AF-S DX Micro NIKKOR 40mm f/2.8G

New Nikon EF-S 40mm 1:1 Macro

Nikon Announces New 40mm Macro Lens

AF-S DX Micro NIKKOR 40mm f/2.8G
Matthew Gore | Light And Matter AF-S DX Micro NIKKOR 40mm f/2.8G

On Tuesday, Nikon made an unusual announcement: they introduced a new lens that is actually LESS expensive than other comparable lenses. Recent months have seen the release of Nikon’s new 50mm f/1.8G, a lens that will cost twice as much as its predecessor,  and those of us who shoot Nikon have come to expect optics that are priced hundreds of dollars more than their Canon equivalents.

But that is not  the case today. The AF-S DX Micro NIKKOR 40mm f/2.8G (“micro” is Nikon’s terms for 1:1 focusing macro lenses) promises high resolution, and the ability to focus down to about 6 inches away from the subject. This is a DX series lens, which is therefore roughly equivalent in perspective to a 60mm lens on a full frame sensor, and can’t be used on the D700 or full sensor D3 series.

And the price? Estimates are currently about $279, significantly less than Canon’s 60mm f2.8 macro ($449, though Nikon’s 60mm is about $510) or even Sigma’s 50mm f/2.8 macro ($369), though of course, the focal lengths are not exactly the same. Perhaps the closest competitor, with regard to price, is Canon’s old (1987) 50mm f2.5 macro, still available at about $289, though it is not easy to find on store shelves.

When the lens becomes available in August, we’ll see how it compares to other lenses optically, but Nikon is unlikely to mar their reputation with a completely bum lens.

Editor-in-Chief
  1. A 60mm focal length is quite unusual these days. I know that Canon has a 60mm macro, but it only fits the APS-C cameras and the perceived focal lenth is about 100mm (96mm, to be precise) which is an acceptable and “definable” length in terms of the type of photography being done (portraits, in this case). Where does a 60mm focal fit? I understand this is a macro lens, so does Nikon believe that 60mm for macro photography provides a better perspective or is it that they wanted to achieve a 1:1 view? Perhaps I need to read up on macro lens construction.

    Just curious.

    1. My guess is that the lens is aimed at people who aren’t going to be using it as a true 1:1, but who just want a “close-up” lens for video and photography. You’re right…. it’s absurd to expect a photographer to get 6″ away from a tiny subject; a 100mm lens gives you a much better working distance.

      I suspect that wide angle lenses are easier to engineer close focusing… which is probably the other issue here (going cheap). Those who shoot PnS cameras these days know that their “Macro” modes and close focusing only work when the lens is at its widest setting… which is what I think is going on here.

      Keep in mind, though, that Canon’s old 50mm f2.5 macro was very popular for a long time (though most of the 1990s), when film was still the standard… so people must be using them for something. Perhaps the shorter working distance is beneficial in some circumstances.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *