Nikon 35mm f/1.8G vs 40mm f/2.8G Micro

surjasphotos

Hello everybody. I have a dilemma here and was hoping that someone can provide me with some solution. Here is the situation...

I want a lens for my Nikon D5100 and my major priority is a prime lens. I already possess the Nikon Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D lens. I'm pretty happy with the lens but would still like another lens, one with auto focus this time. Here are the 2 options I was looking at:

1) Nikon Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G (AF-S)
2) Nikon Nikkor 40mm micro f/2.8G (AF-S)

Price wise there is not a hell and heaven difference between them. However, the 40mm will allow for some basic macro work along with the purpose of being a prime lens. Having said that I'm not dying for macro usage.

So, what should be my optimal choice given the above?

Let me know guys.

Thanks

Moose

@surjasphotos - Good question...if you're not really interested in macro photography, then I'd go for the Nikon 35mm f/1.8G.

As you may already know, the lower the f-number the 'brighter' the lens. The brighter your lens, the better it performs in low light situations. In addition to that, the lower the f-number, the more background blur (bokeh) you'll be able to capture.

One other thing to think about is that you'll be able to capture a slightly wider field of view (more inside the visible frame) with the 35mm compared to the 40mm. This can be especially helpful when shooting in smaller sized rooms or in cramped spaces.

All the best!

surjasphotos

I completely understand your view point and also agree to it. The 35mm would be far better given the choice of use. One slight drawback, or should I say weak point of the 35mm, is that the 40mm has a minimum distance of just above 6 inches to focus compared to about 11 inches for the 35mm. Anyway, I think the 35mm would be a better choice.