NikonGear'23
Gear Talk => Lens Talk => Topic started by: chambeshi on October 10, 2019, 07:38:15
-
Includes 2 pancake primes, 2 Micro Nikkors...and 4 FX Zooms: 24-105; 24-200, 100-400mm and 200-600mm
All great news IMHO
I'm curious to learn more about the optics of the telephoto zooms, notably how their designs differ from the Z-Mount
The 24-200 is non-S, likely a consumer super-zoom like the 28-200 G
https://www.nikonusa.com/Images/CPCAssets/mirrorless-rethink/refresh/pdf/NIKKOR-Z-Lens-Lineup-Expansion.pdf
-
Thanks for posting! LZ
-
A pancake 28?!? Count me interested! Please, for the love of God, do not be fly-by-wire...
I would be eagerly awaiting the new 50/1.2, but I assume it will have no character wide open as modern lenses are want to do.
-
Good news, now it is significantly less boring than it was. Would be interesting what specs and speed they are planning for the 200-600, it is no S-line though.
-
fyi http://www.sansmirror.com/newsviews/2019-mirrorless-camera/october-december-2019-newsv/my-view-on-the-nikon-announ-2.html
-
They could have just adapted F-mount telephoto lenses to the Z mount. Instead, they're coming up with new optical designs (100-400 vs. 80-400, and 200-600 vs. 200-500). This suggests they're trying to take advantage of the wider throat to get better optical performance.
-
I very much agree with Thom regarding the 28 and 40. Hopefully their almost certain success spurs Nikon to develop more compact primes.
-
I also agree with Thom that the Noct is a miss in showing what the Z-mount is capable to do. They should have gone to f/0,7 at least.
It is Ok that Nikon uses the opportunity to design better lenses as an outcome of the wider throat. But imho building the same kind of lenses with a slightlly better quality is not enough. They are too conservative in copying what we used in the F-mount system (the same primes with F/1,8 and now f/1,2 instead of f/1,4, oh yes finally macreo lenses on the list but again just a 60 and a 105mm no wideangle no macrozoom, the 200 mm we knowis stillscrewdriver AF, in general nearly no exotics, too little surprise too much "as usual".
-
They could have just adapted F-mount telephoto lenses to the Z mount. Instead, they're coming up with new optical designs (100-400 vs. 80-400, and 200-600 vs. 200-500). This suggests they're trying to take advantage of the wider throat to get better optical performance.
I think it's more likely that to get high AF performance, they need to use focus motors that work better with mirrorless to avoid the stutter in low light and so new lenses are needed. 100-400 and 200-600 seem to indicate they are targeting Sony directly rather than traditional Nikon focal lengths. It is somewhat unlikely that there would be a large performance benefit from the mount at such long focal lengths. Maybe there is a small benefit, but more on the side of autofocus (faster communication in the Z mount than F and motors better at fine step adjustments). Sony's 100-400 is reviewed to be the best lens of its category and perhaps doing a wider zoom range 80-400 would mean that they cannot achieve a competitive lens while starting at 80mm. The 200-500 has been very popular and probably most users of such lenses care more about the long end of the focal range than the short.
-
I also agree with Thom that the Noct is a miss in showing what the Z-mount is capable to do. They should have gone to f/0,7 at least.
It is Ok that Nikon uses the opportunity to design better lenses as an outcome of the wider throat. But imho building the same kind of lenses with a slightlly better quality is not enough. They are too conservative in copying what we used in the F-mount system (the same primes with F/1,8 and now f/1,2 instead of f/1,4, oh yes finally macreo lenses on the list but again just a 60 and a 105mm no wideangle no macrozoom, the 200 mm we knowis stillscrewdriver AF, in general nearly no exotics, too little surprise too much "as usual".
If you have 1-2% market share it's just not feasible to go all out on exotics from the start. I believe they need to first get some income from the Z system products and sell it to a broader population to establish the viability of the system. People who buy expensive specialty lenses probably want some stability and to be ensured that they system will be continued in the long term. Lots of people are already expressing their frustration at Nikon producing a "crazy" lens like the 58/0.95 while more common lenses are missing from the system. More crazy (let's say a 4 kilogram 58mm f/0.7 at 20000€) just won't help.
-
I think it's more likely that...
Thanks for your thoughts, Ilkka. They make sense.
-
If you have 1-2% market share it's just not feasible to go all out on exotics from the start. I believe they need to first get some income from the Z system products and sell it to a broader population to establish the viability of the system. People who buy expensive specialty lenses probably want some stability and to be ensured that they system will be continued in the long term. Lots of people are already expressing their frustration at Nikon producing a "crazy" lens like the 58/0.95 while more common lenses are missing from the system. More crazy (let's say a 4 kilogram 58mm f/0.7 at 20000€) just won't help.
They should have made the crazy f/0,7 instead of the crazy f/0,95 (which also will not bring big revenue but dragging attention - its more about who demonstrates to be the leader in designing outstanding lenses to dream of - that will remain a dream for the most). I hope they will get some income with the Z50 and the DX lenses.
For the revenues i consider it is also not optimal designing a roadmap (as it was original) with just S-Line lenses and just redo what can be found in the F-mount programm with maybe some more IQ. Giving some good close-up capability does not need to be more expensive than some F/1,2 or even f/1,8 primes.
-
The latest update V3.0 extends to 2022, and adds three more S Nikkors 85, 400mm and 600mm. The total to date is 18 Z Nikkors (including 2 TC14-Z and TC2-Z).
https://www.nikon-image.com/products/nikkor/common2/pdf/nikkor_z_lineup.pdf
-
Nice Nikon has the resources to keep designing and producing new lenses at such a fast pace - Looking forward to see if they keep the optical and mechanical quality high!
-
Getting native Z Micro-Nikkors would be a real boost to make Z the future preferred approach .... Certanly Nikon can do [much] better than the latest AFS 105 Micro? Third-party 'macro' offerings are usually without electronic communication to the camera and for exacting, reproducible work this is a liability. In particular when the current Z cameras lack the handy voice recording provided by high-end single-digit Dx models.
-
Yes, strongly agree. Ditto re the D850, D750 etc.
Even pretty basic Olympus OMD M43 ameras offer this facility.
.........................................................
In particular when the current Z cameras lack the handy voice recording provided by high-end single-digit Dx models.
-
I'm curious if Nikon will announce the 85 S to be faster than 1.2. Wouldn't surprise me in the slightest and it would be a wise move. Canon shooters have long touted their access to a faster 85 than Nikon shooters, so given Z's advantage in faster apertures, even an 85/1.1 would be a good strategic move. Along with a competitively priced and stellar performing 85/1.8, a high end 85/<1.2 would shift Canon to the 'if-you-want-average' department in this area. Would be an absolute marketing win, and the lens people at Nikon are certainly aggressive and confident enough to do it.
-
Getting native Z Micro-Nikkors would be a real boost to make Z the future preferred approach .... Certanly Nikon can do [much] better than the latest AFS 105 Micro?
Nikon hasn't ever updated the 200 AF and the 70-180 AF Micro Nikkors, the whole Nikon 1 System failed also because it never got any native close-up capability, so Nikon is definitely not focussing on the needs of Close-up nerds. Canons 65 mm solution for going beyond 1:1 remained without a competitor for years now - and Nikon never produced a stellar 100/105/125 mm Micro Nikkor with outstanding Bokeh although they certainly can do it if they want to. I am not sure whether the roadmap (including the usual 60 mm and 105 mm focal lengths will change that.
-
I'm curious if Nikon will announce the 85 S to be faster than 1.2. Wouldn't surprise me in the slightest and it would be a wise move.
To be honest I would be surprised although I agree it to be a wise strategic move. It also would have been wise to make a Z-Noct without AF f/,07
-
https://richardhaw.com/2020/11/01/review-nikkor-z-14-24mm-f-2-8-s/
heres my impression of the 14-24 :o :o :o
-
Thanks a lot Richard for your effort and posting your impressions. I'm interested in this lens or the 20mm f1.8 for shooting architecture. First impressions look very promising, another Z-winner!
-
yes but its very expensive, easily $2700.00 :o :o :o
-
Thanks a lot Richard for your effort and posting your impressions. I'm interested in this lens or the 20mm f1.8 for shooting architecture. First impressions look very promising, another Z-winner!
I use the 14-30 for architecture and like it a lot. Seems to have less distortion at the wide end (or maybe the camera is correcting...)
-
Hello Jack, the 14-30mm is also interesting. How is corner sharpness at f5.6? I'm a bit worried about the reports on sample variation.
-
The 14-30 is pretty sharp across the frame, but has severe barrel distortion at the widest settings. That requires some in-camera or post-processing wizardry which might explain reports on sub-par corner performance. I for one find my sample performing well above average event at 14mm.
-
https://richardhaw.com/2020/11/01/review-nikkor-z-14-24mm-f-2-8-s/ (https://richardhaw.com/2020/11/01/review-nikkor-z-14-24mm-f-2-8-s/)
heres my impression of the 14-24 :o :o :o
Thank you for sharing your early findings on the new 14-24!I like the look of these new lenses for the Z cameras, industrial engineering meets optics - Well done Nikon!
-
Thank you for sharing your early findings on the new 14-24!I like the look of these new lenses for the Z cameras, industrial engineering meets optics - Well done Nikon!
i thought so too :o :o :o
it looks like batmans lens ::)
-
Hello Jack, the 14-30mm is also interesting. How is corner sharpness at f5.6? I'm a bit worried about the reports on sample variation.
Luc, for architecture I usually keep it at f/8. The Z6 has plenty of light gathering to make this possible. But I'll take a look at shots with larger aperture when I have a chance.
-
Luc, for architecture I usually keep it at f/8. The Z6 has plenty of light gathering to make this possible. But I'll take a look at shots with larger aperture when I have a chance.
Thanks a lot Jack for the (additional) info. I should have mentioned I'm interested in it not only for architecture but also dimly lit interiors like churches etc. Today Nikon NL announced a discount for cameras and lenses, the 14-30mm has a € 200 discount. Great timing :D
-
Getting native Z Micro-Nikkors would be a real boost to make Z the future preferred approach .... Certanly Nikon can do [much] better than the latest AFS 105 Micro?
When you said "latest" I had to check - turns out this was released in 2006 :(
All Nikon's macro work has been on shorter focal lengths since then and I'd even be happy with something a little longer than 105mm
-
The AFS Micro-Nikkor 105mm f/2.8 VR still is the *only* Micro-Nikkor I have purchased then to get rid of after a few months. To say it was disappointing is an understatement.
I certainly would hope an S-Line Micro-Nikkor would do significantly better. For close-up work, AF is not a prerequisite at all and I would rather see a lens design optimised for manual focusing with a long, decisive and precise focus travel. Currently there is a LAOWA 100mm f/2.8 2X Ultra-Macro lens that comes in native Z mount and has very good near-APO image quality; however, it lacks any electronic communication to the camera so is not ideal.
-
The latest Nikon Z lens roadmap shows two micro lenses: 50mm and 105mm. Like other Z lenses, I expect they will be significantly better than the F mount micros.
The 50mm will probably be f/2.8. My preference would be something a little faster such as f/2.5, but only going to 1:2 or maybe 2:3. A 50mm lens with 1:1 magnification will have too short working distance to be practical, while 1:2 is close enough to be useful for general close-ups while without needing to get so close. A faster aperture would make it useful as a general purpose standard lens which can double as a (semi) macro lens. Faster standard lenses are only really needed in very dim conditions or where a very shallow DoF is required (Most of my shots are taken between f/4 - 11 so a max aperture of f/2.5 would be plenty for me. I admit that I often stop down more than I might need as I usually focus manually, it helps to cover any focus errors, but it is seldom that I want very shallow DoF anyway).
There is no indication of the maximum aperture of the 105mm macro but I guess it will be f/2.8. It's a shame there aren't more macro lenses in the 120-150mm range, they provide a longer working distance, where 90-105mm lenses are often still too short, while being more compact than the 180-200mm macro lenses.
-
My three favourite fifties are all 50/2 and one of them is a macro (Zeiss): indeed, it qualifies as an excellent allrounder. I never felt frustrated by not having wider apertures, even though I occasionally enjoy them. For handheld night shots, f/2.8-f/4 is my normal range (in conjunction with the Df and ISO up to 12800). f/2 provides some little extras, such as a slightly brighter viewfinder, shallower DoF of course, even smoother bokeh, and some built-in vignetting, so I already feel spoiled, but that's more for daytime shots. For macro alone, f/2 is of little interest.
I use f/2 less often on the Nikkor AI because optical quality is not stellar (fringing) and still do not feel frustrated.
The Leitz Summicron R is very good and consistent at f/2, somewhere between the other two, and I use that aperture very often. Same with my second-most loved one (50/1.2 AI).
Bottom line, I share Roland's view - a 50/2.8 macro is ok, but wider would really be appreciated to make it an allrounder. I do not care about AF, and even the focussing mechanism is not very important to me because I prefer to move the camera or, when possible, the subject, after having set the magnification ratio.
I'd be surprized to see yet another 50 AF macro, after Nikon has released its "Noct" 50/0.95 with manual focus... that would really reveal a compromise for allround usage, in which case the max aperture should also be wider than 2.8. Otherwise why care - just get a 50/3.5 macro.
-
The latest Nikon Z lens roadmap shows two micro lenses: 50mm and 105mm. Like other Z lenses, I expect they will be significantly better than the F mount micros.
isnt it still 60 mm? I hope that they will be better but not necessarily stellar - and i wonder how the Bokeh will turn out to be. Boring approach nevertheless. The longer macros have been discontinued for years now, and wide- angle close up is still not on the agenda.
For long years I have thought that AF is of no relevance for macro work but more recently i turned out to do more close up action where it comes handy. THis was one of the reasons why (besides the purely MF lenses) the AF 60 mm F/2,8 got a companion and i added the ambiguous 105 mm VR.
Building Micro Nikkors faster gives the idea to make them more all-around. Personally I experienced that i dont want to use a 105 mm Micro Nikkor (no matter whether MF or AF) for portrait photography
-
I'm not yet a Z-user but following the news...Z5 could be my entry in that system.
Indeed, good macro lenses are a hole in the Z system, a hole that the Micro Nikon AFS 60, 105VR (and the DX Micro 40 and 85VR) don't fill !
And yes, wide-angle with near macro ability (like the Ais 2,8/28mm) are not current today.
Yes, a 2,5/ 125 Voigtländer Apo or a 65 Voigtländer for Sony could be a so-so solution, but why can't Nikon build a real macro-system like they did in the 70s-80s, with three Micro Nikkor (55 or 60, 105 and 200) or better four, with a good macro zoom like the Micro AFD 70-180 ? (Or like Olympus did at the same time with 20,35,50,80 and 135 lenses...)
I don't consider Laowa/Venus optics and other Chinese third party products.
Hope they get it right this time for their Z-system...a complete macro kit !
And I'd like to say that (for me) the "prism"finder of the Z system is not a real beauty, a shame for Nikon, whose "F" with (meterless, not photomic) prism is timeless !
Canon's R hybrids look more like a reflex from the Eos series, better in my eyes...and it's the same for the Panasonic S1 or S5 (L series). It seems that Nikon did a compromise between a real new design and a (false) SLR look !
-
Just laid my hands on a Z5 (modified for full spectrum) today, and must say it's a very nice and competent camera system.
-
I'm not yet a Z-user but following the news...Z5 could be my entry in that system.
Indeed, good macro lenses are a hole in the Z system, a hole that the Micro Nikon AFS 60, 105VR (and the DX Micro 40 and 85VR) don't fill !
And yes, wide-angle with near macro ability (like the Ais 2,8/28mm) are not current today.
Yes, a 2,5/ 125 Voigtländer Apo or a 65 Voigtländer for Sony could be a so-so solution, but why can't Nikon build a real macro-system like they did in the 70s-80s, with three Micro Nikkor (55 or 60, 105 and 200) or better four, with a good macro zoom like the Micro AFD 70-180 ? (Or like Olympus did at the same time with 20,35,50,80 and 135 lenses...)
I don't consider Laowa/Venus optics and other Chinese third party products.
Good macro lenses are a hole in modern F -system as well. Nikon could doit if they want to but evidently they dont want to. In former day the micro/macro system was more versatile (even More when thinking about the Multiphot system) but in effect Nikon never did a lens in the optical quality range of the Voigtländer CV 125
Of course there are the Laowas now with new up to now unknown features - but it would not be wise for Nikon to seriously ignore to build up its house- made close-up capability which is crucial for a Camera system
And I'd like to say that (for me) the "prism"finder of the Z system is not a real beauty, a shame for Nikon, whose "F" with (meterless, not photomic) prism is timeless !
Canon's R hybrids look more like a reflex from the Eos series, better in my eyes...and it's the same for the Panasonic S1 or S5 (L series). It seems that Nikon did a compromise between a real new design and a (false) SLR look !
indeed the Z cameras would not win a design price - i would even say they are ugly but thats not what matters firsthand
-
The roadmap has been updated with silhouettes of some new lenses:
(https://d1ro734fq21xhf.cloudfront.net/attachments/2020/11/1629895_91537a7f70eb2c9b8d75f2946ba00783.jpg)
There is little doubt the 400mm is f/2.8 and the 600mm is f/4 - the first super-telephotos for the Z mount. I had wondered if Nikon would go for smaller versions like the 500/5.6 PF but they are obviously going for the pro sports and wildlife market here.
The 200-600 looks relatively large, probably f/5-6.3 with 95mm filter size
The 100-400 looks like it has a 77mm filter - same as the 70-200/2.8, so the aperture is likely to be f/4.5-5.6.
The 105mm micro is surprisingly large, almost as long as the 50/1.2, filter size looks like 77mm or maybe 72mm. Given its large size I wonder if it is faster than f/2.8?
The S-line 85mm is surprisingly shorter than the 50/1.2, and quite fat which suggests the aperture will be f/1.2. The filter size looks like 82mm at least, maybe even 86mm
The 25-105 looks like about average size, probably constant f/4 aperture and 77mm filter size.
The DX 18-140 is surprisingly compact, probably 62mm filter,
The 50mm micro is not S-line, probably 62m filter.
The 28 and 40 probably have 52mm filter size, I expect the aperture will be f/2.8 for both. My preference would be 40mm f/2 but then it might compete with the 50/1.8 too much.
-
Thanks Roland for the update
my 2 cents:
the 50 mm f/1,2 is extremely long for a lens of this kind (i had it in my hands recently) so it does not wonder that the 85 mm ist shorter
the 200-600 mm is huger than I have expected it - does not save much space compared to the primes
The biggest surprise to me is the 105 mm Micro S-line. With this dimensions it must be faster than f/2,8 it is big, probably will be heavy and expensive. I hope it will have truly outstandig quality as well and a convincing bokeh.
-
The AFS 105/2.8 Micro-Nikkor for F is huge too -- so I'm not convinced the Z version will have markedly different specifications.
-
I am not sure either
Here is a "quick and dirty" picture showing the 105/2,8 VR Micro, the 105 mm f/1,4 both F-mount and the Z-Noct
-
They should have made the crazy f/0,7 instead of the crazy f/0,95 (which also will not bring big revenue but dragging attention - its more about who demonstrates to be the leader in designing outstanding lenses to dream of - that will remain a dream for the most). I hope they will get some income with the Z50 and the DX lenses.
For the revenues i consider it is also not optimal designing a roadmap (as it was original) with just S-Line lenses and just redo what can be found in the F-mount programm with maybe some more IQ. Giving some good close-up capability does not need to be more expensive than some F/1,2 or even f/1,8 primes.
It seems to me that you are perhaps unaware of the difficulties in designing ultrafast lenses. As you get faster than, let's say, f1.0@50mm the intracies of correcting both monochromatic and chromatic aberrations increase exponentially. The fabled Zeiss f0.7 is by no means a stellar performer, and even if Nikon had the design knowledge to make a f0.7 lens, it would be commercial suicide, as it would cost multiple tens of thousands of dollars. To design a 58mm f0.95 with the sharpness and absence of aberrations that they have is already an amazing feat of optical engineering, and at $8000 still within the means of professionals and dedicated amateurs. To increase that to f0.7 with much inferior performance and a price tag 5x that of the f0.95 for bragging rights in a niche market would not make much sense.
-
It seems to me that you are perhaps unaware of the difficulties in designing ultrafast lenses. As you get faster than, let's say, f1.0@50mm the intracies of correcting both monochromatic and chromatic aberrations increase exponentially. The fabled Zeiss f0.7 is by no means a stellar performer, and even if Nikon had the design knowledge to make a f0.7 lens, it would be commercial suicide, as it would cost multiple tens of thousands of dollars. To design a 58mm f0.95 with the sharpness and absence of aberrations that they have is already an amazing feat of optical engineering, and at $8000 still within the means of professionals and dedicated amateurs. To increase that to f0.7 with much inferior performance and a price tag 5x that of the f0.95 for bragging rights in a niche market would not make much sense.
yes I may be unaware of the full difficulties. I see that f/0,95 is not much more than f/1 but for marketing purposes it can show that it is below 1 (just like 1/300 X-synchronisation where Nikon used to follow Minolta in former days is by far not a full stop more than 1/250) and I picked up somewhere that the theoretical limit of a lens for the Z-mount would be around f/0,5. and that f/0,7 (which would mean full stop more than f/1) would be possible. yes maybe it is impossible to optimise quality and price at the same time though i am sure Nikon has the design knowledge. The current Z-Noct is a wonderful (and yet very heavy) lens but i would not consider it a commercial success on its own - it ist obviously dedicated to be some kind of guiding light for the Z-line
-
Going to f/0.7 might have a relevance only for a DX or smaller format system, since the increase in spherical aberration introduced by the larger aperture would require a truly massive amount of optical corrections were the lens to cover any larger format. The Zeiss 0.7 lens was used on a cine camera, remember.
I do hope Nikon maxes out the performance of the future 105 Z Micro-Nikkor, and makes it an APO quality lens. The residual chromatic aberrations of the F-mount AFS 105/2.8 Micro are painfully obvious.
-
The AFS Micro-Nikkor 105mm f/2.8 VR still is the *only* Micro-Nikkor I have purchased then to get rid of after a few months. To say it was disappointing is an understatement.
...
Hello Birna, it’s not the first time that you express your dislike of the aforementioned lens. I have this lens for years now. I have no particular reason not to like this lens, except for the AF not working at close distances - but who cares - I have not many shots with this lens; shared between portraits and some amateur macro-shooting. So, not an in depth vision of the qualities and lack of it from my side. So, your view might enlighten me.
-
The roadmap has been updated with silhouettes of some new lenses:
There is little doubt the 400mm is f/2.8 and the 600mm is f/4 - the first super-telephotos for the Z mount. I had wondered if Nikon would go for smaller versions like the 500/5.6 PF but they are obviously going for the pro sports and wildlife market here.
The 200-600 looks relatively large, probably f/5-6.3 with 95mm filter size
The 100-400 looks like it has a 77mm filter - same as the 70-200/2.8, so the aperture is likely to be f/4.5-5.6.
The 105mm micro is surprisingly large, almost as long as the 50/1.2, filter size looks like 77mm or maybe 72mm. Given its large size I wonder if it is faster than f/2.8?
The S-line 85mm is surprisingly shorter than the 50/1.2, and quite fat which suggests the aperture will be f/1.2. The filter size looks like 82mm at least, maybe even 86mm
The 25-105 looks like about average size, probably constant f/4 aperture and 77mm filter size.
The DX 18-140 is surprisingly compact, probably 62mm filter,
The 50mm micro is not S-line, probably 62m filter.
The 28 and 40 probably have 52mm filter size, I expect the aperture will be f/2.8 for both. My preference would be 40mm f/2 but then it might compete with the 50/1.8 too much.
Thanks for posting :) Your estimates make sense. Where reach is needed on a MILC, a 100-400 f4-5.6 S should perform fairly well with TC14Z.
On the awaited Z-mount super exotics, it is interesting to look back to Tokyo 1964, when the Nikon F was barely 5 years old and the F system was growing outwards. Nikon exhibited their set of 5 pioneering super telephotos in their home city. Following on the international publicity of the Nikon S thanks to Douglas Duncan's work, Tokyo 1964 can only have added even greater profile to this optical company emerging in postwar Japan!
57 years later, Nikon is in a similar situation with their 4 year old Z system. Not only are the next Olympics going to happen on the other side of the world (Paris 2024), but Nikon cannot afford to miss the global coverage right outside its HQ. This is their big - indeed unique - opportunity to try and bolster their shrinking market share and leverage the profile of the Z system. It would not be surprising to learn their engineers are under huge pressure to deliver high profile MILC products that make an impact in action shooting. Nikon will likely release these Z super telephotos to Pro photographers fairly early next year with the first copies of the Z8 (aka Z9 or Z1).
https://imaging.nikon.com/history/story/0050/index.htm
-
Going to f/0.7 might have a relevance only for a DX or smaller format system, since the increase in spherical aberration introduced by the larger aperture would require a truly massive amount of optical corrections were the lens to cover any larger format. The Zeiss 0.7 lens was used on a cine camera, remember.
I do hope Nikon maxes out the performance of the future 105 Z Micro-Nikkor, and makes it an APO quality lens. The residual chromatic aberrations of the F-mount AFS 105/2.8 Micro are painfully obvious.
Somewhat off topic.... The use of the Zeiss 50mm f0.7 Planar by the late Stanley Kubrick is legendary, who bought it to capture the candle lit scenes in Barry Lyndon. There's an entire legend around Kubrick's optics
here's the actual lens https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVF1zoyQJHY
most interesting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2p5E7iXxeQE
documentary on Kubrick: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JK8q6l2dCEA
-
I have seen -- more than once -- the movie "Barry Lyndon". The candlelit scenes are rendered phenomenally.
-
There is the FIFA World Cup in 2022, that should be a good platform if Nikon wants to show off some new long glass. FIFA World Cup can gather audiences of several billion people (3.5 billion watched some part of it in 2018). The world cup in 2022 is at the end of the year so the world should have had a breather after the pandemic. Not so sure about Tokyo next summer.
There is also the Winter Olympics in Beijing in Feb 2022.
-
yes I may be unaware of the full difficulties. I see that f/0,95 is not much more than f/1 but for marketing purposes it can show that it is below 1 (just like 1/300 X-synchronisation where Nikon used to follow Minolta in former days is by far not a full stop more than 1/250) and I picked up somewhere that the theoretical limit of a lens for the Z-mount would be around f/0,5. and that f/0,7 (which would mean full stop more than f/1) would be possible. yes maybe it is impossible to optimise quality and price at the same time though i am sure Nikon has the design knowledge. The current Z-Noct is a wonderful (and yet very heavy) lens but i would not consider it a commercial success on its own - it ist obviously dedicated to be some kind of guiding light for the Z-line
I wonder what makes you think that Nikon has any more design knowledge than any other modern lens maker? These days with CAD, anybody with the requisite knowledge can plug specs into a program and model lenses virtually. The problems rest with the physical medium: glass. There are limits to refractive index and dispersion, unless you have big diamonds you can grind down to the proper shape. It is not so difficult to make a f0.7 lens. There are 50mm Xray lenses of f0.75 around that cover FF and they are reasonably sharp, but the undercorrected spherical aberration is such that it is like shooting in fog. The problem, especially in shorter focal length lenses, is to be able to bend the light enough without creating an absurd amount of aberrations. Saying that Nikon has the technical knowledge is like saying that NASA has the technical knowledge to land a man on Pluto. Technical knowledge and technology are different beasts.
-
I am sure that each company (and even individual designers) have some know-how that others don't have.
Nikon did say that the f/0.95 was just a start and that they intend to pursue faster apertures, but it could be that in the current situation this development might not be a priority. Given the cost of the existing 58/0.95 Noct and the current widespread lack of work for professional photographers, it may be difficult to sell a lens that might cost 15k€ or more just because it allows a unique look. It makes sense to pursue such things in a better economic situation one day.
-
Agree to that Ilkka
The concept of Z-System was made before Pandemic crisis was foreseeable - otherwise it would have required some more adaptations (less S-line optics, more compact design in the roadmap at an early stage).
Toby; i just liked to express that I consider Nikon not having less design knowledge per se than say Zeiss. and there had been some F/0,7 lenses (did not have kept in mind that these weren't full format).
Maybe you know a lot more
-
There are limits to refractive index and dispersion, unless you have big diamonds you can grind down to the proper shape.
Diamonds would not make good lenses - yes they are very hard and durable and have high refractive index which are desirable optical qualities, but they also have very high dispersion so would have terrible chromatic aberrations (longitudinal and lateral). That's what gives diamonds their colour and "fire". Of course, being being the hardest material, they would also be extremely difficult to grind! :) :o :o
-
Does anyone found any further info on the SR lens which is used in the latest AF-S 120-300 and Z 70-200 zooms?
Canon also developed a special optical element that refracts blue light strongly but that uses some "organic" material and only used inside of a composite element, whereas SR can be used as a single element.
-
There was some story of Nikon patenting Sapphire Glass for lens elements - if ever so we will see it in the Z-mount Series I guess
-
Does anyone found any further info on the SR lens which is used in the latest AF-S 120-300 and Z 70-200 zooms?
Not so far, didn't even know that the Z 70-200 is using SR glass, thought the 120-300 is the only one until now.
-
...Certanly Nikon can do [much] better than the latest AFS 105 Micro?...
It's a decent lens: It requires Axial Color Aberration correction for every image. It's a honker, really big. The free working distance isn't that good at 1:1. It breaths so it's poor choice for serious macro. AF-S and VR work well. What's not to like?
I bought one because it checked off AF-S needed for my D800 and VR for hand holding were a tripod can't be used. It takes up too much space in my camera bag. I have a 105/4.0 AI and 105/2.8 AIS Micro-Nikkor for serious macro.
I'm confined to the slow lane: at this point, Nikon having released the Nikon Z7 II, I'm getting interested in Mirrorless but if I could scratch together the money for a Z7 II I'd have to use an FTZ adapter as no way in hell could I start a Z-mount lens system.
I'm like a kid looking in the Candy Store Window without a Nickel in my pocket.
Dave
-
There was some story of Nikon patenting Sapphire Glass for lens elements - if ever so we will see it in the Z-mount Series I guess
Isn't that a rumor based on the speculation of SR standing for "Sapphire"?
-
Long years i have thought i wont need AF for macro work. In Recent years I have developed some close-up -action approach where i need it, so the 105 mm AF VR is my latest addition (despite all reasons that are not so optimal). I hope the upcoming Z 105 mm Micro will be stellar. Probably it wont have a tripod mount and I guess it will be betwen f/2 and f/2,5
-
Isn't that a rumor based on the speculation of SR standing for "Sapphire"?
Cant remember where i had it from in original
Found this
https://www.nikoneye.com/nikon-has-patented-a-new-80mm-f-2-0-with-sapphire-crystal-element/
At this time the 120-300 with SR glass was already released
-
Cant remember where i had it from in original
Found this
https://www.nikoneye.com/nikon-has-patented-a-new-80mm-f-2-0-with-sapphire-crystal-element/
At this time the 120-300 with SR glass was already released
Thank you, Wolfgang. I may remember seeing the original Japanese post. The patented design turned out to be very different from that of Z 85/1.8. The design with SR element could have been too expensive.
-
I wonder what makes you think that Nikon has any more design knowledge than any other modern lens maker? These days with CAD, anybody with the requisite knowledge can plug specs into a program and model lenses virtually.
Well, just having all these fancy and powerful tools nowadays doesn't make you a high performing company. That's probably difficult to grasp for people outside of technology and engineering. The real challenges go way beyond feeding a program with data. The way you provide solutions with superior performance is what I'd call icing on the cake of a top player.
-
Thank you, Wolfgang. I may remember seeing the original Japanese post. The patented design turned out to be very different from that of Z 85/1.8. The design with SR element could have been too expensive.
Sapphire is the mineral corundum Al203; contingent on the trace metal cations (eg Ti, Cr etc), their crystals take different colours. So the pure compound can be a gem or transparent optical element with RI > 1.6. Its high hardness rating would be useful in optical elements.
Aluminium oxynitride is a similar material that can also make special industrial glass, notably armoured and also specialized optics, with high refractive index (RI = 1.79). So in theory AlON could be the key to thinner, lighter optical elements. Zeiss was rumoured to have a pancake using a AlON element
https://www.diyphotography.net/rumours-suggest-zeiss-to-launch-worlds-first-lenses-with-transparent-aluminum-alon-elements/
While such materials can be commissioned for special projects, there are challenges to mass produce in high quality using refractory methods etc. Apparently Nikon's well known ED glass uses lanthanum oxide which confers high RI. see https://www.nicovandijk.net/glass.htm
Outside of Nikon, we can only guess at the compositions of their proprietary Hikari glass
-
thank you for the info!
-
Hello Birna, it’s not the first time that you express your dislike of the aforementioned lens. I have this lens for years now. I have no particular reason not to like this lens, except for the AF not working at close distances - but who cares - I have not many shots with this lens; shared between portraits and some amateur macro-shooting. So, not an in depth vision of the qualities and lack of it from my side. So, your view might enlighten me.
Birna, maybe you missed my question.
-
Well, I could not stand the CA and focus breathing issues. Both were detrimental for my kind of close-up work. If you are fine with the lens, why not? I can only evaluate it against my own requirements.
The Voigtländer 125/2.5 APO-Lanthar supplanting the AFS 105 after I had the latter for 3 months had none of the aforementioned problems thus for me was a superior alternative. I (or rather, my friend Erik) managed to CPU-modify it so it is compatible with all my Nikon bodies.
Obviously, for the Z cameras, I will opt for a native Z Micro-Nikkor if its performance is up to my needs. If not, there is the 125 APO.
-
Thanks for the explanation. Said that, my requirements are far off of yours. I’m a very occasional macro-shooter. It’s also one of my lenses which counts the less clicks. :)
-
Well, I could not stand the CA and focus breathing issues. Both were detrimental for my kind of close-up work. If you are fine with the lens, why not? I can only evaluate it against my own requirements.
The Voigtländer 125/2.5 APO-Lanthar supplanting the AFS 105 after I had the latter for 3 months had none of the aforementioned problems thus for me was a superior alternative. I (or rather, my friend Erik) managed to CPU-modify it so it is compatible with all my Nikon bodies.
Obviously, for the Z cameras, I will opt for a native Z Micro-Nikkor if its performance is up to my needs. If not, there is the 125 APO.
sorry, i got confused. which lens are we talking about here :o :o :o
-
sorry, i got confused. which lens are we talking about here :o :o :o
If I may answer: the AF-S VR Micro-Nikkor 105mm f/2.8G IF-ED
-
If the upcoming 105 mm Z MIcro is in the league of the CV125 I will buy it - otherwise i have already got the more than satisfying CV 125mm. Until this future decision the 105 mm VR is sufficient for the niche where i need AF.
-
thanks. the 105VR is worse than the 105D which is sharper even by f/16. the 105VR caps at f/11 according to my tests :o :o :o
i shot bugs a lot and the 105VR just doesnt have the resolving power of the older lens at smaller apertures.
the 105ais is not something that I like much at all, the best one is definitely the 105/4 that was based on the bellows lens as far as my results could confirm.
-
I bought the Micro-Nikkor 105mm f/2.8G IF-ED when it was released, returned it almost immediately - a lot of Focus breathing, loss of focal length when up close. lots of CA and slow auto focus.
A CPU Chipped APO Lanthar 125mm f/2.5 replaced it along with a CPU Chipped Micro Nikkor 105mm f/4 AI-s that I still use and really like a lot.Yes, I'm also looking forward to a 105mm Micro Nikkor for Z mount ;)
-
If the upcoming 105 mm Z MIcro is in the league of the CV125 I will buy it - otherwise i have already got the more than satisfying CV 125mm. Until this future decision the 105 mm VR is sufficient for the niche where i need AF.
I've had a number of CV-125s, in both Nikon and Pentax format and still prize and use them. I will have to try the new Nikon micro when it turns up. However, the new Z 70-200mm APO 2.8 is amazing and wicked, wicked sharp and will do close-ups of the kind I need, if not macro.
-
I've had a number of CV-125s, in both Nikon and Pentax format and still prize and use them. I will have to try the new Nikon micro when it turns up. However, the new Z 70-200mm APO 2.8 is amazing and wicked, wicked sharp and will do close-ups of the kind I need, if not macro.
I can attest to the optical performance of the 70-200/2.8S...simply top class.
I think there is a liiiitle LoCA but will check and post test image.
-
I bought the Micro-Nikkor 105mm f/2.8G IF-ED when it was released, returned it almost immediately - a lot of Focus breathing, loss of focal length when up close. lots of CA and slow auto focus.
Is this worse than the older AF 105/2.8 micro?
The AF micro focuses to 0.314m which is the same as the AFS VR version. This suggests they have a similar amount of focal length shortening at close range, even though they focus using entirely different methods (extension+CRC vs IF). I estimate the focal length of the AF micro reduces to less than 80mm at 1:1.
The AF micro has no ED elements so it also shows CA, not sure how it compares with the AFS version?
The focus speed of the AF micro is not fast, but that is common for macro lenses which have such a large focus range. Especially since it focuses by extension with CRC - there are at least two groups of elements moving, some move a long way, so the AF motor has to work hard to focus the lens. Surely the AFS micro with IF focusing is quicker? I find the focus speed of the AF micro to be adequate, especially with the focus limiter turned on.
I think the focus speed is also helped by keeping the manual focus throw short - only 180° from infinity to 1:1. The AFS micro has focus throw of 270° - 1.5x greater, which should make focusing at far distances easier. For comparison, the AIS 105/4 micro has a focus throw of 300° to 1:2, which means it would require 600° to get to 1:1 - more than twice the AFS version!
The AF micro has harsh background bokeh and only 7 straight-edge aperture blades, so the overall rendition is harder and more angular. I understand the AFS 105 micro has smoother background rendition, and also 9 rounded aperture blades so bokeh balls are rounder.
The AF micro is at least lighter and more compact, although it does increase in length when focused close. It also has a manual aperture ring so can be used with manual adaptors like the PK-13 or PN-11 (with good results!)
Besides this, the AFS 105 VR micro does seem to be better than the AF version in some respects, so I am not sure why there are so many negative opinions about it? (disclaimer - I have the AF 105/2.8 D micro, and have never used the AFS VR version)
-
I never used the screwdriver AF-Version and it won't autofocus with the FTZ-Adapter (like my 70-180 Micro) thats why i have bought the AF-S VR version
-
Sorry, I have never used the 105mm AF-D f/2.8 so can not compare it to the AF-S version
-
For me the 105 VR gave the advantages of much better autofocus at longer distances than the AF-D 105 Micro which was quite hopeless in that respect, and also the VR version is easier to manual focus especially at mid to longer distances. However, as others have noted there are some image quality issues and I never quite grew comfortable with the results from the 105 VR. For close-up photography, probably the AF-D is better but I never really compared them side by side. The VR version can be quite good for something like 1:3 magnification but if you go to 1:1 there is indeed a huge amount of chromatic aberration at the edges of the image wide open. I nowadays use the 85 PC-E Micro and 200 AF D Micro for most of my close-ups. I basically use the 85 within its domain up to 1:2 and then the 200 for the tighter close-ups. The 200 also gives a lot of CA wide open and needs to be stopped down but stopped down the image is quite good. However, for automatic focus stacking (using the focus shift feature implemented in some of the latest Nikons), one needs an AF-S or AF-P lens (or Z mount lens for Z cameras) and that limits options to the 60mm AF-S and 105 VR AF-S Micro if one wants tight close-up capabilities.I have noticed my 105 VR sometimes gives unwanted exposure variations when doing stacks (it could be the long period of not being in use) and so in practice I do manual focus stacking instead (and use mostly the 85 and 200). I think it would be great if Nikon were to make a 105 mm AF-S E Nikkor with an electromagnetically controlled aperture. If it is Z only then I suppose I need a Z camera for that. Hopefully the Z 105 maintains the tradition of little focus breathing in the Z lineup that would make it easier to use also for stacks.
-
https://richardhaw.com/2016/01/24/study-diffraction-on-the-105mm-vr/
i forgot that i even wrote an entire article about it :o :o :o
this was what turned me off the most as i was still actively shooting bugs at that time ::)
before i became a creep and started shooting strangers at the street ::)
-
At the time i tried out the AF-S VR version I was shooting a lot of shiny metal subjects, so the CA would show up in all images and would at the time almost impossible to remove,,,