ISO1600 wrote:
i agree with you that for size and performance, teh 35cron is prob your best bet/comparison.
I am not after 100% sharpness and pixel-peeping glee. I want a lens that allows me to take awesome shots.
50/1.4 AIS totally rocks the house, can be had for less than $100, and is about the same size as the 40/2 SLII.
The 50/1.4 AI-S is about twice the size of the 40/2 SLII (50.5mm long vs 24.5mm long) and is significantly inferior at wide apertures. The 40/2 is visibly sharper at f2 than the 50/1.4 is at f2.8, and that's at 8x10 print sizes, not 100% crops. Sure the 50/1.4 is cheap. But that's because it's not all that much to write home about (Decent performer, nothing special). You can get a 50/2 for even less money and have a better performer. I've owned a couple Nikkor 50/1.4's, and they always got left in the bag because they never delivered the goods as well as other options. I always reached for the 50/1.8 instead, and now I reach for the CV 40 or 58.
well, those are good arguments in the 40's defense, but i forgot all about my 50/2 AI. I love this lens. It cost me $40, has been chewed on by my dog, and is totally awesome.
I don't care about the small size difference between the 40/2 and most smaller 50's. For the money, it's negligible at best. This is the big issue i have w/ the 40/2- it is far from a "value" buy, as a lens that will actually be USED to shoot with. I do not print 8x10's, and i don't pixel peep. I shoot, do minor editing if any at all, and upload to flickr. I share pics w/ my friends. If i was going to be shooting a wedding or some other job, a pancake is not something i would reach for anyways.
If i had puddles of money laying around, sure i would buy every pancake ever made, and stare at their cute little front elements.... but at the moment, i'm limited to lenses i need, not lenses i want to coddle and brag about.
ISO1600 wrote:
well, those are good arguments in the 40's defense, but i forgot all about my 50/2 AI. I love this lens. It cost me $40, has been chewed on by my dog, and is totally awesome.
I don't care about the small size difference between the 40/2 and most smaller 50's. For the money, it's negligible at best. This is the big issue i have w/ the 40/2- it is far from a "value" buy, as a lens that will actually be USED to shoot with. I do not print 8x10's, and i don't pixel peep. I shoot, do minor editing if any at all, and upload to flickr. I share pics w/ my friends. If i was going to be shooting a wedding or some other job, a pancake is not something i would reach for anyways.
If i had puddles of money laying around, sure i would buy every pancake ever made, and stare at their cute little front elements.... but at the moment, i'm limited to lenses i need, not lenses i want to coddle and brag about....Show more →
I'm a student, I can't afford to have every lens. The 40/2's a very good value proposition for me because I shoot a lot wide open and it delivers stunning results there for relatively low cost. Something the Nikkor 50/1.4 never did. The fact that it's a pancake is incidental to me at this point (Even if it was one of the reasons I bought it, as an everyday carry lens for my D40, the combo is near-pocketable)
I dunno why you have a hate-on for pancakes. They're not necessarily more expensive for the performance. You simply won't get a lens as good as the Ultron 40/2 in a similar focal length for similar money new in Nikon mount, and there's very few that will match it for similar cost used (the 35/1.4 AI-S comes to mind, little else). I'd agree that the Nikkor 45/2.8 is pretty ridiculously costly for its performance, as is the Olympus 40/2, but the Ultron rivals lenses which cost 2-3x as much (the Zeiss 35/2) courtesy of the aspherical design. Remember the 40/2 is marginally more than a 35/2D or 50/1.4D new and seriously outperforms either. Oh, and with the close-up filter you get 1:4 magnification with excellent quality. If I had to own just one lens, the Ultron would quite probably be my choice.
And 40mm is a superb 'just shoot with' focal length, on FX or DX.
