[joachim]

Well, everything seems large if you compare it to 35mm rangefinder lenses, doesn't it?

But yes, the Z f/1.8 primes are a bit on the large side. It feels like Nikon put higher priority on performance than portability for the f/1.8 primes, which is perfectly fine for me (I personally don't mind heavy equipment, actually prefer holding something solid).

I do hope, though, that some day they also offer a slower and more compact line of primes as an alternative, something in the range of f/2.5 or f/2.8. But at higher quality than those pancake-ish primes they already have, please

Hi Marcus 

Thanks for getting back.  Lenses getting “big” is a trend I noticed for some time.  Also looking at the 50/1.4 offers. In the olden days these also were a lot smaller.  

I feel a lot here is use case.  How big do you want to print?  The 5000 lw/ph is not what I would traditionally expect from a Summicron.  

I noticed Nikon offers a 40/2.0 which is smaller and more plasticy in build.  That might be more suitable for the use cases I have in mind.

---

Nikon always looking to be in the middle and being a compromise, dunno if this strategy works.
Personally, when it comes to primes middle size like f2.0 mid-range primes don't make a lot of sense and Nikon went exactly this way, why would you get f2.0 prime when you already have f2.8 zoom? Modern zoom lenses have already very good mage quality making them a more convenient replacement for primes.
Usually in medium range when angle coverage is not an issue, you get a prime because it is small and  lightweight then a pancake 35mmf2.8 makes more sense or because it is much faster, here also a 35mmf1.4 makes more sense.
I am gear hoarder... have 35mmf2.0 and 35mmf1.4 (plus zooms obviously) , ever since I got 35mmf1.4, its sister the 35mmf2.0 has never been in my camera bag despite being somehow smaller.

I used to think 35mmf1.4 was a boring useless lens with a focal in the middle of nowhere, till the day I bought one

Toni

Oh well, I am a long time prime lens user and do not have a 2.8 zoom.  The size of these zooms is a key issue with me. I find prime lenses more inspiring.  The  lens discussed in this review is a 1.8 which is just a 1/3 stop faster than 2.0 but significantly slower than 1.4. So I took it, the reviewed lens can reasonably be compared to a traditional 35/2.  On the other hand traditional rangefinder 35/1.4 are not larger than the 2.0 crowd.  Just search for the pre-Aspherical Summilux. 

My first 35 was 35/2.8.  I had a zoom starting at 35/3.5 at the time.  When I bought it,  I was wondering do I need that 35.  It turned out I needed it.  It was perhaps the most inspirational lens I had. I typically used the prime at apertures well covered by the zoom …