akul
Offline
Upload & Sell: On
|
 Re: Nikon Z 40 F2 vs 50 1.8? | |
RoamingScott wrote:
Interesting thread. I've looked a tons of samples of the 40/2 over the years. It's such a tough focal length at which to stand apart from the crowd.
- has none of the character of the CV 40/1.2 or Ultron 40/2
- lacks the critical sharpness of the Z 50/1.8
- in general, the images from it grab me less than those from the Sony 40/2.5
- it has, IMO, less interesting rendering than the 35 equivalent on the X100v
- has a mount construction inferior to the majority of competing lenses
- has no fluorine coating, which is an odd choice for a lens that is meant to be carried everywhere, especially with its weather sealed designation
- tends to have nervous bokeh
- isn't small enough to make any Z body pocketable
I can only imagine the reason it's looked upon so fondly is because it's cheap as dirt, and is therefore seen as "punching above its weight". I don't get it. All my opinion of course.
This lens is a bit of mystery to me. I have seen samples matches your criticism, but I also have seen images that just draws me in. Samples from Colint ( DeltaSigma) or gear-nut come to my mind. It could be purely their style of photographies that draws out characters, but not for others, While, I don’t see any room for this lens in my setup, and my style of shooting probably only exasperate its weakness, but I keep enjoying seeing shots that amazse me and go ‘hmm’ .
My 2 cents.
Luka
Edited for correct name and screen name. Sorry!
|
