[mst]

[quote name='Yakim' timestamp='1315995146' post='11587']

It's a nice little lens but I really hate lenses without IF design. If I were in Nikon I think I'd rather have the 35/1.8 + Raynox 250 for the price of the 40/2.8.

[/quote]



Well, with the hood mounted, the physical length remains constant <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />



There's a limit to the number of features that can be implemented at a given price point. For this lens, IF was probably not implemented to keep the costs (and price) down.



Personally, I'd choose the DX 40 over the DX 35 because of its smoother bokeh.



-- Markus

[Guest]

[quote name='mst' timestamp='1315952498' post='11570']

A good one:



http://www.opticallimits.com/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/674-afs40f28dx



-- Markus

[/quote]





Nice review (as always)



Suggest the third word after 'Bokeh' heading should be 'delivers', not delivery



Is 3.5 stars a bit mean? Some similar macros get 4, even the F/2 Tamron with underexposure probs.



Just a comment, I've no great worries about that.



Irrespective of the rating, I think this lens will sell rather well. Thinking.....



Jim

[Klaus]

[quote name='AAC7man' timestamp='1316020191' post='11593']

Nice review (as always)



Suggest the third word after 'Bokeh' heading should be 'delivers', not delivery



Is 3.5 stars a bit mean? Some similar macros get 4, even the F/2 Tamron with underexposure probs.



Just a comment, I've no great worries about that.



Irrespective of the rating, I think this lens will sell rather well. Thinking.....



Jim

[/quote]





The 35dx got 4* and this one performs a little worse.

[Guest]

[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1316033075' post='11603']

The 35dx got 4* and this one performs a little worse.

[/quote]





Thanks. I have the 35mm (well my wife does) and it is a nice lens. However, whilst the 40mm is not quite so sharp the bokeh is certainly more attractive - good enough reason to buy the 40mm as a DX 'standard' in preference.



I see Markus says something similar. A factor is also liking a 'long' standard, of course, which I do. Some prefer 28 or 30mm.



As ever, one's preferred mix of lens properties is a personal thing. One attraction of either the 35 or 40mm is not hauling around my 24-70mm!

[Brightcolours]

[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1316033075' post='11603']

The 35dx got 4* and this one performs a little worse.

[/quote]

A little worse? Not really. Only the sharpness at the borders for f2.8-4 is worse, really. It compensates that with better sharpness at the borders at f8 and up.



But the bokeh is much, much better, the CA is lower too. Even the distortion is not there, where the 35 DX has distortion that one could start to see in architectural shots.



With the bokeh problem oif the 35mm f1.8, I do think that the optics of the new 40mm f2.8 are a lot better, even though its borders wide open lag a bit.

[Guest]

[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1316071425' post='11609']

A little worse? Not really. Only the sharpness at the borders for f2.8-4 is worse, really. It compensates that with better sharpness at the borders at f8 and up.



But the bokeh is much, much better, the CA is lower too. Even the distortion is not there, where the 35 DX has distortion that one could start to see in architectural shots.



With the bokeh problem oif the 35mm f1.8, I do think that the optics of the new 40mm f2.8 are a lot better, even though its borders wide open lag a bit.

[/quote]





Good summary BC

[Yakim]

[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1316071425' post='11609']

A little worse? Not really. Only the sharpness at the borders for f2.8-4 is worse, really. It compensates that with better sharpness at the borders at f8 and up.[/quote]



It compensates only if you use both apertures equally. Oh, and there's a slight issue of max aperture....

[Bare]

[quote name='mst' timestamp='1315976383' post='11579']

The Tokina is the next DX review to be published. Not sure yet when that is going to happen, though.



-- Markus

[/quote]



I'm waiting for Sigma 70-200 OS review for very long time. Is it fixed or not?

[mst]

[quote name='Bare' timestamp='1316105614' post='11625']

I'm waiting for Sigma 70-200 OS review for very long time. Is it fixed or not?

[/quote]



It's not fixed. However, since Sigma fails to recognize the error they now want to see images that clearly illustrate the issue. Let me be honest: I have other work to do that I personally consider to be of higher priority than showing Sigma what to look for (or, IOW, do their work). Consequently, the lens has slipped down considerably on the review list.



-- Markus

[mst]

[quote name='youpii' timestamp='1315958115' post='11575']

What is the working distance at 1:1 ?

[/quote]



Measured it today (last thing I did before the lens went to its new home), the working distance is just above 3 cm (front lens to subject), with the hood mounted it's even a little less (didn't measure it, though).



I'll update the review with images illustrating this "issue" later.



-- Markus