My wife got a Nikon 40mm f2...i don't know, but this is an amazing lens for 170$(used)...it's plenty sharp, with really good bokeh, and it's so light and small, and AF is really snappy.
She replaced adapted Nikon 35mm f1.8G FX lens...and compared to this lens, everything is better...it's sharper, with less CA, it's lighter and AF is faster.
Really, really good lens...I hope Nikon will make some portrait f2 lens, like 75mm f2, which is 250-300g, and with same characteristics as this 40mm...it would be great combo.
I got the 50S 1.8 and it is a great lens for the price, super sharp, bokeh pleasant even tho not up there with the best in class but for the price it is a very good lens, sometimes feels a little big to be a 50/1.8.
I own the 58G which is lovely but with the adapter it also becomes too big for casual shooting, got a MF 35mm but MF doesn't do it for my kind of shooting and wondering how does this 40/2 does wide open for head and shoulders portraits, is it too soft fully open?
It's fine as a portrait lens, but more suited as a "general purpose" walkabout lens that is small and light. 40 is pretty good for small indoor spaces.
I prefer your 50/1.8 or 58mm if I had them available, but the 40 will get the job done, as the pics here show.
taildraggin wrote:
It's fine as a portrait lens, but more suited as a "general purpose" walkabout lens that is small and light. 40 is pretty good for small indoor spaces.
I prefer your 50/1.8 or 58mm if I had them available, but the 40 will get the job done, as the pics here show.
I took the 58 adapted to a trip in NYC, my first time there, and while I mostly had the 24-120 on the camera the 58 did see little use if not when I knew I wanted to take some shots of my travel partner, too big to be discrete for candids.
This next time I will take the 50/1.8S along with the 14-24 and 24-120 but I wonder if the 40, being in between 35, which I never used, and the 50 which I know, could fill the gap and also giving enough blur if needed and to keep the whole camera-lens more discrete than with an adapted lens or the native 50.
---------------------------------------------
KLaban wrote:
I own and use the Z 40mm f/2, the Z 50mm f/1.8 and the 58mm f/1.4.
The 40 is good for street and environmental portraiture and where discretion is key. The 58 when size and weight isn't an issue. The 50 sees less use.
My go to for head and shoulders would be the 58, but it would need to be stopped down if you wanted to ensure that the eyes and nose were in focus.
The choice really is a matter of horses for courses.
To be honest the 58 is the lens I cherish the most, I won't take it around if there's risk of damage or worse also, along with the FTZ it is all besides discrete.
Steven, ditto for me, the 40 will likely come along with the 24-120 on my next urban travel trip. Meanwhile, it acquitted itself well locally the other morning.
Some wicked coma that can be seen even at this reduced size. But based on the overall utility and performance of this lens at such a compact size and lightweight, I wish Nikon would consider a few more of these muffin lenses. A major reason I switched from F mount to Z mount is to save bulk and weight.
This lens has the reputation of being able to produce fine image depth (= 3D, dimensionality) and indeed it does. Nikon are to be commended (and supported) for producing such lenses into this otherwise barren era of endless super sharp lenses that fail to satisfy aesthetically or artistically. My APO lenses are now dust gatherers. Sometimes you just have to move on.
The 40 is also interesting in DX mode. While of course it’s really no different in the end than cropping an FX image, in DX the mirrorless viewfinder does show the effective 60mm perspective, which makes composing portraits a little more intuitive.
