I have just been sorting/culling some images from 18 months ago.
I mostly use my 40/2 on a Z6ii at night where it provides an easy to carry, affordable way to get low-light images without the use of a tripod.
I like the image quality of this lens, at this price. It has natural colors and sharpness that go with the territory of a simpler 6/4 optical design.
But I have to wonder - how much better could Nikon have made the lens, at a higher price point? Keeping a simple low-element design, how much better could the image quality be with better coatings, glass, materials, build, and autofocus?
asdfghreturns wrote:
I like the image quality of this lens, at this price. It has natural colors and sharpness that go with the territory of a simpler 6/4 optical design.
But I have to wonder - how much better could Nikon have made the lens, at a higher price point? Keeping a simple low-element design, how much better could the image quality be with better coatings, glass, materials, build, and autofocus?
Isn’t the 50mm f1.8 S an answer to your question?
Two of the key questions are size and price.
It’s beyond doubt now that Nikon is the best 35mm lens manufacturer on this planet. They can do anything they want really. So a 40mm f2.0 as good as a Noct with the bokeh of a Plena can be done. But at what price point and size?
bernardl wrote:
Isn’t the 50mm f1.8 S an answer to your question?
The 50/1.8s has a very different character than the 40/2. It has literally double the optical complexity as a 12 element in 9 group design, compared to 6 elements in 4 groups. This allows it to have much higher resolution and correction of abberations, but also changes the overall look. I think some of the color, tonality, and charm is lost, even if it's more technically impressive at the pixel level.
I'm imagining that an upmarket version of the 40/2 would keep the same 6 elements in 4 groups design thus overall character, but gain flare resistance from better coatings, and maybe slightly better color, contrast, and sharpness from better glass and build quality. So "the same but better" as opposed to "modern vs. classic" when talking about the 50/1.8s.
Well, it's 25% of the price of the 35/1.8 S, which incidentally leaves them open to middle priced 3rd party lenses because they cheapened up so much on this one, despite it being a sound concept. Plastic mounts have no place in our bags, that is entry level gear. One third of this lens is aspherical, so you see that phone-like uber cleanliness, like the Q Leicas, and for the same reason.
They could have found a compromise, a 7/5 or so. And used just one rear-placed aspherical (glass hopefully), and used higher refractive index glass for two elements. Up the aperture to a 12 blade unit (from nine), to improve the strident, scratchy outer frame bokeh. Color is already good, as is contrast. The trick is to make such lenses good enough in all departments (optics, character, build, longevity) at the right price.
Maybe in a V2? They will have to do it anyway, due to the Chinese competition that will slowly but steadily win over the brand's true believers if they do not. Are already, in fact.
I have a similar shot I quite like - the 40/2 does well with indoor, window light, across-the-table distance portraits. At further distances, outdoors, the bokeh begins to deteriorate and flare can become an issue.
I have the 2.8 S zoom trinity, and a few nice S primes. I bought this lens on a whim just because of its size and weight not expecting much. I know technically it’s not supposed to be great but every time I see photos from it, especially just general family and travel stuff they look amazing. It seems to have the right mix of everything that make photos really stand out. It reminds me of my Leica 50mm Summilux Asph. An older/simpler design that has flaws when you really dig deep but the photos are amazing.
