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

Started 3 months ago | Discussions
p5freak Senior Member • Posts: 2,968
Re: Is anybody going to use the 40 mm f2 on the Z50/Zfc?

iljitsch wrote:

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, which only costs half the price. Its an excellent lens, razor sharp even wide open.

Really? So far my impression was that the Z lenses were pretty much in a new class, and even though the 35 f/1.8 DX is very good and works well on my Z fc, with the FTZ in the middle it gets a bit unwieldy so I could see myself getting the new 40 mm. Also nice that it's full frame so useful when I upgrade to a full frame Z camera at some point in the future.

But forget that if it's worse than the 35 DX. Or even just not any better.

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

-- hide signature --

Stupid is as stupid does - Forrest Gump

thisisbenji Regular Member • Posts: 343
Re: Is anybody going to use the 40 mm f2 on the Z50/Zfc?
1

p5freak wrote:

iljitsch wrote:

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, which only costs half the price. Its an excellent lens, razor sharp even wide open.

Really? So far my impression was that the Z lenses were pretty much in a new class, and even though the 35 f/1.8 DX is very good and works well on my Z fc, with the FTZ in the middle it gets a bit unwieldy so I could see myself getting the new 40 mm. Also nice that it's full frame so useful when I upgrade to a full frame Z camera at some point in the future.

But forget that if it's worse than the 35 DX. Or even just not any better.

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

My 35/1.8S is noticeably sharper than my 35/1.8DX and as you mentioned it’s about the same size as the DX lens and the FTZ. If this 40/2 is even 75% as sharp as the 35/1.8S it’ll be sharper than the old DX lens. It’s also going to be a whole ton more compact on the Z50 which as you mention above “I want compact and light.”  That’s certainly not a phrase I would use for anything attached to a FTZ.

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
OP Franz304 Regular Member • Posts: 252
Re: Is anybody going to use the 40 mm f2 on the Z50/Zfc?

Judging from the samples here https://www.cameralabs.com/nikon-z-28mm-f2-8-review/2/ the 40 mm is a step below any of the S lenses,  though it still seems to perform pretty good, especially in the DX region.
As for the 35 mm DX F mount, I do not agree with it being razor sharp wide open, not my copy at least. To get good sharpness I noticed that I need to step to f2.4/2.8. It's still an extremely good lens for the price, but I don't enjoy too much using it on my Z50 as the FTZ adapter is just to cumbersome for my taste.

jjz2 Veteran Member • Posts: 3,627
Re: Is anybody going to use the 40 mm f2 on the Z50/Zfc?

Franz304 wrote:

Judging from the samples here https://www.cameralabs.com/nikon-z-28mm-f2-8-review/2/ the 40 mm is a step below any of the S lenses, though it still seems to perform pretty good, especially in the DX region.
As for the 35 mm DX F mount, I do not agree with it being razor sharp wide open, not my copy at least. To get good sharpness I noticed that I need to step to f2.4/2.8. It's still an extremely good lens for the price, but I don't enjoy too much using it on my Z50 as the FTZ adapter is just to cumbersome for my taste.

I didn’t think the 35 1.8 dx was razor sharp wide open and the rendering left something to be desired, it’s been like 6 years since I’ve used that lens on a d5300 though. My Fuji 35 f2 and 35 1.4 were also better than that lens… and talk about rendering on the latter, a sweet look.

I had the 50 1.8g at same time and it was noticeably better as well, but compared to what’s out there now that’s not that great either.

the 50 1.8s? Yeah that’s razor sharp wide open, no comparison really. It’s a different class of glass. It’s similar sharpness wide open as the former 50 1.8g is at f4.

 jjz2's gear list:jjz2's gear list
Nikon Z6 Nikon Z5 Nikon Z 24-70mm F4 Nikon Z 50mm F1.8 Nikon Z 85mm F1.8 +2 more
thisisbenji Regular Member • Posts: 343
Re: Is anybody going to use the 40 mm f2 on the Z50/Zfc?
4

Just for fun I pulled the MTF charts for the DX35, 40, and Z35 and it looks like according to Nikon the new 40/2 is a noticeably better than the DX35, but perhaps not significantly. So here we lose a ton of size with somewhat similar image quality. The Z35/1.8S on the other hand… that graph looks stellar compared to the Z40/2.

Brueghel
Brueghel Senior Member • Posts: 1,249
Re: Is anybody going to use the 40 mm f2 on the Z50/Zfc?
1

Franz304 wrote:

As for the 35 mm DX F mount, I do not agree with it being razor sharp wide open, not my copy at least. To get good sharpness I noticed that I need to step to f2.4/2.8. It's still an extremely good lens for the price, but I don't enjoy too much using it on my Z50 as the FTZ adapter is just to cumbersome for my taste.

Have the same feeling. But I've read mixed opinions about it. Most people consider it very sharp, some (including you & me) consider it good.

But at it's price it is excellent !

Using it on the Z camera was OK for me for 2 years. But I have grown irritated by an slightly absurd temporary configuration turning into a permanent one

 Brueghel's gear list:Brueghel's gear list
Canon EOS 6D Nikon D7100 Nikon Z50 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 35mm F1.8G Nikon AF-S DX Micro-Nikkor 85mm f/3.5G ED VR +4 more
p5freak Senior Member • Posts: 2,968
Re: Is anybody going to use the 40 mm f2 on the Z50/Zfc?

thisisbenji wrote:

p5freak wrote:

iljitsch wrote:

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, which only costs half the price. Its an excellent lens, razor sharp even wide open.

Really? So far my impression was that the Z lenses were pretty much in a new class, and even though the 35 f/1.8 DX is very good and works well on my Z fc, with the FTZ in the middle it gets a bit unwieldy so I could see myself getting the new 40 mm. Also nice that it's full frame so useful when I upgrade to a full frame Z camera at some point in the future.

But forget that if it's worse than the 35 DX. Or even just not any better.

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

My 35/1.8S is noticeably sharper than my 35/1.8DX and as you mentioned it’s about the same size as the DX lens and the FTZ. If this 40/2 is even 75% as sharp as the 35/1.8S it’ll be sharper than the old DX lens. It’s also going to be a whole ton more compact on the Z50 which as you mention above “I want compact and light.” That’s certainly not a phrase I would use for anything attached to a FTZ.

I was not going to pay 5 times the price of the 35 DX for a 35mm 1.8 S. There is no size or weight difference to the DX with FTZ. It may be a bit sharper, but thats not worth 5 times the money to me. Also, i think using FF lenses on DX make no sense, when there is a DX alternative. FF lenses are huge and heavy. I will post samples from my 35 DX later.

-- hide signature --

Stupid is as stupid does - Forrest Gump

p5freak Senior Member • Posts: 2,968
Re: Is anybody going to use the 40 mm f2 on the Z50/Zfc?

jjz2 wrote:

Franz304 wrote:

Judging from the samples here https://www.cameralabs.com/nikon-z-28mm-f2-8-review/2/ the 40 mm is a step below any of the S lenses, though it still seems to perform pretty good, especially in the DX region.
As for the 35 mm DX F mount, I do not agree with it being razor sharp wide open, not my copy at least. To get good sharpness I noticed that I need to step to f2.4/2.8. It's still an extremely good lens for the price, but I don't enjoy too much using it on my Z50 as the FTZ adapter is just to cumbersome for my taste.

I didn’t think the 35 1.8 dx was razor sharp wide open and the rendering left something to be desired, it’s been like 6 years since I’ve used that lens on a d5300 though. My Fuji 35 f2 and 35 1.4 were also better than that lens… and talk about rendering on the latter, a sweet look.

Here is a sample shot from my 35 DX wide open, unprocessed, right from the camera.

-- hide signature --

Stupid is as stupid does - Forrest Gump

Sacred
Sacred Regular Member • Posts: 487
Re: Is anybody going to use the 40 mm f2 on the Z50/Zfc?
2

p5freak wrote:

Franz304 wrote:

Hi,

this is just out of personal curiosity, but I have been wondering whether some of you out there are going to buy the 40 mm specifically for use on DX.
For me 40 mm is a weird focal length on DX (it's 60 mm FF equivalent) and it feels too narrow for most of the photography I do. It's also kinda wide for portraits, so to me this is kind of a no man's land.
What are your thoughts? Do you shoot this FL often on DX?

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, which only costs half the price. Its an excellent lens, razor sharp even wide open.

Oh, but it will, especially when it comes to chromatic abberation wide open. Don't listen to me, just wait and see.

 Sacred's gear list:Sacred's gear list
Nikon Z6 Nikon Z 24-70mm F4 Nikon Z 50mm F1.8 Nikon Z 20mm F1.8
dvmagni New Member • Posts: 7
Re: Is anybody going to use the 40 mm f2 on the Z50/Zfc?

The 58 1.4 is a particular lens, loved for the 3D look, boken and overall image rendition. I own a copy (and love it), but it’s completely different lens that the new high contrast high definition modern lens. It’s not a lens for the absolute sharpness.

iljitsch Senior Member • Posts: 1,094
Re: Is anybody going to use the 40 mm f2 on the Z50/Zfc?
1

p5freak wrote:

Also, i think using FF lenses on DX make no sense, when there is a DX alternative. FF lenses are huge and heavy.

It's not a law of nature that full frame lenses are much bigger and heavier than DX lenses. A big frustration for me when I got my D90 was that the camera and the lenses were so much bigger than the film stuff I used in the 1980s and 1990s.

And even our beloved 35 mm f/1.8 DX is slightly bigger and heavier than the 50 mm f/1.8 AF-D.

And in the case of the lens at hand, the Z 40 mm f/2, full frame = big doesn't apply. This lens is light and small compared to pretty much anything except the DX kit lenses. So then why not get a full frame lens? Worst case it's slightly better on DX because the corners, which are always the weakest part of any lens, are cropped off. Best case, you get to use it with a full frame camera (or sell it to someone with a full frame camera) at some point in the future.

For some types of lenses it seems pretty straightforward to make a good and non-huge full frame version, even with a decent aperture, so why make a separate DX version? I think that's mainly the case for focus lengths that are a bit larger than the flange distance (so used to be 50 mm, but now perhaps starting at 20 mm) upto modest tele, such as 105 mm.

Also: economics of scale. The number of people buying Z lenses isn't nearly the number of people buying F lenses at its peak. So I'm not holding my breath for a 105 mm f/2.8 DX. If you want that lens, you're going to have to get the FX version. The same is probably true for the < 28 mm fast primes: sales are almost certainly too small for DX versions, even though for wide it would probably make technical sense to have separate smaller DX versions.

We now have nice 16-50 and 50-250 DX lenses and FX-but-DX-appropriate 28 and 40 mm primes. Add something with a bit more zoom range, such as 16-140 DX and the main thing we really need is a Z DX ultrawide, such as a Z version of the AF-P 10-20mm f/4.5-5.6G D VR. I'm pretty sure Nikon will point at the Z FX lenses for Z DX shooters who want anything other than that, and it's always an option to use the FTZ with an F lens, or pretty much any lens ever with a cheap passive adapter for the kinds of photography that can do without AF and aperture control.

And we're starting to see third party options with AF support. Tamron for instance already has a bunch of lenses for other mirrorless APS-C cameras such as Sony E mount. Nikon isn't making it easy for them to make Z mount versions of their lenses, but once they do, they'll adapt their existing lenses for the Z mount and we have many more options.

 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
OP Franz304 Regular Member • Posts: 252
Re: Is anybody going to use the 40 mm f2 on the Z50/Zfc?

p5freak wrote:

thisisbenji wrote:

p5freak wrote:

iljitsch wrote:

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, which only costs half the price. Its an excellent lens, razor sharp even wide open.

Really? So far my impression was that the Z lenses were pretty much in a new class, and even though the 35 f/1.8 DX is very good and works well on my Z fc, with the FTZ in the middle it gets a bit unwieldy so I could see myself getting the new 40 mm. Also nice that it's full frame so useful when I upgrade to a full frame Z camera at some point in the future.

But forget that if it's worse than the 35 DX. Or even just not any better.

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

My 35/1.8S is noticeably sharper than my 35/1.8DX and as you mentioned it’s about the same size as the DX lens and the FTZ. If this 40/2 is even 75% as sharp as the 35/1.8S it’ll be sharper than the old DX lens. It’s also going to be a whole ton more compact on the Z50 which as you mention above “I want compact and light.” That’s certainly not a phrase I would use for anything attached to a FTZ.

I was not going to pay 5 times the price of the 35 DX for a 35mm 1.8 S. There is no size or weight difference to the DX with FTZ. It may be a bit sharper, but thats not worth 5 times the money to me. Also, i think using FF lenses on DX make no sense, when there is a DX alternative. FF lenses are huge and heavy. I will post samples from my 35 DX later.

Oh, I agree with you, I don't want to get the 35 mm Z FX for a APS-C camera. It's big and expensive. But still, I have seen what this S lens can do and the 35 mm DX F mount is not even close in terms of sharpness. That is not to say that the DX lens is bad (it is not, it's still sharp and overall good optically for the price), but the Z lens really took the optics to a new level.
That said, we don't really have much choice in terms of Z DX AF lenses right now. I am hoping that Sigma and Tamron come to the mount, as that would solve almost all lenses problem we currently have, bar a cheap UWA zoom (Tamron has a 11-20 mm f2.8, but that's a rather expensive lens). If Sigma brought their 30 mm f1.4 to Z mount I would buy it right away, as it's exactly the focal length I want.

p5freak Senior Member • Posts: 2,968
Re: Is anybody going to use the 40 mm f2 on the Z50/Zfc?

iljitsch wrote:

p5freak wrote:

Also, i think using FF lenses on DX make no sense, when there is a DX alternative. FF lenses are huge and heavy.

It's not a law of nature that full frame lenses are much bigger and heavier than DX lenses.

In 9/10 cases (below 50mm) it is true.

A big frustration for me when I got my D90 was that the camera and the lenses were so much bigger than the film stuff I used in the 1980s and 1990s.

And even our beloved 35 mm f/1.8 DX is slightly bigger and heavier than the 50 mm f/1.8 AF-D.

Thats because of megapixel madness. Lenses need to resolve better and better, because of the megapixel increase. This increases the number of glass elements, and the focus accuracy needs to be better as well. All of this increases weight and size.

And in the case of the lens at hand, the Z 40 mm f/2, full frame = big doesn't apply. This lens is light and small compared to pretty much anything except the DX kit lenses. So then why not get a full frame lens? Worst case it's slightly better on DX because the corners, which are always the weakest part of any lens, are cropped off. Best case, you get to use it with a full frame camera (or sell it to someone with a full frame camera) at some point in the future.

Im pretty sure that a DX 40mm f2 would be smaller, but probably not much.

For some types of lenses it seems pretty straightforward to make a good and non-huge full frame version, even with a decent aperture, so why make a separate DX version? I think that's mainly the case for focus lengths that are a bit larger than the flange distance (so used to be 50 mm, but now perhaps starting at 20 mm) upto modest tele, such as 105 mm.

Because DX allows for some lens constructions which arent possible for FF.

Also: economics of scale. The number of people buying Z lenses isn't nearly the number of people buying F lenses at its peak. So I'm not holding my breath for a 105 mm f/2.8 DX. If you want that lens, you're going to have to get the FX version. The same is probably true for the < 28 mm fast primes: sales are almost certainly too small for DX versions, even though for wide it would probably make technical sense to have separate smaller DX versions.

I dont know the ratio of DX to FF cameras. Could be 25:1 or 50:1. Which means there are much, much more DX lens customers, DX lenses are normally smaller, lighter, and less expensive than their FF brethren.

Add something with a bit more zoom range, such as 16-140 DX and the main thing we really need is a Z DX ultrawide, such as a Z version of the AF-P 10-20mm f/4.5-5.6G D VR. I'm pretty sure Nikon will point at the Z FX lenses for Z DX shooters who want anything other than that, and it's always an option to use the FTZ with an F lens, or pretty much any lens ever with a cheap passive adapter for the kinds of photography that can do without AF and aperture control.

I know. There isnt much needed for a complete DX lens lineup, yet Nikon deciced to not build these few lenses. It wouldnt be a big investment.

And we're starting to see third party options with AF support. Tamron for instance already has a bunch of lenses for other mirrorless APS-C cameras such as Sony E mount. Nikon isn't making it easy for them to make Z mount versions of their lenses, but once they do, they'll adapt their existing lenses for the Z mount and we have many more options.

And thats a big mistake from Nikon. Nikon cant stop third party manufacturers from building lenses for Z mount, all they can do is delay it. Why not working with third party manufacturers from the beginning ? Sony did the right thing, they opened their E-Mount protocols, and they are no.1 in the mirrorless market. Part of that is lens choice.

-- hide signature --

Stupid is as stupid does - Forrest Gump

iljitsch Senior Member • Posts: 1,094
Re: Is anybody going to use the 40 mm f2 on the Z50/Zfc?

I think Nikon is playing the long game with Z. It makes some sense to not want to open the third party lens flood gates while they don't have their own set of lenses in reasonable order.

However, slow going with Z while they're not doing all that much with F anymore may create some problems.

Not sure what the gating factor is for new lens releases: design or manufacture? Currently manufacturing is very likely a significant bottleneck, so if design isn't, we could see a flurry of new lenses when the chip shortages get better, hopefully next year.

And like I said, they really only need something like a 10-20 mm DX and a 16-~140 mm DX and perhaps a few more FX with DX appeal such as the 28 f/2.8 and 40 f/2.

I'm 99.99% sure that DX : FX on Z is nowhere near 25 : 1. The reason there are so many DX DSLRs is because the 3x00 and 5x00 are cheap. The Z50 and Z fc are a good deal more expensive and haven't been around very long. Also, probably mostly people who are more serious about photography who've moved to Z so far, so more likely FX users. That, and the camera market contraction, probably mean the Z DX lineup will never be very extensive.

 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
p5freak Senior Member • Posts: 2,968
Re: Is anybody going to use the 40 mm f2 on the Z50/Zfc?
1

iljitsch wrote:

I'm 99.99% sure that DX : FX on Z is nowhere near 25 : 1. The reason there are so many DX DSLRs is because the 3x00 and 5x00 are cheap. The Z50 and Z fc are a good deal more expensive and haven't been around very long. Also, probably mostly people who are more serious about photography who've moved to Z so far, so more likely FX users. That, and the camera market contraction, probably mean the Z DX lineup will never be very extensive.

Yes, probably.

-- hide signature --

Stupid is as stupid does - Forrest Gump

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads