TampaRalph Loc: Tampa, FL

I have a d3300 with three zoom kit lenses (18-55, 55-200, 70-300) and am ready to buy a prime. I don’t have any real problems with the kit lenses, I just want a faster fixed focal length lens. I’m not looking for a pro lens strictly due to budget constraints. I’d happily buy both if I could afford it, but one’s the limit. So, I’m looking at two lenses:

- AF-S DX Micro-Nikkor 40mm f/2.8
- AF-S DX Nikkor 35mm f/1.8 G

I wanted to seek some advice here from people that have used or are using these lenses. I’ve read reviews and watched videos on YouTube but would prefer hearing from real users. Here are my questions?

- how is the build quality of the 35? Does it feel cheap?
- is the bokeh nice and creamy? I’m interested in using whichever I buy for portraits. The 18-55 I have doesn’t really do a good job at all.
- am I losing too much light on the 40 for low-light photography?
- how is the close focus on the 35? Is it worth giving up the larger aperture of the 35 for the micro capability of the 40, or can I make it up with a decent close-focus lens?

It would be nice if there was a real camera shop nearby where I could check this out for myself, but no such luck. Any advice would be greatly appreciated, and all opinions are welcome! Thank you all in advance.

GoofyNewfie Loc: Kansas City

Neither one is ideal as a traditional portrait lens.
Both are too short to eliminate distortion you get from having to move in closer.
(The lens doesn’t do it directly, it’s how close you are that causes it)
The rule of thumb I learned for a portrait lens was- twice the focal length of a “normal” lens for your camera.
The “Normal” for your DX sensored camera is 35mm, so something like a 70mm would serve you better.
I love the Sigma 50-150 2.8 (older version) for portraits on the Fuji S5pro, but it may be out of your price range, if you have a limit. Though I think it’s short, look for at least a 50mm.
Like this one.

mas24 Loc: Southern CA

I own the Nikon DX 35mm f1.8. The Nikon micro 40mm is more expensive. Unless you plan to do macro photography. You could save a few bucks and get the popular, inexpensive 35mm f1.8. I bought mine last year, brand new for $197. It is a well made plastic lens. You may want to consider the Nikon 50mm f1.8. I have that one too. It is a FX formatted lens.

Tommy II Loc: Northern Illinois

When I got my first Nikon camera, a D5000, the first lens I bought after the 18-55 and the 55-200 kit lenses was a 50mm 1.4. I’ve had a lot of fun and have taken some good pictures with it.

Trustforce Loc: Chicago, Illinois

If you are interested in portrait lenses, forget the lenses you mentioned. You need a mild telephoto lens to collapse the perspective and move your camera out of your subject's face. For FX format, that means between 85 and 105 mm. Now putting an FX lens on your D3300 would mean a considerable jump in expense, but you might not want to stay with an entry level dSLR forever. The only nikkor DX lens in the portrait range would be the 85mm micro Nikkor f/3.5G at $559.95 whereas you can get a 85mm f/1.8G FX Nikkor for $479.95 (which would be the equivalent of a 125mm lens with your DX crop). Save up the money to buy better glass for the future of your learning to appreciate the difference. You are already behind the technology curve with a 4 year old camera body. Even a 50mm nikkor AF-S f/1.8G FX would cost only $219.95 and give a mild tele effect (75mm equivalent) with the DX crop.

I have a D5100 that I got in 2011. I was amazed with the picture quality of a camera one step up from entry level dSLR, but it could never compare to the level of an FX sensor then, and certainly not now, with the D850 sensor providing picture taking that one year or so ago was only obtainable in super-expensive medium format. I'm not trying to suggest that you HAVE to move to an FX, there is plenty of room for sophisticated bodies in a DX sensor body like the D7500 and D500. You will be able to see the difference better lenses make with your 24 mp sensor now, and getting better quality lenses makes sense for the future.

sxrich

If you are shooting portraits outside, the 55-200 will give you AWESOME bokeh - shoot it at 125-200 and depending how close you can stand, you'll be shocked. I've had crop sensors, full frame, the 35 1.8, 50 1.8, 55-200/300 and a few other dx lenses. My nephew had the d3300 and liked his 35 1.8 and it would work ok enough indoors without a flash. But the camera itself is not a low light powerhouse so just realize that. Also, know that at 35mm, you are getting some facial distortion but many may not notice it. The 50 1.8 fx lens is dynamite for the money and I still use mine on a full frame and used it a lot on crop sensors. I have a post with some portrait type shots I took with it. msg me and I will show you some shots. I also used a 55-300 with a d5100 for close up photography that worked well in lieu of a true macro. Also, at 40mm, I sense you will have to be right on top of the subject to get those macro shots. Just my opinion. If I had to choose what you have optioned, the 35 1.8. I got one used only a few times for $130 too.

LoneRangeFinder Loc: Left field

You could go this route, which would be more suitable for portraiture and macro: https://www.adorama.com/nk6028afdu.html

WJShaheen Loc: Gold Canyon, AZ

"Both are too short to eliminate distortion you get from having to move in closer.". Thanks for bringing that up. I've been wondering what difference it makes for a "portrait" lens. This simply made the bells go off. Now I like my Nikon 18-140mm even more (on a D7500).

Thanks,
Bill

CO

I have the Nikon 40mm f/2.8 micro. It's a sharp lens and has very good bokeh. The out of focus lights on the Christmas tree are nice round discs. Poor bokeh might show the lights as being donuts or ovals. Here are some photos I took with it on my D7000

(Download)


(Download)


(Download)

rdubreuil Loc: Dummer, NH USA

I agree with most of what's been stated already. Tight budget go for a 50mm f/1.8 on your crop sensor.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

Don't be torn, get the 40 and this one
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/606792-USA/Nikon_2183_AF_S_Nikkor_35mm_f_1_8G.html?sts=pi-ps

DAN Phillips Loc: Graysville, GA

I have used the Nikon 40 Micro for well over a year. It's light, sharp and a pleasure to work with. A little pricey, but with Nikon you get what you pay for.

DAN Phillips Loc: Graysville, GA

I have used the Nikon 40 Micro for well over a year. It's light, sharp and a pleasure to work with. A little pricey, but with Nikon you get what you pay for.

DAN Phillips Loc: Graysville, GA

I have used the Nikon 40 Micro for well over a year. It's light, sharp and a pleasure to work with. A little pricey, but with Nikon you get what you pay for.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Great advice so far on looking at a longer focal length prime as well as how to use your current lenses more effectively. This feedback appears to run counter to your preconceived notions. Hopefully, these ideas impact your thinking as well as saving money and avoiding disappointment.