I have the AF-S 50mm f/1.8G... is the Z 40mm f/2 worth getting?

[MJ_Photo38]

Hi,

I recently (last December) switched to a Nikon Z6, and I have now what I would consider to be a "full kit" ( I have a 12-24 DX (which works as a 18-24 in FX), 28mm f/2.8 Z, 35mm f/2 AI, 50mm f/1.8G, 85mm f/1.8G and a Sigma 100-400 contemporary, all on the FTZ II exception made of the 28mm)

My two most used lenses are the 28mm and the 50mm, but sometimes for travel / street photography I find the 50mm + FTZ to be a little bulky, especially if I carry it around with the lens hood on.

Since the Z 40mm f/2 is the exact same size as the Z 28mm, I was wondering if that was a decent alternative to the 50mm? I would still use that lens of course, but I guess having a smaller kit would be nice (especially since I could share lens hoods and filters with the 28).

My only problem with this is I never used a 40mm, and I'm not the biggest fan of 35mm (reason why I still have an old F mount manual lens and no real desire to upgrade to an autofocused one). I guess the size / weight advantage of the 40mm alone would be enough to get it, and I'm sure in time I would be able to deal with whatever grudge I'd have with the angle of view (I formerly used a LOT my 23mm on Fujifilm, not because I liked the angle of view but because the lens was compact and weather sealed and that alone.

So far using the 50mm hasn't been to much of a hassle, but I really feel like I'd prefer to have two lenses with basically the same size.

What would you guys do?

Decision is difficult cause it's not something I have a clear idea on. It's mostly in the "would be nice" territory but at the same time wouldn't affect my photography all that much besides having a smaller, more practical setup when I want a smaller camera.

 

[wjan]

I have both lenses. In terms of image quality, they are quite close, with the AF-S 50/1.8 having a slightly more neutral bokeh. But this is just my subjective experience, as I have never compared the two lenses side by side. I certainly prefer the 40/2, but not just because of its smaller overall package. I find the 40mm angle of view more suited to my style of photography. But that should be irrelevant to you

Should I take some test shots with both lenses? What kind of subjects are you interested in?

 

[MJ_Photo38]

Should I take some test shots with both lenses? What kind of subjects are you interested in?

That'd be really kind of you !

I know that the IQ is pretty good on the 40 f/2, I'm mostly interested in the angle of view that it provides compared to 50mm (if you have a 35mm lens around for comparison that would also be awesome).

We can easily get the angle of view in degrees with a calculator, but this almost never translates to anything in my mind.

If you can find a composition where it's easy to notice the change in angle of view, set a camera on a tripod and simply change the lens to see the difference, that would be awesome !

 

[abc123brian]

I have the Z28mm 2.8 SE and the Z40mm 2 along with the Z 50mm 1.8S. 35mm is not my favorite focal length either and I don’t own a prime of that focal length for Nikon. To me it feels not wide enough or too wide depending on the situation. I do have the 23mm Fujifilm, actually about to trade it and remaining Fujifilm gear in, but it was my least used focal length. I actually do like 40mm though. It is just enough wider than 50mm and tighter than 35mm. Obviously this is personal preference though. Compared to the F mount 50mm, AF is quicker and silent. I would recommend the 40mm over the f mount 50mm. The Z 50mm is closer to the size and weight of the ftz + 50mm Fmount but is an amazing lens.

 

[MJ_Photo38]

Compared to the F mount 50mm, AF is quicker and silent. I would recommend the 40mm over the f mount 50mm.

I've shot more events than I can count on 50mm, and it is by far my most used focal length on any system (my main lens on Fuji was the 35mm f/2)

The Z 50mm is closer to the size and weight of the ftz + 50mm Fmount but is an amazing lens.

Yes, although the goal of going Nikon Z was to ba able to share all my lenses with my D700 (which happens to be my favourite camera of all time, for now at least). The 28 and 40mm are on my list because I can get them for cheap (I got the 28mm for 170€ and I can get the 40mm for about 200), expensive Z glass is not on my list of considerations. For now none of the 1.8S primes are on my list.

If I was ever buying another Z lens, it would probably be the 24-70 f/4 S for travel (or I'd cheap out and get the 24-50 f/4-6.3. Who knows).

Thanks for the insight on the 40mm angle of view though !

 

[yardcoyote]

I find 40mm very different from both 35 and 50. Preference in primes is a very personal thing, and I freely admit to being a bit biased since 40 is one of my two very favorite focal lengths, but it's a great field of view for street and general shooting. Gives you a bit more intimacy than 35, that little half a step forward that turns the attention slightly toward a subject rather than a scene, while giving you more breathing room than a 50.

The 40mm f/2 isn't quite a pancake, but it's still a small, light lens with very little forward weight. I got mine as the kit lens with my Zf and I'm very happy with it.

--
Instagram: @yardcoyote

 

[abc123brian]

Compared to the F mount 50mm, AF is quicker and silent. I would recommend the 40mm over the f mount 50mm.

I've shot more events than I can count on 50mm, and it is by far my most used focal length on any system (my main lens on Fuji was the 35mm f/2)

I can understand that, it is one of my favorites too. I meant the lens itself I like better than the old 50mm 1.8. Hopefully Nikon will release a 50mm version to add to the series for Z.

The Z 50mm is closer to the size and weight of the ftz + 50mm Fmount but is an amazing lens.

Yes, although the goal of going Nikon Z was to ba able to share all my lenses with my D700 (which happens to be my favourite camera of all time, for now at least). The 28 and 40mm are on my list because I can get them for cheap (I got the 28mm for 170€ and I can get the 40mm for about 200), expensive Z glass is not on my list of considerations. For now none of the 1.8S primes are on my list.

If I was ever buying another Z lens, it would probably be the 24-70 f/4 S for travel (or I'd cheap out and get the 24-50 f/4-6.3. Who knows).

Thanks for the insight on the 40mm angle of view though !

That makes sense why you would keep the f mount lenses. I think adding the 40mm is a good option. I have the 24-70mm F/4 and it is a great lens. It really doesn’t feel much bigger than the 50 + FTZ when collapsed. The 24-50 is cheaper, slower apertures, and not as good of quality but is so small. I think the 24-70 is the better option though.



hope to hear what you think of the 40mm if you add it.

 

[sirhawkeye64]

Hi,

I recently (last December) switched to a Nikon Z6, and I have now what I would consider to be a "full kit" ( I have a 12-24 DX (which works as a 18-24 in FX), 28mm f/2.8 Z, 35mm f/2 AI, 50mm f/1.8G, 85mm f/1.8G and a Sigma 100-400 contemporary, all on the FTZ II exception made of the 28mm)

My two most used lenses are the 28mm and the 50mm, but sometimes for travel / street photography I find the 50mm + FTZ to be a little bulky, especially if I carry it around with the lens hood on.

Since the Z 40mm f/2 is the exact same size as the Z 28mm, I was wondering if that was a decent alternative to the 50mm? I would still use that lens of course, but I guess having a smaller kit would be nice (especially since I could share lens hoods and filters with the 28).

My only problem with this is I never used a 40mm, and I'm not the biggest fan of 35mm (reason why I still have an old F mount manual lens and no real desire to upgrade to an autofocused one). I guess the size / weight advantage of the 40mm alone would be enough to get it, and I'm sure in time I would be able to deal with whatever grudge I'd have with the angle of view (I formerly used a LOT my 23mm on Fujifilm, not because I liked the angle of view but because the lens was compact and weather sealed and that alone.

So far using the 50mm hasn't been to much of a hassle, but I really feel like I'd prefer to have two lenses with basically the same size.

What would you guys do?

Decision is difficult cause it's not something I have a clear idea on. It's mostly in the "would be nice" territory but at the same time wouldn't affect my photography all that much besides having a smaller, more practical setup when I want a smaller camera.

Probably yes. It's native number one, and the corners might be a little better, at least in the corners. Looking at MTF charts the 40mm seems to have more gradual fall-off as you get towards the edges both in resolution and contrast.

But I would mainly get the 40 for being a native lens. If you're happy with your 50, then maybe just keep using it and save the $275 for something else. You're not going to see worlds of a different I don't think, and the real big benefit moving to the 40 would be no need for the FTZ. But from an IQ standpoint, it may not be that big of a deal.

--
NOTE: If I don't reply to a direct comment in the forums, it's likely I unsubscribed from the thread/article..

 

[wjan]

Should I take some test shots with both lenses? What kind of subjects are you interested in?

That'd be really kind of you !

I know that the IQ is pretty good on the 40 f/2, I'm mostly interested in the angle of view that it provides compared to 50mm (if you have a 35mm lens around for comparison that would also be awesome).

There were some zoom simulators from Tamron and Nikon, where you could visualize different angles. Unfortunately, I can't find any of them online anymore, just this old review page: https://cameraville.co/blog/collection-of-online-camera-simulators-lens-simulators

We can easily get the angle of view in degrees with a calculator, but this almost never translates to anything in my mind.

Well, for that you need to actually try different angles in your photography. Do you have any zoom lens covering the 35-50mm range? You could simply lock 40mm zoom position with a tape and give it a try.

If you can find a composition where it's easy to notice the change in angle of view, set a camera on a tripod and simply change the lens to see the difference, that would be awesome!

This is not how it usually works. More often you are filling a fixed part of a frame with your subject, whether your lens is 35mm or 40mm (and you have to get closer with 35mm). And from that angle of view difference you get different perspective relationships between your subject and its surroundings.

It takes practice to understand which focal length is better for a particular situation.

You can start by watching this video: https://www.dpreview.com/videos/751...s-compression-its-just-perspective-distortion

 

[ClintGryke]

i would just go for the Nikon 50mm 1.8 Z S lens. This is down in price at the moment by 10-20% from its price last year in the UK (I don't know if it is in France), as Nikon seem to be having numerous sales. It's an absolutely excellent lens. I've owned several Nikon 50mm lenses over the years and this is the best of the lot. It's got the S designation as well so it's pro level in terms of the image and build quality.

 

[Plankowner110]

MJ_Photo38,

The Nikkor Z 40mm f2 and the Nikkor Z 28mm f2.8 are the only lenses I own and the Z 40mm stays on my Nikon Z5 camera almost all the time. I really like the 40mm angle of view for general photography and the compact size, weight, and purchase price can't be beat!

--
Bill
Nikon since 1969

 

[KR Photo]

I've always thought of myself as a 35-50-85mm prime guy, and I owned those lenses in F-mount and now again in Z-mount. But I've been pleasantly surprised by the field of view of the 40mm, and I dare say I now actually prefer it to either the 35 or the 50.

Plus, the 40mm is delightfully compact, and I think it punches well above its weight class, if you consider that it costs a mere $250. And given its price, I'd say it's practically a no brainer. You can buy it and try it out, and in the unlikely event that you hate it, you can probably sell it without much of a loss.

 

[V_Cam]

Should I take some test shots with both lenses? What kind of subjects are you interested in?

That'd be really kind of you !

I know that the IQ is pretty good on the 40 f/2, I'm mostly interested in the angle of view that it provides compared to 50mm (if you have a 35mm lens around for comparison that would also be awesome).

We can easily get the angle of view in degrees with a calculator, but this almost never translates to anything in my mind.

If you can find a composition where it's easy to notice the change in angle of view, set a camera on a tripod and simply change the lens to see the difference, that would be awesome !

Hi Mj Photo38:

The following link might help:

Bokeh and rendering comparison between 9 Nikkor and 2 Sigma lenses.

This is a comparison (albeit not a scientific one) of the rendering and Bokeh of 11 different lenses for Nikon Z mount (9 Nikkor and 2 Sigma lenses.). The photos were shot so that they approximatively match the same frame horizontally (had to move back a lot with the 300mm). All Z lenses were...

www.dpreview.com

 

[MJ_Photo38]

I mean I kinda agree with you, but :

- it's extremely expensive if you consider that the most expensive lens I've ever bought is 450€ and that I don't see myself ever buying a lens more expensive than this

- it's basically as big as my 50mm + FTZ (and it's heavier) so I don't see the point getting it since It wouldn't make the setup smaller

- I'm already very happy with the IQ I'm getting from my current 50mm and I don't feel like I need an upgrade

- Besides very small compact options which make sense to use on a mirrorless camera, all of my other lenses are shared with my DSLR Nikon cameras (that was the whole point of switching to Nikon Z, otherwise I would have kept my Fuji kit)

So yeah, the 50mm f/1.8 S is a wonderful lens. But it's not in my budget and it doesn't fit any kind of need in my current kit as I already have this FL covered.

The 40mm presented itself as a small compact lens the same size as the 28mm I already own, with a tighter angle of view than said 28mm lens. (and it's affordable, I can get one for 200 bucks)

 

[MJ_Photo38]

My thoughts exactly.

I think it's going to be my next purchase either way.

 

[J2daV]

I consider myself a 50mm guy. I connect with it much more than 35mm. And I like the 40mm muffin. I think you will like it.

 

[V_Cam]

Hi,

I recently (last December) switched to a Nikon Z6, and I have now what I would consider to be a "full kit" ( I have a 12-24 DX (which works as a 18-24 in FX), 28mm f/2.8 Z, 35mm f/2 AI, 50mm f/1.8G, 85mm f/1.8G and a Sigma 100-400 contemporary, all on the FTZ II exception made of the 28mm)

My two most used lenses are the 28mm and the 50mm, but sometimes for travel / street photography I find the 50mm + FTZ to be a little bulky, especially if I carry it around with the lens hood on.

Since the Z 40mm f/2 is the exact same size as the Z 28mm, I was wondering if that was a decent alternative to the 50mm? I would still use that lens of course, but I guess having a smaller kit would be nice (especially since I could share lens hoods and filters with the 28).

My only problem with this is I never used a 40mm, and I'm not the biggest fan of 35mm (reason why I still have an old F mount manual lens and no real desire to upgrade to an autofocused one). I guess the size / weight advantage of the 40mm alone would be enough to get it, and I'm sure in time I would be able to deal with whatever grudge I'd have with the angle of view (I formerly used a LOT my 23mm on Fujifilm, not because I liked the angle of view but because the lens was compact and weather sealed and that alone.

So far using the 50mm hasn't been to much of a hassle, but I really feel like I'd prefer to have two lenses with basically the same size.

What would you guys do?

Decision is difficult cause it's not something I have a clear idea on. It's mostly in the "would be nice" territory but at the same time wouldn't affect my photography all that much besides having a smaller, more practical setup when I want a smaller camera.

.......... "If you can find a composition where it's easy to notice the change in angle of view, set a camera on a tripod and simply change the lens to see the difference, that would be awesome ! " ............

Mj_Photo38 :

Check out the following link. Someone did a similar test you are asking. I think it will answer your question above!

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/67281549

 

[raunak]

I would say probably yes, just because of the smaller footprint & convenience without the adapter. In terms of image quality, focusing speed etc I don't think one lens is miles ahead of the other.

 

[UsherFellig]

"Normal" is my favorite focal length, and I'm happy and comfortable with primes from 40mm to 58mm. I don't like the adapter setup paradigm, keep the 50mm f1.8G F lens for my F Nikons--a sweet portrait lens on APSC and a favorite walkaround on film SLRs. I have the 50mm f1.8 Z lens, but the 40mm f2 is on my Z5 most of the time, love its light weight and small footprint. I'm not into bokeh/blurry backgrounds and for all-in-focus scenes with depth of field consider its IQ at least equal to, perhaps slightly better than, the 50mmG F lens, which I still love.

If you're a hard-and-fast 50mm fan, there is also the compact 50mm f2.8 MC Z lens. Funnily enough, more than one review has rated it "meh" for macro but excellent as a 50mm walkaround prime. More expensive than the 40mm, but an overlooked option for 50mm fans wanting a smaller, lighter example.

 

[Sorensen]

I bought the Z 40mm F2 this summer, and I like it very much. First I considered to be a "cheap lens" quality wise. But it has in fact very good image quality. You will rarely be disappointed.

Of course I love the limited weight of the lens. It is a big advantage compared to old lenses sitting on a FTZ-adapter.