Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Lenses
Prime
40mm f/2.8 micro vs 35mm f/1.8 - for macro AND landscape? (D5100)
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="algmiyazaki" data-source="post: 244742" data-attributes="member: 14248"><p>Hello, I'm having a tough time deciding between these two lenses. I just do nature photography as a hobby - landscape and macro. Currently I use the kit lens for my landscape shots (18-55) and the 55-200 for some zoomed in shots. I also use some cheap macro filters (+2, +4, +10) attached to my 55-200 for macro shots. Right now I'm leaning towards 40mm - simply because I don't have anything close to a macro lens. (I know I'd have to get really close to subjects with this lens but I've gotten used to that with my filters.) I can't afford a really good macro lens, my budget is $300. If I got the 40mm would it still produce nice landscape shots (compared to 35mm) and would it perform decently in low-light? If I got the 35mm would it be even semi-acceptable for macro?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="algmiyazaki, post: 244742, member: 14248"] Hello, I'm having a tough time deciding between these two lenses. I just do nature photography as a hobby - landscape and macro. Currently I use the kit lens for my landscape shots (18-55) and the 55-200 for some zoomed in shots. I also use some cheap macro filters (+2, +4, +10) attached to my 55-200 for macro shots. Right now I'm leaning towards 40mm - simply because I don't have anything close to a macro lens. (I know I'd have to get really close to subjects with this lens but I've gotten used to that with my filters.) I can't afford a really good macro lens, my budget is $300. If I got the 40mm would it still produce nice landscape shots (compared to 35mm) and would it perform decently in low-light? If I got the 35mm would it be even semi-acceptable for macro? [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Lenses
Prime
40mm f/2.8 micro vs 35mm f/1.8 - for macro AND landscape? (D5100)
Top