can you compare the 40mm 2.8 nikon micro with a 35mm 1.8g?

bechdan

Senior Member
as title says Im wondering what the 40mm micro lens is like for general photography in comparison to the 35mm? Ive got the 35 and like it but also like macro, which its ok at but Ive heard the micro lenses have a flatter focal field?

Id appreciate any advice from someone who has used both or someone who uses a 40mm micro

ps. reason Im asking is that I cant afford to own both without the wife knowing
 

WhiteLight

Senior Member
Macro lenses are generally better made than regular lenses, even primes.

the main difference being htat macro leses allow you to get that much closer to the subject than regular lenses.
The mimimum focus distance is much lesser allowing you to get closer to the subject.

if you wish to shoot macro, get the 40mm cos it allows you to be used as a regular lens as well.
If you don't think you would, then there is no need for it :p
the 35mm is a beautiful lens at an unbelievable cost
 

WeeHector

Senior Member
I bought the 40mm for macro use but it is now my standard lens. I use the 18-55 kit lens when I need to get a wider angle and the 70-300 for moon shots. Will wait and see once the insect season is over if I need another lens but for the moment the 40 does everything I need.
 
Last edited:

Rick M

Senior Member
I've owned both, with the exception of being 5mm narrower, The 40mm is a much better and more versatile lens from my experience.
 

Michael J.

Senior Member
I own one and I would buy it again. Great overall lens for walk around - great for close up's as well as for night-photography.
 

bechdan

Senior Member
sweet as, thanks for confirming my hopes, ive just ordered it on amazon and put my 35mm for sale.
cant wait to get some pics up especially with the +10 close up filter
I got some decent pics with a 50mm 1.8d and extension tube but it just wasnt practical.
 
Top