nikon 40mm macro or 35mm

scott199

scott199

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,387
Edit My Images
Yes
Just a quick one.

Thinking of trading my 35mm 1.8 for a 40mm macro.

Read lots of reviews and all though the 40 is limited, macro is something I would like to try, I don't use the 35mm a great deal as it's a little short for me, I have a tamron 17-50 2.8 slightly slower I know.

So just thinking I could trade the 35 for a 40 and still have a good usable short lens with the added advantage of a micro.

Opinions please
 
Not used the 40mm but can highly recommend the 60mm micro, its a superb lens, I use it on FF for work and DX for fun. The 90mm equivalent on DX is a nicer focal length for macro and good for portraits too, SH the 60mm shouldn't be too much more than the 40mm new.
 
Last edited:
Thanks, just looked into the 60mm im seeing prices around £360-£370, the 40mm is around £185, so quite a difference, but the 60mm does get a lot of good reviews, well should say great.
 
I have both the 40mm micro and the 35mm, when I first got my 40mm it was never off of the camera and I thought it was great for portraits and Micro type shots, It is great for micro if its a plant/flower or something slow moving otherwise its just too short for getting near anything and if you get too near something then the lens gives a horrible shadow. I prefer the 35mm and it is always in my bag when I am off and about. They are both good though and the 40mm is very sharp with a great picture quality but out of the two and only my opinion the 35mm is the better.
 
As said above, 35 or 40mm is too short for macro really. Go for 90mm+
 
thanks all.

It was more a case of LCE having a 40mm for around £180 and offering £60 odd for my 35mm just thought it might be an idea, but see i might just be losing a good portrait lens and gaining a hard to use micro.

its a 60 mile round trip to my closest shop now, so wanted some opinions before i made the trek to try the 40mm.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top