I have a general question about this lens - how does it perform?
I am a Sony user and I'm about to sell my gear and get Zf with this 40mm SE lens for a start.
I love the results I'm getting from Sony 40mm f2.5 G lens - hoping to achieve same results from Nikon kit.
I terms of image quality and performance, would these two lens be on similar level?
How do you guys "grade" these Nikon lens? I know SE is new lens, but whoever already has it, or has older 40/2 version.
It's fine. It's a little soft wide open (though at moderate distances there is certainly a reasonable a mount of detail. Quite sharp stopped down. Some imperfect bokeh, some CA...typical for an inexpensive prime lens. Overall, though I quite like it for the price. It isn't the same level as the Sony, as that's a more expensive lens with likely a more elaborate optical formula for increased image quality. It is also a lightweight all plastic lens.. which is expected for a lens that's about 1/2 the price of the Sony.
Note that the regular version and the SE version are identical optically and mechanically - it's just the aesthetics of the outer shell that differ.
I suspect the Sony lens is better, but it should be given the price differential. One option you have is to keep it and get an adapter to use it on the Nikon Zf. It gives you the advantage of an aperture ring, which would be nice on a retro-styled body.
Having said that, I personally love the Nikon 40mm f/2. Small and light, and is generally acknowledged to outperform the f/mount G primes.
Jman13 wrote:
It's fine. It's a little soft wide open (though at moderate distances there is certainly a reasonable a mount of detail. Quite sharp stopped down. Some imperfect bokeh, some CA...typical for an inexpensive prime lens. Overall, though I quite like it for the price. It isn't the same level as the Sony, as that's a more expensive lens with likely a more elaborate optical formula for increased image quality. It is also a lightweight all plastic lens.. which is expected for a lens that's about 1/2 the price of the Sony.
Note that the regular version and the SE version are identical optically and mechanically - it's just the aesthetics of the outer shell that differ.
Thank you for your response. I've read all I could about its build quality and I'm not expecting miracles of course, but from your photos I can tell that these are pretty. This 40/2 lens would be my main AF lens on Zf, well, I may also get 26mm one and that would be it. Rest would all Voigtlander lens
tntcorp1 wrote:
why on earth did nikon go with a plastic lens mount on a glass with adequately nice optical quality? i would trade the weight saving for durability.
i have not seen any durability issues with plastic lens mounts.
tntcorp1 wrote:
hmm.. good to know the plastic mount lens requires less maintenance when the mount needs replacing.
r/
Have you ever actually had a problem with a plastic lens mount on a lens like this? I'd agree for a lot of lenses, including longer zooms that may face torque and such. On a lens like this where it weighs next to nothing and is an inch long and nearly impossible to have any leverage on the barrel while attached, it should be a non-issue. I'd think a mount failure would be an exceptionally rare occurrence.
Jman13 wrote:
Have you ever actually had a problem with a plastic lens mount on a lens like this? I'd agree for a lot of lenses, including longer zooms that may face torque and such. On a lens like this where it weighs next to nothing and is an inch long and nearly impossible to have any leverage on the barrel while attached, it should be a non-issue. I'd think a mount failure would be an exceptionally rare occurrence.
no, never mount failure but excessive wear which created intermittent loss of af and lens controls.
I used to have a Z6II with 28 2.8, 40 f2 and 35 1.8. The 40 was good, the 28 was OK, but the 35 1.8 was fantastic. If I were in your shoes, I'd save up longer and get the 35 1.8 instead. It's a much better lens and they are close in size.
Joseph. wrote:
I used to have a Z6II with 28 2.8, 40 f2 and 35 1.8. The 40 was good, the 28 was OK, but the 35 1.8 was fantastic. If I were in your shoes, I'd save up longer and get the 35 1.8 instead. It's a much better lens and they are close in size.
Thanks, I've checked that lens - Nikon Z 35mm f1.8 S?
Thing is this one is 2x heavier and 2x longer than 40/2. But yes, looking at photo samples looks like 35/1.8 gives sometimes better photos.
I like everything about 40/2 Se so far what I have read or seen, but coming from Sony 40/2.5 I'm a bit concerned about that softness wide open on 40/2.
EDIT: Sorry, or maybe you meant G lens? That one looks small and similar size to 40/2.
