Nikkor DX Lens - 35mm v 40mm

[creative-2008]

I'm in the market for a fixed Nikkor lens in the DX format. They produce two a 35mm and a 40mm. I mostly want them for taking high quality photos of people, but maybe with the view to also taking some macro shots of flowers, plants etc.

I'm finding it very difficult to decide which to purchase and would greatly appreciate some advice. I've included links to relevant websites to hopefully try and save some time for anybody willing to help.

Curiously, the 40mm has significantly less reviews on Amazon and doesn't have a professional review on DP Review - a website that I hold in quite high regard.

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 35mm f/1.8G Lens
Nikon UK
DP Review
Amazon UK

Nikon AF-S DX Micro NIKKOR 40mm f/2.8G Lens
Nikon UK
DP Review
Amazon UK


I'm not suggesting that I should make a purchase based on the number of purchases on Amazon. However, it does suggest to me that the 35mm lens is signifcantly more popular, which appears to be a positive sign.

The 40mm lens does seem to have the edge for macro shots, but the 35mm lens allow more light in and is therefore better for low-light shots. The 35mm sounds better for portraits based upon the user reviews.

I'll open it up to the forum and be very interested to hear different opinions about what I should purchase.

 

[creative-2008]

If you don't need to get closer than 1 foot, the Nikon 35mm f/1.8 DX is more than twice as sensitive to low light and costs $80 less than this 40mm lens. Unless you ned to get super-close, get the 35mm f/1.8 DX.

Source: http://kenrockwell.com/nikon/40mm-f28.htm

The Nikon 40mm f/2.8 DX G AF-S is a fantastic normal lens with extreme close-focus ability. Get it if ultra-close focus ability is important to you in a normal lens.

This 40mm lens is not a good idea if you plan to use it for dedicated macro use. For serious macro use, get at least a 105mm macro lens for sanity's sake. Personally, I and everyone else serious about macro use 180mm or 200mm macro lenses.

For general use, I prefer the 35mm f/1.8 DX, which gets more than close enough, costs $80 less, and adds over a stop of needed speed for even better low-light results.

Nikon makes about 60 kinds of lenses because we all have different needs. This 40mm lens is best for someone needing a normal do-everything lens who values ultra-close focusing above low-light ability.

Source: http://kenrockwell.com/nikon/40mm-f28.htm#comp

From that it sounds to me as though the 35mm lens is the one to go for. I'm still open to ideas though.

 

[Empty_Quarter]

The interesting part here is the macro bit. Out of those two, the better performer is the 35mm by a long shot (i'd much rather have f/1.8 than f/2.8). Judging from those reviews, if macro is really important for you, then the 40mm might be the way to go. Having said that, a 35mm would yeild half decent results on macros. It's up to you to judge how important macro is.

I wouldnt judge popularily as a element of performance. The reason the 35mm is so popular is because for general photography, it is the best value lens you could buy (next to the 50mm f/1.8). It's cheap, you get excellent performance, and has a more normal focal range as opposed to 40mm which is a little odd.

 

[creative-2008]

Thanks for that. I'm half interested in the macro, but probably not enough to sway me towards the 40mm lens. Macro isn't something that I'm especially interested in. I'm satisfied with the close-up shots that I take with other lenses so either they will continue to do the job or I'll use the 35mm.

A lot of the professional reviews say that whilst the 40mm is better for macro, because the lens is so short it meant that the photographer's body is going to be blocking the light from the image anyway.

I think it's fairly likely that I'm going to invest in the 35mm.