Any love for the Nikkor 40mm 2.8 micro?

D

Dmac60

Messages
131
Edit My Images
Yes
Pretty much anytime this lens comes up as a topic of discussion on a photography forum, the discussion ends up with what's the point ... the 35mm f1.8 is faster and if you want to do macro, the working distance is too short ... but as far as I can make out, on the plus side, the 40mm is sharper, has better bokeh, practically no distortion and has the added benefit of letting you take close ups of baby feet :) I must admit, I don't understand the unconditional love the 35mm gets, I've had two copies and sold both, maybe it's operator error but I didn't get on with either, I can't quite put my finger on it, but think it's the "edgy" bokeh. I've just ordered the 40mm so maybe I'm trying to convince myself ...any other views?
 
I haven't had any personal experience using the lens, but when I worked at Jessops I met a photographer who raved about the 40mm and the 105mm Macro's. He used his for portraits and fancy macro set ups of droplets and found the 105 easier to focus but the 40 more useful for getting exactly what he had in mind. He preferred the wideness basically.

Wide aperture macro lenses are a real pain to focus if you want to shoot wide open. so the difference in aperture should really go unnoticed. It's just up to you if you feel more comfortable being wider or narrower!

I agree with you when you say macro lenses give much better bokeh! God knows how but they do!
 
My 40mm micro arrived about a week ago and it generates really pleasant images ... the adjective that springs to mind is "analogue"! i presume this is down to accurate colour rendition and zero distortion. The 35 1.8g feels more "digital!" to me with its nasty bokeh and distortion! I haven't done a huge amount of testing, but it doesn't seem overly sharp, I suspect my 50 1.8G might be sharper in the centre. AF for regular shots is pretty good, but for close up/macro is next to useless, but overall it seems like it will make a great general walkabout lens.
 
I would never had considered the 35mm dx f1.8 for it's bokeh, but I have never found it harsh either. The pic below was a quick grab shot of my daughter (doesn't do her justice) a couple of years ago using the 35mm on the D7000, f2.8 and iso 100 ... bokeh looks good enough to me.

 
35 1.8G wide open, ISO 100, 1/80, background (and subject!) blur ... despite its technical imperfections, as it happens, I love this image, but ultimately sold the lens. I think the tree braches perhaps demonstrate "edgy" bokeh?

DSC_2918.jpg
 
There is some fringing going on with the tree which won't help (most fast lenses do this). Bokeh is such a subjective issue at best! I don't think it is harsh though, perhaps edgy is fair. Quite difficult to asses with the stated "technical imperfections" though ;) The 35 wasn't at it's best wide open, and very few lenses are btw - I used mine stopped down a smidge, as you can see from the above @ f2.8 it is quite nice (the 40mm starts at f2.8).
 
PaulButler said:
There is some fringing going on with the tree which won't help (most fast lenses do this). Bokeh is such a subjective issue at best! I don't think it is harsh though, perhaps edgy is fair. Quite difficult to asses with the stated "technical imperfections" though ;) The 35 wasn't at it's best wide open, and very few lenses are btw - I used mine stopped down a smidge, as you can see from the above @ f2.8 it is quite nice (the 40mm starts at f2.8).
Click to expand...

Agreed, quite nice indeed and harsh is probably a bit ehh harsh. I've had two copies and didn't quite get on with either, both were used, subjectively my 2nd copy seemed to have more distortion than the first - perhaps there's a lesson there somewhere.
 
I should have said that I am not anti the 40mm I think it has got good iq - but for my use it would be one or the other ... the 35 won out as it focusses faster - not that it was a speed demon. I didn't see any noticeable difference in colour rendition between the two either and distortion is a non issue as I have my pp set to automatically apply lens correction on import ... end of the day if you don't like the end product then that is what matters, much better to use a lens that you like using, much the same as for a camera body.
 
Likewise, my purpose was not to bash the 35. BTW, on the macro front the 35 also worked really well with a Raynox 250 for close up work.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top