nikon 35mm 1.8 or 40mm micro for baby shoots?

Started Oct 17, 2012 | Questions
imagemaker7 New Member • Posts: 1
nikon 35mm 1.8 or 40mm micro for baby shoots?

After much deliberation, I bought the 35mm lens but have not opened the box as I wonder if the 40mm micro would be better for shooting newborns.  Can anyone recommend one over the other?  I also have a 24-85mm lens but wanted something with a wider aperture for natural lighting.  I also want to use it for full lenght adults.  The 35mm seems to get better reviews, ny comments??

Confused!

ANSWER:
This question has not been answered yet.
Bob GB Senior Member • Posts: 1,729
Re: nikon 35mm 1.8 or 40mm micro for baby shoots?

On what camera?

On DX both will work well.  The AF-S 35/1.8G can focus down to one foot (30 cm) which should be more than close enough. In addition you have more aperture to play with in ambient light.

Of course the Micro Nikkor is a macro lens if you care for shooting macro in addition.

Bruce kendall Senior Member • Posts: 1,082
Re: nikon 35mm 1.8 or 40mm micro for baby shoots?

Why not inform the forum what camera you use as this impacts on good decision making,or did I miss something?

regards

Bruce

sa

eadrian75
eadrian75 Regular Member • Posts: 421
Re: nikon 35mm 1.8 or 40mm micro for baby shoots?

imagemaker7 wrote:

After much deliberation, I bought the 35mm lens but have not opened the box as I wonder if the 40mm micro would be better for shooting newborns.  Can anyone recommend one over the other?  I also have a 24-85mm lens but wanted something with a wider aperture for natural lighting.  I also want to use it for full lenght adults.  The 35mm seems to get better reviews, ny comments??

Confused!

This is sample of 40 on D7k. I have since returned it to help fund the 17-55, but can say it is a quality lens. Bokeh was smooth. The only downside is that you need to get really close to achieve true 1:1 magnification.

 eadrian75's gear list:eadrian75's gear list
Ricoh GR II Sony a6000
photospots Regular Member • Posts: 156
Re: nikon 35mm 1.8 or 40mm micro for baby shoots?

Hi

You could also consider the 85 1.8g or the 105 VR macro. It gets you a little further away from the baby. Check out a picture I took with the later for my 6 month year old son: http://www.photospots.dk/2012/09/105mm-f28g-af-s-vr-micro-nikkor.html

-- hide signature --
 photospots's gear list:photospots's gear list
Nikon AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED
joejack951 Senior Member • Posts: 2,682
Re: nikon 35mm 1.8 or 40mm micro for baby shoots?

photospots wrote:

Hi

You could also consider the 85 1.8g or the 105 VR macro. It gets you a little further away from the baby. Check out a picture I took with the later for my 6 month year old son: http://www.photospots.dk/2012/09/105mm-f28g-af-s-vr-micro-nikkor.html

In my opinion, either the 85 or 105mm lens is far too long for newborn portraits. Even if they did work for now, eventually your newborn will grow into an infant and eventually toddler. At that age, you'll want to be able to interact with your kid to get the best photos. With a 85 or 105mm lens on a crop camera, you'll have to stand pretty far back just to get their entire body into the frame, let alone capture any of the room.

In my experience, 35mm is a far more versatile focal length for these types of pictures. For starters, it feels quite natural to use. What you see without the camera in front of you is what you see through the viewfinder. Second, the fast aperture and short focal length allows for using natural light rather than flash. An 85mm lens might require 1/125" exposure for a sharp photo whereas with a still subject, you can shoot at 1/50" with a 35mm lens. Of course, you won't always be able to shoot that slow once they start moving.

I will caution that as they grow, a zoom will become more and more desirable. At least with the 35/1.8 you are not heavily invested. You'll probably want to get a 17-55/2.8 or similar lens at some point in the future. The telephoto end of the zoom will be better for those adult portraits as well but the 35mm will be usable.

When my son was born, my wife and I used a 35/1.4G exclusively on our D300s. As he became more mobile, we started using the 17-55/2.8 more and more (we already owned it). Now, with a D3s, we still use the 35mm the most but up until yesterday our only other option was the 105VR. The 24-120/4 VR just arrived yesterday and I feel like it will be getting a lot of use as our son begins to walk.

 joejack951's gear list:joejack951's gear list
Nikon Coolpix AW100 Nikon Coolpix P7700 Nikon D300S Nikon D3S Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G ED-IF +5 more
virtualkyr
virtualkyr Contributing Member • Posts: 677
Re: nikon 35mm 1.8 or 40mm micro for baby shoots?

I can concur with the Nikon 17-55 2.8 comments.

When my son was born, we were using the 35 1.8. No doubt a wonderful inexpensive lens.

Now, my son is 4, and the 17-55 is a much better tool for capturing stuff inside the house and out and about. In fact, the 17-55 is on my camera 99% of the time now. Love it.

 virtualkyr's gear list:virtualkyr's gear list
Nikon D90 Nikon 1 V1 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 18-105mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 35mm F1.8G Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G ED-IF +9 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads