While there are the differences you highlighted, they're pretty subtle and I doubt many would even notice without the A/B comparisons. I'll stick with the Nikkor personally, but if the TTA had been available when I bought it it might be a different story.
mivadep wrote:
While there are the differences you highlighted, they're pretty subtle and I doubt many would even notice without the A/B comparisons. I'll stick with the Nikkor personally, but if the TTA had been available when I bought it it might be a different story.
For sure. I've never liked the look, feel, handling, or anything not-IQ related about the Z 40/2, so the TTA having very similar rendering characteristics while also having an aperture ring and feeling better in hand is huge.
The big downside for the TTA is no stated weather resistance. Which lens to get really comes down to how important the aperture ring and weather sealing are to someone. I don't see the MFD difference, though it exists, as a key differentiator for regular use.
LeonD60 wrote:
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....Show more →
After finally finding a Windows 10 PC, I was able to install the new firmware. It took all of a few seconds.
Happy to report, both my issues above have been fixed. Good job TTArtisan.
Has anyone heard about a new version of this lens? The current version for sale I see on B&H is model AF4020-Z-B, there another one that's a new item that's not shipping as of yet, model AF4020-Z-S. Does anyone have any information on the differences of these two lenses?
Anaitis wrote:
Has anyone heard about a new version of this lens? The current version for sale I see on B&H is model AF4020-Z-B, there another one that's a new item that's not shipping as of yet, model AF4020-Z-S. Does anyone have any information on the differences of these two lenses?
Question - I don’t particularly enjoy anything about the Nikon Z 40mm - the image quality, handling, cheapness, etc. although for me, it does occasionally produce nice images.
From an image quality perspective, do people feel that the TTartisan is better? Is it worth me trying this lens even though I don’t particularly like the Nikon one?
What I really want is a relatively high-quality, compact 35/2 to put on my ZF. I’m thinking about adapting the Sigma, but that’s even bigger than I’d like even though the image quality is seemingly what I am looking for. I’m effectively trying to reproduce the RX1 35mm lens in an interchangeable version that I can put on different cameras and the f/2 aperture is specifically important to me.
weezintrumpete wrote:
Question - I don’t particularly enjoy anything about the Nikon Z 40mm - the image quality, handling, cheapness, etc. although for me, it does occasionally produce nice images.
From an image quality perspective, do people feel that the TTartisan is better? Is it worth me trying this lens even though I don’t particularly like the Nikon one?
I was tempted by the TTartisans until I got to the quality control part of your write up, more specifically smacking the lens like my grand parents 1960's TV when it acts up caused me to shy away, but hey points for the making a lens you can "self service".
For the record, I have only seen that referenced on the 75/2 but in the interest of full transparency I thought it was important to bring up.
Seabassius wrote:
I was tempted by the TTartisans until I got to the quality control part of your write up, more specifically smacking the lens like my grand parents 1960's TV when it acts up caused me to shy away, but hey points for the making a lens you can "self service".
Good point, I just did! I guess for the price this lens is worth trying for me, but I edited my post above to say what I’m really looking for which I don’t think exists.
What I really want is a relatively high-quality, compact 35/2 to put on my ZF. I’m thinking about adapting the Sigma 35 contemporary, but that’s even bigger than I’d like even though the image quality is seemingly what I am looking for. I’m effectively trying to reproduce the RX1 35mm lens in an interchangeable version that I can put on different cameras and the f/2 aperture is specifically important to me. I already have the Zony 35/2.8 that is really nice and small, but doesn’t quite give me the bokeh I’m looking for.
I just impulse bought this lens a few days ago (for $168 why not?) and so far I’m really enjoying it. The size is absolutely correct, and it’s great that it has a nice feeling aperture ring. This is what the Nikon Z 40mm should’ve been in my opinion.
I’m only now starting to review the photos and I think they are very good for a lens of this price.
Why are you embarrassed of your beautiful Zf logo?!
weezintrumpete wrote:
I just impulse bought this lens a few days ago (for $168 why not?) and so far I’m really enjoying it. The size is absolutely correct, and it’s great that it has a nice feeling aperture ring. This is what the Nikon Z 40mm should’ve been in my opinion.
I’m only now starting to review the photos and I think they are very good for a lens of this price.
I need something in the 40mm to 55mm range with good autofocus performance. I am ready to buy a Nikon NIKKOR Z 40mm f/2 lens. Should I pause that purchase and consider third-party brands for any reason?
