Any reviews of 40mm Nikkor Micro DX?

jasonstone

Hey all,

I've never had a macro lens, and honestly doubt it will be something I become crazy about... however i would like to take the occasional macro shot and figure that the 40mm DX Nikkor is relatively painless (money wise) entry into the subject....

The 60mm AF-S FX lens and the 85mm AF-S DX lens are too much money for "dabbling" with... about double the 40mm price...

Thing is finding any reviews is difficult.... So does anyone have any personal experience with the lens? If it matters I'd be pairing it with a D7000.

Thanks all
Jase

Matthew Saville

My personal favorite of all the review sites, SLRGear, has indeed recently published a review:

http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1448/cat/12

From what I can tell, if you get a copy as good as the one they reviewed, you're in for a real treat!

=Matt=

Matthew Saville

Seymore wrote: »

Jase... I've shot with a number of Nikkor micro lenses (55, 60, 105 & 200) and can tell you that @ 40mm, I would expect you'll need to get right up to your macro subject to get close to what micro abilities the lens can do. So depending on that macro subject you'll want to shoot, 40mm may or may not serve your purpose. Also, prime micro Nikkor glass is usually balanced well enough for longer range shooting.

Personally, I've found the longer micro lenses are better suited for my macro shooting. Here are some sample shots (macro and non macro) with the different micro Nikkors I've possessed: MF 55/2.8 - AF 60/2.8 - MF 105/4 - MF 200/4

I don't intend to discourage you from this lens, just trying to help you think thru the macro/micro process...

A good point, and worth mentioning. Indeed, my personal choice for macro lenses these days is just a Tamron 90mm f/2.5, it doesn't get to more than 1:2 reproduction, but on a crop sensor that's all I really need. With 40mm, you'll have to get right up in the subject's face, even block the light sometimes, to get the full macro capability. Keep that in mind, if you think you'll be photographing bugs or things you might want to save up for a longer lens...

Seymore wrote: »

But what stand out to me Matt, in that review, is that they didn't even test it's macro abilities. Hey, it's a micro lens, so test it for what it was built to do. Less than stellar review IMPO.

In my experience with EVERY macro lens I've ever tested, if it's sharp at normal distances then it's RAZOR sharp at close distances. Macro lenses are optimized for 1:1 or 1:2 shooting, so I'd consider this a fair assesment of the lens acutally. But, you still have a point and I would of course recommend testing ANY lens as soon as you get it, if you buy...

=Matt=

jasonstone

Seymore wrote: »

OH Jase... I would suggest you consider getting a Micro-Nikkor 60/2.8 (non-AFS) to see if this is the route you want to take. I've seen these used for ~$300 in the USA. Don't know about anything in the EU.

Interestingly enough that was one I was considering as a friend in the office was going to sell me his... I wasn't sure if the AF-D would be a limiting factor (but like I said I don't know much about macro at all)

Thanks to both Matt and yourself for your help!

Originally I was thinking about a 90mm Tamron but just not sure how much $$ I want to throw at something I'm not going to use that often.

Cheers
jase

Matthew Saville

jasonstone wrote: »

Interestingly enough that was one I was considering as a friend in the office was going to sell me his... I wasn't sure if the AF-D would be a limiting factor (but like I said I don't know much about macro at all)

Thanks to both Matt and yourself for your help!

Originally I was thinking about a 90mm Tamron but just not sure how much $$ I want to throw at something I'm not going to use that often.

Cheers
jase

Quite honestly, if it is ONLY for macro then I don't even care if a lens has autofocus, period. Macro is a manual focus art, plain and simple.

Really, the only reason I'd buy a macro lens and concern myself with it's autofocus performance is if I know I am going to need to use it for other purposes. Usually, a macro lens in the ~50mm range can double as a walk-around lens if your regular 50 f/1.X bites the dust mid-job, or a 90/100mm macro can double as an 85 / 105 prime for portraits, ...OR, my personal favorite, a macro lens like the Sigma 150 2.8 can make a GREAT candid photojournalism lens, an alternative to the heavy and expensive 70-200 2.8's out there.

So, those are the only real reasons to worry about AF in a macro lens. Honestly, at close distances, I haven't used AF on a macro lens in years. And as I mentioned earlier, currently I'm just using a manual focus Tamron 90m f/2.5 that was given to me from someone's garage. The dang thing is sharp as a tack and build rock-solid; I highly recommend it if you can find one! BTW, there are a handful of different models, mine is the manual focus one that only goes to 1:2 reproduction, has 55mm filter threads, and has a rotating focus ring instead of push-pull. :-)

Of course the important thing is STILL whether the focal length interests you or not. The 40mm DX is probably a great lens in general, and a good buy if you plan to use it mostly for moderately close and general shooting, NOT the crazy "in-your-face" type of macro that would indeed benefit from a longer focal length.

Again, good luck deciding!

=Matt=

jasonstone

Thanks - will keep that in mind - am trying to get a cheap older Tamron 90mm on equiv of eBay here in Switzerland...

DsrtVW

I picked up a used micro Nikkor 55mm f2.8 150.00US a couple of extension tubes 30.00US works great on my D7000. There are lots of good used lenses If you are shooting handheld you become the AF

angevin1

jasonstone wrote: »

Thanks - will keep that in mind - am trying to get a cheap older Tamron 90mm on equiv of eBay here in Switzerland...

If I can throw my 2¢ cents in: I currently have the voigtlander Ultron-40mm and it has a Macro lens that you screw on, it is awesome! But My all time favorite is the Sigma's the 105mm especially. It can be found here and there for about $350.U.S. and it is the deadliest Portrait lens and A really great Macro lens.

cbbr

I have a Nikon 40mm and a 105VR that I shoot in a D7000- the 40 is a perfect "walkaround" lens and does a great job of shooting close when you have good light and things that don't move (flowers, wedding rings, stamps...). You have to get far too close to moving things IMO to use it as a true macro. It is also difficult to light still things sometimes too because you are in the way of the light source. The 105 is much better for macro work and I had a 55 2.8 AIs which, if you are shooting small things that don't move, is a great lens for the price. With the tube you get 1:1 for around $125.

puzzledpaul

jasonstone wrote: »

doubt it will be something I become crazy about... however i would like to take the occasional macro shot....

are too much money for "dabbling" with...

Have you considered getting some extension tubes - and experimenting with whatever lenses you already have?

pp

jasonstone

would a set of kenko extension tubes really get me say 1:1 with a 35mm f1.8 DX lens?

cbbr

IIRC a 36mm tube would get you to 1:1, but you still have a working distance issue. What are you going to be shootig?

puzzledpaul

jasonstone wrote: »

would a set of kenko extension tubes really get me say 1:1 with a 35mm f1.8 DX lens?

I'd be very surpised if it didn't

Theory suggests that extending a lens by the same distance as its focal length will give you 1:1 - however, real world issues such as extremely short working distance (+ lighting) and maybe vignetting could make the combo impractical.

A quick try of a 28-105 + 36mm tube gave me 1:1 on a 1.3x crop factor (Canon) body ... but @ extremely short wd ... maybe 25mm.

A more practical setup for me (if I didn't already have macro lenses) would probably be my 70-200 f4 (non IS) + a full set of tubes.

What other lenses do you have - if similar to mine, I could put some figures to this discussion.

pp

jasonstone

I have a 17-50 f2.8 Tamron and a 70-300 4.5-5.6 mikkor VR --- thanks for the help!

Could purchase a 35mm f1.8 nikkor or the 50mm f1.8

cbbr

What do you want to be able to shoot?

jasonstone

At least car engine id numbers in engine bays -and some detail shots - will be lighting the engine bay with a big studio strobe (if that helps?)
otherwise just stuff for fun - not sure really! Sorry that doesn't help....

puzzledpaul

Well, I also have a 17-50 Tamron ... but I don't (daughter's bf has snaffled it


Some figs using my 70 -200 with a full set of tubes (68mm)

Lens @ 200mm I get approx 1:1.6 at a working distance of 450mm (that's from lens front element to subject)
Lens @ 70mm, mag is 1:1.05 at a working distance of 70mm.

Using the 50mm end of your zoom or a 50mm prime with tubes (can't actually check either) you'd certainly get 1:1, but at a shorter working distance than 70mm.
A lot depends on what you want to shoot - and how (ambient and / or flash)

Many supposed macro shots you've probably seen aren't - in the truest sense of the word, they're close-ups.

eg any shot showing a complete dragonfly isn't going to be a 'macro' shot because of the size of the subject compared to the likely sensor size - say it's got a wingspan of 100mm and you're using a cam with 25mm across the sensor.

With the subject just fitting in, magnification is going to be 1:4 ... a totally different ball game from 1:1 (imo).
If the image is composed in such a way that the photog also includes some environment, then the mag reduces even further

If you want to try the 'tubes' route with what you've got, I'd suggest using the 70-300 to get some idea of what's involved (I used a 100-300 f5.6L + tubes for about a year some time ago.)

As tubes are likely to work with the majority of lenses, you're unlikely to regret their purchase, and if you do, there's a ready market for them.

pp

edit
Just seen bit about engine No - how long is this?
Don't forget that you can probably take a shot at a lower mag, giving you more convenient working distance ... and then crop?

cbbr

To shoot static objects in a studio, I would loook for a 55 AIs -either version - and get the tube (PK-13 IIRC) to get it to 1:1. Use a tripod adnd you will be hard pressed to find a sharper lens. It is also a very flat lens - no distortion - which should work well for engine ID numbers. And they meter with your D7000 perfectly.

jasonstone

Wow a LOT of info in there!! thanks!!

For how often I'd need a macro I think I might just try out the extension tube idea first

Also means I can snap up a 35mm f1.8 that I've wanted for a while...

Cheers
Jase

puzzledpaul wrote: »

Well, I also have a 17-50 Tamron ... but I don't (daughter's bf has snaffled it


Some figs using my 70 -200 with a full set of tubes (68mm)

Lens @ 200mm I get approx 1:1.6 at a working distance of 450mm (that's from lens front element to subject)
Lens @ 70mm, mag is 1:1.05 at a working distance of 70mm.

Using the 50mm end of your zoom or a 50mm prime with tubes (can't actually check either) you'd certainly get 1:1, but at a shorter working distance than 70mm.
A lot depends on what you want to shoot - and how (ambient and / or flash)

Many supposed macro shots you've probably seen aren't - in the truest sense of the word, they're close-ups.

eg any shot showing a complete dragonfly isn't going to be a 'macro' shot because of the size of the subject compared to the likely sensor size - say it's got a wingspan of 100mm and you're using a cam with 25mm across the sensor.

With the subject just fitting in, magnification is going to be 1:4 ... a totally different ball game from 1:1 (imo).
If the image is composed in such a way that the photog also includes some environment, then the mag reduces even further

If you want to try the 'tubes' route with what you've got, I'd suggest using the 70-300 to get some idea of what's involved (I used a 100-300 f5.6L + tubes for about a year some time ago.)

As tubes are likely to work with the majority of lenses, you're unlikely to regret their purchase, and if you do, there's a ready market for them.

pp

edit
Just seen bit about engine No - how long is this?
Don't forget that you can probably take a shot at a lower mag, giving you more convenient working distance ... and then crop?

jasonstone

Thanks for the info - if I can pick one up cheap enough just might nab it

cbbr wrote: »

To shoot static objects in a studio, I would loook for a 55 AIs -either version - and get the tube (PK-13 IIRC) to get it to 1:1. Use a tripod adnd you will be hard pressed to find a sharper lens. It is also a very flat lens - no distortion - which should work well for engine ID numbers. And they meter with your D7000 perfectly.

jasonstone

As a n00b i somehow had in mind that autofocus was nice but manual focus was required - thus af-s is better because can override the autofocus... af-d you can't do that....

i'd be tempted to get it - but not sure he'll part with it for a reasonable price - he loves his gear!

yes to confined spaces... so longer is better

i won't be buying the 40mm anymore - i don't think it'll meet my requirements after all this advice

Seymore wrote: »

Limiting? How?

I still have my Nikkor 60/2.8 (non/pre-D) and find it to be one of the sharpest macros I've shot with. I have yet to see any limits with this lens. I would suggest you ask the friend if you could borrow the lens for some test shots and see if it would work for you.


I think you may be hard pressed to get some of the PICs you'll need with a WA macro. Also, are some of the shots going to be in confined spaces? I'm thinking that a longer FL macro would do better than WA macro.

Matthew Saville

Again, it sounds like your best investment is either something in the 100mm range, even like the Tamron 90mm f/2.5 manual focus, (as long as you camera has an aperture tab, by the way! You said you had a D7000 so that's why I recommended itj) ...OR, a close-up filter / extension tube on a telephoto lens.

If you get something like the Tamron 90mm AIS, you'll only pay $150-200 and might have money left over for that 35 f/1.8 DX... ;-)

=Matt=

System

jasonstone wrote: »

Interestingly enough that was one I was considering as a friend in the office was going to sell me his... I wasn't sure if the AF-D would be a limiting factor (but like I said I don't know much about macro at all)

Thanks to both Matt and yourself for your help!

Originally I was thinking about a 90mm Tamron but just not sure how much $$ I want to throw at something I'm not going to use that often.

Cheers
jase

I say go for the 60 mm AF-D. The thing is sharp as a tack .