The new Nikon 40mm f/2.8G AF-S DX Micro lens will start shipping in 3 days

Adorama lists on their website that the new Nikon 40mm f/2.8G AF-S DX Micro lens will start shipping on August 25th:

Some sample images taken with that lens showed up online today on this Swiss website.

The Nikon 50mm f/1.8G lens is currently in stock at Amazon and Adorama.

This entry was posted in Nikon Lenses. Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • Not excited.

    200 f4 AF-S N = Excitment

    • You forgot “Micro”.

    • MJr

      16mm and 23mm F2 DX Nano = Excitement

      • Yes, 16 mm F2 DX now that would be an attractive lens. Amazing that Nikon still does not offer a wide DX prime.

  • Kon_head

    I am excited, I need another paper weight πŸ™‚

  • If only there was a top end DX to put it on πŸ™

    • Cold Hands Luke

      Fear not, there are two! They’re called the D300s and D7000 πŸ™‚

      • Roeder

        You could stick this lens on a D40 and take amazing pics if you know what you’re doing. The particular camera body has nothing to do with it.

      • If you stuck the d7000’s sensor in the d300 body I’d buy it tomorrow, but that camera doesn’t exist – yet!

    • + 1

    • gt

      even then, get a proper macro. 105mm F2.8 AF-S, sigma 150mm, even the tamron 90mm if you’re on a budget. 40mm means 2 inches of working distance for 1:1

      • JED

        You don’t have to use a macro at 1:1..

      • Jabs


        When are you posters going to educate yourself with some FACTS?

        A Macro lens like the Micro-Nikkor allows you to reproduce an item THAT you see in your viewfinder in life size proportions, meaning it is EXACTLY the same size in your image when you shot it. THAT is what up to 1:1 ratio means as in the same size in person = same size on your shot!!!

        You move back or forwards to get the reproduction RATIO that you desire and when you cannot, you go to a different focal length macro lens to get the ratio or SIZE of your final image that you need, hence specialized lenses and YES, the 40mm F2.8 is a REAL Micro-Nikkor or Macro lenses.

        40mm F2.8 AF Macro or Micro-Nikkor
        55mm F2.8 manual Macro
        60mm F2.8 AF Macro
        105mm F2.8 AF Macro
        105mm F2.8 manual Macro
        200mm F4.0 ED-IF Macro

        You people weaned on digital ONLY, think that the phony or pseudo ‘macro’ of most digital point and shoots is REAL Macro, hence lost in the sauce as in clueless. Perhaps you rent one and then tell us about it. No wonder there are so many crappy photos on the Internet as people depend on cameras to define everything and also think for them.

        Macros are optimized to shoot at HIGH F-stops, as in F32, so they often start at F2.8 for that purpose = get up to speed in photography!

        Up to 2inches for 1:1 ratio means that you can GET up to 2 inches from your subject and STILL get a life size or 1:1 ratio = exceptional.

        • tub33

          Most of the old manual macro lenses were only 1:2 (half life size) If you’re a real macro fan buy a reversing ring and try a 20mm reversed which will get you to around 3:1 (3 times life size) Then add some extension tubes and a bellows for around 20:1. It’s crazy but fun.

          • Jabs


            After the 55mm F2.8 Micro-Nikkor, Nikon went to 1:1 ratio with the 60mm F2.8 AF Micro-Nikkor, if I remember right.

            The 55mm F2.8, which I loved and used a lot, did indeed do 1:2 and some people reversed it plus the older 55 F3.5 Micro-Nikkor plus used the PB series of bellows/adapters plus even the Nikon Enlarging lenses too – those were the days for sure but now, we perhaps have better gear and the 55mm F2.8 is still in Nikon’s line up at least in America and still a stunning lens.


        • EnPassant

          You forgot the 85mm F3.5 AF Macro (DX)!
          There also existed a 100mm F4.0 manual Macro and a 200mm F4.0 manual Macro as well as a very specialised 105mm F4.5 UV manual Macro!
          Nikon also made the Medical Nikkor 200mm F 5.6 (3x lifesize!) and 120mm F 4.0 manual Macro lenses with built-in ringflash.

          • Jabs


            Thanks for taking me down memory lane – LOL.

            Yeah, forgot about all that good stuff, plus the Nikon ring light that mounted with an adapter on the F3 series and with another on the FA, FM and others = genius!

            The 105 F4.5 UV was a classic with a price to match too – lol

            The medical Nikkor was a Doctor’s/Dentist’s best friend but perhaps a nightmare for the patient looking at this huge lens and flash system staring at them before anesthesia or such – lol.

            Ever seen the Nikon brand ED spotting scopes or the lesser known Nikon ED Cinema glass? Nikon even made some ED video glass back then and boy, was it expensive.

            I once shot through the all white with a top handle 2000 F11.0 buried in a concrete slab at Nikon House in NYC and boy was it huge. I owned plus used the 500 F8 mirror and the humongous 50-300 F4.5 ED-IF zoom, and boy, was it sharp and heavy but slow (F4.5 max) – had 95mm filters and I had a B+W 95mm polarizer and some Nikon 95mm filters and they cost an arm and two legs, then.

            I would love to see a return of that 50-300 ED in a smaller size like they did when they downsized the 95mm filter 80-200 F2.8 to the 77 or 72mm filter size one, as it was one of my favorite lenses along with the 180mm F2.8 ED-IF manual or even the later all metal AF one, not the plastic fantastic one that looked weird – lol.

            Loved and owned the 300 F4.0 ED-IF AF and look forward to an update with AF-S and VR, perhaps.

            • Jabs

              Just a note here:

              ‘genius’ above refers to Nikon and NOT me – lol

        • gt

          “Up to 2inches for 1:1 ratio means that you can GET up to 2 inches from your subject and STILL get a life size or 1:1 ratio = exceptional.”

          No. that’s not exceptional at all. I don’t know about you but a lot of macro shooters do want a 1:1 ratio (i.e. life size reproduction) on the images they shoot….and 2 inches from the front of your lens to get that ratio is a huge issue/extremely problematic.

          2 inches from the front of the lens means 1) shade from your lens may block the light source 2) you can’t get close to insects without scaring them away and 3) if you’re shooting flora stray leaves may end up pressing against your lens, distorting the image 4) lighting with flash becomes difficult because they are too powerful at close distances + the light fall off becomes problematic (google the inverse square law) 5) focus becomes more difficult at close distances without a sturdy tripod.

          In fact, the 60mm F2.8D and 60mm F2.8G – which both similarly have a working distance of 2″ from the front of the lens element for 1:1 reproduction were never designed to be used for traditional macro photography at all. I spoke to a long time Nikon employee, technician, sales rep who informed me that these lenses were designed for document reproduction — not for things like flora, insects, etc. He went on to recommend I look into macro lenses with longer focal lengths for the increased working distance.

          If you’re not convinced, thom hogan writes “Avoid short macro lenses. You need more working distance than the 60mm provides, especially for maximum magnification.” (

          Are you saying Thom Hogan should educate himself about macro as well? He’s only written books on every single Nikon DSLR, shot film and digital for decades, and reviewed most nikon lenses.

          I’d suggest YOU educate yourself before lambasting reasonable comments.

          • gt

            also, for the record, choosing a 105mm or longer can score you 5.5″ or more of working distance to get life size (1:1) reproduction. The ideal macro would honestly be as long as possible. This is why many professionals have embraced the sigma 150mm

            • Jabs


              Here is what Nikon says about all of their various Micro-Nikkor’s plus the reproduction ratios and minimum working distances of each lens.

              NOBODY has as varied a line of Macro lenses as Nikon = why we use Nikons.


              Dispelling more myths again -lol

            • Jabs


              Where is the 2 INCH claim?

              Disinformation or ignorance – your call?

            • Jabs

              The 200mm Macro has less of a minimum working distance than the shorter 105mm Macro = get educated.

              Explain now the PC-Macros

            • gt

              You have no idea what you’re talking about. I replied to you below. Learn what “minimum working distance” means as it relates to macro photography….and how to calculate it. I provided a link so you’d understand.

              For now, I’ll say this: Just because you don’t understand a concept…doesn’t mean its disinformation. It means you should humble yourself, realize you’re not a genius, and research more.

              The longer the focal length, the greater the minimum working distance (i.e. distance from the front of the lens you need to be to create a 1:1 [lifesize] reproduction). The 40mm, 60mm lenses have a 2″ minimum working distance. The 105mm VR has about 6″. The 150mm, 180mm, and 200mm macros are even longer.

          • Martijn

            capturing bugs IS possible, the images from the website mentioned in the post show that.
            but true longer = easier. although a tripod is needed quicker.

            every lens has its plus and minusses

          • Jabs


            GO use a macro lens or Micro-Nikkor, as I don’t give a crap what others think including Thom or you.

            I use gear and do well with it and that is all that counts.

            Too many people are obsessed with their own personal opinion and driving traffic to their own web sites by acting like the equivalent of an Internet ‘BRAIN or guru’ for the lazy and foolish.

            I am neither and Nikon has several Micro-Nikkor’s (40mm DX to 200mm FX) that dispel that MYTH – as in providing different focal lengths.

            FLAT field copying is NOW different from Macro photography = educate yourself.

            Flat field copying involves using a STAND and pointing your camera and lens straight down on an object or what you NOW basically do with a copy machine = the person is clueless or trying to convince the lesser informed person that they know what they are saying by stating some things or using catch-phrases to fool the ignorant. Heck, I use a Canon MP unit to scan coins for a person to sell on E-Bay = get real as that describes a bygone era and thus get up to speed, as this is year 2011 and not the 80’s.

            Macro photography includes UP TO a 2 inch working distance and IS not limited to this 2 inch working distance alone as it means YOU can get up to 1:1 ratio at as LITTLE as 2 inches FROM your subject and thus some ignorant guru trying to make a mountain out of a molehill to seem ‘edumacted’ (how jethrorific) and thus they preach to fools – LOL!

            I write technically and thus fully understand the terms and the equipment, so don’t need others to explain it to me = Engineer here and not some BOZO!

            Macro photographer too.

            The 40 F2.8 DX = a 60 F2.8 FX equivalent, as 40 x 1.5 (the crop factor) = 60 – learn that and YES, the F-stop does not change (another myth).

            • tabs

              nobody said anything about aperture change. what people talking about is different depth of field on different format with same aperture.

            • Jabs

              Yeah – the focal length changed or increased from FX to DX, hence the depth of field also changed = reality.

              Crop factor = MULTIPLY FX or full frame (35mm film size) focal length by 1.5 or one and a half times IF the lens is an FX lens. If it is already a DX lens as designated by Nikon themselves, then that is already factored into the Nikon PUBLISHED focal length = reality and not their confusion or speculation.

              Longer focal length now means less depth of field at the same aperture or a photographic fact with regular lenses.

              I was also responding to another myth parlayed here by a certain group (nameless now – lol) who claimed that the F-stop changes in some so-called equivalence going from FX to DX or vice versa = ignorance.

          • Jabs


            Your mistake or the fud

            2″ = what
            2′ = what

            • Jabs

              A QUICK question here to all the resident GURU’s

              When you mount a 40mm F2.8 DX Micro-Nikkor Macro lens on an FX body, like say a D3s or D700 – WHAT focal length and F-stop does it now become?
              Not whether it is usable!

              Think before you answer!

              Over and out – Roger – lol.

            • Jabs

              Simple PROOF that you are wrong and from Nikon’s web site too as I just looked it up myself.


              It states:

              Working Distance:
              The distance from the front of the lens surface to the subject.

            • tabs

              dude, “working distance” is not the same with “closest focus distance”

            • tabs

              and what is the point of your question :

              “When you mount a 40mm F2.8 DX Micro-Nikkor Macro lens on an FX body, like say a D3s or D700 – WHAT focal length and F-stop does it now become?”

              of course it still a 40mm f2.8

          • Jabs

            HERE is why you are talking CRAP !!!

            1. The older Nikon 60mm F2.8D lens has a 1:1 reproduction RATIO and focuses to 8 and 3/4 inches as its’ CLOSEST focusing distance.

            2.. The NEWER Nikon 60mm F2.8G ED focuses to .6 feet = 6 INCHES and also has a Reproduction Ratio of 1:1

            3. The NEW Nikon 40mm F2.8G Macro lens focuses to 6.4 inches AND also has a 1:1 Reproduction RATIO.

            Here is part of what YOU posted –

            ‘In fact, the 60mm F2.8D and 60mm F2.8G – which both similarly have a working distance of 2β€³ from the front of the lens element for 1:1 reproduction were never designed to be used for traditional macro photography at all. I spoke to a long time Nikon employee, technician, sales rep who informed me that these lenses were designed for document reproduction β€” not for things like flora, insects, etc. He went on to recommend I look into macro lenses with longer focal lengths for the increased working distance. …”

            LOOK here and perhaps learn BEFORE you talk crap here and then point us to basically idiots or misinformed blow-hards.


            NOW – what does ‘closest focus’ mean according to Nikon ???

            Tell us here – Please

            Sorry but real Nikon user for over 30 years.

            • gt

              oh my god. you are very very annoying.

              you don’t understand anything about macro photography, yet you keep claiming IM providing disinformation.

              The stated nikon numbers are the minimum focus distance to the IMAGE PLANE (i.e. the sensor)

              Substract the stated number from the depth of the body and the length of the lens and you find the “minimum working distance.” “minimum working distance” = the distance from the front of the lens element (not image plane) to the subject.


              Still confused? GOOGLE IT. I can’t believe you are arguing this. Educate yourself. It’s one thing to ask questions humbly, its another to be so completely wrong and uninformed….then accuse OTHERS of providing disinformation.

            • X-Man

              @gt 100% agree with you. (from the annoying comment to the working distance lol)

            • tabs

              dude, you claimed to be an engineer but you cannot tell the difference between “closest focus” and “working distance”.

      • Jabs


        Nikon says 6.4 inches and not 2 inches

        • tabs

          do you realize that 6.4″ is minimum distance to image plane? stop acting like an idiot claiming to be a genius

          • Jabs

            SHOW us their 2 inch claim = the challenge

            Wanna take it yourself?


            • tabs

              you don’t need any claim. nikon always states minimum distance is measured to image plane. now measure your camera body and the lens length.

            • Jabs

              SO the camera and lens is thus 4.4 inches in length – LOL

            • Jabs

              What about IF you use a D3 and another uses a smaller body?

              WHAT about an F3

              What about an F5

              What about an FM-2

              all are FX, too.

              Prove that then?

              What about when the lens extends or contracts?

              The question then is – does the film plane remain constant and is that WHAT Nikon is describing as the minimum focusing distance?

              Work calls – bye

            • tabs

              name all nikon slr using f-mount that you know. all have focal plane of 1.75″. add that to 2.5″ of this lens length there you have 2.25″

            • tabs

              typo, i mean 4.25″

            • Jabs


              You posted –
              ‘name all nikon slr using f-mount that you know. all have focal plane of 1.75β€³. add that to 2.5β€³ of this lens length there you have 2.25β€³ – which you corrected to 4.25 later.


              1.75 + 2.25 does not equal 6.4 inches which is what Nikon states in it’s own USA web site here about this 40mm F2.8 Micro-Nikkor Macro lens


              How do you then get your results?

            • gt

              tabs is using approximations.

              6.4 inches from subject to image plane in order to get 1:1 reproduction.

              6.4 – length of the lens (2.5″) = 4.1″
              4.1″ – width of camera body approximated (1.75″) = 2.35″

              2.35″ represents the approximate distance the subject must be from the front of the lens in order to get 1:1 reproduction. 1:1 reproduction means “life size” reproduction (one of the most common uses of a macro lens). THIS IS THE 2″ FIGURE WE’VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT.

              This is why 1:1 reproduction is problematic with the 40mm and 60mm lenses. Blocked light sources, scared insects, etc. It all becomes an issue when your subject is 2″ from the front of your lens.

              (FYI, It’s actually even shorter than 2.35″ because a more accurate estimate of the depth of a camera body is 1.83″)

            • tabs

              gt has explained it better than me.
              i tought an “engineer” would understand what i was talking about.

              dude, you claimed to be an engineer but you cannot do simplest calculation and even needed someone to explain that to you.

              let me explain my calculation in more “engineer” way

              w = working distance
              c = camera sensor to lens mount distance (1.75″)
              L = lens length (2.50″)
              f = lens minimum focal distance (6.40″)

              so as engineer you must know that this formula apply:

              w = f – (L + c)
              w = 6.40 – (2.50 + 1.75)
              w = 6.40 – 4.25
              w = 2.15″

              if you can understand this then i guess “engineer” is not as smart as i imagine.

  • R!


    • gt

      everyone is well aware of this. no need for caps lock. just keep taking pictures, it’ll inevitably be released…we just don’t know when

  • scurvy hesh

    not too excited about the build quality of these new lenses. they are getting more like canon. My 35 1.8 is already sloppy and loose and I can feel movement on the outer barrel. I wish they made lenses like the screw drive era. Some of the best build quality in enthusiast level glass.

  • JJ

    Am I missing something? Who would choose this lens over the 35mm f/1.8?

    • gt


      • MJr

        calling Nikon a noob ?

    • Martin

      But some may decide to posess both 35 and 40mm lens.
      On FF I do posess 50/1,4 and 60/2,8, using those lenses in different fields of applications. 60mm is micro with extremly low distortion, and f32 (sometimes helpfull). do/1,4 is fast and allows to isolate subject from the background.
      Yes, I think it’s very interesting lens…

    • Jabs


      Yes, you are missing something – a Micro-Nikkor is a MACRO lens and the 35 F1.8 is NOT.

      Ever used a real Macro lens? Apparently not or you would not make that statement, as in educate yourself, PLEASE!

      • JJ

        Yeah, I did miss that… thanks for pointing that out. I actually use my old 60mm 2.8 “Micro” all the time (and love it).

        “educate yourself, PLEASE!”… ha ha, I love it… it’s like you’re Bert and I’m Ernie.

        • Jabs


          Or Beavis and Butthead of MTV infamy – lol

          Or Pinkie and Da Brain – which one are you???

          Cookie Monster – lol

          Be vewwwy, vewwwy vewwy quiet – we are hunting wabbits – Elmer Fudd to Bugs.

          OR Starscream to Megatron from the Original Transformers Cartoons – LoooooL!

          Or Curly Q – the Missing Link – from The Three Stooges

          Let me stop – lol

          • Jabs


            What does this mean –

            … ‘u r suck jabs..jubur bekurapak in my country language..haha’

            At least let me know why you are laughing – LOL.

          • JJ

            I think that means “buttworm” or something in Indonesian slang. I’m sure you’ve been called worse, Jabs, so don’t let it bother you.

          • Jabs


            Yeah ‘Good Times’ too JJ – figure that out yourself.


    • Reilly Diefenbach

      Well, the bokeh is probably better wide open, as in the 35mm is horrible at 1.8.

  • zzzzzzzzzz

  • X-Man

    I still think most people are too harsh on this lens. I’ve never used a 60mm on a FF before, but obviously people have right? I know people talk about working distance, but doesn’t a shorter lens help with more depth of field w/o super small aperture (that causes diffraction)?

    It’s such a cheap lens I might want to pick it up just to try macro photography.

    • Jabs


      A MACRO or Micro-Nikkor is the opposite of a regular lens = what people do not understand. It is like you turned a regular lens backwards and shot through the front element and thus different results and thrusts = people are clueless as to its’ capabilities, as they keep comparing it to a regular lens.

      It is optimized for close up shooting and giving you a ONE to ONE reproduction ratio compared to your subject’s size, hence MACRO lens.

      If the subject is 6 inches by 4 inches, then the Macro lens will show you that size (6in x 4in) on your photo at a 1:1 ratio.

      1:2 = your image will be HALF life size compared to what is really is sized as.
      1:3 = 1/3rd the size in real life and so forth.

      CLEAR now?

      It’s a ratio with the first digit being the original size and the second digit being the NEW reproduced size or RATIO, compared to what size it really is in real life. The second digit is how much LESS or divided by the first digit that the image is NOW!

      • X-Man

        I know what a macro lens is, and I wouldn’t say it’s the opposite as a regular lens because can still easily use a macro lens as a regular lens. (it may be how it’s designed but I’m not a lens designer and the terminology is confusing) Many people use a macro lens for portraits (105mm 85mm). It may not be what the lens is originally intended for but still makes a great one b/c it’s so sharp and little to no distortion.

        And I think your explanation about 6×4 inches is confusing b/c it’s not 6″x4″ on the photo b/c it depends on how you size your photo. You should just say it’s 1:1 vs the size of your sensor. I’m not saying it’s wrong just worded in a very confusing way.

        • Jabs


          Yeah, the design of a MACRO lens is the opposite of a regular lens, as they are optimized differently – the Macro for close ups and high magnification at close ranges and a regular lens for from close to infinity without high magnification.

          The macro lens is thus specialized though they shoot excellently in place of or as a regular lens in some situations, they have better flatness and thus some people hate them for portraiture, as the face often looks flat or has no so-called depth or modeling effect – like depth = dimension or even a ‘3D look’ to it. It also (55 mm F2.8) is often said to be too sharp for portraiture of people (shows skin pores and blemishes/wrinkles), but I once shot a picture of my mother with it using a Tiffen soft filter indoors in her house with Fujichrome 400D and it was superb, plus my mother loved it =success.

          I used a tripod and an SB-16A (TTL), a MF-6B, and MK-1 on a Nikon F3HP/MD4-MN2 combo with a Nikon electronic release. VERY sharp indeed.

        • Jabs


          I don’t relate to DX though I understand it, so I was talking about FX digital or 35mm FILM.

          DX = too much crap for me to think about or convert in my head now and spoil my concentration on photographing the subject – as in not interested.

          6×4 was chosen as an arbitrary number, as it could be 2×3, 1×2 in inches or mm or whatever – just a point to be expressed as a reference number, perhaps to make the calculation or a point of what 1:1 means, as it confuses people when they don’t know that it is a mere RATIO.

          • gt

            bro, everyone knows what 1:1 means. I’m so tired of you explaining it over and over like we don’t get it. we do.

            Also, please respond to my comment above.

            • Jabs


              What comment?

            • Jabs


              Why thank you very much – coming from you, that really warms mah leetle ole heart – yeah right!

      • Travis

        Relax fanboy, everyone knows that 40mm micro is useless for 99% of macro subjects. And 1 to 1 have nothing to do with the reproduction ratio on your prints or pc screen. It is a reproduction ratio to the sensor size.

        • Jabs

          AND what sensor size is that?

          FX = Full frame

          DX = what?

          Compared to what = you being clueless, perhaps!


          Oh the digital dimwits abound!

          • Chackie Jan


            You claim to be an engineer, yet you seem to have no clue about ratios nor optics.

            As it is specified as a ratio, it is to be interpreted in relation to something else, in this case (as Travis pointed out) to the sensor size of the camera that you mounted the lens on.

            This means that if the camera has an FX sensor (which is 36x24mm) and you were to try to make the entire frame sharp by focusing as closely as possible on some flat object, like a wall, the smallest area that can be focused would be 36x24mm in size.

            Likewise, with a DX (which is 24x16mm) would be capable of focusing a smaller area, which would be 24x16mm.

            Also, I have a question for you:
            You seem to think that the phrase “Compared to what” is somehow equal to the phrase “you being clueless, perhaps!”, that does not seem to fit very well with how I compare things. How do you compare the phrases to make them equal?

            I could maybe understand the use of an implication sign (“=>”) but that would not be a perfect fit either.

            Halfway to be an engineer here πŸ˜‰

            • Jabs

              @Chackie Jan

              Let me try and explain things a little if I can – an FX sensor or the old 35mm film standard are both approximately 36X24 mm – right.

              HERE is what most forget and thus WHY I am a real Engineer.

              AFTER the image leaves the sensor or the film plane, it is magnified, as in turned upside down and then focused by the lens – looking from sensor or film plane to LENS.

              The mistake is that people act like it is NOT magnified, as in clueless.

              Have you ever seen or do you understand the light path that a SLR has and how you get an image EITHER in digital or film?

              That is what you all miss and thus LOUSY at Science – as you can’t google it, you have to know these things yourself.

              If things were not magnified and the sensor or film plane to the CENTER point of the lens was not kept constant then their would be registration errors or AF would not work plus NO in-focus image = over you head.

              Answer this = if the sensor is the 1: in this RATIO, then how come the photograph is BIGGER than the sensor as in 4000+ x 3000+ in 12 megapixels = clueless.

              The ratio is a Reproduction RATIO and not a mathematical ratio = GO study Calculus and Arithmetic Progressions or even Geometric Progressions and then broaden your scope.

              Study refraction, reflection and such, then come back and argue with me, as in not interested and BUSY.

              Maybe you all need to go to and for FREE – educate yourself – also I am NOT that person, but that represents why most of you here are so clueless.

              SiMPLY – does your camera shoot bigger pictures than WHAT size it physically is = you are clueless!

            • Jabs

              @Chackie Jan or Jackie Chan backwards – LOL

              Good question and maybe I can answer it for you to get me.

              Compared to WHAT means, I have to have a reference in order to make a valid comparison.
              Like how H2O = water as a reference.
              The reference is predefined and thus fixed or the comparison is now abstract or ill-defined as in ‘bogus/weird Science’ or theories – as in educated guesses versus existing facts.

              In this case, the reference is the FIRST part of the Ratio.

              A ratio describes a comparative thing with both elements or things similar or even identical in this case.

              Therefore the reproduction ratio is what it was before it got magnified and now what it is after being magnified.

              Hence 1:1 = life size

            • Jabs

              A simple fact of life not understood by many here.

              In the old film days, you took a 36×24 shot or FF digital today and then the negative (print film) or positive (slide film) would be the final size of 36×24.

              The PRINTS that you would get from these were later magnified to the common print sizes like 4×6, 5x7and 8×10.

              Digital now turns this upside down, as you get the equivalent of a pre-magnified IMAGE as the output from your camera (.jpg or nef’s), hence the middleman or the previous Lab who did this magnification to get a print size is now out of the picture and you get an IMAGE that is larger than your sensor.

              That is what confuses most of you here as you rattle on and on devoid of details EVEN if we are saying similar things = generation gap or even intellectual gap.

              Bottom line – years ago you did an external magnification in your own lab (B&W) or someone did this for you, while in digital, it is in the output of your camera to work on from your computer.

              The exact same principles of magnifying the sensor output to get an image is employed in the previous way of doing things in camera and THEN in a Lab to get a final image, but now the Lab is your computer and its’ software.

              This confuses the heck out of many HERE and then when you try and explain these to them, they call you names – lol

              WHO cares!

              Working distance DOES not take sensor size into view nor have much to do with this as its’ simply an external measurement from the front glass of a lens to the frontal-most area of the SUBJECT that you are filming or taking a photograph of.

              Time to put this nonsense to rest.

    • Martijn

      i’m wondering about that too, macro seems optimized for small apertures (f32) but because the focal length is shorter, you should get more DOF.

      which means you could set your 40mm micro to F16, where you’d need the 150mm to stop down to F32 or higher.

      anyone tell me if i’m wrong, but is this so? if so i guess this lens is great for stationary subjects where there is not as much light

      • Jabs


        EXACTLY, thus the various focal length Macro or Micro-Nikkors = varying the depth of field or the plane of focus to capture an image.

        The OPPOSITE of a regular lens.

        You go shorter for more depth of field and longer for less = the difference WHEN you use them.

        When you flip a 55macro, then it acts like a telephoto lens and thus try it by looking through the glass backwards – I HAVE !

  • Seshan

    I ordered mine from Henrys couple weeks ago, can’t wait to get my hands on it.

  • bretagneboy

    I wonder how good focus ring feels on this lenes as you can’t always rely on autofocus in macro photography.

    • Roeder

      MF with this is probably similar to the 50mm G 1.8, which is nice. Not fantastic, but nice. The ability to tweak the focus AFTER the AF system has given it a go is one of my favorite things about these AF-S lenses.

  • coco

    keep the bad comments coming – nikon may drop the price

    • πŸ™‚ That lens is already so cheap. I like this lens just for that. πŸ˜›

      • Dexter0508


  • PatCL

    I think this lens will do good in the market like the 35mm dx lens did. I’m curious of the quality of images that this lens will produce. and for it’s price alone, it’ll be a quint essential glass in the bags of the DX guys.

    And for those people commenting above, i think you don’t have the right to talk s@#t about this lens at all because you haven’t tested, touched or even smelled one yet πŸ˜‰ you can based all your facts from reputable people all day long but in the end, the image will still do the talking. test or buy one first before you talk !@#!@ about the lens. If you still follow the fundamentals of others, your mind is already polluted.


  • Jabs
  • I have already bought it last week in Brussels. It was the first they received.
    It seems good although I could’nt have enough time to test it.

  • Jabs

    Off topic and scary!

    Alternate ways to get killed in above HD resolution – lol

    Talk about being dedicated to your craft or your goals … !

  • Jabs

    I hate to argue with people and thus I overlook much, as a mature person.

    The answer to Nikon’s specs = they measure the distance from the FRONT of the lens to your subject and that is the closest focus distance. Simple as that!

    No more comment – BYE!

    Example 1 – HOW long is the body of the 200mm F4 ED-IF Micro-Nikkor and does it get longer while it focuses?

    Example 2 – How long is the body of the 55mm F2.8 Micro-Nikkor and does it get longer as it focuses closer?

    You people read web sites while I use lenses and don’t care what idiots post on the Internet = clueless is in vogue and idiots follow them too and then refer you to them as some PROOF = lol.

    Closest focus distance is NOT from the film plane or Nikon would have a major problem with all of their lenses = you don’t know squat!

    Look at the actual Nikon specs from Nikon USA that I posted earlier and then READ and comprehend instead of pointing me to basically clueless people trying to re-educated the already aware = epic fail.

    Answer the above two Examples and tell me your findings from the DATA on both lenses from Nikon and then prove your points now = I leave you to dream and then have fun.

  • padlockd

    I would much rather see a DX 85mm Ζ’/1.8. With the 35 and 50 out, anyone think they’ll make an 85 for DX? I’ve been wondering if I should buy the reasonable AF-D or go for a Rokinon/etc. manual focus, but if Nikon comes out with a solid new lens, I think I’d end up kicking myself.

  • Jabs

    Since many here seem to have a problem with reading and comprehending English, then here is what Nikon says on their USA web site:

    Nikon’s Micro-NIKKOR lenses are designed to perform their best from infinity all the way down to their closest focusing distances, in the case of the AF-S Micro-NIKKOR 60mm f/2.8G as close as 6 inches. This close focusing distance is known as free working distance and is what distinguishes Micro-NIKKOR lenses from one another. Moving in extremely close to the subject using a Micro-NIKKOR lens lets you to fill the entire frame with your subject, allowing you to expand your artistic vision.

    My sole comment:
    It is NOT about any formulae, formulas or such, BUT about the defined terms in English.

    Confusing the issues = Rube Goldbergism at its best = clueless or overedumacated.

  • Back to top