New nikkor 40mm macro lens anounced
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
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
14-24 24-70 70-200mm (vr2)
85 and 50 1.4
45 PC and sb910 x2
http://www.danielkimphotography.com
0
Comments
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
Flickr
Your professional online camera gear rental store
Follow us on Facebook
http://www.facebook.com/borrowlenses
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.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
http://www.youtube.com/user/NYCFilmmakersGroup
http://www.meetup.com/NYC-Filmmakers-and-Actors-Meetup-Group/
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.
I think that this will make a great all-purpose lens from Nikon.
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.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
min focus distance is measured from the sensor plane which is 6 inches..which is also 2 inches in front of the lens.
14-24 24-70 70-200mm (vr2)
85 and 50 1.4
45 PC and sb910 x2
http://www.danielkimphotography.com
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.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
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
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Smugmug: http://photosbykathie.com
Blog: http://www.dandenong-ranges-photography.com.au/blog/
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/KathiesPhotos
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.
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></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
Flickr
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum