It really has some magic to it, beautiful imperfect rendering. It's so good.
fleeja wrote:
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.
fleeja wrote:
Now I’m intrigued. Does either the 26mm or 28mm have a similar “technically not great” but amazing results quality or is the 40 just a special one?
I traded the 40SE for a 28SE because I was not pleased with the performance of my 40. I do think that mine was not a good sample.
The 28SE is a great little lens, but it doesn't really have any special look to it. It's a normal, modern, great lens. That isn't a bad thing, but if you love the 40 because of the look and character, the 28 does not give the same experience.
HOWEVER- the 28 is small, looks great on the ZF, and is a fantastic daily carry lens.
I'm tempted to pick up another 40 to give it another try.
fleeja wrote:
Now I’m intrigued. Does either the 26mm or 28mm have a similar “technically not great” but amazing results quality or is the 40 just a special one?
I think the Z 28mm is pretty good, especially if you like 28mm. But it doesn’t have the DNA of the cult classic F-mount 28mm 1.4E, or even the Z 40mm. The Z 28mm is small, cheap, and offers good performance, just nothing exceptional. If it were also f/2, I think it would also be spoken about in the same manner as the 40mm… alas, it’s a more pedestrian f/2.8.
The Z 26mm is similar to the 28mm — good, even very good, but nothing stands out as excellent or compelling — what it does offer is extreme small size at a bit higher cost (with a few more compromises).
This is th first shot I took with the Zf 2 years ago. It made me very happy about my purchase.
Hard to find fault with the 40. It's got that rich, saturated Nikon look.
The 40 Z is a notch above the 28 Z, but a very different focal length. The 28 can give some nice results at closer focusing distances, for people as central subjects. It's not as satisfying for landscapes.
I’m planning to buy a Z5 II and will definitely pick up a 40 because I use a GR IIIx all the time. Trying to decide if I want the 28 as well. It’s super cheap but I wonder how much I’d use it vs the 40 and a standard zoom.
coyotecai wrote:
I’m planning to buy a Z5 II and will definitely pick up a 40 because I use a GR IIIx all the time. Trying to decide if I want the 28 as well. It’s super cheap but I wonder how much I’d use it vs the 40 and a standard zoom.
Get the 26mm instead (if you can swing it). Sharper, nicer rendering, and smaller/lighter.
I got this lens and the 28SE on a whim a couple years ago, but never used them. I had the 24-120/4 that I used almost exclusively on my Z5, then Zf. Seeing this thread, I need to remedy that.
