Bargain hunting a Nikon Micro 40mm f2.8?
Discussion
Given the current pricing - what is it £249 Recommended? - I think anything much below £200 has to be a bit suspect and given so many dodgy sites out there, I'd check the seller carefully.
But there is one on Ebay for £199 with free delivery and others (even cheaper until you add postage, and VAT for overseas sellers) if you do a search.
More importantly I am wondering (I seem to do a lot of that with Nikon these days
) what's so attractive about a 40mm focal length (even on a DX) since the working distance when you near 1:1 must be fairly impractical???
But there is one on Ebay for £199 with free delivery and others (even cheaper until you add postage, and VAT for overseas sellers) if you do a search.
More importantly I am wondering (I seem to do a lot of that with Nikon these days
) what's so attractive about a 40mm focal length (even on a DX) since the working distance when you near 1:1 must be fairly impractical???Jetl3on said:
The 40mm is inexpensive, can get within 6" and has had good reviews, it seems a good start for practicising my close ups.
Note that the working distance means little without a quoted magnification. All macro lenses are 1:1; a 150mm macro will give the same field of view but from further away. But I agree this is a good price and if you can work at 6" it sounds perfect.Re the FX/DX, if I was using a 'normal' (ie not DX) macro lens on a DX sensor, like the 60mm or 105mm, the cropping issue would give me a higher effective magnification, at a guess 1.5:1. As the 40mm is designed for DX then it will (probably) give 1:1.
Mind you funny things happen in macro-land so I may be wrong!
I would hesitate to suggest you might be wrong. I can't think of that happening very often in the last two centuries.
But you are right in that funny things happen. IIRC most modern Macro/Micro lenses achieve ratios approaching 1:1 by effective changes to the focal length. Which is where they can be a bit "entertaining" to work with!
I love my 105mm, despite these quirks, and the quality from a newer design 40mm should be at least as good - the latest coatings and the like...
So, even at full price I would concede the 40mm is good value.
As ever, it depends what you're pointing it at and what you're expecting, so I'd recommend having a test drive if possible.
If money's a restricting factor, I would highly recommend a punt on a secondhand 55mm f/2.8. I had one for many years. Drawback would be image quality dependent on careful lighting and doesn't double up as a portrait or walkabout lens so well. But you'd Fleabay it in a year or two and probably get your money back ( sold mine to a very happy/grateful art student ).
But you are right in that funny things happen. IIRC most modern Macro/Micro lenses achieve ratios approaching 1:1 by effective changes to the focal length. Which is where they can be a bit "entertaining" to work with!
I love my 105mm, despite these quirks, and the quality from a newer design 40mm should be at least as good - the latest coatings and the like...
So, even at full price I would concede the 40mm is good value.
As ever, it depends what you're pointing it at and what you're expecting, so I'd recommend having a test drive if possible.
If money's a restricting factor, I would highly recommend a punt on a secondhand 55mm f/2.8. I had one for many years. Drawback would be image quality dependent on careful lighting and doesn't double up as a portrait or walkabout lens so well. But you'd Fleabay it in a year or two and probably get your money back ( sold mine to a very happy/grateful art student ).
Spot on, as ever. No flies on you Mr Bloke! 
But...
1 Bet it's a Nikon body with a DX-size sensor
and
2 My caveat was that the alternative wouldn't cater for much other than macro-only - thus need for AF would be pretty much negated...
....or
should we have a poll thread to see if anyone finds it practical to use AF on their close-ups? 
We could just ask the OP for a comment and ask what resulted....
K12beano said:
Spot on, as ever. No flies on you Mr Bloke! 
I use AF for macro, though I agree it's sometimes less useful as you're (generally) taking more time over things. But manual focusing through a DX viewfinder is not always easy (and you have a penchant for crappy weird lenses that need coal to work
)Maybe we need a discussion thread 'What makes someone a macro photographer'...
A macro lens doesnt change focal length, some of them will stop down at max magnification is all. There are 1:2 macro lenses out there (Zeiss, canon compact etc).
Crop factor has nothign to do with it. Pixel density does help though.
Use a 5D2 and a 350d (same pixel density) and you get the same number of pixels on a subject at 1:1 with any 1:1 macro lens. Allt hat changes with focal length is the working distance.
Though crop cameras tend to be much more pixel dense so better for macro.
Crop factor has nothign to do with it. Pixel density does help though.
Use a 5D2 and a 350d (same pixel density) and you get the same number of pixels on a subject at 1:1 with any 1:1 macro lens. Allt hat changes with focal length is the working distance.
Though crop cameras tend to be much more pixel dense so better for macro.
RobDickinson said:
A macro lens doesnt change focal length...
Actually, they do.Someone more eloquent on the matter
Thom Hogan said:
I have news for you: all of the fixed focal length Micro-Nikkors aren't actually fixed focal length. In order to keep from being enormously long when focused at 1:1 magnification, Nikon (as well as many other macro makers) plays with the optical formula in order to keep from having an ever telescoping lens barrel. In macro work, you wouldn't want that, anyway, as a lens barrel that telescoped significantly to get to 1:1 would reduce working distance and potentially start hitting things in your scene at close working distances. Thus, at 1:1, this lens becomes about f/4.8 and does not extend even a millimeter. The aperture loss is actually a bit less dramatic at lower magnifications and the non-extension is very much welcome for macro use.
Full bit hereRobDickinson said:
Well theres no explaining nikon is there...
Never a truer word!I have to admit, I secretly love Nikon for many things, including not changing their lens mount in the '90s to accommodate AF and the general standard of just about any Nikkor optic you care to name, but then recently you'll see me slagging them off because I just can't fathom out what they're up to with so many things!
Nikon - the Marmite of the worlds lens makers!
Simpo Two said:
But manual focusing through a DX viewfinder is not always easy (and you have a penchant for crappy weird lenses that need coal to work )
Oi! )K12beano said:
If money's a restricting factor, I would highly recommend a punt on a secondhand 55mm f/2.8. I had one for many years. Drawback would be image quality dependent on careful lighting and doesn't double up as a portrait or walkabout lens so well.
Worth mentioning that the f/2.8 version is quite well known for being prone to oily aperture blades which can make them stick, but the older f/3.5 model is just as good and more trouble free I believe.I've got one of both, they're brilliant IMO - they're also very good as normal lenses, extremely sharp and easy to focus (although see above comment
). Obviously not as convenient as AF though, and some don't like 50mm, let alone 55mm on DX.My f/2.8 one:
Goodwood Revival testing Sept 2011 by david_b, on Flickr
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff