I recently replaced my old point-and-shoot camera with a Nikon D3100. I chose an entry level DSLR because I wanted the flexibility to shoot macro subjects. More specifically, I wanted to be able to shoot high quality photos of the ship models that I build (typically 12-24 inches in length and 4-24 inches tall). I have the stock 18-55mm lens but short of cropping photos it doesn't seem to give sharp close-ups (especially as I am often working with so-so indoor lighting). Would one of the following lenses work well?
1. Nikon - AF-S DX Micro-NIKKOR 40mm f/2.8G Close-Up Lens for Nikon SLR Cameras
2. Nikon - AF-S DX NIKKOR 35mm f/1.8 Lens for Nikon F-Mount Digital SLR Cameras
My question on the 40mm lens is whether it's so dedicated a lens that it really has no use beyond shooting macro. It's fine by me if the answer is yes - it's a macro lens - I just want to understand what I can reasonably expect from it. As for the 35mm lens, everything I've read suggests it's a great all around lens and does well, particularly indoors where the lighting is lower and distances are shorter. My question here is whether the lens in a macro situation would let me get any closer than the stock lens.
Sorry to be long winded, but thanks for any help.
Posts: 6,715
Threads: 236
Joined: Apr 2010
Reputation:
22
Neither lens will do better in so-so lighting than your 18-55... which has VR to help you. Both primes do not have that. And shooting wide open will not be an option, as you probably have little use for the resulting shallow depth of focus.
Seems to me that a tripod is a better idea to invest in first.
About those two lenses: I am not too impressed with the 35mm f1.8, as I find its bokeh to be quite bad. The 40mm macro seems to me to be a very nice lens, it renders things beautifully.
[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1341261962' post='19277']
Neither lens will do better in so-so lighting than your 18-55... which has VR to help you. Both primes do not have that. And shooting wide open will not be an option, as you probably have little use for the resulting shallow depth of focus.
Seems to me that a tripod is a better idea to invest in first.
About those two lenses: I am not too impressed with the 35mm f1.8, as I find its bokeh to be quite bad. The 40mm macro seems to me to be a very nice lens, it renders things beautifully.
[/quote]
right, I did assume you were using a tripod.
Thank you both for the input. You both like the 40mm lens and you both think it's more appropriate than the 35mm lens so that's very helpful. What I should have asked is whether there's a different lens that you would recommend for someone on a tight budget (< $300).
I haven't gotten a tripod for the D3100 yet, but I did use the timer and a small tripod with my old point-and-shoot. I've been setting the camera on stacks of books at the right height until I can pick one up. Low tech, but it works ...
Posts: 2,441
Threads: 320
Joined: Apr 2010
Reputation:
19
Another option to look at might be the Nikon AF-S DX 85mm f/3.5 VR, depending on how far you want to stretch your budget. Compared to the 40mm lens you'd gain some working distance, so you wouldn't have to get as close to get the same magnification. in addition, it also has VR, but that won't help you too much at macro distances.
Also, be prepared that at close focus distances the depth of field becomes very thin. There's not much you can do about it othef than stopping down. Which will in the end require to use a tripod, because of the long shutter times you get.
-- Markus
Editor
opticallimits.com
Posts: 6,715
Threads: 236
Joined: Apr 2010
Reputation:
22
The 85mm will give tele compression of the perspective, which may not be desired for the intended usage (ship models).
Posts: 2,441
Threads: 320
Joined: Apr 2010
Reputation:
19
07-03-2012, 08:00 AM
(This post was last modified: 07-03-2012, 08:01 AM by mst.)
Maybe, yes. In addition I just checked the US prices and realized it's well above the mentioned budget anyway. Except for a used one maybe.
-- Markus
Editor
opticallimits.com
[quote name='Billster' timestamp='1341246963' post='19275']
I recently replaced my old point-and-shoot camera with a Nikon D3100. I chose an entry level DSLR because I wanted the flexibility to shoot macro subjects. More specifically, I wanted to be able to shoot high quality photos of the ship models that I build (typically 12-24 inches in length and 4-24 inches tall). I have the stock 18-55mm lens but short of cropping photos it doesn't seem to give sharp close-ups (especially as I am often working with so-so indoor lighting).
[/quote]
Hi Billster,
I'm not clear from your original post, and the discussion so far, whether I've really understood the pictures you want to take with the new lens you choose...
You say you want to be able to shoot macro subjects, then seem to give your ship models - 12-24 inches long, 4-24 inches tall - as a more specific example.
Do you want to take extremely detailed pictures of very small parts of the ship models - e.g. rigging detail? A macro lens will enable you to place a life size image of parts of the models on the camera sensor - taken at the closest focus distance, giving 1:1 magnification, something that is 15mm x 10mm on a model will occupy the same area on the camera sensor. In the case of the D3100, this would occupy almost half of the image frame.
Apologies if you already know this... I just wanted to be clear that was why you were thinking of a macro lens?
Btw, I rather like the 35mm 1.8DX though I haven't used it for close-up work... clearly the 40mm macro gives you that (macro) functionality, and could also potentially be useful for portraits (as a very short telephoto) in confined spaces.
Ian