Nikon 40mm micro.. any good?

Donk1166

Donk1166

Messages
111
Edit My Images
No
Yes I'm still looking at getting a prime to go with my 18-70 & 55-200!
I did have my heart set on a 35 1.8G for my tight budget. But recently I've been reading about the Nikon 40mm micro.
Is it any good?

I'm looking at it as an affordable walk-about lens for a variety of stuff really
 
simonblue said:
Do you do a lot of marco ?,if not the 35mm F1.8 is a good deal :)
Click to expand...

I don't do a lot of macro but I do a bit, that's probably why it's sneaking ahead of the 35. It seems to offer the best (or close to) of both worlds.

Can't afford the 60 or the 105 unfortunately. Looking for a decent price so that I can sneak it passed my wife!!
 
Took this with one;

8105010708_a280b8c0cb_b.jpg


Nice little lens although I will be looking at a bigger Macro lens in the future.
 
Funny you should bring this up...

I was thinking about replacing my 50mm f1.8 recently for this lens.

I use my 50mm for low light but also macro with anything from 12-68mm worth of extension rings which gives me about 1.3x magnification so better than a macro lens.

The working distance is the same, the aperture doesn't stop down from f1.8 and the af is much faster.

After calling myself stupid for even thinking such a thing I realised the 50mm f1.8 + extension rings is a MUCH better option. Faster af, sharper, more light and focuses closer with all three tubes.

You can buy that new for £170.
 
Personally, I think that 40mm is too short a focal length for macro.

I'd recommend considering older lenses....manual lens all the way for macro shots IMO. :)

EDIT: Just seen your point about a walkabout lens....go with a fast prime such as the 35mm in that case.
 
Last edited:
Wouldn't the 40mm be nearly as good as the 35 though? With the addition of being able to do close stuff too?
I know about having to be very close. That wouldn't be an issue as I don't do 'proper' macro, just basic stuff. Nothing that would get scared off by me sticking a lens on it!!
 
I think the nikon afs 40 2.8 is a great allround lens good for walk about potrait
And close up shots it will also be great with your d5100 for the close up shots:)
From someone who always used zooms I I find it stuck on my camera most of the time
 
Well when my 18-55 sells I'll be off to Mifsuds. Hopefully by then I would've made my mind up!! If I was buying it today I'd have the 40.. but I'm not buying it today!!
 
Donk1166 said:
Wouldn't the 40mm be nearly as good as the 35 though? With the addition of being able to do close stuff too?
I know about having to be very close. That wouldn't be an issue as I don't do 'proper' macro, just basic stuff. Nothing that would get scared off by me sticking a lens on it!!
Click to expand...

You've got to balance out whether the much faster speed of the 35mm (f/1.8 vs. f/2.8) is more of a benefit to you than the ability for the 40mm to focus closer - bear in mind that to get to 1:1 you have to be incredibly close to whatever you are taking a picture of, so you'll struggle to do 1:1 macro properly anyway without well thought-out lighting.

The 40mm will get you much closer than a normal lens like the 35mm, but the 35mm has an excellent reputation for a very good reason - it's a superb standard on crop sensored cameras.
 
Donk1166 said:
I don't do a lot of macro but I do a bit, that's probably why it's sneaking ahead of the 35. It seems to offer the best (or close to) of both worlds.

Can't afford the 60 or the 105 unfortunately. Looking for a decent price so that I can sneak it passed my wife!!
Click to expand...

Getting it pass the wife :eek:,i think Phil post has come up with another good idea,worth looking at :)
 
Would the tubes work on the 35? If I didn't get the 40 it would be the 35 as I prefer the field of view over the 50
 
I had a set of extension tubes, Meike, they were only £60 and maintained AF and cpu data. They're great for macro, but ... where a dedicated macro wins is with the fact you can go from 1:1, to infinity in seconds - without having to remove any tubes. Using the tubesout and about you can miss out on a tonne of shots. I sold off mine and got the 105mm micro. I would have been happy enough with the 40mm if I didn't have enough cash at the time.
 
Cagey75 said:
I had a set of extension tubes, Meike, they were only £60 and maintained AF and cpu data. They're great for macro, but ... where a dedicated macro wins is with the fact you can go from 1:1, to infinity in seconds - without having to remove any tubes. Using the tubesout and about you can miss out on a tonne of shots. I sold off mine and got the 105mm micro. I would have been happy enough with the 40mm if I didn't have enough cash at the time.
Click to expand...

That's fair... it can go from infinity to 1:1 which is a benefit.

Still think the AF speed and lower aperture will come more in handy though for street shots...

When I go to 1:1 I usually plan to do so and thus extension tubes aren't a problem at all.
 
Frustratingly enough it all comes down to cost. I am a beginner & recreational shooter so I cannot justify large amounts of cash. Using Amazon as a guide the 35 & 50 are around the £140 mark. The 40 is about £180. The next cheapest dedicated macro is about £350+ which I can't justify.
Even if I bought a 35 or 50 with a half decent set of tubes it's up to £200 or so.
I'd prefer to buy new so I'm still being drawn to the 40 as it seems to have 2 uses.

Oh yeah & I wasn't joking about getting it passed my wife!!!
 
Donk1166 said:
Frustratingly enough it all comes down to cost. I am a beginner & recreational shooter so I cannot justify large amounts of cash. Using Amazon as a guide the 35 & 50 are around the £140 mark. The 40 is about £180. The next cheapest dedicated macro is about £350+ which I can't justify.
Even if I bought a 35 or 50 with a half decent set of tubes it's up to £200 or so.
I'd prefer to buy new so I'm still being drawn to the 40 as it seems to have 2 uses.

Oh yeah & I wasn't joking about getting it passed my wife!!!
Click to expand...

Both options are the same price mate.

If you can get a 40mm for £180 you can get a 35 for £140 and AF tubes from eBay for £40 delivered - the ones I have.

I don't know why people go on about decent extension tubes and spending loads on them... you need a metal mount with contacts...???

Anyway, it's totally up to you - just don't go thinking you need to spend loads of money on tubes.
 
If you go the tube route, don't buy those $10 sets you see on ebay. Some find them grand, but I had a horrible experience with the first set I bought. The lens got jammed onto the tube, the little screw that released the lens broke off - for no reason - no forcing, no jigging, nothing, it just gave in! - I had to get a screw driver at it to jimmy the lens off! You do not want that experience,trust me.

On the other hand, you don't need the Kenko variety either. The Meike ones I bought are just as good. Maybe not quite as solidly build, but they fit nicely,release easily, and do the same job - AF & cpu data. And also, give the same result.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Meike-Metal...0MLS/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1356050176&sr=8-3

Actually cheaper now than when I bought them. I got almost that price for them when I sold them used.

Forgot I made this wee vid: early testing of the tubes with a tamron 17-50 lens & an 80-200 on a D90: watch in full HD

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JcGpGh3LgH0

:)
 
Last edited:
Cagey75 said:
If you go the tube route, don't buy those $10 sets you see on ebay. Some find them grand, but I had a horrible experience with the first set I bought. The lens got jammed onto the tube, the little screw that released the lens broke off - for no reason - no forcing, no jigging, nothing, it just gave in! - I had to get a screw driver at it to jimmy the lens off! You do not want that experience,trust me.

On the other hand, you don't need the Kenko variety either. The Meike ones I bought are just as good. Maybe not quite as solidly build, but they fit nicely,release easily, and do the same job - AF & cpu data. And also, give the same result.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Meike-Metal...0MLS/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1356050176&sr=8-3

Actually cheaper now than when I bought them. I got almost that price for them when I sold them used.

Forgot I made this wee vid: early testing of the tubes with a tamron 17-50 lens & an 80-200 on a D90: watch in full HD

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JcGpGh3LgH0

:)
Click to expand...

I have the same ones. Very good buy.

I thought it was £40 I paid but maybe slightly more. Anyway, if it's £55 it was still well worth it.

Couple of shots:

304022_285920618098646_1849648077_n.jpg


318281_438751716148868_39513356_n.jpg


35mm f1.8 @ f1.8

397794_347577748599599_1281236087_n.jpg
 
Noone told me it was going to be this tricky when I bought the damn camera!!
 
:thinking: mmm may have to grab a set of tubes myself,certainly a cheap way to do the odd macro shot.
 
Funnily enough Stuart I watched one of his videos the other day!

It did point out something very useful. For the amount of macro stuff I do I'd probably get bored of removing the lens, tube on, back on the camera!
All that considered ie budget, actual use etc I'm still leaning towards the 40mm
 
Yeah is a faff if you do a fair bit of macro but for the occasional shot I could live with it I think..be fun to try them on my 80-200mm as well.
 
I want to thank everyone for their valuable input. Im going to go for the 40mm. I think it'll do just fine for the amount & variety of photography I do.

Merry Christmas everyone
 
I've got the 35mm f1.8 and the 40mm f2.8 Micro. I can't choose between them. The 40mm is fractionally sharper, I think, and obviously more capable with focus distance, but it's surprising how enjoyable and noticeable the 35's shallower DoF is when you switch between them. Both have really nice bokeh, but in walkabout situations you have to work the 40mm a little harder to get it - the slightly wider field and max aperture of the 35mm do make it sing.

If you had a slightly autistic tendency, like I do, to constantly happen on things in the field.. a nail in a fence, a droplet of water on a blade of grass, or a bolt through a street sign.. and feel compelled to get in closer and closer, the 40mm would definitely be a good fit. If you don't have quite that tendency, or your macro excursions are more deliberate or controlled, the 35mm might be a better fit as a general purpose go-to lens, and with the addition of extension tubes you're not losing out on features.
 
SimonH said:
I've got the 35mm f1.8 and the 40mm f2.8 Micro. I can't choose between them. The 40mm is fractionally sharper, I think, and obviously more capable with focus distance, but it's surprising how enjoyable and noticeable the 35's shallower DoF is when you switch between them. Both have really nice bokeh, but in walkabout situations you have to work the 40mm a little harder to get it - the slightly wider field and max aperture of the 35mm do make it sing.

If you had a slightly autistic tendency, like I do, to constantly happen on things in the field.. a nail in a fence, a droplet of water on a blade of grass, or a bolt through a street sign.. and feel compelled to get in closer and closer, the 40mm would definitely be a good fit. If you don't have quite that tendency, or your macro excursions are more deliberate or controlled, the 35mm might be a better fit as a general purpose go-to lens, and with the addition of extension tubes you're not losing out on features.
Click to expand...

What's the AF difference like Simon, is it noticable?
 
Phil Young said:
What's the AF difference like Simon, is it noticable?
Click to expand...

If you forget to flick the limiting switch on the 40mm, and it decides to go hunting, it's noticeable! :D The 35mm is definitely quicker to focus in general use, actually, though neither of them is a slouch. It's obvious that it's got less work to do moving elements around, though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top