Well, I got as far into the the project as I wanted to go.
As Colin pointed out above, even with the lens mount seal, the weak link in water resistance would still be at the focus ring so sort of defeats the effort for me.
But below is what I saw when proceeding.
First, as indicated in arrow 1, the rubber seal is a separate item and not attached to the lens mount ring. It would be an option to try on the 40mm IF Nikon sold spare parts. But...
Arrows 2 and 3 show the main difference. The lens mount screws into a metal base on the FTZ vs plastic (under the shim) on the 40mm. Also indicated by the different mount screws shown in the second picture below.
The one thing that I have my main question around is shown in arrow 4 on the 40mm. Is this shim there for focus adjustment to compensate for tolerances in the plastic mount? Would it still be needed if swapping the metal mount from the FTZ?
In the end, for me it is not worth the effort. The only benefit I see would be more durability in having a metal mount on the 40mm. But in my opinion you would really have to be mounting and un-mounting a lot to see a difference in wear and tear.
IF you could buy the lens mount ring and rubber seal ring separately, I would consider it. But to cannibalize from a perfectly good FTZ to do this is not worth the effort. My $.02
George
mjgphotoz wrote:
Hey George,
Let us know what you find out if you try this little project!
Great info and pics.
Interesting to see the differences and given this is an 'all plastic' lens I was surprised to see the metal shim.
It could provide some additional strength to the mount.
Colin
GeorgeBo wrote:
Hi Mary,
Well, I got as far into the the project as I wanted to go.
As Colin pointed out above, even with the lens mount seal, the weak link in water resistance would still be at the focus ring so sort of defeats the effort for me.
But below is what I saw when proceeding.
First, as indicated in arrow 1, the rubber seal is a separate item and not attached to the lens mount ring. It would be an option to try on the 40mm IF Nikon sold spare parts. But...
Arrows 2 and 3 show the main difference. The lens mount screws into a metal base on the FTZ vs plastic (under the shim) on the 40mm. Also indicated by the different mount screws shown in the second picture below.
The one thing that I have my main question around is shown in arrow 4 on the 40mm. Is this shim there for focus adjustment to compensate for tolerances in the plastic mount? Would it still be needed if swapping the metal mount from the FTZ?
In the end, for me it is not worth the effort. The only benefit I see would be more durability in having a metal mount on the 40mm. But in my opinion you would really have to be mounting and un-mounting a lot to see a difference in wear and tear.
IF you could buy the lens mount ring and rubber seal ring separately, I would consider it. But to cannibalize from a perfectly good FTZ to do this is not worth the effort. My $.02
Thanks for the update! Well done. I was pretty sure this was going to be the case. Adding the rubber seal just made me wonder about the alignment from all else aside. I think Nikon designed it as they saw appropriate and will let it go at that.
I was so impressed with the sealing of the 500PF and the D500. It was totally necessary on the last trip due to the weather, and I just protected the Z6_2 and lens when necessary. Horses for courses as they say. That's why they make those "cute but cumbersome" little rain hoodies they charge so much for!
Just had one delivered yesterday to add to my Z50 travel kit. Will make a handy and light portrait lens when travelling and eventual use when I transition into FF mirrorless.
Since I still have excellent f mount glass I wasn't expecting much from it but first impressions are very good. Hope to get to play with it over the next few days.
Why on earth can't we have something like this on Sony? Just unabashedly small, cheap, and good enough, with some nice character. I just imagine all the Sony bloggers reviewing it and saying how terrible it is because "Schärfe über alles"
Sony has the CV 40/1.2, I’d kill for that on Z natively!
Erichimedes wrote:
Wow. Great images in this thread.
Why on earth can't we have something like this on Sony? Just unabashedly small, cheap, and good enough, with some nice character. I just imagine all the Sony bloggers reviewing it and saying how terrible it is because "Schärfe über alles"
Yep. I recently moved on from my dead Canon 5D Mark II (after grieving for a year). No low cost FF mirrorless options from Canon with IBIS and eye auto-focus, so it was either Nikon or Sony. This lens is a big part of why I chose Nikon. I grew to love my Canon EF 35mm f/2 (after selling the 1.4L), and this on a Z6 gets me similar capability with more character in a smaller package. Also very much looking forward to the 24-120 (arriving today!), which seems a better option than anything available for Sony. These are of course not the typical "pro" lenses, but they are just right for my day-to-day shooting. Adding the Viltrox 85mm for some simple portraits of the kids and I'm getting back the most used portion of my old Canon kit with all of the advantages of mirrorless and surprisingly little cash out of pocket.
I finally got to use a friend's 40MM. My first impression was the front element. I used to play "marbles" with bigger glass. I think the Kodak Brownie had a bigger element. My first thought was seriously, "Holga" and it does have a strong resemblance. The shots I did were NOT HOLGA, though. Like my 24-200 I was very pleasantly surprised. B&H has them on sale for $50 off until tomorrow night. I am strongly considering. Her lens was delightfully sharp and has almost punchy contrast. Heap Big Chief Runamuck likum.
RoamingScott wrote:
Sony has the CV 40/1.2, I’d kill for that on Z natively!
I've been looking at the upcoming CF 35 f2 APO-lanthar. I don't know if it is the same formulation as the Sony version, though I suspect it is and presumably tweaked for the Nikon sensor stack. The Sony gets stellar reviews and I'm thinking that plus the 24-120 will be my set travel combination.
runamuck wrote:
I used to play "marbles" with bigger glass. I think the Kodak Brownie had a bigger element. My first thought was seriously, "Holga" and it does have a strong resemblance. The shots I did were NOT HOLGA, though.
What until you see the Z 28mm 2.8. It makes the front element of the 40mm seem massive in comparison...
