Home Photography Corner

New Nikon Primes

GuidenetGuidenet Posts: 239 Officer
Just when I thought Nikon was done this year releasing prime lenses with the new 50 f/1.8 for only $219, they came out with a new Macro lens today for only $279.

It's a 40 f/2.8 AFS Micro that focuses to 1:1 lifesize without tubes and incluse Nikon's Close Range Correction system.

Sounds to me like another great inexpensive choice for DX users. That is an extremely low price. What a bargain. It has the same field of view as 60 on full frame. Back in the old days, we really only had 55mm focal lengths for most macro lenses. I still have a superb pre-ai converted in 55 f/3.5 that takes encredible images on my D700. I also have a new 60 f/2.8 AFS G Micro.

The advantage to these shorter focal lengths is ease of tracking. Try tracking a flying butterfly with a 100mm or 200mm macro lens. The field of view is so narrow, tracking becomes nearly impossible. With this focal length, it will be much easier. I wish it were FX capable.

Nikon is doing a wonderful job meeting the needs of the DX shooter as well as producing superb optics at extemely low prices. We've now got the 35 f/1.8 at $199, the new 50 f/1.8 at $219 and this new Macro at $279. There's less and less reason to consider 3rd party or sub-quality glass. Here you get real Nikon glass and design.
Nikon D800, D3S, D700, D300, Canon G1X, Sigma 15 f/2.8 Fisheye, Sigma 10-20 f/4-5.6, Nikon 16-35 f/4 VR, Nikon 28 f/1.8G AFS, Tamron 17-50 f/2.8, Nikon 35-70 f/2.8 AFD, Nikon 80-200 f/2.8 AFD, Nikon 70-300 f/4.5-5.6 VR, Nikon 80-400 f/4.5-5.6 AFS VR, Nikon 35 f/2, Nikon 50 f/1.8 G, Nikon 60 f/2.8 G Micro, Nikon 85 f/1.4 AFS G, Nikon 105 f/2.5 AI, Sigma 150 f/2.8 APO Macro, Nikon 300 f/2.8 AFS VR, Nikon 500 f/4 -P, Interfit Stellar X complete six light studio

Replies

  • WaterEngineerWaterEngineer Posts: 24,415 AG
    The last two years Nikon did a fine job updating some FX glass, so I am happy the DX customers are getting some love. I did catch the press release at www.nikonrumors.com for this lens.

    I own the 60 which is really a ninety, so I hope the 40 is up to snuff. I will wait for the reviews - which shouldn't be too long. It is definitely priced correctly. However, I would pay a little more if it a little faster lens. I am sure Nikon was thinking of "matching" the old 60mm.

    The MTF chart looks very good.
  • ChuckcChuckc Posts: 4,397 Captain
    Hmm, very interesting 40 macro. I'm quite happy with my Tamron 60 f/2 but I would have considered the 40 as well when the time came, especially at that price. I didn't see working distance noted, wonder what it is?
  • GuidenetGuidenet Posts: 239 Officer
    I think the working distance is 11 cm from the sensor at 1:1 which is pretty close. I'm not a buyer because I have enough and they are FX,but if I were all DX, I'd consider it for flowers and such as well as flying critters where I'd not worry about 1:1 and would crop. This lens would also be great for document archival.

    Craig, how much faster would you want a $279 macro lens, for heaven's sake? ;) An f/2.8 lens at that price is pretty darned good. I only know of the FX Tamron 60 f/2 that is faster and it's quite a bit more.

    Any time you start getting away from normal or going to specialty glass, fast becomes quite expensive. For example, I see a whole lot of DX (crop camera) shooters who are demanding a cheap wide prime for around $250. It ain't gonna happen. Think about what these things cost. An FX 14 f/2.8 is over $1500. DX isn't going to be that much cheaper. And, a lot of the people wanting these mythical DX fast wides are wanting F/1.8. They want something like a 16 f/1.8 DX for $250.

    Look at Pentax's little gem, the crop camera 15 f/4. It's f/4 and costs over $650. Telephoto and Fast or Wide and Fast = expensive. Look at Nikon's 24 f/1.4 and their 35 f/1.4. Both push $2000 with the 35 being slightly cheaper.

    So, I might be wrong, but I'm going to guess that Nikon will stick to 20 or 24 mm and be f/2.8 or f/4 in a cheap DX lens, and by cheap, I mean cheaper than a new full frame version, maybe $299 or $399.
    Nikon D800, D3S, D700, D300, Canon G1X, Sigma 15 f/2.8 Fisheye, Sigma 10-20 f/4-5.6, Nikon 16-35 f/4 VR, Nikon 28 f/1.8G AFS, Tamron 17-50 f/2.8, Nikon 35-70 f/2.8 AFD, Nikon 80-200 f/2.8 AFD, Nikon 70-300 f/4.5-5.6 VR, Nikon 80-400 f/4.5-5.6 AFS VR, Nikon 35 f/2, Nikon 50 f/1.8 G, Nikon 60 f/2.8 G Micro, Nikon 85 f/1.4 AFS G, Nikon 105 f/2.5 AI, Sigma 150 f/2.8 APO Macro, Nikon 300 f/2.8 AFS VR, Nikon 500 f/4 -P, Interfit Stellar X complete six light studio
  • WaterEngineerWaterEngineer Posts: 24,415 AG
    Yes, I understand your point. But, being able to flatten out the DOF to a very thin slice might bring on more creativity for some. Not so much for me, I'm not much of a macro shooter.
  • mississippi macmississippi mac Posts: 4,222 Captain
    To all....
    i wish canon took some time to do good things with their ef-s lenses...
    unfortunatly, my experience with canon's ef-s glass is they make good paper weights...
    i opt for the ff ef and ef-L glass as it is much better with some ef glass just within a hair of being as good as L glass...

    tim
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The Real White Dog

    if you can't catch a fish...catch a buzz....
    #12976, joined 8-17-2002
  • WaterEngineerWaterEngineer Posts: 24,415 AG
    Apparently, everyone's favorite Nikon reviewer, Ken Rockwell, has had his hands on this lens for a while. His thoughts below.

    Text:

    The Nikon 40mm f/2.8 G AF-S is a fantastic normal lens with extreme close-focus ability. Get it if ultra-close focus ability is important to you in a normal lens.

    This 40mm lens is not a good idea if you plan to use it for dedicated macro use. For serious macro use, get at least a 105mm macro lens for sanity's sake. Personally, I and everyone else serious about macro use 180mm or 200mm macro lenses.

    For general use, I prefer the 35mm f/1.8 DX, which gets more than close enough, costs $80 less, and adds over a stop of needed speed for even better low-light results.

    Nikon makes about 60 kinds of lenses because we all have different needs. This 40mm lens is best for someone needing a normal do-everything lens who values ultra-close focusing above low-light ability. Enjoy!
  • GuidenetGuidenet Posts: 239 Officer
    OMG, Craig. That's guy shouldn't be allowed in print much less on this forum. He's never seen that lens much less had it for a while. He buys online and returns them when he's done playing with them and they won't be out until August 25th. I've tried to see Ken Rockwell's point of view but I can't get my head that far up my ****. He reviews tons of stuff without ever touching them. He has a review up the moment it's announced, often before the product has hit US shores. Ever read his stuff on Flying Saucers and Aliens? Check out his stuff on Anal Probes. Moreover, he is not and has never been a professional. He just makes money on a website. He shoots low res Jpegs and doesn't even know how to use Photoshop (he thinks he does). He uses Tiffen filters and doesn't believe in lens hoods. He advises everyone else to do the same. LOL

    http://www.kenrockwell.com/nm/aliens/index.htm
    http://www.kenrockwell.com/analprobe/dissent.htm
    http://www.kenrockwell.com/analprobe/faq.htm
    http://www.kenrockwell.com/nm/aliens/kiva.htm

    This new lens is perfect for what it is and might sell off the shelf. With macro work you're always fighting too narrow depth of field, not the other way around. People don't try to be creative with narrow DOF in macro work. It's always thin. Even f/11 is paper thin at 1:1 lifesize. As a normal lens f/2.8 is plenty fast. It's still going to be a fairly thin depth of field at f/2.8. I sometimes stop down my 85 f/1.4 to f/2.8 or even f/4 and get fantastic bokeh and a shallow depth of field. The new 40 f/2.8 will be fine. Besides, if someone wants a narrower DOF, there's a ton of other options, but f/2.8 is pretty skinny.

    The important part is that this is a macro lens that has the same FOV as a 60mm on FX. We've been shooting that for years with no problems. If you have biting insects, you go longer, but actually compare the actual working distance of this lens to a 90mm macro or 105. The have more, but by not as much as you might think. You have to go to 150 to 200mm before you're significantly enough more to protect you from a biting bee or angry wasp and then it's no sure thing. Longer focal lengths have their own issues as a macro lens. You pretty much can't hand hold them for macro work. If you read the Nikon instructions that come with the 105 f/2.8 VR, it tells you that VR is useless at macro distances and to turn it off. 150mm and 200mm are a tripod and focusing rail game for macro. That's the advantage of a wider macro lens. YOu can hand hold them on flowers as well as some moving things if you're careful. With a longer macro, it's just luck to catch that butterfly, not impossible, but luck. The focus becomes too critical.

    All in all, this new Nikon 40 f/2.8 has it's place in the lineup and at $279, I predict will sell very well. As a one stop normal, almost portrait, macro, fast, lens, it might be a great choice, and don't let anyone tell you f/2.8 is not considered fast, especially on today's high ISO marvels. Just my opinion.
    Nikon D800, D3S, D700, D300, Canon G1X, Sigma 15 f/2.8 Fisheye, Sigma 10-20 f/4-5.6, Nikon 16-35 f/4 VR, Nikon 28 f/1.8G AFS, Tamron 17-50 f/2.8, Nikon 35-70 f/2.8 AFD, Nikon 80-200 f/2.8 AFD, Nikon 70-300 f/4.5-5.6 VR, Nikon 80-400 f/4.5-5.6 AFS VR, Nikon 35 f/2, Nikon 50 f/1.8 G, Nikon 60 f/2.8 G Micro, Nikon 85 f/1.4 AFS G, Nikon 105 f/2.5 AI, Sigma 150 f/2.8 APO Macro, Nikon 300 f/2.8 AFS VR, Nikon 500 f/4 -P, Interfit Stellar X complete six light studio
  • GuidenetGuidenet Posts: 239 Officer
    To all....
    i wish canon took some time to do good things with their ef-s lenses...
    unfortunatly, my experience with canon's ef-s glass is they make good paper weights...
    i opt for the ff ef and ef-L glass as it is much better with some ef glass just within a hair of being as good as L glass...

    tim

    Hey Tim. As you know, I have not much interest in Canon gear other than my excellent Canon S95, but I've heard good things about some EFS lenses. That 10-22 is supposed to be best in class. The 17-55 is no slouch either, is it? I don't think it's L, is it?

    But basically I do agree with you. I love that Nikon is coming out with these inexpensive marvels of optics in DX. I think it's great for the DX shooter who might never more to Full Frame, but like you, I tend to avoid them anymore. I love FF glass, and of course one of my cameras is FF so I'd better like it. LOL. That's why I'm glad that the new 50 f/1.8 was FX. It's small enough for the DX guys but can hook up to my D700. I also love that it's optics are as good or better than many of the other 50mm choices that cost twice or more as much. Even though I don't shoot 50mm much, at $219, I snapped it up. I hear they're hard to find now. People who waited are going to have to wait longer for the second run.

    Canon needs to update their 50 f/1.8 as well, I think. This new Nikon 50 f/1.8 is a true aspheric design which is pretty cool. It also has a sonic ring motor inside. Cool again. The more expensive 50 f/1.4 is not. The darn thing just has no CAs and is tack sharp. Sigma is supposed to have the best 50 out there these days with their 50 f/1.4 Aspheric, but they have too much sample variation for me to lay out over $500 on it.
    Nikon D800, D3S, D700, D300, Canon G1X, Sigma 15 f/2.8 Fisheye, Sigma 10-20 f/4-5.6, Nikon 16-35 f/4 VR, Nikon 28 f/1.8G AFS, Tamron 17-50 f/2.8, Nikon 35-70 f/2.8 AFD, Nikon 80-200 f/2.8 AFD, Nikon 70-300 f/4.5-5.6 VR, Nikon 80-400 f/4.5-5.6 AFS VR, Nikon 35 f/2, Nikon 50 f/1.8 G, Nikon 60 f/2.8 G Micro, Nikon 85 f/1.4 AFS G, Nikon 105 f/2.5 AI, Sigma 150 f/2.8 APO Macro, Nikon 300 f/2.8 AFS VR, Nikon 500 f/4 -P, Interfit Stellar X complete six light studio
  • ChuckcChuckc Posts: 4,397 Captain
    Guidenet wrote: »
    ... I've tried to see Ken Rockwell's point of view but I can't get my head that far up my ****.
    :Spittingcoffee

    I think it will sell very well, assuming it is sharp as predected. It gets you into the macro game (although with limited working distance) and the low light game and the prime game all at the same time for under $300.
  • WaterEngineerWaterEngineer Posts: 24,415 AG
    Craig, quite the rant about brother Ken Rockwell - LOL. Clearly, you missed my sarcasm with my statement, "everyone's favorite Nikon reviewer....."
  • GuidenetGuidenet Posts: 239 Officer
    Craig, quite the rant about brother Ken Rockwell - LOL. Clearly, you missed my sarcasm with my statement, "everyone's favorite Nikon reviewer....."

    But he is such a turkey and you quoted him. LOL I know I overreact to him, and actually read him until I get to something dumb, then can't read anymore.
    Nikon D800, D3S, D700, D300, Canon G1X, Sigma 15 f/2.8 Fisheye, Sigma 10-20 f/4-5.6, Nikon 16-35 f/4 VR, Nikon 28 f/1.8G AFS, Tamron 17-50 f/2.8, Nikon 35-70 f/2.8 AFD, Nikon 80-200 f/2.8 AFD, Nikon 70-300 f/4.5-5.6 VR, Nikon 80-400 f/4.5-5.6 AFS VR, Nikon 35 f/2, Nikon 50 f/1.8 G, Nikon 60 f/2.8 G Micro, Nikon 85 f/1.4 AFS G, Nikon 105 f/2.5 AI, Sigma 150 f/2.8 APO Macro, Nikon 300 f/2.8 AFS VR, Nikon 500 f/4 -P, Interfit Stellar X complete six light studio
Sign In or Register to comment.