One of the reasons I have no real interest in the Z cameras is the fact that even the F/2.8 primes are way oversized for what they are . The 50/2.8 prime is ridiculous (ok, it does macro, still too big) and the faster lenses are obscenely huge. That .95 you mention is 4x6 inches and almost 4.5 lbs! For $8,000 I'll get a M10 thankyouverymuch.
Well, thank you for telling me how huge those primes are - I hadn't noticed ...
Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
The D750 with 50mm f/1.8 AF is some 20% heavier than the Z 6 with 40mm f/2; the Z 40mm is the same size as the Z 28mm f/2.8 while the 50mm f/1.8 AF shares the size of the 28mm f/2.8 AF. That said, both combos fit into my EDC bag as shown.
The 40mm f/2 is only marginally bigger than the 50mm f/1.8 AF shown; it's lighter though (yes, also thanks to the plastic mount). I no long own the 50mm f/1.8G for reasons I touch on below, but it's clearly bigger than both. The old first-generation 50mm f/1.8 AF shown here has the same optics than the latest and last 50mm f/1.8D that *looked* smaller but wasn't. The Z 40mm is also optically way better, focuses closer and much, much faster; the 50mm f/1.8G is optically worse than the Z 40mm because abberations aren't as well corrected, and its wide open sharpness is reduced - yes, that's the case for the Z 40mm at f/2 as well, but it's way better behaved throughout (if you get a nice sample). For the record, I loved the 50mm f/1.8G when I owned it, but the Z 50mm f/1.8 S smoked it *and* outdid the Sony Zeiss 55mm f/1.8 in one fell swoop - which made me sell both of them quite quickly. And even though it may not look that way, the combo with the Z 6 and the Z 50mm f/1.8 S is only marginally larger and still lighter than the D750 with 50mm f/1.8G!
Oh, and while everyone's whining about the "lack" of weather sealing on the 40mm f/2: Its rim fully overlaps the mount; direct ingress of water is hardly a problem. If you're not usually out when it's bucketing down, you're at least as well served as with only partially sealed lenses from other makers who only provide a seal at the mount for most of their smaller lenses (like Sony and Sigma). The 40mm is sealed throughout! No small feat, given the size ...
The only 28mm f/2.8 AF Nikon made is the same size as 50mm f/1.8 AF; I also still own it (for sentimental reasons, mostly): It' a fun, but mediocre lens with horribly wheezy mechanics. Which makes the Z 28mm f/2.8 - which is optically very nice and has very smooth AF - a much more desirable lens, with all the same advantages as the Z 40mm - and the Z 28mm focuses even closer! The Z 50mm f/2.8 is way smaller and also lighter than the 60mm f/2.8G, a lens I still own and love because it's a seriously nice performer - but again, optically, the Z 50mm f/2.8 is even better (sharper, way less CA). I like the 60mm f/2.8G internal focusing, though, and it pairs fantastically well with the D750.
I'd almost be able to agree on pricing. Not on size and usefulness, though. But in most cases, even prices are just what they are in today's market. If you compare with prices 30 years ago, well ... Time for a reality check, I'd say.
There's simply no need for Z bashing. Nikon finally made the right decision to put all their eggs in one basket and bet on a mirrorless future. I'll keep my D750, it's a marvellous camera. But apart from using it with cheaper long lenses than are available for the Z system at this point in time (excluding the DX 50-250mm here), there's simply nothing it does as well or better than the Z 6 for me, and the Z lenses alone make the switch worthwhile.
M.
I am leaning to thinking this is a bit like an article saying "Ford plans to only produce electric vehicles" without giving any specific details and, while technically true because it is the direction most automakers are going, it isn't something Ford has actually announced yet and likely won't happen in the next several years.
asia.nikkei.com
