and opinions for people to chew over...
 
andyred said:
This and I offered another option for Jonny for what we use...

Everyone is different and it's good to have lots of different options and opinions for people to chew over...
Click to expand...

Not knocking you for it. I have the Tamron 90mm and its great but I have other options that are as good if not better and hence why I can offer a cheaper decent option.
 
Jonny, I do not think that I would buy a 40mm macro - if you want a macro you are better sticking to the traditionally 1:1 minimum length of 105mm - buy a used Sigma 105mm, or if you can afford it a used Nikon 105mm, rather than a new 40mm……. which will never give you a true macro

You can use the 105mm micro for other types of photography and if you are only going to use it for close ups you do not need AF or VR - you should be able to pick up a really good Nikon 105mm f2.8 micro D lens for around £200 ….the AF is noisy and slow, (if you use it!!!), and there is no VR, but the "glass' is very good … and as I said for close ups/macros you usually do not use AF or VR.

If you have other lens you may want to try extension tubes and/or Raynox ………. but you could end up spending £150 on those when you can get a used Nikon D 105mm or a Sigma non OS 105mm f2.8 macro for not much more if that is what you really want.

If you buy extension tubes, don't buy cheap ones as they break and do not communicate with the camera body - Kenko are really good value for money, get the ones that communicate with you Nikon

You have only 6 postings so you cannot look at items for sale on here - but if you wait a month or so such lens come up on here at reasonable prices.

Hope this helps
 
Last edited:
Cheers Bill, I think i'll give the 40mm a miss.

Are they really strict with access to classifieds here? I've been a member on AVForum for a long time and have plenty of trades on there. I've been keeping an eye on it for lenses but nothing much comes up.
 
JonnyH89 said:
Cheers Bill, I think i'll give the 40mm a miss.

Are they really strict with access to classifieds here? I've been a member on AVForum for a long time and have plenty of trades on there. I've been keeping an eye on it for lenses but nothing much comes up.
Click to expand...

25 non spam posts and member for 60 days I believe.
 
OK, decision made. I've ordered the raynox dcr-250 and I'll use this and kit lens for a bit.

Thanks everyone for your help and suggestions.
 
Got the raynox and have had a play about the house. Any shots I took lasted 2 secs before they hit the recycle bin, I'm blaming indoors/subjects/inexperience for it tho.

Will get out this weekend and try some proper shots and post the results of those for review.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top