eric_arnold

<p>here's an example of the tokina 35/2.8 AT-X macro aka mini-bokina, which is close to the nikon 40mm (which would AF with the 5200, which the tokina wont, although the tokina does allow for easy-peezy manual-focusing with a clutch mechanism, and for dedicated macro stuff, you might not be using AF). as stated before, its a great lens for food photography and walkaround close-ups because of the wider angle of view compared to standard and specialty macros.</p><div></div>

<p>really depends on what type of close-up photography you want to do. for food pictures and copy work, for instance, you don't need a long working distance or to do 1:1 in most cases. i have two tokina macros, and the 100mm "bokina" is actually too long for some of this stuff; the 35 "mini-bokina" (both lenses have amazing bokeh) is perfect for handheld macro food shots (w/ external lighting) or as a "walkaround" macro for close-ups of everyday things, and it doubles as a normal lens. the 40mm nikon would be similar to that, except it's a bit longer and doesnt focus quite as close.</p> <p>a 60mm is a good compromise between a short macro and a longer lens, and as Owen says, it can double as a portrait lens. on DX a 60 will give you the equivalent of a 90mm focal length which is a good length for general macro usage and flower shots. a 90-105mm macro might be better on DX for bugs and insects.</p>

<blockquote> <p><br /> The 35mm f/1.4 Sigma has had glowing reviews. It's a pain to focus, though - you really need to get the USB dock and tune it.</p> </blockquote> <p>this actually hasn't been my experience at all, using the sigma 35/1.4 with a D3s, i've gotten some great action shots of flamenco dancers which would have been framed way too tight with a 50mm. Shooting flamenco is a real litmus test for focusing, as the movements are wild, unpredictable, and sudden.</p> <blockquote> <p><br /> I'm not sure that 35mm is "clearly" the better length for FX, but I do agree that 50mm falls between "interestingly wide" and "isolating the subject".</p> </blockquote> <p>sorry, should have clarified that i was kidding (sort of). it's all subjective, but my experience parallels John's--i havent used my 50/1.4 much since getting the 35/1.4.</p> <p>OTOH, i did choose the 50mm-equivalent 35/1.4 for my Fuji mirrorless system over the 35mm equivalent 23/1.4, despite the latter's stellar reputation, but mainly because i didn't want to duplicate the 35mm FOV of my x100. i also have a 21mm-equiv. 14/2.8 for the Fuji system; on an upcoming planned trip to Mexico, i plan on bringing a bag of primes along with an x100 and maybe a Nikon J1 w/ two zooms. i anticipate using the x100 in tandem with the 14mm mounted most of the time on the XE1, while the 50/1.4 equiv. Fuji will probably be the main low-light lens.</p>

<p>the 18-55 zoom may be all you need, although the 35 is a great lens too, as is the 14. one thing about the fuji zoom is besides the build and IQ, it has OIS which makes it handy at slower shutter speeds.</p>

<p>clearly, 35mm is the better choice for FX. i dont buy the argument that's its not for people, since i shoot people all the time with my sigma 35/1.4 and fuji x100. i think its more of an all-around focal length than 50mm, and nice for environmental portraits as well as landscapes. 50mm can be a flat focal length unless you work hard to get some 3-dimensionality into the shot. also i think a 35 pairs with your current lenses better than a 50 does, which is to say the 35-80 gap is less significant than a 20-50 gap. the 20 will always be an ultrawide, while a 50 can be both not wide enough and not long enough. also the gap between 35 and 50 is not that much, and rendered moot by the cropping ability of today's high-MP sensors. the thing is that you can always crop a wide picture but you cant widen a tightly-framed pic.. that said, a lot depends on shooting style, and there are some ok, some decent and some really good lenses in both focal lengths.</p>