Looking at the official samples, this lens kind of reminds me of the older 1.4g lenses like 35mm and 58mm. Soft and dreamy wide open, rly digging that. Can't wait to test this lens myself and compare it to my 35mm 1.4g
Looking at the official samples, this lens kind of reminds me of the older 1.4g lenses like 35mm and 58mm. Soft and dreamy wide open, rly digging that. Can't wait to test this lens myself and compare it to my 35mm 1.4g
GoroMajima wrote:
Looking at the official samples, this lens kind of reminds me of the older 1.4g lenses like 35mm and 58mm. Soft and dreamy wide open, rly digging that. Can't wait to test this lens myself and compare it to my 35mm 1.4g
These are image sample published by Nikon. Please don't lift images especially without attribution.
If you hold the cursor on the image it lists it as your copyright which a quick search will show that it is clearly not.
glassartist wrote:
These are image sample published by Nikon. Please don't lift images especially without attribution.
If you hold the cursor on the image it lists it as your copyright which a quick search will show that it is clearly not.
That appears to be a bug or “unintended feature” in the FM forum software. They are actually hot links to the Nikon.de site hosting the images if you look at the links or right click and follow the link.
Went for a walk this morning with the 40mm. My impression so far:
- perfect size & weight
- reasonably sharp wide-open, but not across the frame (and I don't care)
- very nice bokeh / rendering
Here are two 'test shots' f2 vs f3.5 (hand-held at 2°C, so not ideal conditions for testing). Full size is on flickr.
I did some shooting comparing it to the 35 and while I have never really been overly impressed with that lens (I may have a bad copy, I just don't know), I'd say the 40 at less than half the price is very close or equal.
I have not done any scientific comparisons, but what I did do made me wonder whether I need the 35 anymore. The 40 is just so much more enjoyable as a walk around lens. It is light and compact. A perfect size. At only half a stop difference, it may be all I need at or near that focal length.
What IS curious to me though is the plastic mount. Seriously! This is a very good lens. Couldn't Nikon have slapped on a metal mount even if it meant charging another 10% or so?
At any rate, it's a very good lens. I don't understand the small criticism that someone made above stating something about it not being a "flawless" macro lens. Huh? And while I AM seeing it not being as good wide open as it is stopped down, it's actually not bad wide open and about what I'd expect.
Jay968 wrote:
I picked one up yesterday. So far I am impressed.
I did some shooting comparing it to the 35 and while I have never really been overly impressed with that lens (I may have a bad copy, I just don't know), I'd say the 40 at less than half the price is very close or equal.
I have not done any scientific comparisons, but what I did do made me wonder whether I need the 35 anymore. The 40 is just so much more enjoyable as a walk around lens. It is light and compact. A perfect size. At only half a stop difference, it may be all I need at or near that focal length.
What IS curious to me though is the plastic mount. Seriously! This is a very good lens. Couldn't Nikon have slapped on a metal mount even if it meant charging another 10% or so?
At any rate, it's a very good lens. I don't understand the small criticism that someone made above stating something about it not being a "flawless" macro lens. Huh? And while I AM seeing it not being as good wide open as it is stopped down, it's actually not bad wide open and about what I'd expect. ...Show more →
Check your lens. My 35mm f/1.8 S is sharper at 1:1 on the Z7 than on the Z6, while the 40mm f/2 is not. That means that the 40mm f/2 is not fully utilizing the resolution of the Z7 sensor, while the 35mm does so, or at least it utilizes the Z7 resolution to a higher degree.
The 40mm f/2 works well with the small Leica ELPRO 52 close focus lens. It has the same thread diameter and gives you a magnification factor of about 0.5, i.e. the image is about half the size of the object.
AcuteShadows wrote:
Check your lens. My 35mm f/1.8 S is sharper at 1:1 on the Z7 than on the Z6, while the 40mm f/2 is not. That means that the 40mm f/2 is not fully utilizing the resolution of the Z7 sensor, while the 35mm does so, or at least it utilizes the Z7 resolution to a higher degree.
Check my lens? Are you talking about my 35? As I said I may have a bad copy. I've never been real impressed with that lens since day one. The 50 is a lot better. The 24-70 f2.8 is better. The 40 that I purchased yesterday appears to be about as good. I don't expect the 40 to be as good as the 50.
Jay968 wrote:
Check my lens? Are you talking about my 35? As I said I may have a bad copy. I've never been real impressed with that lens since day one. The 50 is a lot better. The 24-70 f2.8 is better. The 40 that I purchased yesterday appears to be about as good. I don't expect the 40 to be as good as the 50.
Yeah, your 35mm. I have both the 35mm and the 50mm. The 50mm is just exceptionally sharp in the center, but the 35mm is not far behind. At least my copy is fully utilizing the Z7 sensor, meaning it's performance could not be realized on the Z6 sensor. The 35mm should still be much sharper than any F mount lens, except for the telephoto and macro lenses.
AcuteShadows wrote:
Yeah, your 35mm. I have both the 35mm and the 50mm. The 50mm is just exceptionally sharp in the center, but the 35mm is not far behind. At least my copy is fully utilizing the Z7 sensor, meaning it's performance could not be realized on the Z6 sensor. The 35mm should still be much sharper than any F mount lens, except for the telephoto and macro lenses.
At one time I owned the 35mm f1.4g and thought it was a good lens but not great. I am finding the 35 S to be about as good as that one. Not even in the same league as the 50 or the 85 for that matter.
Jay968 wrote:
At one time I owned the 35mm f1.4g and thought it was a good lens but not great. I am finding the 35 S to be about as good as that one. Not even in the same league as the 50 or the 85 for that matter.
At f/1.8, the corners are somewhat soft. At f/5.6, I don't see a problem using the lens on the Z7 for landscape or architecture. In fact, I've never used the lens below f/5.6 in situations where resolution was important, and most of the time the lens is fixed to my Z6 video conference camera.
Jay968 wrote:
At one time I owned the 35mm f1.4g and thought it was a good lens but not great. I am finding the 35 S to be about as good as that one. Not even in the same league as the 50 or the 85 for that matter.
Depends on your preferences. In terms of smooth bokeh and transition, the 35mm 1.4G is untouchable.
But some people report it looses its "magic" on higherRes sensors. Might be the case with the Z40mm too.
Im still a DSLR user with the exception of the Z50 kit for hiking and travel. I know I will move over eventually and am thinking that for the price, this lens might be a nice addition to the baby Z kit as an approximate 60mm for low light and travel portraits. I know it’s early days but would be interested in knowing if anyone has tried it with a Z50 yet.
Spectro wrote:
Im still a DSLR user with the exception of the Z50 kit for hiking and travel. I know I will move over eventually and am thinking that for the price, this lens might be a nice addition to the baby Z kit as an approximate 60mm for low light and travel portraits. I know it’s early days but would be interested in knowing if anyone has tried it with a Z50 yet.
I plan to when it arrives (in about two weeks according to Amazon).
