1) the issue is on the 75/2 AF Z mount lenses only
2) they had to redesign the rear assembly on the lens and new copies off the production line are now fixed
wastedimages wrote:
I am unaware of the fix for the 75/1.5 - is is a simple FW issue or does it mean a redesign and V2 lens release?
This new 40 is intriguing for the Zf. Metal build, aperture ring, small/light. Nice. But, since I already own the Nikkor f2 SE and Voigtlander 40/1.2, I don't need another 40. I do love 40mm, though.
Aside from the issue RoamingScott has documented (which maybe TTA can fix) I find the MFD relatively disappointing. On the 75 I don't mind as much, but I would like closer MFD on a 40. The TTA MFD is about 16 inches, whereas the Nikkor & Voigtlander I own are around 12 inches.
Some weather sealing would also be nice to have. But, for now it seems no single 40 has all the things.
Of course, I do understand TTA is going for budget value lenses, and doing a nice job of it. The metal build and aperture ring alone are really nice at that price point. But, perhaps a somewhat more upscale line of primes from them could be interesting.
I also continue to be surprised that Nikon hasn't made a set of small primes for the Zf with aperture ring and matching build quality. I'm sure Nikon knows their business better than me, but I've seen a lot of people expressing a similar interest, and now we have Chinese 3rd parties trying to fill that niche since Nikon hasn't.
Tapper wrote:
I find the MFD relatively disappointing. On the 75 I don't mind as much, but I would like closer MFD on a 40. The TTA MFD is about 16 inches, whereas the Nikkor & Voigtlander I own are around 12 inches.
I'm spoiled by the 40 Ultron's 9 inch MFD, so the TTA feels like I'm a body length further away
This is less appealing as an option since the Nikon 40/2 is a relatively good lens and is also quite affordable, so while this lens is a bit cheaper, the value proposition isn’t as compelling IMO.
I've been hesitant to do much A/B testing because I simply don't know if my copy is a dud. Having seen the samples out there in the wild in the various reviews, I think the samples from my Z9 are pretty indicative of the IQ you can expect, though there are still SERIOUS issues using it on the ZF and even the Z9 from time to time. I still strongly recommend NOT BUYING this lens yet.
Anyways, here is an A/B/C test against the Z 40 and CV 40 (my personal favorite 40mm lens ever) in a nice setup for center sharpness, corner sharpness (top left especially) and bokeh character. The CV is mostly included for my own use, while this test is meant to really compared the TTA and Z. No surprise, the Z corners are pretty nice from the get go and run laps around the TTA by F8. That said, if you like some character, the TTA has more.
The TTA has a noticeably wider FOV, but oddly, seems to have more blur at the same apertures.
In general I prefer the overall rendering of the TTA at f2...less blooming, seemingly less CA in various situations, and equal if not slightly better center sharpness with some character at the edges. For anything that requires a sharper edge to edge shot, the Nikon will always take the lead. In many ways, the TTA acts like the Ultron but with AF in terms of rendering.
These are full resolution, open them in tabs if you want to flick back and forth to compare various elements.
There is also some strange behavior that seems to primarily occur at F8 and above (though I HAVE seen it below) where the aperture blades will be fully open during the exposure. It's as if they are opening for AF reasons but not shutting back down to F8 in time. The EXIF on these shots is identical, reporting all the same settings across the board, indicating it metered correctly and then opened the blades back up.
By default Z cameras do stopped down AF and live view to F/5.6 and so you don’t expect aperture to need to change from live view to exposure until smaller than F/5.6. That’s probably why you aren’t typically seeing the issue until F/8.
However, some cameras (Z8/Z9 and maybe some others) have the Recall Shooting Functions customization setting which overrides stopped down AF. But in that case I think the exposure would be made at the same aperture as live view anyway?
So interesting that it freaks out below F/5.6 sometimes. Maybe something funky about the fact that the lens is probably using the F mount pass through commands instead of native Z commands?
Those A:B:C comparisons are very helpful! I'm assuming the CV is the 1.2? It's been a while since I've used CV glass, but I also *really* like the look from it in those samples, much better than the Nikon and TTA.
It’s the F mount 40/2 Ultron. I really dislike the 1.2 Nokton.
ISO1600 wrote:
Those A:B:C comparisons are very helpful! I'm assuming the CV is the 1.2? It's been a while since I've used CV glass, but I also *really* like the look from it in those samples, much better than the Nikon and TTA.
I'm about to pull the trigger on a ZF, found one with the 40/2SE local to me for a decent price. I'll probably get the kit to start out, then feel out other Z lens options from there. Already have a 7A 35/1.4 (first version) on the way also, I loved that lens on L-mount. I appreciate all the posts you've made about the Z camera and lens options on here!
One interesting thing I happened to notice on the TTA 40 today (still not rigorously testing it, but am trying a few different things as I wait for the replacement): in manual focus, there is both a distance scale and the classic > O < MF aid, the latter which remains even when punched in which is quite helpful since you lose classic red/green focus confirmation while magnified. I went and tested the 75/2 after and it has this as well.
I have mentioned before that the Z native Voigtlanders lack both of these. I'm starting to wonder if they are tied into the autofocus side of the Z communication protocols, because these manual focus tools only seem to work with 1) chipped and 2) autofocus capable lenses.
All that said, the distance scale doesn't work on some Nikon F lenses on the FTZ, which is perplexing. Just glad that TTA seems to fully support this.
TTA randomly wants to send me another copy when they can't reproduce a single issue and the Sony issues seem to be improved with a firmware update. I have zero clue what is going on with this lens across mounts
In my preliminary round of testing on the Zf, in which I set up conditions to ensure Lens 1 failed reliably, I cannot get Lens 2 to fail at all.
All mechanical vignetting is gone. Almost zero focus pulsing in any situation, including AF-C which barely worked on Lens 1. Very little visible distortion manifesting in the same way as Lens 1 during focusing near to far, or vice versa. Early days, and this lens will be all I shoot for about a month as I build my review, so I'll keep you updated.
It feels like it's a real lottery as to what kind of lens you get.
Into the real world with the replacement and it's been performing just as you'd like, which is good news. AF has been just as confident as the 75 AF it joins, which was my hope.
So I guess if there's a problem with the lens, the best thing to do is return it and try another copy? I was thinking there might be a firmware fix if there was an issue.
Put the TTA 40/2 on my Zf and took some back yard pic and compared it to my Nikon 40/2 with a test chart. With the test charts, the TTA is as good as the Nikon if not better. It's a keeper as far as picture quality goes.
The feel and looks on the camera is top notch. And it feels like coming back home to have the aperture ring on the lens. The TTA is the lens Nikon should have made.
Everything's not all perfect however. Two oddities appeared.
First, when manually focusing, the distance in the viewfinder is wrong. The minimum focusing distance is 7.55 feet.
The second thing happens when using AF-C and the single point focus square is away from the center of the screen. When I half press the shutter, the screen will pulse while focusing, stop when it achieves focus and the box will turn green for about a second and then turn red. It's stays solid red for a second then begins to flash. The focus is now locked at that distance till I take my finger off the shutter. If I point the camera at a difference distance, focus will not change till I lift my finger off the shutter.
This does not happen in AF-S. It makes no difference if IBIS is on or off. And the camera does not do this with the Nikon 40/2.
A few A/B shots of my good copy against the Z 40/2.
All tests here wide open. As noted earlier in the thread, the TTA is basically a 38mm/f1.85 with a noticeably wider FOV than the Z. These are all SOOC of the Z9. I feel the key takeaway is the Z is simply more predictable across the frame, while the TTA's combo of wider FOV, bloom, and ultimately cleaner bokeh balls/less fringing pushes it ahead for me in terms of rendering that I enjoy.
Wide open, both lenses will exhibit a slight bloom effect which we've talked about before. This is most noticeable around the rear petals on the subject flower, and around the stem.
TTA:
Nikon:
Here we have somewhat of a torture test...metallic objects in the background, 90 degrees to the sun. While the TTA has bloom, the Z exhibits more green fringing in the bokeh than the TTA, and IMO, the TTA tends to have a more pleasing bokeh shape towards the center, while the Z is more pleasing towards the edges.
TTA:
Nikon:
This test was mostly to see bokeh shapes near edge of frame (bottom right half of photo). Again, the TTA has less fringing, and better controlled bokeh throughout the background (and renders slightly more bokeh overall) at the cost of pure sharpness in the center. Leaf details are visible on the Z shot that simply aren't there on the TTA.
TTA:
Nikon:
This is my bokeh nervousness test, and I see things I like better in each example both lenses actually struggle with rendering pleasing bokeh at this distance, and the TTA displays significantly darker vignette, though not objectively bad.
comparisons are very helpful! I'm assuming the CV is the 1.2? It's been a while since I've used CV glass, but I also *really* like the look from it in those samples, much better than the Nikon and TTA.
