Nikkor 40mms (Nikon Has It Covered)

When I came into photography way back when, the then-current Nikkors were the AIS manual-focus lenses which dated from 1982. They were solid little chunks of metal and glass, overbuilt and hard to hurt. The AIS lenses were also only slightly different from the 1977 AI lenses, enabling just a few selected modes on a small number of camera models. There are three markers of an AIS lens: a little metal lip on the back of the lens where it met the mount, a small scoop taken out of the mount at the lower-middle left as you looked at the back of the lens (for illustrations see here), and the smallest aperture on the aperture ring marked in orange. They were preferred mainly because they were the newest type at the time, and, later, on the used market, because they're the most recent of the classic manual-focus Nikkors. There are some fun books useful to collectors. Eyes of Nikon, from 1985, a Nikon publication, and Nikon System Handbook by B. Moose Petersen, which I believe was first published in 1991, were the ones I had. 

(Generally, books about camera systems from the manufacturers mark the peak of those systems; a manufacturer only puts out a book when they're proud of their products and selling them successfully. That hasn't been the case in recent years, though, presumably because lineups of digital products change too rapidly. And because the information is online, more or less. Fujifilm still ought to commemorate its beautiful system with a book for enthusiasts, sez me.)

Sorry, too much of an intro. All I meant to say was that at the time that the AIS lenses were current, Nikon had pretty much every major focal length covered with at least one prime (single-focal-length) lens. With the 35mm focal length, it had no fewer than three: an ƒ/1.4, an ƒ/2, and an ƒ/2.8. Eventually there was also an economy lens as well, the 35mm ƒ/2.5 Series E. When autofocus came along in the late '80s, Nikon made do for quite a while with just one, the 35mm ƒ/2 AF-Nikkor. Once DSLRs got going, though, Nikon for a considerable time in the early days was committed to APS-C (logically, in my view, although companies must follow the market and markets aren't rational), yet there was no 35mm-equivalent prime for the APS-C "crop sensor" (as it was derisively called) cameras. We all assumed it would come along. Only natural, right? We waited and waited. And waited. It never arrived.

Ever.

There still isn't one, not for the DSLRs. And now, of course, there will never be.

That always seemed odd. It's true that, by then, the popularity of zooms was overwhelming. And it's true that some photographers, like Thom Hogan and TOP reader Tom Burke, never cottoned to the 35mm angle of view. That's natural. But it used to be such a mainstream lens type—most of the later .72X Leica M cameras are virtually tailor-made to the focal length. Did so few people want a simple 35mm-equivalent wide-normal prime that it wasn't even worth it to Nikon to offer one for APS-C? And even if it was true that the lens wouldn't be very popular, what about the whole "system" idea, whereby a manufacturer convinces people that having access to its whole system offers flexibility for now and in the future? Canon famously made no fewer than three tilt-shift lenses for that reason, and if even one of them ever covered its development costs I'd be surprised. The payoff came when pros who wanted the greatest choice among T/S lenses switched to Canon. Of course, the only company still committed to APS-C DSLRs, Pentax, still doesn't have a 35mm-e prime or something close to it. It's why I switched away from Pentax in the early days of digital. Although, in Pentax's favor, the delightful little Pentax DA 20–40mm ƒ/2.8, with its short 2X zoom range, can be considered—and might even have been conceived as—an "adjustable 35mm," harking back to an earlier prototype of just such a concept that was never produced*.

So why is mirrorless so different? One of the early lenses for APS-C Sony mirrorless cameras was the Zeiss 24mm ƒ/1.8 ZA. That's a 35mm equivalent. Fuji has two wonderful 23mms, the ƒ/1.4 and the ƒ/2 "Fujicron," both of which I own (there are actually two ƒ/1.4 lenses, the old and the new. I have the older one). Those are all 35mm equivalents too.

And now Nikon has walked back its earlier attitude, and introduced a ~35mm equivalent for the "crop-sensor" mirrorless Z cameras, as we discussed a couple of days ago. Why not, is one question that could be asked—the Z System is proving popular, as Nikon needs it to be. But "why" is also an interesting question too.

The Nikkor Z 26mm ƒ/2.8

It joins, of course, the wonderful 35mm ƒ/1.8S for the full-frame Z cameras, a lens which is almost too good. Not only that, but I belatedly learned yesterday that Nikon also has a ~40mm-e "pancake" for its APS-C cameras in the Z System! The Nikkor-Z 26mm ƒ/2.8. I must have missed that when it came out very early this year. Or did I hear about it and mislay the information in the crowded rummage-box of my brain like a misplaced pair of glasses or car keys? Anyway, now Nikon has both a small bargain-priced prime 40mm ƒ/2 lens for its FX (full-frame) Z cameras, available in a retro version too no less for only a few more bucks, which looks like an old AIS—and a prime 40mm-equivalent pancake lens for its DX (APS-C) Z cameras. Wow, is all I can say to that. For so long, 40mm was so close to 35mm that those of us who liked it were voices crying in the wilderness. Now, 40mm[e] seems almost, dare I say it, popular.

The only option still missing among Z-system normal lenses as far as I can see is a 50mm-equivalent specifically for Nikon's APS-C mirrorless, which means—another surprise, to me—that Nikon released a 40mm-e and a 35mm-e for Z-system DX before releasing a 50mm-e. Times change. Although if that's what you really want, you could adapt the older 35mm ƒ/1.8G DX DSLR lens ($177) using the FTZ II adaptor ($250). 

Other than that, this seems true: whatever your choice for a main/normal lens, prime or zoom, 35mm[e], 40mm[e] or 50mm[e], and for whichever kind of camera, the Nikon Z System has it covered. And that is what a system is supposed to do.

(We have more new equipment to discuss, but I got distracted with this. Forty millimeter equivalent lenses are to me like catnip is to cats. The fact that they see like I do does some weird endorphinny thing to my brain....)

Mike

*The Pentax-M FLEXI 35mm ƒ/2.8 was adjustable from ~32mm to ~39mm. The idea was to shoot with it as if it were a 35mm, and then adjust your framing slightly when needed. It was exhibited at Photokina 1979 (which took place in 1978), but, perhaps understandably (the concept being too subtle for most), never put into production. There was a 75mm ƒ/3.5 FLEXI prototype too! These facts from some members on PentaxForum.com, where there are several illustrations. The 20–40mm Pentax zoom is 30–60mm-equivalent, and there is a history of 2X zooms—in fact, in the early days of varifocal and zoom lenses when most if not all zooms were of inferior quality (the Leitz family forbade Leica to produce them), 2X was considered a good conservative limit if you didn't want quality to suffer. But buyers wanted more and more zoom range, and manufacturers were of course happy to comply.

Original contents copyright 2023 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. (To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below or on the title of this post.)

Featured Comments from:

Danfogel: "I am a mostly film shooter and love 40mm lenses. I mostly shoot a Leica M2 and have both a Rokkor 40mm ƒ/2 (filed down to bring up 35mm framelines by the previous owner) and the delightful LTM [Leica thread mount, a term for M39 screwmount coined by Marc James Small —Ed.] Rollei 40mm ƒ/2.8 that I have on a 35mm LTM-to-M converter (same framelines). In my experience, when using the Leica M2 and wearing glasses, what you can see is about 40mm. I also like to carry around a 1972 Olympus 35EC that belonged to my late father. It has a gem of an Olympus 40mm ƒ/2.8. All good at 40mm over here."

Albert Smith: "I still take my Eyes Of Nikon off the shelf from time to time. Many a day in the '80s were spent planning my next purchase comparing specs from the small charts that accompanied each lens. I got my book for free from Nikon after returning warranty paperwork for a camera. Nikon was smart, because that 'free' book got the company over a dozen lens purchases from me.

"For what it's worth, I'm 90% a Fujifilm shooter now, but I bought a Voightlander 40mm ƒ/2 lens for my Nikon DSLR, and that lens has been the only lens mounted for almost two years. The version that I have is a clone of an old Nikkor and if it appeared in the Eyes Of Nikon book from the '80s, it would have never looked out of place. The optical quality of this lens however smokes every similar AI/AIs lens within a few millimeters of this focal length. It puts my AIS 35mm ƒ/1.4 to shame and is better than any 50mm Nikkor from that era. Every time that I take it out on my D700, I keep wishing that it existed in the old F3 days. It truly is the Goldilocks focal length...just right."

Kent Phelan: "And let's not forget the Fuji GF 50mm ƒ/3.5, another 40mm-e lens. Small, simple, superb, it changes the GFX 100S into a different, portable, kind of 'throw back' machine."

Comments

[darlene]

I am unfamiliar with the Nikon Z system, but noticing no aperture ring on the lenses is a turn-off. If Fuji did not offer them, I might be tempted due to my prior Nikon satisfaction, but as long as I can have my cake and eat it, I will buy it and enjoy it. YMMV, of course. It is nice to see Nikon coming alive in the mirrorless realm.

[Mike N.]

I already have the Z 28/2.8 so I have no excuse to get the 26/2.8 but it’s soooo tempting because of its size.

As for 50mm-e for Nikon Z, it would be cool if Nikon made a compact 33mm f/1.7 or f/2.0.

Viltrox makes an AF 33mm f/1.4 in Z mount. It’s almost too much lens (I have the 23mm f/1.4 version, it’s a fine lens optically, but I find I dislike it’s relatively high weight more than I like/need the f/1.4, and I actually hate the aperture ring because it’s so easy to accidentally move).

Sigma’s 30mm f/1.4 is also soon to be available for Z mount, but my experience with it in Canon M mount was “well, it’s better than nothing”.

[John Krumm]

I also have the 40mm f2 "muffin" Nikkor for Z mount. I enjoy it the most with my bw converted Z6.

[Danfogel]

I am a mostly film shooter and love 40mm lenses. I mostly shoot a Leica M2 and have both a Rokkor 40/2 (filed down to bring up 35mm framelines by the previous owner) and the delightful LTM [Leica thread mount, a term for M39 screwmount coined by Marc James Small —Ed.] Rollei 40mm f/2.8 that I have on a 35mm LTM to M converter (same framelines). In my experience, when using the M2 and wearing glasses, what you can see is about 40mm. I also like to carry around a 1972 Olympus 35EC that belonged to my late father. It has a gem of an Olympus 40mm f/2.8. All good at 40 over here.

[Joe Kashi]

e-40mm is more or less the Goldilocks lens, just right for the majority of circumstances. I find that my 20mm/1.7 Panasonic prime (e-40 for M 4/3) has been, and remains, the preferred lens for my Micro Four-thirds Olympus Pen-F. Over at VSL, Kirk Tuck is touting e-40 lenses today as well.

[Joel Becker]

I am 100% with you, Mike, on the 35mm field of view. My AF walkabout prior to digital was an N6006 with the beautiful 35mm ƒ/2 AF-Nikkor. What a lens!

I switched to Pentax in the digital era, and I've enjoyed the DA 21mm F/3.2. The 31.5mm-e view is lovely in its own right. I don't miss the extra stop and a half in low-light thanks to modern high ISO, but I do miss the depth of field.

[Kye Wood]

Eons ago, I bought my first Pentax Limited lens. The 40mm 2.8 pancake. Easily the worst lens I've ever had the misfortune of using on any camera.

Mind you, 40mm on APS-C (K10D body) gives you the no mans land 35mm equiv length of 60mm. So it was just as well that it was an optical fail. Ah, the money we've all wasted on this little journey or ours.

[Bruce Hedge]

Fun fact. Between 1967 and 1984 over TEN MILLION cameras of a particular brand were sold sporting a venerable 40mm f2.8 Tessar style lens and they're now commanding outrageous prices on the enthusiast market because they're almost bullet proof and so much fun to use. I refer , of course, to the Olympus Trip. I repaired Olympus cameras for thirty plus years, and can pull one apart in my sleep. Hahaha, almost- you still have to collimate the lens to infinity upon reassembly. A competent handyperson can repair almost anything that goes wrong with a Trip- the most common fault being a loosening and subsequent disappearance of the main board retaining screws, which inevitably find themselves conveniently caught in the meter magnet assembly. There are enthusiast websites dedicated to both the performance and maintenance of the Trip, but almost all confirm the sharpness of the four element 40mm lens which has a hyperfocal setting to ensure a satisfactory result in almost any conditions. No battery, and utter beautiful, simple design. Long live 40mm Trips! Darn it, I've just added another $25 to an already over-the-TOP price.

[Steven Palmer]

"I belatedly learned yesterday that Nikon also has a ~40mm-e "pancake" for its APS-C cameras in the Z System!" In the link you provided, B&H says this lens is for Full Frame, not DX. So, even better, I think.

[John Shriver]

I'd say the Pentax-DA 21/3.2 is pretty close to a 35mm effective for APS-C. (Really 32mm equivalent.)

[True. I tried one once, and I know people who like it. But for people like me who really prefer lenses a little longer than 35mm, it's close to 35mm in the wrong direction. It all depends on your preferences, is all. --Mike]

[Ben Rosengart]

> Pentax still doesn't have a 35mm-e prime or something close to it

What about that 21mm f/3.2 of theirs? That’s not much wider than 35mm equivalent. I used to love that lens, and I took some nice photos with it, I think.

[JH]

I have the Nikon Zfc which is the retro DX camera and like wide angle lenses. There are many choices.
I have the Nikon 28/2.8 - close to 40mm and a nice lens with AF.
I also have a 25/1.8 Meike manual lens which is great with the Zfc in manual B/W mode. Pure retro. It's "feel" is really nice and takes fine photos - much better than expected for the $75 I paid for it!
Being a zoom person, I also ordered the new Nikon 12-28 zoom for the Nikon DX Z cameras. It's similar in range to the Olympus 9-18 I had with my M4/3 Olys and the 10-20 I had with my Nikon D100/200/300s.
Too many choices/temptations.

[Luke]

We enjoy these history lessons. We may have owned some of these lenses years ago, but were never aware of their place in history.

[William Lewis]

The vast majority of my shots have been taken with 50mm lenses or their equivalent FOV.

I might buy a Z50 or Zfc to replace my elderly D7100 if Nikon produces a 35mm 1.7 to go along with the 24/1.7 they just announced. I see in 50. My EDC is 28/50/90 on my Leica M 240 or 20/35/50 (30/50/75e) on my D7100. Until I can replicate that, the Z's are pretty curiosities for me.

[Rob L.]

The 26 is just amazing - oh, it's nice, optically - nothing super special there, but competent - but it's makes the Z cameras small again! My Z6 with the 26 is a nimble, casual camera, in a way that any of the S glass or FTZ adapted lenses simply can't match. Sometimes, the form factor wins. I sold the 40 as it wasn't;t terribly small, and compared the the 50 1.8S, not at all interesting, but tiny decent lens, with a wonderful press on lens cap and a great FOV for working up close? So excited.

[JH]

I just received my Nikon Z DX 12-28 zoom today and it is a very nice gadget with one super feature. We've gotten use to electronic focus but this lens adds electronic zoom. It is smooth, fast (<1/4 turn for full range) and quiet. The lens has internal focus and zoom so it doesn't move at all. Takes nice pictures too!
Sometime back you discussed manuals. The paper manual provided is in tiny print on tissue thin paper and has nothing specific about this lens - just generic to all Nikon Z lenses. Guess I have to download the real manual.