I do like the 40mm but I've read a lot of negative reviews. The negativism comes from the fact that you need to be really close to the subject for maximum macro (about 1cm). Since I'm photographing mostly static objects that's not much of a problem for me although sometimes it can be difficult to get light on your subject. I can imagine though that this would not work for photographing insects. Then at full macro, you do't have f/2.8 but f/4.5.
Before having this lens I used the 70-300 for Macro work. You can get half real size on your sensor, which is nice, but the real macro lens is superior.
If you are not sure about macro, the 70-300 would be nice, giving you a good tele too. If you want to do macro on a budget of static objects, I would go for the 40mm. Then, the 40mm could be a nice replacement for the nifty fifty: 40mm with f/2.8 is a nice non-zoom for low light conditions.
well if you really wanna do macro on a budget just reverse your lens. To me if you have a kit lens already 18-55 (which goes through 40mm) I'd just get the zoom. a 50mm 1.8 or 85mm 1.8 is a good investment for portraits. Thats myself though, I think macro is a short term interest so i'd reverse my lens or buy some kind of converter for a lens I wouldn't spend a lot on a specialist lens.
Would the 70-300 do decent macro-ish photos? I notice some people got some decent close-up photos of birds, and such. From the reviews it looks like a pretty versatile lens all around. I'm really terrified of spiders, so I'm curious as to whether or not I could stand, say 3 or feet away from a spider, and get a close-up effect?
well if you terrified then you probs don't want some super close up pics of them? if it was me I'd spend more money getting one good lens that does a bit of both than two. if you have two you always favour one anyway. I dunno, I don't do macro.
I have a 70 -300 with a macro button but the only thing I tend to use it for is Sunrises I find it difficult to get the corect angle to photo small things as you end up being far away from the subject. Not sure of cost but I found the 28-300 much mire useful and I could just leave that on my camera most of the time. So I seem to have taken ages in saying I would buy a 50mm prime which us such a nice lens some cheap extension tubes and 28-300 or even better maybe a 18-270 tele lens. I really find the 70-300 limiting. Good luck
i have the 40...got it last year for christmas....and it's true, you do need to get close in order to get a real good macro....
on the other hand, i got this picture with that lens
(from my old project) and this one more recently
i also have the 35mm....and i usually have one or the other on my camera at all times....
@paign Nowadays I use the 40mm most of the times for macro and as a prime 40mm. The 70-300 I hardly use, but that's because I have a Nikon 18-200 with VR now. I guess that if I didn't have that one (the 18-200) I would be using the 28-70 kit lens that came with the D70 most of the time and the 40 for macro work. So, while the 70-300 was nice once (especially for tele) it has sort of become obsolete now. A drawback of the 70-300 (Tamron!) is that it consumes a lot of power in finding the focus. I have been doing bees in the garden with the 70-300, but I found the results disappointing, especially in sharpness. And I used a tripod. So, I guess the 40mm will give you more fun in the end.
@paign In my experience, unless you are ready to specialize in a particular type of photography, it's not really a good idea to purchase a specialist lens. You seem to be at a stage in your photography in which you are still experimenting, so your best option at this point would be to find a decent all-purpose lens that can let you do a bit of everything. There will always be time later on to look into more specific types of lenses.
One good option (already mentioned above) is the Tamron 18-270mm. I got this lens about 3 years ago or so, and it was really useful, especially at first, when I didn't know which direction I wanted to go with my photography. It offers wide angle for landscapes and a reasonably powerful zoom. It is also marketed as a macro lens, though I would rather call it "macro-ish", as it doesn't offer a true macro 1-to-1 ratio.
Here's a photo I took just a moment ago that shows you a bit how this lens performs in macro situations. It's a plastic model, about the size of a medium potato, set about 1 meter away from the camera. The focal length for this shot is the lens's maximum: 270mm (you can get crisper detail up to around 225mm). As you can see, it does let you get in nice and close to your subject, and the quality is reasonable for a multipurpose lens.
This lens would cost you less than the Nikkor 40mm + Tamron 70-300mm combo, enabling you to save up for a good quality lens for whatever specialty you decide you like best in the future.
@davidchrtrans That's pretty good detail for being a meter from the lens, and I'm gonna play the part of a broken record and ask if it would do suitably with moving objects, such as insects. Bees have given me some trouble in the past, and I'd like something with good capability to catch them in flight.
@hjv You're right, I'm still experimenting with my craft. And honestly I'd all but decided to simply look for an all purpose. But I'm completely enamoured with the sample photos that people posted with some of the 7-300mm lenses. And the power-consumption with the focus isn't much of an issue for me, I use manual focus with all of my lenses. I got so used to it with my 50mm that I won't rely on AF.
I've been looking at a lot of different makes of the same mm lens, and my head's still spinning. Thankfully I have a couple of weeks to decide what I'm getting.
Thank you guys for your input. I really [really really really] appreciate it. :D
@paign It does well with moving subjects. As with all second-string lenses, it requires more light for quick auto focus on moving objects than you would need for, say, a good Nikkor lens, but it is quite a lot faster focusing than, for example, the Tamron 90mm macro (which I've also got). These motion shots were taken with the 18-270 mm during my 2011 project:
@paign Well, the Tamron is certainly great value for money, but if you're going to operate it at its limits - and I think doing macro is - you will sooner or later start to get annoyed with the limitations. One of those is sharpness I'm affraid. I do not have experience with the Nikon 70 - 300, but I know I love all my Nikon lenses, including the 'cheap' ones like the 50mm, the 40mm macro and an old 35-70mm I bought second hand. I also very much like the 28-70m kit lens that came with the D70s and I really like the 18-200 VR that I use on a D200. So far I haven't had bad experiences with Nikkors.
I was looking at this one, one of the cons says it has a "weak casing"....could you see that being a huge hindrance? And I know I'm dancing around in circles and drilling you, I'm sorry. :'C
@davidchrtrans: It looks like it preforms nicely. You've definitely given me another lens to lust after during these couple of weeks. =3
@paign As said, I have no experience with the Nikon 70-300, so I don't kinow what is meant exactly by the weak casing. If I look at my Tamron 70-300 that is about 7 years old now, I would not call the casing strong. When I use the zoom, I do feel some tolerance in the mechanical parts. Everything runs smooth, but maybe just a bit too much. It does move a bit in transverse directions. It does not feel good, but I don;t have the impression that it has serious effects on the picture quality. The earlier mentioned sharpness issue at 300mm with maximum aperture opening is more due to the glass quality I think. So, although not being sure, I would not call this weak casing thing a huge hindrance. Does that answer your question aa bit?
Yup, that helps a lot actually. I was just kind of concerned that it would be overly fragile, or something. I didn't see where anyone actively elaborated on the "weak casing" complaint, so I had to get an opinion from someone a bit more knowledgeable than myself.
Write a Reply
Sign up for a free account or Sign in to post a comment.
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
I do like the 40mm but I've read a lot of negative reviews. The negativism comes from the fact that you need to be really close to the subject for maximum macro (about 1cm). Since I'm photographing mostly static objects that's not much of a problem for me although sometimes it can be difficult to get light on your subject. I can imagine though that this would not work for photographing insects. Then at full macro, you do't have f/2.8 but f/4.5.
Before having this lens I used the 70-300 for Macro work. You can get half real size on your sensor, which is nice, but the real macro lens is superior.
If you are not sure about macro, the 70-300 would be nice, giving you a good tele too. If you want to do macro on a budget of static objects, I would go for the 40mm. Then, the 40mm could be a nice replacement for the nifty fifty: 40mm with f/2.8 is a nice non-zoom for low light conditions.
Also, thank you for replying. I always like to see your insightful responses. :D
Would the 70-300 do decent macro-ish photos? I notice some people got some decent close-up photos of birds, and such. From the reviews it looks like a pretty versatile lens all around. I'm really terrified of spiders, so I'm curious as to whether or not I could stand, say 3 or feet away from a spider, and get a close-up effect?
on the other hand, i got this picture with that lens
(from my old project) and this one more recently
i also have the 35mm....and i usually have one or the other on my camera at all times....
One good option (already mentioned above) is the Tamron 18-270mm. I got this lens about 3 years ago or so, and it was really useful, especially at first, when I didn't know which direction I wanted to go with my photography. It offers wide angle for landscapes and a reasonably powerful zoom. It is also marketed as a macro lens, though I would rather call it "macro-ish", as it doesn't offer a true macro 1-to-1 ratio.
Here's a photo I took just a moment ago that shows you a bit how this lens performs in macro situations. It's a plastic model, about the size of a medium potato, set about 1 meter away from the camera. The focal length for this shot is the lens's maximum: 270mm (you can get crisper detail up to around 225mm). As you can see, it does let you get in nice and close to your subject, and the quality is reasonable for a multipurpose lens.
This lens would cost you less than the Nikkor 40mm + Tamron 70-300mm combo, enabling you to save up for a good quality lens for whatever specialty you decide you like best in the future.
Hope this helps!
@hjv You're right, I'm still experimenting with my craft. And honestly I'd all but decided to simply look for an all purpose. But I'm completely enamoured with the sample photos that people posted with some of the 7-300mm lenses. And the power-consumption with the focus isn't much of an issue for me, I use manual focus with all of my lenses. I got so used to it with my 50mm that I won't rely on AF.
Do you think, in the event that I get the 70-300, that I should maybe get the Nikon brand or the Sigma one?
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/549304-REG/Sigma_5A8306_70_300mm_f_4_5_6_APO_DG.html
I've been looking at a lot of different makes of the same mm lens, and my head's still spinning. Thankfully I have a couple of weeks to decide what I'm getting.
Thank you guys for your input. I really [really really really] appreciate it. :D
I was looking at this one, one of the cons says it has a "weak casing"....could you see that being a huge hindrance? And I know I'm dancing around in circles and drilling you, I'm sorry. :'C
@davidchrtrans: It looks like it preforms nicely. You've definitely given me another lens to lust after during these couple of weeks. =3
Yup, that helps a lot actually. I was just kind of concerned that it would be overly fragile, or something. I didn't see where anyone actively elaborated on the "weak casing" complaint, so I had to get an opinion from someone a bit more knowledgeable than myself.