# Never shot Macro, 40mm 2.8 a good starting lens?



## ClarkKent18 (Dec 25, 2011)

I have seen some great shots taken which a Micro lens, and I want to try my hand at it.  I am looking at the AF-S DX Micro-NIKKOR40mm f/2.8G for my Nikon D5100.  In your option, is this a good start lens or should I look at something different?  I will be upgrading bodes, so what should I think about when buying Macro lens?


----------



## Kerbouchard (Dec 26, 2011)

Wow, seems to be a lot of these threads tonight.

In general, a macro lens that is less than 90mm is incredibly limited.  If you can provide adequate light and are not worried about your subject getting spooked, the shorter macro lenses can be useful.

In general, 90mm is about the minimum of a useful macro focal length.  At 40mm, the end of your lens would be a few inches from your subject.  Not exactly the easiest of shots to light or to setup, especially if your subject can fly away.


----------



## Overread (Dec 26, 2011)

I've a 70mm and a 35mm macro lens (both true 1:1 macro lenses) and honestly I would say that 60mm is the shortest you should go for (maybe a 50mm if you're pushed) but really consider 60mm the shortest usable macro lens focal length. Once you're down at 35mm and 40mm the distance from the front of the lens to the subject at 1:1 is tiny, very tiny, to the point where effective lighting is actually very tricky since you will get lens and camera body shadowing without fail and also have very little room to fit the lights in. 
Honestly my 35mm is used more for snapshots around the place and for close up work, 1:1 work with it is possible, but is even more tricky than breaking out my MPE 65mm lens for such work. 

If you can the Tamron 90mm is an ideal, affordable market option; which gives you a good starting working distance and a nice usable focal length.


----------

