Guess

[gstark]

Guess what I've got on my desk?

It has a number "4" in its product designation.

[Reschsmooth]

Guess what I've got on my desk?

It has a number "4" in its product designation.

iPhone 4?
BMW 4 series?

[Steffen]

D4? (too soon)
D400? (maybe)
D4000? (why?)
4D? (maybe)
40D Mk++? (hm)
Nex-4? (yeah, I'll go with that)

Cheers
Steffen.

[Mr Darcy]

If it is a D400, I'll put my order in now.

[gstark]

I told all y'all a while ago I'd be getting one for review.

[Mr Darcy]

Damn.

[biggerry]

clearly a lens missing in the nikkor lineup

so gary, ya gonna bring it along to this weekends meet so I can have a play with it? It actually looks pretty compact from teh picture..

[Geoff M]

A 40mm focal length for a macro lens seems redundant to me, I have a 60 and often wish I had the 105 instead.

[surenj]

clearly a lens missing in the nikkor lineup

I agree. Strange choice of focal length this one. They didn't include VR?

[biggerry]

clearly a lens missing in the nikkor lineup

I agree. Strange choice of focal length this one. They didn't include VR?

I guess there is more money in the lower end amateur market then in the mid range enthusiast market....

every person with their new DSLR goes 'wow cool i wanna take macros'..this could well be nikons answer to the tamron and otehr 3rd party options.

[surenj]

.this could well be nikons answer to the tamron and otehr 3rd party options.

Fair call. Hope they price to impress. I guess a fair price would be $300(gray). That'll teach Tamron.

[Steffen]

Interesting, if unexpected. Are Nikon on a quest to create a DX prime line-up to mirror their FX primes? If so, are we going to see a 24/2.8, 70/2.8, 90/2.8, 120/2.8?

Cheers
Steffen.

[gstark]

A 40mm focal length for a macro lens seems redundant to me, I have a 60 and often wish I had the 105 instead.

Geoff,

Think about it: they've always had a 55 or 60mm Micro for the full frame bodies; what's 40mm after taking into account the crop factor?

Fair call. Hope they price to impress. I guess a fair price would be $300(gray).

I'd need to re-check the press release, but I think RRP in the range of $300 - $400, but US$ price is somewhat less, and I think, when it was announced, I was critical of the local pricing. Again.

Suren, at 40mm, there's little need for VR. The lens feels surprisingly solid given its plastic construction, and I was also surprised to see it has a range limit switch, to speed up focusing.

Steffen, I think a set of DX primes would be a great idea. Imagine a D7000 body with, say, a kit comprising a few primes in the range of 16 or 18mm, plus 30, 40, 85 and 105. That would be a very light but very useful kit, I think.

[ATJ]

I'm with Geoff and I'm not convinced it is needed as a macro lens.

There is certainly value for non-macro work and it would indeed fit the niche of a 60mm lens on a full frame body.

When it comes to macro it is somewhat moot. The only differences (when compared to the 60mm) for macro are going to be the lens to subject distance and the angle of view.

Based on the specifications, when shooting 1:1 with the 40mm lens there will less than 6 cm from the front of the lens to the subject (assuming it is IF, even less if the lens lengthens towards 1:1). That's very close and may make lighting very difficult. It also doesn't provide any real benefit. My 60mm with 20mm of extension is 6 cm from the subject at the closest focusing distance and I get better magnification.

The wider angle of view will make little difference to how the subject appears in the image but will mean more background is included. This in turn will make the background look sharper, something you generally don't want in macro. Note that you may want to go for an environment type shot and so have a sharper background but I think the results you'll get with this lens will be not be sharp enough so it will just be annoying. You'd have to go with a wider aperture to decrease the depth of field (throwing the background out) but now you have less for the subject.

So, for photography in air, the only benefit I would see is that you could go from shooting normal shots to macro without having to change the lens.

Underwater, though, the lens because a bit more interesting, but only a bit. Underwater photography is someone of a compromise as you need to minimise the port to subject distance to reduce the amount of water the light has to pass through but you also can't change lenses underwater so you are stuck with whatever you chose at the start (or before you left home in most cases).

If I decide I want to do macro work, I typically use the 60mm lens in a flat port. The flat port further decreases the angle of view by another 25% so the 60mm becomes equivalent to a 75mm (on a crop body). If I photograph tiny subjects like nudibranchs, my choice is vindicated. If I come across slightly larger subjects, like cuttlefish or octopus, and the water is reasonably clear, I can get by. If I come across large subjects like sharks or rays, my only choice is to take marco shots of their eyes or skin patterns. When taking shots at 1:1 I have just enough space between the port and the subject for the strobes so I can light the subject.

I can stick the 60mm behind a dome port which preserves the angle of view. I have to put a +4 diopter on the lens to preserve the ability to go to 1:1 but that works out OK. This reduces the distance between the port and the subject, reducing the amount of water through which the light must pass. This helps a lot for the larger macro subjects and helps a tiny amount for large subjects, although I'm still pretty limited. For tiny subjects, I can still get to 1:1 but lighting is more difficult, a) because there's less of a gap due to the reduced focusing distance to fit the strobes in and b) the dome port is wider which means even less of a gap.

Would a 40mm help? Yes and no. With the 40mm behind a flat port (if that is possible, I'd have to check), it is now a 50mm, so it would allow less distance which would be a good thing. 1:1 might be better than the 60mm with the dome port as at least the port would be smaller. Being a wider angle of view would also make larger macro somewhat better. It might help a bit for really large subjects but probably wouldn't be much better than the 60mm with a some port.

If it couldn't go behind a flat port, it probably couldn't be used for 1:1 due to the very close focusing distance. If it can't be used for 1:1 it probably isn't going to be much better than my 18-55mm behind a dome port.

[surenj]

Maybe nikon are getting the lenses ready for their Mirrorless system....

[aim54x]

This is an interesting addition, we now have two DX Micro Nikkors, 40mm (60mm) and 85mm VR (127.5mm VR). If it is priced to compete with the Tamron 90mm and the Tokina/Sigma variants then things will certainly spice up. However, if it really is to be in the USD 300 range, then I would imagine it would also compete with the 35mm DX (just like the 50mm 1.8/1.4 vs 60mm Micro). I am keen to see some images captured through this piece of glass though

Interesting, if unexpected. Are Nikon on a quest to create a DX prime line-up to mirror their FX primes? If so, are we going to see a 24/2.8, 70/2.8, 90/2.8, 120/2.8?

Now that would be very interesting.....