40mm Macro lens question
- Thread starter bgatty68
- Start date
Scott Murray
Senior Member
They are both different lenses, what you can do is buy a reversing ring and put your 50mm on backwards (does it have an aperture ring?) this will then allow you to focus alot closer.
If you used them for example for pictures of landscapes, there is not much difference between 40 and 50 mm (20% or 25%). Both are mild telephoto on a DX camera.
But the 40mm is a macro lens, and will focus as close as a couple of inches in front of the lens, like to magnify the head of a grasshopper in the frame. Actual minimum focus is 6.5 inches, which is measured from the sensor plane mark near the rear edge of the top LCD, and this a couple inches in front of the lens. Longer focal length macros allow same view a few inches farther from the subject (which becomes convenient).
In contrast, the 50mm only focuses to 1.5 feet, which would work on a tabletop scene, but is still pretty far from the grasshopper.
But the 40mm is a macro lens, and will focus as close as a couple of inches in front of the lens, like to magnify the head of a grasshopper in the frame. Actual minimum focus is 6.5 inches, which is measured from the sensor plane mark near the rear edge of the top LCD, and this a couple inches in front of the lens. Longer focal length macros allow same view a few inches farther from the subject (which becomes convenient).
In contrast, the 50mm only focuses to 1.5 feet, which would work on a tabletop scene, but is still pretty far from the grasshopper.
Last edited:
Its good to have both. You could reverse your lens as mentioned, but its nice to have a dedicated macro. You might manual focus a lot for macro, but there are also plenty of handheld auto focus macro shots available for you to shoot, so a dedicated macro lens is fun and convenient to have. I don't have that particular lens, I have the Tamron 60mm macro. My focus reaches infinity at around 10 feet, so it behaves a little differently and it's slow when auto focusing on a normal, more distant subject. I also have a 50mm 1.8 lens and I would not say they are too similar to own both.
Scott Murray
Senior Member
What are you hoping to photograph with the 40mm macro?
Don Kuykendall_RIP
RIP :(
I have the 40mm macro and I really love it. It is great for walking around and for macro. For bugs it can get a little close but besides that I really like it especially for the money it costs
Michael J.
Senior Member
I have both and I learned the other day that both are very great lenses indoors in low-light. Outdoors I knew it cos I shot Landscape, nights and closeup's a lot. Both a permanent in my bag.
I have the 35mm, 40mm macro, and the 50mm.
If I had to choose between the two you mentioned I would go with the 40mm. It allows you to do macro and it's pretty close to the 50 and will work nearly the same.
If you are really more on the side of doing some macro stuff what I wished I had done, isn't hindsight great, is go with a macro of 60 mm or greater because as Don said the 40 mm gets you way to close for the comfort level of many bugs and they just move on.
If macro isn't going to cross your mind then do the 50 mm.
If I had to choose between the two you mentioned I would go with the 40mm. It allows you to do macro and it's pretty close to the 50 and will work nearly the same.
If you are really more on the side of doing some macro stuff what I wished I had done, isn't hindsight great, is go with a macro of 60 mm or greater because as Don said the 40 mm gets you way to close for the comfort level of many bugs and they just move on.
If macro isn't going to cross your mind then do the 50 mm.
40mm Macro would do fine for flowers but do watch out for movement of your subject as outdoor Macro can be difficult when it is a little windy. As for bugs, if they are the type that does not fly or scurry/hop away in a hurry, the lens would be fine too. At 6.5 inches away, the front element of the lens is pretty close to the bug and will be more so when you have the hood on.
The 40mm specifications include that the minimum focus distance is 6.4 inches, but this is always measured to the focal plane mark near the rear of the camera body (the O with a line through it, about even with the rear of the top LCD). The distance in front of the 40mm lens at 1:1 magnification is more like only 2 inches (called macro working distance).
For the 105mm VR macro lens, this working distance increases to nearly six inches.
Here is a useful chart of "working distances" (WD):
Macro lens calculations
Last edited:
The working distance (in front of lens) is a major factor using macro lenses. At two inches, the lens hood surely has to be removed, and the lens probably still blocks the light. The longer focal length lens will be able to stand back a little further.
But that is really speaking only of extreme 1:1 closeups. To use the macro lens to copy documents, or for a typical tabletop scene, maybe the scene is only 12 or 18 inches wide. Then the 40mm or 60mm lens will be very conveniently placed maybe 2 or 3 feet from subject, where a 105mm lens (which may not scare bugs as much), may have to be back 7 feet (esp on a DX camera), which becomes inconvenient. On DX, 105 mm becomes an Effective 160mm telephoto view, so far back that we cannot reach both table and camera at once, and the room might not even be big enough to fit this in.
So there are always pros and cons of any choice.
But that is really speaking only of extreme 1:1 closeups. To use the macro lens to copy documents, or for a typical tabletop scene, maybe the scene is only 12 or 18 inches wide. Then the 40mm or 60mm lens will be very conveniently placed maybe 2 or 3 feet from subject, where a 105mm lens (which may not scare bugs as much), may have to be back 7 feet (esp on a DX camera), which becomes inconvenient. On DX, 105 mm becomes an Effective 160mm telephoto view, so far back that we cannot reach both table and camera at once, and the room might not even be big enough to fit this in.
So there are always pros and cons of any choice.