lens suggestions: Hi. I’m a newbie. Looking to compliment my kit lenses which came with my D5600, 18-55 and 70-300. I’d like to try macro as it sounds interesting. Anyone familiar with...

pnittoly Loc: Mountainside, New Jersey

Hi. I’m a newbie. Looking to compliment my kit lenses which came with my D5600, 18-55 and 70-300.
I’d like to try macro as it sounds interesting. Anyone familiar with the 40mm DX micro 2.8 ? I understand it is also capable as a general all around lens besides macro which is a feature I like.

Although not micro I’m also considering 35mm 1.8 or 40 mm 1.8 as an alternative general all purpose lens. Suggestions ?
Thanks

srt101fan

pnittoly wrote:

Hi. I’m a newbie. Looking to compliment my kit lenses which came with my D5600, 18-55 and 70-300.
I’d like to try macro as it sounds interesting. Anyone familiar with the 40mm DX micro 2.8 ? I understand it is also capable as a general all around lens besides macro which is a feature I like.

Although not micro I’m also considering 35mm 1.8 or 40 mm 1.8 as an alternative general all purpose lens. Suggestions ?
Thanks

I bought a 35mm 1.8 for my D5300. Love it; great lens, very reasonably priced.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

pnittoly wrote:

Hi. I’m a newbie. Looking to compliment my kit lenses which came with my D5600, 18-55 and 70-300.
I’d like to try macro as it sounds interesting. Anyone familiar with the 40mm DX micro 2.8 ? I understand it is also capable as a general all around lens besides macro which is a feature I like.

Although not micro I’m also considering 35mm 1.8 or 40 mm 1.8 as an alternative general all purpose lens. Suggestions ?
Thanks

You could replace 18-55 with a Sigma 17-70 2.8-4. The Sigma is capable of getting to within about 3 inches of your subject ( from the front element - 1:2.7 magnification) and with faster f-stops and closes the gap to the 70mm of your other lens.

..

Kmgw9v Loc: Miami, Florida

The 35mm 1.8 DX is a great and versatile lens.

kpmac Loc: Ragley, La

40 mm is not ideal for macro. It requires that the lens get too close to the subject and shadows insue from the camera and photographer. The Tokina 100mm is great for macro and portraits and is relatively inexpensive. I'm sure everyone will suggest their own favorite.

drmike99 Loc: Fairfield Connecticut

I have and like both the 35mm f/1.8 and the Micro-Nikkor 40. Despite the very valid argument that 40mm is short for a macro it really does work out ok and remember also that 40mm on a Nikon DX format camera has an equivalent field of view of 60mm on full frame (though this doesn't impact the physical closeness and possibilities of shadows being cast). Nevertheless the 40 is versatile and razor sharp and fast and makes a good portrait lens also.

Mac Loc: Pittsburgh, Philadelphia now Hernando Co. Fl.

pnittoly wrote:

Hi. I’m a newbie. Looking to compliment my kit lenses which came with my D5600, 18-55 and 70-300.
I’d like to try macro as it sounds interesting. Anyone familiar with the 40mm DX micro 2.8 ? I understand it is also capable as a general all around lens besides macro which is a feature I like.

Although not micro I’m also considering 35mm 1.8 or 40 mm 1.8 as an alternative general all purpose lens. Suggestions ?
Thanks

I don't really know about Micro, but I think the 35mm f/1.8 would be a great choice for an all purpose lens.

GoofyNewfie Loc: Kansas City

imagemeister wrote:

You could replace 18-55 with a Sigma 17-70 2.8-4. The Sigma is capable of getting to within about 3 inches of your subject ( from the front element - 1:2.7 magnification) and with faster f-stops and closes the gap to the 70mm of your other lens.

..

One for sale in the classified section:
http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-536580-1.html

Charlie'smom

I take the 35mm 1.8 with me everywhere. It’s usually already on my camera. I recently also got the Tokina 100mm micro, and it’s great for micro. I haven’t used it for portraits yet, but I practiced on furniture. (They rarely move!) But for sure, get the 35mm. I have a 50mm and just don’t use it much at all because I prefer the 35mm.

CO

I had the Nikon 40mm f/2.8 DX micro lens. The only reason I sold it is because I don't do a lot of macro photography. It's an excellent lens. It's sharp and has excellent bokeh. Take a look at the out of focus lights on the Christmas tree. They're nice round, solid discs - not doughnuts. A photography meetup group that I'm a member of set up this photo shoot at a local coffee shop around Christmas. I took these photos with the 40mm on my D7000.

I purchased the Tamron 45mm f/1.8 SP VC lens after that because I was doing outdoor model photo shoots. The vibration compensation really helps when you can't use a tripod.

(Download)

pnittoly Loc: Mountainside, New Jersey

Thanks all for the excellent suggestions.
Looks like I may go for both the 35mm 1.8 and the 40mm DX micro 2.8

drmike99 Loc: Fairfield Connecticut

pnittoly wrote:

Thanks all for the excellent suggestions.
Looks like I may go for both the 35mm 1.8 and the 40mm DX micro 2.8

You won’t regret either.

CO

pnittoly wrote:

Thanks all for the excellent suggestions.
Looks like I may go for both the 35mm 1.8 and the 40mm DX micro 2.8

You'll have two lenses with virtually the same focal length and maximum aperture. I haven't shot with the 35mm f/1.8 DX but I would read Ken Rockwell's review of it. He's saying that it has fair to poor bokeh. If you want to do portraits for instance, you might go with an 85mm lens.

drmike99 Loc: Fairfield Connecticut

CO wrote:

You'll have two lenses with virtually the same focal length and maximum aperture. I haven't shot with the 35mm f/1.8 DX but I would read Ken Rockwell's review of it. He's saying that it has fair to poor bokeh. If you want to do portraits for instance, you might go with an 85mm lens.

85 is a little long for a portrait lens on a DX camera with an equivalent view of 128mm.

GoofyNewfie Loc: Kansas City

drmike99 wrote:

85 is a little long for a portrait lens on a DX camera with an equivalent view of 128mm.

The 40mm would be a poorer cboice for traditional portrait work with a 60mm equivalent length.

Nikon’s 60mm micro would be a better choice for both macro and portraits with a FF equivalent of 90mm. https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/545660-USA/Nikon_2177_AF_S_Micro_Nikkor_60mm_f_2_8G.html

I think Sigma has a 70mm macro, giving the FF equivalent right in the so-called ideal length of 105mm

Doesn’t make sense to me to have 2 lenses, 5 mm apart.