Mirrorless body/system: Canon RP or Nikon Z5?

[ac12]

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]

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]

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'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]

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."

 

[Photoquest]

I've done a bit of research on mirrorless cameras. Nikon Z6 is a very good camera although I would probably get a Z6 II if I were to get one today, more expensive but probably worth it. Z5 is still a great entry level full frame camera for what it is. However, an updated version (Z5 II?) is sorely needed, IMO. It's been three years since its debut in 2020. Unfortunately, Nikon doesn't seem to have a plan for it.

I really like the design and build quality of Nikon. I would prefer it to Canon (entry level and midrange models). However, it is undeniable that Canon's autofocus is far superior compared to that of Nikon. Sony's autofocus is a close second, IMO. Nikon has some catching-up to do in that department. It probably wouldn't matter much for landscape, portraiture or real estate photographers, but for those who need to capture fast actions Nikon may not be the right choice. Even Z9, the flagship model, is still lagging behind in autofocus.

I am torn between the two brands: I want the design and build quality of Nikon and the autofocus of Canon in one camera. Unfortunately, it doesn't exist just yet. I will probably have to wait a bit longer for it to come out at some point. As of today, Nikon Z5 and Z6 II are my top choices followed by Canon R8 which is a very capable hybrid camera. I will certainly not consider Canon R and RP anytime soon. Canon might as well discontinue them. They are both superseded by the R8, IMO.