Jump to content

Nikon 40mm/f2.8 DX AF-S Micro Lens, First Impressions


ShunCheung

Recommended Posts

<p>Back on July 12, Nikon announced the 40mm/f2.8 DX macro lens: <a href="../nikon-camera-forum/00Z1gd">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00Z1gd</a></p>

<p>Recently they sent one to photo.net for us to review, and I have been playing with it for the last couple of days. (It is a loaner that I need to send back after a month.) Unlike the more expensive 60mm/f2.8 AF-S macro for FX, the new 40mm DX has no ED elements and no aspheric elements. So originally, I had some concerns about chromatic aberration (CA) and distortion. I am glad to find very little distortion and CA is very well controlled, unlike the 35mm/f1.8 DX AF-S.</p>

<p>I have also tried this lens on the full D700 frame, and sure enough, the corners are totally dark. Moreover, the image circle outside of the DX area gets poor quickly, especially in the corners.</p>

<p>Lens construction is all plastic similar to the 50mm/f1.8 AF-S and 35mm/f1.8 DX AF-S, but I think it is sufficient. The lens mount is metal with the rubber gasget to seal out moisture. Its AF-S is true AF-S where you can manually override it without switching to manual focus.</p>

<p>This lens extends out quite a bit when it reaches 1:1. See the attached image. We are planning to write a fully preview later on. However, personally I have no plan to buy this lens myself, as I prefer longer macro lenses for more working distance.</p><div>00ZHhl-395569584.jpg.f553344b9ab489a71aaec31342025fb2.jpg</div>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Shun when I first heard about this lens I assumed it will be a design for near 1:1 macro but perhaps I got this wrong. At least 40mm points into this direction and it certainly looks like a dedicated macro lens.</p>

<p>Your comment about the coverage: does this apply to 1:1? I would think it should cover FF at that reproduction ratio.<br>

F 2.8 is rather fast for a dedicated macro lens aimed at near 1:1. How is flatness of field?<br>

Do I get the drift right that this lens may be rather optimized for low cost than for optical performance?</p>

<p>When you do the full test would you consider running an oldtimer 55mm f3.5 side by side? Perhaps not everybody might like the comparison but perhaps some specialists might appreciate this.<br>

Anyway thanks for the first info. Hope I do not bug you too much :-)<br>

Cheers<br>

Walter<br>

PS: Is there a manual aperture?</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>That's awfully short for a macro lens.</p>

<p>You only have about 3" from the front of the lens to the subject at 1:1, which leaves very little space for lighting and other modifications.</p>

<p>I'm sure they did it to reduce cost, but at what detriment to usability?</p>

<p>- Leigh</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Actually, my last trip into macro-land made me realise I'd like a much shorter macrolens than my Tokina 100mm (which I like); a wider perspective really close up for non-living things. Yes, it's awfully short, but I see merit in that; depends a bit on final working distances though. <br />So given the nice price, this lens did catch my interest - much looking forward to a full review before biting the bullet.</p>

<p>Walter: it is a G lens, so no manual aperture, and being a DX lens it was not designed to go on any film camera anyway.<br>

Russ: most people seem very happy with their 35 f/1.8 - I never read the image quality of this lens was spotty? Its only known real flaw is somewhat higher CA. I think for most situations, the 35 f/1.8 remains a better choice, and it's faster and cheaper.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>In the review you may want to add an image comparison at 1:1, F/8 with a 3D-ish subject including some background at various distances to show folks what wide-angle macro is about (low relative blur of the background)...<br>

You might compare with the Tokina 35/2.8 DX macro which has a suspiciously similar lens diagram and is also pretty well-regarded as a short macro, but lacks the AF-S motor.<br>

One sample in DPR forums shows obvious loCA (purple/green tint around the plane of focus at high-contrast edges) at F/8, you may want to look into it. <br>

>You only have about 3" from the front of the lens to the subject at 1:1<br>

Wouldn't that rather be about 2 cm? <br>

I hear the 40G unlike the 60G has an AF limit switch, which makes it more useful for general-purpose shooting. </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>There are a lot of questions about the 40mm DX macro, and again I have had the lens for only a couple of days. I have just added a new portfolio for this lens where there are images of the lens as well as images captured with this lens: <a href="../photodb/folder?folder_id=1014835">Nikon 40mm/f2.8 DX AF-S Micro (Macro) Lens</a> (<a href="../photodb/folder?folder_id=1014835">http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=1014835</a>)</p>

<P>

I am going to add more images to that folder, but that will take a few more days. As I said, I prefer longer macro lenses and I have the 200mm/f4 AF-D macro, 105mm/f2.8 AF (from year 1990) and the latest 105mm/f2.8 AF-S VR. I like the 200mm because it has a built-in tripod collar. Unfortunately, I don't have anything shorter to compare with; I don't even have the 60mm/f2.8 AF-S. Therefore, my ability to make A/B comparisons is limited.

</P>

<p>You can see that when it is focused to infinity, the front element is deeply recessed. And since it is a 40mm, max f2.8, the front element is quite small. However, when you gradually focus to 1:1, the outside barrel extends and within that, the front element also extends quite a bit, but the rear element does not move along focusing.</p>

<p>And yes, you can limit the focusing from infinity to 0.2m.</p>

<p>At close focus, the image circle from the 40mm DX Micro can indeed cover the entire FX frame. However, I haven't tested the quality of the image outside of the DX area. I have tested that focused to about 1 meter/3 feet, and the quality of the image degrades in the area outside of DX. My suggestion is to use DX lenses for DX bodies. Quality typically suffers, big time, if you use the unsenctioned area of the image circle.</p>

<p>Finally, see the attached image. There is a bit of chromatic aberration as you can see some red fringing around the stop sign and also some purple fringing along the tree trunk. I captured this image with the D7000 with the 40mm DX set to f5.6.</p>

<p>You can find similar comparisons using the 35mm/f1.8 DX, 35mm/f1.4 AI-S (manual focus), and 17-55mm/f2.8 DX on this thread: <a href="00Tva8">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00Tva8</a>, in particular this image: <a href="http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00T/00Tvor-154477684.jpg">http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00T/00Tvor-154477684.jpg</a>. The 17-55 seems to have the least among of chromatic aberration and is, of course, the most expensive among them.</p><div>00ZHrG-395725584.jpg.3dcdc9d75c391a8b8958a38cded79851.jpg</div>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Since the question about 1:1 came up, these are the set ups to achieve 1:1. I have a 10 Euro bill taped to the wall. The camera body is a D7000 in both cases.</p>

<ul>

<li>For the 40mm/f2.8 DX macro to achieve 1:1, it has to be so close to the subject that there is about 4cm of room between the rim of the lens and the subject. Using the lens hood is not practical in this setting and even without the hood, you have problems with the camera and lens casting shadows on the subject.</li>

<li>With the 100mm/f2.8 AF-S VR macro, you get a lot more room at 1:1. Notice that the 105mm AF-S VR does not physically extend (becomes longer) when you focus to close distances.</li>

</ul>

<p>Again, my favorite is still the 200mm/f4 AF-D macro.</p>

<p>In other words, the 40mm DX is not a lens you want to use if your objective is to shoot 1:1. However, there are still plenty of macro opportunities with magnifications less than 1:1. It is a very affordable ($280) macro lens for the more casual photographers. I would imagine that its market target is D3100 and D5100 (and similar older models) owners. If you are really into macro photography, you want something longer such as the 85mm DX macro or 105mm macro.</p><div>00ZHsN-395743584.jpg.71b516061b733ba30575d0ad8d304661.jpg</div>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I imagine for flat art lay-downs, however, this might be a good choice. That's the kind of thing we used to use a 60mm f2.8 for (and precious little else), and in DX terms, that's what this is.</p>

<p>I know I really enjoy my 55mm micro lens, but admittedly, if I didn't have the crop factor with DX, I probably wouldn't like it very much.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I have to say that I'm a little concerned by the Nikon promotional materials, which show the hyperfocal scale going into infinity after about 4 or 5 feet. One of the things I like about the 60mm micro (on DX or FX) is that there's enough of a distance between subject range and infinity that you can still get some pretty nice bokeh with portraits. With this lens, it appears that if your subject is further than 4 feet away, your only DOF options will be 'everything' or 'almost everything.'</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Looks like a lens for someone who doesn't do enough macro to justify spending a lot of money, and for someone who is more after close focus ability than true 1:1. A possible buyer might be a backpacker who likes to take close up shots of moss, tree bark, etc.<br>

Russ--<br>

Go for the Sigma 30mm f1.4. It's the best DX lens out there in the 30-35mm range, easily. I got a deal on a used one from e Bay.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another vote for the 35/1.8, which is excellent, but to reframe things a bit - supposing one shoots DX and does want to

shoot macro and not spend a heck of a lot. Some options would be this 40mm, or a used 55/2.8 AIS, 60/2.8 AF-D or

Tamron 90/2.8. Maybe one of the 105mm AI/AIS versions. Which of those are stand out good options?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Andy, it is extremely difficult to align the camera sensor plane to be totally parallel with a close up subject like that. Near 1:1, depth of field is so shallow that one side of your image will be totally out of focus.</p>

<p>I tried some close up outside but that is not nearly 1:1. The top right small image shows the setting. The subject is a playground welcome/warning sign. The top left is the entire frame from the D7000, covering only a few letters. The main image is a 700x500-pixel crop. This image was captured on the D7000 @ base ISO 100, and the 40mm/f2.8 DX micro was stopped down to f8. I think overall sharpness is quite good.</p>

<p>For whatever it is worth, I'll upload a few more image samples to my 40mm folder. I can say chromatic aberration is a non-issue for this lens and it is a good macro lens. For those who are on a budget for a sub-$300 macro lens, this is a very good choice. However, if you want to shoot 1:1 macro, I would say forget about a 40mm macro; the short working distance is just not practical. For those who don't need f1.8 and want some macro capability, this lens can potentially be an alternative to the 35mm/f1.8 DX AF-S, but 40mm on DX is really a short tele, which may or may not be what you want for general photography.</p><div>00ZHyJ-395825584.jpg.b7845864a5245e22a4d2b90651a64413.jpg</div>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<P>

I have seen some discussion about this lens on DPReview, etc. So originally I was hoping that some other members who have bought this new lens can add some comments. However, a lot of major stores still have it at the "pre order" stage. So maybe not many people have it yet.

</P>

<p>Here is one more sample, a flower macro.</p>

<P>

<CENTER>

<IMG SRC="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/14156538-md.jpg">

</CENTER>

</P>

<P>

The 100% crop is from the lower center part of the image.

</P><div>00ZHzv-395847584.jpg.964a783c2fae1d3809ac35fe8c30cd43.jpg</div>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>> For the 40mm/f2.8 DX macro to achieve 1:1, it has to be so close to the subject that there is about 4cm of room between the rim of the lens and the subject.<br>

Shun, thanks for the conclusive data on this. I guess it still does provide some more working distance than the Tokina 35 which has a more recessed front element. <br>

> However, if you want to shoot 1:1 macro, I would say forget about a 40mm macro; the short working distance is just not practical. <br>

I guess it is just about as practical for 1:1 as the 60G on FX. Not the best idea as one's only macro, but useful as a second or third if one wants a wider angle for the lower background blur. Regarding lightning issues, a cheap collapsible lens-mounted diffuser is a good start: <br>

<a href="http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1025&message=35870560">http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1025&message=35870560</a></p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Well 1:1 is 1:1 but if you want to fill the DX frame with say a stamp with 36 mm along the longer side (1:1 on FX) you are not at 1:1 with DX so you have a bit more WD than the minimum. The 60G has 5cm WD at 1:1, I meant to say it is about the same; the 60D has around 7 cm, the Tamron 60 has 10 cm.<br>

One more relevant comparison with this lens springs to mind: macro mode of an upper-class compact camera ;) (same object size, while the optical magnification is much lower with the compact). </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>In one of Nikon's promotional photos, it reminds us that as a micro lens, you can shoot close to your subject without having to worry too much about distortion. Thus you can use this lens to shoot head/shoulder shots, which you typically cannot do with such a short lens. This lens is designed with this versatility in mind and not as a bug/flower macro lens.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>you can shoot close to your subject without having to worry too much about distortion. Thus you can use this lens to shoot head/shoulder shots, which you typically cannot do with such a short lens.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>CC Chang, that is not the case. When you are very close to a person, his/her nose is much closer to the camera than his/her ears. That is why the face looks very distorted. Unfortunately, a macro lens cannot solve that issue.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...