Nikon 40mm 2.8 lens

[tasherlock]

Is anyone using this lens as I am considering buying one as a prime and macro. How does it measure up in both areas. It will be attached to a Nikon D3100 from which I use the kit lens and does a good job as a macro lens.

[Kodiak]

Nikon 40mm 2.8 lens?

Hi Tom,

I cannot make any comment on this lens since I never used it but I can
share this to consider:

MACRO WORK / FOCAL LENGTH
• See if you could use a longer focal length. The ideal length being 105mm
for general macro photography, and this focal length is a great choice for
portrait and street shooting.

• An other advantage of a longer lens is that there is a greater distance
between you and the subject… this is very important in many case as you
won't cast a shadow on the subject. Furthermore, a greater distance is a
must when contemplating given certain subject like rattlers… ;-) or shy
animals.

• Typically, these smaller focal length are used on reproduction bench.

• I understand you maybe on a budget and working in DX, maybe the
AF-S DX Micro Nikkor 85mm f/3.5G ED VR would be a better choice!

[Shadowman]

Tom,

I have one and it's a good lens, limited on macro ability in autofocus mode-makes up for it if used manually. If you are going to consider it, do a comparison of this lens with the 60mm and 105mm and see if it meets your requirements.

This was shot with the 40mm, I probably have some macro shots posted here somewhere.

Cyber Ninja
.

[Stagecoach]

Hi Tom

Kodiak has made very valid points which you should consider.

Having been primarily a serious macro shooter for many years, following other specialised forums and looking at and reading what others discuss about macro lenses a 40mm is very rarely mentioned or it's work demonstrated. The most common focal length is 90/105mm (90mm being the excellent lens Tamron produce).

Do you have any idea what sort of macro subjects you want to shoot?

[DanK]

Tom,

I'll second (third?) what Kodiak and Grahame have written, with one caveat.

It's really hard to answer your question until you answer Grahame's about what you want to shoot. For most macro work, I would not get anything that short. If you are going do table-top work with flowers with a crop sensor camera, I would actually consider 60mm as well as 100mm. I find that if I am working at more than minimum working distance (which is the same regardless of sensor size), I find the working distance of a 100mm with a crop sensor a bit long for table-top work. For pretty much everything else, especially for things that move, I would not go shorter than 90-105mm, as Grahame suggests.

I don't know the Nikon world, but in Canon gear, the difference in minimum working distance between the 60mm and 100mm macro is 60mm (2.5"). If you are shooting bugs, it is a lot harder to get within 90 mm (the MWD of the 60 mm lens) than 150mm (the MWD of the 100mm lens) before they fly away. And I would guess that the MWD of the 40mm lens is less than 60mm.

[ajohnw]

I would echo the feeling on macro with 40mm. I have a 60mm one that has a good working distance for that focal length but using it on insects can be a problem. A number don't like things getting that close to them. Shadows can also be a problem.

John
-

[DanK]

Just a postscript: if you are using natural light and working close to MWD, shadows can be a problem regardless of focal length. After all, switching from a 60mm to a 100mm lens only puts you 90mm farther away, which is a pretty small difference in terms of the shadow you cast. However, in practice, I rarely find it to be an issue. First, most of my macro work entails either diffused flash or arranged ambient lighting. That's often true even in broad daylight. Second, when I am using natural lighting, it's sort of automatic to move to a different angle if your shadow is in the way. I would give working distance a lot higher weight in deciding on a focal length.

[Mike Buckley]

Consider renting macro lenses of various focal lengths to get a first-hand understanding of the practicalities before taking the plunge to buy a lens. Once you do decide what to buy, consider buying a used lens from a reputable company that has a no-questions-asked return policy if you don't want the lens for whatever reason. Indeed, one possibility would be to buy three focal lengths, try them out, and return two of them. (That was the only way for me to determine which digital projector would come closest to meeting my needs. The company that I bought them from knew in advance that I would be returning one of the two models that I purchased.)

[ajohnw]

I've been using 300mm at times Dan.

I don't think it's possible to compare lenses as you have. A single lens gives one to one when the subject is twice the focal length away from it. Unfortunately camera lenses don't come near that and also vary. What I have found is that the 60mm lens isn't too bad up to a magnification of about 2:1, higher than that and the distance can becomes a problem. I agree flash can get round the shadow problems.

When macro lenses have their min focal length specified it's from the sensor plane and doesn't account for the depth of the camera or the length of the lens

Take the Olympus m 4/3 60mm macro lens. The flange distance is 19.25mm and the lens is 82mm long making around 101mm in total. The min focus distance where it gives 1:1 is 190mm so the actual working distance comes out at 108mm. Actually it feels closer than that. I find problems come about when insects are what you might call lower down. In the extreme getting an eye against the camera with the eye about 200mm above the ground is a bit of a pain. Sometimes the rear screen can be used.

Take the Nikon 85mm mentioned which from test results is a capable lens the figures are , flange distance 46.5mm, lens length 98.5 and min focal distance 286mm so min working distance at 1:1 is about 140mm but this time the eye is about 300mm from the ground.

I get the impression that people often use 1.4x converter with circa 100mm macro lenses anyway and sometimes even add an extension tube. This must be a hard thing to balance out as I reckon it would still be nice to be able to take shots of larger insects from say 3 or 4m and the extension tube may prevent that.

I would suggest if some one want to try macro and find it easier and get decent results at min cost I think they should look at their longer zoom and add a close up lens - a cheap set first and from the results of that pick an achromatic one out. The risk of buying and achromatic one first is picking one that is too powerful. My reason for mostly going this way is the pixel density on M 4/3. It strongly favours using an M 4/3 lens even with a close up lens on. No chance of taking shots from 3 or 4m this way unless the close up filter is removed.

John
-

[DanK]

John,

I'm a little puzzled by your comments.

First, I didn't reference minimum focusing distance. I don't find it a particularly useful number. I referenced minimum working distance, which is the distance from subject to the front of the lens at closest focus. This is the distance one needs for 1:1. I have on occasion tried to measure that with my own lenses, but the numbers I gave this time I took from this review.

Second, I am puzzled by this:

What I have found is that the 60mm lens isn't too bad up to a magnification of about 2:1, higher than that and the distance can becomes a problem.

I have used my 60mm at 1:1 or closer many times. For example, here is the 60mm with 68mm of extension, so well above 2:1:



This one is also with the 60mm and extension, although I don't remember how much, and higher than 1:1:



This one is also 1:1 or higher, although I can't recall whether I had a tube on at the time or just used closest focus:



This last one has an amusing story. My wife watched me chasing damselflies one day, mostly in vain, and said, "why don't you wait for them to come to you?" I didn't think that was too likely, but I sat down in some bushes they liked and waited a few minutes. This one promptly came and perched on my knee. the background is the worn denim of some old blue jeans.

However, while this shows that you can chase bugs for 1:1 or close with a 60mm, I certainly don't recommend it. Even a 100mm, with the extra few inches in working distance, is really difficult. Since getting a 100 some years ago, I have only used my 60mm on my crop for flowers, to give myself a shorter working distance for shots < 1:1. I don't even do that much now because for table-top shots <1:1, I would rather use my FF, and on that, the working distance of the 100mm fits within my table top.

Dan

[tasherlock]

John,

I'm a little puzzled by your comments.

First, I didn't reference minimum focusing distance. I don't find it a particularly useful number. I referenced minimum working distance, which is the distance from subject to the front of the lens at closest focus. This is the distance one needs for 1:1. I have on occasion tried to measure that with my own lenses, but the numbers I gave this time I took from this review.

Second, I am puzzled by this:



I have used my 60mm at 1:1 or closer many times. For example, here is the 60mm with 68mm of extension, so well above 2:1:



This one is also with the 60mm and extension, although I don't remember how much, and higher than 1:1:



This one is also 1:1 or higher, although I can't recall whether I had a tube on at the time or just used closest focus:



This last one has an amusing story. My wife watched me chasing damselflies one day, mostly in vain, and said, "why don't you wait for them to come to you?" I didn't think that was too likely, but I sat down in some bushes they liked and waited a few minutes. This one promptly came and perched on my knee. the background is the worn denim of some old blue jeans.

However, while this shows that you can chase bugs for 1:1 or close with a 60mm, I certainly don't recommend it. Even a 100mm, with the extra few inches in working distance, is really difficult. Since getting a 100 some years ago, I have only used my 60mm on my crop for flowers, to give myself a shorter working distance for shots < 1:1. I don't even do that much now because for table-top shots <1:1, I would rather use my FF, and on that, the working distance of the 100mm fits within my table top.

Dan

[tasherlock]

Thank you all for your sound advice. I will now save a little harder to buy a AF-S DX Micro 85mm f/3.5G ED VR Lens as it seems the most appropriate. I mainly shoot outdoors and from what you have all indicated this would be the most practical for my budget. I am most impressed with Dan's fly. Have never seen one like that!
Tom

[ajohnw]

Hi Dan, I was just working through the effects of shorter focal length macro lenses - a bit of detail as the working distances do vary even at the same focal length and some one might want to compare types. Flange distances to the sensor if any one wants them are in the wiki.

The main aspect I don't like about 60mm is when insects get closer to the ground. It gets harder and harder to get camera and head down there the lower they are. I've also come across some insects especially a type of butterfly that isn't keen on me being near let alone the camera. I'd guess this area is why Geoff for instance has gone for one of the even longer focal length 100mm + Sigma lenses and others sometimes use a converter.

Good tip about waiting for insects to come. I'm finding that in many cases if I see something and it goes they often come back. Only problem is that I have seen a few interesting beasties flying around that do come back but never seem to settle.

John
-

[Shadowman]

A review of the 40mm by FroKnows and mention of other options.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n13wV94tHIc

[DanK]

The main aspect I don't like about 60mm is when insects get closer to the ground. It gets harder and harder to get camera and head down there the lower they are. I've also come across some insects especially a type of butterfly that isn't keen on me being near let alone the camera. I'd guess this area is why Geoff for instance has gone for one of the even longer focal length 100mm + Sigma lenses and others sometimes use a converter.

John,

there is no question that 100mm is easier to use in chasing bugs than a 60mm. My point was only that 60 is fine for 1:1, as long as the shorter working distance is not a problem for a particular application.

Re bugs flying away: I have never read anything about this, but my experience is that certain species (damselflies are one) are much more likely to flee if you come at them from the top. I have wondered if this is a response to noticing things above their ocelli (the three simple eyes on the top of the head). So, I spend a fair amount of time slithering along on my stomach. In fact, I partially wore down the ring around one UV filter from sliding my camera forward, chasing damselflies on a wooden dock. Since images taken from directly above are often not the most interesting, this works out OK, as uncomfortable as it is.

My normal procedure is to get reasonably low, using a monopod to support the weight of the camera and flash if I am not lying on the ground.

Dan

[ajohnw]

I can't see me ever slithering along the ground Dan. I'd guess things vary in different parts of a country and the world. I haven't so far found anything that would benefit from this. One thing I have noticed is that it's important to be aware of my shadow. I seem to have most luck looking around in what could be loosely called hedge rows so most shots are taken standing or stooping often leaning if the 60mm is on. This is the major reason I am mostly using a 70-300mm zoom plus achromatic close up lens - less leaning which helps with stability. I haven't measure the working distance but would guess it's getting on for 300mm, maybe more, at the end of a lens which is pretty long as well.

John
-

[Shadowman]

Closeup yes, true macro no.
40mm f/29, 1/200 sec, flash, no cropping.

[Tord]

This is one of my favourite lenses, which I use on FX, DX and CX cameras. In the latter case it is excellent for macro, and portraits, as it equals a 105 on a FX body (exactly 108mm equivalent focal length), while on my DX I use it more as a normal, but it can naturally still be used for macro, and on my D600 it is excellent for portraits. It does vignette a bit, but cropping to 16:9 solves that, or just by closing down the aperture a bit.

I have bona fide FX lenses that vignettes more, by the way.

[Black Pearl]

This is one of my favourite lenses, which I use on FX, DX and CX cameras. In the latter case it is excellent for macro, and portraits, as it equals a 105 on a FX body (exactly 108mm equivalent focal length), while on my DX I use it more as a normal, but it can naturally still be used for macro, and on my D600 it is excellent for portraits. It does vignette a bit, but cropping to 16:9 solves that, or just by closing down the aperture a bit.

I have bona fide FX lenses that vignettes more, by the way.

This is a very old thread and I was going to skip by - but - you've piqued my curiosity.

Which FX lens do you have that vignettes as much as you say?

[rpcrowe]

I have the Canon 40mm f/2.8 Pancake lens which I bought to use as a wide/normal lens on my 5d2 camera. I did not purchase it for macro work but, decided to give it a run in that area.

As mentioned above, the image ratio at the 40mm minimum focus distance of 11.8 inches is not all that great being .18x or about 1:5. I can get a lot greater ratio by adding my 38mm extension tube (the only one that I own) however, the lens to subject distance is really short. That is O.K. for inanimate subjects but, I would not want to try to shoot a creepie-crawlie at that close distance; especially one that stings like a bee or wasp. It would be difficult to approach a butterfly that close also...