When I first saw the Sigma 40 1.4 images I thought that FOV was odd and wierd. But after the Zf and the 40 F2 SE, I have come to really like the 40mm FOV, to the point that I have lost interest in the 35/50 focal length. More recently have taken interest in the Voigtlander 40 1.2 for Z. I see having both 40's as a very complimentary pair of lenses, one for good AF and the other for a truly remarkable combination of vintage/modern in a deliberative manual focus.
Anyone else using both of these lenses want to compare?
I was converted to 40mm years ago on Sony by my Zeiss Batis 40mm F2, my all time favourite lens.
I bought a megadap adapter so that I could use it on my ZF.
I can see me probably getting the non SE 40 F2 at some point for the size reduction as the Batis is a bit large on the Zf
There are also some good vintage 40mm lenses if you don't mind adapting which I am happy to do. It is a real buzz using 50 or 60yr old glass and getting the excellent Nikon MF assistance
I have both the Nikon Z 40/2 and the Voigtlander 40/1.2 for exactly the reasons you state.
Also the 40/2 is quite compact and lightweight meaning it is more of a “toss it in the bag because why not” kind of lens. Great to pair with the 24-200 when traveling light. It also is very good for IR converted bodies.
The Voigt bokeh is something special even if not perfect, but B&W helps with that when necessary. Quite compact for F/1.2 and looks a dream on a Zf. Heck, I practically bought the Zf just because I had the Voigt!
I also have the GR IIIx which is a 40mm equivalent.
As to the focal length, I’ve shot a lot of odd ball prime focal lengths over the years and like all of them. I’m really much more of a zoom shooter as I do mostly landscape, so I don’t think I’ve ever really developed a strong preference for a single focal length the way some prime shooters do. I presume they just get really good at previsualization with certain focal lengths they use a lot.
I was introduced to the 40mm focal length back in my Canon DSLR days with the 40mm f/2.8 STM pancake, which I enjoyed in addition to a 35mm f/1.4 L. I now shoot with a Nikon Z8, and recently picked up a Zf and the 40mm f/2 SE lens, which I like for its small size/weight with relatively fast and quiet AF. The 40 SE matches the retro style of the Zf and the images have some character. I had the 50mm f/1.8 S, but for some reason, I preferred the 40.
I also own the Nikon 35mm f/1.2 S which is awesome but large and heavy. After going through this forum, I got some interest in the Voigtlanders and tried the 35mm f/2 APO, but I really wanted the CV 40mm f/1.2. Recently, B&H finally had the 40mm f/1.2 for Z mount in stock so I bought a copy and sold the 35 APO. While the 35 APO is an excellent lens, I couldn't help but like the images I was seeing from the faster 40 Nokton.
I love the CV 40 on the Zf for its MF experience while still being relatively small and light (around 330g for the Z version). It has wonderful bokeh / character from f/1.2 to f/2 and gets very sharp as you stop it down. I doubt the CV 40 will leave my Zf often as it seems to be the perfect match.
Initially, I thought I would let the Nikon 40 f/2 SE go, but then I realized it is worth keeping for a quick run and gun AF lens on either the Zf or Z8. So it looks like I will have two 40mm lenses in addition to my 35mm f/1.2 bohemoth, which is also excellent.
kwalsh wrote:
I have both the Nikon Z 40/2 and the Voigtlander 40/1.2 for exactly the reasons you state.
Also the 40/2 is quite compact and lightweight meaning it is more of a “toss it in the bag because why not” kind of lens. Great to pair with the 24-200 when traveling light. It also is very good for IR converted bodies.
The Voigt bokeh is something special even if not perfect, but B&W helps with that when necessary. Quite compact for F/1.2 and looks a dream on a Zf. Heck, I practically bought the Zf just because I had the Voigt!
I also have the GR IIIx which is a 40mm equivalent.
As to the focal length, I’ve shot a lot of odd ball prime focal lengths over the years and like all of them. I’m really much more of a zoom shooter as I do mostly landscape, so I don’t think I’ve ever really developed a strong preference for a single focal length the way some prime shooters do. I presume they just get really good at previsualization with certain focal lengths they use a lot.
What do you think of the 58mm (either Voigt or Nikon). This is also a favorite FL over 50mm. I like the extra 8mm for the same reason I guess why I like the 5mm over the 35 using the 40. I just tried the 50 Voigt and what a lens. Sharp as all get out but this lens helped me determine that the FOV trumped IQ. The 40 and 58 just are more interesting I think.
I own the Nikon Z 40 f/2 and the Voigtlander 40 f/1.2 in Z mount. Love them both but sadly both are now feeling abandoned since I bought the Q3 43 on the first day of introduction.
aerospace99 wrote:
What do you think of the 58mm (either Voigt or Nikon). This is also a favorite FL over 50mm. I like the extra 8mm for the same reason I guess why I like the 5mm over the 35 using the 40. I just tried the 50 Voigt and what a lens. Sharp as all get out but this lens helped me determine that the FOV trumped IQ. The 40 and 58 just are more interesting I think.
I've never tried a 58mm actually. I've eyed the Nikon 58/1.4 a number of times given its legendary status, but have always had to admit I'm probably just not enough of a prime shooter to justify it. And I've never had a 60mm macro either.
For whatever reason, I've not used 50mm much either. Probably the most use of a 50mm equivalent was the Panaleica 25/1.4 in m43. I used that for a bit around the house when our kid was small, but in the end the 15/1.7 (30mm equivalent) and 45/1.8 (90mm equivalent) were what came on outings with us.
I'd really like a compact but not necessarily super fast prime (maybe F/2 or F/2.8 to keep it small) between 60mm and 90mm one of these days. The Sigma 90/2.8 would be neat if it came to Z mount (wishful thinking I'm sure).
Anyway, like you I've not landed on 50mm very often as a prime that I actually use (though I usually own at least one).
kwalsh wrote:
I've never tried a 58mm actually. I've eyed the Nikon 58/1.4 a number of times given its legendary status, but have always had to admit I'm probably just not enough of a prime shooter to justify it. And I've never had a 60mm macro either.
For whatever reason, I've not used 50mm much either. Probably the most use of a 50mm equivalent was the Panaleica 25/1.4 in m43. I used that for a bit around the house when our kid was small, but in the end the 15/1.7 (30mm equivalent) and 45/1.8 (90mm equivalent) were what came on outings with us.
I'd really like a compact but not necessarily super fast prime (maybe F/2 or F/2.8 to keep it small) between 60mm and 90mm one of these days. The Sigma 90/2.8 would be neat if it came to Z mount (wishful thinking I'm sure).
Anyway, like you I've not landed on 50mm very often as a prime that I actually use (though I usually own at least one)....Show more →
The Nikon 58 has a similar response as the 40 1.2 in that its soft and dreamy wide open but sharpens up dramatically as you stop down. Loads of character but also great color. I sort of like the blended approach that both of these lenses have (40 1.2, 58 1.4). I am a bit turned off by clinical sharpness to be quite honest and having the creative option to "control the mix" if you will for painterly effects and raw resolution is a great advantage. The 40 F2 has some nice character flair and beats out the 35 1.8S for rendering and soul in my view. The Voigt 40 1.2 oozes character and sharpness at the same time. The 40 FOV really provides a nice compromise between the 35 and 50. So I find that the two lenses I kicked this thread off with represent a package of amazing balance and compromise for a wide range of shooting in smaller form factors. I respect the 1.2 aperature heavyweights (35, 50) for what they can do but cannot see hauling these lenses around. I consider the 40 1.2 and 40 F2 as "high density" lenses that complement each other for focus considerations in a nice form factor that just sits so nicely on the Zf.
If you are after pure resolution then yes the Nikon S line or the Voigt APO's in either 35 or 50 are certainly the ticket, I have tried them all.
I too shot my first 40 with the Canon pancake back in the 5D days and fell in love with the FL. I can shoot 35 and 40 fairly interchangeably but usually prefer 40.
I’ve got the 35 APO, 40/2 Ultron, Z 40/2, and Hassy 55 all for this range case. I also have an as-yet-unannounced Z mount 40/2 with aperture ring heading to me for review.
I view 50 as a TOTALLY different FL and honestly just don’t get on with it for my style of shooting.
aerospace99 wrote:
If you are after pure resolution then yes the Nikon S line or the Voigt APO's in either 35 or 50 are certainly the ticket, I have tried them all.
I have the Nikon Z 35/1.8S, 50/1.8S, and 85/1.8S and rarely use them. They were really picked up to be used for astrophotography, but honestly I much prefer looking at the stars with my eyes rather than photographing them. So they should really be sold.
I picked up a used Voigt 35/2 on whim when it was briefly discontinued (i.e. before the version II was released) with the thought again that it'd be smaller and perhaps even better for astro than the Nikon 35/1.8. Again, probably should just be sold at this point. I know not to buy the Voigt 50/2 now! Awesome lens for sure, just not useful for me.
I'm tempted by the Voigt 75/1.5 as the long end of a Voigt trio for the Zf (my dumb adapted E-Mount Voigt 21/3.5 would be the wide end of the trio along with the 40/1.2 of course). But at full list price of $900 and the reality that I just don't shoot these lenses often enough gives me significant pause. If one came up used maybe I'd bite, but still probably shouldn't.
I like the 40 much better than a 35. I know people complain about the rendering of the sigma 40mm art as clinical. I like it for a sharp lens. It's obviously not a great character lens, but neither is something like the Sony 35mm GM and people love that lens. Even Nikon's 35mm 1.2s I couldn't bond with. I'm in the camp of people who hate 35mm because I can never make it work. Maybe that's my weakness. I love 28mm and wish that focal length hadn't fallen by the wayside as much as it has. I think Nikon's 28mm 1.4e is one of the most underrated lenses out there. It gets overlooked because it was really the last F mount prime and was $$$. 28mm has wide angle characteristics to let in a bunch of the environment, but doesn't have the unnatural distortion for people you start to see at 24mm and wider (but that's great sometimes, too, if that's what you want). 35mm isn't wide enough to have that wide angle feel, and isn't tight enough to focus more on the subject. For me it just does nothing well. It's a no man's land focal length for me. I like a little tighter, and 40-45mm does that. I also don't love 50mm that much and prefer a 58mm or 65mm, so a 40-45 pairs well.
RoamingScott wrote:
I too shot my first 40 with the Canon pancake back in the 5D days and fell in love with the FL. I can shoot 35 and 40 fairly interchangeably but usually prefer 40.
I’ve got the 35 APO, 40/2 Ultron, Z 40/2, and Hassy 55 all for this range case. I also have an as-yet-unannounced Z mount 40/2 with aperture ring heading to me for review.
I view 50 as a TOTALLY different FL and honestly just don’t get on with it for my style of shooting.
Screw the NDA. Who's the manufacturer? Please let it be a Voigt APO . . .
nhmorgan wrote:
I like the 40 much better than a 35. I know people complain about the rendering of the sigma 40mm art as clinical. I like it for a sharp lens. It's obviously not a great character lens, but neither is something like the Sony 35mm GM and people love that lens. Even Nikon's 35mm 1.2s I couldn't bond with. I'm in the camp of people who hate 35mm because I can never make it work. Maybe that's my weakness. I love 28mm and wish that focal length hadn't fallen by the wayside as much as it has. I think Nikon's 28mm 1.4e is one of the most underrated lenses out there. It gets overlooked because it was really the last F mount prime and was $$$. 28mm has wide angle characteristics to let in a bunch of the environment, but doesn't have the unnatural distortion for people you start to see at 24mm and wider (but that's great sometimes, too, if that's what you want). 35mm isn't wide enough to have that wide angle feel, and isn't tight enough to focus more on the subject. For me it just does nothing well. It's a no man's land focal length for me. I like a little tighter, and 40-45mm does that. I also don't love 50mm that much and prefer a 58mm or 65mm, so a 40-45 pairs well. ...Show more →
Agree with the 28 1.4. Had 2 copies, one with my D810, and then again with a Z7II. But most of the time cropped at 1.5x, hence the realities of the 40mm FOV. But beautiful rendering to be sure. I think we see it the same way. These days I rely on my 24-70 F4 for wider shots. Another no brainer lens with amazing microcontrast for when I want that. That lens and the 40 1.2 combo is a wonderful thing.
kwalsh wrote:
I have the Nikon Z 35/1.8S, 50/1.8S, and 85/1.8S and rarely use them. They were really picked up to be used for astrophotography, but honestly I much prefer looking at the stars with my eyes rather than photographing them. So they should really be sold.
I picked up a used Voigt 35/2 on whim when it was briefly discontinued (i.e. before the version II was released) with the thought again that it'd be smaller and perhaps even better for astro than the Nikon 35/1.8. Again, probably should just be sold at this point. I know not to buy the Voigt 50/2 now! Awesome lens for sure, just not useful for me.
I'm tempted by the Voigt 75/1.5 as the long end of a Voigt trio for the Zf (my dumb adapted E-Mount Voigt 21/3.5 would be the wide end of the trio along with the 40/1.2 of course). But at full list price of $900 and the reality that I just don't shoot these lenses often enough gives me significant pause. If one came up used maybe I'd bite, but still probably shouldn't. ...Show more →
I tried the 75 1.5 and very impressed with its manual focus. But I am staying with the 85 1.8S for my "lite sports" reason and relying on my 58 1.4G for my "short telephoto," for people it just cannot be beat. Since I picked up DXO raw I have taken this lens to a new level.
aerospace99 wrote:
I tried the 75 1.5 and very impressed with its manual focus. But I am staying with the 85 1.8S
I have trouble seeing an obvious value proposition for the 75/1.5 for myself as I already have and rarely use the 85/1.8. The Voigt is 1" shorter which is nice, but also is actually a bit heavier. The 85/1.8 is no slouch on bokeh and of course bitingly sharp wide open which is desirable in some situations. The 75 has more "character" wide open to be sure, which again might be desirable in different situations.
The Voigt 40/1.2 on the other hand is something unique in Z mount (and even more broadly across lots of mounts). That fast, that small, interesting character (which of course some may not love) wide open, sharpens nicely stopped down. It is "different enough" from everything else to stand on its own for me. Even if I don't use primes a lot I see a point to having it in my collection and love using it.
The Voigt 21/3.5 is so nice and compact while being excellent optically. Again, not much like it out there so it is obviously distinctive to me compared to alternatives. Since the E-mount version can use a very thin and lightweight dumb adapter for Z-mount it doesn't really have the size/weight penalties of other adapted glass. At UWA every mm of difference is significant, so I only consider 20mm and 21mm lenses to be alternatives to this. I really like 21mm as more usefully wide than 24mm but also not super distorting to people mid-frame like say a 17mm. The relatively recent and diminutive Viltrox 20/2.8 is probably the only thing out there vaguely similar.
The Voigt 15/4.5 is another one that is special just based on its size and performance. There are of course other rangefinder 15mm lenses out there, but as a native Z-mount lens it is pretty special. Sometimes I really want an UWA and I do love the 14mm end of my 14-30/4Z. Having that in a tiny pocketable lens is special and useful to me.
But the 75/1.5? I keep looking at it and being tempted, but rationally I don't see what it would really change for me. I've got so many prime lens shelf queens already.
I tried the CV 75f/1.5 Z and really liked its rendering but it was much heavier and not well balanced on the Zf so I didn’t care to use it on day outings. The CV 15mm f/4.5 is nice and small, but it vignettes pretty badly which can be an issue for landscapes. I’m sticking with the very unique CV 40 f/1.2 Z as my only MF character lens which hasn’t left my Zf since I got it.
jrscls wrote:
I tried the CV 75f/1.5 Z and really liked its rendering but it was much heavier and not well balanced on the Zf so I didn’t care to use it on day outings.
Thanks for sharing your experience! I need fairly constant reminders to not get the 75/1.5...
The CV 15mm f/4.5 is nice and small, but it vignettes pretty badly which can be an issue for landscapes.
It is a strong vignette even at F/8. The LR profile corrects perfectly for me without any color issues thankfully. The 14-30/4S is about 1.7 stops of vignetting at F/8, so corrections are kind of par for the course whenever we enter UWA land and try to make things smaller than they otherwise would be. Surprisingly I'm not seeing much more than about 1.7 stops of vignetting on the 15/4.5 when shot at F/8 either. That's with the LR profile disabled, which leaves obvious vignetting and distortion, but I'm not 100% sure that there might not be some hidden vignetting correction from the camera. I didn't think the Voigtlanders passed profile information to the camera, but I've never double checked.
Anyway, it is a compromise I'm willing to make for the very tiny lens. But again, I'm more likely to walk around with the 21/3.5 in my bag than the 15/4.5.
