Well, there's a thing ... After starting their journeys at different times and using different routes, both lenses turned up within an hour on my doorstep.
View attachment 447610
First impressions:
The Yongnuo is actually impressively well built and works very well; it's not a tiny lens, but way smaller than the Z 35mm f/1.8 S, and lighter, too, but not by as much as you'd think when seeing them side by side. With the Yongnuo mounted, the Z f fits into my EDC bag without issue while it's a (literal) stretch with the Z 35mm f/1.8 S - which means that I either have to leave the hood behind or choose a different bag if I want to be sure not to damage the bag (and/or the hood). The Yongnuo calls for no such deliberations. As for performance, AF seems pretty snappy (except for the closer range, maybe under half a meter), the focus motor is quiet, but audible. No visible focus breathing (yay!), and initial images seem very sharp at the center wide open, but we'll see about that.
The Viltrox is indeed tiny and decidedly plasticky - but it's also just half the price and way smaller and lighter (half the weight, actually) than the Yongnuo. AF is a bit slow and even hesitant at times, but, if locked on, it's accurate and almost silent to boot. The short MFD of 0.19 meters is fun to play with. Focus breathing is noticeable, though, but can still be considered moderate.
As of now, I'm definitely more excited about the Yongnuo - this could indeed be a viable EDC lens for the Z f. Don't get me wrong, I like what the Z 40mm f/2 does optically, but I'm less sure about its long-term sturdiness and reliability. The all-metal build of the Yongnuo inspires considerably more confidence in this respect.
The Viltrox, on the other hand, may turn out to be a nice option for both the Z f (as a
small true wide lens) as well as the Z fc and Z 50 - it's definitely at home on those bodies size-wise, and it's 30mm-e FOV is useful (as my experience with the Panasonic 15mm f/1.7 shows).
I'll head out with both lenses now - we'll see how it goes.
M.
Okay, even though light, weather and health haven't helped in the last couple of days, I've been able to gain a rather solid impression of the Yongnuo 35mm f/2 DF DSM. I found a lot of good things - but on the whole, it's not quite the lens I was hoping for, but then, my silent wishes were probably irrealistic anyway.
The basics: Build and functionality are fine - the lens works well, apart from rare hick-ups concerning AF, but in fairness, I was trying hard to make it fail (tiny subject, flat angle). The metal casing and mount are well made and finished. AF isn't the fastest, but not slow either, though slower than both the Nikon Z 35mm f/1.8 S and Z 40mm f/2 SE, both of which will be mentioned again. The lens is sharp wide open over most of the frame; in fact, for all reasonable ways of framing, it works fine (I rarely place my subjects in the far corners); stopping it down quickly takes care of whatever softness in the corners that might have been there, though they don't leave quite the same sharpness impression due to some minor abberrations (spherical and chromatic, probably with some residual coma). Again, we're talking about the extreme corners here. Interestingly, the Yongnuo actually appears to be the sharpest of the tat MFD - but its 0.35m MFD is also less ambitious than the Z 35mm's 0.25m and the Z 40mm's 0.29m. So, quite a good show - no worse than the Z 40mm f/2, in fact, a lens that costs more or less the same, but whose body is entirely made out of plastic.
However ... Both Z lenses render noticeably nicer; the Z 35mm f/1.8 S may be tiny bit softer (probably a tad less contrasty) wide open, but gives considerably smoother bokeh and warmer tones; the Z 40mm f/2 renders a somewhat more classic image because it's less well corrected, but it still manages visibly smoother bokeh. Both Nikon lenses also render warmer tones. The Yongnuo's very strong contrast may be the main cause of this - neither Nikon lens excels at this specific aspect (both are good, but definitely not bold; in fact, the Z 35mm f/1.8 S is the least contrasty of the f/1.8 S Line primes in my view).
All this boils down to a somewhat unexpected assessment: This Yongnou 35mm f/2 DF DSM is a good lens - and actually, as a single-lens solution (e.g. for light travel), I'd prefer it over both Nikon lenses: It's considerably smaller and lighter then the Z 35mm f/1.8 S - even more so in person than I thought it would be from looking at some images; sharpness is mostly comparable, in some ways even better wide open, specifcially close-up. So, you get a reliable performer while ending up with less bulk. The Yongnuo is also quite a bit sturdier than the Z 40mm f/2 - a lens that's quite a bit smaller and a lot lighter again; while I'd be reluctant to carry the Z f with the Z 40mm f/2 without a bag to store it safely, I can see myself carrying the camera with the Yongnuo on a shoulder strap. But for assignments, I'd definitely pick the Z 35mm f/1.8 S - and, even more crucially, for EDC purposes, I'd still pick the Z 40mm f/2. The latter's the key "disappointment" (not really, just in relation to what I had hoped): As a tool, the Yongnuo is absolutely fine, as a "brush", something to fuel my creativity, the Z 40mm f/2 remains preferable.
Is this a problem? No. In fact, the differences are, for the most part, minor; the Yongnuo is a compelling offer for the price, period. And some may even prefer the slightly more dramatic rendering from this lens over the smoothness of the Nikon lenses - in fact, it reminds me a bit of the Voigtländer Ultron 35mm f/2 II: brillant sharpness where it counts, "interesting"/"classic" bokeh, though the Voigtländer's is much more pronounced again. So, in some ways, one might see the way the Yongnuo draws as an asset because it's rather distinct - I myself am usually not after that kind of look, but I don't dislike it, either.
So, all in all, definitely a nice lens to own - and I'll use it for the "single lens" setup I've indicated above (in fact, that sparks a thought - we'll see, come April). But it actually
doesn't change my choice of daily driver for the Z f: the Z 40mm f/2 SE - or, if I want to reduce size even further, the Z 26mm f/2.8. Which also means that from spring to fall, the Z f will face quite a bit of competition from its smaller and lighter sibling, the Z fc with Z 28mm f/2.8 SE: basically the same FOV, and, though this may be a bit unexpected, an even smoother rendering.
Now for the Viltrox 20mm f/2.8 ...
🙂
M.