Is anybody going to use the 40 mm f2 on the Z50/Zfc?

Started 3 months ago | Discussions thread
iljitsch Senior Member • Posts: 1,094
Re: Is anybody going to use the 40 mm f2 on the Z50/Zfc?

p5freak wrote:

I am going to try the 40/2 on the Z50. But i am pretty sure it wont beat the 12 year old 35mm f1.8 DX

Really?

Yes, really. The 35 DX is razor sharp wide open, and it costs only half the price of the new 40/2. I dont find it unwieldy, it would be similar with the 35mm Z f1.8, which is about as long, and as heavy as the DX with FTZ.

Ok, that's a good excuse for me to do a few test shots with the 35 DX, comparing it to my only Z lens, the 16-50 DX.

I couldn't shoot wide open because the Z fc shutter tops out at 1/4000. 

No such problems for the 16-50, which is already at f/5.3 wide open at 35 mm. The 35 at f/4 is a bit sharper in the center than the 16-50 at f/5.3. But when you go to the edge of the frame, the difference is enormous. If anything, the 35 is even sharper there than at the center, while the 16-50 is a good deal worse.

So the 35 definitely holds its own against a decade newer (basic) Z lens. But... the cheap 16-50 isn't half bad, either, and I would expect a prime to be a good deal better. So I'm still operating under the assumption that the 40 mm f/2 will be as good or better than the 35 mm f/1.8 DX. Probably need more megapixels to see the difference.

And you're right, the 35 DX on the FTZ isn't terrible. Still, almost-pancake lenses appeal to me, as they're so much easier to transport.

I will never upgrade to FF, to much weight. I already went down that road, and didnt like it. I want compact and light.

I'm with you on that last point. Still, when I got a D90 I was absolutely sure that DX was the right choice, but with the camera sales declining and technical progress (big sensors aren't as expensive as they used to be), I'm operating under the assumption that there's a good chance that by the second half of the decade, when I might start looking for my next camera, DX could be dead or too unattractive.

So my plan is, when buying new lenses, to seriously consider FX. Then again, FX ultrawides on DX are no longer ultrawide, and with tele I'm cropping often anyway so something like the 50-250 DX might make sense even on an FX body.

If I didn't have the 35 DX I definitely would prefer the 40 mm Z FX, as it's smaller on a Z body and full frame. But I already have the 35 DX which is excellent in its own right and as long as I'm carrying the FTZ anyway for an F mount tele or superwide, the 35 DX has no trouble earning a place in my travel bag.

 iljitsch's gear list:iljitsch's gear list
Nikon D7100 Nikon Z fc Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 35mm F1.8G Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D +7 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow