New nikkor 40mm macro lens anounced

QarikQarik Registered Users Posts: 4,959 Major grins
edited July 15, 2011 in Cameras
cheap at $279 and capaable of 1:1. 2 innch min focus distance from front of lens

http://www.dpreview.com/news/1107/11071115nikkor40mmmacro.asp
D700, D600
14-24 24-70 70-200mm (vr2)
85 and 50 1.4
45 PC and sb910 x2
http://www.danielkimphotography.com

Comments

  • insanefredinsanefred Registered Users Posts: 604 Major grins
    edited July 12, 2011
    My girlfriend would love that, too bad it's a DX lens though.:cry

    Oh, and read the comments on that page. My jaw dropped, it just reminds me why I never dared making an account on DPreview.
  • puzzledpaulpuzzledpaul Registered Users Posts: 1,621 Major grins
    edited July 12, 2011
    insanefred wrote: »
    ...Oh, and read the comments on that page. My jaw dropped, it just reminds me why I never dared making an account on DPreview.

    +1

    pp
    Website

    Flickr
  • borrowlenses.comborrowlenses.com Registered Users Posts: 441 Major grins
    edited July 12, 2011
    Thanks. This came out of nowhere!
    http://www.BorrowLenses.com
    Your professional online camera gear rental store

    Follow us on Facebook
    http://www.facebook.com/borrowlenses
  • pickerbwpickerbw Registered Users Posts: 78 Big grins
    edited July 12, 2011
    Seems intriguing. What are your thoughts on the short working distance? FYI, I've never done macro photography, but have definitely been itching to get into it without dropping a lot of cash. I'm wondering if this may be my excuse...
  • ziggy53ziggy53 Super Moderators Posts: 24,078 moderator
    edited July 12, 2011
    pickerbw wrote: »
    Seems intriguing. What are your thoughts on the short working distance? FYI, I've never done macro photography, but have definitely been itching to get into it without dropping a lot of cash. I'm wondering if this may be my excuse...

    The biggest problem is getting light to the subject. With transparent subjects you may be able to illuminate from the back, but opaque subjects might be difficult.

    I prefer and I recommend true macro lenses of around 100mm for this reason.

    Greater working range makes it easier to light as well as not frightening some insects.
    ziggy53
    Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
  • thegridrunnerthegridrunner Registered Users Posts: 235 Major grins
    edited July 12, 2011
    Honestly, It looks like a great lens for filmmaking. I am shooting a scene presently which requires really close focusing (not quite macro).
    Nikon D800, D7000, 14-24,24-70, 70-200 Nikkor and stuff
    http://www.youtube.com/user/NYCFilmmakersGroup
    http://www.meetup.com/NYC-Filmmakers-and-Actors-Meetup-Group/
  • insanefredinsanefred Registered Users Posts: 604 Major grins
    edited July 12, 2011
    ziggy53 wrote: »
    The biggest problem is getting light to the subject. With transparent subjects you may be able to illuminate from the back, but opaque subjects might be difficult.

    I prefer and I recommend true macro lenses of around 100mm for this reason.

    Greater working range makes it easier to light as well as not frightening some insects.
    On the flop side.
    Less focal length, can mean more DoF in macro world. This would be good for beginners that are interested in macro, but do not know a whole lot about DoF when you get really close.
  • MarkRMarkR Registered Users Posts: 2,099 Major grins
    edited July 13, 2011
    I have a similar focal length lens-- the Pentax 35mm f2.8. That focal length makes a great walk-around lens, and the ability to close focus, and not have to worry about minimum focal distances (not necessarily true macro) only increases its value as a walk-around.

    I think that this will make a great all-purpose lens from Nikon. thumb.gif
  • ImageX PhotographyImageX Photography Registered Users Posts: 528 Major grins
    edited July 14, 2011
    Qarik wrote: »
    cheap at $279 and capaable of 1:1. 2 innch min focus distance from front of lens

    http://www.dpreview.com/news/1107/11071115nikkor40mmmacro.asp

    It's 6 inches... not 2.
  • ziggy53ziggy53 Super Moderators Posts: 24,078 moderator
    edited July 15, 2011
    ImageX Photography wrote: »
    It's 6 inches... not 2.

    It has a recessed front element, so that the MFD is around 6" from the front element but around 2" from the front of the lens.
    ziggy53
    Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
  • QarikQarik Registered Users Posts: 4,959 Major grins
    edited July 15, 2011
    ImageX Photography wrote: »
    It's 6 inches... not 2.

    min focus distance is measured from the sensor plane which is 6 inches..which is also 2 inches in front of the lens.
    D700, D600
    14-24 24-70 70-200mm (vr2)
    85 and 50 1.4
    45 PC and sb910 x2
    http://www.danielkimphotography.com
  • ImageX PhotographyImageX Photography Registered Users Posts: 528 Major grins
    edited July 15, 2011
    Im pretty sure its from the front element like Ziggy said. I didnt account for the recessed design.
  • ziggy53ziggy53 Super Moderators Posts: 24,078 moderator
    edited July 15, 2011
    Qarik wrote: »
    min focus distance is measured from the sensor plane which is 6 inches..which is also 2 inches in front of the lens.
    ImageX Photography wrote: »
    Im pretty sure its from the front element like Ziggy said. I didnt account for the recessed design.

    I could be wrong. I will research tomorrow and see if I can find something definitive, or if anyone finds a definitive site, feel free to post the link. thumb.gif
    ziggy53
    Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
  • ziggy53ziggy53 Super Moderators Posts: 24,078 moderator
    edited July 15, 2011
    Qarik got it correct thumb.gifclap.gif

    http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:3VAKjJGHATAJ:imaging.nikon.com/history/basics/19/04.htm+minimum+focus+distance&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com
    ziggy53
    Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
  • ImageX PhotographyImageX Photography Registered Users Posts: 528 Major grins
    edited July 15, 2011
    I always thought they were going from the front element when they gave those numbers. Guess its time to pay more attention!
  • kathiemtkathiemt Registered Users Posts: 226 Major grins
    edited July 15, 2011
    This lens has been announced in Australia too. Unbelievably at $449. I don't understand why they can charge so high for it. Surely it doesn't cost that much extra per lens to have them shipped here. And the retail industry here is upset because people are buying online instead of in their stores. I wonder why.
    Kathie M. Thomas,
    Smugmug: http://photosbykathie.com
    Blog: http://www.dandenong-ranges-photography.com.au/blog/
    Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/KathiesPhotos
  • puzzledpaulpuzzledpaul Registered Users Posts: 1,621 Major grins
    edited July 15, 2011
    Absolute bargain for us Brits @ 250 quid ($403 US) then :)

    Re mfd / working distance - I can see why mfrs quote from the sensor / film plane, as it's a std ref / datum location - but imo, it's a fat lot of relevance when shooting out in the real world.

    At least Canon have realised the stupidity of quoting 'working distances' referenced to the sensor plane with the mpe 65 - as the working distances marked on the lens itself are from subject to front element.

    Quoting from the sensor plane would be less than useful because of the considerable length variation of this lens over its 1x > 5x range.
    insanefred wrote: »
    On the flop side.
    Less focal length, can mean more DoF in macro world. This would be good for beginners that are interested in macro, but do not know a whole lot about DoF when you get really close.

    Wondered how this correlates to the following?

    << Close-up.
    When the subject distance s approaches the focal length, using the formulas given above can result in significant errors. For close-up work, the hyperfocal distance has little applicability, and it usually is more convenient to express DOF in terms of image magnification. Let m be the magnification; when the subject distance is small in comparison with the hyperfocal distance,
    <DL><DD>5b93709b3b0d4740d5e405a255832834.png</DD></DL>so that for a given magnification, DOF is independent of focal length. Stated otherwise, for the same subject magnification, at the same f-number, all focal lengths used on a given image format give approximately the same DOF. This statement is true only when the subject distance is small in comparison with the hyperfocal distance, however.

    Quoted from here.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_of_field

    pp
    Website

    Flickr
  • Matthew SavilleMatthew Saville Registered Users, Retired Mod Posts: 3,352 Major grins
    edited July 15, 2011
    I think we're starting to see some serious effects of inflation this year. I just can't imagine that it's ONLY Nikon who has just casually decided to start charging way more for ALL their equipment...

    =Matt=
    “My first thought is always of light.” – Galen Rowell
    My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
Sign In or Register to comment.