New Nikon AF-S DX Micro NIKKOR 40mm f/2.8G lens announced

Nikon announced a new AF-S DX Micro NIKKOR 40mm f/2.8G lens. The estimated selling price is $279.95 (pre-orders at Amazon and Adorama). The lens will be available for sale in August. Some sample images are available here.


Focal length
Maximum aperture
Minimum aperture
Lens construction
9 elements in 7 groups
Angle of view
Minimum focus distance
0.163 m/0.53 ft (from focal plane)
Maximum reproduction ratio
No. of diaphragm blades
7 (rounded)
Filter-attachment size
52 mm
Diameter x length
(extension from lens mount)
Approximately 68.5 x 64.5 mm/2.7 x 2.5 in.
Approximately 235 g/8.3 oz
Supplied accessories
52 mm Snap-on Front Lens Cap LC-52, Rear Lens Cap LF-4, Bayonet Hood HB-61, Flexible Lens Pouch CL-0915

MTF chart:

Lens construction:

Full press release:

MELVILLE, N.Y. (July 12, 2011) – Nikon Inc. today introduced the new lightweight and versatile AF-S DX Micro NIKKOR 40mm f/2.8G lens to provide Nikon DX-format shooters macro capabilities at an affordable price point. Ideal for intimate details or general portraiture, the new AF-S DX Micro NIKKOR 40mm f/2.8G lens has a minimum focusing distance of just 0.53 feet (6.4 inches) to allow users to capture extreme close-up photographs and High Definition (HD) video with a life-size 1:1 reproduction ratio.

“This new NIKKOR lens is an ideal accessory lens for those who are ready to explore a totally new perspective, whether it’s extreme close-up detail or general still images and movies with flattering out of focus elements,” said Lisa Osorio, general manager of marketing at Nikon Inc. The new Micro NIKKOR lens delivers new and added versatility to the Nikon DX-format digital SLR system and provides DX-format shooters with compact optics that deliver excellent color reproduction and stunning sharpness.”

Weighing in at approximately nine ounces, the extremely compact and lightweight lens is an ideal “next” lens to complement any DX-format shooter’s growing D-SLR kit. The natural focal length (60mm, FX equivalent) and large f/2.8 aperture are ideal for a wide variety of applications, whether capturing close-up details in flowers and insects or shooting flattering portraiture with a pleasing bokeh.

For fast and whisper quiet autofocus operation, the new Nikon 40mm Micro lens also features Nikon’s exclusive Silent Wave Motor technology, which allows photographers to get even closer without disturbing a subject. For complete control, the AF-S DX Micro NIKKOR 40mm offers users both manual-priority autofocus (M/A) and manual focus (M) modes to quickly and easily switch focus modes on the fly. To help ensure amazing lens performance at close distances, this new lens employs Nikon’s Close-Range Correction System. With this system, the lens elements are configured in a "floating” design wherein each lens group moves independently to help achieve critical focus. Additionally, Nikon’s Super Integrated Coatings are applied to help reduce instances of lens flare and ghosting. The seven blade diaphragm also helps to create a more natural out of focus component.

The versatile and compact nature of the AF-S DX Micro NIKKOR 40mm f/2.8G lens combined with its affordability make it a great travel companion for any DX-format D-SLR, including the new Nikon D5100 and popular D3100.

Price and Availability
The versatile AF-S DX Micro NIKKOR 40mm f/2.8G will be available in August for an estimated selling price* of $279.95. For more information, please visit

This entry was posted in Nikon Lenses. Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • Abaham Collins

    Wow, pretty cool.. especially since DX is my preferred system for macro shots.

    • Steve

      The focal plane to mount distance on DX is 45mm. The lens front is 64.5 mm from the mount. Min focus distance is 163mm. So there’ll be 163 – 45 – 64.5= 53mm of space between the front of the lens and the subject, which is going to create shading problems. So if you need lots of dof and have great additional lighting available, it might be a good choice.

      • gt

        For the americans, that’s about 2″ from the front of the lens element. Same as the 60mm F2.8G micro

        • Steve

          Yep, it seems they are very comparable, except that the 60 on fx is gonna have a shallower dof than the 40 on DX.

          I like the sample shots. Bokeh shows only very slight halos and no distortion.

          Seems like it might be a winner for anyone interested in it.

          For me, I use the Tamron 60mm f/2 that has a 4″ working distance and can achieve a shallower dof – more blur for portraits.

      • Abaham Collins

        My R1C1 should light any shot, no problem.

        • Sorry, but you’re thinking only of quantity of light, not direction of light. To get that light into the 2″ gap, you need to angle it steeply. Very easy to create cross shadows.

    • Dr Motmot

      WTF? This lens is so pointless! Why is Nikon pissing around with introducing lenses that no-one has asked for? Where are the lenses that photographers have been crying out for like the 300mm f4 VR???

      • AS

        You argument is pointless, go to sleep! This lens is what most of the users wanted!

        • Who are these “most users” you speak of?!

          • AS

            I work in a Nikon store and most of our customers ask about a cheep macro lens…so, those customers!

            • Jake

              i am one of these customers… cheap macro lenses are impossible to find! i was not expecting nikon to release anything like this. i never even thought of it! this lens will get snaffled up

          • AS

            The ones who buy D3100 and D5100 cameras which sell quite good you know?

            • Jake


      • The invisible man.

        The Af-s 300mm f/4 VRII is for september…………2013 !

      • Marc W.

        I didn’t ask for a 300mm f4 VR lens.. Oh wait, maybe I’m not a photographer.

        • Fotouser

          Absolutely. Will use the new 55-300 and rack up the ISO to 1600 if the light is low.

  • ZinhaEq

    That’s the least needed lens right now. :S

    • ZinhaEq

      But at least is cheap and will have a lot of chance beating those Tamrons, Sigmas and Tokinas in macro choice for beginners.

    • gt

      Agreed. I don’t understand at all.

      • Steve

        I’d rather get the new 50 f/1.8 and extension tubes. This makes no sense at all to me.

        • Steve

          I take that back – I checked the sample pictures and I’d prefer this. I don’t want it or need it mind you….

        • teddy

          but you cant change the aperture of a g-lense without special tubes :/

          and when i see that you would pay about 90€ for that tubes i’d rather pay 200€ for a lense

          • Steve

            Kenko AF tubes retain all functions, even VR.

            • Marc W.

              Even aperture control?

            • Iris Chrome

              @Marc W: Yep, even aperture control.

  • EvanK

    Awesome lens, but I wish that it had VR.

    • Abaham Collins

      If it was an f/4 lens I’d agree. Tripod for table-top work, in the field bump up ISO a bit.. VR screws bokeh up.

    • If you’re doing macro work, you would use it on a tripod so you don’t even need VR.

      • alx

        Sorry but I do not use tripod for macro… And I do not know many people using one for macro… Do you know many bugs that’s stand for hours at the same place ? huh ?

        • Abaham Collins

          I know of many miniature products that stand still for hours. (None of my macro shots are of bugs)

          Get a little monopod then.

          • Steve

            Besides anything else, VR has next to no effect at close focus distances and is of less benefit to short focal lengths. And you won’t be able to do live bugs with this because you’ll be too close and they fly/run/crawl/jump away. You need the 85 f/3.5 VR by the sounds of things.

        • Josh Douglass

          That is the stupidest thing I have heard to date. No one you know uses tripods for macro? You must be moving with complete photography novices.

          Thanks for the laugh!

          • EvanK

            I (generally) don’t use a tri-pod for macro work, when I’m out and about I’ll carry my Gorillapod if I need something but just for quick, casual shots of flowers I don’t use one. I sometimes use them for bugs and product shots or something like that I’ll always use one.

  • Stephen.C

    This lens seems really unnecessary. I feel like it will be targeted to moms who want to take awesome pictures of flowers.
    I’m all for new lenses, but just the thought of wider macro kind of gives me heartburn.

    • Believe it or not … the majority of Nikon users is photographing flowers, family and pets.

    • The invisible man.

      Yep, an other useless DX lens !


    • Stephen.C

      Im guessing because there is a 6omm macro for FF.

  • Was a new lens even expected this week? Where’s the rumor mill build up and anticipation? This one feels like it came outta left field…

    Still, it’s nice to see a dirt cheap macro option.

    • gt

      Minimum focusing distance = 6.4″

      6.4″ – 2.5″ (lens length) – 2″ (body depth) = (about) 2″

      2″ of minimum working distance.

      • Joe

        I don’t think this is a huge problem. You’re not always shooting at 1:1. Flowers, small products, food, dragonflies, butterflies? Often much bigger than a DX sensor.

        I have the 60mm Micro with similar working distance, and it almost never caused problems to me.

  • PanThomas

    I think it’s funny that there was not a single rumor about this lens.

    • gt

      they must be beefing up security

      • Yes, I was clueless about this lens. I think this is the first product that I miss in over 3 years since I run this site. I have the feeling that things changed since the earthquake in Japan. I have not gotten any good and reliable info since.

        • ja

          nikon need to do leaks so that we the consumer still feel that something is there , before we start thinking that nikon has vanished.
          this site is a great read i really enjoy it the subjects and the banter that comes with it may it never end.

        • sade

          The first? I don’t think so. I can think of 50mm f/1.8.
          But I must confess that you did very well during the past 3 years. Thanks Peter.

        • gt

          Three Theories:

          1. Production has significantly changed by the earthquake….and, consequently, some of your more reliable sources may now have been cut out of the loop

          2. Nikon, in anticipation of the August / September announcements has kept tight-lipped about all new products INTERNALLY even. They’re so paranoid about D4 details leaking that they’re putting a great deal of effort into controlling who has access to this sort of information.

          3. Nikon has started threatening their employees with an even more horrific death than they usually do for spilling secrets…In fact, their headquarters now contains a large tank, filled with sharks…each day an employee is chosen at random and dangled precariously over it

          • Steve

            It may just be that the people who leaked stuff died in the tsunami, or are too busy coping with life to worry about leaking stuff. There may be no conspiracy of silence at all, just tough times.

          • PHB

            Do the sharks have lasers?

          • plug

            Is’nt it the sharks that will be eaten? Or at least their fins?

            • IanZ28

              Wrong country.

          • Dweeb

            Well the frickin sharks work for Steve Jobs don’t they?

        • broxibear

          I’ve been saying this since the earthquake, all the normal lines and steps of information being leaked or slipped have gone.
          People who are high up in the Nikon food chain, who in the past would give out snipets of information, no longer have that information in advance because timelines have been disrupted, products cancelled and others kicked into the long grass.
          I’m expecting a few of these” out of the blue” type of releases in the next few months.

        • The invisible man.

          Well, we hope you missed MANY others lenses and cameras (specialy FX ones) !

          But in an other hand, having a total surprise about a product it’s also very exciting !

  • BrD

    Is this a joke? NIKON! Where is the fast, DX wide angle prime?!

    • MJr

      24, and 35mm equivalent please.

    • Darth

      35mm f/1.8G DX.

      • WoutK89

        35mm on DX is not equivalent to wide-angle at all (52.5mm equivalent). 16mm and 24mm however are wide (24 and 36mm respectively)

        • Darth

          Equivalens shmequivalent. I need a 40mm macro, not a wideangle, plenty of those in FX, but nothing like a 40mil in macro.

          • I’ll bite: what EXACTLY do you need a 40mm DX Micro-Nikkor for? Make a clear and well-supported case, please. Some of us have open minds, but not without information does the mind change.

            • Darth

              I like to shoot macro.
              I don’t have too much money.
              I do not need a tele-macro because of the perspective preference for MY macro shots.

              Are these reasons good enough?

            • Darth

              And it will double as a portrait lens. Please don’t tell me I can buy 35DX or 1.8/50, coz why not 40?

    • Nikon

      Thx for reminding us… We are listening……. This product was accidental. Sorry we cannot take it back.

  • that was… unexpected.. but not unwelcome. the 50-60mm perspective is nice for macro shots..

  • peter

    why wasn’t this one in the announcement earlier this week 🙂

    commercialy a very good choice to bring out this lens. It really fits the D3100 and D5100. Neglible weight, neglible cost.
    Nothing wrong with moms making pictures of flowers (and in the meantime possibly beautifull portrets of children. Probably she remembers to set the dial in the correct position: flowers? check… portrait? check).

  • Phill

    I ve already got the 60mm AF-S on my DX D90 body, which is also an investment for the future FF camera ( hope soon enough 🙂 ), so i cant understant the meaning of a 60mm ( 40=60) DX macro lens. Now, if it was FF…

    • preston

      Except that your 60mm is the equivalent of a 90mm on your D90. You use the 1.5x multiplier no matter what format the lens was designed for (DX, FX, medium format, etc.) – focal length is focal length – image circle size of lens doesn’t matter when determining focal length equivalents.

      • Phill

        yes, i Know that. Thats another reason why i believe the is excellent for normal lens in FF.

  • While this looks like a nice lens (and I am genuinely thinking of it for the Mrs.) the 1x focal distance is going to be something like 2-3″ in front of the lens. That’s not going to leave much room in there for the light to get in, so a flash will probably be needed adding to the cost.

    • Worminator

      Just because it goes to 1x doesn’t mean you are forced to use it at 1x.

  • sloma_p

    WTF?? I mean WTF?? This is about as needed as the 85/3.5 VR – where’s 24/2 DX, 17/4 PC-E, 85/2, 400/5.6, 50-150/2.8 VR DX, 70-400 AF-S, 70-200/4VR, 300/4 VR, FF fisheye, pancake of some sort ?? A short macro? What excacly wrog is there with 60/2.8 ? Want shorter? Tokina 35 macro had been on the market for what, 4 years ? Gee, honestly, these use R&D money, when there’s a lot more other gaps to fill with in the lineup…

    • fiatlux

      Well, I guess it’s going to be better that the Tokina for cheaper. What’s wrong with that? It’s the 60mm macro for DX shooters: same working distance, much reduced price.

      After all, Nikon has released a lot of FF lenses the last 24 months, let the DX shooters have some 😉

      As to what should come next, I agree the 70-400 AF-S, 70-200/4VR are high on the wish lists. I don’t think a 400/5.6 is likely, especially in the 70-400 AF-S materializes, a 300/4 VR is more likely to happen soon.

      A 24 or wider DX prime would be nice. I was not too hopeful but I was not expecting this macro either, so who knows.

      • sloma_p

        What’s wrong with that is that it eats up R&D money, for a product that’s not really needed.

        I understand it’s a 60 mm macro for DX, but if you’re interested in macro, there’s the Tokina 35, the Sigma 50 macro – and they’ve been around for long time. Had they released this lens in 2005 it would’ve been cool, today it’s a bit weird.

        If they want to appeal to macro shooters, then they should do a 70-180 remake with AF-S and VR or a 200 mm macro – both are sorely needed for those shooting small objects outside of the studio.

        If they wanted to appeal a mass market – then they don’t stand a chance with most compacts, which don’t need a specialty lens to go into macro distances. And as somebody noted above – the working distance of a 1:1 reproduction is going to be extremly short – so you would need extra light to make it viable.

        They say it’s versatile – I would say Tamron 60/2 is a hell of a more versatile.

        I guess it’s priced right, the MTF looks good (but then find me a macro lens with bad MTF…), it’s lightweight, small – it just doesn’t have much purpose. Carrying extra lens you’re not going to be able to use for a 1:1 macro (coz of light issues), when your zoom will take you close enough for 90% of users, doesn’t make sense for me…

        • fredflash

          Yes sloma, you are right. It would have been a much smarter decision to come up with 50-150/2.8 VR DX or 70-200/4VR first. I think there are a lot of macro choices out there …

          • fredflash

            Please tell me about all those choices for a 70-200 DX equivalent. And if you see the next training “how to express myself in a polite way” – simply join – you need it obviously.

          • fredflash

            How old are you – 10 or 11? What happened? Did you miss your latest meeting with your psychologist?

          • fredflash

            Dear Darth,
            I have got a lot to say, i.e. that I am already using some fixed focals like 1.4/85 AF-D, 2.8/180 AF-D and the 4.0/300 AF-S – and yes, I like them. My macro is a Tokina 2.8/100. So what? I would still like to have a DX 2.8/50-150 from Nikon instead of the Sigma or Tokina. I do not have any problems with accepting opinions from other people – maybe you have?

            • rearranged

              I don’t think that there is going to be a 50-150 2.8 dx. The pro-sumer range is going to move even more to FX and the lenses used are going to be the 16-35 f4 and 70-200 f4 which are both equivalent to ~10-24 2.8 and ~50-135 2.8 DX. I don”t see the point spending 800 € for a 10-24 3,5-5,6 when I can get a faster and with more DOF potential 16-35 f4 VR for 1000 €. DX is going to be only for beginners and amateurs who don’t want to spend lots of money for gear.

            • Charlie Martin

              Rearranged, f4 in FX is f4 in DX. the F stop doesn’t change. The focal length changes. DX isn’t just for beginners and amateurs and probably won’t be. There are professionals that use DX because of the cost, crop factor etc.

            • rearranged

              Well you are right in terms of speed, but you have to admit that both lenses would have the same DOF at the end (50-135 2.8 dx and 70-200 4fx). And what I am trying to say is that though a lot would have liked it, there are not going to be any more professional dx lenses to be announced because now nikon wants you (as a professional) to buy a d3x or d700 or d800 etc. It’s too late. Maybe in D2x times a 50-135 2.8 would have made sence for nikon. And when an affordable high Pixel d700 is available not many pros are going to miss the d300 since fx gives advantages like a bigger viewfinder where you can see beyond your crop and more flexible crop modes like 1,3 etc. Think about it: the ONLY professional dx lens ever made by nikon was the 17-55 announced back in 2003. 8years ago.

              Canon does the same by making a 17-55 IS which (for me) feels way cheaper than my old 16-85 nikkor and wouldn’t last professional abuse.

              PS: Since I am not shooting sports I don’t really care about 1 stop difference (f2.8 vs f4) I only care about shallow dof . And I also think that the high iso-advantages of fx easily substitute the loss of one f stop.

        • El Aura

          “for a product that’s not really needed.”

          If nobody needs a 50/60 mm equiv. macro, why did every single manufacturer designed and sold one in the film days? I can tell you why you feel things are different with digital (even though you have not even fully realised that your antagonism comes from this ‘but things are different now, ie, with digital’).
          (1) Not having 50/60 mm equiv. macros available for DX for a decade-long of DX sensors has set expectations what the minimum price for a macro lens should be to that of a 50/60 mm lens. There is no intuition anymore that getting a 50/60 mm macro lens is nice but more expensive than a 35/40 mm macro lens. It takes time to re-create that intuition.
          (2) With digital it is thought that most people aspire to switch to FX in a few years (either once things get cheaper or they got more money), thus DX-only lenses carry a malus in a way that did not exist in the film days. While FX will get cheaper (just by virtue of more and more used FX cameras), the vast majority of DX shooters will never switch, but the idea of switching still messes with the mind of a significant share of DX users and this is the more engaged, more vocal part of the user base.

        • No, it’s not R&D money that’s the issue. It’s manufacturing capacity, distribution addition, and marketing needs that’s the issue. I don’t see Nikon as an R&D constrained company. They’ve been designing far more products than we’ll ever see. I’m all for that. The problem is that when you commit to manufacture, you start tying up real resources. Glass, manufacturing space, inventory space, overseas shipments, sales rep time, marketing resources, and so on.

          The lens will sell okay for a short while because it’s cheap. Then people will start realizing that they don’t actually use it much. Just put a CU filter on the 35mm f/1.8 if you need close ups (not that it does so bad itself, as it gets to 1 foot). So then we’ll end up with these things on shelves taking up space. And eventually time and energy as Nikon starts doing “deals” to move all the inventory they built up.

          • El Aura

            Why did these 50/60 mm equiv. macro lenses do well in the film era, and why won’t they do well in the digital cropped sensor era?

            Because cropped sensor DSLR is moving away from mass market to enthousiasts (and enthousiasts are willing and likely to spend a bit more for a longer working distance)?

            Or because cropped sensor buyers that stray beyond kit lenses in their majority strive for FX (even if only a minority will ever acquire it) and thus because it helps them keep their dream alive buy FX lenses if possible?

            • They did well because we didn’t have scanners and photocopiers ;~). The primary use for a 55mm Micro-Nikkor was on a copy stand. That’s one of the reasons why you see these lenses with CRC in them: because it’s assumed you want flat field correction.

            • El Aura

              There are still a lot of things too large or too three-dimensional for scanners or photocopiers, that is what most macro lenses are used for today, the bug and 1:1 fractions are in my estimation only a minority albeit vocal ones.

            • I don’t disagree that some people still copy big flat objects with macro lenses. But the difference is that today there are only a few people that do that, while in the film era when those lenses became popular it was a very common practice.

              Are there enough of those shooters to justify a consumer 40mm macro over some of the other missing DX lenses? No. Not even close.

  • ES

    The most stupid product from Nikon ever. I don’t understand the reason they released it. AF 35/2 with 1:4 reproduction ratio do almost the same. Closer doesn’t mean better. They should put more efforts to reincarnate in AFS their AF 35/2 (with 1:4), 85/2, 180/2.8 and 80-200/2.8 (without image stabilization for advanced amateurs not to compete with their 70-200 VR). Very, very stupid. Nikon, no more gimmicks!

  • I’m puzzled. Why is this lens needed exactly? How is it so much different from the 50mm f1.8? just the focusing distance?

    • hombre

      Yes, “just” the focusing distance, this is macro lens.

    • gt

      As hombre said, its a macro lens.

      Just out of curiosity why is everyone comparing it to the 50mm anyway? If you’re going to make an ill-informed comparison, the 35mm F1.8DX is closer in focal length…

  • Johan

    Don’t really see the point of this lens but I guess they wanted an equivalent of the 60 mm FF. However with the 85 mm micro they already have a lightweight DX macro which is much more useful due to better working distance. And also a better portrait lens since DoF is more shallow at 85 f3,5 than 40 f2,8. At this focal length the excellent 35 f1.8 should be the given choice for DX users.

  • I personally “don’t get it” as much as any of you… but really stand back and think. When I was starting out, this would have been on my wish list without a doubt. It looks optically awesome, and at a great price.

    …of course don’t tell anyone who’s interested that ~60mm macros suck because of the working distance.

    • gt

      its one of those lenses that trick n00bs into parting with their cash. im sure itll make them a ton of money

  • Yep… I didn’t see that coming. I think it would be more useful than the 50mm for a crop sensor. I just use my 28-70 f2.8 though.

  • simpleguy

    why would anybody need this , when you have the 35mm and 50mm seems like a lens just to say , hey we are producing stuff look at us , except no one really needs this !

    really strange 🙁

    • WoutK89

      Or are you the idiot for telling everyone they are idiots?

      • John

        Yes, Including you and Nikon team who developed this lens

  • B2

    Is this supposed to be a combination of DX macro and portrait lens?
    Quit trippin Nikon, give us something in the range of 16-22 with f/1.8 DX, we have plenty of choices for macro and portrait..

  • Bigus Dickus

    well the fact that there was not a single rumor about this lens fills my heart with hope that all that denials about new cameras might not be all that relevant
    D800x i am here, cash loaded

  • IanZ28


    So many whining and complaining idjits. Are you lot the same type of people who bitch and moan on Christmas morning when mommy and daddy don’t get you the right colored BMW?

    This is a surprising and welcome lens. Granted it’s not what the majority of “serious” photographers are wanting. But, it is a lens that supports the low end camera market – a perfect first prime to go along with that 18-105mm kit zoom. It is also a lens that will be great for beginning photographers and product photographers alike. The big bonus here – It’s f’in cheap!

    One last point:
    This lens was solo released without so much as a peep or special event. Looks to me that Nikon made an intelligent marketing move (for once). This is a lens that would be greatly overshadowed and quickly forgotten if it were to be announced the same time as a D4 / D400 (and hopefully a couple of lenses).

    So don’t fret ye ol’ spoiled complainers. There are likely additional announcements coming soon. Though I’m sure you’ll find something to whinge about no matter the announcement.

    • sloma_p


      The one idiot who calls everybody else idiots. Maybe he didn’t get that BMW for Xmas and has to say something to feel needed.

      This is a surprise lens. Shame there’re lots of other choices for macro, but none for wide-angle. The perfect first prime should be 35/1.8 – as the zoom will get most ppl close enough. For the user of D3100 to learn his pictures look crap, bcoz he/she has about 2 inches from lens front (witout hood attached) to work with at 1:1 and blocks light could be devastating. Not to mention the result will likely be blurry if they wanted any DoF and it’s not midday in California.

      One last point – this lens will be quickly forgotten. Why they haven’t released it with 50/1.8 is beyond me – it actually cost money to have separate annoucments, product meetings, staff training, advertisements etc. They could’ve annouc it with availability in August…

      Ther always something to whine aobut. Otherwise we would be still driving Ford model Ts – it was “good enough”. It’s called progress and it comes from criticism and innovation driven by consumer demands.

      • Steve

        Who wants a BMW ? They haven’t made a pretty car since the Z8. Even Mercedes look sexy next to a BMW.

      • Isn’t an idiot a man that calls other people an idiots only because they needed something that don’t need you? DX 40 is a welcome addition to Nikon lineup. It is sharp as hell and (surprise-surprise) is cheap. If you don’t need this lens, then don’t buy it. Plain and simple. Oversimplified, huh? Why to bashing, whining, moaning and growling on something that didn’t make your dreams come true? There’s a problem then not in Nikon’s marketing, but in yourself.

        • sloma_p

          I’m sorry, but it wasn’t me who called “idiots” argument first. I was simply responding in the same manner as OP author – he’s got the right to needing this lens, I’ve got right to moan about this lens. He called me an idiot, I used the same argument – I guess it this sort of wording he’ll understand…

          It’s not that I don’t need it – there’re just so many other choices on the market, that anyone needing this kind of lens would be able to find solution.

          The problem is moving resources to production, marketing, designing lens like this, when there are other gaps in the line-up – why can Oly create 12/2.0 lens for their u4/3 system and Nikon can’t give us a decent 16/2.0 prime? It’s needed by many out there, as are other leneses…The macro line-up in Nikon stable is impressive – 24 PC-E, 40/2.8, 45 PC-E, 85 PC-E, 85/3.5, 105/2.8 and the old 200/4 – and guess what – the lens most ppl shooting macro want (70-180 macro zoom) is not there. The second lens wanted by macro shooters (200 or 180) is an old design. So what Nikon does ? They give us lens nobody was asking for…

          • Fotouser

            In the marketing parlance, a new launch would keep Nikon in the news.

            Considering that we all are waiting to hear about the D400/D4s, it seems that this has been timed well. Whether we agree to disagree or disagree to agree . . . after all we are talking “Nikon”.

            Mass market products gets in the required money for Nikon to invest in new products. As a DX equivalent of a 60mm micro, its bound to sell well given the high cost of the current set of the FF or DX macro lens. I would not buy one as I have a 60mm micro Nikkor.

            • Fotouser

              Or may be… my 14th Nikon lens…

          • IanZ28

            Well if you took the “idjit” comment personally then it must be true as I directed the word at no one person in particular.

            Since you took the bait it would be safe to draw a conclusion. correct?

            Simply because you don’t need the lens doesn’t mean that others won’t.

            The lens will be sharper and have better bokeh than either the 35 f1.8 or the 50 f1.8. The target market for this lens will not be focusing on 1:1 macro work.

            Personally, I use an old 90mm f2.5 macro lens that only goes to 1:2 lifesize. If I need greater magnification I switch to another macro lens. I’m also considering getting rid of one of my 35 f1.8’s and picking up a 40 (after all it’s super cheap).

            Obsessing about the 2″ minimum focusing distance is doing nothing more than showing your narrow sightedness. Complaining because it’s not a lens “you” want is showing your selfishness.

            “and guess what – the lens most ppl shooting macro want (70-180 macro zoom) is not there.”

            What a joke! This is an expensive lens design that was never a volume seller. It only goes to 1:2 life size has a slow variable aperture – and people such as yourself would point these things out incessantly. Doubt you own or would buy either as they are around $1500 each.

            And simply because the 200mm f4 is an old design does that mean it can’t produce amazing results?

            Let’s get some numbers on paper to hopefully cleanse you of your affliction. Be sure to pay attention to the date ranges.

            Nikon 60 G (2008 – unspecified):
            Nikon 105 G (2006 – 2009):
            Nikon 70-180 (1997 – 2005):
            Nikon 200 f2.8 (1978-2006)

            info via:

            • IanZ28


              Nikon 200 f4 (1978-2006):

            • sloma_p

              NO I didn’t take it personally – was just one of the ppl you called this name so I responded. Just don’t like when some internet warroior calls ppl idiots bcoz they express thier feelings.

              I guess it’s hard to read with understanding what I wrote – I never said it’s a bad annoucment bcoz I don’t need it, but bcoz it takes resources form other lenses, that are sorely missing in Nikon’s line-up.

              As Thom Hogan wrote above – find us one well supported case, where this lens makes sense and there isn’t already a solution out there.

              You don’t know it’s gonna be sharper than 35/1.8 or 50/1.8, when you use them at 2.8. You don’t know it’s gonna have better bokeh. You’ve not seen or used this lens. If that’s the support behind your thinkinkg, then it’s a rubbish support. Just bcoz you say or belevie it’s gonna be sharper or with better bokeh, doesn’t make it a fact.

              The 2″ working distance is a serious issue – why couldn’t they mak it go to 1:2 and f/2 – it would make perfect sense then. I guess you’ve never worked with short macro – getting quality light at those distances is a real challenege. A challenge somebody buying this lens won’t probably have time and skill to undertake.

              ““and guess what – the lens most ppl shooting macro want (70-180 macro zoom) is not there.”

              What a joke!”

              No it’s not a joke – this was one lens unique to Nikon, a very good design that’s missed by serious macro shooters. NO it’s never been a volume seller (28/1.4 was never either, but look what happened when Nikon released 24/1.4) and so what? As for your remark about me cmoplaining about the variable aperture – I won and love this lens – been my favourite for a long time. Nikon made much more money on each 70-180 than it will on each 40/2.8.

              As for me buying expensive glass – I’ve over 40k $ worth of glass in my business – don’t talk about things you’ve not clue about.

              200/4 is an old design and it could use upgrade – it’s just OK on D3X, there’s no AFS or VR – which would make it much more versatile.

              Now for your numbers – you see, they sold a lot of 105/2.8 – an expensive glass, but with longer focal lenght, making it useful fo macro. 60/2.8 makes sense for DX.

              But find numbers for 85/3.5 VR – and it’s a fate 40/2.8 will share.

      • Dan

        It’s not just him calling people idiots…you forgot about old Darth, who also apparently has his panties on backwards today.

        While I wouldn’t go buy one, I’m glad to see Nikon releasing inexpensive, but optically good DX-format primes. I would also much rather see a wide angle, fast DX prime, but I think that this lens is an example of times when the enthusiast desires are different than what Nikon thinks will sell well to the general public. It’s great that they’re willing to invest in lenses which enhance the DX system, something that Canon is clearly not interested in doing. Of course, all of their older primes, including their 20/2.8, 85/1.8, 100/2, and 50/2.5 compact macro, autofocus on all of their low-end bodies.

  • All commenters here doin’ same mental mistake:
    This new lens is Nikon ONLY solution in sub $600 DX BOKEH department.

    This lens have nice picture, and this is purpose new lens for.

    • sloma_p

      Dare to check how much 85/1.8 costs ?

      • Doesn’t have AF-S, requiers motor-driven camera for full-function usage. Then, pointless because it was meant to be a cheap solution for portrait photographers.

        • sloma_p

          And a 40/2.8 (equiv. to 60/3.5 FF) is a portrait shooter dream come true? I’m sorry, but 50/1.8 is so much better for this purpose (or a Sigma 50/1.4 even better) it’s not even worth bothering with this lens for portrait. You don’t know how it “draws” since the samples on Nikon website don’t include single harsh contrast background situation, where you would be able to see how this lens handles bckground blur in tough conditions. The flower shot out there colud’ve been taken with 18-55 – you wouldn’t know the difference…

          • I agree with you, 50 mm f1.8 G would serve better for portraits and also it has better bokeh than 50 mm f1.4 G one. I just mentioned that 85 mm f1.8 needs an essential upgrade because to this date lot of DX users are screwed up with not having cheap portrait lens, unless they have motor-driven cameras like a D7000.

    • gt

      50mm F1.4G, 50mm F1.8G, 35mm F1.8G, 85mm F1.8D, 60mm F2.8 Micro…

      • Nothing except micro 60mm has pleasurable bokeh, but this new is 1,5 shorter and 3x cheaper.

        Again: matters how lens DRAW PICTURE, not how its name sounds.

        • sloma_p

          Yeah, right, 85/1.8 has horrbile bokeh and draws awfully. Not to mention DoF – who would care for it.

        • gt

          the 50mm F1.8G has pretty nice out of focus rendering

        • nobody

          “Nothing except micro 60mm has pleasurable bokeh”

          I’m not sure that the flower moms this lens is meant for have any idea what a “bokeh” is…

  • Claus

    Great lens!

    Funny thing:
    There were NO RUMORS before the announcement !

    • The invisible man.

      Yes but I heard a rumor few weeks ago saying that there would not be rumors about that lens.
      : )

  • David

    Images taken with the new lense on Nikon France’s flickr :

    • peter

      Clever thing of Nikon to bring this lens in connection with French tartelets…
      Anyone ever been in France understands why tartelets are a good thing to relate your product to.
      I love those tartelets… my mouth is dripping.

      (but why not raspberries? why doesn’t Nikon let their lenses refer to raspberries… I don’t see why anyone could need strawberries.)

  • WHAT?? THE?! FUCK!! 😐
    There is no need for this lense!

  • Dr.

    instead of filling this site with useless nonsense, work on reliable rumors..

  • BaoKeWen

    I think pretty much everyone who ‘gets’ into photography goes through a macro phase. When I first started out as amateur I spent many hours playing around with extension rings, close up filters, reversal rings and, eventually, a battered, used bellows unit. I would have loved to have a cheap, high quality lens like this back then. Back then I was around 16, had no cash and film was expensive. To have this on a digital camera would open up a whole new world for loads of curious amateurs. Released now, available in September, ready for the x-mas wish lists.
    To all those whining and complaining, bear this in mind: it is the moneymaker items like this that generate the cash that allows Nikon to develop the really awesome kit. So be happy it us there, it will ensure more goodies are on the way.

    • gt

      Yeah, its basically all about the profit. They know it’ll make them money.

      For the same reason, Nikon continuously develops slow mid-range zooms for the DX (18-55mm, 18-70mm, 18-105mm, 16-85mm, etc.) These focal lengths are cash cows for beginners who don’t know better

      Do what you gotta do Nikon.

  • Progressive Fool

    I’m guessing that it might be to do with Nikon doing designs in batches:
    600/500/400 exotics
    24/45/85 PCs
    50(1.4)/35/50(1.8) normals (to be followed by 50(1.2)?)
    85/40 macro (to be followed by a 200?)

    I only hope that this doesn’t mean that Thom was wrong about a wide angle dx prime…

    • I hope I wasn’t wrong, too. The 40mm is destined to sit in people’s bags and shelves. Ask anyone with a short focal length macro how often they use it. They think it will be useful until they start to realize that 2″ working distance isn’t helpful.

      • El Aura

        And yet they kept selling 50/60 mm macros in the film era for decades with new designs coming out (just look at the long list of 50/60 mm macros from Nikon).
        If they are useless, why did they keep designing them and why did people kept buying them?
        Guess what, a lot of people use 50/60 mm macro lenses on film or FX not as 1:1 macros but for high-quality reproduction work and product photography.

        • Let me ask you a different question. Of all the photographers you’ve seen at work, how many times have you seen them using a 55mm Micro-Nikkor?

          A lot of the purchasing of lenses by customers is not necessarily efficient. People think “oh, I need a macro lens, too.” They look around, find the 60mm is the cheapest available (and now the 40mm is way downscale in price), so they buy it. Nikon’s happy. The customer is happy to have the lens in their bag. Then stops carrying it because they never use it so it sits on a shelf.

          A knowledgable macro shooter buys a short focal length macro only if they are working with fixed subjects, large flat subjects (copy stand), and know that they can light the short working distance reasonably. Just as perspective is important in regular photography, it can be in macro work, too, so a short focal length macro isn’t totally useless. However, as the most common macro, yes, I would argue that it isn’t rational. Most DX users would be served better by the 85mm f/3.5.

          • El Aura

            Think of him what you want but Lloyd Chambers really likes the 60 mm macro and the Zeiss 50 mm macro – on FX. As a high quality normal mostly at ratios between a tree trunk and half a tree. (I guess you could argue that anybody not happy with zooms or fast primes for this is not shooting DX anyway. But you didn’t.)

            And I say 90% of macro lenses are still used for mainly utilitarian purposes, I know mine is, though it doubled for catching details like a half-torn poster on a wall.

            • Nobody is saying that these lenses don’t perform decently (or even well) at normal distances. But exactly how many people need a 40mm f/2.8 NON-macro? None. They already have an excellent 35mm f/1.8 non-macro that focuses to one foot. In DX there’s more need for a portrait lens (say 60mm f/1.4 or even f/2, which is why the Tamron macro is interesting).

              The question I asked about “why?” has to do with what’s the real unserved need in DX. It is not 40mm f/2.8 in my opinion, regardless of how well it works on non-macro subjects.

              The funny thing is that the recent m4/3 lenses show that Panasonic and Olympus understand the wide angle needs and desires better than Nikon does. If that continues, it will mean erosion of the D3100/D5100 user base.

            • El Aura

              And what if you want low distortion? The 35 mm f/1.8 doesn’t deliver that.

            • You’re grasping at straws. How much you want to bet that the audience that pays US$279 for a lens even sees linear distortion? But beyond that, distortion is one of the most correctable lens faults. It just isn’t that big a problem any more (though why Nikon isn’t putting distortion correction into the consumer bodies is a big question mark).

          • Thom:

            But not everybody can afford a 500 dollar lens.

            When I first bought a macro lens, back in 2004 (film days for me) I bought the cheapest out there, the Sigma 60mm f/2.8. Its price was 250 dollars.

            I still have that lens, but bought a year ago the Tamron 60mm f/2 for use in my D40x. Great lens and versatile.

            And now we have the 50mm f/1.8 afs and the 40mm f/2.8. Maybe now I would buy both instead of the Tamron. Both Nikons would cost what I pay for the Tamron (maybe a 100 more)

            I do use macro in short distances. I have taken hundreds of pictures of insects up to 3x magnification using 100mm of tube extensions, two flashes and a reflector in the filter glass with a 10mm hole in the center. My working distances were between 1mm and 10mm. Difficult, yes, but cheaper

            The 85mm f/3.5 cost 500 dollars, the Nikon 105 cost even more. So , if you want working distance, you will pay for it

            My point is, the most important thing about the 40mm nikon is that it is a cheap macro. Working dsitances? Hey… “flowers moms” and dads dont care about that, LOL. Those people have a D3000, D3100, etc. The want the cheapest macro available for fun

  • LOL

    Hopefully this is Nikon getting the boring announcements out of the way so we can all enjoy the D400/D800/D4 and better lens announcements soon.

  • Codename

    Thanks you Nikon. I am tired of the “stop signs” bokeh of the 50mm 1.8d.
    A good present for my graduation.

    • peter

      That is a comment that counts. Lots of fun with the well deserved lens!

  • Surprise. Nobody leaked this one. It is the lens nobody requested. (these two often go together) So it is quite surprise like 85/3.5vr dx micro was. But the price is good so there will be buyers. Nikon needs to compete with small lenses for users that might buy micro four thirds cameras instead.

    Apparent disadvantages:

    In this “small size” lens group, the focal length is close to both 35/1.8g dx and 50/1.8g. Small 24/2 dx might be more useful addition to this “small lens group” though it would compete with f/3.5vr wide end of small consumer zooms. At f/2.8 it is not particularly fast. It also competes with 85/3.5vr micro which is more useful addition for somebody with common entry lens set of 18-55vr and 35/1.8, and also has better working distance, though at twice the price of 40/2.8.
    NO MENTION OF FOCUS LIMITER or no side picture that would reveal it? Since they comment in the PR on the M/A-A switch, I assume they would tell about focus limiter if it would be available. Without focus limiter, the lens might not be universally usable as it might often search for focus in macro ranges when used for non-macro. I assume that focus speed in macro ranges needs to be slower to focus properly so when the lens misfocuses, it might take a quite long time to recover.

  • Razr

    You would think a wide angle dx lens would have a higher priority? There already is a dx macro lens… Doh’

    • Darth

      There already a wide DX too – 35mm f/1.8G.

      • patrick

        Is 35mm DX (50mm ff) really a wide lens?

      • patrick

        35mm DX is not wide.

      • preston

        I wouldn’t consider a 50mm lens equivalent to be wide angle. I actually use my 24mm f/2.8 Ai-S manual focus lens MUCH more than my 35mm f/1.8 just because the 35mm isn’t close to being wide enough for street photography.

        • preston

          And I only put up with the Ai-S version because I’m too poor to get the D version. So that’s why I’d love to see an 18mm or 24mm cheap DX lens!

  • I have not seen a single hands-on of this lens online. I guess nobody got it in advance which probably explains the lack of rumors.

    • fredflash

      Hello admin,
      no problem with “who was the first to mention this lens” – the most of us are only disappointed, because we hoped for some other lenses. Maybe a fine DX wideangle, or a DX 2.8 50-150 or even a 4.0 70-200. Nikon development department is sometimes really weird.

    • Peter, thank you for this site! Keep this amazing work.

      Do you have any idea on FX coverage of this lens? There are few people who use DX 35 mm f1.8 with D700 (with some corner shading). I wish to buy this one in addition to my 105 VR but soon I am willing to switch to FX.

      • Joseph

        Just get the 55mm micro and live with it.

      • Marc W.

        The reason why people use the 35mm DX on FF is because there is only a tiny slight vignette. Not sure how much the 40mm DX will.

        “Do you have any idea on FX coverage of this lens?”

        The same as a 40mm Full Frame lens. (Please don’t tell me it’s different because it’s a DX lens.)

    • DX2FX

      Doesn’t Nikon need to file a patent on its design before proceed to manufacturing ? Or not neccessarily ?

      • WoutK89

        They may have patented, but not yet got the patent approved.

      • they don’t have to or they can file the patent later

  • Wim Lemmens

    I think this is a perfect lens for beginning photographers!
    Since I have a reasonable experience as a photographer I am constantly being accosted by novice photographers with the question: what should I buy …

    The first thing I ask is: what is your budget and what do you shoot:
    Usually € 500 max 😎
    So just enough for an entry level body and kit lens.
    a few months later they go one step further. following lens … usually a budget of 200 to 300 €
    usually I recommend the 50mm 1.8 or 35mm 1.8
    But others want to macro, and then the current macro lens too expensive for beginners. € 500 is typically too much for beginners.

    This new lens is really a macro lens to begin with.

    Since each photographer starts small.
    Nikon is required to make such lenses for the market.
    Since the entry-level market is the fastest growing. Here lies the opertuniteit for new customers and make them addicted to be Nikon products. 🙂

    • Absolutely true.

      Look at markets in the BRICs especially India and China where Nikon is the king. The D3100 and 5100 are selling like hot cakes.

      The 40mm DX macro would be a perfect add-on to the kit lens for portraits and macro for starters.

    • Wim Lemmens:

      Well said.

      Nikon needed an entry macro lens and they made it.

  • ElPadre

    now, there’s a completely pointless lens. come on, nikon, f/4 fixed-brightness lenses! start bringing out lenses that people actually need.

    • ElPadre

      or, even better: why not release the magnificient 55mm micro AIS lens in AF-S format? i actually make a point not to buy DX lenses (apart from cheap superzooms), since if i migrated from the DX camp to the FX, i’d hate to be forced to buy a new lens kit. (okay, maybe a tamron 10-24mm in DX format, yes, but definitely not prime DX lenses.)

  • Wow! Nice surprise, Nikon. That’s interesting.

  • El Cabong

    Yet another macro that no one asked for.

    Then again, I guess someone must be buying them.

  • Gordon

    Look at it this way, perhaps this lens was scheduled to be released earlier in the year with other lenses but got postponed due to the eartquake. Maybe the other lenses were not ready for release so they decided to just quickly get this one out the door and save the other lenses for the big announcement in August/September.

    I think it’s better Nikon still fill in gaps in the lens lineup then leave it for the opposition.

  • Singapore

    Apparently Nikon thinks one can’t have enough macro (micro) lenses. I’m fine with the one I already have.

    • PHB

      I think that there is likely a group that does nothing other than micro lenses and this is their latest product.

      Put this lens on a D5100 and put it on a stand and you have a fairly decent power digital microscope. It will show stuff more clearly than the typical 100x microscope certainly.

  • CRB

    I want a small 24mm…….

  • Big eater

    You guys are forgetting there is a whole professional market for macro: crime scene investigation, scientists, doctors, dentists…and they have budget constraints and many of them don’t want to lug around heavy lenses. There are many markets besides just general photography.

    • paf

      You can take the doctors part out of the comment. I just don’t see a doctor sticking a DSLR into a patient — there are other, better alternatives for that. From medical perspective, the short working distance makes this product useless.

      • PHB

        The working distance is about twice as large as a typical optical microscope.

        This is likely to be a lens that is going to be used on a D3100 and a custom stand for pathology work and similar. At this point a DSLR plus the appropriate lens is better and cheaper than an optical microscope. Much easier to set up, much larger field of view.

        I would like to see a bigger magnification, Canon has a microscopy lens that gives a 10x enlargement. But EVIL is going to be the better format for that in any case. The Canon lens only fits on one camera.

  • RevKrev123

    I don’t see the point of throwing a fit over this lens.

    I am happy to see it, completely useless and pointless for me but I’m glad that Nikon is finally offering something that competes with 3rd party lenses.

    I am tired of people wasting money on Sigma, Tamron and Tokina.

    Yes I am a Nikon purist… mostly. I still like Tokina but if I have the cash I’ll go Nikon. Which I did, sold/broke my Tokina 16-50mm and bought the 17-55 and never looked back.

    Would I ever have bought the Tokina 35mm Macro? Nope, but if I wanted to, now I’d just get the Nikon.

    I hope Nikon continues to match every lens out there from the 3rd parties.

    That 30mm f/1.4 from Sigma, how about the Tokina 11-16? How many people would buy the Nikon version instead of shelling out to 3rd parties?

  • Joseph

    Why all the complaints? The 55mm micro is by far my favorite lens on FX. If I was shooting DX this would be ordered immediately, though I would prefer a slightly wider angle. I use my 55mm micro as my all-around lens everyday, all day, unless I MUST have the speed of my 1.4. If you don’t need it, fine, but lots of people use these lenses for a do-everything solution without a massive zoom.

    • El Aura

      “The 55mm micro is by far my favorite lens on FX.”
      Sheesh, don’t tell that Thom, you are supposed to leave your 55 mm macro lens on your shelf or in your bag, you are not supposed to use it.

  • This is unexpected, and definitely a good surprise 😀 It shows that Nikon is not doing away with the DX format that soon…

  • broxibear

    New Nikon AF tracking patent published today
    Here’s another published today about the viewfinder and display of a dslr

  • Trevor

    I’m just thrilled Nikon is putting out new lenses, and I kinda like the surprise (like the 50 1.8).

  • Not a bad price!

  • logandiana

    When I first saw this I had the same reaction as just about everybody else… but then I saw the price. I just might get this. I am a DX shooter and currently my macro solutions are the Canon 500D on the front of my 70-200mm VRI and when I want to get REALLY close I just my 35mm 1.8 mounted in reverse using the BR2a reversing ring and sometimes ebay extension tubes. With the 500D I do have more working distance, but the focusing and composing method is tricky, plus its a pain to remove the UV filter on the 70-200mm, screw on the 500D, worrying about scratches and fingerprints on the front elements all the time.
    With the reversed mounted 35mm 1.8 DX I can get close, REALLY CLOSE. I showed a photo to my friend and he thought he was looking at a close up of ice cubes on a table top. I explained to him that he was looking at grains of table salt. The problem with this method is that although I can get very close, the working distance is very small, focus is done by moving in toward the subject, and I can only shoot at the smallest aperture.
    So with that being said, I may spring for this new lens and sell my other stuff. I don’t plan on preordering it though. I am waiting to see what the D400 will bring to the table, plus if I wait there maybe one of those rebates for the D400 and 40mm when purchased together. Who knows…

  • Who cares? And who would want a 40mm macro lens anyway, the working distance is really not long enough, I can’t imaging a scenario where I would prefer this lens to the current 85 and 105mm micros.. Come on Nikon, where are those 12mm and 16mm f/1.8 DX primes that serious photographers using DX bodies are crying out for?

    • Richard


      I do not understand why Nikon have devoted resources to this product, much less the prioritization of placing it ahead of other products for which there is greater demand.

      • Narna

        Nikon obviously feel they need a cheap macro to sell to enthusiasts (or at least have on offer) to compete with the cheap sony/canon equivalents. I agree, this will raise thier profile amongst thier low end DSLR buyers and is a good addition to the lineup.

        Besides any new Nikon lenses are always welcome, I might even get one myself!

    • chris

      HAHA. how bloody ignorant.

      • LGO

        Guys, there is no need for verbal insults here.

        @ Darth

        I have FX but I prefer to use DX for macro due to its FOV and greater DOF.

        @ Richard

        Good question as to where the other “mainstream” DX primes are. I was expecting Nikon to release a 16mm to 18mm prime as well though it will likely not open as wide as f/1.8. I am also expecting Nikon to release a 23mm DX lens and an upgraded and more capable version of the Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8. It may be just a matter of time over the next few weeks when Nikon announces its other DX-specific lenses. Perhaps Nikon wants to draw out our attention over a longer period of time. 🙂

        It’s interesting to note that this is the 2nd time that Nikon has sprung a surprise on the lens. If Nikon is this good in keeping its secrets, then it is likely that we will not be getting much advance info on Nikon’s other products, specially the replacements for the D3s, D300s, and D700.

        • Darth

          Yes, I agree with you LGO. There are smart people out there, thankfully, who do not jump up screeming “that’s not what I needed, why did they release it?”. Get real.

        • @ LGO – If there are no rumors, what shall we discuss and flame about?

        • C_QQ_C

          >>Nikon to release a 23mm DX lens <<

          Now that would be a real surprise ! 😛

      • Simon Chung

        100% agree. This is a little known secret amongst DX shooters (like myself).

      • kyoshinikon

        On a sidenote I am a PROFESSIONAL wide shooter who uses Dx (as I can’t afford fx yet) My main shooters are a 10.5mm, 14-24mm f2.8, 17-35mm f2.8, and 18-70mm f3.5-4.5.

        Sure they aren’t any near as wide as they are on fx (21mm on my 14-24mm !) but they do the job and can do what I need them to until I wrangle up enough to get a D3s (I don’t want a D700 for several reasons)

        • Richard


          That is interesting. I had not thought of being a specialist in “wide shooting”. What sort of subject matter do you shoot?


    • Pseudonikonian

      Haha … Serious photographers and DX. That really made me laugh!!

      • The invisible man.

        FROM Thom Hogan’s WEBSITE about that new lens :

        Nikon today surprised everyone with a lens announcement, this time the 40mm f/2.8G Micro-Nikkor AF-S DX. This new macro lens is essentially a DX version of the 60mm Micro-Nikkor, and features both flat field (CRC) and 1:1 magnification. Price is US$279.

        The question, of course, is why? Of all the things we don’t currently have in DX lens sets, a full set of macro lenses is nearly last on the list (we now have the 40mm and 85mm, which are approximately the 60mm and 105mm equivalents, though not in equivalent aperture). Yet we’re still missing any wide angle DX prime, several significant DX zooms, a mid-range f/2.8 with stabilization and truly sized to DX, and even a truly fast DX normal lens. As far as I’m concerned Nikon has completely lost the script in DX lenses.

        • Anthony

          No truly fast DX normal lens? What would you call the 35mm f/1.8?

          • STJ


          • My “truly fast” comment was made with the concept of equivalence clearly in mind. Nikon is playing DX as a non-equivalent line for the most part. Technically, a 40mm Micro-Nikkor should be f/2 to be fully equivalent. A 35mm “normal” lens really needs to be f/1 to be fully equivalent, but it would be nice to have f/1.4. Yes, I know you can buy the expensive FX 35mm f/1.4, but it’s not the same thing.

            • twoomy

              I’m not going to lose much sleep over the equivalence; a few primes in the 1.4 and 1.8 range would be fine by me. Rarely do I use any macro lens (on DX or FX) at 2.8, so 2.0 would mean more size and useless cost.

            • gt

              I’m on your page. I think Nikon is dropping the ball. I do think a 35mm F1.4 DX should be on the market ($400 to $500 price range). The wide angle prime is long overdue. The zoom situation is just abysmal.

              DX is a perfectly good format, but they just don’t want to provide us with appropriate lenses!

              Moreover, a 40mm F2.8 micro DX? Seriously? Real macro shooters won’t touch this thing — the only possible market I can foresee using it is absolute newbies — who are making ill-informed buying decisions

            • Jabs

              Fully equivalent to WHAT?
              Show how you got your profound theses from Inspector Gadget?

            • gt

              Fully equivalent to a full frame normal lens.

              A 35mm F1.4 on DX is equivalent in focal length and depth of field to a 50mm F1.8 FX.

              Jabs, don’t be rude just because the conversation is about something you aren’t fully informed about

            • gt

              *I’m sorry let me rephrase — more accurately

              A 35mm F1.4 DX is equivalent in field of view and depth of field to a 50mm F2 FX

              I want to be precise in my choice of words

            • El Aura

              Full equivalence on crop sensors is not likely to be a smart thing to attempt. Look at the price difference between Canon’s f/1.2 and f/1.8 lenses, the difference in price can about pay you the surcharge FF bodies require, and this is with one lens, add a second lens and FF becomes cheaper.

              What we can demand on smaller sensors is a matching of f-stops, we know that we make compromises in regard to DOF and low-light capabilities.

            • mike

              That’s fine, but equivalent lenses are about the same size, so you wouldn’t save (much) weight or money that way. It would be a nice option for someone that only shoots DX (like myself), but if I really wanted lenses equivalent to FX f/1.4 primes and f/2.8 zooms, I wouldn’t be shooting DX. I think it’s fair for manufacturers to cut out the fastest lenses on their smaller platforms.

              I still want some of those other things, though, like a 14/2 (or 2.8) wide-angle prime, and a 50-150 f/2.8 VR. I’m not a big fan of Sigma.

            • Jabs

              @gt – yeah BALONEY is hard to understand and I am just a leetle ole Engineer with a 4.0 Average In Mathematics and Sciences – ok, I am ‘clueless ‘- satisfied.
              NO ONE can answer that preposterous claim is why I asked – do you see any more answers coming?
              You can fool some of the people some of the time BUT not all the people – got it!
              The answer = you multiply the focal length and NOT the F-stop!

            • gt


              You seriously have no idea what you’re talking about. please stop. Please google “depth of field” and “full frame vs. crop sensor”

            • Jabs

              @gt – OK, I will

            • Jabs

              @gt – I ‘googled ‘it and still see this as nonsense or people trying to complicate an argument without FACTS.

              Fact – FX = 35mm or 24×36 mm
              Fact – DX = 1.5 DIVIDED by that and not multiplied
              Fact – F-stop DOES NOT change from FX to DX, focal length changes IF the lens was perhaps originally made for FX and now is mounted on a DX body.
              Where is the equivalence? What equivalence is being described?

              Basic Science
              IF I magnify an IMAGE from a smaller sensor and they have a smaller pixel pitch, then WHAT is the resulting output WHEN I put a lens on it?
              I want you all to tell us here WHAT this equivalence IS and how you get there in REAL terms and not guesses or hyperbole!

              Facts – DX has a smaller pixel pitch for a given megapixel size, so the inherent magnification to GET any focal length is going to be greater than a FX sensor, as that is bigger, hence LESS magnification for an equivalent focal length.

              NOW, explain that in this equivalence CLAIM!
              Explain also IF the F-stop changes or NOT and why?

              People are perhaps lost in trying to explain depth of field as an APPARENT difference because of sensor size going from FX to DX – BUT then it is foolish to now try and make this a fact WHEN you have not measured it nor show ANY Scientific proof nor real measurements of your claim to back it up- Convince me!

              Sorry not some uneducated idiot here!

            • @twoomy: I don’t lose a lot of sleep over exact equivalence, either. However, you don’t want to go too far and get multiple stops away from what you can do with a larger sensor camera. If we have f/1.4 primes on FX, an equivalent f/2 prime on DX already puts us two stops off in DOF control. Any more than that and we’re just in a very different, constrained league.

              @jabs: grade point averages mean nothing, and your Google skills aren’t at the 4.0 level. Try googling “photographic equivalence.” What you’ll find is that we’re talking about whether we can take the same EXACT image from the same spot with different formats. DOF comes into play, and that’s where smaller sensors start to raise serious issues. This issue was also true of film, it just wasn’t talked about as much (no Internet to google ;~).

            • Jabs

              @Thom and others here.
              Sorry but I already understand the concept of the depth of field changing because of the increase/decrease in focal length from FX to DX or DX to FX and it is YOUR explanation that is awful and trite – hence you are making a mountain out of a molehill = idiot.
              4.0 Average means = Intelligent and not easily snowed or fooled as I understand the technical details plus the baloney added. Explaining the obvious in irrational or glib terms means that you are now a ‘snake oil salesman’ selling to morons or gullible people.
              Have a nice day!
              There is NO such real term as photographic equivalence = pseudo-Science or Internet speak to sound like you are some authority on things – clear enough?

              I have been in photography for over 30 years plus good at it and followed you in the Magazines, so not filled with hatred of you or anyone, but my BS meter goes off here all the time.

            • Jabs

              EARTH to everyone here – the F-stop of a lens does NOT change from DX to FX or from DX back to FX – it is the focal length that changes and hence you have that as the NEW depth of field based upon the focal length difference and NOT the F-stop which did not change.

              Hence, photographic equivalence is what?
              Point of view might be a better term BUT since the F-stop does not change, then where is this so-called equivalence? If one variable changed (focal length via magnification), then how come you now have two results – focal length and F-stop. Are we all ‘buttheads’ or being duped?
              Your call.

            • LedFox


              > “focal length changes IF the lens was perhaps originally made for FX and now is mounted on a DX body”

              No. The physical focal length of the lens never changes.

              > “Where is the equivalence? What equivalence is being described?”

              The one that actually changes between formats.

              > “Explain also IF the F-stop changes or NOT and why?”

              The ‘equivalent aperture’ changes.

              As sensor size increases, DoF decreases for a given aperture (when filling the frame with subject of same size & distance).

              This is due to larger sensors requiring one to get closer to subject or to zoom-in in order to fill the frame with that subject.

              And since proximity & zooming = shallow DOF:

              This means one needs progressively larger apertures on DX in order to maintain the same DoF as on FX.

              Hence why the equivalent aperture changes.

              > “it is foolish to now try and make this a fact WHEN you have not measured it nor show ANY Scientific proof nor real measurements of your claim”

              A 50mm f/1.8 on a DX sensor has the equivalent DoF of a 76mm f/2.7 on FX.

              The above is derived from real measurements using real formulas which you can find on the web if you know where to look.

              > “the F-stop of a lens does NOT change from DX to FX or from DX back to FX – it is the focal length that changes”

              Again, the focal length of a lens never changes.

        • I was really surprised.

          I was waiting for dedicated DX primes like: 16mm f/2.8, 24mm f/1.8, 28mm f/1.8, 85mm f/1.8, 135mm f/2, 200mm f/2.8, 300mm f/4, 500mm f/5.6 all with AF-S and VR.

          For zoom lens I am waiting for 16-70 DX f/3.5-4.5, 35-135 DX f/2.8 or 50-150 DX f/2.8, even 50-135 DX f/2.8 would be ok.

          • Fotouser

            Wow ! That is a really big wish list. All pro lenses in DX format? I am sure that Nikon would want you to move to FX pronto.

            By the way, there is a 16-85mm DX VR already available. For the rest, buy the 70-200 f2.8 VR.

            • Well, I am very content with the 10-24 f/3.5-4.5 DX.

              Do you consider the 10-24 expensive pro gear?

              I don’t even imagine replacing DX body + 10-24 with FF body + 14-24, mainly because of the size and weight, especially when I travel.

              The 16-85mm DX VR seems to be a nice lens but I don’t like the duo-cam zoom system. The 70-200 f/2.8 is simply to heavy to carry around all day long.

          • Jabs

            AND who is gonna buy all those expensive lenses to mount on a cheaper body? ADD up the lens totals and then price them versus the most expensive DX body for a clue! Nikon might be going FX with DX compatibility in their lenses and thus they already have some of the glass that you wish for PLUS now, video features and capabilities in their newer lenses – sounds like a PLAN to me anyway!

            • The DX 200mm f/2.8 AF-S VR, should be not much more expensive than the D7000.

              If you’ll buy a 600mm f/4, you will mount it on a “cheaper” D3S/D3X body, or even on a really cheaper D300S body, right?

          • Recent Convert

            Your desired 200mm f/2.8 will have the same size front element as the 70-200 f/2.8. Weight-wise, that brings it into the same class.

            • mike

              180mm f/2.8D has neither an AF-S motor nor VR. Apples to oranges. Besides, (aside from macros) any prime much longer than 60mm isn’t going to benefit much from a DX specification.

            • Jabs

              The 180 mm F2.8 ED-IF AF has a 72 mm filter thread, if I remember right
              200 mm F3.5 ED-IF AF had a 62mm filter thread
              200 mm F2.8 might have 72 or 77 and what’s the point of a 200 F2.8 over a 180 F2.8 which is a legendary lens of the past. Maybe they update the 180mm F2.8 and add VR, but I don’t know. Nikon has a 200mm F4.0 ED-IF Macro but never another 200 mm prime that I know of besides the 200 mm F2.0 ED-IF and now ED-IF-AF-VR2.

            • Recent Convert

              Well, a 200mm/2.8 will have a front element of D=200/2.8=71.5mm. Therefore, the next available filter size is 77mm. That’s exactly the filter size of the 70-200mm. With a 180mm lens, you can just sneak in to put on a 72mm fiter thread. But you want a 200mm lens. It will be 11% longer, 11% thicker, and therfore 33% heavier than the 180. That makes for over 1000g. Add AFS and VR and the weight will come in at about 1200g. That’s mighty close to the 1500 of the 70-200. Besides: how much weight do you believe can be saved by going DX (rather than FX) at that focal length? I believe that absolutely nothing could be saved. That’s why there are no long DX lenses.

            • Canon 200mm f/2.8 has 72mm filter and weights 765g.
              It’s true, it is not VR/IS.

          • JamesC

            Man, I would be all over a 24mm DX prime, even at 2.8! The 35/1.8 is just that little bit too long for casual party shots in a cramped room, and what’s our other option if we want to go wider? Expensive FX lenses or crappy 18-x kit lenses.

          • Where’s my…

            Maybe what you are looking for is a second hand 18-70 DX Nikkor since you already have th 10-24 for wide angle, should be sub $200 and with really nice optics.

          • Where’s my…

            Maybe what you are looking for is a second hand 18-70 DX Nikkor since you already have the 10-24 for wide angle, should be sub $200 and with really nice optics.

        • PHB

          There is a case for a DX sensor but not for a complete DX lens range.

          For starters, the cost reduction of DX over FX pretty much goes away above 50mm. When people get the 40mm DX I bet they will find that it pretty much covers the FX frame like the 35mm does.

          I agree that it would be nice to see some wide DX primes, but wide angle is where DX is always going to be weakest. It has the DX sensor size but the FX mirror sweep to contend with.

          If I buy a lens it is either going to have to be very cheap (35 f/1.8), a specialist lens (10.5 fisheye) or FX. Unless you already have a stable of full professional lenses, the DX format is the place to be right now.

          But come the F5 generation we can expect that 24MP FX bodies will be selling at about $1000. So an FX body will also be a decent DX body.

          That gives the pro-DX format a four year time horizon. There might be a pro-DX body in the F5 generation but it will likely be a specialist body for birders and others wanting long reach.

          So this just seems like the wrong time to be going into a full DX lineup.

          If it was me planning the F5 generation I would make one pro body chasis that could take different sensors as a dealer upgrade. That has not made much sense to date because sensor development is the most expensive part of camera development.

          But its not that difficult to modify a sensor by leaving out some production steps. So a mask set for a 24MP color sensor can be used to create a 24MP IR and 24MP monochrome just by leaving out filters. They could also do te 12MP from the D3s and whatever the max on the DX line turns out to be. Add in the base 24MP sensor and thats five sensors right there.

          • mike

            At close focus there are some benefits to DX even at longer focal lengths. That is why Nikon has an 85mm DX macro, and Canon and Tamron have their 60mm DX macros. Working distance is much better on those than their FX counterparts, and they do vignette on FX frames at certain distances.

      • ERik

        If you would be a “serious” Photograpaher you would understand why.
        Both formats have their prois & cons…

    • Derek

      It would be perfect for photographing snakes that are 4-6′ long. I use a 105mm on the small snakes. When using a 105mm on a large snake I have to move back far enough that the flash does not provide enough light and far enough back where the snake can make a getaway. With the 40mm I will be able to get closer to keep tabs on the animal and get plenty of light on the subject. I am looking forward to getting the 40mm micro!

  • Back to top