Nikon 40mm 2.8G DX Micro... Really?

[TheFantasticG]

I'm somewhat disappointed at this announcement. I was hoping the next macro lens that was going to be released was a revamped 200mm micro with AFS and nano. The 60mm 2.8G seems decent. I didn't much like the 85mm 3.5G (sold it not too long after I bought it). I loved the Tamron 90mm and the Sigma 105 is ok. It's going to be hard to top the current Bugma... I haven't seen anyone anywhere at any time venting about not having a wider than 60mm micro lens option from Nikon. I guess that's why Im puzzled by the announcement.

Originally Posted by DougC

Just saw this this morning:

A new AF-S DX Micro NIKKOR 40mm f/2.8G lens announced today! | NikonPlanet.com

Anyone plan on getting this one? I won't unless someone gets it for me as a birthday gift.

[LWimages]

I was thinking exactly the same thing.
I mean, 60mm was to short for most of my macro work, let alone 40mm.

[jfoureyes]

40 mm X 1.5 = 60 mm... Maybe that's where they are going with it. I have no use for it on the things I like to shoot. The 105 working distance is too short most of the time for me and the reason I went to a 180 for my primary macro lens when I want to get near 1:1 magnification.

[TheFantasticG]

I couldn't use it to shoot the things I want either, Jim. In the very least I need a 60mm (with my masta white ninja skillz).

[DougC]

Originally Posted by jfoureyes

40 mm X 1.5 = 60 mm... Maybe that's where they are going with it. I have no use for it on the things I like to shoot. The 105 working distance is too short most of the time for me and the reason I went to a 180 for my primary macro lens when I want to get near 1:1 magnification.

Nice to see common sense prevail. That's absolutely where they are going for as consumer grade Nikon bodies are going to use DX format for a long time. By looking at the photo, you can tell it's built along the same lines as the kit lenses. It should make a good starter lens for a macro newcomer.

As for revamping the 200 micro, why? It has been the premier macro lens for years and will probably remain so for a long time. Incredible images have been captured with it for many, many moons. Why add needless "improvements" that will only drive the price higher? Just because something is "new" doesn't automatically make it better or necessary.

[DougC]

MSRP is $279.95 so street price will probably be about $250.00 or so. It's a full inch shorter than the 60mm Micro with a 6.4" minimum focus distance (from the focal plane) as opposed to 7.28" for the 60mm so it looks like a wash to me. At $250.00 it will be a nice, lightweight "just in case" lens to add to the bag. I love my 200 Micro but it's a big package to haul around and really requires a tripod and focusing rail to use properly.

[DigMe]

Personally as a DX shooter I'm glad to see a low-cost macro lens from Nikon.

brad

[auddii]

Originally Posted by DougC

Nice to see common sense prevail. That's absolutely where they are going for as consumer grade Nikon bodies are going to use DX format for a long time. By looking at the photo, you can tell it's built along the same lines as the kit lenses. It should make a good starter lens for a macro newcomer.

But it's not about newbies, it's all about pros with GAS! How dare they think of the newbies!!!

Seriously though, as someone interested in macro but has no equipment, I think an inexpensive macro would be fantastic. Unfortunately, it's nikon . However, this is going to cause some serious problems for people looking to not spend a lot of money who want to get into macro and are wavering between tubes and a dedicated lens.

[Snarfy]

Looks to me like they are targeting the DX intro crowd right now. This with the 35 1.8 and 50 1.8G all fit into the fixed-focal normal range and give shooters a number of good options. Nikon seems to be playing catch-up with all of these inexpensive DX/AF-S primes that will autofocus on the D3100/5100.

Cleverly, they now have a $210 fast prime and a $280 macro prime only 5mm apart in focal distance. This positions digital learners with moderate buying potential to get both.

[jfoureyes]

I agree that Nikon won't upgrade the 200/4 anytime soon either I'm sure that it is still one of their top selling macro lenses just the way it is for folks that will only buy Nikkor lenses. I've been satisfied with the Tamron 180 I'm using now, but really need to do a lot more work with it to give it a full user review.

[Snarfy]

Originally Posted by auddii

But it's not about newbies, it's all about pros with GAS! How dare they think of the newbies!!!

Seriously though, as someone interested in macro but has no equipment, I think an inexpensive macro would be fantastic. Unfortunately, it's nikon . However, this is going to cause some serious problems for people looking to not spend a lot of money who want to get into macro and are wavering between tubes and a dedicated lens.

Well, I'm sure Canon will follow Nikon's move in the next 6 months.

[DougC]

Originally Posted by Snarfy

Looks to me like they are targeting the DX intro crowd right now. This with the 35 1.8 and 50 1.8G all fit into the fixed-focal normal range and give shooters a number of good options. Nikon seems to be playing catch-up with all of these inexpensive DX/AF-S primes that will autofocus on the D3100/5100.

Cleverly, they now have a $210 fast prime and a $280 macro prime only 5mm apart in focal distance. This positions digital learners with moderate buying potential to get both.

You are right on the MONEY. There are a whole lot more consumer cameras (read DX format) being manufactured and sold that prosumer and pro models. Also, way too many people still have the "status symbol" mind set and spend a lot of money on a prosumer or even pro boby then put a consumer grade lens on it (this drives me nuts, by the way). Macro is something that normally requires time and money to be good at and not everyone is willing to spend $500.00 + to get started with something they may not stick with. This lens is a great example of both a starter macro and a convenience macro. Small, lightweight and inexpensive and doesn't take up much room in the old gadget bag. As stated before, I use the 200 micro but there are times I don't want to drag it out and set it up so this looks really good to me. Of course I'll have to hide it from my high roller friends with their all pro kits...

[TheFantasticG]

Originally Posted by DougC

Nice to see common sense prevail. That's absolutely where they are going for as consumer grade Nikon bodies are going to use DX format for a long time. By looking at the photo, you can tell it's built along the same lines as the kit lenses. It should make a good starter lens for a macro newcomer.

As for revamping the 200 micro, why? It has been the premier macro lens for years and will probably remain so for a long time. Incredible images have been captured with it for many, many moons. Why add needless "improvements" that will only drive the price higher? Just because something is "new" doesn't automatically make it better or necessary.

I agree it's a beginner macro lens. Anyone who gets into macro ends up with longer focal lengths anyway. And why not update the 200mm micro? It can improved from it's current optical quality. Sure, it'll be more expensive, but so what? If it's better it's worth it. Needless is just your opinion. Nano coats alone would be a great improvement, IMO.

[DougC]

I am all for progress but certain things don't make much sense to me. Although I use and enjoy having AF on my 200 micro, what serious macro shooter uses AF? As far as AF-S, yes, it's quieter and faster but speed is usually not a high priority in macro photography and results, IMHO, in a needless expense. Just like VR on a lens like this or the first versions of the super telephotos. It doesn't work on a tripod and although there are those who can, or claim they can, hand hold a 500mm or a 600mm, I cannot understand not using a tripod or at least a monopod, with these lenses. Nano is an improvement but is it really necessary on a macro lens? Not to beat a dead horse, but look at all the images that were made before it existed. Again, I'm all for progress, otherwise I'd still be one of the Luddites insisting "film will never die". Yes, even perfection can be improved on but in this case, I think there are other things that can be done to a lens like the 200 micro that will serve the user in better ways.

[jeffkohn]

As for revamping the 200 micro, why? It has been the premier macro lens for years and will probably remain so for a long time. Incredible images have been captured with it for many, many moons. Why add needless "improvements" that will only drive the price higher? Just because something is "new" doesn't automatically make it better or necessary.

Well, just because something is "good enough" for some, doesn't mean there's no point in trying to improve products. If Nikon were to take your argument to heart, they would have stopped updating many of their lenses (and arguably all of the pro lenses) years ago.

Somebody using the 200 micro for 1:1 shooting from a tripod may not see the need in AF-S, VR, or improved coatings. But part of the appeal of a 200 micro is the extra working distances it gives for closeup photography, and I can imagine somebody who is shooting something like butterflies might welcome the addition of AF-S and VR to such a lens.

IMHO, in a needless expense. Just like VR on a lens like this or the first versions of the super telephotos. It doesn't work on a tripod and although there are those who can, or claim they can, hand hold a 500mm or a 600mm, I cannot understand not using a tripod or at least a monopod, with these lenses.

A lot of people shooting super-teles from a tripod w/gimbal head, or a monopod, or shooting out of a car window with a bean-bag have found VR to be useful.