The Nikon Z 40mm f2 is a compact full-frame lens for the Nikon mirrorless system. It is impressive for its price and capabilities, with an overall really nice balance between size and performance.
Lens Specs
Check Price: Amazon / Adorama / BHphoto
See how this lens compares to other Z Mount Lens.
| Focal Length: 40mm Aperture Blade: 9R Aperture: f2 – f16 Elements: 6 elements in 4 groups Coatings: Super Integrated Coating Weather-Sealed: Yes Minimum Focus Distance: 11.4″ / 29 cm Filter Threads: 52 mm Weight: 6 oz / 170 g |
Pros: Very sharp in the center stopped down, good micro-contrast, great flare resistance, average color and contrast for Nikon prime, semi-classic rendering (subjective), small and light, price, quiet and smooth autofocus, minimum focus breathing, weather-sealed.
Cons: Nasty coma, some loss of sharpness at close distances, some loss in sharpness towards the edges of the frame, not great bokeh in transition zones (the area that is just out of focus).
Personal Thoughts: I find autofocus to be very acceptable and accurate and can easily handle tough situations like street photography at night, but some lenses, like the Z 50mm f1.8, are a bit faster. While many retail pages do not advertise this lens as dust—and water-resistant, Nikon’s official page advertises it as dust—and water-droplet-sealed. This lens has a little bit more of a classic rendering, and I loved it paired up with a Glimmerglass Diffusion filter at around 1/4 power.
Nikon 40mm f2 First Impressions
With only 6 elements, this lens produces a more classic look with a bit more micro-contrast. The bokeh is a little more bloomy at the center and, overall, a little less perfect than the bigger S lenses.
The results are unique, and the lens is still very sharp and punchy. It’s a great go-to everyday carry lens—especially for the price—so I’m enthusiastic about it.
Nikon 40mm f2 vs Competition
There are a few other lenses from other brands that are similar in size to this lens. I own a few of these.
I’ve listed the prices that are subject to change over time. But when writing this, here was the value of each of these lenses.
Canon RF 35mm f1.8 IS lens ($500) RF
Sony Zeiss 35mm f2.8 ($598) FE.
Sony 40mm f2.5 G ($598.00) FE
Sigma 45mm f2.8 ($549.00) for the FE and L mount systems.
Tamron 35mm f2.8 Di III $250 FE
What’s the difference?
Those lenses above are all fairly expensive, except the Tamron. The lenses are also a little slower than this Nikon 40mm, except for the Canon 35mm, which is f1.8.
The Nikon 40mm f2 undercuts them all pretty heavily in price, and the performance is also really nice. It will likely not match some of these lenses regarding overall image quality since it is a lower-element lens. But this lens is about a stop faster than most lenses in this range.
Even if you price this lens against APS-C systems at $300, it’s still pretty competitive as the XF Fujifilm 35mm f2 is priced at $400. However, with a plastic mount, comparing it to the $200 Fujifilm XC 35mm f2 would be more appropriate, although the 40mm is considered weather-sealed. So die-hard APS-C shooters could probably still find more value in Fujifilm over Nikon in the 35mm-40mm range, but not by much.
What does classic rendering mean?
When I say classic rendering, that typically means higher micro-contrast (you’ll notice a little more tonal detail in the skin tones and cleaner colors in highlights), and less consistent performance from the center to the edges, and often classic lenses have a big bend in the field curvature (not this lens). Bokeh in the center is usually a little puffier and a little more lively than the midframe and edges, where the shape is often not as symmetrical.
Classic lenses usually flare and bloom a little more, as well. – Not this lens.
Non-classic lenses like the Z 35mm f1.8 S or 50mm f1.8 S, have very clean field curvature, consistent sharpness throughout the frame, and fairly consistent bokeh depth throughout the frame. This often creates a 3d cutout effect with the subject separation with very clean transition zones (areas just out of focus). To do all this, a lens needs a lot of elements, which will lower the micro-contrast.
The Nikon Z 35mm f1.8 has some of the prettiest focus falloffs of any of the Z lenses, and I highly recommend it over the 40mm lens if portrait photography is your primary focus.
This 40mm f2 is a simpler lens and sacrifices edge and corner performance in favor of punchier tones. Still, it’s only partly classic since it does use two aspherical elements to clean up that field curvature, and it does use nice coatings to keep light blooming and flaring under control.
Overall, it’s a very balanced lens, but it’s not the best option for shooters looking for near-perfect reproductive photography, such as landscapes or astrophotography.
Why do a lot of elements lower the micro-contrast?
Every time you introduce a new element to an optical design, you introduce two new surfaces, this creates more potential for light to scatter as it transitions in and out of that surface. No matter how good the glass is, there are also impurities. The more glass there is, the more light can be disrupted as it interacts with those impurities. All of this can interfere with the phase and frequency of the light, reducing its clarity and resolution.
It’s almost like the analog version of a 10-bit image vs. a 12-bit image. With high-element lenses, there seems to be less resolution to the color and tonal depth, and color and tonal transitions, like in skin tones, never look as nice. You should be able to see it immediately in these samples if you’re used to shooting on the Z 50mm f1.8 S.
Nikon Z 40mm f2 Review | Build Quality
The build quality is solid overall, and the lens feels tougher than it looks. Originally, I was concerned that this would feel like a light and cheap lens, but I was impressed by how it feels and functions. It’s a single barrel design with internal focusing elements, meaning externally, there are no moving parts or openings to suck in dust or moisture.
This lens uses two aspherical elements in a 6-element, 4-group design with 9 rounded aperture blades that are visibly close to the front element, which looks pretty cool.
There is no lens hood or place for one, but the coatings are good enough that I’ve never had any issues with flaring or ghosting. Again, this isn’t a good choice for landscape photography anyway.
This lens does have a plastic mount, which is a little disappointing. It’s not that it needs a metal mount, but having one would help with the overall presentation of the lens. With a plastic mount, the perception of this lens will be that it’s an entry-level lens with entry-level performance, even though, optically, the lens produces very good results.
If you’re concerned about this plastic lens being just a plastic lens, I’ll say the overall quality of the lens feels very nice; it doesn’t feel cheap.
Another weird thing that bugs me about this lens is the type of plastic they’re using, which works as a fingernail file. It’s high-quality plastic, and it feels good, but as I go about the day shooting, my fingernails bump and scrape on the side of the lens next to the grip, and there ends up being all these little marks that make the lens look dirty. It’s not damaging the lens, but I am constantly leaving behind fingernail dust on the lens’s side and other marks. It’s just weird, and I’ve never experienced it before. This is where maybe an aluminum housing would have been nicer for that bottom section of the lens.
To see if I was crazy or if this was just me, I also looked at other lens reviews, and with some of them, this lens was also very dirty by the time they were done with it.
Nikon Z 40mm f2 Review | Technical Overview
The Good
Sharpness – The Nikon 40mm f2 has good center sharpness, especially when stopped down to f4 or f5.6, but not as much so at close distances and not as much at f2. It’s more than good enough on a camera like the Nikon Zf, but on a higher-megapixel camera like a Z8, there are sharper lenses like the 50mm f1.8 or the 105mm f2.8 macro lens.
I wasn’t expecting a lot out of a 40mm f2 compact lens, but the center sharpness was surprising. However, sharpness does fall off a little towards the edges and gets a little softer in the wide-open corners. Also, this lens will lose some of its sharpness at close distances. Anything under maybe 5 feet will soften up, and you’ll probably want to stop down to f4 by the minimum focus distance if you demand absolute sharpness at close focus.
Micro-Contrast – Compared to the current lineup of S lenses, this 40mm has a lot more punch and tonal detail, making the images feel like they have better color and contrast.
What is micro-contrast? Check out that guide for samples.
Focus Breathing – Like with so many Nikon prime lenses, the 40mm f2 focus of breathing is kept to a minimum. This is great news for video shooters who want clean focus without relying on cropping the sensor to correct this issue, as Sony does. This allows great performance while using the full sensor.
Build-In Profile Corrections – Compared to third-party lenses like the Viltrox 35mm f1.8, this lens has built-in profile corrections, so vignetting and distortion are cleaned up before the files even get to your computer. You won’t see distortion or severe vignetting, even with RAW files.
Coatings – Nikon uses a Super Integrated Coating on this lens, and the results are nice. There are no Nanocoatings on the outer elements, so you’ll likely have to work a little harder to keep the lens clean.
These coatings also allow you to use the lens in bright, sunny conditions without losing contrast or clarity. Images are high in global contrast and saturation.
The Bad
Astigmatism – Like with my Canon 35mm f1.8, you do also get that crazy astigmatism along the edges and corners. This lens won’t work well for astrophotography, and you’ll even need to be a little careful of the scenes with a lot of little point lights.
Here is the image and bottom right corner as an example.
Some CA – There are some chromatic aberrations in high-contrast areas, specifically in the bokeh. You can even see some of it in the top right of the above shot on the left, but it’s nothing to really get concerned about.
Softer Close Focus – Like with most old wide lenses or lenses with that more classic optical design, this lens does lose its sharpness a little when doing close focus. This lens has a minimum focus distance of 29cm or 11.4″, so you’re limited a little here on how close you can get anyway, but if you’re shooting at the minimum focus distance you might want to stop down a stop or two to get back the full sharpness.
Nikon has been doing a great job getting around with some of the dual-element or all-element focus systems, like with the 85mm or the 26mm. But the 40mm keeps it simple.
Autofocus, Is It Good?
Yes, autofocus is very good. I can shoot in AF-C just fine, and it mostly passes the swing test with my kids, which a lot of lenses fail. Just going off my experiences, I would say it’s a little better than the 35mm f1.8 but not quite as good as the 50mm f1.8. So it’s very good and will keep up with a hyper kid in most situations, but if they are running towards you, often you’ll get the focus on their ears instead of their eyes.
Autofocus is quiet and smooth as well.
This photo is also another nice example of how the center bokeh is a little puffier and more intense than the edges – very classic.
Shooting 40mm, is it worth it?
The Nikon 40mm isn’t my first 40mm; occasionally, I still shoot with my Canon 40mm f2.8 pancake on my EOS R, and I’ve always loved the focal length as a prime.
Voigtlander also makes a few 40mm lenses, and the new Ricoh GRIIIx is fitted with a 40mm equivalent prime.
40mm is a very fun, casual focal length, and it’s gaining popularity. For someone who can’t decide between 35mm and 50mm, 40mm is a nice compromise. It’s not as wide as 35mm, so it allows a little more subject isolation, but it’s not so tight that shooting the full scene is difficult, like with a 50mm.
Personally, I like 40mm more than 35mm for general-purpose photography. While I love the longer lenses like 50mm and 85mm, 40mm is a bit more versatile, so it’s a great lens to carry all the time since it still works in any situation like a 35mm.
Art & Character
This lens has a very interesting vibe. It renders much like some of my classic lenses or even my cheaper ones with simpler designs. The image quality is very good together because of the nice coatings and aspherical elements. So there are no big imperfections except for the coma in the corners, but this lens mostly has cool rendering with overall good results. I like the balance here.
Bokeh
The bokeh is interesting with this one, and if you’re not used to old-school lenses, it might throw you off.
If you’re using the other Z lenses of the S line, you’ll notice they have a totally different profile. Their bokeh swirls a little, with some clean-shaped cat-eye bokeh along the edges and corners.
Not this lens.
This lens has astigmatism in the corners, so the bokeh isn’t beautifully shaped with beautiful cats’ eyes. Rather, the shape is asymmetrical and kind of blobby. You’ll also see crazy comes in the corners when they are in focus.
Corner sample of the blobby shape.
Like other classic lenses, this center bokeh is bloomier and more intense compared to the edges and corners, sometimes this creates an interesting depth to the image when the subject is positioned correctly.
Focus Falloff – Transition Zones
Compared to the bigger S-line lenses, the focus falloff behaves differently with this lens, and it almost feels a little more analog. The render has a less 3D cutout effect, and the area that’s in focus to out of focus has a slightly calmer transition and feels a little less dramatic.
Also, the areas in the bokeh that are just out of focus ( aka the transition areas ) are not quite as nice on this lens compared to the 35mm f1.8 S lens, but not terrible, but the out of focus areas are a little hazy and ghosty.
Bottom Line – Should You Buy It?
The Nikon 40mm f2 is a fantastic addition to the current lineup of Z lenses. While the Nikon 35mm f1.8 S performs better overall, none of the S lenses deliver what this lens delivers regarding micro-contrast, making it special in its own right.
For just a little bit more money, you can now get a Viltrox 35mm f1.8, but the 40mm f2 Nikon lens is overall a little nicer with autofocus, quite a bit more compact, and I’m going to guess it’s sharper at f2 than the Viltrox, although I haven’t done any side-by-side.
Where the Viltrox beats the Nikon is at corner performance. Astrophotographers will get better corners than the Viltrox, and landscape photographers will also have cleaner corners overall. Still, they’ll need to manually clean up the Viltrox distortion, which is quite noticeable.
I personally prefer the Nikon 40mm f2 over the Viltrox for street shooting, but if I needed an inexpensive lens in this price range for landscapes, I would go with a Viltrox or some other manual focus option over this 40mm f2. This is just not a landscape lens; perhaps you could get by with many situations at f8, but I think better lenses are designed specifically for that.
This lens is a great street lens or everyday casual lifestyle lens, and with the fast f2 aperture, it’s still great for shooting at night and in low light. I have zero complaints with this context, although the corners get a little funky with some lighting conditions.
It’s easy to say, I am very happy with the results here for the price, but serious professionals would probably still like to have the 35mm f1.8 specifically for portraits.
Similar Lens Reviews.
Nikon Z 40mm f2 Sample Images
Check Price: Amazon / Adorama / BHphoto
Sample images were shot with the Nikon Z6.
Colored with my Lightroom Presets.
In Motion
Some slow shutter action. I like doing slow shutter street shots on 35mm. It seems like 40mm works well for it as well.
| **This website contains affiliate links. We will earn a small commission on purchases made through these links. Some of the links used in these articles will direct you to Amazon. As an Amazon Associate, I earn from qualifying purchases. |
Awesome write up on the 40MM. I just bought this lens due to your write up. I have about 10 different Z lenses (have the Z6II body) and I have to say this 40mm is incredible Especially at low light. Night shots have been excellent. I like this better than my 35mm Z !!! Alik – need more lens reviews !!
Such an excellent review, wow! Can’t wait to get my hands of it as I wasn’t really into the FTZ + 1.4 D 50mm without the AF…
If there anything I’ve learned in my years in the film industry and commercial photo world, it’s that any review that uses the word “micro-contrast” should be immediately closed and any views it shares must be viewed as highly suspect. It’s an old marketing buzz-word that has no real definition and I only hear it from internet/YouTube photographers who claim it’s some ineffable and immeasurable visual quality—which makes no sense when every other characteristic of the image is very much quantifiable or definable. It’s honestly just pretentious and, in my opinion, just serves as a flag for “this guy has no idea what he’s saying and is spouting jargon he’s heard elsewhere.” No great DP, photographer, or lens designer I’ve ever spoken to has ever used the word. Shame, because this seemed like a promising review at first.
Hey Steph, it’s a hot debate for sure. Let me share with you why I joined the cult (besides owning and testing 50+ lenses)
Here are some resources:
https://yannickkhong.com/blog/2016/2/8/micro-contrast-the-biggest-optical-luxury-of-the-world
https://lenspire.zeiss.com/photo/en/article/micro-contrast-and-the-zeiss-pop-by-lloyd-chambers
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4401932
There is some science behind it too. Glass is imperfect it always disrupting some light. Each element has 4 surfaces, a transition to air to glass, and then glass to air, there are also impurities in the glass and all this cause refraction, reflection or diffraction. Sometimes heavier elements were used in the past like lead or thorium and lanthanum which could change the index or refraction slowing the speed of light to bend more easily, allowing you to do more with less.
The quality of the glass is important too. Kipon just upgraded the glass in their lenses a few years ago and they said it improves the clarity, which makes sense, the more impurities the more the light frequency can be disrupted. Light adding sheet rock between your wifi signal.
The more interference and stuff there is between the light source and your sensor, the more disrupted the signal. You can still focus the image for great sharpness but some of the details of the signal will be lost and we see this especially in the inner tonal details like in the subtle gradations in the skin tones. Similar to how low light images can still be sharp, but they won’t have as much information due to the lower photon coherency. And this is not due to the gain of the sensor either, because a high ISO image in bright light will still look better than a high ISO image in low light. because the bright exposure even when brought down with shutter and aperture still has better photon coherency.
You can also read into how the glass mirror of LIGO are going to be upgraded in 2024 so help reduce noise do to the atomic motion of the glass and it’s coatings.
This is actually a pretty interesting article about how they’ve been searching for the perfect glass that would significantly reduce interference.
https://www.quantamagazine.org/to-make-the-perfect-mirror-physicists-confront-the-mystery-of-glass-20200402/
The science is pretty straight forward. Less surfaces, better elements, better coatings creates a better signal that is independent of sharpness saturation and global contrast.
Hope this helps Steph. Micro-Contrast, or what ever you want to call it, is not the end all be all, but it’s just a little extra detail that affects the way contrast and details renders in our image.
It’s like the analog difference between an 10-bit image vs a 14-bit image, difficult for some people to see, but a professional color grader could spot it instantly.
None of those articles define nor display this so-called “micro-contrast” at all—precisely because it’s basically pseudoscience, a marketing term allegedly coined by Zeiss decades ago with no actual definition. The examples they do offer just show varying degrees of plain old sharpness and contrast. The “science” you cite, that more glass creates more artifacts and distortions, is basically just lens design 101. There’s no scientific data whatsoever to support this term that simply refuses to die because people who want to sound knowledgeable keep spouting it. Besides, it never even took hold until quite recently when YouTube reviews became common.
Also, I’m a film director—I’ve worked with loads of colorists and color houses over the years. I promise you most of them can’t tell the difference between an identical 10-bit and 14-bit image just by looking—humans can’t discern any difference in color depth past a certain threshold, which is really not even that high. So no, there’s not some secret quality to a certain lens that’s visible to some “enlightened” people and not to others. I’ve yet to hear a professional in the industry use the term (other than sarcastically), which I think speaks for itself.
why dont you provide something constructive – do you own this lens? If so, give a review ! man.. you dont get out much .. or must live in a micro contrast world. good riddance !
I had to chime in Steph. I have a partner in our video production company. He has approximately 40 years in the business. Most likely not your experience. He too knows nothing of microcontrast. It is a term used to describe the amount of information that gets to the film plane or sensor. It’s real my friend and 100% visible to the naked eye .
look at photos or videos made with good low element count glass , even some higher element count lenses. I e noticed it in glass up to 13 elements. Usually much lower .
If a photo were to be in Monochrome you would notice more shades of grey . In color it’s harder to define but more shades within you subject. For faces you’ll see better shape to them . IT’s described as having roundness and this you will see .
People who cannot see it are people who usually are not very artistic for one . The world is usually 2 dimensional to them anyway. You can either skin a cat or not but there isn’t multiple ways to do so .
Start paying attention to roundness, shape , the shades of grey and how light lands upon things . It is light upon an object with shape and how it fades from light to dark. Start with learning how to draw an egg with light coming in from one direction. Learn how to shade it and make it look round. The roundest looking drawings have the best graduation from light to dark. People who draw with darker dark areas and quickly graduating to light and bright areas draw a flatter looking egg.
As with a high element lens you will usually get a less rounded look to subjects. Again it is very noticeable in faces, skin body parts as we shoot people a lot. High element lenses designed with coatings that create higher contrast are most noticeable for having a flat image . You’ll notice brighter specular highlights and blacker blacks with a lack of shade’s in between. It flattens the subject. People and images start getting a cartoonish look. It’s very very noticeable in newer high definition movies. They have a cartoonish look an almost plastic look to them in a way. Society is even imitating this in how they are making their faces look with makeup and grooming. Makeup that makes their faces look flat without shading. Eyebrows that are very big , flat and dark looking. Eyes made up big and hard line edged .
I shoot with old low element count glass and very modern high element Sigma Art glass . I’ve shot mice glass in videos before and it is very noticeable. The old glass usually has faces with more color and shape to them. The modern high element lenses with have faces with less detail of shape and color. They look higher in contrast and harder . They loose smoothness and roundness.
It is visible and this is the simplest evidence you can get . Just pay attention to your subject and what it looks like .
So many people skip on the details especially so many who have gone to school for their profession in Videography and photography.They learn to frame get the exposure. They learn to layer the lighting to create shape and depth within their image but then loose the “inner tonal “ details of the shape the light they put in creates.
I also recoil at the use of that and similar terms (“3D pop,” anyone?), but this review is stellar, aside from the minor audiophile-level “woo” he might’ve bought into. He’s clearly very smart and knows this lens very well. I too own it and love it.
Hello my friend, I just picked up a new Z5 and 40mm f/2 because of your review. Fantastic images. I had previously owned the Z6, Z50, 40mm f/2, S 50 1.8, and f/4 24-120 but sold because it never felt “right”. The Z6 lacked dual card slots, the 50mm S 1.8 was too big and heavy for street, the f/4 was sharp all around but also too big. The Z50 was great but I love low light street photography. The Z5 with the new AF update, dual card slots, better DR in low ISO, and the magical little 40mm is a perfect combo for me. I was going to go with the Voigtlander APO 35mm f/2 but the images look a little too “clinical” as they say, almost too perfect like a CGI render, this 40mm f/2 gives my images the characteristics I’m looking for. I’ll hold onto the 40mm f/2 for life, and upgrade to a Z6III or Z8 if they improve AF.
What AF mode did you use? I’m in between the AFS single point with back button, and the AFC wide area L. I find the AFS to be quicker and more accurate in low light.
Thanks,
Dave M.
I’m curious. How does this lens stack up against the Sony 40mm f2.5 in your opinion?
I just bought this lens and totally didn’t think I’d get it because of its build quality.
The image quality got me hands down.
It has a beautiful rendering. The image have roundness and a 3-D depth to them. Most modern lenses really seem to flatten the dof in the image . They are starting to look dull and need work in post . I’m going to be using this lens for video and live music photography and I thing it’ll give me that dimensional look in searching for .
I just recently purchased the Voigtlander 40mm f/1.2 in M mount to adapt to Nikon and Sony bodies. I’m shooting it on my Nikon Z9 and it’s phenomenal. I also have the extremely perfect Sigma 40mm f/1.4 Art . And it has nothing. It renders so flat , dull and perfect there is nothing special about the images. Absolutely no microcontrast. And I am seeing this in many of the newest Nikkors. So perfect and high element designs. The bokeh has no beauty or character. It’s a perfect soft blur. The ( say person) in a photo looks flat and cut out and the background perfectly soft and flat behind. All the dof is lost transitioning to the background. It may just be me
What an amazing review and spot on. I had this lens for awhile…sometimes preferred it…sometimes didn’t.
As I’ve gotten more into Leica I started to appreciate this lens more.
Now I finally understand why.
Thanks for this review. I own this lens and I am in two minds about it : sometimes I find it quite good sometimes dull and “flat”. As I really appreciate the “3D pop” you mention, I don’t often find it in this lens. That’s why I am considering buying a VOIGTLANDER 40 f1.2 (Z mount) which seems to have this “3D pop effect”. Any thoughts about this lens ?
Thanks.
Hi Alik, thanks for your review. I am a big fan of the Canon EF 40 2.8, it just creates exceptional quality on the R5. How does it compare to the Nikon Z 40? I wish Canon and Nikon made a mirrorless 28 mm 1.4 lens..that would be awesome.
Great review, I bought the 40mm f2 Z last week with a Z5 body, the combination is stellar. In fact the very next day, I went out and bought the 28mm f2.8 Z which is another gem. You cannot beat the value! The lenses performance is very good, it makes mirror less what it should be, small light and fast. A great 35mm format set for everyday shooting. The images produced are very film like if you set it all up correctly. The images have character, they are not sterile; by that I mean almost too perfect. The prints from these lenses are stellar, right up to 17X22 inches, so much depth in tone. Both black and white &colour files are excellent, you can easily get amazing prints from JEPG’s straight out of the camera with no post. That saves time and money. The only fault may be build quality. The question,will these lenses survive the daily use in a professional work environment?I will find out soon enough as I plan on using them both in daily assignments along with my pro gear. Plastics today are very durable,in fact are used in products like automobiles, most electronics and have proven to be highly durable. So I am sure they will be just fine.
I’ve made great 40 inches prints with my APS-C so I hope the ZF with 40mm f2 will be better.
Maybe I missed it but do you set auto distortion control in body to off or auto with this lens?
I finally managed to pick one of these up on a discount.
Yes it does not quite have the 3d pop or micro-contrast of some of the more expensive primes but as shown beautifully in the review it does have it’s own character.
Nice lens if you are on a budget or just want something smaller to pack.
Hi Alik,
thanks a lot for this awesome review – it helped me make the choice to buy the 40mm as my first native prime for my Z5!
I couldn’t help but be astounded by the atmosphere of your sample photos and I wanted to ask you how you managed to get that deliciously grainy look in e.g. “Street Fire”. I fully understand if you don’t want to share the secrets of your craft but as someone just starting out with the basics of photography I’d really be grateful for a hint.
Between your Nikon 35 & 40 which one do you reach for most often for stills and why, if possible?
Right now I’m mostly going for the 35mm f1.4. Before I would generally take the 40mm the most as a casual lens, an everyday carry or at least it was always in my bag along with a 26 or 28. Just because it’s more compact, lighter, easier to carry. But that was for more casual every day stuff or even some travel. Anything where I was taking nice portraits for friends or family, or anything like big yearly events, or testing cameras or gear for this site, I would take the 35mm f1.8.
Thanks.
Thanks for the review! I just have to say your photography is just stunning. How do you get your color and edits to look perfect? Ha
Ha ha, thanks, but far from perfect 🙂 I rush the editing for these reviews; otherwise, I’m editing all weekend. But it’s mostly preset with some minor adjustments. Also some of the updated photos in this article I shot on the Z8, which has been helping with color.