new Nikon 40mm f2.8 Micro

The working distance is probably the only issue, but it's equivalent to ~60mm on FF which has been one of the classic macro focal lengths for all of time, so I doubt they will have too much problem shifting them.
 
^ exactly, this appeals to hobbyists wanting a good DX macro lens without having to shell out too much (relatively).
 
This looks ideal at that price.

I currently use a 60mm AF-D, which is a great lens and a bargain (used) at £200, but for low light it's pants - it hunts like a good 'un. AF-S will be a massive help and although there is an AF-S 60mm, it's a fair bit of cash for an autofocus upgrade over what I already have. Plus, I like these shorter focal lengths because the working distance helps me feel a bit more involved....

If the price conversion is £180(ish) I'll have one now..... :)
 
Last edited:
specialman said:
This looks ideal at that price.

I currently use a 60mm AF-D, which is a great lens and a bargain (used) at £200, but for low light it's pants - it hunts like a good 'un. AF-S will be a massive help and although there is an AF-S 60mm, it's a fair bit of cash for an autofocus upgrade over what I already have. Plus, I like these shorter focal lengths because the working distance helps me feel a bit more involved....

If the price conversion is £180(ish) I'll have one now..... :)
Click to expand...

Sorry to tell you this but the 40mm is going to be worse in low light as you are going to have to get closer in.

I would say get this lens by all means if you don't have the 50mm btw.
 
Decca said:
Sorry to tell you this but the 40mm is going to be worse in low light as you are going to have to get closer in.....
Click to expand...

I'll respectfully disagree with you on that point... :thumbs:

maninsuitcase said:
The 50mm 1.8AF-S was almost $->£ so I'd expect this to be about £250 ish dropping to £230 after a month or so.
Click to expand...

A bit more than the yanks will be getting it for then, but still, if it's optically sound and the AF is decent, my 60mm will be getting chopped in and Mr Camerashopowner will be getting a few quid his way :)
 
Last edited:
Decca said:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Sigma-50mm-...4?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1310453815&sr=8-4 on here as well

I question the logic. You have 35mm 40mm and 50mm now in the budget prime market, why would you go for 40mm for your macro? Buying the 50mm and the 40mm for nigh on £400 is nuts when you can pick up the fabled Tamron 17-50 2.8 for the same price or a Sigma 18-55 2.8 macro for £220
Click to expand...

The 35mm and 50mm are both standard lenses (one is for DX one for FX though one can be used on both), the 40mm is a budget Macro lens

The 50 can only do 0.15x and the 35 is probably something similar (Nikon doesn't quote it on their site) so would make pants Macro lenses. Once again different target market.
 
I may be wrong, will be interesting to see what all the tests show. I have no doubt it will be a cracking lens, I would be a tad upset if I'd just bought the 50mm mind.


edit: the 35mm is pants at macro, you would get better results from the 18-55 kit. However getting the 50mm and the 40mm? Really?
 
Last edited:
Decca said:
I question the logic. You have 35mm 40mm and 50mm now in the budget prime market, why would you go for 40mm for your macro? Buying the 50mm and the 40mm for nigh on £400 is nuts when you can pick up the fabled Tamron 17-50 2.8 for the same price or a Sigma 18-55 2.8 macro for £220
Click to expand...

You seem to be assuming that any lens can be used as a macro lens? The 35mm, 50mm and certainly the 17-50 zooms cannot reproduce anywhere near 1:1 macro ratios - not even close :shrug:
 
freecom2 said:
You seem to be assuming that any lens can be used as a macro lens? The 35mm, 50mm and certainly the 17-50 zooms cannot reproduce anywhere near 1:1 macro ratios - not even close :shrug:
Click to expand...

Bang on - Nikon's macro range is currently 60mm AF-D/60mm AF-S/85mm AF-S/105mm AF-S.... I don't see why a 40mm model can't exist, especially as has been pointed out, it's not meant to sit alongside the 35mm and 50mm offerings as a general lens....
 
No I'm not, I'm saying that there is no reason to get the 50mm if the 40mm exists, for the price the extra low light capability isn't worth it. Looks like the sigma is 1:3, so I was wrong on that one.

I'm not questioning the need for a budget macro lens, I'm questioning the need for it to be so close in MM to the other two budget lenses - I would honestly have expected it to be 90mm
 
Last edited:
freecom2 said:
You seem to be assuming that any lens can be used as a macro lens? The 35mm, 50mm and certainly the 17-50 zooms cannot reproduce anywhere near 1:1 macro ratios - not even close :shrug:
Click to expand...

Conversely the 35mm and 50mm have over stop on the 40mm which wouldn't be as good for bokeh in portraits or the dark.
 
Decca said:
I'm not questioning the need for a budget macro lens, I'm questioning the need for it to be so close in MM to the other two budget lenses - I would honestly have expected it to be 90mm
Click to expand...

Because when Nikon produces DX lenses, they are designed to replicate the equivalent field of view of their FX lenses? Thus the 35mm DX roughly equal to the 50mm AF-D, the 40mm Micro DX equal to the 60mm Micro AF-D/AF-S, 17-55mm f/2.8 DX equal to the 24-70mm f/2.8 AF-S.

Yes, of course it wouldn't be as good for other general usage, but Nikon isn't trying to market it for general usage at all - they wouldn't have stuck the Micro product designation on it if they were trying to give it a wider market.
 
I am still in two mind about it. I think 40mm is perfect on a dx camera and it is cheap. But on the anther hand 60afd is not that much more expensive and it will be shaper then this lens ?
 
specialman said:
This looks ideal at that price.

I currently use a 60mm AF-D, which is a great lens and a bargain (used) at £200, but for low light it's pants - it hunts like a good 'un. AF-S will be a massive help and although there is an AF-S 60mm, it's a fair bit of cash for an autofocus upgrade over what I already have. Plus, I like these shorter focal lengths because the working distance helps me feel a bit more involved....

If the price conversion is £180(ish) I'll have one now..... :)
Click to expand...

Don't be surprised if this hunts the same. The 105 hunts awfully in low light.
 
Well when some one buys/borrows it and compares it to the 60mm and 105 mm with pics showing working distance to the same subject - will be interesting to see :D

Think it would be too close for tubes and macro.. but as an entry into the world of macro will probably be affordable(ish) and then tease people to buy the 90/105/150/180 tamron/nikon/sigma...
 
The23rdman said:
Don't be surprised if this hunts the same. The 105 hunts awfully in low light.
Click to expand...

That's interesting to note.... thought the 105 may be the pick of the bunch :)

hyeongsoong said:
when you take micro shoots , shouldn't you manual focus any way ?
Click to expand...

I don't strictly do macro stuff - I'm just shooting small objects (hooks, bait) that wouldn't possible with a standard lens :)
 
freecom2 said:
The working distance is probably the only issue, but it's equivalent to ~60mm on FF which has been one of the classic macro focal lengths for all of time, so I doubt they will have too much problem shifting them.
Click to expand...

Novice question, what do people mean by the working distance? I don't understand the need to be so close with this lens.
 
AlfyB said:
Novice question, what do people mean by the working distance? I don't understand the need to be so close with this lens.
Click to expand...

To get a 1:1 reproduction ratio you need to get close to the object that you are taking a picture of, the smaller the focal length the closer you need to get. I think thats right anyway! :lol:
 
Mank said:
To get a 1:1 reproduction ratio you need to get close to the object that you are taking a picture of, the smaller the focal length the closer you need to get. I think thats right anyway! :lol:
Click to expand...

Ok, so it's basically the distance from the object where the size of the object in the photo will be the same size as the real thing?

Thanks (sorry to high jack the original thread)
 
hyeongsoong said:
when you take micro shoots , shouldn't you manual focus any way ?
Click to expand...

Not if you're using it for portraits.
 
Dave in Wales said:
The first word that sprang to mind....'why'...:thinking:

D in W
Click to expand...

I was not that refrained :lol:

I mean, it's a sad day for Nikon if this is really the most important thing that they feel they should be working on. And, even if some users have been requesting one of these, I'd be telling all of them they'd be better off moving brand;)

Just a thought but Nikon might be better off:
Fixing video
Adding VR to the 300mm f4
Sorting out the 200-400 which still isn't right after version II- is it really that hard or am I expecting too much for my £5k? Clearly I am.
Making sure the P7000 replacement will actually be as good as the Canon G12- lets not worry about making it better at the moment as that seems too tricky.
Read a book on physics then junk the 24-120 f4 and just build a modern 24-105 - go 108 if you're worried about being sued. While you're at it ease up on the range on the P7000 replacement for the same reason.
There's more but don't want to be seen as ranting:lol:

:nikon: but it could do with new management;):naughty:
 
Dr_O said:
I was not that refrained :lol:

I mean, it's a sad day for Nikon if this is really the most important thing that they feel they should be working on. And, even if some users have been requesting one of these, I'd be telling all of them they'd be better off moving brand;)

Just a thought but Nikon might be better off:
Fixing video
Adding VR to the 300mm f4
Sorting out the 200-400 which still isn't right after version II- is it really that hard or am I expecting too much for my £5k? Clearly I am.
Making sure the P7000 replacement will actually be as good as the Canon G12- lets not worry about making it better at the moment as that seems too tricky.
Read a book on physics then junk the 24-120 f4 and just build a modern 24-105 - go 108 if you're worried about being sued. While you're at it ease up on the range on the P7000 replacement for the same reason.
There's more but don't want to be seen as ranting:lol:

:nikon: but it could do with new management;):naughty:
Click to expand...

You forgot the bit about having a modern DX sensor in a D3 body - some (me and AWP) would say D2s :thumbs:
 
specialman said:
You forgot the bit about having a modern DX sensor in a D3 body - some (me and AWP) would say D2s :thumbs:
Click to expand...

Indeed:bonk:- and that would be useful- though I'm afraid it would have to shoot video properly too:lol:. Also forgot an MP-E65 equivalent with some 5x magnification rather than the boring, anyone can make one at 1:1 ratio:D
 
Hmm. If it was me, i would spend that little bit extra on the AF-S 60mm, if only for the extra working distance and fx compatibility.

Now I just wish Nikon would hurry up and release an updated, cheap AF-S 85mm f1.8. I'd buy that in a heartbeat!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top