New nikon lens, 40mm macro ? ### ?

[kiwi]

http://www.bjp-online.com/british-jo...0mm-macro-lens

I really don't get it

[Tannin]

Sweet! If it came in a Canon mount, I'd buy one!

I certainly like my Tokina 35mm macro and find it more than useful - not just for macro stuff (though I do a bit of that with it), mostly as a sharp general-purpose normal-length prime on 1.6 crop. Once in a blue moon I mount it on the 1D III where it becomes a moderate wide angle lens and is a lot of fun to use. It's only two faults are (1) the silly too-clever-by-half Pentax/Tokina push-pu;; AF/MF switch, which makes it impossible to AF and then switch to manual focus without changing the setting; (2) the stone-age non-USM focus motor (I belive the Pentax-badged one had the real McCoy).

So .... Nikkor DX 40mm macro with AFS .... what's not to like?

[kiwi]

There's already a 60....just seems odd when there are so many other gaps, Like fixing the 80-400 ?

[arthurking83]

and the rumouur mill consensus was about new D4's and D400's and 80-400mm VR's abnd so on !

Well, here's there's the llink to this number 4 that everyone was expecting! ... a 40mm DX lens LOL!

[Tannin]

^ Tell me abut it! Canon are the same. Always replacing a pretty good lens with a marginally better one, and not doing anything at all about the one that really needs attention. Where is their 400mm f/5.6 IS prime for the love of Mike? And here I was thinking this was the Century of the Fruitbat already.

[jim]

Century of the Anchovy I believe.

-what? Sorry, carry on.

[arthurking83]

obviously the howls of protest at the lack of a decent 40mm macro lens ffor DX users was finally acted upon!


I said it in another thread, Nikon play by their rules.
if you don't like their game plan, you move on ...... or just keep on keeping on

[kiwi]

there must be faith

[Tannin]

^ and, just as with faith, if at first you predict it for September the 6th, 1999 and nothing happens, well, you just try again with May 21st, 2011.

But on the whole, I reckon you can count on Judgment Day getting here sooner than the 80-400 AFS VR.

[I @ M]

It probably isn't high on my wish list to find one of these lenses in my huge pile of Christmas presents but reading this thread and then viewing the sample images a couple of things stand out.

Yep, Nikon obviously decided that they needed to listen to customer demand and release the lens that everyone has been screaming for.

Those of you ^ who may feel their faith wavering --- repent immediately because you only have to have a look at the exif on the sample images to see that Nikon have the ultimate faith in their product line!!!!!
Top of the range consumer dslr used = D7000, newly released lens used wide open and images presented processed in Nikon Capture NX2 Paint.NET v3.5.8.

That's faith for you.

[arthurking83]

LOL Andrew!
Where did you find these images with exif intact? All sample images I've found have exif stripped.
Plentiful sample images about and they're different according to which region site you visit, but on the whole seem to based on the same set of sample images collected by Nikon as a whole.
That is, Nikon Japan have used a smaller sample set compared to Nikon USA, and so forth.
(I haven't tried the AU site yet, and in general I tend toi avoid them.. it loads way too slowly for a commercial site.. and that's if I can get it to load at all! )

Bokeh looks nice for a short focal length macro too.
I remember the old 60 AF-D was loathed for it's occasionally bad bokeh, but on a DX camera with this FOV, I think the lens actually makes a lot of sense.
Bokeh is pleasantly rendered, lens seems relatively cheap(as a DX lens should be), and it gets a lot of 'bums on seats' in Nikon circles.

How many times have we all heard the same repetitive chorus line ... "which macro lens should I get, and my budget is $400?" (in Nikon circles).

Realistic options have been Tammy90, Sigma105 and Tammy60.

I don't believe that Nikon is silly! Not by a long shot. 80-400's and the like will come when Nikon are ready to release them. Nikon's priority is to sell more stuff that benefits their bottom line.

Sample images look good, anyhow.

[Xebadir]

Hmm...Not sure what I can say about this lens, except I won't be buying it. Yet another lens in a focal length which is of questionable use...given there is already a 60mm AF-S F2.8G Macro, the working distance is a little odd...who here was actually for a moderate range telephoto macro lens, in DX??, but I suppose it fits with Nikon's random vision. If they were really working on Macro they might actually get round to the 200mm Macro update so full frame had some decent working distance. (though supposedly this will be filled by a 70-200 F4 Macro).

Edit: I wonder if this is really a video usage designed lens, anyone care to comment?

[I @ M]

Where did you find these images with exif intact? All sample images I've found have exif stripped.

Nikon Australia, and, it actually loaded quickly today, tomorrow might be different.

[arthurking83]

Hmm...Not sure what I can say about this lens, except I won't be buying it. .....

I'm 99.9% sure that Nikon have specifically NOT targeted you or I John as a potential customer base for this lens!
Read the design brief and marketing guff..

A DX(only) lens, with one of it's marketing priorities aimed at those who need "affordable consumer lenses" (although in typical Nikon Aussie fashion they're ripping off the average schmoe to the tune of approx $200 on $400 price base... $279 in the US, $449 in Aus! )

This lens seems to be specifically marketed to those in the Nikon camp with a couple of standard kit lenses, maybe a nifty fifty to boot, are more than happy to stay with the DX format, and then suddenly find themselves looking for a macro lens. Macro lenses at $300 are very few and much farther between ... Nikon's move looks to be quite well thought out when you look at it in the correct perspective.

And to be honest, I wouldn't rule out a lens of this type myself either. As long as the optics are done well, and it does what I'd expect it to do, then it's always an option.

If you look at the genre (in this case macro) with blinkers on, then you can only see the limited aspect, and none of the broader scale, that this lens has to offer.

[arthurking83]

LOL, Andrew.
I did eventually find them on there, although it didn't load 'quickly' so much as quicker than usual!

Today, I loaded the Aus site in a separate tab(as per usual) and then go about browsing and commenting on many other topics(as per usual), and in the time it takes me to answer, browse, make a cuppa, make the beds, do the washing, washing up, dinner, and dessert.. I come back and find it's just finishing loading up on that tab

Today, it loaded slightly quicker than usual tho.. so I have to give them credit(when it's deserved).

Very weird to see this in the exif, and as the images are almost certain to be outsourced, at least they haven't limited the ability/creativity of the copyright holder of the images.
(in a few instances, someone named Toshiya Hagihara).

I would expect that Nikon would have used professional photographers to showcase the samples made with a new lens(and I'm not implying that this chap isn't!!), but many of the images are not copyrighted(which points to non professional sources, I reckon!!??) so one wonders where Nikon sources the images from, or who they'd used?

And also don't forget too, that even tho the exif says <insert software of choice here>, this doesn't necessarily mean that this software is actually responsible for the bulk of the editing either!
Many software(except FSViewer that I know of) will impart it's sense of importance on the image's exif data, if it's been used in any way along the edit pipe line.
That is, if you made all of your edits in CNX, VNX, LR3, or whatever software, and then outputted an image to a particular final point, but then used another bit of software to do one more resise/crop/etc, then the last software used will stamp it;s name in the exif.
That I know of, FSViewer is the only one that doesn't do this, eg if I've used it to resize the jpg I made with CNX, where CNX couldn't keep the size to under 250kb, or added a border using FSViewer and nothing else.

[fillum]

Obviously aimed at the emerging wedding pro to get those 'ring shots' which you can't do as well with the kit lens .

This lens (kind of) makes sense as a travel/walk-around lens which is fast(ish), can be used for general photography (although too long for my liking), and can also be used for close-ups (eg ideal for the flower-fanciers).

What I think is most interesting about this announcement is that this lens was released by itself. From memory, the more specialised types of lenses seem to be announced at the same time as more general gear (eg with a standard zoom, new body etc). I wonder if there were intended pro-level releases that have been held up by the earthquake/tsunami? (I assume the 40mm is out of Thailand).

My feeling is that Nikon run two completely separate development streams which is why we see what seem to be very odd timing of releases (ie 'non-urgent' DX lenses released ahead of the more 'urgent' upgrades customers are waiting for).


Cheers.

[Xebadir]

I'm 99.9% sure that Nikon have specifically NOT targeted you or I John as a potential customer base for this lens!
Read the design brief and marketing guff..

A DX(only) lens, with one of it's marketing priorities aimed at those who need "affordable consumer lenses" (although in typical Nikon Aussie fashion they're ripping off the average schmoe to the tune of approx $200 on $400 price base... $279 in the US, $449 in Aus! )

This lens seems to be specifically marketed to those in the Nikon camp with a couple of standard kit lenses, maybe a nifty fifty to boot, are more than happy to stay with the DX format, and then suddenly find themselves looking for a macro lens. Macro lenses at $300 are very few and much farther between ... Nikon's move looks to be quite well thought out when you look at it in the correct perspective.

And to be honest, I wouldn't rule out a lens of this type myself either. As long as the optics are done well, and it does what I'd expect it to do, then it's always an option.

If you look at the genre (in this case macro) with blinkers on, then you can only see the limited aspect, and none of the broader scale, that this lens has to offer.

Realise that its not targetted with anyone like you or me Arthur. I'm just commenting, why bother with macro if you are going to give it that focal length. Now, a proper wide with a macro ability like that might be more interesting, would fill the wide prime gap that DX users are looking for (and have been surveyed to be looking for). Do they really need another lens in between the 50 F1.8, 35 F1.8 though that is slower with the only real attraction being a short macro? In Australia its not even cheap! I would just speculate a bit that a cheap prime that was wider would probably outsell this....I'm thinking aloud here...say a 24 or 28 F2.8 Macro would probably gain a better market. I guess where I am coming from is...does it add much to the lineup for a DX user? Not really, its just a replication of the FX lens lineup. Now if its intended as an instead of buying a 50 or a 35 for a DX user then perhaps it makes more sense...but it is still going to cost the user more which raises the question, why?

I wonder where you say looking at the Macro with blinkers on, but isn't that all that this lens really offers above and beyond the other primes available in a similar price range, small focal length differences and faster? It strikes me a bit like a potential kit lens, jack of all trades and master of none. A question, how many people really are going to fork out that sort of money for a macro lens that doesn't quite do the job? If they are interested in Macro they are more likely to go a longer focal length...or go to tubes.

[arthurking83]

Realise that its not targetted with anyone like you or me Arthur. I'm just commenting, why bother with macro if you are going to give it that focal length. .......

Longer focal length generally = higher price tag.

To replicate the FX lineup is not really a bad thing, I reckon.

Said it before, and it should be re-iterated again. Many people are happy with the DX format, and see no reason to change. Nikon obviously see a market there and hence are producing products at the appropriate price levels.

I can understand the need for shorter focal lengths in Macro lenses, makes for quick snapshots of closeups a lot easier to achieve in marginal conditions and so forth and so on.

The price difference to the nearest priced(Nikon) equivalent lens type is $200 or more in favour of the 40mm lens. Those $200's buys the purchaser some very useful accessories to help achieve better macro images(tripod/flash/remotes.. etc ...)

FWIW, Panasonic also have a 40-ish mm macro lens for the 4/3rds system(which does give it a 90mm FOV tho!) but the price is massively exorbitant(well over $1K).

40mm is 40mm, and designing and producing a 40mm lens is easier and cheaper than a longer focal length lens of equivalent specs.

Yeah, they could have designed a slightly shorter focal length macro lens, and they could also have done it at 50mm focal length too(traditionally they have, and done it at f/3.5 or f/4 and produced very capable lenses).

I suspect that a wide angle macro would have been a lot harder(hence more costly) exercise, and it seems plainly obvious here that cost was a major priority, if not the overwhelming factor!(going by the US price, not the insane local price!)

There seems to be a repetitive pattern with lens production(well at Nikon at least) where there is a very narrow range of focal lengths, and aperture ranges that seem to be easier to produce high quality products. And if this means more competitively priced stuff which gets more people into the Nikon fold, then the product has been well executed and marketed!

I'm curious to know, in terms of pricing which lenses are now the most competitively priced macro lenses currently available for any camera system.

Oh!... and from historical evidence, any wider angled macro lens, say in the 24mm range or so, would almost certainly have been more like an f/3.5 or f/4 lens and not f/2.8, otherwise a very expensive exercise.