Whats up everyone, I'm looking to get a prime lens to shoot customers products & interior shots(when im not using the wide angle). I was looking at the nikon 35mm f/1.8G AF-S DX. I was also looking at the 40mm micro to shoot flowers and such for fun, so my question is can I use the 40mm micro like a regular prime or only close up shots? or would I be better off buying both? Thanks in advanced and sorry if this is a basic question I'm still learning:tan:
Nikon 35mm f/1.8G AF-S DX or Nikon 40mm f/2.8G AF-S DX Micro
- Thread starter JamesDean
- Start date
Horoscope Fish
Senior Member
You *could* use the 40mm Micro for macro work (it annoys me no end Nikon calls a macro lens "micro", by the way) but I find it hard to suggest for actual macro work, despite the name. Why?
Because with that short 40mm focal length you're going to find your front lens element fractions of an nch from your subject matter on a regular basis, blocking your ambient light and generally being a pain in the ass. Yes, I'm exaggerating slightly, but you get my point. For real macro work look at a lens in the 100mm range. Now, that being said, the 40mm Micro is an outstanding lens in its own right. The 35 f/1.8 is a little faster and a little wider and would be (read: "is") my choice, personally for an everyday lens; but I say that without taking anything away from the 40mm as a general-purpose, walk-around-town sort of lens as well. It's just the 35 is, in my opinion, everything the 40mm is and faster too boot.
So, in short... Yes to either for general photography, but look elsewhere for a Macro lens.
Had both. Sold my 40mm 2.8. I just never used it, you had to get EXTREMELY close to the subject with it, and that focal length to me, is awkward. Not mentioning it's not a fixed 2.8 aperture. It changes depending on distance from the subject. Which, if you're trying to use it as a normal prime, is annoying as all get out! The 35 is MUCH more versatile, if worse off in bokeh and distortion. It's still one of my favorites on DX even with it's flaws.
My advice would be to get a 50 1.8G for product shots (the better handled bokeh, distortion, constant aperture, better working distance make me say that), and a 105 to cover your macro needs.
My advice would be to get a 50 1.8G for product shots (the better handled bokeh, distortion, constant aperture, better working distance make me say that), and a 105 to cover your macro needs.
thanks for the replies and advice, I figured with it being a 40mm i wouldnt be able to use the built in flash without shadows from the lens showing up(on the close up shots)... I was planning on using a off camera flash or ring flash if i went that route. Nikons 105mm micro is out of my price range at the moment
If money is of importance (or lack of it), get the 35 and buy a closeup filter for it. It will help you get closer. They can be found for a bargain.
Horoscope Fish
Senior Member
No need to spend a ton of money on a dedicated lens to do macro.
Get one of the aforementioned filters, or a Reversing Ring for ten or twelve bucks, while you save up for that dedicated 105mm.
Horoscope Fish
Senior Member
Yes, as long as the lens you intend to use these with accepts a 52mm filter. Do you have the 18-55mm kit lens or what? Not that the focal length matters, but the filter size does.
Both the 40mm 2.8G and the 35mm 1.8G will both be good lenses. However owning both, I would go with the 40mm 2.8G as it is a decent all around lens. Much better doing portraits vs the 35 and the ability to get up close and super personal with macro shots. While the 35mm 1.8G will be better in low light situations, it shouldn't be the end all as the 40mm is somewhat decent as well.
The only one gripe that I have with the 40mm is that it is a much slower lens to AF, but if/when you are working on a stationary object MF may be easier to control.
The bokeh is amazing on the 40mm and really you would have nothing to lose.
You should however bring your camera with you to your local camera shop and try out both lenses so that you can see what you really are missing. However I don't think you would miss much from not picking the 35mm.
My 35mm 1.8G stays in my bag 90% of the time. I get more use on the 50mm 1.8D and 40mm 2.8G.
GL.
The only one gripe that I have with the 40mm is that it is a much slower lens to AF, but if/when you are working on a stationary object MF may be easier to control.
The bokeh is amazing on the 40mm and really you would have nothing to lose.
You should however bring your camera with you to your local camera shop and try out both lenses so that you can see what you really are missing. However I don't think you would miss much from not picking the 35mm.
My 35mm 1.8G stays in my bag 90% of the time. I get more use on the 50mm 1.8D and 40mm 2.8G.
GL.
kirbfucius
Senior Member
If you're looking for a dedicated macro lens on a budget, I'm a pretty big fan of my 105mm 2.8 AI-S. It's completely manual, but that has helped me learn more about my camera and manual focusing than I would have otherwise. I've tested the new 105mm VR and while the autofocus was handy, I found that I still did minor manual focus adjusting anyway.
kirbfucius
Senior Member
He did? I must have overlooked that. He listed the 35mm AF-S which retails at $200 and the 40mm 2.8 at $280, and potentially both. I picked up my 105mm AI-S for $125 from a local camera shop. It's the shiny new VR one that's terribly expensive.
The 35mm is a great, sharp lens. Definitely recommend it. Have you looked at the Tamron 90mm macro lens as a possible option?
wud
Senior Member
Yay, I was just gonna post a 35mm or 50mm thread, but great answers in this one 
I got 35mm f/2 and its light and very sharp, but doesnt feel ... right. Haven't tried the 50mm on full frame, only on crop, think I'll go by a store to ask if I could try it.
Never heard about those macro filters, sounds fun.
I got 35mm f/2 and its light and very sharp, but doesnt feel ... right. Haven't tried the 50mm on full frame, only on crop, think I'll go by a store to ask if I could try it.
Never heard about those macro filters, sounds fun.
wud
Senior Member
Yeah. Im not sure! I think I would like it to be closer to the subject. I have to get pretty close, if I want say, a headshot. And I think its harder to get bokeh (round circles from light) but maybe thats due to the f/2.
I used a 50mm f/1.8 on a crop, and it wasn't quite sharp enough for my taste, but I often liked the background with it.