Nikon Announces a 40mm/f2.8 DX AF-S Micro Lens

<p>CC Chang:<br /> Macro lens is a bad tool to photograph people in a flattering way - ask my mother in law!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Macro lens is a bad tool to photograph people in a flattering way - ask my mother in law!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It is true in some way. For the new parents out there who like to photograph their new babies' little toes, eye lashes, etc, a macro lens is perfect for that. The short working distance is also helpful for using it indoors in tight space (as opposed to a much longer 85mm lens). It is always better to have a sharp image to begin with, and blemishes can be then removed in post. With just $280, you know have a small and light f2.8 lens lens that can produce nice head-should shots with a smooth and nicely blur background. Of course, the gold standard for head-shoulder shots is done with the 85/1.4, but the new AFS version is a beast that costs $2,000.</p>

<p>The main point of my post is that this lens may be highly versatile at a very affordable price, and we should not think of it just in terms of applications that typically require a macro lens, flowers, bugs, etc.</p>

<p>Another Nikon lens with a lot of barrell distortion?</p>

<p>Of course there is a market for this lens ... it is the "macro normal" lens which used to be the most common lens in a professional's and advanced amateur's bag (in the old days). You can use it for close-ups, you can shoot architecture with it (these types of lenses typically have very low distortion; we will see how this particular one does), and general people photos as well.</p>

<p>As to the desire for longer focal lengths to shoot close-ups ... well, it depends what you want to do. Remember that a typical general purpose lens stops at around 1:8 and is often poor at that magnification. A normal focal length Micro-Nikkor is typically excellent from 1:10 down to 1:2 and no one forces you to go to larger magnifications with it. At 1:1 a typical normal focal length Micro-Nikkor has to be used without the hood and there isn't much space for light, but the image quality is very high. There's plenty of ground between 1:2 and 1:8 and for travel the smaller size and weight of the "macro normal" is an obvious asset.</p>

<p>By the way many macro specialists actually use very short focal length lenses. The short focal length can be a problem for the casual macro shooter though. Longer focal lengths do allow backgrounds to be simplified easily. But that's not always what you want. Sometimes it is good to show the environment of the subject, and you can do that by employing a lens that has a wider angle of view.</p>

<p>Anyway, I expect that this lens will find its place in many traveler's bags. The wide angle prime DX Nikkor is still missing though, and it is still needed. (Well, I don't strictly speaking need it since I don't travel with my DX camera, but if such a lens existed, I would use the D7000 for travel.)</p>

<p>Again--extremely disappointed that Nikon continues to forego a 70mm DX lens (equivalent to the 105mm lens of yore)!!!</p>

<p>I agree with the comment about developing a 70mm DX prime.</p>

<p>-Owen</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Justin Bieber albums should not be made. Same with Danielle Steele novels, Wellington boots, Hello Kitty pajamas, Canon DSLRs and German pornography.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>a little clever editing and this sentence now reads perfectly. :)</p>

<p>For non-macro DX shooters, is there any point in owning this lens if you already have the 35 mm 1.8?</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>For non-macro DX shooters, is there any point in owning this lens if you already have the 35 mm 1.8?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sure, NAS is a very good reason. :-)</p>

 

<p>Everybody buy one now. It'll stimulate the economy!</p>

<p>In January 2011, before I bought my 60 AF-S for copy work, I would have bought this lens. The 60 is a great lens but too long a lot of the time for gallery repro shoots.</p>

<p>It's so funny that in 2008 there were so many forums that had DX going away in three years. This release proves DX is going no where anytime sooner or later.</p>

<p>Now I just bought a Nikon 17-55 f/2.8 because I really needed it, and if Nikon releases a new one in the next couple of months I will not be a happy camper. But as long as any newer one doesn't have VR (which I seriously doubt) I'll stick with what I have.</p>

<p>The lens diagram happens to be suspiciously similar to the Tokina and Pentax 35mm macros</p>

<p>Okay, so I was excited to get my Tamron 90mm macro lens and have been happy with the results. I was the shorter 50mm that was recently released because I'd like to do more portraiture work and street photography. Then today I learned of the new 40mm and now I'm wondering which I should get next.<br>

Is the best way to tell which one you'd like best just to get one and try it out?<br>

Thanks!</p><div></div>

If you already have a macro lens you like and others that are close enough to 40mm I don't see why you buy this

40mm macro.

<p>@AndyL I like to shoot casual stuff -- parties, people, animals, street scenes, abstract stuff. My kit 18-105 is good but big and heavy and I'd like something fixed and light for walking around with shooting stuff. The 90 is good for closeups but I have to get too far away from people I want to shoot. I'd like to be able to shoot people at a table at a party, or in a room or walking on the street. I could do this it seems with the 90mm if I was a block away.</p><div></div>

Then I'd go for the 35mm DX lens. It's a great performer for shooting indoors in lower light, 1.8 is better than 2.8 and

it's less expensive. I have one and use it all the time for that sort of shooting.