What are your thoughts on the Nikon 40mm f/2.8G AF-S DX Micro-Nikkor Lens?

I have the Nikon D7100 and want to upgrade to a prime micro lens and was considering this one. I would like something with a longer focal length but until I save up would this be a good start up lens for casual macro/portrait/landscape? And are there any links to sample photos with the D7100 with this lens?

People's opinions are very subjective. GO to http://www.photozone.de/...afs40f28dx and check the analysis out for yourself to see exactly how sharp the lens is compared to other brands like Tokina which makes a fantastic 90mm macro.

Personally, I think 40mm (60mm equiv. In 35mm) is too short. With macro it's not about how close you can get or minimum focusing distance - it's magnification. As far as the area that you can cover, say you're taking a photo of a piece of paper with grid lines on it. When you use a 50mm, 90mm, 105mm, or 200mm macro lens, all 4 images will have the same area of the paper. The image taken with the 200mm won't be 4x closer than the 50mm. The difference is that as the focal length increases, so does the minimum focusing distance. The added focusing distance is cancelled out by the increase in focal length (i.e. Magnification).

This is critical to understand because with a 100mm macro you're 2x further away than with a 50mm. This has two main benefits: 1. You will be out of the way of your lights and less likely to cast your own shadow onto the subject. Often with macro you're using an off-camera flash either handheld or on some kind of bracket. You need that extra working distance that a 60mm just won't provide.

2. If you're photographing skittish subjects like butterflies or other insects, you have to be further back otherwise you'll scare them off. Again, this is where a 60mm is just not the right lens.

Generally 50mm and 60mm macros are used for copy work and not field work.

For around the same price of the 40mm ($276 at B&H), you can get a better lens that used at keh.com. I did a search there for you: https://www.keh.com/shop/lenses/slr/fixed_focal_length_lenses,_mfg-fixed_focal_length_lenses,_non_mfg-nikon_f_mount_d_type.html?multi=true It is fine and a true macro lens (flat field), so have none of the pincushion or barrel issues associated with zoom lenses that "claim" to be macro lenses. It is probably long enough to for shooting portraits without any distortion.

As far as landscapes, you need a wide angle zoom lens like the Nikkor 10-24 mm, but it costs around $900, so you will need to start saving your pennies.

Sample photos will NOT tell you much about the lens. You see it is up to the photographers skills to produce amazing photos. So while the 40 mm macro lens may be a superb lens, just owning it will NOT guarantee that your images will be nearly the quality of the images you may find which were shot using that lens.

The link below should be of help

It is fine and a true macro lens (flat field), so have none of the pincushion or barrel issues associated with zoom lenses that "claim" to be macro lenses. It is probably long enough to for shooting portraits without any distortion.

As far as landscapes, you need a wide angle zoom lens like the Nikkor 10-24 mm, but it costs around $900, so you will need to start saving your pennies.

Sample photos will NOT tell you much about the lens. You see it is up to the photographers skills to produce amazing photos. So while the 40 mm macro lens may be a superb lens, just owning it will NOT guarantee that your images will be nearly the quality of the images you may find which were shot using that lens.

The link below should be of help