40mm f/2.8 micro vs 35mm f/1.8 - for macro AND landscape? (D5100)

A

algmiyazaki

Senior Member
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?
 
M

Moab Man

Senior Member
The 40mm is a very good macro. Downside, you have to get very close for 1:1 ratio. As far as landscape, it's a 40mm so you're not going to shoot landscape really - nor is the 35mm a landscape lens. Based on what you have said you do I would go with the 40mm.
 
A

algmiyazaki

Senior Member
Thanks for the advice, that's what I was thinking as well. My kit lens has been decent for getting wider-angle landscape shots (18mm) and I can't afford a good wide-angle lens, but I've had trouble getting sharp macro with my cheap filters. I'll mostly be photographing flowers so getting up close shouldn't be too difficult.
 
Top