Nikkor 35mm f1.8 or 40mm f2.8 macro

AndyWest

AndyWest

Messages
8,400
Name
Andy
Edit My Images
No
Nikkor 35mm f1.8 or 40mm f2.8 micro G on a D3100 for general walk about? I love macro and was going to get the 35mm f1.8 as a general walk about as it's focal length is OK for me. The 40mm looks even sharper and will enable me to do macro also but is more expensive although still good value.

Your thoughts...
 
Last edited:
Ooh, that's a good question I've not seen before.

Personally I'd probably go for the 35mm as f/1.8 can be vital in some dim settings and I'm a natural light junkie.

Also, I'd actually prefer a little wider than 35mm as a walkabout lens (35mm in FF is perfect for me) so 40mm wouldn't be ideal for me.

Still, your priorities sound a little different to mine so no harm in getting the 40mm :)
 
Nawty said:
Ooh, that's a good question I've not seen before.

Personally I'd probably go for the 35mm as f/1.8 can be vital in some dim settings and I'm a natural light junkie.

Also, I'd actually prefer a little wider than 35mm as a walkabout lens (35mm in FF is perfect for me) so 40mm wouldn't be ideal for me.

Still, your priorities sound a little different to mine so no harm in getting the 40mm :)
Click to expand...

24mm to 35mm is roughly where I am happy with. 50mm is a bit too tele so 40 'should' be OK?? I have 40mm on the kit lens so I'll see what that's like. Seeing as I love Macro and flowers it would suit for both and I will just need to use my legs a bit more!?! I have seen loads of images in Flickr and the ones from the 40 do look sharper. f2.8 would be OK for me. I was going to get the 50mm f1.4 at some point for low light stuff.
 
Macro lenses do tend to make excellent walkabout lenses. In the days of manual focus, the only thing that would dissuade people from using them as everyday walkabout lenses was that they would have a very long focus throw, from very close (obviously) to infinity. But with a Nikon G lens you should be okay.

If f/2.8 is fine for you, then I'd say go with it. It's weird, we consider them to be "macro" lenses but realistically they are just normal lenses with very good close-up capability - the name seems to imply a single function, which really isn't the case.

I suggest trying your kit lens on 40mm to see if you'd like the prime single focal length.
 
I love my 35mm f1.8 on my d3100, wasn't sure about it myself as it's my first prime, but highly recommended, it's hardly been off the camera since I bought it
Ive got a few shots of the results on flickr if you're interested
Great lens, and I've noticed them going on here for 120 quid, well worth it
 
Both valid suggestions chaps but i think i'm gonna go for the 40mm as it does look sharper and will save me buying a separate macro lens therefore saving me money. If it does not work out i will get the 35mm.
 
AndyWest said:
Both valid suggestions chaps but i think i'm gonna go for the 40mm as it does look sharper and will save me buying a separate macro lens therefore saving me money.
Click to expand...

I did suggest going with the 40mm in that convoluted post :bonk:
 
Had the same choice a couple of months back and went for the 35mm.

Must admit, I was tempted for the 40, but the extra hundred quid (at the time, might have changed now), couldn't be justified as I had just been given a nice electric bill :lol:- I also had a 50mm 1.8d and felt 50 was too long for indoor lowlight (where I will use these lenses most).....

Glad I got the 35 now - really cant see how you can get much 'sharper' to be honest. (I use a D3000)

There was some talk of purple fringing and a few other 'distortions' - I've seen none, and to be honest unless you are working in Nikon lab, I doubt anyone would think of it as anything less than 'sharp'. Great walkabout.

With the 40, I dont think you will get 2.8 on macro either - but from what I understand thats pretty typical - from what I remember it will got to 4 or something around there.

For my indoor dim light shots, there is a big difference between 1.8 and 2.8 as well:)
Tempted for a macro lens, but not 40mm - I'll get something upward of 80/90 - a decent starting length for macro, but also ideal for my portrait stuff:cool: Get the 35 and a 'proper' macro:lol: Dont think you'll be catching the wrinkles on a spiders brow at 40mm...could be wrong though - just saying the 40 seems to be a gap filler from Nikkon (jack of all trades type of thing...) There's no way of getting round the fact one lens wont do it all:shake:.
 
SnappyHappy said:
Had the same choice a couple of months back and went for the 35mm.

Must admit, I was tempted for the 40, but the extra hundred quid (at the time, might have changed now), couldn't be justified as I had just been given a nice electric bill :lol:- I also had a 50mm 1.8d and felt 50 was too long for indoor lowlight (where I will use these lenses most).....

Glad I got the 35 now - really cant see how you can get much 'sharper' to be honest. (I use a D3000)

There was some talk of purple fringing and a few other 'distortions' - I've seen none, and to be honest unless you are working in Nikon lab, I doubt anyone would think of it as anything less than 'sharp'. Great walkabout.

With the 40, I dont think you will get 2.8 on macro either - but from what I understand thats pretty typical - from what I remember it will got to 4 or something around there.

For my indoor dim light shots, there is a big difference between 1.8 and 2.8 as well:)
Tempted for a macro lens, but not 40mm - I'll get something upward of 80/90 - a decent starting length for macro, but also ideal for my portrait stuff:cool: Get the 35 and a 'proper' macro:lol: Dont think you'll be catching the wrinkles on a spiders brow at 40mm...could be wrong though - just saying the 40 seems to be a gap filler from Nikkon (jack of all trades type of thing...) There's no way of getting round the fact one lens wont do it all:shake:.
Click to expand...

I don't do any indoor stuff so the 40 'should' be fine. We'll see :)
 
AndyWest said:
24mm to 35mm is roughly where I am happy with.
Click to expand...
Also just noticed this by Andy, and I have to say before I got the 35, I thought it would be too wide - but I'm surprised at still the amount of times I find myself 'zooming out' (running backwards into walls:lol:) Sometimes I could do with even wider than 35.

My ideal bag would be something like 10-20, 35 and a something like 50-250. That's just me though.

Does it need to be a prime? That 16-85 would be great for walkabout - OK, pricier, not as fast....I get really indecisive as well when these threads pop up:lol: Never happy:D
 
its going to be cheaper to buy the 40mm and use it for both situations than buying the 35mm and then buying a macro lens afterwards anyway. I know i would buy the 35 then decide to buy the 40mm as well, but thats just me, i insist on doing things the hard way :lol:
 
I'm on FF but similarly I have a 50 1.4 and 60 micro which is the same sort of equivalent focal lengths you are facing, if I had to take just one lens out with me, it'd probably be the 60mm micro.
 
andy1868 said:
its going to be cheaper to buy the 40mm and use it for both situations than buying the 35mm and then buying a macro lens afterwards anyway.QUOTE]
It might be more expensive, but in the end you will have a v good 35m (good, length, pin sharp, v fast), and a very good macro lens at ~90mm (at least a usefule macro length)...rather than 1 lens that isn't quite either....(ok, it might be sharp, but it isnt as fast - OK, you might not do much lowlight etc?)

I suppose I am just trying to think what I will be better with longer term....of course, by then, I will probably be using canon rather than nikon, ff rather than crop etc etc:lol:

I say what you are saying though:thumbs:, and it's all the usual trade off - believe me, I have spend many wasted hours thinking about lens combinations :cuckoo::D
Click to expand...
 
Thanks guy's. Why is there never the perfect lens????? I'd have the 16-85 if it were faster but then it would be nearer £1000!
 
Andy, was just browsing amazon there for something else and spotted the reviews for the 40mm....it's 216 on there now (was nearer 249 when I last looked a few months ago)
There is a reply to one review as well that's interesting.....as you can see, it's common debate! :)
My 35 has no purple fringing though - one guy says he has 2 copies and one has this while the other doesn't....
Amazon always interesting for reviews....check out the 35mm review as well....then be even more indecisive :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top