AF-S 35mm F1.8G vs AF-S 40mm Micro F2.8G


Ahtim78

New Member
Nov 3, 2010
212
0
0
#1
Hi guys,

Just wanna find out is it really worth to replace 35mm lens with 40mm Macro

1)Notice the focal length is just 5mm difference which make it insignificant to compare the focal length

2)The smallest aperture is just 1 stop down that doesn't make it a huge different in term of faster prime lens

but the advantage of 40mm lens over 35mm is it's micro capabilities which 35mm lack of so is it wise to replace 35mm with 40mm ?

hope to hear from u guys opinion.

Thanks
 

#2
Hi guys,

Just wanna find out is it really worth to replace 35mm lens with 40mm Macro

1)Notice the focal length is just 5mm difference which make it insignificant to compare the focal length

2)The smallest aperture is just 1 stop down that doesn't make it a huge different in term of faster prime lens

but the advantage of 40mm lens over 35mm is it's micro capabilities which 35mm lack of so is it wise to replace 35mm with 40mm ?

hope to hear from u guys opinion.

Thanks
Well i guess it boils down to how much u need the macro capabilities, nice to have but for myself i find 35 just right for everything on dx. Anything more and framing gets a bit tight :) There's also the cost factor
 

Irvine

New Member
Jan 1, 2010
1,037
0
0
North? South? East? West?
#3
Hi guys,

Just wanna find out is it really worth to replace 35mm lens with 40mm Macro

1)Notice the focal length is just 5mm difference which make it insignificant to compare the focal length

2)The smallest aperture is just 1 stop down that doesn't make it a huge different in term of faster prime lens

but the advantage of 40mm lens over 35mm is it's micro capabilities which 35mm lack of so is it wise to replace 35mm with 40mm ?

hope to hear from u guys opinion.

Thanks
shouldnt u be considering something which is pretty simple and basic, that is, r u into macro n u need the 40 f/2.8 for macro? if u r nt doing macro u probably wun need it, so dun buy it
 

Last edited:

Ahtim78

New Member
Nov 3, 2010
212
0
0
#5
Do note that the 40mm micro lens is not a constant F/2.8 at diff focusing distance. Unlike the 35mm F/1.8.
Does that mean that i can't use F2.8 aperture for different focus distance ?
 

Apr 2, 2006
2,308
1
0
CCK
#7
2)The smallest aperture is just 1 stop down that doesn't make it a huge different in term of faster prime lens
It is the largest aperture that is 1 and 1/3 stop different for the fast prime. f/2 to f/2.8 is 1 stop, the extra bit from f/1.8 to f/2 is 1/3 of a stop.

So first ask yourself if you can afford to lose that 1 and 1/3 stop? With 35/1.8 you can use ISO1600, but with 40/2.8 you have to go ISO3500 or something like that.

And ask yourself if macro is important? I use both 60mm Micro and 50mm on different occasions. I prefer the 50mm for its size and larger aperture, but 60mm more versatile when macro is needed.

Do note that the 40mm micro lens is not a constant F/2.8 at diff focusing distance. Unlike the 35mm F/1.8.
When you're at 1:1 magnification, you won't get f/2.8 but rather f/3.5.
The micro lens is a constant f/2.8 at normal shooting distances. ALL micro macro lenses when going into macro range WILL have smaller aperture, as the lens get physically extended beyond its normal range the light path gets longer, so your effective aperture goes smaller. It is call physics.

If you get a set of extension tube to push the 35mm to get you 1:1 you will need 35mm of extension (you can use a bellow to do the job to get exactly 35mm extension). At 1:1 you will find the effective aperture to have drop, likely to about f/2.8.

You may find other micro lenses showing constant f/2.8 readout but that is where the lenses cheat by not telling the camera the effective aperture number, but the light meter compensates for it.

So stop saying a micro lens not constant aperture, all lenses pushed into macro range will lose f stop.
 

Last edited:

ZerocoolAstra

Senior Member
Mar 13, 2008
9,522
0
0
rainy Singapore
#8
Ahtim78 said:
Hi guys,

Just wanna find out is it really worth to replace 35mm lens with 40mm Macro

1)Notice the focal length is just 5mm difference which make it insignificant to compare the focal length

2)The smallest aperture is just 1 stop down that doesn't make it a huge different in term of faster prime lens

but the advantage of 40mm lens over 35mm is it's micro capabilities which 35mm lack of so is it wise to replace 35mm with 40mm ?

hope to hear from u guys opinion.

Thanks
35/1.8 is slightly over a stop faster.
F/1.4 lens is not even a stop faster than f/1.8 lens, yet the price difference is.... :bigeyes:
So ppl are definitely willing to spend for that difference.

A macro lens typically focuses slower than a fast prime, when used to shoot stuff that the fast prime excels in.
 

ZerocoolAstra

Senior Member
Mar 13, 2008
9,522
0
0
rainy Singapore
#9
diediealsomustdive said:
.
.
.


The micro lens is a constant f/2.8 at normal shooting distances. ALL micro macro lenses when going into macro range WILL have smaller aperture, as the lens get physically extended beyond its normal range the light path gets longer, so your effective aperture goes smaller. It is call physics.

.
.
.

You may find other micro lenses showing constant f/2.8 readout but that is where the lenses cheat by not telling the camera the effective aperture number, but the light meter compensates for it.

So stop saying a micro lens not constant aperture, all lenses pushed into macro range will lose f stop.
there's a website that explains this quite well. I don't have the link now.
Basically the lens aperture doesn't change. Even at 1:1 magnification, the aperture diameter wide open is 40/2.8 mm.
The effective aperture is smaller, because some of the light falls outside the area of the sensor, thus not captured. What is captured is lower in intensity, hence effective aperture is shown as f/____ (larger number than 2.8)
 

Jun 5, 2011
13
0
0
#11
Hi Everyone, good to see the discussion of these two lens as I intend to get one prime DX lens for my D3100 which I was thinking of 35mm until Nikon announced the new 40mm but yet to hit the market. I'm new in photography.....just want to know whether I read the discussion correctly. If I'm not going for macro, can I say that there is only 5mm difference between these two lens and having a lens of f/1.8 is faster than the f/2.8 which 35mm is cheaper than the upcoming 40mm then should I go for 35mm?
 

ZerocoolAstra

Senior Member
Mar 13, 2008
9,522
0
0
rainy Singapore
#12
myphotoworkz said:
Hi Everyone, good to see the discussion of these two lens as I intend to get one prime DX lens for my D3100 which I was thinking of 35mm until Nikon announced the new 40mm but yet to hit the market. I'm new in photography.....just want to know whether I read the discussion correctly. If I'm not going for macro, can I say that there is only 5mm difference between these two lens and having a lens of f/1.8 is faster than the f/2.8 which 35mm is cheaper than the upcoming 40mm then should I go for 35mm?
If you don't need the high magnification ratio, 35/1.8 is the one to go for :)
 

Dec 7, 2010
19
0
0
Singapore
#13
Hi Everyone, good to see the discussion of these two lens as I intend to get one prime DX lens for my D3100 which I was thinking of 35mm until Nikon announced the new 40mm but yet to hit the market. I'm new in photography.....just want to know whether I read the discussion correctly. If I'm not going for macro, can I say that there is only 5mm difference between these two lens and having a lens of f/1.8 is faster than the f/2.8 which 35mm is cheaper than the upcoming 40mm then should I go for 35mm?
i had been using my 35mm 1.8 for sometime now and its a great purchase. if u like to get more length u can consider the AF-S NIKKOR 50mm f/1.8G which gives u an effective angle of view is equivalent to that of a lens with a 75-mm focal length.
 

Aug 22, 2009
137
0
0
29
#14
I feel the 35m is more comfortable for daily shots. If you're really into macro, you'll find the 40mm too short. You'll be better off with a 60mm micro or the 105mm.
 

ZerocoolAstra

Senior Member
Mar 13, 2008
9,522
0
0
rainy Singapore
#15
I feel the 35m is more comfortable for daily shots. If you're really into macro, you'll find the 40mm too short. You'll be better off with a 60mm micro or the 105mm.
1:1 magnification for a 40mm lens wasn't really necessary to me, but I did wish for a relatively cheap lens that could focus closer than the 35/1.8, and this looks like it :)
 

DM101

Senior Member
Jul 10, 2010
1,496
2
38
#16
Bokeh of a 35mm f1.8G DX for review. It is not as nice as the 50mm f1.8G I must say but the DOF is better

Shot @ f1.8. Top of the can rim can see some chromatic issues (pink/green color)



Shot @ f5.6 you can see the IQ improves



What do you expect for a $280 lens! I think is good for musesum in low light conditions where flash and tripod is not allowed
 

ziploc

New Member
Jan 17, 2002
4,577
0
0
Snoopyland
#17
For shooting macro, besides magnification, you also need to consider the working distance of the lens. The shorter the focal length, the shorter the working distance. In the case of the 40mm/2.8 micro, at 1:1 reproduction ratio the working distance is only 48mm from the front of the lens. That is extremely close, and is only practical for shooting still life; insects would be long gone before you get to 48mm.
 

PreciousP

New Member
Feb 21, 2008
193
0
0
#18
For shooting macro, besides magnification, you also need to consider the working distance of the lens. The shorter the focal length, the shorter the working distance. In the case of the 40mm/2.8 micro, at 1:1 reproduction ratio the working distance is only 48mm from the front of the lens. That is extremely close, and is only practical for shooting still life; insects would be long gone before you get to 48mm.
Traditionally the working distance of a 55mm micro full frame, which in field of view is similar to the 40mm micro (FOV 60mm), is good for document copying, static objects, like watches, flowers, etc. In such instances for those having a copying stand a longer focal length is actually not desirable. On the other hand the shy objects love a longer working distance and even 105mm is too short in some instance. I am smitten by the depth of field and isolation of a 200mm micro (on DX it is 300mm!), but have not had the chance to use it yet (despite having bought it for over a year).
 

Jun 5, 2011
13
0
0
#19
i had been using my 35mm 1.8 for sometime now and its a great purchase. if u like to get more length u can consider the AF-S NIKKOR 50mm f/1.8G which gives u an effective angle of view is equivalent to that of a lens with a 75-mm focal length.
Thanks everyone, I'm confused on other non DX format lens. I thot my DX format camera needs a DX lens?
 

baggiolee

New Member
Dec 7, 2006
1,748
0
0
www.facebook.com
#20
Thanks everyone, I'm confused on other non DX format lens. I thot my DX format camera needs a DX lens?
FX lenses can also use on DX camera, while DX lenses when use with a FX camera will have a capping of 5mb of image size if i'm not wrong.
 

Top Bottom