NikonGear'23
Gear Talk => Lens Talk => Topic started by: richardHaw on June 02, 2021, 10:18:41
-
https://www.nikon.co.jp/news/2021/0602_nikkor-z_03.htm
with plastic mounts :o :o :o
-
Ouch, cheep pancakes - No interest :o :o :o
-
this is very sad, many people were anticipating them :o :o :o
-
this is very sad, many people were anticipating them :o :o :o
Oh yes, and many people hope Nikon won't make only large and heavy Z lenses...Why should we buy lighter and more compact cameras to put larger and heavier lenses on them ?
There is a market for more modern compact lenses, Cosina-Voigtländer showed the way with Ultron 2/40 or compact 3,5/20 and 2,8/28 lenses...Canon seems to understand this better than Nikon !
-
I can't read the Japanese characters. Does this lens come with Real Maple Syrup?
Dave who hasn't had breakfast as yet. :D
-
Oh yes, and many people hope Nikon won't make only large and heavy Z lenses...Why should we buy lighter and more compact cameras to put larger and heavier lenses on them ?
I agree that there is merit in maintaining good balance between lens and camera size and weight distribution so that it is comfortable to handle. But there are also other merits to mirrorless cameras which drive people to purchase large lenses.
There is a market for more modern compact lenses, Cosina-Voigtländer showed the way with Ultron 2/40 or compact 3,5/20 and 2,8/28 lenses...Canon seems to understand this better than Nikon !
I absolutely agree that there is a market, but I'm not convinced that Nikon doesn't understand this. The f/1.8 series and that it was put out in the early phase of the launch of the Z system suggests that Nikon understand this very well. Although they are not small they're quite lightweight and high quality. The collapsing 14-30, 24-50 etc. also illustrate this philosophy of compactness and light weight in accordance with the size and weight of the camera body, as does the new 50/2.8 macro.
Plastic mount doesn't mean the lens won't perform well.
-
Plastic mount doesn't mean the lens won't perform well.
My plastic 16-50 is an excellent performer
-
I don't think that the plastic material is all that bad. A plastic mount will break easily when it hit something hard, which eventually help protect the much more expensive camera body.
Also, the plastic barrel should avoid condensation in the cold situations much more effectively than the metal barrel.
-
I'm not saying there is not room or good use for these small Nikon Z lenses.
I'm saying that choosing plastic for the mount is a very clear indicator for me of the overall material selection and design choices that are set to a certain lower quality/price point than the S-line of lenses.
I have seen plenty of the internal of lenses of all price points and I really don't like the design elements chosen.Nikon could have chosen a level higher, between the Pancake-line and the S-line - Not for me, but I'm sure they make super fine images and many people will love them for the portability and light weight! High IQ require some heft to the glass and that flows into the rest of the design,,,
-
well, this just shows which target market nikon is aiming for :o :o :o
i am pretty sure a plastic mount is cheaper but by how much? if its just $30 id gladly pay that extra $30 ::)
-
well, this just shows which target market nikon is aiming for :o :o :o
i am pretty sure a plastic mount is cheaper but by how much? if its just $30 id gladly pay that extra $30 ::)
Ditto 8)
-
well, this just shows which target market nikon is aiming for :o :o :o
i am pretty sure a plastic mount is cheaper but by how much? if its just $30 id gladly pay that extra $30 ::)
But a metal mount would not make the rest of the build or optics any different.
I have seen plenty of Nikon lenses that are poorly constructed (i.e. scarily wobbly barrel in AF D zooms of 1990s, look at the first 24-120 or even the 28-105) but have metal mounts. Newer releases in the consumer category have become less wobbly over time, in fact the 16-50 DX Z feels really nice in terms of mechanical feel compared to kit lenses of old in that same price class. Even primes such as 50/1.4 AF D had somewhat wobbly barrels and even to such extent that my copy (purchased new) would "jump" visibly when autofocusing in vertical orientation, and sound a bit like something is wrong and it was made worse if a filter was used. But there was nothing wrong with the lens as such, it was made that way. The 80-400 AF-S has a metal mount and its autofocus would stutter a lot and the lens would vibrate easily due to shutter shake or wind. Poorly made but with metal mount.
As for making something in between the compact primes and the S-line; my interpretation of the situation is that the manufacturer is trying to make the lenses distinct enough to expand the size of the overall market for Z lenses and satisfy a larger customer base. If they are too close, the less expensive one might take the majority of the more expensive lens's sales. While it may be appealing for some of us to have a lens that is a perfect compromise between size and quality, some customers really want as light as possible and some want the highest quality possible. Those latter two have marketing appeal (i.e. the best lens in a category or the smallest and lightest), the perfect compromise might not sound so amazing (even if it is really good and practical). It might not be possible for a manufacturer without market leadership position to supply to three levels of moderately fast aperture primes at each focal length (does that translate also to 3 levels of zooms as well? They kind of have that already if we count DX). A lot of people are asking why Nikon are focused on making numerous lenses in a narrow range of focal lengths and leaving out other ranges.
I do want well-made lenses for my own use but I'm more concerned about collapsing / telescoping designs than the plastic mount in the compact primes. Of course, if the lenses turn out poorly built then that's not a good thing, but I'd give them the benefit of doubt and see what they are able to make and how the lenses will perform.
-
Cheaper lenses are designed to be made cheaply from all aspects, not just replacing the metal mounts with the plastic ones. Cheaper glass materials, simpler construction and fewer parts to make them easier, etc. are all combined to reduce the total cost.
I'm not try to start a futile metal vs. plastic argument. A compact and lightweight lens can be a better tool according to the purpose.
-
Cheaper lenses are designed to be made cheaply from all aspects, not just replacing the metal mounts with the plastic ones. Cheaper glass materials, simpler construction and fewer parts to make them easier, etc. are all combined to reduce the total cost.
I'm not try to start a futile metal vs. plastic argument. A compact and lightweight lens can be a better tool according to the purpose.
I love bits of well machined metal. It has such a lovely feel. However, plastics can also be great in the right application. My boat has a plastic rigger which is lighter, stronger and more corrosion resistant than aluminum. I'm aware how futile it can be to argue about materials with traditionalists, but just want to point out that plastic can be the best material for a given use. Light, inexpensive lenses seem to be one of those cases.
-
I agree that there is merit in maintaining good balance between lens and camera size and weight distribution so that it is comfortable to handle. But there are also other merits to mirrorless cameras which drive people to purchase large lenses.
I absolutely agree that there is a market, but I'm not convinced that Nikon doesn't understand this. The f/1.8 series and that it was put out in the early phase of the launch of the Z system suggests that Nikon understand this very well. Although they are not small they're quite lightweight and high quality. The collapsing 14-30, 24-50 etc. also illustrate this philosophy of compactness and light weight in accordance with the size and weight of the camera body, as does the new 50/2.8 macro.
Plastic mount doesn't mean the lens won't perform well.
I agree with your explanations Ikka, but what you call lightweight lenses in Z series (1,8/50 = 415g ; 1,8/35 =370g; 1,8/85 =470g... not looking the length of these lenses, between 8 and 10cm) has nothing to do with 1,8/50 AFS-G (170g and 52,5mm length) or with the compact 1,8/50 Ais (145g and 27,5mm length); I understand also that new Z-S lenses are better performers but for myself, I would wish some shorter, lighter, more discrete (street photography) but also well built lenses...
-
I have an AF 50/1.8 Nikkor who's focus binds and jumps when one attempts to focus it manually. It's quite impossible to focus it manually. I didn't buy it new so I don't know if that's the way it always was. It's sad but in order to survive Nikon needs to sell what the consumer will buy.
Optically it's very good. I bought it for auto focus, low light shooting and because it's almost distortion free. These were important when I owned a Nikon D2H. It's sad that Nikon had to make a lens with the compromises it has. The low price point was not desirable to me. As the technology improves I've seen a drop in the quality of construction. it just the way things are.
Dave
-
I agree with your explanations Ikka, but what you call lightweight lenses in Z series (1,8/50 = 415g ; 1,8/35 =370g; 1,8/85 =470g... not looking the length of these lenses, between 8 and 10cm) has nothing to do with 1,8/50 AFS-G (170g and 52,5mm length) or with the compact 1,8/50 Ais (145g and 27,5mm length); I understand also that new Z-S lenses are better performers but for myself, I would wish some shorter, lighter, more discrete (street photography) but also well built lenses...
I believe there are several manufacturers offering manual focus lenses for Z mount and they will probably increase in number.
For AF, the lenses need to accommodate the focusing motor. I would first wait to see how the new compact Z Nikkors perform (both in terms of image quality and autofocus) and then judge them for what they are.
I love optical viewfinders but for some documentary situations where silence (or quietness) is important, I will probably get some Z gear.
For this I was thinking that the 20/35/85 from the S-line would be a good fit for me, but to make the camera appear as small as possible while still maintaining autofocus and a reasonably fast aperture, the 40/2 seems tempting. In that case I might get the 24/1.8, 40/2 and 85/1.8. But here I am assuming that the image quality is such that it can hold its own.
Though I must say I believe the photographer's behavior is more crucial than the size of the lens in achieving a situation where the subjects are either not aware of the photographer or at least can ignore his or her presence. But in this era of mobile phone photography, a compact lens can't hurt if the goal is not to be the center of attention. Still, in a lot of documentary photography, f/2.8 zooms seem to be standard practice so in comparison with those, even the f/1.8 S-line lenses are relatively small.
-
For AF, the lenses need to accommodate the focusing motor. I would first wait to see how the new compact Z Nikkors perform (both in terms of image quality and autofocus) and then judge them for what they are.
Given RoHS lead free solder, we don't know if our AF lenses will survive long enough to wear out. Some may be useless in 10 years or so. Cameras and lenses never were an investment, not the majority of them. Today more than ever they are a depreciable expense.
Though I must say I believe the photographer's behavior is more crucial than the size of the lens in achieving a situation where the subjects are either not aware of the photographer or at least can ignore his or her presence.
Back in the days of film a Rollie TLR could not be beat for getting ignored by subjects. Shooting from the waist is so non-aggressive. Add the relative silence of the TLR to easily being ignored.
Dave
-
David, do you have a lot of experience with Nikon products failing, and what percentage of those were due to solder? I seem to be lucky since I just haven't run into that.
I have many Nikon products made in the RoHS era that are more than ten years old and they all work fine. I have had a couple of electronics failures but those all happened in a few years from purchase.
In here https://www.indium.com/blog/rohs-ten-years-later-the-transition-to-lead-free-electronics-assembly-1.php
"One of the challenges in field reliability data is that electronic assemblers are reluctant to publish the data, as they consider the information proprietary. However, I have talked to a few managers responsible for such data, and they all confirm that the field reliability of lead-free assembled electronics is equal or better than that assembled with tin lead solder."
-
In many cases components have to be tougher now because the lead free solders have a slightly higher melting point. As long as proper adapted production techniques are used there should not be any problems. The lead free solder does not look as good as it often quickly looses its shiny surface, but that does not mean solder joints are less secure over time.
-
David, do you have a lot of experience with Nikon products failing, and what percentage of those were due to solder? I seem to be lucky since I just haven't run into that.
I believe this is a new phenomenon and I certainly hope it's over hyped (click bait) but I've bumped into a NASA website talking about tin whiskers. I've read there is a symbol on consumer electronics that indicates a 10 year life expectancy. In my searches for information I ended up trying to load a site claiming all dogs descended from one wolf. I tried but my search skill aren't what they should be.
So among my Nikkor lenses from the RoHS lead free solder era none are 10 years old as yet.
Dave
-
In many cases components have to be tougher now because the lead free solders have a slightly higher melting point. As long as proper adapted production techniques are used there should not be any problems.
Please, I hope you are right.
Dave
-
The NASA link that comes up in a search indicates that the whiskers is a rare phenomenon detected long before lead free solders were in use and that the presence of lead in the solders ability to prevent them is pretty anectodical. Most of the information on that page seems to be from 2006 and earlier by the way, and there are many broken links. The solders used today are not pure tin but typically alloys where lead is substituted for silver plus another metal. So relax, this is not ticking time bomb ready to fire off once your lead free lens reaches 10 years age. ;D My D40x is from 2008 and still going strong, the D200 from 2006...
And there are many other ways electronics can fail, for instance leaching (diffusion of certain metals into each other - I learned about this when looking for non-magnetic capacitors to be used in a 1.5Tesla magnetic field. The magnetic nickel barrier that normally helps preventing leaching in the electrodes of the capacitors must be replaced by other metal alloys) if one really want to have another thing to worry about as a consumer of electronics. ;)
-
The 10 means the product is not expected to leak hazardous substances within 10 years. The next class up is 25 years. In the case of Nikon lenses, that hazardous substance that the product typically contains a small amount of is lead (it is listed in the product manual). It doesn't mean the product's expected lifetime is 10 years. It means that they cannot guarantee that the materials which contain a small amount of lead won't leak a bit of it in 25 years for example, but they're confident that it doesn't leak it (in quantity exceeding regulations) in 10 years.
-
I am not convinced that plastic mount is the right signal for this kind of Pancake lenses
-
I believe this is a new phenomenon and I certainly hope it's over hyped (click bait) but I've bumped into a NASA website talking about tin whiskers. I've read there is a symbol on consumer electronics that indicates a 10 year life expectancy. ~
Dave
David, I started my working life in computer manufacturing 45 years ago. I recall our quality control people, back then, jumping up and down about circuit boards having to be scrupulously clean after having been wave soldered...all traces of flux had to be removed.
The concern was (if I remember correctly) that flux residue and atmospheric moisture would provide a medium for filaments to grow in via an electroplating process. This was in the days of 60% tin, 40% lead solder. So the concern about whiskers and filaments has been around well before the advent of Pb free solder.
I suspect solder masks on PCB's, proper cleaning and layout design make whiskers a complete non-issue in today's consumer gear.
Hans