akira Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 <p>I would have liked to see a 40mm "equivalent" for DX format...</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter_in_PA Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 <p>I'm guessing that for years the 55 and then the 60 micros were best-selling lenses for Nikon, and I suspect that over the last few years a DX equivalent to that was one of the most often heard requests... which means a wide prime can't be too far behind...</p> <p>And if that wide prime were a TS lens (say 16 - 18mm) at a reasonable price... I would beg borrow and steal whatever I needed to buy one... THAT would be a lens I could NOT resist...</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CvhKaar Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 <p>mmm Interesting to see how this new young nikkor hold itself against the Tokina 35mm Macro 1:1....<br> It needs to be very good to beat the Tokina , i think...</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robert_hooper1 Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 <p>I would have preferred a longer focal length micro lens offering which would have allowed a greater working distance between subject and camera for macro work.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter_in_PA Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 <p>Robert, that already exists. It's the 60mm micro, AFS and AFD versions are both still available.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kobye Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 <p>This lens makes a lot of sense to me. The 55/60 macro FOV and distortion-less view is great for near close-up details (true macro is more involved and lighting, working distance etc. would be easier with the 90/100/150/200). The Tokina was the only thing available and it is a screw drive lens, not suitable for lower end bodies if AF is desired. Friends new to SLRs often gravitate towards macro in my experience. I would generally suggest one of the third party alternatives at the 90/100 FL for affordability vs. performance but even that 400+$ might be too much to invest to experiment. This is a solid option as an intro macro lens, and can let someone test the waters. Are you really ready to commit to a decent tripod? ball head? etc. I don't see any downside here for Nikon. What I see is the trickle out announcement prior to the bigger one. Let's see what the big picture for DX looks like after that. The 85 3.5 was far more of a curve-ball than this one since I see nothing to suggest it over 3rd party options & optically it didn't seem to compare well to the micro line. I am interested to see how the performance measures up to the 60 since I was looking to replace my old AI'd 55 3.5. Stay calm, take a good picture and let's just see what we are talking about in August!<br> A CRC flat field lens is a totally different beast for near close-up pictures than something like the 35 1.8.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
orcama60 Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 <p>I am not interested and I do believe it was not necessary for Nikon to come out with this kind of lens. We do need other DX lenses to be created but again this is not to time to discuss it. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter_in_PA Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 <p>maurice.... so let's make a new thread to discuss it!</p> <p>Here you go.</p> <p>http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00Z1wi</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andylynn Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 I don't think the "Nikon should be making ______ instead of this" type of argument has anything to do with... anything. Nikon will make whatever they think they can make money selling. They won't not make any other particular product because they're making this one. I'll say what I said when I read the same type of comment on the announcement of the 35/1.8 DX lens (which sells so well they can't seem to keep it in stock): it not like there's some guy in the back room named Joey Nikkor who designs all the lenses, and only has the time to do two a year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
orcama60 Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 <p>Yes Andy, they can do whatever they want but that does not means it something that we really need. If I am to shoot macro, why should I use a 40mm when the 105mm f/2.8 is much better than this lens ? You can shoot from a longer distance ( especially if you are shooting insects ). If you want something that short, why don't use the 35 f/1.8 instead which is cheaper and best suit for general photography and more than twice as sensitive to low light ? <br> If you are a real macro shooter, then you should go with Nikon 105, Tokina 100, Sigma 150 f/2.8 or Nikon 200 f/4. I do have the Nikon 105 and the Sigma 150 and honestly, If I did not need the 60, much less I would need the 40 and let me add that I also have the 35 f/1.8 if I want to get too close which I can get with either my 105 or 150 Sigma. My personal opinion, if you need this lens for macro and you have not budget, then go get it but for $80 dollars less, you can get the 35 f/1.8 so I do not know why Nikon came out with this when you already have something cheaper and better and or something more expensive ( like Nikon 105, Tokina 100, etc ) and much better for the purpose ( macro ). If it was created thinking about macro starters, I also don't see the need, but again, they can do whatever they want but not necessarily is something that we really need especially for DX users. Again, this is my personal opinion and I could be wrong to others. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
orcama60 Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 <p>... I just forgot, 40 mm lens between the 35 f/1.8 and the 50 f/1.8 ? Don't see the need to be honest. Any of those lenses are much better and cheaper than this new lens and can do exactly and probably better than the 40mm. Hey Nikon, give us something better !! 16-50 f/2.8, 50-150 f/2.8, 16 f/1.8 ?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robert_hooper1 Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 <blockquote> <p>Robert, that already exists. It's the 60mm micro, AFS and AFD versions are both still available.</p> </blockquote> <p>Peter,</p> <p>I was referring to a DX lens. Something around 70mm would be about right.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Laur Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 <p>Maurice: choosing a focal length comes after you choose your composition. Working distance isn't just about scaring the insect away or having room for lighting equipment. It's about perspective. And some perspectives, combined with a field of view that includes the amount of the background desired for the composition, results in the need for a specific focal length. And for some results, a short macro (a lot shorter than the popular 60, 90, 105, etc) is essential on DX.<br /><br />And for copy-style shooting (say, of a large painting), this allows DX users to work at much more comfortable distance.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter_in_PA Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 <blockquote> <p>I was referring to a DX lens. Something around 70mm would be about right.</p> </blockquote> <p>For most people, maybe the 85 would cover that?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andylynn Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 Maurice, evidently Nikon believes there is a demand for this product. I'd hazard a guess that they know what they're doing and don't release a product without doing research to determine demand and appropriate price point and marketing. If you yourself won't buy it... well, there are many product made that you or I won't buy. For example, I wouldn't buy Justin Bieber albums. That doesn't mean that Justin Bieber albums should not be made. Same with Danielle Steele novels, Wellington boots, Hello Kitty pajamas, Canon DSLRs and German pornography. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoryAmmerman Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 <p>This lens would give DX users a field of view very similar to the venerable 55 micro lenses that have been popular for decades and exactly the same as the more recent 60mm/2.8 give for the FX format. I happen to really like the field of view of my 55/3.5 on FX, and since I have little interest in taking pictures of bugs, a longer working distance is not necessary. If I had the money, I'd definitely be interested in this lens. Combined with the fact that there is already the 85/3.5 lens, I don't have a problem seeing why Nikon would introduce such a lens as this.</p> <p>As for why someone would buy this lens over the 35/1.8, well the max magnification of 1.0x for the 40mm vs the 0.16x for the 35mm stands out as a pretty good reason to me. Not to mention that this 40mm lens is a flat-field micro lens, and the 35/1.8 is not.</p> <p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShunCheung Posted July 13, 2011 Author Share Posted July 13, 2011 <p>Out of curiosity, I checked about Canon EF-S lenses, which is roughly the equivalent of Nikon DX lenses: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_EF-S_lens_mount">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_EF-S_lens_mount</a></p> <p>There are no fewer than 10 different EF-S zooms that start from either 17mm or 18mm; just the 18-55mm EF-S has 6 versions. And there is exactly one EF-S lens that has a fixed focal length: a 60mm macro.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CvhKaar Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 <p>I am trying to understand people who are saying that lenses like these are no good or not of any use<br> I can always find a creative use for any focal length , and being it a makro-, tele- wide- lens, whatever, there are always subjects and/or creative possibilities for any lens, as long as it is capable of delivering a usefull / acceptable IQ ...</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jose_angel Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 <p>Agree. And in other formats (well, it`s true that they have different aspect ratios) the standard wides, or standard "standards", or teles are not exactly the equivalents to 35mm format lenses. And we live with them, successfully.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thomas_k. Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 <p>Oh no! not another macro lens! Do we really need more photos of flowers and insects on the web?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cc_chang2 Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 <blockquote> <p>"Oh no! not another macro lens! Do we really need more photos of flowers and insects on the web?"</p> </blockquote> <p>Look here for sample images created by this lens: Pay particular attention to the use of this lens in head-shoulder shots. Because a macro lens provides a flat field, it is possible to shoot close to your subject without creating perspective distortion, which is a problem with the be-loved 35/1.8.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chandan_prithyani Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 <p>How much is it for?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShunCheung Posted July 13, 2011 Author Share Posted July 13, 2011 <blockquote> <p>How much is it for?</p> </blockquote> <p>Please read my opening post again.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jose_angel Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 <p>CC Chang: Isn`t <em>perspective</em> distortion the result of the lens-to-subject distance? Depending on that distance, the size (proportions) of the subject are modified in the projection over the sensor/film.</p> <p>I don`t get how a flat field lens could avoid this issue, at least in a noticeable way; I understand they help to avoid <em>optical</em> distortion (straight lines), but not how can be <em>perspective</em> distortion corrected (well, in your comparison a 40mm lens needs a slightly longer lens-to-subject distance than with a 35mm lens in order to get the same magnification, hence will show a lower degree of <em>perspective</em> distortion). Please, excuse me if I`m missing something...</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cc_chang2 Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 <blockquote> <p>Isn`t <em>perspective</em> distortion the result of the lens to subject distance?</p> </blockquote> <p>I meant to compare this lens to the AFS 35/1.8 in shooting head-should shots. In order to fill the frame with such subject, one needs to get quite close to the subject with both of these lenses. A regular 35mm lens is not corrected for perspective distortion so when you move in close, a slight tilt of the lens may create distortion that is not desirable. However, such distortion is better controlled with a macro lens. Just take a look at the sample pictures, you will see what I mean. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now