Get Your FREE copy of Top 10 Tips for All Beginning Photographers ...plus Lightroom Develop Presets & Wedding Photography Checklist!
Keep Shooting! Photography Assignments (04 Feb 2013)
Be sure to check out the new Keep Shooting! Photography Assignments, every two weeks there is a new one!
Exchange 35 1.8 for 40 2.8 micro?
I have had the 35 1.8 dx lens for about 6 weeks and have really enjoyed having the extra stops of light and bokeh that it offers over the kit lens on my d3100.
However, I really enjoy photographing flowers at close range, and while I can get some good results with the 35, I am not getting as close as I would like.
After viewing/reading reviews on the 40 2.8, it is also suitable for portraits, and apparently sharper corner to corner and maybe offers better bokeh.
Apart from the loss of 1 stop of light, is there any advantage of keeping the 35 over the 40?
The only thing i know, is if you want to do Macro photography, you need a good macro lens. And the 35 is not a specific macro lens.
Yeh.. i hope someone else here knows...
If you want to do macro photography, Roy is correct in saying you'll need a dedicated macro lens. You'll need a lens that can focus close and render the image 1:1. These are always prime lenses and any zooms that are advertising a macro feature (such as the Sigma 70-300) are usually only capable of 1:2 or 1:3 reproduction.
This is a tough question and one that only you can answer based on your needs. The 35mm is a great lens as we have been discussing in these two topics: cazillo.com/c/forum/22-nikon-lenses/1849-50mm-or-35mm.html and cazillo.com/c/forum/22-nikon-lenses/1821-help.html .
The 40mm f/2.8, is in my opinion, too short a focal length for serious macro photography. With the 40mm, I think you will often find that in order to focus close enough to get that lovely close up of a flower, you will be almost touching, if not touching the flower with the lens. This is far from an ideal situation. I also think the 40mm is still a little too short for portraits too.
I think you would be best in keeping the 35mm as it is a superb lens and saving for a macro lens with a longer focal length than the 40mm if you want to do serious macro work. I suggest the 60mm or 85mm from Nikon, although Tamron have a very good 90mm and Tokina also have a 100mm for about the same prices as the Nikon 60mm and 85mm.
On the other hand, if you only want to do some casual macro work and still want most of the benefits of the 35mm, the 40mm is your best bet as it can do almost everything the 35mm can, but is also a true macro lens. And it is only one small prime lens to carry around. I'll leave the final decision to you.
I have not had any experience with the 40mm macro, but have seen pictures on flickr and have been impressed. There was one video review that did mention that you need to be aware of how close to your subject you are, so I will bare that in mind, but it did also say that the 40 2.8 was maybe the better overall lens (but that of course is their opinion)
I will look at the 60 2.8 as an option, but I believe in the sunny UK it is almost twice the price of the 40 2.8 and would be an additional expense on top of the 35 1.8, rather than a part ex.
The 35 1.8 is a great lens though. I will need to try it a little more to see where it limits me on close ups before I make up my mind.
Roy van Ommen wrote: Again, great response from our own Conor Casey
Couldn't say it better
Thanks Roy. We are getting good at this equipment advise thing, no?
@Stuart: Yes, it is a similar situation in Ireland too, I'm afraid but good lenses are good investments as they do last for several cameras.
Good luck with what ever option you choose. Keep us posted.
My honest straight forward advice. Don't let people convince you, you need other gear. If you don't miss it yet, just stick to your current gear. If you miss something for a specific target, save some money to get good equipment. In the end, you can sell your less good equipment and you keep your pro equipment...
I have read somewhere that you can better have a 100 mm macro lens, and somewhere else a 300 mm macro.. And on another site, they say you need a 14 mm... i mean.. get the best out of what u use now, i don't have a feeling that you want to use it specific for macro shots.
Try to get good at one or two things.. My things are portraits and still life.. and a little animal... but i know i can get good portraits with a 70-200mm f/2.8 and still life with a plastic fantastic 50mm F/1.8 (Canon).
Try to figure out what you want and save money for that.. so you have gear what you need, and not gear what people told you to have...
Thats why i, and i think Conor too, are trying to know what you want to shoot. Yes, we tell you stuff about the gear you ask for, but for my personal advice.. well.. what i said above
Greetings, and hope to see some of your images!
(p.s., join the 52 week challenge..)
Please Support Us