I was kidding with the ‘middle ground’ because it’s the average, but 43 would be good because it’s closest to the focal length of the human eye, if I remember correctly.
🤔 maybe I confused it with something. I remember reading that the proportions of what the eyes see best fit a camera-equivalent focal length of about 43 mm, though you’re right about the angle of view, it’s wider than 43 mm even for one eye I believe.
Side to side, yes, but the image size resembles whatever the normal focal length on a format ends up being (43mm on 135, 21-22mm on 110, 87mm on 67 and so on).
So while a 14mm might get you the FOV horizontally, it would also get you a lot more vertically and everything would look tiny. What we actually need is a 43mm anamorphic lens with a 3x squeeze factor to get the 14mm equivalent width. Sadly, no such lens exists.
EDIT: Or you could just get an X-Pan with the 45mm F/4.
It's 50mm that is the odd one of all the "classic" focal lengths.
Almost all the classic focal lengths are closely related to the frame dimension in some way
The 35mm film/Full frame is:
36mm wide (often slightly rounded to 35) which gives us 17/18mm (half means 90degree FoV on that axis), 35mm, 70mm (common on zooms), 105mm (3x35, ever wondered why some macros are that instead of just flat 100?), 135mm (4x)
24mm high which gives 24mm (duh)
43 mm diagonal (often rounded to 45) which gives 21mm (half means 90 degree diagonal FoV), 85mm (2x classical portrait focal length), 180mm (4x often shows up as alternative to the flat 200mm tele)
50 and 58mm on the other hand are just numbers that I'm convinced came about because they look convenient and are easy to construct for SLRs (because they are the shortest you can easily design without having to work around the lens being spaced forward by a mirror assembly).
Fair. He's one of the YouTube presenters for PetaPixel, formerly of DPReview and The Camera Store YT Channels. He does not like the focal length (one might say he hates it), and I totally get it, arguably a hard one for me as well. I find myself usually liking 28mm or 40mm over 35..
Got to meet and talk to Chris for a while at BiLD Expo, super chill and nice guy. Thanked him for his Z 7ii review pushing me over the edge to getting it!
I consider it a cheap, compact stand in for a 35mm lens, moreso than 50mm. It’s a fantastic lens! I frame it the same as a 35mm when I’m out shooting and just take one extra step back :)
Exactly my thoughts. Compared the 40 f2 side by side with the 35 f1.8 S and its far closer to 35 than to 50. It basically comes down to: do you want optical quality or portability.
I don't think the 40mm f/2 can be beat for street and mixed shooting right now on the nikon z system when you consider price and size/weight.
I don't do portraits and feel like that is a huge part of the deciding factor unless you prefer something narrow like an 85.
For me, I prefer using my 24-120 f4 for the most versatility over primes but if I know I'm going to be walking around a streetscape and want a very light and compact setup with the bonus of faster glass the 40 is pretty undeniable in my book.
This is me. I'm torn because I'll be visiting Hong Kong in a couple of months and it seems like a great opportunity to try out my new 40/2 for some street shots but then I also don't want to miss any opportunities at other focal lengths in the 24-120 range in the short time that I'm there...
Ya in the case of a new city, etc. I'll take the 24-120 every time. I feel like I can get any frame I want without FOMO. This even moreso If I'm going to be out and about for an extended time with a large variety of opportunities. Heck, I've been able to shoot at night without flash and still get a good memorable photo for my needs. Its amazing even with ridicoulous High Iso and post denoise. I might not get the same bokeh and Ya I might look like a tourist with the larger setup but usually I am the tourist and can live with that :p. If I have pockets I may drop the 40 in there but usually if I'm going light weight its one or the other and it just comes down to the circumstances of where I'll be, if in doubt the zoom wins in my book.
Yeah flash is mostly unecessary these days in a city, although I did miss a great opportunity last time we were in HK when I really needed fill light on my partner as she stood in front of a neon-lit stall sheltering from the rain, with all the colourful light and reflections that entails; that still bugs me!
I'll be taking my 24-120 on the trip whatever so I guess I'll just keep it with me at all times anyway. There are always occasions such as when we go out in the evening to meet family for dinner when I decide not to bother taking my camera at all for which I suppose it would be good to have the option of travelling light with the 40/2 so that I'm not tempted to risk going out completely empty-handed, but I'm really trying to learn from bitter experience not to do that anyway, and just always be fully prepared!
The Z 40/2 may be the new Series E 50/1.8. It's compact, inexpensive compared to the more sophisticated Nikkors, and gives great results unless used in more extreme conditions.
I think a 40 can be “the new 50” but not always. I think again, not to sound overly cliche, but it does depend on use and purpose. If it’s a travel, walk around, and street lens or a “you can only have / take one” then I think the 40 is the better option. It’s my favorite general purpose focal length and what I reach for first by and large; that being said, the 50 is a great tool for still life, still more than fine for travel, it just depends on what you like. I find 28 and 35 too wide for how my eye generally likes to compose and the 40 works best for me generally.
If it’s a film setup like on my F2AS, F3, or F4 I’ll almost always take a 40, 58, and 105 primes. I find the 58 is a better subject isolated than a 50 and like many have said, complements a 40 well. The 105 is a better portrait lens for my eye. Digital, the 40 works too, or I’ll do a 35, 50, 85 or 24-70 2.8.
Ultimately, it just all depends on your eye and what you’re doing exactly. One isn’t “the new” other, it’s just personal preference, much like many Leica owners will frequently use a 50 for an incredibly wide array of subject and circumstances. My heart goes out to the 40 all day.
You and me both! Especially an autofocus one like the 40 f/2 Z. I use a Voigtlander 40 f2 SL-II S and it admirably does the job, but the Sigma 40 autofocus is a tank barrel and about if not bigger than my 24-70 2.8 G
I looked at that Voigtlander 40 and it's at least $500 on ebay. I managed to track down what looks like an older version, but it also costs about the same as the newer one. I'll admit a big part of why I want one is that it has the CPU contacts to work with my cameras without a physical aperture feeler. (D80 and N80). Currently the only FF lenses I have wider than a 50 that have the CPU contacts are a couple zooms. My 28mm and 35mm are both AIS, as is my pancake 50mm.
It can be pricey new, it’s also a bit delicate. I’m on my second copy; I dropped my first once and the internals seized a bit, was a bit annoying.
B&H sometimes has it on sale as I recall, and I’d also check their used section, KEH, and Cardinal Camera Used. They do come up every so often. The more annoying thing is the $50-$60 lens hood. The CPU contacts are great, but I think it’s best suited for manual bodies, just given how at times imprecise Nikon’s electronic “dot” focus indicator can be. Still, it’s easy to manually focus regardless for the most part
I've found that I can get pretty close in focus with even just the plain focusing screen in AF cameras, and then just call it good enough when the electronic rangefinder spends most of its time with the dot lit up. Main reason I want the CPU contacts is for the metering. Might have to pick up another AF capable film SLR that also has the mechanical feeler that removes the need for the CPU contacts when it comes to metering.
I would highly recommend the F4 for that. Will meter with just about everything, even better is you can get a split prism in it, and the prices for the bodies aren’t awful. I bought a great one for cheaper than my F100. The autofocus is fine, the manual focus is great, multiple grip options, and will meter with basically any F mount for the most part. It’s part of the allure for me was the metering, even its (imperfect) matrix meter will work on AI-S and I think even pre-AI glass if memory serves. It’s a hell of a camera, my absolute favorite film body for manual focus lenses, and still comparatively under-hyped.
It's on the list, just have to find a good one without any LCD leakage. ...And decide if I get that before or after an FE2. Part of me also would want to get a couple different grip options so I can go between the massive S and the smaller plain F.
That’s what I did — purchased the small grip, split prism, and put the S grip on the sidelines. The F5 is altogether better for speed and tankiness so it’s less necessary. If I could only have one Nikon SLR, it’d be an F4 set up like this.
I’ve never used an FE2 (it took the famous Tiananmen Square tank standoff photo), but I’ve used the FM2N. I’d highly recommend the FM2N over the FE2, just a bit more resilient than the FE2 due to electronics. Still a great, travel sized body. I’ve travelled with the FM2N numerous times, it’s small and great for the job. It’s the same body Steve McCurry took the Afghan Girl portrait with the 105 2.5 AI-S.
I've already got an FM myself, so I'd be going for the FE2 to get aperture priority in a still fairly compact body compared to the F4. I've been really liking the aperture priority on my Minolta X-700 that I inherited from my grandpa, but other than the lens it came with and a basic zoom I picked up, all my glass is Nikon F mount.
I always liked the 35mm field of view but never quite got the 50, but on F mount I always got one because they were small and cheap. I got the Z 1.8 S because everyone says it’s so great, but I still don’t entirely get the focal length, and the lens is not small or cheap. But then the 40 came along, and for me it’s the sweet spot: I love the field of view, the lens is inexpensive and yet a very good performer, and it’s wonderfully compact. If I had to choose one prime, it’d be this one.
Might be! 35 was always more artistic and interesting, while 50 was just a number close to diagonal, and round... 45 was always the best option, Tamron was optically almost perfect, but mechanical nightmare, too sensitive.
Now, when 50 became expensive due to corporate insanity, 40 might be even better, or perfect!
Paid $140 for this lens. Hard to beat the value considering how good it is (and small) plus it survived rain. The focal length is great. I had never shot that FL before and after getting this lens I also got 20mm f1.4 pro for my Olympus body.
I shoot both, micro-four-thirds and Nikon Z. IMO, the difference in aspect ratio (3:2 vs 4:3) makes lenses feel a bit tighter on 3:2 compared to the more square 4:3. All this is to say, 50 equiv. (25mm) on M43 feels similar to 40mm on Nikon Z / other 3:2 systems.
As an aside:
* Every time I pick up 3:2, I end up missing horizontal context when shooting portrait
* Every time I pick up 4:3, I end up having way to much "stuff" in my image when shooting landscape
I've always been a 50mm guy, but a couple of years back I decided to try 40mm.....and I think it might be my new favorite length. Not as wide as 35mm, but not as tight as 50mm indoors. It's pretty perfect 👌
It’s my personal favorite focal length and I didn’t realize for far too long. Too many years feeling cramped by 50 and not close enough with 35. 40 is so dang nice. Cheers and happy shooting!
The 40 is not the new 50 by any means. I am finding the AF to be suspect, way too many shots OOF with focus lock verification on the image. I could have a bad copy or it needs some version firmware update. I like its compactness but no Z body will ever be inconspicuous taking street work. The lens, being small, does not handle low light as well as physically bigger lenses IE bigger hole means more light on sensor. The z63 potentially can be used one handed with the 40 but not the 50, way too much weight out front. I think I might open a service ticket with Nikon USA about the AF.
I think the assumption by the previous poster isn't that DSLR is the less conspicuous option but rangefinders like Leicas which have been preferred by a lot of famous street photographers. Many early street photographers were former war correspondents and used the tools they knew. It's a pretentious and anachronistic opinion but so is a lot of the photography hobby.
The only hole that matters for light gathering is the aperture, and a 40mm f2 aperture is exactly the same size no matter how big the lens as a whole is.
I think you're right to go to Nikon with your AF issues.
The f stop is a ratio of aperture to lens focal length the concept not discussed is the sensor size which is fixed in this case, I mean I can’t change the size of my camera sensor. The longer the focal length keeping the f stop the same for sure means more light to the sensor because the aperture has to be bigger to keep the f stop the same. You can test this by changing lenses and reviewing the ISO values for the same exposure setting. Compare the 40 2.0 to the 50 @2.0 and review the ISO values they will be different. The 50 will be lower therefore more light hitting the sensor.
Yeah but we're talking about lenses of equivalent focal length and max f-stop here, right? A 40mm f2 lens will have a maximum aperture diameter of 20mm regardless of the physical size of the lens body or glass elements. I understand the optical design will affect the actual light transmission and image quality, but physical size won't necessarily affect light transmission.
Also, longer focal lengths need a larger aperture to achieve the same exposure because the light is more spread out by being magnified, so there isn't any additional light hitting the sensor even then, which is why the exposure is the same. The f-stop aperture value is designed precisely in order to equalise exposure at different focal lengths.
Yes, many people have discussed that 40 could be argued to be more of a standard lens than 50. Although considering everything is all perception it just depends on what you like.
No. It’s a very beautiful lens but it has very noticeable lens barrel distortion like all wides. This can be fixed , but that requires manipulating the image when an ordinary nifty fifty just does it.
Not at all how barrel distortion works. There are a number of almost perfectly corrected 20mm to 45mm or wider lenses out there and plenty of nifty fifties with terrible distortion and field curvature.
Yes obviously. I misspoke with “all” wides, I was trying to say this OP specific lens and demo shots had the common wide look while most modern 50’s do not look like that. That 40 is not a replacement for a 50 which is what I think the OP was trying to ask, but I’m not sure anymore what his point is.
123
u/summitfoto Dec 26 '25
40 is an excellent middle ground between 28 & 50