That one in particular. I'm looking at putting some money back to get it for my birthday in May. And, the sample photos did't really show the lenses range, and I'm just wondering if you guys have any experience with pushing this thing into some serious macro?
Also, I'm hungry so I'm not good at putting together sentences apparently xD
It's not a great lens for really close macro work (1:1 reproduction) because the working distance is so short -- at 1:1 you need to have the front of the lens 1.3 inches from the subject, making lighting the subject very difficult without a dedicated macro flash unit. (It's also easy to scare away insects and other live subjects when working that close)
Quality-wise, if you can put up with the very short working distance, it's a pretty respectable lens, and well-priced. But especially for your first macro lens, I'd get something that's a bit easier and more flexible to use, like the 85mm f/3.5, which has a much more reasonable 5.5 inch working distance from the front of the lens at 1:1 reproduction:
It also has VR, making hand-held macro work at least slightly easier (although you'll still want it tripod-mounted for best results, as with any macro lens).
The Nikon 105mm macro lens is also worth considering, although it's a much more expensive lens (but higher quality as well). It's also compatible with full-frame cameras, should an upgrade to an FX camera be in the foreseeable future.
I have not seen many macro pictures taken with a 40mm. most I have seen are with either a 60mm or 105mm. Look under macro tags, look through the ones you like the most and then look under the exf info, see what kind of lens was used. i did and ended up selling my 60 and getting a 105mm
I have a 35mm macro and love mine. It is like having two reasonable lenses for the price of 1. I tend to take photos of flowers or still objects with it and not bugs nd stuff.
I used it a lot in my old project- user name dkg starting in jan 2012...not good for macros of things far away or moving but for still objects its pretty good
@sunshinephoto5 I realize this is a dumb question but where in the exif does it say what lens you're using? I see the focal length, ISO, etc and the type of camera but not the lens.
i use a 100mm macro (canon) and love it... its a fantastic lens (i usually tag the photo 100mm). I've not used a 40mm macro so cant help with that sorry!!
@sunshinephoto5 ok I thought I was missing something and somewhere it said what specific lens you were using like it does the camera. I feel both more and less stupid now.
Write a Reply
Sign up for a free account or Sign in to post a comment.
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
Quality-wise, if you can put up with the very short working distance, it's a pretty respectable lens, and well-priced. But especially for your first macro lens, I'd get something that's a bit easier and more flexible to use, like the 85mm f/3.5, which has a much more reasonable 5.5 inch working distance from the front of the lens at 1:1 reproduction:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/656971-USA/Nikon_2190_AF_S_DX_Micro_NIKKOR.html
It also has VR, making hand-held macro work at least slightly easier (although you'll still want it tripod-mounted for best results, as with any macro lens).
The Nikon 105mm macro lens is also worth considering, although it's a much more expensive lens (but higher quality as well). It's also compatible with full-frame cameras, should an upgrade to an FX camera be in the foreseeable future.
I used it a lot in my old project- user name dkg starting in jan 2012...not good for macros of things far away or moving but for still objects its pretty good