AF-S 35mm 1.8G or 40mm 2.8G Micro

I have a D3100 with 18-105 and a 70-300mm lens. I am really just getting back into photography and am taking a course with the Open College of the Art as part of their Photography degree (although probably not going for the full degree). I am looking to get a prime lens for some close work and portraiture and can't decide between the 35mm which is the classic prime lens people seem to buy and the 40mm micro which is a bit more expensive but would give me the opportunity to expand the photograph types I take. The micro aperture is obviously not as wide, but is still pretty good. Just wondered if anyone had experience of one or other of these lenses or had / knew of both for comparison.

I have owned both of them and have since sold the 35 1.8. The Micro 40 is much more versatile and in my opinion, even sharper than the 35. You can do everything from macro to somewhat wide landscapes, the 35 is only a better choice if you are shooting mostly indoors or perhaps large groups of people.

Im with Rick here... The macro being newer design and is exceptionly sharp plus the added advantage of macro wins the day for me.
When I was using full frame and 50mm I most often wished that it was just that tad longer too for most aplications so I like the idea
of a 40 on DX being or acting as a 60mm. Good for three quarter and half lengh portraits too.

Hmmm interesting reading about the 40 being quite a bit more desirable than the 35.

Rick how do you find the low light (evening/night rather than indoor) performance of the 40mm 2.8 compared to the 35mm 1.8? Thanks


Gav

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hi Chris, sorry to go off topic but I've been looking at the courses available through the Open College of the Arts and was wondering what you think of yours so far?

westmill said:

Im with Rick here... The macro being newer design and is exceptionly sharp plus the added advantage of macro wins the day for me.
When I was using full frame and 50mm I most often wished that it was just that tad longer too for most aplications so I like the idea
of a 40 on DX being or acting as a 60mm. Good for three quarter and half lengh portraits too.

Click to expand...

Interesting as I recently got the 35mm 1.8 and the first thing I found was I was always wanting it to be a bit wider. This is probably because I'm used to using an 18-200 as a general walkabout lens. I guess it depends what you shoot whether it feels too long or short. I have solve the focal length issue by standing back a bit.

I haven't used it extensively yet, but it seems to produce good sharp pics above F2.2 and at £160 in the UK it is worth having in your bag.

The 35mm doesn't have good bokeh if your taking portraits. If that is what you're doing, buy the 50mm 1.8D version. (or the new 50mm 1.8G which autofocuses on lesser bodies) THAT is a great lens for portrait photography on the cheap. The 35 is a great walk around lens with a "normal" reach, but for portraits I couldn't recommend it as the 50mm 1.8D is almost HALF the price of the 35mm 1.8G..

If you really want the end all, be all portrait lens, the 85mm is the way to go, though it's pricey.

I am ready to sell my 35 1.8 in favour of the 40mm 2.8. Why?
I feel like it's a more versatile lens for me. the 35 is sharp, though macro is always a cool plus, however minimal, and the extra 5mm won't really be missed since I am buying a 16-85 and an 11-16 soon. 50mm is always too long for me on most circumstances, (I don't shoot many portraits, I mainly do architecture and landscapes) but 40 is a good medium I think.

the 35mm 1.8 has more than twice the low light capability of the 40mm micro.
I have a 35 1.8 on my d3200, and it's more than exceptional for the price.
40mm micro is really nice too. gone are the days where you can't get good glass for cheap.

Though for portraits, 40,50, or 60 would have better perspective and 1.5 reach/crop. Macro, would be better with sharper glass too.