D7000 Lens Questions: 35mm/1.8 vs 40mm/2.8 micro vs others

[bmilcs]

Hello ladies n gents,

I recently bought a Nikon D7000 - my first DSLR and I'm instantly hooked! It takes incredible photos with my sole 35mm/1.8g prime lens. However, this doesn't feel like the optimal lens for my main target: SOTD and close-up product shots. What I'm currently looking for is a lens that allows me to physically move closer to the object than my 35mm/1.8g and have clearer shots with and without a tripod.

What will the real difference between a Nikkon 35/1.8 and a 40mm/2.8 micro lens? Will I be able to be physically closer to the object and will it improve the overall quality of my shots?

According to Ken Rockwell:

40/2.8 vs the 35/1.8
​

Close-focus

0.5'/0.163m​

1'/0.3m ​

Clearance in front of lens at closest focus distance

35mm (1.3") ​

200mm (8")​

Does this mean I can get closer to the subject?

What kind of difference will an upgrade like this make?



ALSO, I wouldn't mind an even better option:

http://www.keh.com/camera/Nikon-Autofocus-Fixed-Focal-Length-Lenses/1/sku-NA06009043252N?r=FE

I am not sure why this is so much cheaper than the 'new' version of the lens. I assume it's older? Outdated? I manually focus everything so are there better options out there?

 

[fast14riot]

I would look for something in the 100-200mm focal length range. Back up and zoom in, you will get longer depth of field, compressed field, and no distortion from being close. Most product shots are done from several feet away. The 105/2.8 micro nikkor is inexpensive and a great lens.


-Xander

 

[bmilcs]

Thanks man. I'll look into it.

 

[vaplanman]

Since you are essentially taking a portrait of your "subject" a portrait length lens would work nicely. I agree with Xander, look for something in the 80-150 mm focal length. A faster lens, opened wide, will let you play with the effects of a shallow depth of field. Sorry but I don't know Nikon lens well enough to point you in a specific direction.

 

[bmilcs]

Portrait? I really need a alum and term explanation here lol.

 

[fast14riot]

Something else to consider, by backing up you are eliminating many small "defects" or dust particles in the image. When you're perched right on top of it you will see every little detail and speck of dust.

Also, getting a 40 to compliment a 35 is essentially doubling up on the same focal length. I would rather go with 50 or 60 if you want another lens.


-Xander

 

[sarimento1]

Nikons 105 VR is excellent.
But you should still use a tripod and a remote release or timer.
Enjoy!

 

[alpster]

Don't forget that your D7000 is a DX format (cropped sensor) model. The optional 60mm lens in your original post and the 105 in the above post are both FX lenses. They are both great lenses and will work fine on your camera, just be aware that the focal length will be 1.5 times what the label says. In other words 60mm FX lens will have an effective focal length of 90mm on your camera. Rockwell's site has a good explanation of DX vs FX formats. My answer to your original question is if you want to shoot without a tripod, get a faster lens. You have a wonderful camera and my recommendation is Nikon's 50mm f.1.4. It is one of the sharpest lenses out there and among the best low light, action stopping lenses. Have fun!

 

[fast14riot]

The 105/2.8 would still be a great choice for a DX sensor. 150 focal length is a good range for shooting small groups of objects. Even the older non VR version is still a nice lens. Some think it is too sharp for shooting portraits of people, but it's easier to make a sharp image soft than the other way around.


-X

 

[bmilcs]

Thanks for the advice guys.

So, 1.5 the distance the lens is labeled as? I know a few pros now that regularly use 60 / 2.8mm macro lenses for SOTD shots. This seems to be my meal ticket. I want to be able to get in close to an object if needbe and still get great shots.

Because it's a macro lens, I'll be able to zoom in and out correct? It'd be nice to be able to size the frame according to what's being shot - all while maintaining the "macro" mode. The reason I ask is I bought this mammoth vivitar vintage lens that actually fits my D7000 at a flea market. It's roughly 70-210mm macro lens and the macro feature only activates at it's maximum distance. I have to be a good 20-30 feet away to get it to zoom properly. So, essentially that is acting like a 300mm lens?

Sorry, my knowledge is very rudimentary. I don't know what the heck I'm talking about

 

[alpster]

There are DX format lenses that are designed for your camera's cropped sensor. If you bought a kit, the lens that came with it should be a DX. DX lenses from Nikon will always be labeled with DX in the model number and the focal length will need no correction. A lot of DX users will purposely buy FX lenses and do the math for their DX camera bodies, so if/when they upgrade to an FX format camera body, they will already have FX lenses. This is what I did. FX lenses are more expensive and not all sizes and speeds are available in both formats. DX lenses on FX bodies are a bit of a waste. You can take pictures, but you lose everything you paid extra to get from an FX.

I think you have the right approach in deciding what and how you want to shoot and looking for the right lens for that purpose, rather than just buying what you might need. Always let the subject of the photo decide what's needed and improvise if you need to. A good wide prime, a medium zoom and a telezoom lens and you can shoot anything. IMHO

 

[bmilcs]

I don't plan on upgrading anytime soon. I simply don't have the finances to support it nor will I.

What should I look for if I go the vintage route? Anyone have any tips on finding a used 60/2.8 nikon micro lens? I don't use the autofocus feature at all fyi

 

[seabee1999]

The really cool thing about Nikon cameras is that the lens mount from 1959 (Nikon F) is still the same mount today. With exceptions (like the 8mm invasive fisheye), for the most part, all the lenses in the Nikon system will mount on most of the cameras. The question is if a lens will meter and/or autofocus with the body you have. Thankfully, you have a camera that will mount and meter many wonderful lenses from yesteryear and today. With that being said, I photograph with a Nikon D2xs and I have a quiver of about 20 lenses (both MF and AF, AI and AI'd, DX and FX) ranging from 12mm (DX) through 400mm. My personal favorite set-up for macro work is a 75-150E f/3.5 lens with a PK-13 extension tube. I can get a lot of detail and sharp focus with this combo and still comfortably blur out the background with ease. Another excellent macro lens is the Nikkor 55 f/3.5 micro. It is an MF lens and for the most part the standard of small macro lenses Nikon made. They are sharp, light and great for your application. Couple that with a PK-13 tube and you can get 1:1 on your images. Have a look at the links below. There is a lot of great info in there as well as a place where I purchase camera gear from.

75-150 Series E Lens
55mm f/3.5 Micro Lens
PK-13 Tube
Nikon Links Lens Links
Bjørn Rørslett Lens Reviews - perhaps the best and most comprehensive review of Nikon Lenses

Image taken with 75-150E lens and PK-13 tube

 

[fast14riot]

One caveat to the F mount bayonet, yes the 1959 is the same bayonet mount but may still damage your camera. The outer ring for the body overhangs the bayonet mount and depending on the camera body may damage your aperture index lever. It's best to stick to ai lenses, 1977 and newer.

FX lenses are designed to be equal to a full frame of 35mm film, so older lenses are "FX" anyways. I only buy full frame lenses because I also shoot nikon film cameras nd don't want the small image circle.

To calculate the effective viewing angle of a FX lens on a crop sensor, yes multiply the focal length by 1.5. It does not magnify the image any more than the lens already does, but gives a narrower viewing angle and fills more of the sensor with the image.

My local studio/lab has a used 60/2.8 micro for sale, I think it is around $300. I have tested this lens myself and it functions perfectly. It belonged to the owner and is in fantastic condition. A fixed focal length macro lens will not let you zoom in and out, just like a normal prime lens. Use your shoe leather zoom.


-Xander

 

[seabee1999]

One caveat to the F mount bayonet, yes the 1959 is the same bayonet mount but may still damage your camera. The outer ring for the body overhangs the bayonet mount and depending on the camera body may damage your aperture index lever. It's best to stick to ai lenses, 1977 and newer.

FX lenses are designed to be equal to a full frame of 35mm film, so older lenses are "FX" anyways. I only buy full frame lenses because I also shoot nikon film cameras nd don't want the small image circle.

To calculate the effective viewing angle of a FX lens on a crop sensor, yes multiply the focal length by 1.5. It does not magnify the image any more than the lens already does, but gives a narrower viewing angle and fills more of the sensor with the image.

My local studio/lab has a used 60/2.8 micro for sale, I think it is around $300. I have tested this lens myself and it functions perfectly. It belonged to the owner and is in fantastic condition. A fixed focal length macro lens will not let you zoom in and out, just like a normal prime lens. Use your shoe leather zoom.


-Xander

Thanks for the caveat. I did forget about that aspect. Having had an F4s a few years ago, all I had to do was flip the aperture index lever up to compliment any Pre-AI lens. I still miss my F4, perhaps the most well rounded camera Nikon came up with (YMMV).

 

[XP100]

The human eye sees tge equivalent of what a typical 55mm SLR sees. Anything lower being wide-angle, anything higher being zoom/telephoto to a degree. Add in any digital changes to figure out your framing. Another thing is how much depth do you want to be in focus? F-stop is critical here. Even though a lens with lower f-stop is considered more desirable for low light conditions and clarity that all changes if you can't step up to f-16 or more. To get an idea, look at something in a dimly lit environment eyes wide open, dark enough details are difficult to make out at varying distances. Still looking at the same subject now squint your eyes, the images will become clearer with sharper detail.
Sometimes blurring things in the foreground or background is more desirable yo keep focus on subject matter. Sometimes you want to see clearly both near and far, like i.e. looking down a tunnel or across a bridge, or just a macro with as much in focus as possible. That's when slow shutter and high f-stop really shine.
It's been suggested to go telephoto for better results, then step back. I'd add some of the best lenses I've ever used were single macro-telephoto with a wide f-stop range. Thing is a good telephoto that also has good light gathering or low f-stop usually aren't inexpensive, it'll cost you. The nice thing about the investment though is having a single lens that does the work of many, making them worth the investment.
Back when I did sports photography shutter speed was tops, low f-stops kept the player in subject in focus and blurred for and back, the better light gathering aided in achieving higher shutter speeds especially on cloudy or overcast days or indoors without a flash. Having a camera capable of 1/1000 a must, hitting 1/2000 even better. A lens with f-stops lower that 2.8 good and 1.4 better. But that was sports.
Taking stills or 'portrait' shots you want slower speeds and a good foundation like a tripod so you can close that iris and get the depth. Nothing worse than looking at what's supposed to be a professional shot of say looking down the handle of a vintage DE razor only to have it begin to blur half way up the handle and the head an almost unrecognizable blur! There will be times a blur adds interest by focusing the eye on a particular part, say you want the razor head in sharp focus because that's the subject, blur the handle to take attention away. Open the iris and get in close and that's what you'll get, less depth of field. It all depends on what you want the end result to be.