A 40mm Round From Nikon

Many things are made in 40mm size; grenades, Bofors shells, and Nikon lenses come readily to mind. Camera Electronic customers may want to specify exactly what they want when they come in to talk to the sales staff... 40mm may seem a little short as a focal length for macro work - people traditionally think of the Nikon 105mm lens or even the 200mm lens that was common in the film era. They think in terms of using the lens further back from the subject to let more light in. And this is a valid consideration - particularly if the subject is either shy, delicate, or meaner than the photographer. But there is still a place for the 40mm, particularly as it is a DX lens and perfectly suits the APS-C cameras like the new Nikon D7500. Where to use it? Well, for stamp collections or coin collections. For well-illuminated still natural subjects. For scientific recording on copy stands. Or for taking toy car shots in The Little Studio. 40mm in this instance equated to 60mm in 35mm terms which is about the focal length of standard camera lenses in the 1950's used to take full-size car shots. if that seems like a lot of numbers for picture-taking, just rest assured that it means many shots have the same look as the real ones did then. Not exactly a real look - there is still the problem of reduced depth of field with macro subjects - but closer to it than with the longer 105mm lens. I'm a collector and as foolish and fussy as any enthusiast can be. People avoid me at cocktail parties, I can tell you... The normal Little Studio rig for this sort of shot is a 35mm Tokina macro on an adapter feeding into a Fujifilm X- E2. Slow, heavy, precise - it rewards careful thinking and step-by-step scene construction. Does the Nikon combination of D7500 and 40mm lens do as well? Is the ability to auto-focus useful or a drawback? Is it easier to peer through the viewfinder of the D7500 or that of the X -E2? How about their respective LCD screens? First answer: Does it do as well? Yes. Leaving aside the colour rendition of an X-trans sensor vs a Bayer sensor, the resolution of the two lenses seems equal. Tokina are ex-Nikon people anyway. Let 'em sort it out amongst themselves... Second answer: The auto focus is fast and smooth, but liable to select the closest thing that it can find a clear shot at...I prefer to focus manually on the windscreen of a car and let DOF take care of front and back. Note: this does not apply to the BMW Isetta 500 for reasons that car enthusiasts will understand... Third answer: No. It is not easier to peer through the Nikon viewfinder vs the Fujifilm one. One is a mirror plus focusing screen plus lenses and one is sensor screen plus LCD plus lenses...but has the advantage that the brightness can be dialled up for older eyes. In this circumstance there is no movement to deal with and consequently no disadvantage with the refresh rate of an internal LCD screen. Fujifilm wins the vote. Fourth answer: The LCD screen on the Fujifilm is brighter, with a faster refresh rate than that of the Nikon. Sorry, but that is what I see. Not a big problem, but a characteristic nevertheless. Is the Nikon/Nikon combination better than the Fujifilm/Rayqual/Tokina rig in any other scenario? Yes! If I were chasing ants in the garden or flowers in the wheatbelt or any other field exercise away from my lights, studio stand, and backdrop paper, the Nikon team wins hands down. There is even the opportunity to use TTL flash from the on-board Nikon mini-flash to illuminate the subject. Or an LED ringlight for maximum light with minimum fuss. If I were a fungi fun guy, I would unhesitatingly choose the Nikon. Even if it was just for the sake of the pun.