NikonGear'23
Gear Talk => Lens Talk => Topic started by: Luc on November 08, 2021, 17:15:31
-
New roadmap published by Nikon. Notice the small size of the DX 12-28mm and the PF? 400mm.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51664350941_e25d29f88e_b.jpg)
-
Think we need to check these out at Nivo when they are launched, vaguely remember us meeting for a similar launch event many moons ago but can’t remember if it was for the Sony a7, Nikon Df or something else haha.
The announced tele’s look very promising, if the 100-400mm is even close to what my Canon 100-400 was than it is already a winner but I expect it to be even better as it was reported to be on par with the current 180-400/4 F lens in sharpness. The 400mm and 800mm appear to be PF lenses which would be complementary to the current 300/4 PF and 500/5.6 PF offerings.
I do expect the tele lenses to be suitable for landscape and slow action work only during bright conditions on the current Z6/7 I/II models but that the new Z9 autofocus system is needed for fast action and low light performance. Currently I use the 200-500VR on the Z6 for product shots but switch to the D500 for action and low light stuff and will only consider a Zee tele whenever a decently priced Zee body becomes available with the new AF technology (learned my lesson the hard way on the Sony a7RII).
The 85/1.2 is shorter than the 50/1.2 but seems to be getting a massive front element and fat body design, wow what a monster lens.
-
That 26mm looks smaller than the FTZ. It would turn my Z6 into a pocket cam.
-
The new 400mm lens is very short so it must be a PF lens. The top looks about the same width as the 58 Noct, which suggests a 95mm filter size. If so, the maximum aperture would be f/4.5. With a 1.4x TC you would get a 560/6.3 lens. The lens/TC combination brackets the 500/5.6PF lens. I wonder why Nikon choose to make two telephotos which are so similar in focal length and speed?
The 400/2.8 TC allows the photographer to quickly switch between 400/2.8 and 560/4. You may wonder why Nikon has a 600/4 in its roadmap given that it has a very close focal length and speed. I fully expect the 600/4 also has a built-in TC which allows the photographer to switch from 600/4 to 840/5.6. Depending on your requirements for reach and aperture, you would have the choice of a 400/560mm lens or a 600/840mm lens
The 800mm lens is also very short so must be another PF lens. If the aperture is f/5.6 it would require the same size front element as the 400/2.8, and it would duplicate the 600/4 TC. The profile looks a bit smaller which suggests the aperture is f/6.3. It looks like this lens is designed to have very long reach while being more portable than the other big primes (without going to the extreme as the Canon 800/11 lens)
-
The new 400mm lens is very short so it must be a PF lens. The top looks about the same width as the 58 Noct, which suggests a 95mm filter size. If so, the maximum aperture would be f/4.5. With a 1.4x TC you would get a 560/6.3 lens. The lens/TC combination brackets the 500/5.6PF lens. I wonder why Nikon choose to make two telephotos which are so similar in focal length and speed?
In response to wondering about why Nikon makes a close range of telephotos, I think many lenses are in a ratio of square root of two (approx 1.4) - For example 25mm, 36mm, 50mm, 70mm, 100mm, 140mm, 200mm, 280mm, 400mm, 560mm, 800mm. Most people don't want to use a teleconverter if they don't need to.
Also, the new lens can be used on Z models without FTZ, also simplifying things. When this lineup is completed it is likely that the 500mm F mount will be near end of life.
-
I am interested in the 200-600 zoom even that it is not a S-line so probably priced similar to the 200-500?
I avoided the 200-500 when I saw the 200-600 was on the Z-roadmap.
-
Think we need to check these out at Nivo when they are launched, vaguely remember us meeting for a similar launch event many moons ago but can’t remember if it was for the Sony a7, Nikon Df or something else haha.
Hi Jan Anne, that was the Df launch at Nivo. Was nice and so were the conversation and beers at the pub after the launch :D
-
I am interested in the 200-600 zoom even that it is not a S-line so probably priced similar to the 200-500?
I avoided the 200-500 when I saw the 200-600 was on the Z-roadmap.
The F 200-500mm is almost to cheap for its performance. I wouldn't bet on a Z equivalent being similarly priced. I would guess 1,5-2x the price of the 200-500mm.
-
The F 200-500mm is almost to cheap for its performance. I wouldn't bet on a Z equivalent being similarly priced. I would guess 1,5-2x the price of the 200-500mm.
It’s my opinion too, I’ ll Stick with 200-500 8)
-
I wonder if the 200-600 will have built-in VR?
In most 200-500 reviews the reviewer complains that he needed several samples to get a good one?
I could probably go to a shop and ask if it was ok to try it out first before making the purchase and then test if is was 100% sharp at 500mm at full aperture.
Will wait to see the 200-600 price level and performance.
A shame that there is no road map for future Z-bodies?
A higher resolution DX body with IBIS would make sense for my use.
-
I wonder if the 200-600 will have built-in VR?
Any Z lens with focal length up to 200mm and longer will have built-in VR. IBIS works best with shorter focal lengths it becomes less effective with telephotos, while lens-based VR works very well with telephotos.
-
Ok, good to know. I can also see from roadmap that lens gets its "full name" when it is released.
It must be some "marketing stunt" as I assume Nikon knows aperture of the roadmap lenses etc.
-
That 26mm looks smaller than the FTZ. It would turn my Z6 into a pocket cam.
it should have been 24mm, much more useful in my opinion :o :o :o
-
I wonder if the 200-600 will have built-in VR?
In most 200-500 reviews the reviewer complains that he needed several samples to get a good one?
I could probably go to a shop and ask if it was ok to try it out first before making the purchase and then test if is was 100% sharp at 500mm at full aperture.
Will wait to see the 200-600 price level and performance.
A shame that there is no road map for future Z-bodies?
A higher resolution DX body with IBIS would make sense for my use.
The Sony 200-600mm f/5.6-6.3 OSS is a good giveaway of what the Nikon version could look like, its a little longer than the 200-500VR but its an internal zoom so a lot shorter when fully deployed. The Nikon is a constant f/5.6 where the Sony is f/6.3 at 500 to 600mm so a little slower but the latter is also lighter in weight, so its minor pros and cons for both lenses and the deciding factor will be to personal taste as usually is the case in life.
Price wise the 200-500VR is €1429 here in Europe and the much newer 200-600OSS €1900.
This review compares both and declared the Nikkor the winner on sharpness but this might depend on sample variations:
https://youtu.be/iM1C3IVu1d4
-
my $0.02c. I think Nikon have been shrewd with exploiting their strengths in Phase-Fresnel technology and optimizing a built-in Teleconverter in telephotos. This not only highlights the qualities of the Z system across the industry, but will persuade owners of any of the excellent F-mount telephotos to invest in Z telephotos. It is to be expected those entirely new Nikon and/or buying back into Nikon will rather buy Z mount than F telephotos....the 400 f4.5 PF may also tempt many F mount shooters who have been hoping for this. Again Nikon scores more Z mount users.
A 800 f6.3 PF can be expected to get a welcome reception, especially if it can perform well as a 1120 f9 with Z-TC14. The first feedback on the 100-400 f4.5/5.6S reports favourable on its IQ and AF on the Z9 with ZTC2 at f11.
Overall, slate 2018, within 4-5 years Nikon will have populated a most impressive Mirrorless lens system. The U-wides and primes get positive reviews.
The new 400mm lens is very short so it must be a PF lens. The top looks about the same width as the 58 Noct, which suggests a 95mm filter size. If so, the maximum aperture would be f/4.5. With a 1.4x TC you would get a 560/6.3 lens. The lens/TC combination brackets the 500/5.6PF lens. I wonder why Nikon choose to make two telephotos which are so similar in focal length and speed?
The 400/2.8 TC allows the photographer to quickly switch between 400/2.8 and 560/4. You may wonder why Nikon has a 600/4 in its roadmap given that it has a very close focal length and speed. I fully expect the 600/4 also has a built-in TC which allows the photographer to switch from 600/4 to 840/5.6. Depending on your requirements for reach and aperture, you would have the choice of a 400/560mm lens or a 600/840mm lens
The 800mm lens is also very short so must be another PF lens. If the aperture is f/5.6 it would require the same size front element as the 400/2.8, and it would duplicate the 600/4 TC. The profile looks a bit smaller which suggests the aperture is f/6.3. It looks like this lens is designed to have very long reach while being more portable than the other big primes (without going to the extreme as the Canon 800/11 lens)
-
One gap in telephoto coverage is a 400-800 Super-Telephoto Zoom. Many Pros and enthusiasts will find the combination of reach and flexibility to be invaluable in sports and wildlife. A 800 f6.3 needs a 127mm window, so a 400-800 f4/6.3 could feasibly keep down cost and weight: ideally an internal zoom and above all S-Line.
-
One gap in telephoto coverage is a 400-800 Super-Telephoto Zoom. Many Pros and enthusiasts will find the combination of reach and flexibility to be invaluable in sports and wildlife. A 800 f6.3 needs a 127mm window, so a 400-800 f4/6.3 could feasibly keep down cost and weight: ideally an internal zoom and above all S-Line.
Long zooms like that have been made in the past (Sigma 300-800/5.6, Nikon 360-1200/11) but they are large and not that easy to transport to the location. I can understand the appeal of having such focal lengths available in a zoom, for example, when photographing various birds in Suomenoja in Espoo one can often use a variety of focal lengths and to get the best light on the birds when placing the camera on an easily accessible shore position, 800mm is often a good bet, but occasionally the birds come much closer.
However, I suspect a long zoom that goes to 800 mm with a reasonable aperture (such as f/6.3) would weight 5-6 kg and it would be very difficult to find large numbers of people who are willing to work in that range of portability. I think Nikon's plan of an 800mm prime which is unusually short has a greater chance of success (in finding a meaningful population of users). That doesn't mean a long zoom wouldn't be useful. At 800mm focal length I can also ask whether a zoom would be able to reach the image quality of a 800 mm FL especially in long-distance shots. Given the atmospheric effects on image quality at long distances, one needs all the optical help one can get to make a clear image.
-
There is a huge gap in primes between 85mm (105mm if you include the micro) and 400mm. 85/1.8 lenses are popular, but I don't understand why more manufacturers don't also have 100/2 and 135/2.8 (or f2.5) lenses in their lineup. Such lenses should provide faster aperture and as good or better image quality as the pro 70-200 zooms in a much smaller and more affordable package. I used the AIS 135/2.8 for many years, with a focal length mid-way of the AF 80-200/2.8 available at the time, it was a viable alternative in most situations.
There is also space for a 200/4 macro and a 300/4 but I guess Nikon have the latter covered with the F-mount 300PF.
-
There is a huge gap in primes between 85mm (105mm if you include the micro) and 400mm. 85/1.8 lenses are popular, but I don't understand why more manufacturers don't also have 100/2 and 135/2.8 (or f2.5) lenses in their lineup. Such lenses should provide faster aperture and as good or better image quality as the pro 70-200 zooms in a much smaller and more affordable package. I used the AIS 135/2.8 for many years, with a focal length mid-way of the AF 80-200/2.8 available at the time, it was a viable alternative in most situations.
There is also space for a 200/4 macro and a 300/4 but I guess Nikon have the latter covered with the F-mount 300PF.
Nikon have neglected this range of prime lenses for a long time; the 105/2, 135/2, 180/2.8, and 200/4 never got AF-S upgrades in F-mount and even the 300/4 took many years to get VR. There was the 105/1.4 which arguably can act as a replacement for both 105/2 and 135/2 as it is so sharp and fast, even in low light excellent cropped 135mm FOV equivalent images can be made without problems, but of course one could argue that by having a modern 135 mm, one could then maintain larger subject in the viewfinder and potentially crop further, when needed. However, in the end the 105/1.4 and 200/2 which are excellent and AF-S do service quite well, but they're not exactly compact or lightweight. I missed the compact and portable 180/2.8 and would have liked it to be AF-S'd. But Nikon seem to have put their priorities on the 70-200/2.8 and did not feel the need for other fast lenses in this range, I guess. Right, there is the 120-300/2.8, but again the portability advantage of the intermediate aperture primes is not reached with that lens.
I note the same behavior in the Z-mount system; there is a comprehensive range of primes from 20mm to 85mm in f/1.8 aperture (and 50 and 58mm as examples of faster primes to come in the future) and then macros at 50mm and 105mm, but the next prime is a 400mm! A whopping gap right there. Now, I am grateful for the excellent f/1.8 line which I think is very practical in terms of portability and of excellent quality. What is missing from the f/1.8's is a focus distance scale. I do not like the accelerated manual focusing but realized with my Z6 II in video mode that the manual focusing in that mode is very much slower and does not appear immediately as accelerated (did not study this in depth to see if focus ring positions are reproducible vs. distance within the power up period), so Nikon can control the lens manual focus behavior from the camera body, which means they can offer optional control of the MF speed also for stills in the future. The Z9 has a new custom function which allows this to be controlled. Hopefully it'll work across the lens lineup and also included in lower-end camera bodies. The Z 70-200 S already got firmware update to support this function.
I get it that Nikon's initial focus has been to take advantage of Z mount where it provides the most benefit, which is the short and medium focal length lenses. However, now that there are action-capable camera bodies soon available (Z9) and they feature high fps rates and fast autofocusing, silent photography etc. there is growing need for longer focal lengths to be added, which Nikon are addressing in the form of zooms (24-200, 100-400, 200-600, all with small apertures not really suitable for e.g. indoor sports or e.g. wedding ceremony close-ups from a further position; 70-200/2.8 does however work for this but doesn't quite give the subject background separation of the faster lenses when e.g. photographing full body images of people) and some primes in the roadmap: 400/2.8, 400/4.5 (guessing aperture here), 600/4 (guess), 800/6.3 (another guess) which should give a good selection for high-end (= heavy lens) wildlife photography but IMO it leaves a big gap in fast lenses for sports and longer distance shots in events. I get it that a 70-200/2.8 + 400/2.8 can cover things with some cropping or TC use in between but I've grown to love the faster primes in this focal range and I am unlikely to purchase a longer lens for Z until this is addressed. The 400/2.8 is overkill for me and likely very expensive, and the 400/4.5 is likely going to be PF whereas I'm prioritising out-of-focus rendering and prefer the conventional designs. It's like Nikon are jumping past my favorite lenses and ignoring them. ;-) Because I saw this coming I got the 300/2.8. It's very good but not quite as excellent in my opinion as the 200/2 II. I guess it's a subtle thing but I can't quite get the kind of magical results from the 300. It does have higher contrast than the f/4 PF but older VR and older SWM type, and no FL to reduce the weight in the front of the lens.
I guess the lenses I'd be most happy to see in Z mount would be 135/2, 180/2.8 and 300/2.8. I get it that the 200/2 is pretty exotic and it requires a certain commitment to use, but the 135mm's seem popular enough for C and S mounts, for portraits etc. and 300/2.8 is a very common lens in sports photography. I regret it when things move backwards in lens options, don't even let me get started about complete absence of native tilt/shift lenses in Z mount and most other mirrorless systems. I get that Nikon have put out new lenses very rapidly in Z mount, but they tend to concentrate around certain focal lengths. I guess they want to create what is "popular" but this creates a situation where all the major brands offer more or less identical products and then there is a variety of products that are ignored by all of them.
-
A modern interpretation of the much loved 105mm f/2.5 F-mount lens in the Nikon Z lens road map would be very nice - especially if its size and weight is not too bloated.
-
Well put, Ilkka. I've long want moderate telephoto options that are more portable. Often I don't want to lug around a 70-200/2.8 because I won't be using all that zoom capability. A compact 135 or 150 with the 24-70 f/4 would give a nice light, compact kit.
-
Used a 180/2.8 AFD and a Leica 180/3.4 in the past but now kinda settled on the CV125 as a compact tele which can do excellent closeup and macro shots as well, highly versatile lens but wouldn’t mind something a little longer like a 180 or 200mm f/2.8 macro lens to have some more legroom for the long stuff.
-
The upcoming Z 24-120mm S will very slight narrow the gap to the 400mm prime, as a zoom though. Fairly compact and 100g lighter than the F version. Nikon Ricci in today's Grey's Live Stream just stated that he briefly compared the former with the Z 24-70mm/2.8 S and so far has a hard time to see a difference at f/4. Promising.
-
A modern interpretation of the much loved 105mm f/2.5 F-mount lens in the Nikon Z lens road map would be very nice - especially if its size and weight is not too bloated.
In the AIS, F-bayonet a 105/2.8 AIS Micro Nikkor could stand in quite well for the 105/2.5 AIS but the Nikon AF-S VR Micro-NIKKOR 105mm f/2.8G IF-ED is far too large and heavy to be a good stand in for the 105/2.5 AIS. The AF-S 105/2.8G IF-ED is a honker. The Nikon NIKKOR Z MC 105mm f/2.8 VR S Macro is also a poor replacement for the 105/2.5 AIS and even for the 105/2.8 AIS Micro. Portability of the AF-S G and Z 105/2.8 Micro lenses is lacking.
Now it's assured that there will never be an AF-S 105mm f/1.8 G or E Nikkor and I doubt that there will ever be 105mm f/1.8 Nikkor in Z mount. Again the 70-200/2.8 in AF-S, G and E and 70-200/2.8 Z Nikkors are no replacement for the light and nimble 105/2.5 AIS and 105/2.8 AIS Micro. It's a sad situation to me.
I guess Nikon's marketing research tells them they can get away without producing a 105/1.8 and also 135/1.8 in Z mount.
Dave
-
The upcoming Z 24-120mm S will very slight narrow the gap to the 400mm prime
Let's hope the NIKKOR Z 24-120mm f/4 S has excellent performance wide open at 2 meters and at an effective 95mm to 110mm focal length. Let's hope the bokeh is pleasing. If the performance of this lens is as hoped it will make a better stand in for the 105/2.5 AI & AIS and 105/2.8 AIS (as a portrait lens) Micro Nikkors compared to the AF-S G and Z 105mm f/2.8 Micro Nikkors which are both very large by comparison.
Dave
What about apps, plugins, etc. to fake blur and good bokeh? Are there any that are convincing? What if one only wants to smooth blurred backgrounds slightly to cover for the difference in blur and bokeh between electronic shutters and mechanical shutters? Any hope here?
I guess in this blur and bokeh difference between electronic and mechanical shutters appears at 1/1,000th second and above. Instead of using higher shutter speeds to control exposure one might use a 2x or 4x ND filter. I guess, I'm counting on my fingers, under sunny f/16 rules at ISO 64 the shutter speed at f/4.0 would be 1/1,000th. On white sand it would be 1/2,000th.
Am I talking trash here?
-
On the other hand, looking at the glass half-full, Nikon will hopefully release more "pancake" primes - 85 f2.8 and 105 f2.8. A 105 f2.5 will carry significant appeal, especially it is a Classic build like the new 28 f2.8 SE.
Back on the niche for a 400-800 Super-telephoto zoom (or similar focal range), bear in mind the Sigma 300-800 f5.6 and Nikkor 360-1200 f11 were designed decades ago. Nikon has new materials (SR, Super ED etc), lens-coatings, and lighter alloys / composites. Above all, Nikon has the proven engineering knowledge to design a much more compact telephoto. I am also hopeful they exploit use their phase-fresnel technology ina compact, lighter zoom.
-
What about apps, plugins, etc. to fake blur and good bokeh? Are there any that are convincing? What if one only wants to smooth blurred backgrounds slightly to cover for the difference in blur and bokeh between electronic shutters and mechanical shutters? Any hope here?
I guess in this blur and bokeh difference between electronic and mechanical shutters appears at 1/1,000th second and above. Instead of using higher shutter speeds to control exposure one might use a 2x or 4x ND filter. I guess, I'm counting on my fingers, under sunny f/16 rules at ISO 64 the shutter speed at f/4.0 would be 1/1,000th. On white sand it would be 1/2,000th.
Am I talking trash here?
I’d wait and see if efffects on Bokeh are present in the Z9. I’m not certain what root cause may be but fundamentally the light path is the same so it should be the same.
Apps to add blur get better all the time. If the camera is capable of gathering a depth map at the same time as the shot, post processing in circles of confusion of appropriate size is a simple computation and could be aided by subject identification and image segmentation. I expect these and AI powered super resolution will become more and more common.
-
I’d wait and see if efffects on Bokeh are present in the Z9. I’m not certain what root cause may be but fundamentally the light path is the same so it should be the same.
Is there something akin to diffraction at the aperture blades happening at the shutter curtains? I guessing here; I don't know.
Dave
-
Is there something akin to diffraction at the aperture blades happening at the shutter curtains? I guessing here; I don't know.
Dave
Don’t know either, and to be honest I never noticed any difference in the years I’ve owned my Z6. Guess I’m just not that worried about the quality of my Bokeh as I have other problems to worry about - subjects, composition, color balance, holding the camera straight…
-
Let's hope the NIKKOR Z 24-120mm f/4 S has excellent performance wide open at 2 meters and at an effective 95mm to 110mm focal length. Let's hope the bokeh is pleasing. If the performance of this lens is as hoped it will make a better stand in for the 105/2.5 AI & AIS and 105/2.8 AIS (as a portrait lens) Micro Nikkors compared to the AF-S G and Z 105mm f/2.8 Micro Nikkors which are both very large by comparison.
The Z 105 MC is quite lightweight for its size. The Z 24-120/4 is of the same weight as the 105 MC and extended to its long end (120mm) it seems a bit longer than the 105 MC, judging from a combination of written specs and some images and video which show it extended. The 105 MC produces excellent bokeh and it's not much of a stretch to believe that the image quality is better than what a 5x superzoom provides. Of course, you may prefer a zoom for other reasons (such as: it offers multiple focal lengths).
With regards to mechanical vs. electronic shutter and effects on out of focus rendering, I think you're overthinking things.
-
On the other hand, looking at the glass half-full, Nikon will hopefully release more "pancake" primes - 85 f2.8 and 105 f2.8. A 105 f2.5 will carry significant appeal, especially it is a Classic build like the new 28 f2.8 SE.
I agree and hope the compact prime lens line is expanded towards short to medium teles.
Back on the niche for a 400-800 Super-telephoto zoom (or similar focal range), bear in mind the Sigma 300-800 f5.6 and Nikkor 360-1200 f11 were designed decades ago. Nikon has new materials (SR, Super ED etc), lens-coatings, and lighter alloys / composites. Above all, Nikon has the proven engineering knowledge to design a much more compact telephoto. I am also hopeful they exploit use their phase-fresnel technology ina compact, lighter zoom.
Modern high grade zooms tend to be packed with elements so there is not much weight reduction apparent. For example the Nikon 120-300/2.8 is only very slightly lighter than the earlier Sigma version. The 180-400/4 is not lightweight, either. Nikon have noted that although they explored PF zoom designs, bokeh would be adversely affected and only a slight weight reduction would be possible.
The 100-400 and 70-200/2.8 have experienced some weight reduction from some earlier versions of similar focal length and aperture, but the difference is not all that large (and one can find even lighter versions of 80-200/2.8 from the past).
-
The new Sony 70-200/2.8 zoom is significantly lighter than the Nikon Z-mount version. Part of the weight reduction is because Sony managed to get the element count well down (while improving optical performance compared to their earlier version), but I suspect they have also used other light-weight materials in the lens barrel.
-
Just a few remarks from my side
SR glass is newto Nikon, Super-ED glass is - by far not. The latter one is rarely used, the AF-S 200/2 VR I and II was the only lens with Super-ED Glass until the AF-S 80-400. Both lenses are either superheavy or at least not lightweight. The new 100-400 mm lens is the third lens known to use Super ED (maybe an evolved design?).
The Z 105 mm MC is the best Micro-Nikkor so far but it is rather lightweight- so lightweight that it feels "cheap". It is not small (like most of the Z-lenses can't be called small).
The AI-S Micro Nikkor was my fourth lens ever and accompanied me in the "first line" over years. When I later got the 105 mm f/2,5 i wondered how much smaller and more compact it is. The Micro also cant replace what the f/2,5 can do for portrait work (and vice versa).
-
On the other hand, looking at the glass half-full, Nikon will hopefully release more "pancake" primes - 85 f2.8 and 105 f2.8. A 105 f2.5 will carry significant appeal, especially it is a Classic build like the new 28 f2.8 SE.
A 20/3.5 with similar dimensions as the current compact Z primes would be a welcome addition. That would be a worthy update of the tiny AI 20/3.5 which remains one of my favorite lenses. Some compact telephotos would also be good, something like a 75mm or 80mm f/2 and a 135/3.5 would be nice.
Actually my ideal would be for a set of lenses with 1.4x ratio between lenses. The exact focal lengths aren't that important to me, we could have a set which builds on the current primes:
20/3.4, 28/2.8, 40/2, 56/2, 80/2, 110/2.8, 160/4
or
21/3.4, 30/2.4, 42/2, 60/2, 85/2.4, 120/2.8, 170/4
or
20/3.4, 25/2.8, 35/2, 50/2, 70/2, 100/2.4, 140/3.4
or
24/2.8, 32/2.4, 45/2, 65/2, 90/2.4, 130/3.4, 180/4
etc
The resulting lineup would avoid large gaps between lenses such as 50mm and 85mm, or focal lengths too close such as 20-24-28, or 85-105. Such a lineup would work equally well on FX and DX formats, the lenses simply scale up or down one step to give the same field of view depending on which format you are using. The DX format would need to be an additional DX only lens to cover the wide end, something like a 16/2.8 or 14/3.4. I just can't understand why manufacturers don't take a more systematic approach to lenses like this, especially now they have a chance to build a new set of mirrorless lenses from scratch. They just repeat the traditional lenses with different sizes and shapes and no consistency in filter sizes and other accessories. The closest anyone got to my ideal was Nikon in the 1970s, which is why I like my AI kit so much :)
Some of the resulting focal lengths may look a bit strange but that never bothered me, I will happily use 40mm, 45mm, 50mm or 55mm, or anything between as a standard lens, I just adjust my working distance and composition to compensate. I also would prefer intermediate lens speeds like f/2.4 and f/3.4 which are exactly half a stop either side of f/2.8. Aperture settings like f/2.5 and f/3.5 always seemed a bit strange to me as they are neither 1/3 or 1/2 stop values unless the numbers are badly rounded. Maybe manufacturers think the .5 values look nicer, but that hasn't stopped them from making f/6.3 lenses. Anyone want an f/6.5 lens? :o ::)
And if they are going to give them classic styling like the 28/2.8 SE, please make the lower part a functional aperture ring!
-
I would be very happy with a 20/3.5 to 20/2.8 compact z mount FX lens. I have wanted a compact 105mm f/2.5 AF lens with somewhat close focus but not macro focus forever. What I want is a lens for candid photos of people, a head and shoulders lens that is close to 2x the normal (51.6mm) or 100mm to 110mm. I'm partial to 105mm as a matter of tradition. To plug the gap between 20mm and 50mm a 28mm lens but please a 28mm f/2.0 as f/2.8 is just too slow. Please a standard filter size of 52mm or 62mm and specifically not 58mm for one and 67mm for another. Standardizing on 52mm and 72mm and then adding 62mm made a great deal of sense and simplified the use of filters.
Dave
-
Standardizing on 52mm and 72mm and then adding 62mm made a great deal of sense and simplified the use of filters.
Dave
I think I will live to see the day that ND filters are in body/in lens and all other filters are computational. I hope I live to see that day.
-
The Canon RF 16/2.8 also looks very interesting as a super lightweight ultra wideangle companion to the Zee 28/2.8 and 40/2 at only 165 gram, would even usable on DX.
-
Yes, this would be very handy indeed. Would love, for example, to have adjustable in-camera graduates. Especially when dealing with with our contrasty Australian light.
I think I will live to see the day that ND filters are in body/in lens and all other filters are computational. I hope I live to see that day.
-
Sadly David, I think that you are correct about a Z version of the 105mm f/2.5. (But I cannot help dreaming....)
...........................
Now it's assured that there will never be an AF-S 105mm f/1.8 G or E Nikkor and I doubt that there will ever be 105mm f/1.8 Nikkor in Z mount. Again the 70-200/2.8 in AF-S, G and E and 70-200/2.8 Z Nikkors are no replacement for the light and nimble 105/2.5 AIS and 105/2.8 AIS Micro. It's a sad situation to me.
..........................
Dave
-
It might be the case that there won't be any new F-mount lens released.
-
Think that is a good thing, better focus on the new Zee platform and make it a success than spread limited resources thin across the old and new world and fail as a company.
With age there comes the need for reading glasses for many of us, being able to view images on a corrected viewfinder without looking for my glasses is becoming a very convenient feature with mirrorless over a DSLR. When the AF catches up its goodbye to the D500 and 200-500VR and a big welcome to a Z60 DX with a 100-400mm, the sooner the better.
-
The Canon RF 16/2.8 also looks very interesting as a super lightweight ultra wideangle companion to the Zee 28/2.8 and 40/2 at only 165 gram, would even usable on DX.
Gives the impression of a Nikon 1 lens- designwise
-
Think that is a good thing, better focus on the new Zee platform and make it a success than spread limited resources thin across the old and new world and fail as a company.
With age there comes the need for reading glasses for many of us, being able to view images on a corrected viewfinder without looking for my glasses is becoming a very convenient feature with mirrorless over a DSLR. When the AF catches up its goodbye to the D500 and 200-500VR and a big welcome to a Z60 DX with a 100-400mm, the sooner the better.
I am ambiguous about that. Would prefer Nikon to support both worlds but disrupting circumstances and a shrinking market is forcing something different.
Still enjoy my D500 (and 200-500 or 80-400). This special package is still unreached.
-
Gives the impression of a Nikon 1 lens- designwise
Checked twice if it really was a full frame lens haha as it looked so similar to my Sony 16m crop lens.
But the trick is that it relies heavily on in camera software corrections or post processing, without it its pretty much unusable:
https://www.cameralabs.com/canon-rf-16mm-f2-8-stm-review/
Thats a bonus with my third party CV15/4.5 which has very little distortion by itself so works perfectly on any camera without any necessary post processing to make it look good :)
-
But the trick is that it relies heavily on in camera software corrections or post processing, without it its pretty much unusable:
It could be used as a mild fisheye :o
-
The 400/2.8 TC allows the photographer to quickly switch between 400/2.8 and 560/4. You may wonder why Nikon has a 600/4 in its roadmap given that it has a very close focal length and speed. I fully expect the 600/4 also has a built-in TC which allows the photographer to switch from 600/4 to 840/5.6. Depending on your requirements for reach and aperture, you would have the choice of a 400/560mm lens or a 600/840mm lens
First video of the Z 400/2.8S. Look at the high SN (likely in the run up to the Beijing Olympics)
https://www.instagram.com/reel/CYmRHFQFfII/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link
-
So the rumors of a full announcement this month seem pretty solid, exciting stuff :)
Very curious what the weight will be, the Sony 400/2.8 only weighs 2.9 kilogram like the Nikkor 200/2VR I used to have which is just bonkers. The Zee 400mm has the builtin TC so will probably be a few hundred grams heavier which is a small price to pay vs the improved ergonomics.
Also interested what the new faster motors will be, up to now Nikon uses the slower stepping motors in most Zee lenses and my guess is that faster (linear) motors launched with the 400/2.8 will also end up in the other tele’s on the roadmap like the 400PF, 800PF, 600/4 and 200-600mm.
-
The Canon RF 400/2.8 is also 2.9 kilogram but does not have a builtin TC so is very similar to the Sony lens.
If Nikon can keep the weight down and assuming the IQ and price of all three lenses is on par than the builtin TC could become the key differentiator for many (pro) photographers to decide which brand to use.
-
I believe to recall that Nikon stops / has stopped manufacturing lenses in Japan. Akira San?
Well - in addition to the Z 0.95 Noct both the Z 100-400mm/4.5 S and upcoming Z 400mm/2.8 S are marked "Made in Japan"
-
The Jared preview of the 400/2.8:
https://youtu.be/qsR_pTADB54
-
Probably meant to be hilarious? Anyway, it looks pretty interesting for those in need of such an optic.
-
His reviews are an acquired taste for sure but he properly uses the gear before a review and does some interesting comparisons from time to time.