40mm 2.8 af pancake

petempetem Posts: 8Member
Will Nikon EVER make one?
«1

Comments

  • NSXTypeRNSXTypeR Posts: 1,982Member
    Maybe for the Z mount. I'm not sure how many more brand new lenses Nikon has planned for the F mount.
    Nikon D7000/ Nikon D40/ Nikon FM2/ 18-135 AF-S/ 35mm 1.8 AF-S/ 105mm Macro AF-S/ 50mm 1.2 AI-S
  • petempetem Posts: 8Member
    I see - but do they think a high percentage will abandon the f-mount ?
  • mhedgesmhedges Posts: 684Member
    edited December 2018
    I think they thing that a significant amount of the higher end users will. And a lens like that would probably be better on the Z mount anyway. I really don't see the need for a lens like that on F mount. You already have 50 1.8 lenses available that are pretty small. Would a lot of people give up a stop+ just to get something that's a little smaller?
    Post edited by mhedges on
  • PB_PMPB_PM Posts: 3,876Member
    I doubt we'll see a new 40mm full frame prime, they haven't launched a new once since the 1970's, and never in a native AI mount (without after sale conversion).
    If I take a good photo it's not my camera's fault.
  • petempetem Posts: 8Member
    I just loved using a mate's Canon and thought it was quite nifty and being just that little wider.
  • NSXTypeRNSXTypeR Posts: 1,982Member
    petem said:

    I just loved using a mate's Canon and thought it was quite nifty and being just that little wider.

    Yeah, this is the lens that I wished for in DX too. I highly doubt a DX equivalent 40mm prime pancake would happen either.
    Nikon D7000/ Nikon D40/ Nikon FM2/ 18-135 AF-S/ 35mm 1.8 AF-S/ 105mm Macro AF-S/ 50mm 1.2 AI-S
  • PB_PMPB_PM Posts: 3,876Member
    edited December 2018
    Ah, there is a DX 40mm, the 40mm Micro Nikkor F2.8G, it's a macro, but who cares it covers the range and is sharp. Might not be a pancake, but it's very small, 2.7 in.(68.5 mm) x 2.5 in.(64.5 mm).
    Post edited by PB_PM on
    If I take a good photo it's not my camera's fault.
  • mhedgesmhedges Posts: 684Member
    Yeah but why would you buy that vs the DX 35 1.8? I’ve never heard anyone say the 40mm DX lens was particularly useful.
  • PB_PMPB_PM Posts: 3,876Member
    edited December 2018
    Agreed, the 35mm makes way more sense. Then again the 40mm is just as useful as the 55 and 60mm full frame macro that it’s meant to mimic. The wider macros do have their uses. Not great for general purpose shooting though.
    Post edited by PB_PM on
    If I take a good photo it's not my camera's fault.
  • spraynprayspraynpray Posts: 5,932Moderator
    Surely you would want a 28mm on DX to be closest to 40mm on FX?
    Always learning.
  • petempetem Posts: 8Member
    I forgot about Sigma's 40mm 1.4 Art but you might as well carry a zoom!
  • NSXTypeRNSXTypeR Posts: 1,982Member
    PB_PM said:

    Ah, there is a DX 40mm, the 40mm Micro Nikkor F2.8G, it's a macro, but who cares it covers the range and is sharp. Might not be a pancake, but it's very small, 2.7 in.(68.5 mm) x 2.5 in.(64.5 mm).

    I would have wanted a 40mm DX equivalent, which would have meant it would be closer to 27mm, like spraynpray said, which Nikon never made.

    The 40mm Macro I never tried on DX, wouldn't make sense for me much as I like taking shots of bugs. Wouldn't mind trying it though.
    Nikon D7000/ Nikon D40/ Nikon FM2/ 18-135 AF-S/ 35mm 1.8 AF-S/ 105mm Macro AF-S/ 50mm 1.2 AI-S
  • PB_PMPB_PM Posts: 3,876Member
    edited December 2018
    If the Nikon 28mm F2.8D wasn't rubbish I'd say try that since it's only around $200 used, but it rubbish. I tried it back when I shot DX for that very reason, since 50mm was too long and the 35mm F1.8G DX didn't exist yet. Sadly there isn't anything small and light weight for DX. I suspect F-mount DX is dead at this point anyway with the D3500 and D5600 being discontinued with no replacement announced.
    Post edited by PB_PM on
    If I take a good photo it's not my camera's fault.
  • manhattanboymanhattanboy Posts: 970Member
    The canon pancake is awesome, super slim like a lens cap and sharp.

    The last pancake Nikon made was a 10mm 2.8. That also was slim and sharp it just was for the Nikon 1 system LOL that Nikon has tossed into the garbage.
  • mhedgesmhedges Posts: 684Member
    edited December 2018
    PB_PM said:

    If the Nikon 28mm F2.8D wasn't rubbish I'd say try that since it's only around $200 used, but it rubbish. I tried it back when I shot DX for that very reason, since 50mm was too long and the 35mm F1.8G DX didn't exist yet. Sadly there isn't anything small and light weight for DX. I suspect F-mount DX is dead at this point anyway with the D3500 and D5600 being discontinued with no replacement announced.

    What? Are you sure? D3500 just came out. D5500 and D7200 were discontinued but that's all I've heard of.
    Post edited by mhedges on
  • petempetem Posts: 8Member
    Anyone had experience of the manual Voigtlander Ultron 40mm f/2 Aspherical MF SL II?
  • NSXTypeRNSXTypeR Posts: 1,982Member
    PB_PM said:

    If the Nikon 28mm F2.8D wasn't rubbish I'd say try that since it's only around $200 used, but it rubbish. I tried it back when I shot DX for that very reason, since 50mm was too long and the 35mm F1.8G DX didn't exist yet. Sadly there isn't anything small and light weight for DX. I suspect F-mount DX is dead at this point anyway with the D3500 and D5600 being discontinued with no replacement announced.

    I'd agree, there's no reason for Nikon to invest in DX at all. Frankly speaking, Nikon may not even do a DX line for the Z mount in an effort just to consolidate lenses and avoid confusion. DX existed mostly because of production limitations of full frame chips. Since there's no difficulty in producing full frame sensors, there's no reason to go DX. Look at Micro 4/3 now, they've basically painted themselves into a corner. Their high end m4/3 cameras are $2000+ monsters that are fairly bulky but have none of the advantages of larger sensors just because of physics. It's so bad Panasonic is abandoning the 4/3 format while Olympus is kind of stuck.

    The canon pancake is awesome, super slim like a lens cap and sharp.



    The last pancake Nikon made was a 10mm 2.8. That also was slim and sharp it just was for the Nikon 1 system LOL that Nikon has tossed into the garbage.

    I liked the 40mm pancake too, my cousin has one for his 6D and it makes it super slim. The lens is about the same thickness as a lens cap, it almost feels like you're using the camera with no lens.
    Nikon D7000/ Nikon D40/ Nikon FM2/ 18-135 AF-S/ 35mm 1.8 AF-S/ 105mm Macro AF-S/ 50mm 1.2 AI-S
  • mhedgesmhedges Posts: 684Member
    NSXTypeR said:

    PB_PM said:

    If the Nikon 28mm F2.8D wasn't rubbish I'd say try that since it's only around $200 used, but it rubbish. I tried it back when I shot DX for that very reason, since 50mm was too long and the 35mm F1.8G DX didn't exist yet. Sadly there isn't anything small and light weight for DX. I suspect F-mount DX is dead at this point anyway with the D3500 and D5600 being discontinued with no replacement announced.

    I'd agree, there's no reason for Nikon to invest in DX at all. Frankly speaking, Nikon may not even do a DX line for the Z mount in an effort just to consolidate lenses and avoid confusion. DX existed mostly because of production limitations of full frame chips. Since there's no difficulty in producing full frame sensors, there's no reason to go DX. Look at Micro 4/3 now, they've basically painted themselves into a corner. Their high end m4/3 cameras are $2000+ monsters that are fairly bulky but have none of the advantages of larger sensors just because of physics. It's so bad Panasonic is abandoning the 4/3 format while Olympus is kind of stuck.

    The canon pancake is awesome, super slim like a lens cap and sharp.



    The last pancake Nikon made was a 10mm 2.8. That also was slim and sharp it just was for the Nikon 1 system LOL that Nikon has tossed into the garbage.

    I liked the 40mm pancake too, my cousin has one for his 6D and it makes it super slim. The lens is about the same thickness as a lens cap, it almost feels like you're using the camera with no lens.
    I agree there’s no reason to make any more new DX F mount lenses but I still think they need some kind of feeder system that’s cheaper than FF is now. As far as sensor production - FF sensors will always be minimum 2.25x more expensive because of the die size. I work in semiconductor and die size is by far the biggest knob for cost. Everything else is second order.

  • PB_PMPB_PM Posts: 3,876Member
    mhedges said:

    PB_PM said:

    If the Nikon 28mm F2.8D wasn't rubbish I'd say try that since it's only around $200 used, but it rubbish. I tried it back when I shot DX for that very reason, since 50mm was too long and the 35mm F1.8G DX didn't exist yet. Sadly there isn't anything small and light weight for DX. I suspect F-mount DX is dead at this point anyway with the D3500 and D5600 being discontinued with no replacement announced.

    What? Are you sure? D3500 just came out. D5500 and D7200 were discontinued but that's all I've heard of.
    Model numbers got mixed up in my head, it’s the D3400, D5500 and D7200 that went off line. Didn’t even notice that the D3500 came out, must have had a soft launch with nothing more than a quiet press release.
    If I take a good photo it's not my camera's fault.
  • spraynprayspraynpray Posts: 5,932Moderator
    NSXTypeR said:



    I'd agree, there's no reason for Nikon to invest in DX at all. Frankly speaking, Nikon may not even do a DX line for the Z mount in an effort just to consolidate lenses and avoid confusion. DX existed mostly because of production limitations of full frame chips. Since there's no difficulty in producing full frame sensors, there's no reason to go DX. Look at Micro 4/3 now, they've basically painted themselves into a corner. Their high end m4/3 cameras are $2000+ monsters that are fairly bulky but have none of the advantages of larger sensors just because of physics. It's so bad Panasonic is abandoning the 4/3 format while Olympus is kind of stuck.

    :s I love Olympus but reading that, things need to change there.
    Always learning.
  • WestEndFotoWestEndFoto Posts: 2,773Member
    petem said:

    Anyone had experience of the manual Voigtlander Ultron 40mm f/2 Aspherical MF SL II?

    I do. I have owned it for a few years. It is part of my landscapes set of primes that sits between 28mm and 50mm. I would recommend it for that.
  • donaldejosedonaldejose Posts: 2,997Member
    I have the Voightlander 40 f/2 also and love its size but I want one like it with AF for my Z6. Pancake on a Z body to make it "pocketable." I will take it in 28 or 35 or 40 or 50 as long as it is a pancake to it doesn't stick out beyond the hand grip.
  • NSXTypeRNSXTypeR Posts: 1,982Member
    mhedges said:



    What? Are you sure? D3500 just came out. D5500 and D7200 were discontinued but that's all I've heard of.

    The D5500 and D3500 were mild refreshes at best, I wouldn't really count them in as big updates on the magnitude of D200 to D300 or D7100 to D7200 even in terms of DX performance.



    :s I love Olympus but reading that, things need to change there.

    I never really had any brand loyalty to Olympus but I can see why someone would be attached to a brand. I'm pretty loyal to Nikon.
    Nikon D7000/ Nikon D40/ Nikon FM2/ 18-135 AF-S/ 35mm 1.8 AF-S/ 105mm Macro AF-S/ 50mm 1.2 AI-S
  • PB_PMPB_PM Posts: 3,876Member
    Olympus and Panasonic were in a good place with m4/3s when it was the only mirrorless system around, but once Sony really got going and Fuji got on board with the X system, m4/3s was toast as a still camera. Plenty of people love the GH 4 and 5 for video, but it's just not worth it for still shooting; that is when you consider that the only bodies worth getting cost more than the D7500 and don't come close in terms of performance in low light and AF.
    If I take a good photo it's not my camera's fault.
  • mhedgesmhedges Posts: 684Member
    NSXTypeR said:



    The D5500 and D3500 were mild refreshes at best, I wouldn't really count them in as big updates on the magnitude of D200 to D300 or D7100 to D7200 even in terms of DX performance.

    True they were kind of lackluster refreshes but still that's a far cry from being discontinued. If they were discontinued then that would mean Nikon abandoning DX which (business wise) would be huge.
Sign In or Register to comment.