Nikon 40mm F/2.8 Marcro Lens

Discussion in 'Photography Forums' started by ScottW75, Mar 1, 2014.

  1. ScottW75

    ScottW75
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2003
    Messages:
    4,521
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Ratings:
    +855
    I notice this has appeared in the latest nikon cashback offer and i was considering picking it up for macro use, however a couple of reviews mention it's focal length is too short so you need to be very close to the subject. This also apparently gives issues with regards to you blocking your own light.

    I'd like to try it with insects for fun, but it's main use would be objects that don't move (rings and favours at weddings for example). I've got speed lights and light stands so off camera lighting isn't a problem.

    I just wondered if anyone was using this lens and what they thought?
     
  2. Ugg10

    Ugg10
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2009
    Messages:
    3,207
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Ratings:
    +1,572
    Micro Nikkor AF-S DX 40mm f/2.8 G - Review / Test Report

    Review above, comes to the same conclusion - not good for insects but OK for still life. Have you had a look at the Raynox clip on lenses (150 may be OK for your purposes, 250 may be a bit strong), if you have a 70-200/300 lens this may be a better and cheaper alternative as a first option, the depth of view is probably smaller but I use on on my 70-200 and get on OK with it for still life as you can use f16 for that and just have a long exposure.

    Hope this helps.
     
  3. ScottW75

    ScottW75
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2003
    Messages:
    4,521
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Ratings:
    +855
    I hadn't considered using my 70-200mm for this purpose because of the minimum focusing distance and that i was going to use a higher aperture for a bokeh background.

    My main intention was to shoot wedding rings and shoes to capture the fine details with some bokeh. I don't think 70-200mm will do this as well as a macro lens, but it would probably take nice shots down onto a table with the rings sat on it as there would be little to no background depending on the angle.

    The Sigma 105mm looks nice and gets good reviews but is three times the price of the 40mm
     
  4. Ugg10

    Ugg10
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2009
    Messages:
    3,207
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Ratings:
    +1,572
    The 70-200/300 with the raynox250 gets close to 1:1 at about 6" from the end of the lens. Without the raynox the 70-200 will give the same magnification approx as a smaller zoom except stand off will be much greater I.e. Most lenses have a magnification of arount 0.2 at their min focus distance so on a crop sensor something about 100mm wide will fill the frame.

    The 100mmish 1:1 macros have a end of lens to subject distance of about 100mm at 1:1. Much better than the 50 mmish lenses.

    Best macro lens: 8 tested | News | TechRadar
    Macro lens group test | Buying guides | PhotoPlus

    Here's a couple of group test of the macro lenses.
     

Share This Page

Loading...