# Mirrorless body/system: Canon RP or Nikon Z5?



## ulrichsd (Sep 25, 2021)

Hi all, I'm looking to upgrade my 10 year old D7000 to a mirrorless camera. Mainly kids photos and kids sports, with some vacation, landscape and wildlife photography. And video is nice, but secondary. I love my 35mm and 50mm primes for low profile and fast aperture, which seems like Canon has a lot more prime lens options right now. Nikon's options are more expensive and bulkier...

1. Canon RP w/ 24-105mm f4-7.1 ($1300), 100-400mm 5.6-8 ($650),16mm ($300), 50mm ($200), 85mm macro ($600) = $3050
OR
2. Nikon Z5 w/ 24-200mm ($2100) and 14-30mm ($1300) = $3400

I'm really leaning toward the RP - is there anything that I'm missing in this comparison???  The main issue I've read with the Canon's is battery life, but bringing a spare battery isn't a big deal, and single card slot (I'm not a professional and in 10 years I've never had a failure so I'm thinking this isn't a major issue either).

Thanks,
Scott


----------



## Nikon photographer (Sep 25, 2021)

I've not long sold my D7000 and all my F mount lenses, apart from a couple of Sigma lenses (105 macro & 150-600) once the Nikkor Z 105 macro becomes available I'll be selling on the Sigma.

And purchased a Z5 with the 24-70 & 14-30 f4 lenses

One thing I really liked on the D7000 was the dual card slots, as I set them for Jpeg files on the one card and Raw on the other, it saved me a lot of time, I've been a Nikon user since buying a used F2 photomic back in the late 1980's, and never had a reason to change.


----------



## ulrichsd (Sep 25, 2021)

Nikon photographer said:


> I've not long sold my D7000 and all my F mount lenses, apart from a couple of Sigma lenses (105 macro & 150-600) once the Nikkor Z 105 macro becomes available I'll be selling on the Sigma.
> 
> And purchased a Z5 with the 24-70 & 14-30 f4 lenses
> 
> One thing I really liked on the D7000 was the dual card slots, as I set them for Jpeg files on the one card and Raw on the other, it saved me a lot of time, I've been a Nikon user since buying a used F2 photomic back in the late 1980's, and never had a reason to change.



Did you even consider a change in formats? I started with a D90 about 12 years ago and switched to a D7000.... Using Canon just feels dirty, but I'm falling in love with their current prime lens lineup (and the prices as well).

I know its not popular, but I've only ever shot jpg - I already struggle with file storage as is, I don't want to think about storing 2 of every file


----------



## Nikon photographer (Sep 25, 2021)

ulrichsd said:


> Did you even consider a change in formats? I started with a D90 about 12 years ago and switched to a D7000.... Using Canon just feels dirty, but I'm falling in love with their current prime lens lineup (and the prices as well).
> 
> I know its not popular, but I've only ever shot jpg - I already struggle with file storage as is, I don't want to think about storing 2 of every file


After so long using Nikon, I really didn't even consider another brand, my first Nikon digital was the D70, bought while I was working overseas, then a few years later upgraded to the D90,then the D7000, I had a nice P7100 as a travel camera, replaced by a V1, I sold both of those, and just bought a Z50 as a Holiday/travel camera. 

I did help a family member set up their Canon DSLR a few years ago, I neither liked the way it fitted in my hand or the menu, If you can use one Nikon, you can use them all, the menus are so similar if not the same.


----------



## ac12 (Sep 25, 2021)

The problem with both Nikon and Canon, is how they are prioritizing the production/release of lenses in their mirrorless systems.
If the lens you want is already out, fine.  If not, you have to WAIT, or use a legacy F/EF lens via an adapter to the Z or R camera.

If you switch to Canon, life will suck for a while, as Canon does things different than Nikon.  Then you will gradually get used to how the Canon works, and life will be OK again.
What sucks:  to mount/unmount the EF lens you turn the lens in the opposite direction as Nikon F (presumably same for R and Z lenses), zoom ring turns in the opposite direction as Nikon, the menu is different (so finding stuff will be a challenge), etc.

As for battery life, or lack of life, get used to it.  Mirrorless cameras use the battery faster than dSLRs.  From what I've figured out, mirrorless battery life is primarily dependent on power ON time, not the number of shots.
And it is not just the batteries, but the chargers and charging process.  On my last vacation with an Olympus EM1-mk1, I brought three batteries, and two chargers.  I should have brought FOUR batteries.  I charged in two shifts; two batteries as soon as I got to the hotel, and the 3rd battery overnight.


----------



## ulrichsd (Sep 25, 2021)

ac12 said:


> If you switch to Canon, life will suck for a while, as Canon does things different than Nikon.  Then you will gradually get used to how the Canon works, and life will be OK again.
> What sucks:  to mount/unmount the EF lens you turn the lens in the opposite direction as Nikon F (presumably same for R and Z lenses), zoom ring turns in the opposite direction as Nikon, the menu is different (so finding stuff will be a challenge), etc.
> 
> As for battery life, or lack of life, get used to it.  Mirrorless cameras use the battery faster than dSLRs.  From what I've figured out, mirrorless battery life is primarily dependent on power ON time, not the number of shots.
> And it is not just the batteries, but the chargers and charging process.  On my last vacation with an Olympus EM1-mk1, I brought three batteries, and two chargers.  I should have brought FOUR batteries.  I charged in two shifts; two batteries as soon as I got to the hotel, and the 3rd battery overnight.



Thanks for the info. For me, I'll usually get an entire week with one battery on my d7000. I find that the main "battery killer" is soccer where I'm tracking a moving target and holding focus for periods of time with the lens stabilization active.


----------



## ac12 (Sep 25, 2021)

ulrichsd said:


> Thanks for the info. For me, I'll usually get an entire week with one battery on my d7000. I find that the main "battery killer" is soccer where I'm tracking a moving target and holding focus for periods of time with the lens stabilization active.



hmmm, never noticed that.
Well soccer is in the winter season, so December, then I can try and monitor my battery usage.


----------



## Space Face (Sep 26, 2021)

I have heard great things about the RP.  Saw a Youtube video by some well regarded photographer when I was researching it a few months ago.  Damned if I can remember who it was.  I'll link it if I do remember.  I'm a Canon user so don't have an opinion on Nikon or other brands for that matter.


----------



## Rickbb (Sep 26, 2021)

Quality of either is great, so brand is a wash.

If you don’t mind losing your existing glass and re-learning everything on the camera then Cannon would be a serious front runner.

Some people call me a loyal Nikon guy, but it’s only because I have a cabinet full of old Nikon gear I have acquired over the past 45 years. It makes switching brands near impossible for me now.

Find a good camera store and hold them both, shoot some stuff and see what ”speaks“ to you. Thats what I did back in the mid 70’s and why I have all that Nikon stuff. If I were doing that now not sure Nikon or SLR would come out on top.


----------



## Space Face (Sep 26, 2021)

Here:  I know Rockwell ain't everyones cuppa but this is a pretty good review.


----------



## ulrichsd (Sep 27, 2021)

Rickbb said:


> Quality of either is great, so brand is a wash.
> 
> If you don’t mind losing your existing glass and re-learning everything on the camera then Cannon would be a serious front runner.
> 
> ...



My current lenses, I really don't think I would use on the Z body... At $250 for the converter, I'd just skip it and use that money to buy a telephoto Z lens.

I was getting ready to sell my Sigma 18-250 and Nikon 80-200 f/2.8, and just couldn't do it LOL - for what I'd get for them, it might just be better to keep them as I still plan on using my D7000 on occasion... As much as I hate that Sigma lens, I'd probably only get $80-100 for it and maybe $250 for the 80-200...



Space Face said:


> Here:  I know Rockwell ain't everyones cuppa but this is a pretty good review.


I did see that one. To be honest, Ken's constant "switch to Canon" throughout his videos is pretty annoying  but he does give a thorough review. 

The Nikon Z5 gets great reviews as well, though, so I think it comes down more to price and lens options... The Z5 is a better camera imo, but I think the RP would be plenty of camera for me, so it comes down to I think I prefer the lens options on Canon at this point.

Thanks all,
Scott


----------



## ulrichsd (Nov 8, 2021)

Rickbb said:


> Quality of either is great, so brand is a wash.
> 
> If you don’t mind losing your existing glass and re-learning everything on the camera then Cannon would be a serious front runner.
> 
> ...



I've come all the way around and am going back to getting the Nikon Z5. I also looked into the Sony A7 iii and iv which are just more than I want to spend. Nikon has the Z5 refurbished + 24-200 kit for $1799 at the moment.  I'm going to wait to see if it drops any more before black Friday and if not go ahead and get it at that price. I'm going to add the 40mm f/1.8 as well. And patiently wait for them to come out with a lower cost consumer telephotos in the 100-400mm range.

The main thing is the 4.5 continuous AF on the Nikon, while not good, is just way better than the 2 fps w/ AF (5fps w/o af) -  2fps is just a deal breaker imo. Going from 6fps on my D7000 to 4.5 is already going to be a challenge. In addition the Z5 has IBIS, better EVF, dual card slots and better battery life, all of which are a bonus. The flip screen on the Canon is nice, but not a must have, and its smaller/lighter, but the Z5 is already a bit lighter than my D7000 that I'm used to. Lastly, the ability to buy a crop sensor Z50 (or equivalent) with 11 fps in the future as a sports body, and use all the same Z mount lenses, is a really nice option. I'm going to assume that Canon will probably eventually make a APS-C sensor RF mount camera, but who knows.

Thanks to all for the suggestions! Scott


----------



## RVsForFun (Nov 9, 2021)

I went from a 10-year old Canon 5D (it couldn't even autofocus during video capture!) to the Canon RP to keep my one remaining Sigma 16mm fisheye. I had to buy an EOS-to-RP adapter, but the camera has been very good.

*The things I learned about going from an old-school DSLR to the RP:*
1) I shut off the touch screen. I had several videos and photos ruined by not realizing my finger or my nose had touched the screen immediately prior to taking a photo, and this shifted the focus point to someplace in the upper corner of the frame. The focus indicator is an orange box on the display, somewhat hard to see in full daylight. I had several video clips that were out of focus when I got the editing bay.

2) I wasn't used to the camera options being peculiar to a camera mode. My old 5D, if memory serves, had one set of autofocus settings for the entire camera. Set my Canon 5D to Servo AF, for example, and it didn't matter if you were taking video or still photos, you got Servo AF. This is NOT TRUE with the Canon RP. If you want Servo AF and set it in the P mode (for example), that will NOT set Servo AF in movie capture. Same for focus and exposure compensation settings, they "stick" with the mode you're in. That's either a help or a hinderance, depending on your point of view.

3) The (sometimes) package zoom of 24-105mm from Canon is very very sharp, a good lens and amazingly lightweight. You'll have to pay mucho more $$$ to get a constant aperture zoom (at 105mm, the lens is f/7.1) but for many of us, that's a good tradeoff. 

Overall, I like the RP better than my old Canon 5D. It *appears* that the RP has solved the Canon 1% flash spot meter problem I've observed, but I haven't done enough extensive testing to say this is absolutely true. I also admit I have turned off E-TTL on my RP in favor of Average flash exposure because of this reason. I can explain my reasons, and what the 1% flash spot meter issue is if someone is interested.


----------



## RVsForFun (Nov 9, 2021)

I find that Nikon flash photos are better than Canon flash photos right out of the box, but this observation is based upon a decade-old Canon 5D ownership. When I was an event/wedding photographer, I did extensive testing on my 5D's flash algorithm, and found that the E-TTL setting (the default for all Canon cameras) was using just the focusing point - that 1% square it decided was the focus point - to determine flash exposure. 

Normally you'd think that was a good idea, in that it would not overexpose if you took pictures with a dark background. On paper, it's a great idea. HOWEVER, in my wedding work, what frequently happened was that the camera would select the brightest most contrasty portion of the photo as the focus point (correct!); unfortunately, that portion was almost always a bride's light colored wedding dress, or a white shirt. For focus, it's dead on. For flash exposure, it's the WORST POSSIBLE thing to meter on, I routinely got 4 stops underexposure. 

I discovered the camera had a flash exposure setting of E-TTL or Average, set the camera to average, TaDa! it was fixed. Nikons don't have this problem, so if you're an external flash guy like me, the Nikons perform better with no modifications.


----------



## ulrichsd (Nov 10, 2021)

RVsForFun said:


> I find that Nikon flash photos are better than Canon flash photos right out of the box, but this observation is based upon a decade-old Canon 5D ownership. When I was an event/wedding photographer, I did extensive testing on my 5D's flash algorithm, and found that the E-TTL setting (the default for all Canon cameras) was using just the focusing point - that 1% square it decided was the focus point - to determine flash exposure.
> 
> Normally you'd think that was a good idea, in that it would not overexpose if you took pictures with a dark background. On paper, it's a great idea. HOWEVER, in my wedding work, what frequently happened was that the camera would select the brightest most contrasty portion of the photo as the focus point (correct!); unfortunately, that portion was almost always a bride's light colored wedding dress, or a white shirt. For focus, it's dead on. For flash exposure, it's the WORST POSSIBLE thing to meter on, I routinely got 4 stops underexposure.
> 
> I discovered the camera had a flash exposure setting of E-TTL or Average, set the camera to average, TaDa! it was fixed. Nikons don't have this problem, so if you're an external flash guy like me, the Nikons perform better with no modifications.



Thanks for all the information!! I used flash a lot more when the kids were little, but now more of the kids photos of are activities. But I do have a Nikon SB-600, so that is one less thing I have to buy if I go with Nikon


----------



## ulrichsd (Nov 11, 2021)

I'm changing the poll to include the Canon EOS R... I know its a little more expensive and a few years old, but the refurb price on Canon's website is $1439... it seems like an improvement on my biggest issue with the RP, which is frame rate, by shooting at 8 fps w/o af or 5 w/ af. It also has a better viewfinder than the RP. Slightly better resolution than the RP and Z5, closing shutter when off and reticulating screen. It's lacking the dual cards of the Z5, but I'm not a pro, so it'd be nice to have but not a deal breaker.

Holding out that black friday it might even go down further so not that far off from the Z5 price. There are some lower cost consumer lenses in the RF line that I'd love to get, and there's nothing comparable with the Z line (or listed in their roadmap), like the 16mm ($300) and 100-400mm ($650). Nikon's only long tele is over $2k and the 14-30 is $1100.

Please fill me in if there is any reason to not get a Canon R, because that is where I'm leaning at the moment.

Thanks! Scott


----------



## ulrichsd (Nov 12, 2021)

B&H has refurbished z6 body for $1300 or $1800 with 24-70 f4.

Seems like a great camera option! Not sure if I should get the 24-70 f/4 and buy the ftz for $250 to use my 70-300 af-s? Or just get the body + 24-200 for $2200 total?


----------



## ulrichsd (Nov 13, 2021)

*edit* Ordered and coming Wednesday!!!

I finally decided, and it wasn't easy. I'm going to get the Z6 with 24-70 f/4 for $1800. That is the same price as the Z5 with the 24-200 and only $90 more than the RP with 24-240. Since I'm going to keep this camera for at least 5+ years, I just think I'll be a little happier with the extra features: higher frame rate (12 fps), ibis, uncropped 4k video, back side illuminated sensor, high ISO performance and better battery life. Losing the extra card slot compared to the Z5 and the flip screen of the RP, but neither of those are that important to me.

I personally like/love Canon's lens selection and the direction they are going with their lenses, consumer 100-400mm and compact primes that don't use a plastic mount like the Z 40mm f/2, but expecting/hoping Nikon will keep putting out some more stuff and I'm in no rush to buy anything else at the moment... somewhere down the line I'll look to add a prime or two and a longer telephoto - can probably splurge at that time to get something nice 

Thanks all! Scott


----------



## Nikon74 (Nov 28, 2021)

Great choice!


----------



## ulrichsd (Nov 28, 2021)

Nikon74 said:


> Great choice!


Thanks! I was on vacation - Disneyworld with the family - so I just stuck with the cellphone camera. I've only had the chance to take a few photos and start getting it setup, but so far I'm loving it! The EVF looks great and its quick and responsive. Looking forward to getting it out and taking more pictures with it!!


----------



## ulrichsd (Dec 1, 2021)

ulrichsd said:


> - Disneyworld with the family - so I just stuck with the cellphone camera. I've only had the chance to take a few photos and start getting it setup, but so far I'm loving it! The EVF looks great


Super excited, just ordered the 14-30mm f/4 go go with the 24-70 f/4 (and using my 70-300mm with the FTZ).


----------



## ac12 (Dec 1, 2021)

Good choice on the Z6.
I shoot high school sports with a D7200 and Olympus EM1-mk2.
The 4.5fps of the Z5 would suck, for sports.  After using the Olympus at 18fps, the 6fps of the D7200 is slow.

READ the specs, on the continuous frame rate.  Some/many of the mfg do an advertising trick, and give the max frame rate for the continuous mode with AF only on the FIRST frame, and NO AF after that.  That is OK if the subject does not move towards/away from you, like a baseball batter hitting a ball.  But if the subject does move towards/away from you, like basketball or kids running around, you want the camera to AF between frames.  I can count on ONE HAND, with fingers left over, the scenarios where I have shot with AF on only the FIRST frame of a burst.

I've been thinking about upgrading from the D7200 to a Z6ii.


----------



## adamhiram (Dec 1, 2021)

ulrichsd said:


> Ordered and coming Wednesday!!!


Congrats, I'm sure you'll love it!  If you haven't seen these other threads, I switched to mirrorless last year and documented my experiences and recommendations as I got used to the camera.  I initially picked up a Z6, but ultimately ended up with a Z6II.

Z6 - First Impressions
Z6II - First Impressions
Z6 II - Continuous High vs. Extended


----------



## ulrichsd (Dec 1, 2021)

ac12 said:


> Good choice on the Z6.
> I shoot high school sports with a D7200 and Olympus EM1-mk2.
> The 4.5fps of the Z5 would suck, for sports.  After using the Olympus at 18fps, the 6fps of the D7200 is slow.
> 
> ...



Thanks! Yes, the D7000 is 6 fps and I didn't want to go backwards  From what I can tell the Z6 is 5.5 fps in mechanical shutter with full AF and in silent mode it is 8 fps raw or 12 fps jpg. I'll have to play with it in actual use to get a feel for it though.


----------



## ulrichsd (Dec 1, 2021)

adamhiram said:


> Congrats, I'm sure you'll love it!  If you haven't seen these other threads, I switched to mirrorless last year and documented my experiences and recommendations as I got used to the camera.  I initially picked up a Z6, but ultimately ended up with a Z6II.
> 
> Z6 - First Impressions
> Z6II - First Impressions
> Z6 II - Continuous High vs. Extended



Cool, thanks so much for the links - great, detailed reviews on the Z6 and Z6ii! I was happy to see they just released a new firmware release for the Z6 and that Nikon is putting effort into their older models. The 2nd card slot is a nice to have, but honestly I've never failed one and I'm not a pro so I'm okay not having to buy a 2nd CFexpress card 

So far the FTZ adapter hasn't bothered me much as I rarely use a tripod and it doesn't feel out of place on a longer telephoto that is already like 8" like the 70-300, it will likely just permanently live on that lens now that I have the Z 14-30 and 24-70. I haven't used any of my primes since the 35mm is DX and the 50mm won't autofocus, but I would have to think an FX prime would feel a bit odd on the FTZ. Sometime down the road I'll get the Z 40mm to use on the Z6.

I really had to exercise restraint to not get the F mount 200-500 since it was $300 off. I'm going to wait and see reviews/price for the Z 200-600 when it comes out... the advantage of the 200-500 is that I could still use it on my D7000 if I wanted to carry 2 bodies.


----------



## ac12 (Dec 1, 2021)

If you are like me, you will LOVE the EVF.
Being able to see your exposure BEFORE you press the shutter is really nice.  Especially when the lighting is "difficult."  Then you can adjust the exposure in real time before you press the shutter, rather than "shoot-chimp-adjust-then repeat" on a dSLR.

I also found that I like the brighter EVF when shooting in the gym, where the EVF is brighter than the viewfinder of my D7200, even with a f/1.8 prime on the D7200.

I would keep an eye out for a 35,40 or 50 f/1.8, for when the light gets LOW.
When the light is LOW, FAST glass wins.


----------



## ulrichsd (Dec 1, 2021)

ac12 said:


> If you are like me, you will LOVE the EVF.


So far I've really enjoyed it, will see how it does in different conditions 



ac12 said:


> I would keep an eye out for a 35,40 or 50 f/1.8, for when the light gets LOW.
> When the light is LOW, FAST glass wins.


Yep, 100% agree - I love my two primes and used my dx 35 f/1.8 all the time, more than any other lens. I debated about skipping on the kit 24-70 and just getting the 40mm f/2 prime, but decided it would be nice to have and the 24-70 as part of the kit was only an extra $500. My birthday present to myself in March will be the 40mm and somewhere down the road I'll probably get the 85mm f/1.8 and/or 105mm macro.


----------



## Sharpshooterr (Mar 15, 2022)

ulrichsd said:


> Hi all, I'm looking to upgrade my 10 year old D7000 to a mirrorless camera. Mainly kids photos and kids sports, with some vacation, landscape and wildlife photography. And video is nice, but secondary. I love my 35mm and 50mm primes for low profile and fast aperture, which seems like Canon has a lot more prime lens options right now. Nikon's options are more expensive and bulkier...
> 
> 1. Canon RP w/ 24-105mm f4-7.1 ($1300), 100-400mm 5.6-8 ($650),16mm ($300), 50mm ($200), 85mm macro ($600) = $3050
> OR
> ...





ulrichsd said:


> Thanks,
> Scott





ulrichsd said:


> I'm really leaning toward the RP - is there anything that I'm missing in this comparison???
> Thanks,
> Scott


Scott, yes, you're missing everything that happens after you take the shot. Like the paper, the ink and the printer!
Canon is a complete system from taking the shot to putting it on your wall, don't underestimate that. There's a reason Canon took over Nikon's #1 position!!!
SS


----------



## ulrichsd (Mar 17, 2022)

Sharpshooterr said:


> Scott, yes, you're missing everything that happens after you take the shot. Like the paper, the ink and the printer!
> Canon is a complete system from taking the shot to putting it on your wall, don't underestimate that. There's a reason Canon took over Nikon's #1 position!!!
> SS



Interesting, but to be honest I don't print often and should probably print more  I do some 4x6 family photos in frames, but for every 100 photos I share to social media, I might print one. For landscape stuff I like, I will occasionally print larger and frame, or order on canvas. 

Also, I did just order the 40mm f/2 for my birthday present, which is coming on Sunday!

I've been very happy with the Z6, but there is definitely a learning curve trying to get the most out of the various  autofocus settings. I wish Nikon had some sort of consumer telephoto Z lens. I'd like to get the 100-400mm, but it is expensive, I'll probably just trade in all my old DSLR lenses to pay for half of it LOL

Thanks,
Scott


----------



## adamhiram (Mar 18, 2022)

ulrichsd said:


> Also, I did just order the 40mm f/2 for my birthday present, which is coming on Sunday!


Please follow up with you impressions of this lens if you don't mind!  I've been considering the compact 40mm f/2 for a while, but am not sure how significant the tradeoffs are, particularly when compared to the 24-70 at comparable apertures.


----------



## ac12 (Mar 18, 2022)

adamhiram said:


> Please follow up with you impressions of this lens if you don't mind!  I've been considering the compact 40mm f/2 for a while, but am not sure how significant the tradeoffs are, particularly when compared to the 24-70 at comparable apertures.



A small fast prime, for LOW light.
In LOW light that 1-stop over the 24-70/2.8 or 2-stops over the 24-70/4 makes a difference, either in shutter speed (1/8 sec vs. 1/60 sec) or ISO (12800 vs 3200).

I now make a fast (f/1.8 or f/2)  prime (35 or 50mm equiv on a FF camera) a standard part of my kit.
I don't use it much, but sometimes it has been too dark for my slower GP zoom, and the fast prime is the only thing that worked.

Example, 
FF kit = 24-120 GP lens + 35/1.8 or 50/1.8
APS-C kit = 18-140 GP lens + 35/1.8
m43/ kit = 12-60 GP lens + 17/1.8


----------



## ulrichsd (Mar 18, 2022)

adamhiram said:


> Please follow up with you impressions of this lens if you don't mind!  I've been considering the compact 40mm f/2 for a while, but am not sure how significant the tradeoffs are, particularly when compared to the 24-70 at comparable apertures.



I'll definitely give an update! On my D7000, my 35mm 1.8 was my most used lens... indoors, candid and family photos. I really missed having a fast normal prime. It is also nice when I'm planning to use a wide angle or telephoto and don't want to have to carry a larger second lens.


----------



## adamhiram (Mar 18, 2022)

ac12 said:


> A small fast prime, for LOW light.
> In LOW light that 1-stop over the 24-70/2.8 or 2-stops over the 24-70/4 makes a difference, either in shutter speed (1/8 sec vs. 1/60 sec) or ISO (12800 vs 3200).





ulrichsd said:


> I'll definitely give an update! On my D7000, my 35mm 1.8 was my most used lens... indoors, candid and family photos. I really missed having a fast normal prime. It is also nice when I'm planning to use a wide angle or telephoto and don't want to have to carry a larger second lens.


Definitely agreed.  On my DSLRs (D5100, D500), I loved having a compact fast prime, usually a 35mm f/1.8.  Besides a wider aperture, images were sharper, bokeh was more pleasing (my 17-55 had notoriously harsh out of focus areas), and was very compact.  However that's not really the case with the Z-mount system.

The Z-mount 24-70- f/2.8 is just as sharp as the faster primes for most focal lengths, has much more pleasing bokeh at f/2.8, and the S-line primes are not particularly compact.  I've debated picking up a Z-mount 35mm or 50mm f/1.8, but I still have my F-mount 50mm f/1.8 that I rarely use - it just doesn't offer much advantage over the 24-70 other than a wider aperture.

That's what appealed to me about the 40mm f/2.  It may be a cheaper plastic lens that is not quite as sharp as other primes in the same focal range, but its compact size is its selling point.


----------



## ulrichsd (Mar 19, 2022)

adamhiram said:


> Definitely agreed.  On my DSLRs (D5100, D500), I loved having a compact fast prime, usually a 35mm f/1.8.  Besides a wider aperture, images were sharper, bokeh was more pleasing (my 17-55 had notoriously harsh out of focus areas), and was very compact.  However that's not really the case with the Z-mount system.
> 
> The Z-mount 24-70- f/2.8 is just as sharp as the faster primes for most focal lengths, has much more pleasing bokeh at f/2.8, and the S-line primes are not particularly compact.  I've debated picking up a Z-mount 35mm or 50mm f/1.8, but I still have my F-mount 50mm f/1.8 that I rarely use - it just doesn't offer much advantage over the 24-70 other than a wider aperture.
> 
> That's what appealed to me about the 40mm f/2.  It may be a cheaper plastic lens that is not quite as sharp as other primes in the same focal range, but its compact size is its selling point.



I've read mostly positive reviews on the 40mm - it may be a little less sharp than the 24-70 f/4 in the corners, but I personally get it for the fast aperture, so the corners will usually be out of focus anyway  I'm guessing stopped down, it will be good enough for me anyway.

I was deciding between that and the 50mm f/1.8, which by all accounts seems to be flawless... but the small size factor of the 40mm is appealing to me. I was a little concerned about the plastic mount, and actually emailed Thom Hogan, here was his response:

_"They’re polycarbonate mounts, which is not exactly “plastic.” You need to rid yourself of your bias here. There’s actually no evidence that the mounts on lenses like the 28mm and 40mm are any worse than metal mounts. Indeed, the evidence is the opposite: the metal mounts brass and wear, the polycarbonate mounts are pretty resistant to anything except perhaps direct blunt shock. My friends at Lens Rentals agree with me on this: there’s no concern whatsoever."_


----------

