Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Mirrorless Cameras => Topic started by: BernardLanguillier on January 22, 2019, 01:41:22 pm
-
https://m.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-z-50mm-f1point8-s-lens-review/3
Very high score for the 50mm f1.8 S at DPreview. In particular outstanding color correction and coma.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Anybody know if Nikon has specified release dates for the second wave of native lenses?
-
https://nikonrumors.com/2018/12/31/rumored-nikon-z-mirrorless-lenses-2019-release-schedule.aspx/
But:
- we now have a clear date for the 14-30mm f4
- it seems that the 20mm f1.8 was moved to 2020 and the 24mm f1.8 is now scheduled for 2019.
Regards,
Bernard
-
That 14-30 looks great! I can't wait to hit the trails this summer with the 14-30 and 24-70...
-
I am very impressed with the design of the 24 to 70. The way it’s folds into a compact size when not in use. That’s very clever.
-
Darn! I hoped that the 20 1.8 would come out this year. It would be perfect for stars and night photography. Until then I'll play around with my 20 2.8 AFD. The 14-30 looks great, but I don't think it will work well for night skys.
-
Is the 14-30 not going to be a great night sky lens because it's f4? I'm not an astrophotographer myself, so I don't really know whether fast lenses are preferred. I can see the star trail issue with a slower lens, but I'd think there would be a depth of field issue with a really wide aperture if you had anything in the foreground (a sky-only shot is by definition entirely at infinity). The 14-30 is going to be very sharp at 20mm from what little we've seen.
Dan
-
https://nikonrumors.com/2018/12/31/rumored-nikon-z-mirrorless-lenses-2019-release-schedule.aspx/
But:
- we now have a clear date for the 14-30mm f4
- it seems that the 20mm f1.8 was moved to 2020 and the 24mm f1.8 is now scheduled for 2019.
Regards,
Bernard
Where did you get this? On that link is not clear.
Says 14-30 coming this spring, I'm noy sure that qualifies as a "clear date". As far as I can see the 20 F1.8 is still scheduled for this year.
If anything I would rather have the 20 1.8 first as I already have the 24 1.8 in F-mount.
-
I've seen a date in April for the 14-30... 15th? 30th?
-
I've seen a date in April for the 14-30... 15th? 30th?
Ahhh, too late for my Spring travels. Good that I have the Fuji 10-24 though, an excellent lens.
-
Back on the initial subject of the thread, the Z mount lenses.
Here is the fresh review of the 24-70f4S by photgraphylife :
https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-z-24-70mm-f4-s
Summary:
This lense is better in many aspects than the late 24-70 f2.8 (F mount). It have some issues but completely fixable in post. They used 4 differents samples to draw those conclusions. One of them is that there is, at first glance, very low sample variations. They do not like that much the collapsible design but it feels good.
-
New Z lense unveiled this morning : The Nikkor Z 24-70 f2.8 S
https://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/lens/z-mount/z_24-70mmf28s/index.htm
Seems to be a good lense, priced around 2500 USD or 2499 € in Europe.
The only zoom I'm keeping is the f4 version because of his price/versatility/IQ ratio. I'm waiting the medium tele such as the 85f1.8.
-
I'm waiting the medium tele such as the 85f1.8.
Me too, 'cos my 85/1.4 won't focus on the Z7 :-(
-
I also think that Nikon needs to add a 85mm f1.2 to their roadmap pretty quickly. ;)
This is basically the main hole compared to what Canon announced yesterday.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I also think that Nikon needs to add a 85mm f1.2 to their roadmap pretty quickly. ;)
This is basically the main hole compared to what Canon announced yesterday.
Cheers,
Bernard
I was a little surprised that there wasn't one in the initial batch. I'd think you'd want a good landscape lens, a decent zoom and a portrait lens right up front. If I was the big boss at Nikon, there'd be an 85 instead of a 50 up front.
-
I was a little surprised that there wasn't one in the initial batch. I'd think you'd want a good landscape lens, a decent zoom and a portrait lens right up front. If I was the big boss at Nikon, there'd be an 85 instead of a 50 up front.
Indeed, a 85mm f1.2 should have been early on the roadmap.
My 105mm f1.4 is a bit bulky on the Z.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
S vs E spec/MTF comparison.
https://nikonrumors.com/2019/02/15/nikkor-z-24-70mm-f-2-8-s-vs-nikkor-24-70mm-f-2-8e-ed-vr-specifications-comparison.aspx/
The new lens looks like an impressive performer from an MTF standpoint, but based on other Z lenses I expect its color correction to be its strongest quality.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
A question for those using the Z system, how good/bad are the native 35 & 50 primes when shooting wide open? How is the bokeh?
-
A question for those using the Z system, how good/bad are the native 35 & 50 primes when shooting wide open? How is the bokeh?
Both lenses are extremely good wide open with a specially impressive level of color correction (the 50 more than the 35). The 50mm is IMHO one of the best 50mm available.
The bokeh of the 35mm is average, that of the 50mm is overall pretty good but shows aspherical elements grinding marks in highlight bokeh balls akin to what you see with the Otus 55mm f1.4 or the new Canon R 28-70 f2.0.
I personnally find those ugly and I tend to apply some PS blur on them in images where they are visible.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Thanks Bernard, appreciated.
OOF qualities when working at wide apertures are extremely important to much of the work I'm currently shooting. Trouble is I'm used to Leica M lenses and I'm looking to replicate those qualities in a really compact full frame autofocus system as an addition to the M system.
Still searching...
-
Thanks Bernard, appreciated.
OOF qualities when working at wide apertures are extremely important to much of the work I'm currently shooting. Trouble is I'm used to Leica M lenses and I'm looking to replicate those qualities in a really compact full frame autofocus system as an addition to the M system.
Still searching...
Keith, you are close to London: go to Greys of Westminster and ask for a test shoot there and then. Since my local wholesaler abandoned Mallorca, I have bought from them by post and find them honest, professional and very fair. A few minutes shooting outside the door would answer all your questions by your own hand, the best test there ever is.
Rob
-
Keith, you are close to London: go to Greys of Westminster and ask for a test shoot there and then. Since my local wholesaler abandoned Mallorca, I have bought from them by post and find them honest, professional and very fair. A few minutes shooting outside the door would answer all your questions by your own hand, the best test there ever is.
Rob
Rob, to be really sure I'd rent and make the comparison with what I already have. I used to use Greys but have an excellent Nikon dealer closer to home, avoids costly train fares or congestion charges and they offer a rental refund on purchases.
You mentioned elsewhere that I should listen carefully to V. At times I get somewhat frustrated when I miss focus when shooting wide apertures with manual focus Leica lenses but the qualities when the Gods are on my side more than compensate. I'm envious of V's auto focus, image stabilised capabilities and she's envious of the qualities of my Leica lenses.
The grass is always greener...
-
Rob, to be really sure I'd rent and make the comparison with what I already have. I used to use Greys but have an excellent Nikon dealer closer to home, avoids costly train fares or congestion charges and they offer a rental refund on purchases.
You mentioned elsewhere that I should listen carefully to V. At times I get somewhat frustrated when I miss focus when shooting wide apertures with manual focus Leica lenses but the qualities when the Gods are on my side more than compensate. I'm envious of V's auto focus, image stabilised capabilities and she's envious of the qualities of my Leica lenses.
The grass is always greener...
-
Unusually brief, Rob.
;-)
-
I own Zeiss 21mm 35mm 50mm 100mm planar & 135mm sonnar on a nikon 800e.
I'm thinking of buying the nikon Z7, mostly for it's stabilization in camera
Can I buy an adapter for my older zeiss lenses??
thanks
Larry.
-
I own Zeiss 21mm 35mm 50mm 100mm planar & 135mm sonnar on a nikon 800e.
I'm thinking of buying the nikon Z7, mostly for it's stabilization in camera
Can I buy an adapter for my older zeiss lenses??
I believe the FTZ should work totally fine for this.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I just tried the eye AF with 24-70mm f2.8 at 70mm/f2.8... it works great.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Can anyone confirm or not that the internal stabilization system works when a manual lanes (such as an Otis) is used?
Victor
-
As appealing as the 15-30 is I'm very curious about he 14-24 F 2.8 size/weight.
The reason is I could eliminate a wide lens for night photography and then the weight might be worth it. I know that when I was thinking to go Sony route I was more tempted by the 16-35 F 2.8 than the F4 or the 12-24 F4 for this exact reason.
-
As appealing as the 15-30 is I'm very curious about he 14-24 F 2.8 size/weight.
The reason is I could eliminate a wide lens for night photography and then the weight might be worth it. I know that when I was thinking to go Sony route I was more tempted by the 16-35 F 2.8 than the F4 or the 12-24 F4 for this exact reason.
I am surprised at how many people buy fast lenses for low light photography, yet you don't see much low light photography online. The difference between f2.8 and f4 is one stop. Given the low light performance of modern sensors, just dial up the ISO one stop.
-
I am surprised at how many people buy fast lenses for low light photography, yet you don't see much low light photography online. The difference between f2.8 and f4 is one stop. Given the low light performance of modern sensors, just dial up the ISO one stop.
Partially true but many times the difference between iso 6400 and 12800 is not a small deal. As I just found out night photography requires significantly more dedication therefore less people to be into it, plus all the Milky Way shots tend to look the same ;D
The big question is the difference in weight; for Sony the 16-35 F4 is 520g vs F2.8 at 680g, not such a big difference in weight for 1 extra stop and based on comments better image quality too.
-
I just tried the eye AF with 24-70mm f2.8 at 70mm/f2.8... it works great.
Cheers,
Bernard
Hi Bernard, is this with beta firmware for Nikon Z or some other camera system?
-
Hi Bernard, is this with beta firmware for Nikon Z or some other camera system?
Yes, the Z beta firmware.
I was at CP+ in Yokohama yesterday.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Great!
-
I am surprised at how many people buy fast lenses for low light photography, yet you don't see much low light photography online. The difference between f2.8 and f4 is one stop. Given the low light performance of modern sensors, just dial up the ISO one stop.
I stop at high ISO makes a huge difference on image quality. You might not need 2.8 for every shot, but it is very handy when you do.
-
Can anyone confirm or not that the internal stabilization system works when a manual lanes (such as an Otis) is used?
Victor
Yes it does. You have to tell the camera the lens’s focal length if it does not report that to the camera. My manual lenses are all non=electronic. The Otus series is all ZF2 if I’m not mistaken, so the FTZ should report the focal length automatically.
-
Thanks much...... great to know.
Victor
-
https://www.sansmirror.com/lenses/lens-reviews/lenses-for-nikon-z/nikon-50mm-f18-s-lens-revie.html
https://www.sansmirror.com/lenses/lens-reviews/lenses-for-nikon-z/nikon-35mm-f18-s-lens-revie.html
Unsurprisingly, excellent lenses.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Both the 50 and 35 would be on my must have list. I have a difficult time wrapping my head around any zoom.
Victor
-
At F4 I like the 24-70 zoom @35mm better over the 35mm 1.8 for landscape. Corners are better at infinity.
but maybe i had a bad copy...
-
For the C1 Pro users who haven't noticed yet, the 24-70 f4S now has a lens profile as of the newly released 12.0.3!
It works pretty well indeed... even when reality is distorted to start with... ;)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/7904/47563504671_765f38de7e_h.jpg)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
For the C1 Pro users who haven't noticed yet, the 24-70 f4S now has a lens profile as of the newly released 12.0.3!
It works pretty well indeed... even when reality is distorted to start with... ;)
Before vs After would be instructive :-)
-
Before vs After would be instructive :-)
Sorry, I have no easy way of uploading this but it is very visible.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
What would guys think about the usefulness of a 24-50 f2.0?
Am I the only one to think that it would be much more useful than a 28-70 f2.0?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Would like an f1.4 14-300mm TS lens so I only need one tiny lens...
Please Nikon listen to your costumers!
-
Would like an f1.4 14-300mm TS lens so I only need one tiny lens...
Please Nikon listen to your costumers!
Of course... but a 24-50 f2.0 is doable...
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Of course... but a 24-50 f2.0 is doable...
None of my photography requires an f2 zoom, which would undoubtedly be huge. Just because something can be done doesn't mean it should be done. Like Nikon's 50mm f0.95 manual focus Z lens. I am sure someone will buy it and Canon's 28-70 f2 zoom though.
-
I don't need either but I think a 35-85 F2 would make more sense, a zoom to replace people shooting primes.
At the wide end I don't need such a high aperture in a zoom, unless it's astro photography and it would be huge, both in size and price.
If you really need the large aperture at the wide end, the primes are still easy to use and relatively convenient size wise.
-
The longer and faster a lens is, the larger the front element has to be... Theoretically, an 85 f2 only has to be 42.5mm across at the diaphragm, and old manual-focus fixed focal length lenses were not much larger than that at the front element (Nikon's 85mm f2 Ai-S used a 52mm filter, and it actually had a recessed front element that was smaller than that).
For whatever reasons of optical design, zooms tend to have much larger front elements than the minimum they'd need to get the light in (the exception is long telephoto zooms - x-400 f4 lenses tend to be around 105mm or 112mm filter sizes, when the theoretical minimum is 100 mm). Wide zooms need big, domed elements to get enough field of view - but even fast normal zooms have big front elements. The Canon 28-70 f2 is a 3+ pound lens with a 95mm filter size, and even 24-70 f2.8 designs tend to use 77mm and 82mm filters.
It's a guess, but I'd imagine that pushing out to 85mm on an f2 zoom would take a front filter size over 100mm, and the lens would approach if not exceed 4 lbs? Is a lens significantly larger than a 70-200mm f2.8 (maybe halfway between a 70-200mm f2.8 and a 300mm f2.8 ), with a filter size closer to a 300mm f2.8 still useful for what you want?
-
There are reviews of the Z 14-30mm lens and the Z 24-70 f2.8 on Camera labs
https://www.cameralabs.com/nikon-z-24-70mm-f2-8-s-review/
https://www.cameralabs.com/nikon-z-14-30mm-f4-s-review/
-
As somebody who shot film for 40 years, I've got a reflexive urge to say "yes" to fast lenses, but I'm now losing that reflex. In terms of low-light shooting, I'm happy enough (with my style of work) to go to 3200, or even 6400 if I have to, which makes up for a lot. I know some people like the shallow(er) depths of field that you get with fast lenses, but my feeling about that is that when I'm looking for really shallow depth of field for some good reason, there are always prime lenses. I can't think of the last time I needed shallow depth of field for a snap shot, where I wouldn't have time to change lenses, and I'm usually carrying a fast 85-equiv when I'm out (Panasonic LUMIX G 42.5mm f/1.7 ASPH.) In fact, it's often already mounted on a second camera. The point being, if I were to get into the Nikon Z system, which is somewhat likely, that 24-70 f4 looks very good to me. I wouldn't want to go to a faster lens if it got bigger. What would be cool would be a set of compact short zooms between 24 and ~120 or so, for people who tend to see either short or long, like 24-50, 50-85, 85-120. I'd kill for a compact 50-85.
-
Thanks Bernard, appreciated.
OOF qualities when working at wide apertures are extremely important to much of the work I'm currently shooting. Trouble is I'm used to Leica M lenses and I'm looking to replicate those qualities in a really compact full frame autofocus system as an addition to the M system.
Still searching...
yes, i would take the plunge if the 50 could compete with the summilux or summcron asph in the bokeh dept
-
There are questions out there regarding the 14-30 F4 S, particularly related to its sharpness. I would wait until it's out in the wild and not reviews are coming in.
-
The point being, if I were to get into the Nikon Z system, which is somewhat likely, that 24-70 f4 looks very good to me.
It is outstanding. It punches way above the level suggested by its price and "lens kit" perceived positionning.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/7867/47550139092_2cfda6d0e4_h.jpg)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
It is outstanding. It punches way above the level suggested by its price and "lens kit" perceived positionning.
I don't think anyone perceives the $1000 24-70mm f4 lens to be a "kit lens".
-
yes, i would take the plunge if the 50 could compete with the summilux or summcron asph in the bokeh dept
I'd take the plunge if the M lenses were as excellent on the Z body as they are on the M, which would mean I'd then have the option to use my existing lenses and the native AF lenses on the Z.
It's still possible that I'll take the plunge and buy the Z as an addition to my M system.
-
I don't think anyone perceives the $1000 24-70mm f4 lens to be a "kit lens".
Well...
- it can be bought as part of a kit,
- it only costs 600 US$ in that case.
That level of quality for 600 US$ is unheard of, but may lead some people to underestimate the value they are getting.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Well...
- it can be bought as part of a kit,
- it only costs 600 US$ in that case.
That level of quality for 600 US$ is unheard of, but may lead some people to underestimate the value they are getting.
Cheers,
Bernard
About this zoom lens I read a nasty flare can be a problem while shooting with the sun in the frame; have no experience myself.
What I do not like is the auto distortion correction- it should be a photographers choice. In some use it is really necessary to be switched of.
-
I'd take the plunge if the M lenses were as excellent on the Z body as they are on the M, which would mean I'd then have the option to use my existing lenses and the native AF lenses on the Z.
It's still possible that I'll take the plunge and buy the Z as an addition to my M system.
if you do take the plunge, i’d love to hear how it goes, especially the 50 summilux asph! my eyes don’t work so well with the rangefinder nowerdays...
-
if you do take the plunge, i’d love to hear how it goes, especially the 50 summilux asph! my eyes don’t work so well with the rangefinder nowerdays...
And mine now struggle with reflex screens, which is why I thank those considerate people who overcame the logically impossible and invented autofocus lenses. When I didn't need them I scoffed, and had all sorts of smart reasons why they were obviously a bad thing for photography. Tides turn, I guess. However, a proper reflex screen as of old, with a split-image central spot...
Rob
-
About this zoom lens I read a nasty flare can be a problem while shooting with the sun in the frame; have no experience myself.
What I do not like the auto distortion correction- it should be a photographers choice. In some use it is really necessary to be switched of.
On C1 Pro distortion isn't corrected unless you activate the profile that is provided. Only LR applies the correction by default.
I have seen one occurrence of bad flare that appeared to be more an issue with ghosting (light reflecting from the sensor to the rear element and back) but it was in very specific conditions (shooting over water with the sun near sunset illuminating a very thin layer of clouds increasing dramatically its apparent size). I have shot straight in the sun many times since then and haven't seen any issue. I would say that the lens is overall very highly flare resistant.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I wonder what chances are to see a higher quality 24-120 F4 equiv. I used it a lot on the D750. Less great from 70 to 120 but surely beats cropping. A 24-105 would be fine too but it's too close to the current 24-70. I expect to have something in the more consumer range in few years but would be nice to have a similar quality to the current 24-70 F4 S. The problem with the Z-mount (or in my case for Fuji) is that the mount is closed and very small chances to have third party autofocus lenses. This is where Sony did the right thing.
A 24-120 is the ideal minimum for me to have in a travel kit and would cover most scenarios. Yes, I can work with a 24-70/85 equiv but is not as good. A 24-200 range like the newest Sony RX100 or the Oly version would be even better but probably just too big for a full frame.
-
Yes, I think that Nikon was stupid not to open the mount.
Because the thing is that the third party will probably develop for E mount and then port to Z and R, meaning that the third party lenses will have a hard time to compete on quality since they will have developed the lens for a mount 20% more narrow and less shallow.
The only exception may be Sigma that is likely to develop for L mount (and skip entirely the E mount market with dedicated mirrorless lenses).
I believe that a more compact 24-120 f4-5.6 may be ok as well providing it is S spec.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
if you do take the plunge, i’d love to hear how it goes, especially the 50 summilux asph! my eyes don’t work so well with the rangefinder nowerdays...
Adrian, if I were you I wouldn't hold my breath, every indication is that the M lenses will suffer on the Z, particularly at large apertures. It's a pity and it means if I do take the plunge then the Z will be an addition to the Leica rather than a replacement.
-
https://www.dpreview.com/samples/9193092497/nikon-z-24-70mm-f2-8-s-sample-gallery
It seems to offer a remarkable compromise between technical excellence across a wide variety of shooting conditions and sweet look.
I now have first hand experience to confirm what others have reported. This lens is stunningly good.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Adrian, if I were you I wouldn't hold my breath, every indication is that the M lenses will suffer on the Z, particularly at large apertures. It's a pity and it means if I do take the plunge then the Z will be an addition to the Leica rather than a replacement.
yes, it’s not something i’m counting on, but this chap seems to think otherwise:
https://www.eoshd.com/2018/10/first-ever-shots-from-the-nikon-z7-at-f1-0-with-leica-noctilux-in-the-darkness/
-
yes, it’s not something i’m counting on, but this chap seems to think otherwise:
https://www.eoshd.com/2018/10/first-ever-shots-from-the-nikon-z7-at-f1-0-with-leica-noctilux-in-the-darkness/
Everyone has different subjective opinions about what is acceptable performance. Take your lenses and a memory card to the store with you and decide for yourself. Better yet, rent the camera for a week before you lay down the long green.
-
Everyone has different subjective opinions about what is acceptable performance. Take your lenses and a memory card to the store with you and decide for yourself. Better yet, rent the camera for a week before you lay down the long green.
good advice!
-
Everyone has different subjective opinions about what is acceptable performance. Take your lenses and a memory card to the store with you and decide for yourself. Better yet, rent the camera for a week before you lay down the long green.
You’d better plan on taking an M to Z adapter as well. It’s not likely to be a stocked item at most stores.
-
You’d better plan on taking an M to Z adapter as well. It’s not likely to be a stocked item at most stores.
And don't forget your brand new XQD card, XQD reader and that 1010 page menu walkthrough...
;-)
-
And don't forget your brand new XQD card, XQD reader and that 1010 page menu walkthrough...
;-)
And some of us thought film photography was expensive and required lots of equipment.
:-)
-
And some of us thought film photography was expensive and required lots of equipment.
:-)
And in order to get ACR support from Adobe for the camera and lenses I'd also need to ditch my copy of Photoshop CS6 and pay for a monthly subscription to Adobe Creative Cloud. Yes, I know I could use DNG converter or Nikon special sauce (or whatever it's called) but I'd really rather not.
You know, I think I'll just pass and slum it with my Leicas.
;-)
-
And in order to get ACR support from Adobe for the camera and lenses I'd also need to ditch my copy of Photoshop CS6 and pay for a monthly subscription to Adobe Creative Cloud. Yes, I know I could use DNG converter or Nikon special sauce (or whatever it's called) but I'd really rather not.
You know, I think I'll just pass and slum it with my Leicas.
;-)
OMG, Keith, surely something can be done through collective goodwill to help save you from that!
:-)
-
https://nikonrumors.com/2019/04/24/nikon-nikkor-z-50mm-f-1-8-s-lens-tested-at-dxomark-it-comes-close-to-some-of-the-best-and-most-expensive-lenses-currently-available.aspx/
Best CA correction among 50mm lenses. As good overall as lenses costing a lot more.
Such an amazing achievement.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
https://nikonrumors.com/2019/04/24/nikon-nikkor-z-50mm-f-1-8-s-lens-tested-at-dxomark-it-comes-close-to-some-of-the-best-and-most-expensive-lenses-currently-available.aspx/
Best CA correction among 50mm lenses. As good overall as lenses costing a lot more.
Such an amazing achievement.
What does the number in the box in the DxOMark score mean? For example, for the 50mm Zeiss Otus in Nikon mount it is "2" and for the 50mm Nikon S it is "38"?
-
What does the number in the box in the DxOMark score mean? For example, for the 50mm Zeiss Otus in Nikon mount it is "2" and for the 50mm Nikon S it is "38"?
Isn’t that the absolute ranking among the lenses they have tested?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Isn’t that the absolute ranking among the lenses they have tested?
That is what I was thinking, but if the 50mm Nikon S is so great, why is it ranked 38th? I suspect a lot of lenses have the same DxOMark score.
-
That is what I was thinking, but if the 50mm Nikon S is so great, why is it ranked 38th? I suspect a lot of lenses have the same DxOMark score.
You can access the full list easily. You will see that lenses ranked higher include a long list of super tele lenses costing in excess of 10,000 US$,...
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Just ignoring any of DXO's scalar ratings is a good plan. The sharpness field map can be excellent information, but it needs rescaling for modern lenses, since it's basically all green at 1.8.
The 24-70 I'll ding for corner performance, and the 35/1.8 gets a ding for LOCA. Fine lenses, but I can't give top marks. The 50mm seems exceptional though...is there anything at all to dislike?
-
The 24-70 I'll ding for corner performance, and the 35/1.8 gets a ding for LOCA. Fine lenses, but I can't give top marks. The 50mm seems exceptional though...is there anything at all to dislike?
The corner performance of the 24-70 f4 is very good, just short of the excellence of the center.
Regarding the 50mm f1.8S, some may say that the bokeh isn't as sweet as some other lenses, but they are typically f1.4 designs. The bokeh is not poor by any means, just not outstanding.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I don't think I can go as far as very good, at least not at the wide end. I don't mind low performance at f4, but I was really hoping things would be cleared up by f8. Distant objects in the corner never seem to get good at 24mm...like the mountain in the top right of this test shot. 24mm, f8. I can tell at a glance, without any scrutiny, that it looks bad. A limitation I'll have to compose around.
-
It seems the new 14-30 is building up a bad rep in regards to its corners, particularly in the 14-17mm range. Some say it's fine and it's close to Sony 12-24 but there are many contrary opinions.
I'm sitting and thinking about the Nikon choices in new lenses and I'm not so sure they are the best choices. I compare to what Sony has in stock now.
For example.
Wide: the 14-30 is likely better than the 16-35 F4 but not than 12-24 F4 or 16-35 F2.8 . If the new 14-28 is not going to be significantly better than Sony's options than I don't see how they can explain the mount advantage they claim.
Allround lens: while the 24-70 F4 S is convenient and light the more versatile range from Sony, 24-105, is not that much heavier and is said to be sharp enough.
-
I think the larger throat diameter advantage only plays out with fast aperture lenses with large rear elements. The 50mm f/1.8 S lens is only ranked 38th among lenses in DxOMark scores, so it was not much of an advantage for that lens. It is obviously no Otus (which ranked 2nd). Perhaps the upcoming 58mm f/0.95 S lens will be something special.
-
.... The 50mm f/1.8 S lens is only ranked 38th among lenses in DxOMark scores, so it was not much of an advantage for that lens. It is obviously no Otus (which ranked 2nd). Perhaps the upcoming 58mm f/0.95 S lens will be something special.
Place 38 of ALL lenses and in a lot of ways more useful than the Otus.
It costs 1/6 of the price of an Otus...it weighs less than half...
It is a completely different animal.
It is weather protected unlike the Otus; it has AF unlike the Otus; It is made in a way focus breathing is low- for video.
Its image quality is very good and on par with the best 50mm lenses for FF like the Sigma 50mm
-
Place 38 of ALL lenses and in a lot of ways more useful than the Otus.
It costs 1/6 of the price of an Otus...it weighs less than half...
It is a completely different animal.
It is weather protected unlike the Otus; it has AF unlike the Otus; It is made in a way focus breathing is low- for video.
Its image quality is very good and on par with the best 50mm lenses for FF like the Sigma 50mm
What does any of that have to do with the new dawn in optics announced with a larger throat diameter?
-
I think the larger throat diameter advantage only plays out with fast aperture lenses with large rear elements...
I can partly agree with your first part... ;)
The S bajonet /short flange gives also new design opportunities for wide angle lenses as the mentioned 14-30 f4 , a lens small, lightweight with good quality optics.
-
I think the larger throat diameter advantage only plays out with fast aperture lenses with large rear elements. The 50mm f/1.8 S lens is only ranked 38th among lenses in DxOMark scores, so it was not much of an advantage for that lens. It is obviously no Otus (which ranked 2nd). Perhaps the upcoming 58mm f/0.95 S lens will be something special.
Sorry, but that is one smart comment if I have ever read one... and yes I am being ironic.
As already advised, read the list, the 50mm f1.8 is totally outstanding in absolute quality and its price to performance ratio is unheard of.
So if anything, this fully supports the claims made by Nikon about the additional design flexibility afforded by the new mount.
I have started to use the 14-30 f4 and my first impression is very positive but I’ll have to review more images to form a full opinion. Anyone expecting such a compact and affordable design to be perfect at all settling is not being realistic. To me it comes awfully close to being the ideal travel ultrawide and nobody else is even trying to compete with this form factor.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Sorry, but that is one smart comment if I have ever read one... and yes I am being ironic.
As already advised, read the list, the 50mm f1.8 is totally outstanding in absolute quality and its price to performance ratio is unheard of.
So if anything, this fully supports the claims made by Nikon about the additional design flexibility afforded by the new mount.
I have started to use the 14-30 f4 and my first impression is very positive but I’ll have to review more images to form a full opinion. Anyone expecting such a compact and affordable design to be perfect at all settling is not being realistic. To me it comes awfully close to being the ideal travel ultrawide and nobody else is even trying to compete with this form factor.
Cheers,
Bernard
But if the Nikon mount provides such an advantage in lens design...why the heavy software correction on the 14-30 zoom?
-
But if the Nikon mount provides such an advantage in lens design...why the heavy software correction on the 14-30 zoom?
Because providing an important advantage isn’t synonym to making a compact, cheap and imperfection free lens possible?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Because providing an important advantage isn’t synonym to making a compact, cheap and imperfection free lens possible.
The Nikon 14-30mm f/4 S lens costs $1300, so while compact, it is not cheap.
-
What does any of that have to do with the new dawn in optics announced with a larger throat diameter?
Do you loose sleep over those emails promising you untold wealth or a larger penis?
-
Do you loose sleep over those emails promising you untold wealth or a larger penis?
No, which is why I am taken in by Nikon's large throat diameter marketing. Of course fan boys think these new S lenses are the second coming.
-
No, which is why I am taken in by Nikon's large throat diameter marketing. Of course fan boys think these new S lenses are the second coming.
How did you find them?
-
How did you find them?
People referring to them of LuLa.
-
No, which is why I am taken in by Nikon's large throat diameter marketing. Of course fan boys think these new S lenses are the second coming.
Fine... if the mount has nothing to do with it, then only the superior lens technology of Nikon can explain the measured performance and price perfo/ratio of lenses such as the 50mm f1.8 S.
Does that work better for you?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
As a retired systems engineer who owns none of the new Z cameras or lenses:
A lens designer has to trade off a lot of variables to minimize quite a few distortions as well as achieve some additional desirable results like minimal breathing, minimal flare, etc.
If a solution is found that allows one of those distortion minimizations to be delegated to software with acceptable outcome and as a result improve the results in the remainder, what is the complaint?
The system of hardware, optics and software produce a digital result, not an analog film one. There is no perfect choice, only tradeoffs.
I guess I don't see the issue.
BWDIK
jim
-
As a retired systems engineer who owns none of the new Z cameras or lenses:
A lens designer has to trade off a lot of variables to minimize quite a few distortions as well as achieve some additional desirable results like minimal breathing, minimal flare, etc.
If a solution is found that allows one of those distortion minimizations to be delegated to software with acceptable outcome and as a result improve the results in the remainder, what is the complaint?
The system of hardware, optics and software produce a digital result, not an analog film one. There is no perfect choice, only tradeoffs.
I guess I don't see the issue.
BWDIK
jim
I don't see the issue with using software to cleanup the optics...but it was touted here and many other places how this larger mount will allow much better lenses ( optics ) than other mounts. I'm not seeing the optics being any better...just average with software cleanup...sort of like the phone cameras.
-
From the examples I saw the software was correcting the distortion but in the process it was stretching the corners and make the resolution worse, in some examples the starting point wasn’t that bad but after correction there was a significant deterioration. In other examples it just went from bad to worse.
-
i completely agree - auto distortion is a bad thing. At all times it should be able to turn it off.
-
Fine... if the mount has nothing to do with it, then only the superior lens technology of Nikon can explain the measured performance and price perfo/ratio of lenses such as the 50mm f1.8 S. Does that work better for you?
It certainly makes more sense since Nikon has other DxOMark 44 lenses in the smaller F-mount. The 50mm like the 85mm are the simpliest to design with a wide aperture and so, as expected, are less expensive than the others. Let's see how the other Z mount lenses fare at DxO before jumping to conclusions as to the cause for their good performance.
-
As a retired systems engineer who owns none of the new Z cameras or lenses:
A lens designer has to trade off a lot of variables to minimize quite a few distortions as well as achieve some additional desirable results like minimal breathing, minimal flare, etc.
If a solution is found that allows one of those distortion minimizations to be delegated to software with acceptable outcome and as a result improve the results in the remainder, what is the complaint?
The system of hardware, optics and software produce a digital result, not an analog film one. There is no perfect choice, only tradeoffs.
I guess I don't see the issue.
Fixing lens aberrations in software does seem a little like a "I'll fix it in post" attitude toward lens design. But everyone is doing it so I guess it is a practice here to stay. It worked for the Hubble.
-
Fixing lens aberrations in software does seem a little like a "I'll fix it in post" attitude toward lens design. But everyone is doing it so I guess it is a practice here to stay. It worked for the Hubble.
It also worked for my 28mm Hasselblad H series lens which was superb.
I really couldn't give a rats arse how manufacturers achieve exemplary performance as long as they do.
-
It also worked for my 28mm Hasselblad H series lens which was superb.
I really couldn't give a rats arse how manufacturers achieve exemplary performance as long as they do.
The problem here is that the "advertised exemplary performance" is struggling to show up. Is it an OK performance? Probably, but falls a little short than what we were led to expect.
The 24-70 F4 S seems close enough to get a pass, the 24-70 F2.8 S seems to meet the expectations. The 14-30? Less so based on the initial reviews although it might still be a good compromise if you don't want heavier lenses. As I stated in my previous post, the bad part for Nikon is that Sony has more options that are similar at least quality wise and will have the upper hand on number of options for the wide end for at least another year; not to mention the third party lenses which are nowhere to be seen in Nikon, partially by their own making.
If I would make the choice now probably I would have preferred that Nikon went with a 16-30/35 F4 now and saved the 14 mm for the new F2.8. Still quite wide and easier to meet the standard of the 24-70 F4 S within the size/weight limits. The F 2.8 version will have significantly more leeway on the weight expectations, probably 10-15% less than the current F version will be good enough if it's sharper which shouldn't be that hard to do considering the newer wide zooms already are.
-
I really couldn't give a rats arse how manufacturers achieve exemplary performance as long as they do.
Is software lens correction equal across all RAW converters?
-
My experience of digital systems has been limited to Hasselblad H and Leica M. I'm nobody's fanboy and will only ever pass judgement on equipment I've used and as a result and perhaps unsurprisingly have always been hardest on those very same manufacturers. Prior to testing the Z7 I'd not used a Nikon for some 30 years.
So far my experience with Z lenses has been limited to the 50mm 1.8 S. It's probably worth noting that I'm not in the market for zoom lenses. The 50 on the Z7 is simply the sharpest lens I've ever used, even sharper than any of my Leica M series lenses and the files when combined with the Z7 the most detailed. The bokeh at f/1.8 can be a little harsh but by f/2 there is considerable improvement. In an ideal world I'd like to have the bokeh and character of my Zeiss 50mm f/1.5 Sonnar ZM on my Leica M series bodies and the detail and resolution of the 50mm f/1.8 S on the Nikon Z7, but it's never going to happen.
I've bought into Nikon Z for one reason and one reason only, namely eyesight issues. I'm increasingly struggling with rangefinder focusing and sadly it's only going to get worse. I'm patient and will take great care in the selection of additional lenses for use on the Nikon. In the meantime I'll be testing one or two of my Leica M fit lenses on the Z, taking advantage of the ease of focus thanks to the wonderful EVF and hopefully adding the character of those wonderful M lenses.
I'm looking forward to testing the Nikon 85mm and 20mm f/1.8 S lenses.
I should add that I'm finding the Z7 body a joy to work with.
-
...
I should add that I'm finding the Z7 body a joy to work with.
What i like about the Z7 ergonomics is that is can be operated with one hand doing almost everything- your other hand on the lens.
(the d850 and older bodies needs both hands)
Problem can be if you are left-handed. :(
These camera's are all made to be used right- right hand and right eye.
My left eye is best... it is well possible but clearly not the ideal way.
-
The problem here is that the "advertised exemplary performance" is struggling to show up. Is it an OK performance? Probably, but falls a little short than what we were led to expect.
The 24-70 F4 S seems close enough to get a pass, the 24-70 F2.8 S seems to meet the expectations. The 14-30? Less so based on the initial reviews although it might still be a good compromise if you don't want heavier lenses. As I stated in my previous post, the bad part for Nikon is that Sony has more options that are similar at least quality wise and will have the upper hand on number of options for the wide end for at least another year; not to mention the third party lenses which are nowhere to be seen in Nikon, partially by their own making.
If I would make the choice now probably I would have preferred that Nikon went with a 16-30/35 F4 now and saved the 14 mm for the new F2.8. Still quite wide and easier to meet the standard of the 24-70 F4 S within the size/weight limits. The F 2.8 version will have significantly more leeway on the weight expectations, probably 10-15% less than the current F version will be good enough if it's sharper which shouldn't be that hard to do considering the newer wide zooms already are.
One option would be to use the 14-30 f4 btwn 16mm and 30mm, where most negative reviews appear to agree it performs well?
Personally, I’ll have to review in details next week, but my initial on screen checks give me the feeling that stopped down to f8, the 14-30 at 14mm is probably better than the 14-24 f2.8... which isn’t that bad to start with.
Zoom lenses are always somehow compromises, compact ones even more so. The name of the game is to find the part of the shooting enveloppe that meets one expectations all things taken into account.
I personnally was never able to take the 14-24mm f2.8 with on famille outings due to weight and bulk but I have the 14-30 f4 with this week. That alone is game changing for me.
Now, testers I respect a lot such as Jim Kasson sees no difference at 14mm btw the universally seen as amazingly good Sony 12-24mm f4 and the Nikon 14-30 f4... go figure.
https://blog.kasson.com/nikon-z6-7/nikon-14-30-4-vs-sony-12-24-4/
Not that awful for a lens that is 300 US$ cheaper without discount, is 3cm (more than an inch) shorter and 80 gr lighter while offering what I personnally find to be a more useful focal range.
I am starting to see a pattern where Z lenses get a bad press from some web sources, only to find later that they are in fact excellent.
Btw the 24-70mm f2.8 is shockingly good.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
One option would be to use the 14-30 f4 btwn 16mm and 30mm, where most negative reviews appear to agree it performs well?
...
Cheers,
Bernard
After I wrote that I was thinking that would be one way to work with it, after all it's about the same size/weight as the Sony 16-35 F4, and use the widest range only when you have no choice or when corners don't matter that much.
...
https://blog.kasson.com/nikon-z6-7/nikon-14-30-4-vs-sony-12-24-4/
Not that awful for a lens that is 300 US$ cheaper without discount, is 3cm (more than an inch) shorter and 80 gr lighter while offering what I personnally find to be a more useful focal range.
...
Cheers,
Bernard
Yes, unless you have something that starts at 24mm and are not bothered by changing the lenses in which case 12-24 is more useful. Now I do appreciate some overlap, particularly when I'm on the move and have only one body. For example during a hike I had a Fuji body with the 10-24 and 18-55 and I liked having that overlap; even if the 10-24 is not at its best after 20-21mm the convenience was more valuable as I was in a bigger group and it was a longish hike, not much time to mess with lenses. Best way would be 2 bodies but you have to willing to carry the extra weight. The other reason why I like the overlap is that if one of the zooms fails you can partially cover its range with the other zoom.
-
My experience of digital systems has been limited to Hasselblad H and Leica M. I'm nobody's fanboy and will only ever pass judgement on equipment I've used and as a result and perhaps unsurprisingly have always been hardest on those very same manufacturers. Prior to testing the Z7 I'd not used a Nikon for some 30 years.
So far my experience with Z lenses has been limited to the 50mm 1.8 S. It's probably worth noting that I'm not in the market for zoom lenses. The 50 on the Z7 is simply the sharpest lens I've ever used, even sharper than any of my Leica M series lenses and the files when combined with the Z7 the most detailed. The bokeh at f/1.8 can be a little harsh but by f/2 there is considerable improvement. In an ideal world I'd like to have the bokeh and character of my Zeiss 50mm f/1.5 Sonnar ZM on my Leica M series bodies and the detail and resolution of the 50mm f/1.8 S on the Nikon Z7, but it's never going to happen.
I've bought into Nikon Z for one reason and one reason only, namely eyesight issues. I'm increasingly struggling with rangefinder focusing and sadly it's only going to get worse. I'm patient and will take great care in the selection of additional lenses for use on the Nikon. In the meantime I'll be testing one or two of my Leica M fit lenses on the Z, taking advantage of the ease of focus thanks to the wonderful EVF and hopefully adding the character of those wonderful M lenses.
I'm looking forward to testing the Nikon 85mm and 20mm f/1.8 S lenses.
I should add that I'm finding the Z7 body a joy to work with.
Congratulations, Keith!
I hope you get a lot of good use out of the thing. Just one question: you have a clip-on EVF for your Leicas - has that not been good enough to compensate for your eye problems?
So what was the 'decisive moment' that swung the decision to purchase?
Rob
-
Btw, from the examples that I saw only the extreme corners are affected, something like the outer 5-10% on each side, so less than 4% of the total image surface. The problem is that the cutoff if quite abrupt.
I don't have experience with the 14-24 F2.8 to know if this performance is better or not, but there are people out there convinced the 14-30 is better.
-
I don't have experience with the 14-24 F2.8 to know if this performance is better or not, but there are people out there convinced the 14-30 is better.
A lot of people are convinced of a lot of things. Best wait for objective testing before arriving at conclusions. Unless you just can't wait.
-
A lot of people are convinced of a lot of things. Best wait for objective testing before arriving at conclusions. Unless you just can't wait.
The only objective testing worth a light for me is mine.
;-)
-
Congratulations, Keith!
I hope you get a lot of good use out of the thing. Just one question: you have a clip-on EVF for your Leicas - has that not been good enough to compensate for your eye problems?
So what was the 'decisive moment' that swung the decision to purchase?
Rob
Thanks, Rob, I'm off to bed but will reply in the morning.
-
....
I don't have experience with the 14-24 F2.8 to know if this performance is better or not, but there are people out there convinced the 14-30 is better.
I think it is Nikon's duty to make it better than the 16 year old 14-24mm lens made in the 12MP time.
it is an F4 lens and costs about the same...
If not i would leave Nikon being a Nikon-employee or a costumer.
-
A lot of people are convinced of a lot of things. Best wait for objective testing before arriving at conclusions. Unless you just can't wait.
Some had pictures to back up their claims.
I can wait, if I need an extreme wide I can just use the Fuji with the 10-24 or with the FTZ adapter, either the Samyang 14 F2.8 (which I already did for some night shots but there are people having issues with the interaction between that lens and the FTZ adapter) or the 18-35 which probably won't be the best for 46 MP but still get at least 24MP worth. Thing is, waiting won't fix any issues with the 14-30, only maybe the expectations.
-
I think it is Nikon's duty to make it better than the 16 year old 14-24mm lens made in the 12MP time.
it is an F4 lens and costs about the same...
If not i would leave Nikon being a Nikon-employee or a costumer.
If I judge by the performance of the 24-70mm f2.8 S compared to the 24-70mm f2.8 VR, I believe that the 14-24 f2.8 S will be in a different class compared to the F mount version. Those are comparable designs.
With the 14-30 f4 S, the priority was size. And that is obviously a huge design constraint.
So it is in no way obvious that it should be better than the 14-24mm f2.8 that launched the whole size no object lens design trend back in 2011 (and that was designed with 24mp in mind, not 12).
But I believe that it is overall much better.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I have one hand, and I agree with Kers that the Z7 is a nice one-handed body - Fujis work well, too, while Sony and Canon can rarely resist putting something critical on the left shoulder of the camera. It's just a nice body to use in general. The lens designs are refreshingly small and light for the combination of performance and sensor size. Nikon has chosen to sacrifice maximum aperture and accept electronic distortion correction in return for some small, light and high-performing lenses. It's an interesting trade, not for everyone, but a good one for my particular use.
I like to do landscapes well out in the backcountry, and am always looking for "how much image quality can I haul for how little weight". These compact Nikkors with very good to excellent performance coupled with the Z7 body revolutionize what I can get out there. The body and lenses are all very small and light for the level of performance they offer. Anything lighter won't perform as well, although lighter options exist - and anything else with no-compromise 2019 performance is going to be heavier.
The D850, 14-24 and most recent 24-70 are (roughly speaking), a kilogram each. The 24-70Z and 14-30Z are half a kilogram each, and the Z7 is only a bit over that - half the weight for the same or better IQ (losing a stop but picking up an excellent in-body image stabilizer) is pretty compelling.
Outside of Nikon, a comparable Sony FE system will be about 250 grams heavier and lose some of the weather sealing (which is why I never bought one) - but it'll pick up a little bit of wide angle and quite a bit of telephoto in compensation. The A7rIII is about 20 grams lighter than the Z7, but the Sony 12-24 is about 80 grams heavier than the Nikon 14-30 and the Sony 24-105 is nearly 200 grams heavier than the Nikon 24-70 (if you substitute the Sony "Zeiss" 24-70 for the 24-105, you can get the total weight to line up pretty much exactly, but at a significant image quality cost).
Neither Canon nor Panasonic gets as light as the Nikon, and neither one has a native mirrorless wide-angle yet. The heavy Panasonic bodies will always make the whole system much heavier (unless they change their philosophy and release a compact full-frame body) - and the initial Panasonic lenses are also big and heavy, although that could change at any time - the next lens out the door could be tiny. Nobody knows how heavy the Canon high resolution body will be, or how it'll perform. The announced 15-35mm is a f2.8 lens, which will probably be much heavier.
The highest quality Fuji APS-C lenses in the same focal length range plus the X-H1, the only stabilized body in the Fuji line, are actually a little heavier than the Nikon system (the X-H1 body is the same or a bit heavier if you count that the Nikon is carrying more shots worth of battery, the 10-24 f4 is lighter, but the 16-55 f2.8 is heavier). If you're willing to go down to an X-T2 or X-T3 (no image stabilization) and the variable aperture 18-55, which is a very good lens, but not like the Nikkors or the Fuji 16-55, you can save a few hundred grams (~1200 instead of ~1600)
Oddly, pro-grade Micro 4/3 (7-14 Pro, 12-40 Pro, E-M1 mkII) is barely lighter than the Z7 system. If you make different choices (ultralight consumer zooms and an EM5 series body), Micro 4/3 can get very light (you can get to around 800 grams with an E-M5 II, a 9-18 f4-5.6 and a 12-60 f3.5-6.3, all of which are also tiny) - but it isn't going to be making 40x60" prints. If you're willing to sacrifice some wide angle, a top-end APS-C compact with a zoom like the G1x mk III is also very light.
-
Thanks, Rob, I'm off to bed but will reply in the morning.
Hello Keith; Probably you are overwhelmed by the manual of the z7; but it is worth reading because you can make the camera your own.
What i find very important and maybe you too, is the option (A7) to take the AF off the release-button. So it does not AF everytime before you take a photo.
Instead you only use the AF button for AF- in this way they can act independent of each other... (This in combination with AF-C)
etc
-
Hello Keith; Probably you are overwhelmed by the manual of the z7; but it is worth reading because you can make the camera your own.
What i find very important and maybe you too, is the option (A7) to take the AF off the release-button. So it does not AF everytime before you take a photo.
Instead you only use the AF button for AF- in this way they can act independent of each other... (This in combination with AF-C)
etc
One of the reasons some migrate from rangefinder camera systems is because they now need the added value of autofocus.
I got there before Keith gave up to reality - being much older than is he - and I only wish all my other lenses had af but only two do, and I have no commercial imperative makes me want to swap and spend. Though not ideal, the little focus indication light works, but distracts me. But it hardly makes much diffence as I've turned into a mainly two-lens guy most of the time. Chicken/eggs again?
Rob
-
Hello Keith; Probably you are overwhelmed by the manual of the z7; but it is worth reading because you can make the camera your own.
What i find very important and maybe you too, is the option (A7) to take the AF off the release-button. So it does not AF everytime before you take a photo.
Instead you only use the AF button for AF- in this way they can act independent of each other... (This in combination with AF-C)
etc
Thanks Pieter.
This is the way I had my Hasselblad H system set up, with the release independent of the AF.
I also downloaded the Thom Hogan Guide which has been a godsend.
-
Congratulations, Keith!
I hope you get a lot of good use out of the thing. Just one question: you have a clip-on EVF for your Leicas - has that not been good enough to compensate for your eye problems?
So what was the 'decisive moment' that swung the decision to purchase?
Rob
Hi Rob, well, if there was one 'decisive moment' it was on our return from India this year and the realisation that I'd gone from missing the occasional focus to missing far too many. The problem with macular degeneration - and thankfully mine is seemingly slow to develop - is that the area of loss of sight is slap bang in the middle of the eye which coincides nicely with the part of the eye used for rangefinder focussing. I took the Z7 for a walk yesterday, made a hundred or so shots and happily all were in perfect focus.
I suffer from the concept of possibly using my Leica M lenses in combination with the super EVF on the Z7 but as V keeps pointing out I'd still be relying on my eyesight to focus rather than pressing a button and letting the camera do the rest: clever girl that.
As far as the EVF on the Leica M goes, it's toy grade, particularly in comparison to the Nikon and often serves to confuse rather than aid.
-
Hi Rob, well, if there was one 'decisive moment' it was on our return from India this year and the realisation that I'd gone from missing the occasional focus to missing far too many. The problem with macular degeneration - and thankfully mine is seemingly slow to develop - is that the area of loss of sight is slap bang in the middle of the eye which coincides nicely with the part of the eye used for rangefinder focussing. I took the Z7 for a walk yesterday, made a hundred or so shots and happily all were in perfect focus.
I suffer from the concept of possibly using my Leica M lenses in combination with the super EVF on the Z7 but as V keeps pointing out I'd still be relying on my eyesight to focus rather than pressing a button and letting the camera do the rest: clever girl that.
As far as the EVF on the Leica M goes, it's toy grade, particularly in comparison to the Nikon and often serves to confuse rather than aid.
Then that's two verboten topics you have to share with her: non-af lenses and Cavemen.
I realised today that the cataracts have helpd me evade doing much dusting - they help to make dust vanish, which can be useful.
:-(
-
I suffer from the concept of possibly my Leica M lenses in combination ...
You’re not alone.
Trawled the Z7 and Leica M10 forums on FB yesterday, running a quick and cursory look over the images posted, on the basis rhat whatever ‘bad’ could be done to an online photo, Facebook would surely be amongst the top offenders.
Attached below are 3 shots - 2 taken with a Leica 50 Lux the other with a Nikon 50 1.8/s
Guess which is which ...
** deleted - possible copyright infringement **
-
I've bought into Nikon Z for one reason and one reason only, namely eyesight issues. I'm increasingly struggling with rangefinder focusing and sadly it's only going to get worse. I'm patient and will take great care in the selection of additional lenses for use on the Nikon. In the meantime I'll be testing one or two of my Leica M fit lenses on the Z, taking advantage of the ease of focus thanks to the wonderful EVF and hopefully adding the character of those wonderful M lenses.
I'm looking forward to testing the Nikon 85mm and 20mm f/1.8 S lenses.
I should add that I'm finding the Z7 body a joy to work with.
if you end up needing AF with your leica lenses, Techart is making an adapter for that: https://nikonrumors.com/2019/01/18/this-is-the-upcoming-techart-autofocus-lens-adapter-for-nikon-z-mount.aspx/?fbclid=IwAR0rUO1KF0c7kzCIT-acs4H85zH-Znj2T8khsKSQvhDfVvPbSITyM6n0ZZ8
I don't know much about it, but reviews on the E Sony cameras have been generally favorable.
-
if you end up needing AF with your leica lenses, Techart is making an adapter for that: https://nikonrumors.com/2019/01/18/this-is-the-upcoming-techart-autofocus-lens-adapter-for-nikon-z-mount.aspx/?fbclid=IwAR0rUO1KF0c7kzCIT-acs4H85zH-Znj2T8khsKSQvhDfVvPbSITyM6n0ZZ8
I don't know much about it, but reviews on the E Sony cameras have been generally favorable.
Many thanks, it is certainly a consideration.
-
Is that adapter now available btw?
It was announced months ago but can it now be bought?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Is that adapter now available btw?
It was announced months ago but can it now be bought?
Cheers,
Bernard
I don’t believe it is for sale yet. Video of it in action suggests that prototypes are in testing. From there it’s anyone’s guess when it’s released.
-
Trying to add AF to non-AF lenses with what is effectively a variable extension tube seems tricky. If all the elements move to focus, then the tube is doing the same thing the lens' own helicoid would do. If, however, it's an internal-focusing lens that moves one group of elements in relation to another (or worse yet, a lens that has a primary focusing group plus a floating element or compensating group that moves a different distance, possibly in a different direction), the variable extension tube is focusing the lens in a simplified manner that it wasn't designed for.
Also, wouldn't it be hard to build an adapter that gave a meaningful amount of focusing travel for a longer lens, yet moved with enough precision for a shorter one?
Leica M lenses ameliorate these problems to some extent - they're relatively moderate focal lengths, and aren't many of them "move the whole lens" focusers? At least a few have floating elements, but the majority don't.
-
I have started to process the many images I shot last week with the Z7 and 14-30 f4/24-70 f2.8 S... and I like what I am seeing.
In short, the quality of the 24-70 f2.8 S is simply ming boggling. I haven’t found a single weakness yet. It is super sharp from near to infinity, has no visible CA, has a great soft bokeh, has better flare resistance than any prime I have used, super pure colors, fast focus, great build and feel,... just wow!
As expected, the 14-30 f4 is an amazing travel lens but it has a couple of weaknesses, in particular when shot at close range in the extreme corners. Sharpness remain decent but there is a very heavy light fall off the the extreme corners that is hard to correct. This is a lot less problematic when focusing farther. Keeping that in mind, I love the lens overall.
I am wondering how good the top S primes are going to be... starting with the Noct and 50mm f1.2.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I have started to process the many images I shot last week with the Z7 and 14-30 f4/24-70 f2.8 S... and I like what I am seeing.
In short, the quality of the 24-70 f2.8 S is simply ming boggling. I haven’t found a single weakness yet. It is super sharp from near to infinity, has no visible CA, has a great soft bokeh, has better flare resistance than any prime I have used, super pure colors, fast focus, great build and feel,... just wow!
As expected, the 14-30 f4 is an amazing travel lens but it has a couple of weaknesses, in particular when shot at close range in the extreme corners. Sharpness remain decent but there is a very heavy light fall off the the extreme corners that is hard to correct. This is a lot less problematic when focusing farther. Keeping that in mind, I love the lens overall.
I am wondering how good the top S primes are going to be... starting with the Noct and 50mm f1.2.
Cheers,
Bernard
Bernard, does the 24-70 2.8 focus as close as the f/4?
-
Bernard, does the 24-70 2.8 focus as close as the f/4?
0.3m for the f4, 0.38m for the f2.8. So not quite as close, but I haven't found this to be limiting.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I have started to process the many images I shot last week ...
Bernard,
Any feedback on how Eye-AF works with the the updated firmware?
-
Bernard,
Any feedback on how Eye-AF works with the the updated firmware?
It will only be available on May 16th as far as I know.
The AF of the 24-70 f2.8 S is fast when tracking, the only issue is the identification of where it should focus. I am pretty sure that with the eye AF it's going to be top notch...
But we will know for sure after May 16th.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Many thanks, it is certainly a consideration.
Keith, how does the shutter racket compare on your new Nikon with the Leica?
Another, broader question: many of the olde rangefinder stars appear to have focussed using the depth of field scales and the relative safety of f8; did that work out as practical for you? If it did/does, it makes the use of such cameras relatively simple as you wouldn't have to use the small focussing aids. Not that I am about to invest, but it might yet happen because the 50s M3 exposure has never quite left me alone...
About the only legacy of my last employer, other than his belief in his F, which I took up as soon as I could.
Rob
-
But we will know for sure after May 16th.
Thanks Bernard, any feed back after the 16th appreciated!
Best,
M
-
Keith, how does the shutter racket compare on your new Nikon with the Leica?
Another, broader question: many of the olde rangefinder stars appear to have focussed using the depth of field scales and the relative safety of f8; did that work out as practical for you? If it did/does, it makes the use of such cameras relatively simple as you wouldn't have to use the small focussing aids. Not that I am about to invest, but it might yet happen because the 50s M3 exposure has never quite left me alone...
About the only legacy of my last employer, other than his belief in his F, which I took up as soon as I could.
Rob
Rob, they are different sounds but much the same in terms of volume, but of course no mirror slapping about in either. The Nikon Z7 body also has a silent shooting mode using an electronic front-curtain shutter, but this can cause problems with moving subjects due to the rolling shutter.
I've used the DOF scales on the Leica lenses, typically when shooting interiors on a tripod when of course a small aperture is usually the order of the day. I also find my required minimum and maximum focus distances depending on the subject and then set the lens accordingly, plus a stop or two. For other work, for much of time, I'm shooting wide or near wide open when DOF scales are of no use.
I expected to be somewhat overwhelmed by the complexities of the Nikon, but the more I use the it the more I understand and appreciate the possibilities and capabilities. I'm taking things slowly and will take my time building a system to suit my needs.
-
Rob, they are different sounds but much the same in terms of volume, but of course no mirror slapping about in either. The Nikon Z7 body also has a silent shooting mode using an electronic front-curtain shutter, but this can cause problems with moving subjects due to the rolling shutter.
<snip>
You are confusing electronic front-curtain shutter (EFCS) with electronic shutter (silent shooting). EFCS is useful to reduce shutter shock of the mechanical shutter (I have it always on) and silent shotting uses electronic shutter instead of the mechanical shutter. Because of slow readout speeds, silent shooting can cause problems with moving subjects.
-
You are confusing electronic front-curtain shutter (EFCS) with electronic shutter (silent shooting). EFCS is useful to reduce shutter shock of the mechanical shutter (I have it always on) and silent shotting uses electronic shutter instead of the mechanical shutter. Because of slow readout speeds, silent shooting can cause problems with moving subjects.
Thanks, I think I am.
I don't have EFCS permanently enabled because I often shoot above the 1/2000 second limit. Think wide open in bright light.
-
Thanks, I think I am.
I don't have EFCS permanently enabled because I often shoot above the 1/2000 second limit. Think wide open in bright light.
Since there is no mirror-slab anymore i am sure not enabling EFCS will do no harm at all...
Even on my d850 the problem is almost gone.( but on the d810 there indeed was a problem)
-
Since there is no mirror-slab anymore i am sure not enabling EFCS will do no harm at all...
Even on my d850 the problem is almost gone.( but on the d810 there indeed was a problem)
Mirror slap and "shutter shock" are not related.
As measured and observed on Sonys and Nikon Zs, shooting without EFCS at lower shutter speeds has typically a negative impact on image quality.
-
I have EFCS enabled on one of the 'User' Settings' - amongst other tweaks to those settings - when shooting my typically poorly lit abandoned interiors.
-
Thanks Pieter.
This is the way I had my Hasselblad H system set up, with the release independent of the AF.
I also downloaded the Thom Hogan Guide which has been a godsend.
Based on your comment, I went to Thom's site intending to download the guide for the Z6. I've gotten a couple of his guides, years ago, and they were good. But this one...it says it's 1010 pages long. That's a thousand and ten pages. Can that be right?
-
Based on your comment, I went to Thom's site intending to download the guide for the Z6. I've gotten a couple of his guides, years ago, and they were good. But this one...it says it's 1010 pages long. That's a thousand and ten pages. Can that be right?
Yes, that’s right. There’s a lot to this camera. The guide is well-organized and well worth the $30.
-
Based on your comment, I went to Thom's site intending to download the guide for the Z6. I've gotten a couple of his guides, years ago, and they were good. But this one...it says it's 1010 pages long. That's a thousand and ten pages. Can that be right?
Yes.
It is a well informed and very helpful guide and also has a lot of background material on the Z6 & Z7. Particularly useful for this newbie to the Nikon full frame digital systems. The search facility was a godsend.
Happy reading.
-
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/47809910521_92e509bc92_h.jpg)
Z7 + 24-70 f2.8 S
Insane flare and light spill resistance.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Z7 + 24-70 f2.8 S
Insane flare and light spill resistance.
Cheers,
Bernard
Except for the green dot on the leaves and the greenish tinge lh side. Of course, considering the picture, something is to be expected, and then, yes, it is well controlled.
Having said that: would you please be careful with that camerasensor, Bernard. Otherwise I am forced to confiscate your camera for callous abuse. It would be entirely for your own well being, and I would obviously be careful enough to keep te camera in good condition while it is under my care by using it regularly...
-
Except for the green dot on the leaves and the greenish tinge lh side. Of course, considering the picture, something is to be expected, and then, yes, it is well controlled.
I am looking at the image at 100% and I see green all over the leaves... which may be related to fact that leaves are green? ;)
Having said that: would you please be careful with that camerasensor, Bernard. Otherwise I am forced to confiscate your camera for callous abuse. It would be entirely for your own well being, and I would obviously be careful enough to keep te camera in good condition while it is under my care by using it regularly...
I am really touched by how considerate you are.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
https://www.dpreview.com/articles/3377004454/hands-on-with-new-sigma-35mm-f1-2-45mm-f2-8-and-14-24mm-lenses
Another reason Nikon should have opened the mount for other companies, similar to Sony.
I'll be going for a hiking trip soon and I decided to take the Z7. The 24-70 F4 is a good fit although something in the 24-105/120 would be much better but so far nothing similar is on the roadmap. Adapting the Nikon 24-120 F4 doesn't look too appealing.
Moving to wide I guess the 14-30 is OK for landscape but I might have a shot at nightscapes so I want a brighter lens; missing in action too so you have to go for adapted, and I'll get the Samyang 14 2.8 with the FTZ adapter. When you look at the weight of the 14+FTZ is actually lighter than the Samyang 14 for the Z mount, so you feel good about it. Until you peak in Sony's yard and see that the 16-35 2.8 GM is actually lighter and the new Sigma 14-24 2.8 is just a touch heavier. I think the new 14-24 2.8 S from Nikon has a lot on its shoulders. If it doesn't perform and/or it's too heavy than it goes any justification for the advantage of the wider Z-mount.
-
I wouldn’t be worried.
It took Canon 8 years to release a competitor to the Nikon 14-24mm f2.8, Nikon is on top of the game for ultra wide.
The 14-24mm f2.8 S will be the best ultra wide zoom lens ever designed just like the 24-70mm f2.8 S is the best pro zoom ever designed.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
https://m.dpreview.com/news/2661937334/nikon-s-nikkor-z-85mm-f1-8-s-to-ship-in-september
Cheers,
Bernard
-
https://m.dpreview.com/news/2661937334/nikon-s-nikkor-z-85mm-f1-8-s-to-ship-in-september
Cheers,
Bernard
Thanks Bernard, that's great news!
-
https://www.dpreview.com/samples/0263156990/nikon-z-35mm-f1-8-s-sample-gallery?utm_source=self-desktop&utm_medium=marquee&utm_campaign=traffic_source
The same lens that was described by DPreview TV as having one of the worst looks ever...
Cheers,
Bernard
-
https://www.dpreview.com/samples/0263156990/nikon-z-35mm-f1-8-s-sample-gallery?utm_source=self-desktop&utm_medium=marquee&utm_campaign=traffic_source
The same lens that was described by DPreview TV as having one of the worst looks ever...
Cheers,
Bernard
Hi Bernard, I've no idea of the history here, did DPreview have a bad copy or was their testing flawed perhaps?
-
Hi Bernard, I've no idea of the history here, did DPreview have a bad copy or was their testing flawed perhaps?
No idea.
At the time they mentioned the 50mm f1.8, then tested it with amazing results and said they made a mistake and that their negative comments should have been about the 35mm.
Now they show these brilliant samples without further reference to their previous mess up...
Cheers,
Bernard
-
No idea.
At the time they mentioned the 50mm f1.8, then tested it with amazing results and said they made a mistake and that their negative comments should have been about the 35mm.
Now they show these brilliant samples without further reference to their previous mess up...
Cheers,
Bernard
Thanks, Bernard. It seems as though DPreview have no idea either!
;-)
-
If you look through comments they vary from great to poor, so there's that. I don't see the "awful" rendering but I don't think is that spectacular either, more like a solid lens with decent rendering; it could be just the gloomy weather though.
-
If you look through comments they vary from great to poor, so there's that. I don't see the "awful" rendering but I don't think is that spectacular either, more like a solid lens with decent rendering; it could be just the gloomy weather though.
What i noticed with the 35mm 1.8 is that at infinity the corners did not look good. The F4 zoom did better at f4.... on shorter distance there was nothing to complain about.
Maybe it was only my sample..?
It has very good contrast and sharpness and the bokeh is fine, coatings are good and flare resistant.
What i think will be a strong point in the S-series lenses is that there is little focus breathing throughout the range and in combination with the proclaimed RAW-video it could be a winner for video.
It would be a good idea to update the firmware of the lenses/ camera in a way that focus by wire has less shortcomings.
For one stabilize the focus at a chosen point... add a feature to make manual focus lineair so a focus pull is possible.
-
So far I'm very pleased with the Nikon Z 35mm f/1.8 S and I'm comparing it with another rather good lens, the Leica 35mm f/1.4 Summilux-M ASPH FLE!
-
So far I'm very pleased with the Nikon Z 35mm f/1.8 S and I'm comparing it with another rather good lens, the Leica 35mm f/1.4 Summilux-M ASPH FLE!
Good to hear! I will admit that I was taken back by the DPR TV review and put it on hold. Now I have yet the get the 50 also but I think that I will give in to it soon.
I'm still conflicted if I should get the 14-30 F4 or wait the 14-24 F2.8, it will depend a lot on how big/heavy the 14-24 will be. If it's not bigger/heavier than the Sony 16-35 F2.8 then I would prefer it. I guess nobody here knows anything regarding this matter.
-
Good to hear! I will admit that I was taken back by the DPR TV review and put it on hold. Now I have yet the get the 50 also but I think that I will give in to it soon.
I'm still conflicted if I should get the 14-30 F4 or wait the 14-24 F2.8, it will depend a lot on how big/heavy the 14-24 will be. If it's not bigger/heavier than the Sony 16-35 F2.8 then I would prefer it. I guess nobody here knows anything regarding this matter.
So far I have the 35 and 50 lenses and the 85 on order.
I'm not a zoom kind of guy and will patiently wait - foot tapping as I type - for the 20 to be released next year.
-
The 20 was supposed to be released this year but they switched positions with the 24; alas I already have the F version and can't justify another 24.
-
Just heard (Nikon source) that the 70-200 f2.8 S will come about october.
-
Just curious, but is it that hard for those that have the very well received 70-200 F2.8E to just leave a FTZ adapter on it and use it as such if they have this burning need for it?
-
Just curious, but is it that hard for those that have the very well received 70-200 F2.8E to just leave a FTZ adapter on it and use it as such if they have this burning need for it?
No, it's not. But, the f2.8 is a beast. I did a lot of work with it for several years, several years ago, and even when I was younger, it was a load to carry. I'm hoping that the upcoming f2.8 is more compact than the F mount f2.8, but I'm beginning to get the feeling that it won't be. There have been several mock-up photos of the f2.8 S inside a glass case, and in comparing the size of it to the known sizes of other lenses in the case, it also looks fairly beastly. One thing I don't totally understand is why the insistence on f2.8? With a 70-200 you're not typically looking for bokeh, which you're not going to get much of with a 2.8 anyway. So why not go to a compact f4, and shoot at 400 instead of 200, or 800 instead of 400? Those higher ISOs in modern cameras are of excellent quality, and you're not usually looking for ultimate quality in a zoom anyway, at least not to the point where one stop will make a difference. But compactness is important to many people, I believe, and not just us old guys. We're not shooting film anymore, and Nikon should get used to that. What we really could use, IMHO, is a high-quality compact f4. A huge heavy f**king lens sticking out of a light, compact body is not a great idea, to say the least.
-
I've owned both the 2.8 and 4.0 versions of the Nikkor f-mount 70-200. The f4.0 version is by far preferable. The 2.8 was noticeably soft wide open, the 4.0 was as sharp wide open as it was anywhere else. Which is very effing sharp. Superb lens, far smaller and lighter.
Too bad its motor hates the new autofocus system on the Z cameras. It chatters and seeks loudly, rendering it useless for video and difficult for stills.
-
I've owned both the 2.8 and 4.0 versions of the Nikkor f-mount 70-200. The f4.0 version is by far preferable. The 2.8 was noticeably soft wide open, the 4.0 was as sharp wide open as it was anywhere else. Which is very effing sharp. Superb lens, far smaller and lighter.
Too bad it motor hates the new autofocus system on the Z cameras. It chatters and seeks loudly, rendering it useless for video and difficult for stills.
Which version of the 70-200 f/2.8 did you have? The latest Nikon f-mount 70-200 f/2.8 is considered to be one of the best zoom lenses available, much better than the f/4 version.
-
Which version of the 70-200 f/2.8 did you have? The latest Nikon f-mount 70-200 f/2.8 is considered to be one of the best zoom lenses available, much better than the f/4 version.
Indeed, the 70-200 f2.8 E FL is in Otus territory wide open on all focal lengths.
It is significantly better than the Canon 70-200mm f2.8 III released a year later, itself considered as one of the best L lenses, and also than the recent Sony 70-200mm f2.8 G Master.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Just heard (Nikon source) that the 70-200 f2.8 S will come about october.
That would be very good news.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
The upcoming 70-200 f2.8S ; Now i wonder what kind of a lens it will be.
If it is as good as the FL type it certainly will cost about the same one might expect.
We will see soon.
-
The upcoming 70-200 f2.8S ; Now i wonder what kind of a lens it will be.
If it is as good as the FL type it certainly will cost about the same one might expect.
We will see soon.
It can only be better I guess.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
In the mean time Nikon drives on two roads.
Costumers have to choose between DSLR D6 and Mirrorless.
It becomes clear with the introduction of a new 120-300mm for F-bajonet that Nikon says:
Sports shooters / animal shooters : please remain in the DSLR camp. After all no long telelenses are in the Z roadmap.
All other shooters: You may choose...
In the meantime a new 24mm f1.8 S is introduced at about 1000€.
I am sure it will be good. but i do not like:
a the lensprofile i cannot set to off in Lightroom ( a LR problem i know)
b the fact it will not hold focus when turned off or when the battery has run out.
-
Which version of the 70-200 f/2.8 did you have?
Good point. It was an older version. One of the first with VR. Can't remember the precise model name.
-
In the mean time Nikon drives on two roads.
Costumers have to choose between DSLR D6 and Mirrorless.
It becomes clear with the introduction of a new 120-300mm for F-bajonet that Nikon says:
Sports shooters / animal shooters : please remain in the DSLR camp. After all no long telelenses are in the Z roadmap.
Call it my guess if you will, but I don't think it is the message nor the situation. But Nikon's marketing being as disastrous as ever, we have to read btwn the lines...
There is going to be no practical different in size between a F mount 120-300mm f2.8 and a Z mount version.
So the only difference is the spec of the mount and the compatibility of the AF system with the body right? And since my educated guess is that this 120-300mm f2.8 is designed with both F mount and Z mount in mind I would definitely not look at this lens as an F mount lens. It's an hybrid design fully usable at maximum performance level on both mounts.
And I am fully confident Nikon can achieve this technically because my 10 years old 200mm f2.0 G is already 90% as good AF wise on the Z6 as it was on my D850.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
But the Z6 doesn’t focus as well as the A73 and the A73 isn’t nearly as good as the A9. I know this because I have played with the Z7 and I own an A9.
But this is beside the point actually. What is concerning is what appears to be to my mind Nikon having a little Kodak moment. I suppose you could put it down to marketing but a part of marketing is listening to the market. I’m not convinced Nikon is so good at that. For Nikon to make money they need the advanced amateur market. It’s way bigger than the handful of pro sports shooters most of whom seem to be using Canon anyway. Do you think at this stage that Nikon will lure Canon shooters currently using The 1DX to switch to a Nikon DSLR system? I think the Canon guys are waiting for a Canon pro mirrorless body. Those that have switched from Canon or are planning to switch are far more likely to go Sony, God help them.
-
But the Z6 doesn’t focus as well as the A73 and the A73 isn’t nearly as good as the A9. I know this because I have played with the Z7 and I own an A9.
I find the Z6 with firmware 2.01 to focus significantly better than the Z7 with firmware 2.01 and to be in a totally different league that the Z7 with firmware 1.0. The gap being IMHO larger than we used to see between 2 generations of camera in the DSLR days.
But this is beside the point actually. What is concerning is what appears to be to my mind Nikon having a little Kodak moment. I suppose you could put it down to marketing but a part of marketing is listening to the market. I’m not convinced Nikon is so good at that. For Nikon to make money they need the advanced amateur market. It’s way bigger than the handful of pro sports shooters most of whom seem to be using Canon anyway. Do you think at this stage that Nikon will lure Canon shooters currently using The 1DX to switch to a Nikon DSLR system? I think the Canon guys are waiting for a Canon pro mirrorless body. Those that have switched from Canon or are planning to switch are far more likely to go Sony, God help them.
No, the D6 is not aimed at converting Canon shooters. It is meant at a few things as I have already stated:
- keep the pro Nikon shooters happy with a significant update to the D5 one year before the Japan Olympics
- develop the technologies, AF in particular, that will be used on all the prosumer Nikon DSLRs in the 3-4 coming years (including the replacement of the D850)
- end the DSLR era with a remarkable product that they will continue to produce for many years, like the F6 that still sells today in enough numbers that Nikon can produce it without losing money
The D6 is also not a sign that Nikon doesn't understand that mirrorless is the next big thing. It is a camera they had to release for their existing user base.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
https://nikonrumors.com/2019/09/05/new-2020-2012-nikon-nikkor-z-s-line-lens-roadmap-leaked.aspx/
If this is real it looks better than I expected. The focal lengths and zooms are most of the things I would want, granted within certain weight/quality numbers and not outrageously expensive.
-
Yes, just about perfect.
We are getting pretty much exactly what I had predicted. A 35mm f1.2 instead of a 28mm f1.2 but close enough.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I was somewhat pleased and somewhat baffled by the roadmap. Pleased that everything is an S-line lens. Baffled by why we are getting a 28-70 f/2.8-f/3.5 when we already have a 24-70 f/4 and f/2.8. If the variable aperture version was non-S, I would understand better as a low cost kit lens. Most baffling is the idea that we need a 65 f/1.8 before we get a 70-200 f/4? Can a 28-280 f/2.8-f/5.6 really live up to the S-line hype?
-
No pro telelenses for the Z till 2022...or later...
The 65 f1.8 is an odd one, maybe a macrolens?
I do not think the order within the year is of any significance...as it was not before...we are still waiting for this .95 lens.
The 24mm lens i will have in october for some testshots. Nikon has made many 24mm lenses and i have owned many of them.
This one should be the best of the bunch, i hope.
-
No pro telelenses for the Z till 2022...or later...
The 65 f1.8 is an odd one, maybe a macrolens?
I do not think the order within the year is of any significance...as it was not before...we are still waiting for this .95 lens.
My guesses:
- the 65mm f1.8 is indeed a macro lens, it wouldn't make sense otherwise
- the 120-300 f2.8 SR announced yesterday was designed from scratch to AF optimally on both F and Z mout bodies. This is the only way such a strategic release would make sense and Nikon does make sense 99% of the time for such matters.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
My guesses:
- the 65mm f1.8 is indeed a macro lens, it wouldn't make sense otherwise
- the 120-300 f2.8 SR announced yesterday was designed from scratch to AF optimally on both F and Z mout bodies. This is the only way such a strategic release would make sense and Nikon does make sense 99% of the time for such matters.
Cheers,
Bernard
Don't DSLR and mirrorless cameras AF fundamentally different. That is why mirrorless designed lenses AF faster than DSLR designed lenses that are just ported to mirrorless. That is what the results were on the Sony system where Sigma lenses redesigned specifically for mirrorless AF faster than that same lens that was designed for DSLR.
-
Don't DSLR and mirrorless cameras AF fundamentally different. That is why mirrorless designed lenses AF faster than DSLR designed lenses that are just ported to mirrorless. That is what the results were on the Sony system where Sigma lenses redesigned specifically for mirrorless AF faster than that same lens that was designed for DSLR.
That was the theory prior to FTS introduction I guess.
But when I see the level of performance I am getting today with the Z6 + 200mm f2.0 or 105mm f1.4 I have doubts. It seems to be a generic belief that is highly impacted by the technology being deployed. Like to old belief that CMOS was more noisy than CCD... ;)
And Nikon has gotten it right even with pre-Z legacy F mount lenses, I am sure they could design F mount lenses that focus even better through the FTZ. And I guess this is what SR is about.
But I could be wrong of course and will have no issue to admit I was if I am.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
https://nikonrumors.com/2019/09/05/new-2020-2012-nikon-nikkor-z-s-line-lens-roadmap-leaked.aspx/
If this is real it looks better than I expected. The focal lengths and zooms are most of the things I would want, granted within certain weight/quality numbers and not outrageously expensive.
Call me a cynic but that looks like fantasy. We are still waiting for any sign of a 70-200 and the 85 is announced but not shipping. To deliver that roadmap Nikon would really have to up their game next year.
-
Call me a cynic but that looks like fantasy. We are still waiting for any sign of a 70-200 and the 85 is announced but not shipping. To deliver that roadmap Nikon would really have to up their game next year.
today the 85mm is shipping
https://nikonrumors.com/
the 70-200 is one month delayed and will come in october.
-
My guesses:
- the 120-300 f2.8 SR announced yesterday was designed from scratch to AF optimally on both F and Z mout bodies. This is the only way such a strategic release would make sense and Nikon does make sense 99% of the time for such matters.
Yes i am sure you are right but i think that Nikon owners of a long pro tele simply will have to use the converter so it will work on either a D6 or a Z.
Usually these people have invested in D5 bodies and Nikon wants to sell them a D6.
Probably the latest long telelenses have been optimized for both Z and DSLR and might have an option to be converted to the Z-mount later on.
or maybe this 120-300 is the first.
(The D6 has to be very good to be able to compete against the Sony 9 markII; then what will Canon release?)
-
Got my 85mm f1.8 today btw.
It’s a nice black.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
i just took a look at the impressive lensdesign of the 24mmf1.8 S
The elements near the camera have a very particular shape. Especially no2
Maybe it is just the drawing?
-
Got my 85mm f1.8 today btw.
It’s a nice black.
Cheers,
Bernard
Hmm. I have a portrait session next Tuesday - I'll be happy if I get the lens in time for that!!
-
No pro telelenses for the Z till 2022...or later...
The 65 f1.8 is an odd one, maybe a macrolens?
A 65 mm f/1.8 would be a welcome prime in a cinematographer’s kit.
-
A 65 mm f/1.8 would be a welcome prime in a cinematographer’s kit.
What is special about 65mm from a cinematographer's perspective?
-
What is special about 65mm from a cinematographer's perspective?
Simply that there is too much difference between a 50 and an 85.
Some, like Cooke, solve this with 75 in the lineup instead of an 85. Ziess, on the other hand, has long had a 65 available.
-
https://www.cameralabs.com/nikon-z-85mm-f1-8-s-review/
The new 85mm f1.8 appears to be as good as the Otus 85mm f1.4 at half the weight. A bit worse at infinity but better bokeh and coma. Similar color correction.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
https://www.cameralabs.com/nikon-z-85mm-f1-8-s-review/
The new 85mm f1.8 appears to be as good as the Otus 85mm f1.4 at half the weight. A bit worse at infinity but better bokeh and coma. Similar color correction.
Cheers,
Bernard
Half the weight but f1.8 and not f1.4...
and extreme corner unsharp until f8... i think that is really bad for a (new nikonS) 85mm.
(the Zeiss Mivus 85mm has something similar)
-
Looks like both Canon and Nikon will have the f/1.2 "holy trinity": 35 1.2, 50 1.2, 85 1.2. Nice...
-
Half the weight but f1.8 and not f1.4...
and extreme corner unsharp until f8... i think that is really bad for a (new nikonS) 85mm.
(the Zeiss Mivus 85mm has something similar)
At infinity, which is clearly not relevant for portrait work.
The choice today is either using aspherical elements and get ugly off highlights bokeh or not use them which results in a smaller enveloppe of usage that can optimized (in this case some compromise at infinity).
I far prefer the choice made by Nikon not to use aspherical elements in this lens. Zeiss is indeed making similar design decisions. Besides, it's far from poor at infinity at f8, which is the aperture I would use for landscape work anyway.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Looks like both Canon and Nikon will have the f/1.2 "holy trinity": 35 1.2, 50 1.2, 85 1.2. Nice...
Indeed.
But probably with slightly different design decisions considering what we know about the Nikon 50mm f1.2 S. It seems that they have imposed on themselves less design constraints in terms of bulk, meaning that we can expect better performance at the cost of more weight.
Nikon is clearly going with the following logic, although their marketing dpt has omitted to explain this...:
- very good and light - f1.8 range
- no compromise but bulky - f1.2 range
Cheers,
Bernard
-
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48748558756_fed08a43c3_h.jpg)
Nikon Z7 + 85mm f1.8 S
Such an amazing piece of glass...
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Article by Thom Hogan where he used a Z6 and Z7 on a safari.
They seemed to work quite well on the trip. Amazing images.
http://www.sansmirror.com/newsviews/2019-mirrorless-camera/july-september-2019-mirrorl/a-nikon-mirrorless-safari.html
Robert Katz
-
The most arresting quote from this article for me was this one:
The Sony mirrorless would be better. Nnyaa (in Setswana). It would only be go sa tshwane (different). I probably would have picked the Sony 100-400mm lens instead of the Nikkor 500mm, giving up some reach for flexibility. In my experience I'd probably also have many more "almost perfect focus" in capturing motion with the Sony instead of the "dead on focus" shots like I got with the Nikon.
-
The most arresting quote from this article for me was this one:
Yes. Most online discussions about AF involve:
1. people with only very limited experience of systems others than their own
2. an idealized view of Sony AF performance vs a worst case scenario for Nikon mirrorless
The reality is that both systems have + and -.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Yes. Most online discussions about AF involve:
1. people with only very limited experience of systems others than their own
2. an idealized view of Sony F performance vs a worst case scenario for Nikon mirrorless
The reality is that both systems have + and -.
Cheers,
Bernard
So true.
-
In a fascinating turn of fate, I have just found out that the 24mm f1.8 S was not announced by Nikon in Japan:
- it is not listed on the Nikon image jp web site (https://www.nikon-image.com/products/nikkor/zmount/), it is not available for pre-order anywhere in Japan
On the other hand it is listed on the Nikonusa site: https://www.nikonusa.com/en/nikon-products/camera-lenses/mirrorless-lenses/index.page
I thought that Nikon marketing couldn't get any worse than they already were, but it looks like they have more potential to disappoint... ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I was wondering where the Z 70-200 was -- it was supposed to be announced about now -- and when I went looking, I found a rumor on the Nikon rumors site that it will be delayed until first quarter 2020. I don't read that site, so I have no idea how accurate it might be.
-
I was wondering where the Z 70-200 was -- it was supposed to be announced about now -- and when I went looking, I found a rumor on the Nikon rumors site that it will be delayed until first quarter 2020. I don't read that site, so I have no idea how accurate it might be.
There was another rumor after that one showing an updated roadmap where the 70-200mm f2.8 was still shown in 2019 + some recent comments about an announcement end of October.
Rumors obviously.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I am looking into the Nikon Z7 for landscape photography. I don't need a fast lens. I am picky about sharp corners, though.
So here is my question: would the new 24-70 Z-zooms stand up to the task and resolve well across the frame for the 45mp sensor? Would my landscape application benefit from the f/2.8 version even if used at f/8?
-
At F8 the 24-70 F4 is competitive with most lenses out there.
If weight and cost are not a problem the F2.8 zoom will give you more options and, from what I've seen, better flare resistance. Bernard has both so I expect him to chime in.
-
I am looking into the Nikon Z7 for landscape photography. I don't need a fast lens. I am picky about sharp corners, though.
So here is my question: would the new 24-70 Z-zooms stand up to the task and resolve well across the frame for the 45mp sensor? Would my landscape application benefit from the f/2.8 version even if used at f/8?
My Z 24-70 f4 is sharper than my 28-70 f2.8, wide open and stopped down.
-
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48805201213_8b562ba81e_h.jpg)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48805695037_eb46e46424_h.jpg)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48805185536_189711d065_h.jpg)
Z7 + 85mm f1.8 S (3rd one is a handheld pano stitch)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
The extreme corners can have issues on the 24-70/4 at many focal lengths, even stopped down. There can be significant field curvature as well as the usual slight alignment misses. It's not easy to quickly describe since there are so many variables--focal length, aperture, focus distance, sample variation. The 14-30/4 is quite complex to evaluate as well. Definitely field curvature at the long end stopping down. I've tested it as generally better than the 24-70/4 for edge-to-edge landscape shooting, but I imagine most copies (like mine) have a few slightly soft corners throughout the zoom range. It's the reality of zooms and 45+MP sensors.
What's your reference point? "Sharp" means very different things to different people today. If you're comparing against high performance modern primes (Zeiss, Sigma Art, etc) you'll probably find the corners lacking and the complex focus locus of the f4 twins frustrating. That may be true for every midrange zoom available today though...
-
Nine Lives Lost. Z7, 50mm S, ISO 64, f/1.8 @ 1/30 sec.
(http://www.keithlaban.co.uk/Nine_Lives_Lost.jpg)
-
Nine Lives Lost. Z7, 50mm S, ISO 64, f/1.8 @ 1/30 sec.
Great image.
I am pretty sure he lived the first 8 fully.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Thank you, Armand, Bill, and John. To summarize: the 24-70 f/4 is better than most mid-range zooms. But when it comes to sharp corners even stopped down to f/8, it depends ...
You are asking about my reference, John. I currently use the little Sigma Merrills for landscape, in particular the DP2. Nicely clean images, good even sharpness across the whole frame. (I stopped using the DP1 as the corners are somewhat weak, at least with my copy).
So if I move to the Z7 to gain a larger shooting envelope, I need lenses that will not make me miss my DP2. A mid-range zoom would be very practical - as long as it does not make me cringe at its corners. From what you say, the 24-70 f/4 version does not seem to be a reliable candidate.
But maybe the 24-70 f/2.8 is. What would you say from your experience, Bernard?
-
Great image.
I am pretty sure he lived the first 8 fully.
Cheers,
Bernard
Thanks Bernard.
As a cat lover, I do hope so.
-
But maybe the 24-70 f/2.8 is. What would you say from your experience, Bernard?
My copy of the f2.8 is totally outstanding. Although I personally found the f4 very good too except for it’s complex distorsion, the f2.8 has no obvious weak point. As we speak it’s IMHO the best transtandart pro zoom ever released.
I would only shoot with it if the primes weren’t even better.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Thank you, Bernard. That sounds encouraging.
-
Here's a test shot I took at 35mm, f8, focused dead center on the pair of trees slightly left of the church. Opened in Capture 1, sharpening amount 150 with .8 radius. Distortion, CA, and vignetting profiles all applied.
The top left is a good corner, the bottom right is one of the poor corners on this copy.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/792u44qvjrm06bt/35mm.jpg?dl=0
I think the 24-70/4 was primarily designed for walkaround performance, compactness, and price. It's a success on all three. In particular, the bokeh is exceptional for a midrange zoom. The point of focus will be quite sharp, particularly stopped down to f5.6. In a strenuous test though, corner-to-corner across the entire frame, it doesn't deliver all the z7 can do.
Note that if you're cropping to 16:9 or 4:3, the extreme corners will be cropped out and gone.
-
As an aside, I'm not a zoom kind of guy, up until a few weeks ago I'd never even owned one. I've also never been a fan of the unnatural perspective of super-wide prime lenses. That said I'd have killed for a truly compact and lightweight wide zoom in the range 18-24mm that delivered excellent performance. It wouldn't have needed to be fast, I'd be using it for cramped interiors - my Abandoned Lives series - usually in the f5.6 to f11 range.
When I bought into Nikon Z I'd planned to wait for the Nikon 20mm S lens - I'd previously been using the Leica 21mm Super-Elmar ASPH on Leica M, a superb lens - but against my better judgement and being impatient decided to buy the Nikon 14-30mm f/4 S.
I'm still not a super-wide fan, but in the 14-30 have found that truly compact and lightweight 18-24mm wide zoom delivering excellent performance!
Thank you, Nikon.
-
As an aside, I'm not a zoom kind of guy, up until a few weeks ago I'd never even owned one. I've also never been a fan of the unnatural perspective of super-wide prime lenses. That said I'd have killed for a truly compact and lightweight wide zoom in the range 18-24mm that delivered excellent performance. It wouldn't have needed to be fast, I'd be using it for cramped interiors - my Abandoned Lives series - usually in the f5.6 to f11 range.
When I bought into Nikon Z I'd planned to wait for the Nikon 20mm S lens - I'd previously been using the Leica 21mm Super-Elmar ASPH on Leica M, a superb lens - but against my better judgement and being impatient decided to buy the Nikon 14-30mm f/4 S.
I'm still not a super-wide fan, but in the 14-30 have found that truly compact and lightweight 18-24mm wide zoom delivering excellent performance!
Thank you, Nikon.
I’d second this. For the price and size, the 14-30 is outstanding.
Additionally, for video use on the Z7 in ASPC/Super 35 mode, it stands up to any wide angle zoom I’ve ever used.
-
Here's a test shot I took at 35mm, f8, focused dead center on the pair of trees slightly left of the church. Opened in Capture 1, sharpening amount 150 with .8 radius. Distortion, CA, and vignetting profiles all applied.
The top left is a good corner, the bottom right is one of the poor corners on this copy.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/792u44qvjrm06bt/35mm.jpg?dl=0
I think the 24-70/4 was primarily designed for walkaround performance, compactness, and price. It's a success on all three. In particular, the bokeh is exceptional for a midrange zoom. The point of focus will be quite sharp, particularly stopped down to f5.6. In a strenuous test though, corner-to-corner across the entire frame, it doesn't deliver all the z7 can do.
Note that if you're cropping to 16:9 or 4:3, the extreme corners will be cropped out and gone.
Thank you, John. That was very helpful! For my photography, the lower right corner would be of concern.
-
Here's a test shot I took at 35mm, f8, focused dead center on the pair of trees slightly left of the church. Opened in Capture 1, sharpening amount 150 with .8 radius. Distortion, CA, and vignetting profiles all applied.
The top left is a good corner, the bottom right is one of the poor corners on this copy.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/792u44qvjrm06bt/35mm.jpg?dl=0
I think the 24-70/4 was primarily designed for walkaround performance, compactness, and price. It's a success on all three. In particular, the bokeh is exceptional for a midrange zoom. The point of focus will be quite sharp, particularly stopped down to f5.6. In a strenuous test though, corner-to-corner across the entire frame, it doesn't deliver all the z7 can do.
Note that if you're cropping to 16:9 or 4:3, the extreme corners will be cropped out and gone.
Run it one time through Topaz Labs' Sharpen AI.
-
https://www.ephotozine.com/article/nikon-nikkor-z-85mm-f-1-8-s-review-34020/performance
Another Otus like performance.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Like the bokeh of this 85mm lens.... - looks very nice.
-
Like the bokeh of this 85mm lens.... - looks very nice.
They will have a hard time selling the 85mm f1.2 considering how good the f1.8 is.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
They will have a hard time selling the 85mm f1.2 considering how good the f1.8 is.
Cheers,
Bernard
Bernard, did you mean the 50mm f/1.2 or do you believe there will be an 85mm f/1.2 any time soon?
-
Bernard, did you mean the 50mm f/1.2 or do you believe there will be an 85mm f/1.2 any time soon?
A rumored roadmap was leaked a few weeks ago with a 85mm f1.2 on it.
That makes total sense since Nikon is apparently going for at least a 2 line up primes strategy here:
- f1.8 S - uncompromised quality but lightweight
- f1.2 S - uncompromised
Besides, Canon has one... ;)
Btw, my guess is that they will add a third non S lineup of very compact pancake lenses that will not be up to S standard of quality, but this is just a guess.
Now, the 85mm f1.8 S is really incredibly good. I have a hard time thinking about any high end portrait application that wouldn’t be served optimally by this lens. I makes me have second thoughts about my GFX100 and 110mm f2.0... since I like the Nikon a little better overall. The compact and lightweights combo with the Z7 is really liberating for casual portrait work, and the results are mind blowingly good.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
A rumored roadmap was leaked a few weeks ago with a 85mm f1.2 on it.
That makes total sense since Nikon is apparently going for at least a 2 line up primes strategy here:
- f1.8 S - uncompromised quality but lightweight
- f1.2 S - uncompromised
Besides, Canon has one... ;)
Btw, my guess is that they will add a third non S lineup of very compact pancake lenses that will not be up to S standard of quality, but this is just a guess.
Now, the 85mm f1.8 S is really incredibly good. I have a hard time thinking about any high end portrait application that wouldn’t be served optimally by this lens. I makes me have second thoughts about my GFX100 and 110mm f2.0... since I like the Nikon a little better overall. The compact and lightweights combo with the Z7 is really liberating for casual portrait work, and the results are mind blowingly good.
Cheers,
Bernard
Hi Bernard, my 85mm came in a few weeks back while I was away and I haven't yet had the chance to use it. I bought it with my next trip to India in mind: can hardly wait!
So far I've found the 1.8 S lenses to be a good compromise regarding weight and size and without compromising my expectations of quality. Pleased as punch.
-
Glamour Wall. Z7, 50mm f/1.8 S.
(http://www.keithlaban.co.uk/Glamour_Wall2.jpg)
-
The 24mm f1.8 S was finally announced in Japan today (they have hired a new marketing person?) and will ship on 18-Oct.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
No sign of 70-200 :-(
-
No sign of 70-200 :-(
The sole maketing guy has devised a tactics that he announces the next lens the day of availability of the previous one.
He cannot do more from a bandwidth standpoint.
So either the 70-200 f2.8 or the 58mm f0.95 should be announced around Oct-18th. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
It looks like we will soon have an APS-C camera based on the Z mount.
https://nikonrumors.com/2019/10/02/nikon-z50-aps-c-mirrorless-camera-additional-information.aspx/
Nikon has apparently followed the Sony strategy in terms of using a single mount for FF and APS-C mirrorless bodies, which makes total sense. This means that FF Z lenses will most probably be usable on the Z50 (an interesting incentive for Z6/Z7 users looking for an even more compact body), but also that all the F mount DX and FF lenses will be usable also. It should make the migration from existing users to the mirrorless APS-C body a lot easier.
Another demonstration of the importance given by Nikon to the continued usage of legacy lenses.
This leaves Canon once again very isolated with they 4 incompatible mounts strategy.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
This means that FF Z lenses will most probably be usable on the Z50 (an interesting incentive for Z6/Z7 users looking for an even more compact body),
The Z7 has the same sensor density so it doesn't make much sense to get this body if you already have the Z7 and I doubt it will be that much smaller.
It has to be significantly cheaper to entice new buyers, lots of options out there now.
-
The Z7 has the same sensor density so it doesn't make much sense to get this body if you already have the Z7 and I doubt it will be that much smaller.
It has to be significantly cheaper to entice new buyers, lots of options out there now.
Indeed the rumoured price is far less than a Z7 or even Z6. I see it more as a far less expensive only camera, or a telephoto friendly partner to a Z6, rather than paired with a Z7.
I’m puzzled by the idea of a 20 MP sensor though, with 24-28MP the new mainstream.
-
It’s a great move to release an APSC sensor camera with the same mount. I have been saying so for ages with the Sony and most everyone argued against it as an advantage and most predicted the demise of APSC anyway.
It’s been painfully slow but Nikon’s mirrorless future is starting take shape quite nicely.
-
It’s a great move to release an APSC sensor camera with the same mount. I have been saying so for ages with the Sony and most everyone argued against it as an advantage and most predicted the demise of APSC anyway.
It’s been painfully slow but Nikon’s mirrorless future is starting take shape quite nicely.
For a manufacturer that sells both full-frame and APS-C cameras & lenses it is standard to use the same lens mount (e.g., Nikon's F-mount, Leica's TL mount).
-
It’s a great move to release an APSC sensor camera with the same mount. I have been saying so for ages with the Sony and most everyone argued against it as an advantage and most predicted the demise of APSC anyway.
It’s been painfully slow but Nikon’s mirrorless future is starting take shape quite nicely.
Unless they open the mount they won't catch Sony, probably ever. Look at how many lenses Sigma, Tamron and Zeiss released specifically for the FE mount. Some of those lenses are very attractive and I don't seen Nikon producing them anytime soon.
-
Unless they open the mount they won't catch Sony, probably ever. Look at how many lenses Sigma, Tamron and Zeiss released specifically for the FE mount. Some of those lenses are very attractive and I don't seen Nikon producing them anytime soon.
True, but my F to Z adapter works well for static or slow moving subjects so I already have access to the full portfolio of Sony FE mount lenses.
The thing being that I don’t see many I find that attractive. As of now mostly the 135mm f1.8.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I presume you meant FE to Z adapter.
I like some of the Tamron zooms which seem to offer good image quality in a reasonably sized package. Also some of the Zeiss primes.
-
I presume you meant FE to Z adapter.
Yes, sorry.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
(http://www.keithlaban.co.uk/Classic_Clunker.jpg)
Z7, 50 f/1.8 S.
-
Z7, 50 f/1.8 S.
I have that lens, but I don't take such nice photos as you. Do you think I have a defective copy ? 8)
-
I have that lens, but I don't take such nice photos as you. Do you think I have a defective copy ? 8)
Well, Oscar thought I might have a defective copy.
;D
-
I have that lens, but I don't take such nice photos as you. Do you think I have a defective copy ? 8)
You have not activated function a14? Automatic framing/timing/scene improvement?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
You have not activated function a14? Automatic framing/timing/scene improvement?
Cheers,
Bernard
My bad - I never read the manual :-(
-
I presume you meant FE to Z adapter.
I like some of the Tamron zooms which seem to offer good image quality in a reasonably sized package. Also some of the Zeiss primes.
The Sony 24 1.4 is a real gem. The Tamron 17-28 2.8 delivers much higher image quality for its size and weight. The new Sigmas produce amazing images., especially the 12-24 2.8, 35 1.2, 40 1.4 and 135 1.8.
I am particularly fond of the Batis line for travel...great image quality to weight ratio.
There is also huge amounts of manual focus glass being released specifically designed for the Sony mount.
I think it was a genius move by Sony to license the EF mount to 3rd party manufactures and us consumers are reaping the benefits.
-
The new Sigmas produce amazing images., especially the ...35 1.2...
I own a copy that I have been using on my Z7 through FE-Z adapter. I think it was a genius move by Nikon to design a mount shallow enough to enable usage of Sony FE mount lenses... ;) but the Z lenses so far have been superior so the appeal ends up being pretty limited for the focal lengths already available natively.
Anyway, back on the Sigma 35mm f1.2. My copy is pretty good, if not great, but be aware that there are many people strongly unhappy about their copies of this lens. Sigma seems to have some serious quality control issues with this one.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Interesting article!
https://m.dpreview.com/opinion/4682142293/when-fast-ish-is-fast-enough-in-praise-of-f1-8-lenses?utm_source=self-mobile&utm_medium=marquee&utm_campaign=traffic_source
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I own a copy that I have been using on my Z7 through FE-Z adapter. I think it was a genius move by Nikon to design a mount shallow enough to enable usage of Sony FE mount lenses... ;) but the Z lenses so far have been superior so the appeal ends up being pretty limited for the focal lengths already available natively.
Anyway, back on the Sigma 35mm f1.2. My copy is pretty good, if not great, but be aware that there are many people strongly unhappy about their copies of this lens. Sigma seems to have some serious quality control issues with this one.
Cheers,
Bernard
Yeh I have some Canon adapted lenses on my Sony's...but they suffer from reduced AF abilities. If one can live with this, adapting is fine...but for my needs, when I want AF I usually go native for both the better AF and also the less hassle of using adapters as well as the added adapter weight.
I use my Canon mount Zeiss lenses for landscapes...but in this situation AF is not an issue, the adapter stays on the camera and the added weight of the adapter is not a big deal for me since I'm shooting off a tripod.
-
It looks like it's coming...
https://nikonrumors.com/2019/10/07/nikon-z-noct-nikkor-58mm-f-0-95-lens-us-price-7996-95.aspx/
It makes the Otus 55mm f1.4 look like a mid range lens. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
It looks like it's coming...
https://nikonrumors.com/2019/10/07/nikon-z-noct-nikkor-58mm-f-0-95-lens-us-price-7996-95.aspx/
It makes the Otus 55mm f1.4 look like a mid range lens. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
I'd prefer the 50mm 7Artisans f/1.1 at £340!
-
I'd prefer the 50mm 7Artisans f/1.1 at £340!
Lighter, smaller, cheaper,... but not in the same league image quality wise.
From what I could see 7 months ago with the prototype, the Nikon could probably resolve 100mp in the corners wide open without displaying any CA...
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Lighter, smaller, cheaper,... but not in the same league image quality wise.
From what I could see 7 months ago with the prototype, the Nikon could probably resolve 100mp in the corners wide open without displaying any CA...
Cheers,
Bernard
But I wouldn't be buying an ultra fast 50 because it was sharp and well corrected: in fact quite the opposite.
-
I'm not saying I don't want to buy the Z 58mm Noct, but for that price, it better have zero, and I mean ZERO red/purple/green/cyan fringing, in or out of focus, even wide open, and needs to be sharp corner to corner at f/0.95.
Otherwise, why not wait for the 50 1.2 S? Speaking of 50mm lenses, I'm glad Voigtlander has announced a new 50mm f/2 APO for Sony users. Nikon users can use it with an adapter. Preferably a "dumb" adapter.
Bernard, did you actually record photos taken with the 58 noct? I didn't know the prototype was an actual functioning lens...
-
I'm not saying I don't want to buy the Z 58mm Noct, but for that price, it better have zero, and I mean ZERO red/purple/green/cyan fringing, in or out of focus, even wide open, and needs to be sharp corner to corner at f/0.95.
Otherwise, why not wait for the 50 1.2 S? Speaking of 50mm lenses, I'm glad Voigtlander has announced a new 50mm f/2 APO for Sony users. Nikon users can use it with an adapter. Preferably a "dumb" adapter.
Bernard, did you actually record photos taken with the 58 noct? I didn't know the prototype was an actual functioning lens...
No, I was not allowed to use my memory card, but I spend around 5 mins checking images at 200% in live view, mostly in the corners... and was very impressed.
I am not planning on buying one at the moment.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Tinged.
(https://www.keithlaban.co.uk/Tinged.jpg)
Z7, 50 S.
-
Nice! I like your "abandoned Life" series
-
Nice! I like your "abandoned Life" series
Thanks, John and thanks for looking.
-
Tinged.
(https://www.keithlaban.co.uk/Tinged.jpg)
Z7, 50 S.
Wonderful image.
The dripping lines evoke a bottle.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Wonderful image.
The dripping lines evoke a bottle.
Cheers,
Bernard
Thanks, Bernard.
These ruins are used as rubbish dumps. In order to capture the image I had to stand calf deep in rubbish which ironically included many bottles!
-
New Lens Roadmap.
Nikon Z Roadmap (https://www.dpreview.com/files/p/articles/0169695294/NIKKOR_Z_Lens_Roadmap_-_10.10.19.jpeg)
-
I wish they'd gone with a 35mm compact prime instead of 28mm & 40mm.
But I'll take the 40mm.
-
New Lens Roadmap.
Nikon Z Roadmap (https://www.dpreview.com/files/p/articles/0169695294/NIKKOR_Z_Lens_Roadmap_-_10.10.19.jpeg)
Yes, it looks pretty good, but...
- some clear timing would have been nice, it makes me think that the 70-200mm f2.8 is going to be late as rumored. This is an old finance trick to change the reporting format to avoid highlghting a drop of revenue... ;)
- I am a bit disapointed not to see a 85mm f1.2 on that roadmap as had been rumored (and 28/35mm f1.2 but I have the Sigma for that part).
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Wow... the list price of the 58mm f0.95 in Japan is nearly 3,000 US$ higher than in the US... at 1,265,000 Yen.
https://www.nikon-image.com/products/nikkor/zmount/nikkor_z_58mm_f095_s_noct/
It looks like they really don't want this lens to sell in large numbers... because I am sure that at 8,000 US$ in Tokyo they would sell many more than at 11,000 US$. I would bet that by this change they divide by a factor of 5 or more the number of people whose net monthly salary allows them to buy this lens. And this is a critical psychological barrier in japan.
Anyway, I'll save my cash for something else. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Wow... the list price of the 58mm f0.95 in Japan is nearly 3,000 US$ higher than in the US... at 1,265,000 Yen.
https://www.nikon-image.com/products/nikkor/zmount/nikkor_z_58mm_f095_s_noct/
It looks like they really don't want this lens to sell in large numbers... because I am sure that at 8,000 US$ in Tokyo they would sell many more than at 11,000 US$. I would bet that by this change they divide by a factor of 5 or more the number of people whose net monthly salary allows them to buy this lens. And this is a critical psychological barrier in japan.
Anyway, I'll save my cash for something else. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
And 2 kilograms!!!
-
And 2 kilograms!!!
I have been training with my 200mm f2.0, that is ok... ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I am a bit disappointed not seeing an S class 70-200/4.0 on the roadmap. I like the smaller 4.0's lenses on my Z6.
-
I am a bit disappointed not seeing an S class 70-200/4.0 on the roadmap. I like the smaller 4.0's lenses on my Z6.
Ditto!
-
I am a bit disappointed not seeing an S class 70-200/4.0 on the roadmap. I like the smaller 4.0's lenses on my Z6.
Yes, my thought on buying the Z7 was that it would be mostly used for landscapes and hence f4 would be sufficient. However, I have since been sucked into the world of f1.8 primes and thef 2.8 24-70, and so I expect I will be parting with some cash for the 70-200 f2.8 as well. From what I read (if not understand) the longer zooms will not benefit from the S mount so much, so an eventual 70-200 f4 S may not be much smaller than my current 70-200 f4 F with FTZ adaptor. We shall see ....
-
Jeremy, my understanding also that a 70-200/4 optical design would be no different for Z mount, and would end up very similar in size weight etc to the F mount version with FTZ adaptor on the back. So unless a Z mount version can AF better than an adapted lens, it’s probably a low priority — until F mount fades away
-
https://www.flickr.com/photos/nikonphotostream/48880420772
Remarkable bokeh. No visible traces of aspherical elements grinding marks I could find in oof highlights. Much better than the Otus. Simply beautiful, reminiscent of high end Zeiss motion picture glass at 25,000 US$ a pop for a small image circle.
It's huge, expensive,... but also probably the best lens ever designed... and, considering it's weight and the complexity of the design, it must be compared to the 200mm f2.0 of this world, and those will be about the same price when released next. Not un-reasonnable all things considered.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Not un-reasonnable all things considered.
Cheers,
Bernard
I think it's unreasonable.
-
I think it's unreasonable.
It’s probably unreasonable to buy it! ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
https://www.flickr.com/photos/nikonphotostream/48880420772
Remarkable bokeh. No visible traces of aspherical elements grinding marks I could find in oof highlights. Much better than the Otus. Simply beautiful, reminiscent of high end Zeiss motion picture glass at 25,000 US$ a pop for a small image circle.
It's huge, expensive,... but also probably the best lens ever designed... and, considering it's weight and the complexity of the design, it must be compared to the 200mm f2.0 of this world, and those will be about the same price when released next. Not un-reasonnable all things considered.
Cheers,
Bernard
It really does appear to be a remarkable lens. From what I see in these images it really does perform at f/.95. All the .95 lenses I’ve seen have been beautiful, but soft wide open. This seems different. Sharp and beautiful. If I had $8k doing nothing, I’d pre-order it today.
-
If I had $8k doing nothing, I’d pre-order it today.
+ 1000 ;)
-
If I had $8k doing nothing, I’d pre-order it today.
If you could find nine trustworthy LLers (besides yourself) you could all put up $800 and have the lens for five weeks a year...
-
It will be interesting to see what Nikon does with the 70-200... the canon RF version is quite small compared to the EF version!!
-
It will be interesting to see what Nikon does with the 70-200... the canon RF version is quite small compared to the EF version!!
It is, but it telescopes rather dramatically in use. Not necessarily a bad thing, I suppose, but I prefer a lens that stays the same size as it zooms or focusses.
-
Your correct... hm hoped for some magic. :)
-
It is, but it telescopes rather dramatically in use. Not necessarily a bad thing, I suppose, but I prefer a lens that stays the same size as it zooms or focusses.
Same here, the focus for a 70-200 f2.8 should be image quality, speed, robustness. A design that collapses is always a compromise and such a critical lens should IMHO not be compromised for serious usage.
Nikon and Canon were both right to make their mirrorless 24-70mm f2.8 non collapsable, while the Nikon 24-70mm f4 had to be collapsable. One line devoted to uncompromised quality/speed/robusness, the other line focused on compactness.
If I want compact I am willing to sacrifice on the aperture.
Besides, I see a clear lack of coherence in the design philosophy of R glass... the 24-70mm f2.8 is larger and heavier than it's DSLR counterpart, which I find crazy.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
The 24mm f1.8 S should arrive tonight btw.
Considering how good the 2 zooms already are at 24mm, I expect an amazing performer.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I read that Nikon is selling a case for the F0,95 lens for $900. Pelican case type of thing. A lot of money for a case I think. Good luck to whoever can afford the lens and it’s case but personally I think it’s crazy.
-
I read that Nikon is selling a case for the F0,95 lens for $900. Pelican case type of thing. A lot of money for a case I think. Good luck to whoever can afford the lens and it’s case but personally I think it’s crazy.
There are many things in this world that are way beyond my wallet: doesn't stop me wanting them.
:-(
-
I read that Nikon is selling a case for the F0,95 lens for $900.
I think Nikon is offering a case for $900... whether they are selling any at that price is an open question
Glenn
-
I read that Nikon is selling a case for the F0,95 lens for $900. Pelican case type of thing. A lot of money for a case I think. Good luck to whoever can afford the lens and it’s case but personally I think it’s crazy.
In the US, the Pelican style case and the hood are included in with the price of the lens.
-
The 24mm f1.8 S should arrive tonight btw.
Considering how good the 2 zooms already are at 24mm, I expect an amazing performer.
Cheers,
Bernard
First impression is wow. It reminds me the Otus 28mm f1.4.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
It'll be the 20mm that makes me spring for a Z7. Meanwhile, I'll just slave away with my boat anchor D800 and my phone.
-
First impression is wow. It reminds me the Otus 28mm f1.4.
Cheers,
Bernard
You’re making me thing even more that Nikon has made a great decision to offer good lenses at only moderate apertures, which can then work very well even wide open. After all, a lot (I’m not saying all) of the film-era need for “fast lenses” is what the nickname says: speed with the far more limited usable ISO speeds.
Today Stanley Kubrick could have shot that notorious candle-lit scene in “Barry Lyndon” with a perfectly standard off-the-shelf f/2 or slower lens, and it could have far lower aberrations etc.
-
You’re making me thing even more that Nikon has made a great decision to offer good lenses at only moderate apertures, which can then work very well even wide open. After. A lot of the film era need for fast lenses is what the name says: speed with the far more limited usable ISO speeds.
Today Stanley Kubrick could have shot that notorious candle-lit scene in “Barry Lyndon” with a perfectly normal f/2 or slower lens, and it could have far lower aberrations etc.
Exactly. Especially for wide lenses.
There are obviously exceptions, but I feel that a key motivation for manufacturers for pushing f1.4 wide lenses is to justify higher prices.
For all that matters, a 24mm f1.8 is 99% as useful as a 24mm f1.4 and in the present case, I feel that i beats most, if not all, 24mm f1.4 out there.
In combination with the Z7, it is a mind boggling combo for super high quality hand held shooting.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
...
Today Stanley Kubrick could have shot that notorious candle-lit scene in “Barry Lyndon” with a perfectly standard off-the-shelf f/2 or slower lens, and it could have far lower aberrations etc.
I am sure Kubrick would have loved to have shot his candle-lit scenes with the 58mm f0.95
-
Exactly. Especially for wide lenses.
There are obviously exceptions, but I feel that a key motivation for manufacturers for pushing f1.4 wide lenses is to justify higher prices.
For all that matters, a 24mm f1.8 is 99% as useful as a 24mm f1.4 and in the present case, I feel that i beats most, if not all, 24mm f1.4 out there.
In combination with the Z7, it is a mind boggling combo for super high quality hand held shooting.
Cheers,
Bernard
The Sony 24 1.4 is superb and I believe is smaller than the 24 1.8 from Nkon. Love to see a side by side test. For me, 24mm is a focal length where I could use 1.4 quite often indoors or darker markets.
-
I also love the 24mm...
I use the Fmount 1.8 nikkor and like its flat field at f1.8. Looking forward to use the 24mm S soon.
f1.4 is even better you are right.
What i do not like is focus by wire... in some cases focus has to stay put no matter what.
-
I am sure Kubrick would have loved to have shot his candle-lit scenes with the 58mm f0.95
Maybe, but not wide open. The only reason for the low aperture ratio was speed, using ASA100 film pushed to EI 200. Many cine-cameras have a base ISO speed of 800, so even at that optimal lowest EI, the scene would require a readily available T1.4.
Two people who would very much prefer 1.4 over 0.95 or 0.7 would be the cinematographer and the focus puller!
-
Maybe, but not wide open. The only reason for the low aperture ratio was speed, using ASA100 film pushed to EI 200. Many cine-cameras have a base ISO speed of 800, so even at that optimal lowest EI, the scene would require a readily available T1.4.
Two people who would very much prefer 1.4 over 0.95 or 0.7 would be the cinematographer and the focus puller!
Well, the focus puller fo sure! :)
-
Z7, 14-30 S @ 24.
(http://www.keithlaban.co.uk/Alcove.jpg)
-
There is a test of the new 24mm 1.8s lens here:
https://www.cameralabs.com/nikon-z-24mm-f1-8-s-review/
It seems it is another very nice lens...
-
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49071845238_77b8ec132c_h.jpg)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49071845278_d7d08709e6_h.jpg)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49072578577_3794ef593f_h.jpg)
Nikon Z6 + 85mm f1.8 S
I just love the way this lens renders images. There is a purity of color and rightness to them that is absolutely lovely. I would venture to say best in class. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Absolutely gorgeous Bernard!
-
Absolutely gorgeous Bernard!
Thanks!
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Absolutely gorgeous Bernard!
Agreed. These new Nikon lenses really do shine.
-
Agreed. These new Nikon lenses really do shine.
Indeed, the 50 and 85 S lenses in particular are exceptional. Hell, I even love my 14-30 S.
14-30 S @ 18mm.
(https://www.keithlaban.co.uk/Table_Light.jpg)
-
Indeed, the 50 and 85 S lenses in particular are exceptional. Hell, I even love my 14-30 S.
Keith,
Wonderful, great color. soft chromatics...
Peter
-
Keith,
Wonderful, great color. soft chromatics...
Peter
Thanks, Peter.
We were fortunate, we returned the next day to find the ruin had been secured.
-
Very nice indeed!
Cheers,
Bernard
-
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49081510606_5925a68d0e_k.jpg)
Nikon Z6 + 85mm f1.8S
Reposted at original size without Flickr resizing.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Love it, Bernard!
-
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49081510606_e18905a2da_h.jpg)
Nikon Z6 + 85mm f1.8S
Cheers,
Bernard
Like the photo but it is highly oversharpened, making it look like a drawing..
-
Like the photo but it is highly oversharpened, making it look like a drawing..
Much depends on what is used to view the image. It looks somewhat over-sharpended and over-contrasty on my un-calibrated devices but perfectly fine on my workhorse, calibrated monitor.
This is one of the reasons I don't generally offer criticism based on web images, here or elsewhere.
-
Like the photo but it is highly oversharpened, making it look like a drawing..
Really? I have not applied any sharoenimg but the standard C1 Pro 12 standard web image sharpening I always use.
But the combination of the super sharp 85mm f1.8 S at f4 and this very detailed subject may call for less sharpening. I’ll double check.
Thanks for pointing this out.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
When I looked on my iPad it looked fine. On my 5k desktop display it looks quite harsh--not sure if the look is the same as oversharpened, but it's in the same family.
-
When I looked on my iPad it looked fine. On my 5k desktop display it looks quite harsh--not sure if the look is the same as oversharpened, but it's in the same family.
Thanks for checking and for the feedbacks!
Another thing is that this is a 1600px version generated by Flickr, no idea what resizing/sharpening they are using.
I double checked the original size ipad res image and I don't see any obvious sharpening halos.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Making an informed judgement on the image qualities of a web image when those image qualities are dependent on the viewing device is a fools paradise.
-
https://www.ephotozine.com/article/nikon-nikkor-z-24mm-f-1-8s-lens-review--34224/verdict
Significantly better than the Sony 24mm f1.4, same size, cheaper. The Sony being universally considered as an amazingly good lens in its own right.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48999959718_fe70046ab8_h.jpg)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
It may be that the upscaling getting done automatically is particularly unkind for this particular image. I downloaded and viewed it at native pixels and it's much better. But if I magnify it at all to fullscreen, it falls apart immediately.
Presenting images on the web is indeed a pain.
-
Making an informed judgement on the image qualities of a web image when those image qualities are dependent on the viewing device is a fools paradise.
I find sharpening to the point the image looks crispy is quite easy to see on any device. Yes things like colours are useless...but over sharpening is quite easy to see.
-
https://www.ephotozine.com/article/nikon-nikkor-z-24mm-f-1-8s-lens-review--34224/verdict
Significantly better than the Sony 24mm f1.4, same size, cheaper. The Sony being universally considered as an amazingly good lens in its own right.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48999959718_fe70046ab8_h.jpg)
Cheers,
Bernard
Let's not forget one is a 1.4 lens while the other is a 1.8 lens. Being the same size is really quite amazing.
-
I find sharpening to the point the image looks crispy is quite easy to see on any device. Yes things like colours are useless...but over sharpening is quite easy to see.
The viewing device will influence how a given image is rendered, in all respects.
-
The viewing device will influence how a given image is rendered, in all respects.
Sure, especially colours...but something that appears crunchy on my iPad...also appears crunchy on my calibrated work station. That image is crunchy on all devices I viewed it on.
I'd say the biggest difference between devices is colours, contrast and then possibly a distant sharpness.
-
I have reposted at the original size, without the Flickr resizing.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I just tested the S Nikkors 85 and 24mm f1.8.
Can only say these are very fine elegant lenses- wide open they are already excellent.
Wide open sharp with no colorfaults not even in the background and no coma.
Very nice bokeh, even the 24mm. I tested the 24mm against my 24mm f1.8 nikkor G.
Main difference, much better rendering of lights- no purple fringing at all.
On stopping down, the whole image is more uniform sharp and is free of chromatic errors.
I tested the 85mm against my sigma 85mm f1.4. This lens is inferior to the nikkorS at f1.8.
The Nikkor has more contrast, deeper colours and as said no chromatic problems- not even wide open- the OOF areas of the Sigma stay green till f4...
Only at infinity at f4 and smaller i like the Sigma better.
The Sigma is then more transparant and cleaner (but also more than twice the weight)
All in all the Nikon S system is growing in the right direction.
PS my 500mm reflex F8 lens has produced the sharpest foto's ever thanks to the IBIS on the Z7 - it is fun to be able to use these old lenses from the 70's.
-
I just tested the S Nikkors 85 and 24mm f1.8.
Can only say these are very fine elegant lenses- wide open they are already excellent.
Wide open sharp with no colorfaults not even in the background and no coma.
Very nice bokeh, even the 24mm. I tested the 24mm against my 24mm f1.8 nikkor G.
Main difference, much better rendering of lights- no purple fringing at all.
On stopping down, the whole image is more uniform sharp and is free of chromatic errors.
I tested the 85mm against my sigma 85mm f1.4. This lens is inferior to the nikkorS at f1.8.
The Nikkor has more contrast, deeper colours and as said no chromatic problems- not even wide open- the OOF areas of the Sigma stay green till f4... also it weighs a lot less.
Only at infinity at f4 and smaller i like the Sigma better.
The Sigma is then more transparant and cleaner.
All in all the Nikon S system is growing in the right direction.
PS my 500mm reflex F8 lens has produced the sharpest foto's ever thanks to the IBIS on the Z7 - it is fun to be able to use these old lenses from the 70's.
Yes, digital capture has given that venerable f8 reflex lens a new lease of life if only by freeing it from the shackles of 64 ASA films! I can now use a fast shutter speed with the thing.
-
http://www.sansmirror.com/lenses/lens-reviews/lenses-for-nikon-z/nikon-85mm-f18-s-lens-revie.html
Thom agrees that the 85mm f1.8 S is totally outstanding.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
http://www.sansmirror.com/lenses/lens-reviews/lenses-for-nikon-z/nikon-85mm-f18-s-lens-revie.html
Thom agrees that the 85mm f1.8 S is totally outstanding.
Cheers,
Bernard
I just read that, looks quite good! Too bad I don't really need it, those lenses have yet to come.
-
'Tis indeed a lovely lens.
-
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49230874077_55829b4c20_h.jpg)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49230647881_17f016cffb_h.jpg)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49230873907_32050a0dec_h.jpg)
Nikon Z7 + 24-70mm f2.8 S
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I had a chance to shoot with the 24-70 f/2.8 S last week... very impressive performance. I did some focus stacking and the focus breathing (in the 28-40 mm) range was minimal.
-
Anyone have any experience with the 14-30 f4?
-
Anyone have any experience with the 14-30 f4?
Peter, see below for a reply I prepared earlier.
As an aside, I'm not a zoom kind of guy, up until a few weeks ago I'd never even owned one. I've also never been a fan of the unnatural perspective of super-wide prime lenses. That said I'd have killed for a truly compact and lightweight wide zoom in the range 18-24mm that delivered excellent performance. It wouldn't have needed to be fast, I'd be using it for cramped interiors - my Abandoned Lives series - usually in the f5.6 to f11 range.
When I bought into Nikon Z I'd planned to wait for the Nikon 20mm S lens - I'd previously been using the Leica 21mm Super-Elmar ASPH on Leica M, a superb lens - but against my better judgement and being impatient decided to buy the Nikon 14-30mm f/4 S.
I'm still not a super-wide fan, but in the 14-30 have found that truly compact and lightweight 18-24mm wide zoom delivering excellent performance!
Thank you, Nikon.
(https://www.keithlaban.co.uk/Oven_Chios.jpg)
-
Based on the new map it seems the Z 14-24 F2.8 will be as big as the 24-70 F2.8. I still hope it will be lighter but probably won't.
That means my hopes to have something similar to the Sony 16-35 F2.8 are misplaced; it's a pity because I thing the 16-35 range is more versatile and at 680g is significantly lighter too. It splits the difference between the Nikon's Z lenses, 14-30 F4 @ 480g and 14-24 F2.8 @800g?, while it can be used as a standard lens with the max 35mm (even if it's not the sharpest there) and 16mm is wide enough for most shots.
-
Peter, see below for a reply I prepared earlier.
(https://www.keithlaban.co.uk/Oven_Chios.jpg)
That's a cracking shot!
Rob
-
Bernard the sky photos are very nice ; no1 especially... indeed beautiful contrast.
and very nice interior Keith- still glad it is not my home....
-
That's a cracking shot!
Rob
Thanks, Rob. With a subject like this you're more than half way there already.
Bernard the sky photos are very nice ; no1 especially... indeed beautiful contrast.
and very nice interior Keith- still glad it is not my home....
Indeed, Pieter, looks rather like a William Blake depiction of hell.
;-)
-
I just encountered some issues with the auto vignette correction on the Z lenses. If the file is pushed a little more for creative purposes, I notice the vignette correction is not that smooth, at all. See the attached example where I pushed the file more than usual to make it more obvious. Playing with manual vignette correction in LR doesn't entirely fix it because is not gradual.
-
I just encountered some issues with the auto vignette correction on the Z lenses. If the file is pushed a little more for creative purposes, I notice the vignette correction is not that smooth, at all. See the attached example where I pushed the file more than usual to make it more obvious. Playing with manual vignette correction in LR doesn't entirely fix it because is not gradual.
LR should be able to develop without the corrections in the NEF... as C1 does. alas.
-
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49410876242_c91fc3a671_h.jpg)
Nikon Z7 + 24-70mm f2.8 S
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Nice! Funny, I couple of hours after I saw your shot I went out for a quick photo session and got into this shot. Not as nice as yours though.
Z7 + 24-70 F4, 70mm @ F8, ISO 64
-
Nice! Funny, I couple of hours after I saw your shot I went out for a quick photo session and got into this shot. Not as nice as yours though.
No... :) but still very nice!
You were using the f4 version, that must be why. :o
Another one for the road. I love the new black control in Capture One Pro 20. That really helps with subtle shadow tones like those in the backlit hull here.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49415819016_a664b2797f_h.jpg)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Peter, see below for a reply I prepared earlier.
(https://www.keithlaban.co.uk/Oven_Chios.jpg)
Thanks to you AND Nikon, then. :)
-
https://www.dxomark.com/nikon-nikkor-z-24-70mm-f-2-8-s-review/
The Nikon 24-70mm f2.8 S is considered by DxO as the best 24-70mm f2.8 on the market.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Anyone have any experience with the 14-30 f4?
I've been shooting the 14-30 for several months now. It was the lens I needed to make the Z work for me. I certainly like it better size-wise over my 14-24 Nikkor and it's much, much better when it comes to issues with flare.
For several years, I was shooting m43 and the Panasonic 7-14. Love the size/weight of the lens, but kept on waring out the bodies and was having to buy a couple of bodies each year as I broke or wore them out. Low light was always an issue, but size/weight was lovely.
Now shooting with a pair of Z6 bodies and both the 24-70 and 14-30 f/4 due to weight/size since I keep getting older each year :-) Love the image quality in the low light I normally shoot in despite using f/4 lenses. I seem to always work in tight spaces and sometime find that even the 14mm is a little too long but not too often.
Here's a few examples of images shot with the 14-30mm, landscape, group, dark and tight spaces, most shot at the wider end and usually under "hail Mary" lighting which I seem to prefer.
The first was into the sun and the star looks pretty good to me. That and the next were at 14mm. The last two were about 20mm or so.
I do wish Nikon or someone would bring out a compact or "folding" 70-200mm f/4 lens so I didn't feel like a pack mule, though. It would be the third of a old-man's "holy trinity" covering most basis, IMO.
-
I've been shooting the 14-30 for several months now. It was the lens I needed to make the Z work for me. I certainly like it better size-wise over my 14-24 Nikkor and it's much, much better when it comes to issues with flare.
For several years, I was shooting m43 and the Panasonic 7-14. Love the size/weight of the lens, but kept on waring out the bodies and was having to buy a couple of bodies each year as I broke or wore them out. Low light was always an issue, but size/weight was lovely.
Now shooting with a pair of Z6 bodies and both the 24-70 and 14-30 f/4 due to weight/size since I keep getting older each year :-) Love the image quality in the low light I normally shoot in despite using f/4 lenses. I seem to always work in tight spaces and sometime find that even the 14mm is a little too long but not too often.
Here's a few examples of images shot with the 14-30mm, landscape, group, dark and tight spaces, most shot at the wider end and usually under "hail Mary" lighting which I seem to prefer.
The first was into the sun and the star looks pretty good to me. That and the next were at 14mm. The last two were about 20mm or so.
I do wish Nikon or someone would bring out a compact or "folding" 70-200mm f/4 lens so I didn't feel like a pack mule, though. It would be the third of a old-man's "holy trinity" covering most basis, IMO.
Why don't you take the AF-P 70-300 instead of the 70-200 f/4?
-
Why don't you take the AF-P 70-300 instead of the 70-200 f/4?
I’m in a somewhat similar situation and I contemplated buying the 70-300 (I have the 70-200 F4) but weight wise you don’t lose that much, and you still have to use the FTZ adapter. The 70-300 with FTZ is 83% of the weight of the 70-200 with FTZ (and 87% of the length). In absolute terms 170g.
The main advantage would be the extra 200-300mm if you don’t need F4.
-
Why don't you take the AF-P 70-300 instead of the 70-200 f/4?
I'm lens poor and have too many (though I'm tempted in the 70-200 Z), including both the 70-200 and 80-200 2.8 in addition to the previous 70-300 and too many more... the man I mentor has the 70-300p he purchased for his D850 and I think he's using it on his Z7. I may have to go out shooting with him and give it a try.
Most of my work is wide-to short telephoto so for now when I need a little more reach I'm using the 24-120 on the FTZ along with the 70-200 and both are more than adequate though each new lens seems to takes a different size filter.
Oh for the days of the oid Nikon where 52mm filters were the king! :-)
-
I’m in a somewhat similar situation and I contemplated buying the 70-300 (I have the 70-200 F4) but weight wise you don’t lose that much, and you still have to use the FTZ adapter. The 70-300 with FTZ is 83% of the weight of the 70-200 with FTZ (and 87% of the length). In absolute terms 170g.
The main advantage would be the extra 200-300mm if you don’t need F4.
Good points. The length difference is 32mm. With some shoulder bags, it may be the difference of the lens fitting or not.
-
Peter, see below for a reply I prepared earlier.
(https://www.keithlaban.co.uk/Oven_Chios.jpg)
Thanks, Keith. I agree with Rob. A "cracking" shot. And a very tempting lens.
-
Thanks, Peter, appreciated.
-
Why don't you take the AF-P 70-300 instead of the 70-200 f/4?
The 70-300 AF-P is surprisingly good for the money! Highly recommended.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Lenstip has started to test the Nikon S line. First lens is the 35mm 1.8.
https://www.lenstip.com/
I like the way they test for they do it in a comparable fashion taking many points into account.
The test is not overall good; as discovered by myself using it - the lens corners are not great.
My 40mm Sigma is still my anchor point. In the corner the 40mm Sigma is better at f1.4 than the nikon lens at f5.6
https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1392&Camera=979&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=1215&CameraComp=1212&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=4
-
Yep, the 35mm f1.8 is probably the least impressive of the Z lenses so far.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Yep, the 35mm f1.8 is probably the least impressive of the Z lenses so far.
Cheers,
Bernard
Seems strange to me. Is compact or or have something else going for it?
-
Seems strange to me. Is compact or or have something else going for it?
I've had no complaints with my copy so far, but yes, given that the other Z lenses I own are exceptional then admittedly and by comparison the 35 is merely very good and certainly good enough for my needs.
;-)
I'm looking forward to getting the compact 40mm Z lens to compliment the compact Z bodies, when it's released.
-
Lenstip has started to test the Nikon S line. First lens is the 35mm 1.8.
https://www.lenstip.com/
I like the way they test for they do it in a comparable fashion taking many points into account.
The test is not overall good; as discovered by myself using it - the lens corners are not great.
My 40mm Sigma is still my anchor point. In the corner the 40mm Sigma is better at f1.4 than the nikon lens at f5.6
https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1392&Camera=979&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=1215&CameraComp=1212&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=4
Lenstip has very thorough reviews but in conclusion the price of the lens vs what they think it should cost determines half of their conclusion or more, regardless of absolute performance. From this point of view I prefer the reviews by opticallimits, unfortunately they are not testing the Z mount lenses yet.
-
Any thoughts on the new lenses?
The 20 F1.8 is bigger than I expected but the weight is in line with the 14-30 F4 at ~ 500g. I’m still figuring out the size of the yet to be announced 14-24 F2.8S, looks similar in length to the new 24-200 but with a bigger front element so likely heavier than 600g. Its smaller than the 24-70 F2.8S which weighs ~ 800g though.
The 24-200 is more interesting than I thought initially. IF it’s sharp, closer to wide open, then it can be a very good lens for backpacking/hiking where the focus is landscape and not wildlife. I probably won’t use something less than F8 anyway so the max F6.3 is more about bragging rights. Reminds of a story than Thom Hogan had on his site about a hike in Patagonia with Galen Rowell who had a small and cheap telephoto which was good enough though at F8 and it made it easier to hike further.
-
Test of the 50mm 1.8 S lens by Lenstip.
https://www.lenstip.com/577.1-Lens_review-Nikon_Nikkor_Z_50_mm_f_1.8_S_Introduction.html
Very positive review, although not perfect.
-
It looks like we have another winner with the Nikon Z 24-200.
https://nikonrumors.com/2020/03/02/nikon-nikkor-z-24-200mm-f-4-6-3-vr-lens-first-look-by-ricci.aspx/
It’s MTF is pretty astonishing for such a lens btw. Better than some primes not that long ago.
As a side comment, I’d be curious to compare results obtained by this lens on the Z7 to those of the LF camera and lens used by Hansel Adams for some of his best work back in the days at the respective typical working apertures... ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
It looks like we have another winner with the Nikon Z 24-200.
https://nikonrumors.com/2020/03/02/nikon-nikkor-z-24-200mm-f-4-6-3-vr-lens-first-look-by-ricci.aspx/
It’s MTF is pretty astonishing for such a lens btw. Better than some primes not that long ago.
As a side comment, I’d be curious to compare results obtained by this lens on the Z7 to those of the LF camera and lens used by Hansel Adams for some of his best work back in the days at the respective typical working apertures... ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
This bodes well for the future 24-105 S!
Glenn
-
A couple from the awful 14-30mm S... ;)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49669451667_cf6a93d46c_h.jpg)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49669451477_bd9a00c7e0_h.jpg)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49669165521_dd04221bdf_h.jpg)
Nikon Z7 + 14-30mm f4 S
Cheers,
Bernard
-
https://www.mobile01.com/topicdetail.php?f=248&t=6044194
Just WOW!
I thought it would be hard to best the Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 E FL (already by far the best 70-200mm f2.8 on the market), but the new S is significantly better. Just check the corner performance at 200mm f2.8... it’s simply a perfect lens.
Now we just need this lens to... ship. ;D
Btw I’ll receive my 20mm f1.8 S today.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
https://www.mobile01.com/topicdetail.php?f=248&t=6044194
Just WOW!
I thought it would be hard to best the Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 E FL (already by far the best 70-200mm f2.8 on the market), but the new S is significantly better. Just check the corner performance at 200mm f2.8... it’s simply a perfect lens.
Now we just need this lens to... ship. ;D
If I could actually go out and take photos I'd be quite fed up with the delay. As it is, I suppose it doesn't matter much :-(
-
If I could actually go out and take photos I'd be quite fed up with the delay. As it is, I suppose it doesn't matter much :-(
LOL
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Rumours of delivery of the 70-200 at the end of May. That will be a relief. I have a credit at my local camera shop from the sale of my F lenses and it’s been tempting to spend it on something else while waiting for Nikon to get their act together!!
-
Well... I'll believe it when I see it.
Nikon has been really doing a terrible job on this. It's been 3 months past the previous shipping date and zero communication about the reason for the delay or a new target.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Z7, 50 S
(https://www.keithlaban.co.uk/Ram.jpg)
-
Beautiful shot,,,, clean and to the point.
I also use my 50mm on a Z7 and love it.
regards
Larry.
-
Thanks, Larry, appreciated.
-
Z7, 50 S
(https://www.keithlaban.co.uk/The_Eternal_Sleep.jpg)
-
Where do you live?
-
Where do you live?
Surrey, UK, Planet Earth.
-
Lovely colours and "darkness" Keith, thanks for sharing. I had a further look at some of the others in the collection on your website. Thanks.
Alex
-
Alex, thanks for your comments, they are much appreciated.
-
The new 24-200 Z allegedly started to ship in some places, yet there is a paucity of first hand info. Does anybody know better, if all the hype is real (practically as sharp as the 24-70 F4, just slower)?
I'm trying to decide on a travel/hiking lens, and this might make the choice easier as I already have 3 systems. The m43 doesn't get used as much although it has a very good lens, the 12-100 F4, but I'm not convinced I want to invest in the E-M1 iii with Oly going belly up. For the Fuji I have the most lenses and will likely remain my go to to for city travel, while the 16-80 F4 doesn't seem to be that great for landscape (corners are quite bad), however if this Nikon turns out to be similar I would rather have the Fuji. My X-T2 it's just easier to use, just these days I had to set auto AE bracketing to be done in one shot on Z7, and the X-T2 makes it much easier. I'll probably upgrade to X-T4 at some point also.
-
The new 24-200 Z allegedly started to ship in some places, yet there is a paucity of first hand info. Does anybody know better, if all the hype is real (practically as sharp as the 24-70 F4, just slower)?
I'm trying to decide on a travel/hiking lens, and this might make the choice easier as I already have 3 systems. The m43 doesn't get used as much although it has a very good lens, the 12-100 F4, but I'm not convinced I want to invest in the E-M1 iii with Oly going belly up. For the Fuji I have the most lenses and will likely remain my go to to for city travel, while the 16-80 F4 doesn't seem to be that great for landscape (corners are quite bad), however if this Nikon turns out to be similar I would rather have the Fuji. My X-T2 it's just easier to use, just these days I had to set auto AE bracketing to be done in one shot on Z7, and the X-T2 makes it much easier. I'll probably upgrade to X-T4 at some point also.
I am also wondering if the Z 24-200 can match the Olympus 12-100. I have just purchased an E-M1.3, it is quite an improvement from E-M1.2. While Olympus' future is not 100% certain (nor was it before the sale announcement), IMO, it is far from given that it is going belly up. Since Olympus equipment is not run in a subscription model ;-), the camera will continue to work regardless of the camera department folding or continuing to innovate.
If it turns out that 24-200 does not play in the same league, M1.3 and Olympus 12-100 sound like an excellent city travel system.
There are some enthusiastic reports on forums about 24-200, but I have to test it by myself.
-
The new 24-200 Z allegedly started to ship in some places, yet there is a paucity of first hand info. Does anybody know better, if all the hype is real (practically as sharp as the 24-70 F4, just slower)?
I'd be interrested to know how this lens compares over the 70-200 range, with the existing F f4 lens and with some future Z f4 lens
-
I am also wondering if the Z 24-200 can match the Olympus 12-100. I have just purchased an E-M1.3, it is quite an improvement from E-M1.2. While Olympus' future is not 100% certain (nor was it before the sale announcement), IMO, it is far from given that it is going belly up. Since Olympus equipment is not run in a subscription model ;-), the camera will continue to work regardless of the camera department folding or continuing to innovate.
If it turns out that 24-200 does not play in the same league, M1.3 and Olympus 12-100 sound like an excellent city travel system.
There are some enthusiastic reports on forums about 24-200, but I have to test it by myself.
I thought that the Oly combo still has its advantages, but then I saw the attached shot and I’m not so sure anymore. It should have a much better stabilization system and contrary to general belief I’m not that impressed with the E-M5ii that I have.
-
I thought that the Oly combo still has its advantages, but then I saw the attached shot and I’m not so sure anymore. It should have a much better stabilization system and contrary to general belief I’m not that impressed with the E-M5ii that I have.
That shot just goes to show how compact the full frame Nikon Z 6 & 7 really are.
-
That shot just goes to show how compact the full frame Nikon Z 6 & 7 really are.
Or how big and bulky the Olympus system really is given it sensor size.
-
The overhead shot is a little deceptive; in hand my Z7 is noticeably larger and heavier than my EM1.2.
With the rumor of the Z7v2 having dual card slots, I fear it's also going to be the lightest of the line; the trend seems to be for camera models to slowly put on weight as they mature. I know given the backlash they had to do it, but it still makes me sad.
-
While it feels heavier for you, the weights are actually very close, both for the cameras only (the Oly is slightly smaller but denser) or for the lenses. I think they are within 50g. This is based on the specs from B&H.
-
The overhead shot is a little deceptive; in hand my Z7 is noticeably larger and heavier than my EM1.2.
With the rumor of the Z7v2 having dual card slots, I fear it's also going to be the lightest of the line; the trend seems to be for camera models to slowly put on weight as they mature. I know given the backlash they had to do it, but it still makes me sad.
Thankfully the Z7v2 won't increase the girth or heft of my Z7.
-
I have recently bought the 24-200mm for the Z7 and I am amazed by the performance and quality of bokeh of this lens.
Z glass is just incredible.
Cheers,
Bernard
If the positive impressions remain when more people have access to it I’ll get one for hiking/travel (many people seem to be interested as it is the second best selling Nikon Z lens on B&H). I think it makes most sense as a single lens, maybe also as part of 2 kit lens combined with a brighter prime.
However, while looking to the other side, as a part of 2 zoom lenses I think the newer Tamron 28-200 2.8-5.6 it’s preferable when combined with a wide zoom as it is brighter and almost identical weight. Pair it with something like 16-35 2.8 and you cover a lot of range while having some redundancy on the 28-35 range.
-
While it feels heavier for you, the weights are actually very close, both for the cameras only (the Oly is slightly smaller but denser) or for the lenses. I think they are within 50g. This is based on the specs from B&H.
Yeah, that's my point--it's more noticeable in practice, both in size and weight. Listed specs omit everything removable, from batteries to lens caps. Ready for shooting, the Z7 is +100g over the EM1.2 on the camera alone, and +200g with the 24-70/4 versus the Oly 12-40/2.8. I don't like shoulder mounting the Z7 combo like I did the Oly.
-
review on Lenstip.com about the new S 20mm 1.8 nikkor.
https://www.lenstip.com/index.php?test=obiektywu&test_ob=587
summary : very good lens, much better than the 24mm wide open.
problems: distortion, vignetting and bad coma.
PS
just saw again the review of the lens on Camera labs
https://www.cameralabs.com/nikon-z-20mm-f1-8-s-review/2/
It is very interesting - they have different opinions on longitudinal aberration , coma... to name some.
don't know how to explain that; copy difference? I do know it is difficult to test a lens.
PS2 https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-z-20mm-f1-8-s
They say coma is perfect: even for astrophotography wide open...
very favourable review. A much better lens than the 24mm 1.8s they all say.
Wide angle lenses especially may have particular behaviour. Coma can be different close to infinity par example.
-
Dust to Dust. Z7, 50 S.
(https://www.keithlaban.co.uk/Dust_to_Dust.jpg)
-
Just had the 24-70 F2.8S here for a weekend: very good lens- if you have a good copy; mine was a bit decentered from 24-35mm...
Still: the Sigma 40mm f1.4 ART blows it out of the water at f1.4 and every other aperture...
There goes nothing above a decent fixed focal. So i would choose the very good 24-70mm F4 zoom for my light, quick and dirty needs.
The 85mm 1.8S is the best of the bunch i have used so far.
-
I'd be interrested to know how this lens compares over the 70-200 range, with the existing F f4 lens and with some future Z f4 lens
This lens coupled with a Z6 should make a fantastic video combination. Very little focus breathing and certainly sharp enough for 4K. Not a whole lot bigger when retracted than the 24-70F4 kit lens. Never having to change lenses is pretty tempting.
-
I lucked out a couple of weeks ago and found a 24-200mm on eBay from a US dealer purchasing it. Of course I found a second-hand copy five minutes later from another trusted seller for a hundred less, but oh, well. The prelim impressions I've read elsewhere seemed favorable so I figured that even if the lens was a dud for me, eBay would come to the rescue.
Though I have some stellar lenses to shoot with my Z 6, I need something for travel since I'm getting older and more lazy combined with ever restrictive baggage standards when flying opens up again. In addition, I'm a long-time user of all-in-one lenses, some were good, others better. a few not so good. On full-frame, it was the latter that seemed the rule. My few years shooting m43 cameras, the all-in-ones were quite good IMO and the image quality was quite good. The main complaint I had working with m43 were that low-light, the images were not quite there and processing the files took a lot of work.
Shooting Nikon digital for nearly 20 years, it was time to return to files that gushed quality now that they had both mirrorless, smaller bodies and work-horse lenses that fit my style and the ability to transition from my existing lens collection as the gaps are filled with Z replacements.
For my D800 bodies, my lens of choice is a 24-120. Not a highly-rated lens but with good craft, it covers most of my needs except ultra wide. I tried a 28-300 and though it was similar in range to a 14-150 on my m43, it was simply too large and heavy to lug around and try to shoot hand-held to me. Otherwise, it's not a bad lens for an all-in-one. A 14-150 on an m43 is a very hand-holdable lens for me though a tripod is the best way no matter what the lens.
I would have continued with the m43 and had my eyes on that Oly 12-100, but after a fall that destroyed one body (and blew out my knee) and having another body fail a few months later with other m43 body failures along the way, combined with the realization that better tools were available, it was time to upgrade back to Nikon.
The size and weight of the 24-200mm seems about right for me and my style of work in the field which is akin to a run-and-gun approach. The speed of the lens is one little quibble. However, on the Z 6, it's still a useable range and reasonable compromise in keeping the size and weight quite reasonable.
I've only been out a couple times with the combo due to the pandemic. When I'm out, I shoot a second Z 6 with usually a 14-30 (less flare and weight than my 14-24) and now have what seems to me a perfect pairing for my next journey. The 24-200 will replace my 24-70 f/4 and 70-200 f/4 for walk-around and travel where size/weight/portability are a major factor.
Regarding image quality, this lens in quite competent. It covers a fairly useful range and with 24 mp on the Z 6, it's hard for me to find too many issues when the ink hits the paper. I've used it at each end and in the middle and images are totally fine. I've tried it wide open and stopping it down (with diffraction control enabled) and the images are fine, other than the usual sensor dust issues once the lens is stopped to f/11 or smaller.
Perhaps on a Z 7 any warts with the 24-200mm would be apparent, but on a Z 6, it's hard to find much wrong. Perhaps if I valued numbers and pixel peeping, I wouldn't like it but my criteria is more pragmatic than theoretical and analytical.
Here are a few images shot with it and a few of the details:
Pond grass-130mm f/13. Highway-200mm f/9.5. Cemetery-34mm f/8. Old store: 160mm f/6.7.
As my editor would state (this lens) meets the mark of adequacy and I might add, does a pretty good job for what it is. If this is a lens one desires, I can recommend that it's worth trying to find one and get it, but be patient!
-
Thanks, Larry. Getting a little more keen on this lens and body combo.
Trouble is, I'm gonna need a new computer to handle the video files. :(
-
https://youtu.be/2Moy-5OqaZg
As expected, it appears that the two new teleconverters associated with the 70-200mm f2.8 S redefine the level of quality attainable with such combinations.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Just heard from my photo dealer (Wex, UK) that they have my 70-200 and they are shipping it soon. Great news (if it's true!!)
-
Just heard from my photo dealer (Wex, UK) that they have my 70-200 and they are shipping it soon. Great news (if it's true!!)
Congrats!
I just got mine and the x1.4.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I have the f-mount 70-200 that I used with my Nikon DSLRs, but when I put it on the Z6 with an adapter it was sort of a pain in the ass, a bazooka. All by itself, it was too much on the small body, for me, and the Z f2.8 version was pretty much the same size. Anyway, I started reading a lot of reviews about the 24-200 and they somewhat put me off. I also already had the 24-70 f4, and finally decided (after some thought) to go with the newer version of the Nikon f-mount 70-300 with the adapter. The lens is actually pretty light and compact, gets good reviews, and has a little more reach. I hope it'll work as a travel pack with the 24-70. (I would have preferred S-glass in a 70-200 f4, but, I think it could be years before we see that.)
-
Congrats!
I just got mine and the x1.4.
Cheers,
Bernard
Just arrived - oh boy - really impressive piece of engineering and manufacture. Too soon for test shots but fantastic to hold and very fast focus.
-
This thread and the connected experiences of others have convinced me (and those same others) to begin the selloff of nearly all our F mount gear.
Thanks for all the info, esp. Bernard.
-
review on Lenstip.com about the new S 20mm 1.8 nikkor.
https://www.lenstip.com/index.php?test=obiektywu&test_ob=587
summary : very good lens, much better than the 24mm wide open.
problems: distortion, vignetting and bad coma.
PS
just saw again the review of the lens on Camera labs
https://www.cameralabs.com/nikon-z-20mm-f1-8-s-review/2/
It is very interesting - they have different opinions on longitudinal aberration , coma... to name some.
don't know how to explain that; copy difference? I do know it is difficult to test a lens.
PS2 https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-z-20mm-f1-8-s
They say coma is perfect: even for astrophotography wide open...
very favourable review. A much better lens than the 24mm 1.8s they all say.
Wide angle lenses especially may have particular behaviour. Coma can be different close to infinity par example.
Lenstip uses dcraw to demosaic, i.e, it does not apply built-in profile corrections like Adobe's software. This may explain the differences.
-
This thread and the connected experiences of others have convinced me (and those same others) to begin the selloff of nearly all our F mount gear.
Thanks for all the info, esp. Bernard.
I think you won’t be disappointed by Z glass. The new 70-200mm f2.8 is a new benchmark. As a bonus it looks absolutely stunning.
Let’s hope that Nikon does with the Z6s/Z7s what they have been doing better than anybody else in the DSLR world in the past 12 years, release a killing AF system.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
It looks like the 50mm f1.2 and 14-24mm f2.8 will be announced in a few days.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
The 14-24 2.8 is reasonable on the weight, one of my main concerns. I do wish it was easier to overlap ranges (as in 15-30, 15-35) but I guess it will do. Now we have to see real life reviews.
-
The 50 1.2 S is way too heavy and bulky for my intended use. The upside is my wallet is happy.
-
The 50 1.2 S is way too heavy and bulky for my intended use. The upside is my wallet is happy.
Yes, it's a large lens. Not much heavier than the Canon RF 50mm f1.2, but significantly longer.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
The 14-24 2.8 is reasonable on the weight, one of my main concerns. I do wish it was easier to overlap ranges (as in 15-30, 15-35) but I guess it will do. Now we have to see real life reviews.
The MTF at 14mm f2.8 looks like that of a 300mm f2.8... amazing.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
The MTF at 14mm f2.8 looks like that of a 300mm f2.8... amazing.
Cheers,
Bernard
I’m most interested in vignetting wide open, and in corner to corner sharpness when stopped down.
-
I am really intersted in the new 14-24 mm. I still used the good old one. It has been a milestone lens.
what could be improve mechanically : weight, use of filters_ they have done it. Robustness we will have to see.
Optically: Flare, corner sharpness, and a bit clearer view (abberations).
Looking forward to see some serious testing of all these new pro S-lenses.
-
I am really intersted in the new 14-24 mm. I still used the good old one. It has been a milestone lens.
what could be improve mechanically : weight, use of filters_ they have done it. Robustness we will have to see.
Optically: Flare, corner sharpness, and a bit clearer view (abberations).
Looking forward to see some serious testing of all these new pro S-lenses.
I forgot, not much coma would be nice. The main reason for me would be astrophotography. I do very little of it but would like to do more; because I don't do it enough I don't feel like upgrading my basic Samyang 14 F2.8, but I can see investing in the 14-24 F2.8 vs 15-30 F4 just for this benefit.
-
I forgot, not much coma would be nice. The main reason for me would be astrophotography. I do very little of it but would like to do more; because I don't do it enough I don't feel like upgrading my basic Samyang 14 F2.8, but I can see investing in the 14-24 F2.8 vs 15-30 F4 just for this benefit.
The claims of optical excellence of Nikon has so far always been backed up by facts, so it seems reasonable to believe them when they claim that coma is low, at least by design.
The only question for me is whether they can manufacture these lenses according to spec, but I haven't heard of any particular complains about the quality of S lenses, they seem to be built to the highest standards.
So coma is very likely to be very low. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
We shall see.
Interestingly the Fuji 8-16 F2.8 is heavier and almost as expensive.
I think the main competition for it right now is the mirrorless Sigma 14-24 F2.8 which can be used with an adapter and the decrease in focus speed is less important for this focal range. It is heavier by 150g (805 vs 650), it might not be as good optically BUT if it's close enough than the huge price difference we'll gain a lot of customers.
-
A review of the 24-200 by Thom Hogan: https://www.zsystemuser.com/z-mount-lenses/nikkor-lenses/nikon-z-mount-lens-reviews/nikon-24-200mm-f4-63-lens.html
It's close to what I expected, if you don't pixel peep and use a 24MP camera it's fine, but you can do better with a little effort. It makes the point of waiting for the 24-105 F4 which would be a better fit with a 45MP sensor and get similar quality pixels up to ~ 150mm equiv.
As a side note I started to use more the 70-200 F4 with the FTZ adaptor and I think this is as heavy as I would be willing to carry for dedicate photo outings. I'm looking at the time when Nikon can release a 70-300Z that's as light or even lighter than the current 70-300. I'm willing to take F5.6 everywhere as it will likely be combined with the 24-70 F4 which will provide the F4 @ 70mm. Beyond that, for my landscape use I don't anything brighter than a F5.6.
-
I'm shooting the 14-30mm (since the middle of last year) and was lucky to grab a 24-200mm. Most of my experience with this scarce lens confirms all the good reviews I've read about it.
Comparted to my 14-24 2.8, the f/4 version is less prone to flare and shooting into the sun makes great stars at small apertures shooting landscape. My 2.8 even ghosted when the sun was behind me and forget about filters easily. The 14-24 2.8 was a great lens in its day on the F-system, IMO.
Since I'm older and hate packing as much stuff around, I opted originally to shoot with the 24-70 f/4 and 70-200 f/4 w/ftz adapted lenses and was quite happy until I lucked into the 24-200. That lens has replaced the other two though it's slow and the mid-to-long end compared to either.
For several years I was shooting m43 with a 14-150 and a 7-14. The IQ was fine and the video easy to do with that system and the size and weight were liberating! But out of 6-7 bodies I shot during these 4-5 years, only three are still working as they all had issues of one kind or another and several died. The build of the bodies just isn't as good as any of my Nikon bodies... And then there's the low-light I'm always shooting under. The files took a lot of work but still the photos came out fine. So I found that it was time to upgrade back to a more robust platform, though size and weight increased in the equation.
Now with a pair of Z 6 bodies and two lenses, I'm a very happy camper! Both lenses are more than capable of great image quality for 24mp and I'm not missing the higher res of the 800-810-850 and Z 7 bodies. I'd love it if the Z 6 had a sensor-shift like the Olympus EM-5 II which worked great when I needed more pixels for a few shots now and then, but overall, the 24mp files I get is pretty darn nice overall. I'd like a little more speed with my lenses, but even shooting higher ISOs, the IQ is fine even with these slower lenses. It's a little sacrifice for smaller and lighter hardware.
I've printed up to 60x40 with the Z 6 and have made some larger prints with the newer 24-200. I probably wouldn't image quality issues doing a 60x40 from it from what I've seen so far.
This week, I went retro on one Z 6 shooting with a vintage Elmarit-M 28mm f/2.8 zone focused and high-tech on the other with the 24-200. A small family vineyard and a hand-harvest of the grapes was my domain from the morning until early afternoon. It was nice simply putting both bodies on A, setting the ISO for "Tri-X" and just shooting away. At the end of the day, I was covered with dust and the grape juice from picking leaves from the bins crated a layer of mud on both cameras. I was perpetually blowing the dust off the front elements of both!
From the day's shooting 1/3 got tagged and overall, about 10% made the loose edit. From there seven rose to the top and five were from the Elmarit-M set for point-and-shoot. The other two were with the 24-200 at either end of the focal length. Overall, I was pleased with the results.
Since getting the 24-200, it has seldom come off the Z 6. I've photographed a few weddings, all outdoors, a baptism and betrothal, both starting outside then continuing into a historic church with a dark interior, photographed lots of landscape and fall colors in the Sierra Nevada. So far, little not to like about this lens and the 14-30. I've seldom used a tripod with the image stabilization with either lens, making me more mobile. I wish the 24-200 had a little more reach, like on my m43 all-in-one zooms, but I've got the long covered with the FTZ and lots of glass from years shooting the Nikon F system.
And then there's the ability to use nearly any vintage lens on the Z bodies is such a great joy especially this week's shooting with a nearly 40 year old lens and other opportunities I've taken shooting Leica glass from the 1950s that hasn't aged too well! Yet, with the key focal lengths now covered, many with redundancy and longer lenses on the way, it's down right fun again to go out and shoot!
-
Great post, Larry. Thanks. I'm torn between a Z6 and a Z7 and you're providing a lot of valuable experience. There are a lot of pros and cons.
Z6: I have an HP Z3200 that loves printing large. I'm a retired cinematographer drooling over the video Z6's capabilities. Low light is fun and the Z6 rules here. Stitching gives me basically free megapixels. I'll nearly always have a tripod with me because video. Z6 is nearly a grand cheaper, ie I get another lens for the same dollars as a Z7.
Z7: My D800's sold me on the value of lots of pixels; the extra cropping available from the Z7 means that I'm getting a "free" tele. Video is much improved with the "II" version.
The 24-200 looks like the perfect all round video lens. Can you MF with It? In my experience, "focus-by-wire" has been impossible in the past.
-
Good review of the 24-200: https://www.cameralabs.com/nikon-z-24-200mm-f4-6-3-vr-review/
Kind of F8 and be there. I thought the winner of the review was actually the Tamron 28-200, particularly if you have another lens to cover the 24mm and you can leave a stop or two of stabilization on the table. Now they only have to make it available in Z mount with a decent focus.
-
Testing the 85mm 1.8 Z. On a Z7.
F 1.8
(https://armandtanase.zenfolio.com/img/s/v-10/p4051923397-5.jpg)
(https://armandtanase.zenfolio.com/img/s/v-10/p4051923378-5.jpg)
(https://armandtanase.zenfolio.com/img/s/v-10/p4051923478-5.jpg)
(https://armandtanase.zenfolio.com/img/s/v-10/p4051923376-5.jpg)
(https://armandtanase.zenfolio.com/img/s/v-10/p4051923379-5.jpg)
F 2
(https://armandtanase.zenfolio.com/img/s/v-10/p4051923480-5.jpg)
(https://armandtanase.zenfolio.com/img/s/v-10/p4051923403-5.jpg)
F 5.6
(https://armandtanase.zenfolio.com/img/s/v-10/p4051932057-5.jpg)
F 8
(https://armandtanase.zenfolio.com/img/s/v-10/p4051932058-5.jpg)
-
Very nice!
I am just in love with the rendering of this lens and you are putting it to very good use.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I've been working with the AF-P 70-300 f4.5-5.6E with the FTZ and find it to be quite good and manageable. I have an F-mount 70-200 f2.8, and the 70-300 is a hair shorter even with the FTZ, and far lighter. (The f2.8 with an FTZ is a bazooka.) What I really want, I guess, is an f4 70-200 in an S lens, but it doesn't look like Nikon is going that way, which is a shame. In any case, paired with the f4 24-70, the two lenses and a Z6 make a reasonably compact travel package. Thom Hogan reviews this latest 70-300 and finds it to be a good lens and a bargain at its price. Although an F-mount, it is fully compatible with the Z cameras with an FTZ.
-
I've been working with the AF-P 70-300 f4.5-5.6E with the FTZ and find it to be quite good and manageable. I have an F-mount 70-200 f2.8, and the 70-300 is a hair shorter even with the FTZ, and far lighter. (The f2.8 with an FTZ is a bazooka.) What I really want, I guess, is an f4 70-200 in an S lens, but it doesn't look like Nikon is going that way, which is a shame. In any case, paired with the f4 24-70, the two lenses and a Z6 make a reasonably compact travel package. Thom Hogan reviews this latest 70-300 and finds it to be a good lens and a bargain at its price. Although an F-mount, it is fully compatible with the Z cameras with an FTZ.
Totally agree! I don't understand why Nikon hasn't included a collapsible 70-200mm f4 in their roadmap. That's really the only obvious shortcoming.
I use the 70-300mm also and share your views.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I'm about to finally upgrade to the Z-mount system after 40+ years using F-mount (OMG - has it been that long?!)
Would love to get some thoughts on my initial Z lineup to use on a Z7II (thank you NPS...)
- 14-24/2.8S - Prefer to have the reach down to 14 rather than the one-trick 20/1.8S and 24/1.8S. May add the 20 down the road.
- 35/1.8S - My go-to for environmental portraiture. Happy to give up a stop from the older 1.4
(I considered either the 50/1.8 or 50/1.2, but decided on neither for now. Not a big fan of the focal length. Considered the 50/1.2 as a replacement for my 58/1.4, but not sure it is worth the bulk/weight. And the 50/1.8 doesn't excite me although I'm sure its a solid performer)
- 85/1.8S - I'm hoping the grayed-out image in Nikon's timeline is an 85/1.2 which I'll buy in an instant, but in the meantime, this lens seems like a good one for medium portraiture.
- 70-200/2.8 - For longer portraiture and landscape/nature work.
I'll keep a few F-Mount outliers to use with the FTZ:
- 10.5/fisheye with the hood sawn off so it works on FF
- 50mm/1.2AI-S because of its painterly imperfections
- 58/1.4 because I need at least one nifty-fifty(eight)
- 105mm/1.4 because I don't see a non-Micro 105 in the Z roadmap yet (or better yet, bring back the 105/DC) (I'm quite surprised that there is no standard 105 in the roadmap unless they somehow managed to engineer a 105/Micro that works as well as a non-Micro for normal distances. THAT would be amazing!!!
- 105mm/2.8 Micro because the Micro hasn't been released in Z yet
- 200/2 because I need at least one lens that weighs 2900g!
(That leaves about 15 other F-Mounts to sell off along with my trusty D850)
Happy to receive any and all comments/suggestions. Thanks...
-
Totally agree! I don't understand why Nikon hasn't included a collapsible 70-200mm f4 in their roadmap. That's really the only obvious shortcoming.
I use the 70-300mm also and share your views.
Cheers,
Bernard
Yess!! A 70-200/4.0 with the same (or better) quality as the 24-70/4.0 would be a no brainer for me.
-
Given the chance in these difficult times my 35 S f/1.8 would probably be my go to full figure+ environmental portrait lens, although it is larger than I'd like. I'm awaiting the compact 28 and 40: we shall see.
I prefer the weight, size and reach of my 14-30 S f/4 to its larger and heavier cousin.
My 50 S is stunning but I tend to pair the 35 and 85. The 85 S f/1.8 is exceptional.
If I were you I'd definitely keep that 58 f/1.4!
Good luck, I'm sure you'll enjoy the Z series, but it's a big step: do try before you buy.
-
Your plans makes sense.
I am not in love about the 35mm f1.8 S, it’s the only Z lens that is not best in class or close to, while the 35mm f1.4 may have the nicest rendering. I would test if I were you.
One thing is sure, the 85mm f1.8 S is one of the nicest portrait lens ever designed and I am really not sure I’ll get the f1.2 (although I absolutely love the 50mm f1.2).
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I am not in love about the 35mm f1.8 S, it’s the only Z lens that is not best in class or close to, while the 35mm f1.4 may have the nicest rendering.
Bernard - Would you mind saying a bit more about this? I too love the rendering of the 35/1.4. I'm usually close to my subjects with their environment falling away softly in the background. From what I've read elsewhere (all subjective of course) each of the 1.8S lenses is superior to their 1.4F counterparts. Very curious to hear from you in what ways the S doesn't measure up. Do you continue to use the 1.4 with the FTZ?
Thank you.
-
What's missing from the Z lens range is truly compact FF lenses to go with the truly compact FF bodies.
In order to achieve fast and compact I'll probably have to go the manual focus route. Think M mount Voigtlander lenses.
-
Bernard - Would you mind saying a bit more about this? I too love the rendering of the 35/1.4. I'm usually close to my subjects with their environment falling away softly in the background. From what I've read elsewhere (all subjective of course) each of the 1.8S lenses is superior to their 1.4F counterparts. Very curious to hear from you in what ways the S doesn't measure up. Do you continue to use the 1.4 with the FTZ?
For the 35mm, in particular the bokeh feels less pleasant to me. In terms of resolution, CA,... it's better than the 35mm f1.4.
Unfortunately I don't own a copy of the FF 35mm f1.4 at this point.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
https://photographylife.com/nikon-z-lens-trinity
Cheers,
Bernard
-
IMO, the Nikon 70-200mm S f/2.8 lens is incredible. It is wicked sharp and has a style to it as well. It is one of those rare lenses that is just a pleasure to use.
-
With the GF100s and Sony Alpha1 just introduced, the specific optical qualities of the Nikkor Z lenses will be even more important to compete.
Z-lenses can only be used on Nikon Z-camera's because of the flange distance.
The Z-lenses really have to stand out, a difficult task since the competition is strong.
Probably it would do Nikon well to open up the Z-mount for third party lenses to be more attractive as an universal platform for all lenses, although it would cut a slice from their own lenses.
I know that Nikon is trying to save money to shut some offices. In the Netherlands Nikon Netherlands will shut down and merged into Nikon Benelux ( Belgium, Netherlands and Luxemburg)
That is too bad for me also for it was around the corner, the new office will be in Belgium.
-
The way I look at it lenses are the most important aspect of photography. Together with colors the qualities of the lens is what remains in the final product, the photograph.
All the mirrorless bodies are now more than good enough at everything, except electronic shutter when the a1 is very very far ahead of Canon and Nikon (that’s the only reason why I am buying one).
For the rest:
- Canon has mostly caught up in terms of DR
- Nikon has mostly caught up in terms of mirrorless AF. Canon is a bit better, Sony is significantly better. But to see these differences you need to zoom to the last 1% of performance and that won’t impact 99.9% of shooting situations that require AF. Not to mention the huge part of photography for which AF isn’t relevant at all
- Sony is catching up in terms of colors
It’s all about the lenses and Z is IMHO very clearly the best choice here.
It’s relatively easy as a photographer to buy a new body but the reality these days is that it’s going to be nearly impossible to tell what camera was used by looking at a photograph. On the other hand differences in lens “quality” will remain forever visible in an image.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
For me the fast electronic shutter is also something to like about the sony Alpha1. Flicker free is a nice feature if you make photographs at places with projections and badly dimmed led lights.
Would make my life easier together with the silent shutter. I understand it is 1/200 (and can do 1/32000s.)
-
An interesting review of the 14-30mm Z lens at lentip.com
https://www.lenstip.com/index.php?test=obiektywu&test_ob=599
-
For me the fast electronic shutter is also something to like about the sony Alpha1. Flicker free is a nice feature if you make photographs at places with projections and badly dimmed led lights.
Would make my life easier together with the silent shutter. I understand it is 1/200 (and can do 1/32000s.)
Sensor read out speed seems to be 1/240s and fastest possible flash sync speed in electronic shutter mode is set at 1/200s (1/400s with the mechanical shutter which is a new record also).
Cheers,
Bernard
-
For those still thinking that image quality is relevant to photography this test may be interesting:
https://m.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-z7-ii-initial-review/#iq
Looking at these results it looks it may have the best image quality among 35mm mirroless cameras. Add to this the lenses, in particular their best in class LoCA control, and the pro profiles of C1 Pro 21 and you end up with something pretty special.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
For those still thinking that image quality is relevant to photography this test may be interesting...
I am pretty sure most of us think that image quality is relevant to photography. The question usually is whether the incremental increase, if any, in image quality from a new piece of equipment is relevant to your photography. And then there is the inevitable cost/benefit analysis. Well, for most of us.
-
Well, after a few days on the merry-go-round of new cameras, trying all the scenarios I can think of on, I’m back to where I started, working with the Nikon Z7 II for now and waiting for Nikon to deliver me another step beyond where I’m at just now.
I believe that the GFX 100 S has better micro-contrast than the Z7 II can deliver, but all things considered, the Nikon’s haptics is (IMO) just a better bet for my work. The forthcoming Sony A1 is everything I believe should happen, yet for my kind of close-up work, it adds very little of what I need.
And I don’t see it in the GFX lenses, no matter what I have read, and I read Lloyd Chamber’s work religiously on these matters. For my money, I hear what Thom Hogan is putting out, that given a little time, Nikon has something in mind for us, perhaps later this year, that will be more up my alley. In my dream scenario, Nikon comes up with a top-of-the line mirrorless with all the trimmings and I purchase it… and love it.
In the meantime, I have learned that I need to get rid of some great equipment that I am not using, like my Sony FS5 camcorder with the raw upgrade, which is a beauty, but one I seldom use just now. I put it up on Ebay along with the Atomos Shogun Inferno that I use with it.
In summary, if I jumped, it would be on to the GFX 100 S and not the Sony A1 at this point. Yet, I’m not jumping, at least not today.
-
I am pretty sure most of us think that image quality is relevant to photography. The question usually is whether the incremental increase, if any, in image quality from a new piece of equipment is relevant to your photography. And then there is the inevitable cost/benefit analysis. Well, for most of us.
That may be the case but it isn’t reflected the least bit in photography forums.
Image quality is virtually not discussed at all, certainly not compared to AF.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
That may be the case but it isn’t reflected the least bit in photography forums.
Image quality is virtually not discussed at all, certainly not compared to AF.
Cheers,
Bernard
These days, given the incredibly high level of image quality of both cameras and lenses, I find myself more and more interested in the less than perfect image quality qualities delivered by various lens designs.
None of my Z lenses could have delivered the following image, although there are no doubt many who would be thankful they couldn't ;)
(https://www.keithlaban.co.uk/Covid-19_1.jpg)
-
That may be the case but it isn’t reflected the least bit in photography forums.
Image quality is virtually not discussed at all, certainly not compared to AF.
We probably hang out on different photography forums because most of the posts I see are about one aspect or another of image quality. Technical image quality.
-
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50901434861_e302722fd8_h.jpg)
Nikon Z6II + 70-200mm f2.8 S
Cheers,
Bernard
-
For those who own a ZII and haven’t installed firmware 1.1 yet, it’s pretty good.
Hard to say to what extent the actual performance got improved, but if you were concerned by eye boxes not being displayed as early as on the Canon or Sony for subjects that are distant, I believe that the gap has been closed.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
For those not following the rumors mill, Nikon may make a pre-announcement of the "Z9" today.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51081381691_1f61080e65_h.jpg)
Nikon Z7II + 58mm f0.95 S Not
I spent about 30 minutes photographing one single tree, first with the Z7II and Noct, then I switched to the GFX100s and 120mm f4 OS macro.
By a pretty amazing coincidence, I happened to photograph the exact same flowers from nearly the same angle with both cameras. Without noticing until I process the images in C1 Pro.
I first did the Fuji thinking, I just love this image. Nice smooth bokeh.
The I came up the Noct image shown here and... it's just such a beautiful rendering. The way transition from sharp to unsharp is just... magical to my eyes.
But perhaps it's the price playing with my perceptions. How do you guys feel about this image? I am sorry I have no easy means to upload the Fuji one.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Bernard, it's very nice indeed, but the more I look at the image the more I think a little more DOF and detail in those parts of the image that are in focus wouldn't go amiss. Of course the problem then would be those transitions could possibly suffer.
I would imagine the image was shot wide open and if so perhaps stopping down just a tad might of helped. But then you have to wonder why use this lens? I'd be interested in this shot taken with the 85 S wide open as a comparison.
-
I would imagine the image was shot wide open and if so perhaps stopping down just a tad might of helped. But then you have to wonder why use this lens? I'd be interested in this shot taken with the 85 S wide open as a comparison.
or the 50mm f/1.2 S
-
or the 50mm f/1.2 S
Yes, could be a better comparison.
-
Thanks for your feedbacks!
-
Thanks for your feedbacks!
I was reluctant to chime in here but anyway. I am an admirer of you photography Bernard. I also took to heart your emphasis and liking of bokeh, even though its not really my thing and not so much my style. To the point that I actually went out and bought the new Sigma 85mm f1,4. Im pleased with it and may add the new Sony 50mm f1,2GM.
However this image under discussion is too far for me. I feel it needs a little more depth of field. My feeling is you are too focussed, funny term in this context, on the rendering of out of focus areas. Its the hole that makes a donut but its not what we actually eat.
-
I was reluctant to chime in here but anyway. I am an admirer of you photography Bernard. I also took to heart your emphasis and liking of bokeh, even though its not really my thing and not so much my style. To the point that I actually went out and bought the new Sigma 85mm f1,4. Im pleased with it and may add the new Sony 50mm f1,2GM.
However this image under discussion is too far for me. I feel it needs a little more depth of field. My feeling is you are too focussed, funny term in this context, on the rendering of out of focus areas. Its the hole that makes a donut but its not what we actually eat.
Hi Martin,
Having spent more time than I like to admit using 4x5 cameras of DoF stacking in order to have 100% of pixels in my images in perfect focus, I like to have the means to navigate to the opposite extremes where 99% of the image is significantly away from the plane of sharpness. Call it exploratory if you like.
I can easily understand that this example goes too far for many.
What is remarkable with this lens is the ability to have such a limited DoF and, in my opinion only, a very beautiful rendering while retaining a very high level of technical excellence.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Any real world use of the 24-200Z?
I contemplated buying it multiple times, but couldn’t get myself to pull the trigger. As luck has it I managed to scratch the front element on my 24-70 F4 while being in a camera bag on top of a couple EN-EL15b (didn’t have the lens cap on and the hood was reversed, lesson learned).
I’m just not sure the trade offs are worth it, particularly on a higher resolution sensor (I only have the Z7). I was almost set on buying it with Z5 kit.
I’m tempted to wait on the 24-105 first.
Part of my indecision is because I also have a m43 kit with the 12-100 F4; specifically for hiking/backpacking I’m not sure which would be better, a Z5/6/7 with the 24-200 or a E-M1 iii (yet to get) with the 12-100. The sensor on the full frame is unquestionably better but for a bigger DOF the superior stabilization and the handheld high resolution of the Olympus might actually pull ahead. I’ve used the combo with E-M5ii with results worse than I hoped but the E-M1iii is a different animal and the software evolution can compensate much more these days.
-
Hi Martin,
Having spent more time than I like to admit using 4x5 cameras of DoF stacking in order to have 100% of pixels in my images in perfect focus, I like to have the means to navigate to the opposite extremes where 99% of the image is significantly away from the plane of sharpness. Call it exploratory if you like.
I can easily understand that this example goes too far for many.
What is remarkable with this lens is the ability to have such a limited DoF and, in my opinion only, a very beautiful rendering while retaining a very high level of technical excellence.
Cheers,
Bernard
I’m a sucker for these type of images, still not bored by them. A reason I’m still extensively using my Fuji primes, they can give a run for the money to my Nikon primes, I only have the 50 1.8 and 85 1.8 though. The 85 1.8 is competitive but I wish it would focus closer.
-
It looks like DxO is waking up and confirming what was already obvious for those having used it: the 85mm f1.8 S is a truly amazing piece of glass.
https://www.dxomark.com/nikon-nikkor-z-85mm-f1-8-s-lens-review-sharp-prime/
But the one thing they are not commenting about is the quality of bokeh which is probably it’s most remarkable quality.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
It looks like DxO is waking up and confirming what was already obvious for those having used it: the 85mm f1.8 S is a truly amazing piece of glass.
https://www.dxomark.com/nikon-nikkor-z-85mm-f1-8-s-lens-review-sharp-prime/
But the one thing they are not commenting about is the quality of bokeh which is probably it’s most remarkable quality.
Cheers,
Bernard
Always difficult to pinpoint all aspects of a lens; but i would like to add that it has good supression of longitudinal chromatic aberrations - clearly less then the Sigma 1.4 85mm art and the images have a more 3d look.
About Bokeh;Yes i like its bokeh although i find it difficult to describe bokeh as one term - it always depends on the combination of distance between the sharp and unsharp area. Some combinations i can find ugly- others beautiful.
-
Any real world use of the 24-200Z?
I've had mine mounted on my Z6ii for a couple of weeks now, and I'm still experimenting with both video and stills use. Bottom line: I love it. I'm a former F-mount 70-200 user in both f4 and f2.8 versions and this lens performs as well or better than both those optics, as well as having much wider range and far lighter weight and size.
Lightweight, sharp, convenient and flexible, I've found that most of its problems are my fault, not the lens. I shoot at f8 most of the time for day exteriors and the Z6 makes high ISO use in other conditions mostly irrelevant. I did find that AF at f6.3 and ISO 12,800 was marginally effective in my lightless basement. :)
Given the much greater exposure of the sensor to the environment, I relish the idea of infrequent lens changes.
-
Thank you, I’ll likely wait a little longer now that I got the Olympus E-M1iii as I can use it with the 12-100 for similar tasks (lightish all in one good quality weather sealed combo).
I hope Tamron will start porting their E mount lenses, the 28-200 looks like a very good competitor to the 24-200. I can miss the 24-28 for a brighter and apparently sharper lens, as for travel you can combine it with Nikon 14-30 F4 or Tamron 17-28 F2.8
-
It looks like DxO is waking up and confirming what was already obvious for those having used it: the 85mm f1.8 S is a truly amazing piece of glass.
https://www.dxomark.com/nikon-nikkor-z-85mm-f1-8-s-lens-review-sharp-prime/
But the one thing they are not commenting about is the quality of bokeh which is probably it’s most remarkable quality.
Cheers,
Bernard
Another voice in praise of this lens. I started using it last year as a primary interview lens for doc (video) work. I allowed me a bit more distance, which made subjects more comfortable with Covid-19. I find it’s ability to separate a subject from their background (while rendering both beautifully) to be very special.
-
It looks like DxO is waking up and confirming what was already obvious for those having used it: the 85mm f1.8 S is a truly amazing piece of glass.
https://www.dxomark.com/nikon-nikkor-z-85mm-f1-8-s-lens-review-sharp-prime/
But the one thing they are not commenting about is the quality of bokeh which is probably it’s most remarkable quality.
Cheers,
Bernard
I finally broke down and bought a Z7 II to go with my Z6, and I'm thinking of having my 85 S spot-welded to the camera. I like compact and light, and I like medium telephotos (if Nikon make a high quality 70-105 I'd be all over it.) Because of the way I see, the 85 is perfect for wandering around the narrow streets of Santa Fe. Maybe with the 35 in a side pocket.
Bernard: I very much like the flower photo. If I were to shoot flowers, that's the way I'd probably do it. Flowers should be a feeling, not a poke in the eye.
-
I finally broke down and bought a Z7 II to go with my Z6, and I'm thinking of having my 85 S spot-welded to the camera. I like compact and light, and I like medium telephotos (if Nikon make a high quality 70-105 I'd be all over it.) Because of the way I see, the 85 is perfect for wandering around the narrow streets of Santa Fe. Maybe with the 35 in a side pocket.
Bernard: I very much like the flower photo. If I were to shoot flowers, that's the way I'd probably do it. Flowers should be a feeling, not a poke in the eye.
Thank you John, much appreciated!
And I love the welding idea! :)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I continue to be thoroughly impressed with the NIKKOR Z 50mm f/1.8 S. Even at fairly close distances such as with the image below the detail and rendering is exceptional.
Latest image from my 'Dark Times' series. 'Fallen Angel', ISO 64, f/8, 1/15 s.
(https://www.keithlaban.co.uk/Fallen_Angel.jpg)
-
Both of the new z series macro lenses continue to impress me, in particular the Z 105 Macro. Here is a recent shot with that lens of a flower of a Night Blooming Cereus.
-
Both of the new z series macro lenses continue to impress me, in particular the Z 105 Macro. Here is a recent shot with that lens of a flower of a Night Blooming Cereus.
Fantastic, Michael. I can't imagine how many source images.
-
I continue to be thoroughly impressed with the NIKKOR Z 50mm f/1.8 S. Even at fairly close distances such as with the image below the detail and rendering is exceptional.
Latest image from my 'Dark Times' series. 'Fallen Angel', ISO 64, f/8, 1/15 s.
Superbly ghastly, Keith!
JR
-
+1
could be a still from Predator against Alien
-
LOL!
Thanks, guys.
-
lenstip tests the nikkor z 70-200mm f2.8
https://www.lenstip.com/index.php?test=obiektywu&test_ob=616
They like it.
-
Lenstip also tested the 50mm's f1.2 from Sony and Nikon.
They preferred the sony for it was sharper, smaller and lighter.. however there is more than measurements.
in the sample photos the difference is clear.
https://www.lenstip.com/609.1-Lens_review-Nikon_Nikkor_Z_50_mm_f_1.2_S_Introduction.html
https://www.lenstip.com/index.html?test=obiektywu&test_ob=601
-
lenstip tests the nikkor z 70-200mm f2.8
https://www.lenstip.com/index.php?test=obiektywu&test_ob=616
They like it.
They like it but some comments such “book bokeh for a zoom lens” are surprising.
The bokeh is IMHO clearly superior to that of some of the best primes such as the Otus 85mm 1.4. The reason? There are no visible circular patterns in the bokeh balls.
For a lens this incredibly well corrected (this level of longitudinal CA is unheard of in a zoom lens) it’s amazing but is also amazing in absolute terms.
Surprising also they don’t compare it to the Sony lens this time around…
-
...
Surprising also they don’t compare it to the Sony lens this time around…
funny enough: a new Sony 70-200 has arrived and they like it even better...
400 gram lighter (!); bit sharper, very fast AF... but works not very well against the light as the Nikkor Z.
As i noticed above with the 50mm 1.2- it is not so much about the numbers anymore- all lenses are more than good enough, it is about the actual image drawing as it should...
In the analogue days we mostly just looked at the image - there were not many tests and reviews...
Since i am sensitive to specific aspects of a lens and camera-system that are never covered in these ( sponsored) reviews,
there is only one option : try before you buy...
My Nikon d850 still works so well that i can wait some more year till the mirrorless dust has settled.
(my nikon just made a bang on the floor with the 14-24mm lens on it and fortunately all still works well... another aspect for testing!)
-
Would be grateful for some of your thoughts regarding lens choices for an upcoming trip where I'll be shooting a wide variety of work, but also trying to keep my weight and size down.
I love my new Z 105/2.8 micro. Brilliant lens for macro work.
But I also love my F-mount 105mm 1.4 ED for portraits, even with the FTZ adapter on my Z7II
I could bring BOTH 105mm lens (which also means carrying the FTZ).
Or give up the brilliant portrait quality of the 105/1.4 and bring the 85/1.8 instead.
This would give me more focal lengths, and considerably lighter/smaller package.
...on the other hand there is the beauty of the F-105/1.4.
I haven't played around in post-processing with portrait images from the Z 105/2.8 to see how close I can get the feeling of the 105/1.4
Curious if anyone has used both - grateful for your thoughts.
Thank you.
-
Would be grateful for some of your thoughts regarding lens choices for an upcoming trip where I'll be shooting a wide variety of work, but also trying to keep my weight and size down.
I love my new Z 105/2.8 micro. Brilliant lens for macro work.
But I also love my F-mount 105mm 1.4 ED for portraits, even with the FTZ adapter on my Z7II
I could bring BOTH 105mm lens (which also means carrying the FTZ).
Or give up the brilliant portrait quality of the 105/1.4 and bring the 85/1.8 instead.
This would give me more focal lengths, and considerably lighter/smaller package.
...on the other hand there is the beauty of the F-105/1.4.
I haven't played around in post-processing with portrait images from the Z 105/2.8 to see how close I can get the feeling of the 105/1.4
Curious if anyone has used both - grateful for your thoughts.
Thank you.
You are the only one to judge and could rent the 85mm to see if it is for you...
I have a lot of good F-mount glass that i will use also with the Z-bodies...
-
Thank you Pieter.
I already own the 85/1.8S, just not as impressed with IQ as with the 105/1.4
But it is a LOT smaller and lighter.
-
...on the other hand there is the beauty of the F-105/1.4.
I don't have both Z MC105/2.8 and the the F105/1.4. I do have the F104/1.4 and the Z85/1.8. Yes, the 85 is a lot smaller, it also is very sharp and renders beautifully. I still go for the F105/1.4 whenever I can. I have actually sold off almost all my F equipment and gone competely Z with the exception of the F105/1.4 and the F58/1.4 (though I might exchange that for the Z50/1.2)
I don't think the F105/1.4 will go anytime soon. There is nothing yet that is worthy to replace it...
-
I own a number of Nikkor Z lenses including the 35S, 50S and 85S, but this little Z 40 is fast becoming my favourite walk-around lens.
(https://www.keithlaban.co.uk/Fish_large.jpg)
Nikon Z7, Nikkor Z 40mm f/2 lens, ISO 320, f/2, 1/320s.
-
Looking through the lens roadmap I see that there aren't many lenses there to still be launched, although I feel that there are still some gaps and wonder if there is anything that might get priority.
Few that I might be looking at:
- 16-35; yes they have the 14-30 F4 and 14-24 F2.8 but I always preferred the 16-35 range. I was very excited about the Olympus 8-25 F4 until I realized a 16-35 F4 on a high resolution full frame is basically the same. A high quality 16-35 F4 would be my preference here as I already have the 14-24 F2.8
- 70-300 F4-5.6; the F mount gets good reviews, I would like to see an improved Z version
- 135 F2; used a Samyang on F mount, and I'm in love with the Fuji 90 F2
In the setting of the grass is greener on the other side, I can't help but notice that in the last couple of years Sony has the upper hand with some lenses that I care about, either similar to Nikon like 20 F1.8, 50 F1.2, or unavailable and not on the roadmap, like the 16-35, F4 and 2.8, 135 F1.8.
-
I could do with a really good 1.4 24mm S lens edge to edge sharp.
nowhere on the roadmap... and the 1.8 24mm S is just not good enough ( as good as my old 1.8 24mm G lens, but better mechanicaly)
-
Also, whenever Nikon releases a desirable/well rated lens it's out of stock for an eternity.
-
Looking through the lens roadmap I see that there aren't many lenses there to still be launched, although I feel that there are still some gaps and wonder if there is anything that might get priority.
Few that I might be looking at:
- 16-35; yes they have the 14-30 F4 and 14-24 F2.8 but I always preferred the 16-35 range. I was very excited about the Olympus 8-25 F4 until I realized a 16-35 F4 on a high resolution full frame is basically the same. A high quality 16-35 F4 would be my preference here as I already have the 14-24 F2.8
- 70-300 F4-5.6; the F mount gets good reviews, I would like to see an improved Z version
- 135 F2; used a Samyang on F mount, and I'm in love with the Fuji 90 F2
In the setting of the grass is greener on the other side, I can't help but notice that in the last couple of years Sony has the upper hand with some lenses that I care about, either similar to Nikon like 20 F1.8, 50 F1.2, or unavailable and not on the roadmap, like the 16-35, F4 and 2.8, 135 F1.8.
I use the 14-30, 35, 50 and 85 S lenses and I adapt a few third party manual focus lenses. The 50 and 80 are optically superb, the 14-30 and 35 more than meet my needs. That effectively covers my requirements except for what I would call Z lenses of character. Sure, there's the option of the 58mm f/0.95 Noct and the 50 f/1.2 but both are way too large and heavy for my specific needs. I also use and love using the Z 40 f/2 which goes some way to meeting my desire for compact lenses of character but what I would really love is a Z mount equivalent of the F mount 58mm f/1.4 G, a comparatively compact lens optimised for its bokeh qualities when used wide open. I'd buy it in a heartbeat! I've considered adapting the 58 f/1.4 G lens using my FTZ but I'm not too keen on the extra heft and girth and even more concerned about the resulting AF capabilities. Anyone here tried it?
-
I use the 14-30, 35, 50 and 85 S lenses and I adapt a few third party manual focus lenses. The 50 and 80 are optically superb, the 14-30 and 35 more than meet my needs. That effectively covers my requirements except for what I would call Z lenses of character. Sure, there's the option of the 58mm f/0.95 Noct and the 50 f/1.2 but both are way too large and heavy for my specific needs. I also use and love using the Z 40 f/2 which goes some way to meeting my desire for compact lenses of character but what I would really love is a Z mount equivalent of the F mount 58mm f/1.4 G, a comparatively compact lens optimised for its bokeh qualities when used wide open. I'd buy it in a heartbeat! I've considered adapting the 58 f/1.4 G lens using my FTZ but I'm not too keen on the extra heft and girth and even more concerned about the resulting AF capabilities. Anyone here tried it?
I like the idea of "lenses of character". I see lenses as paintbrushes, each with their own characteristic. The goal is not always absolute sharpness or some other measurable quality.
That said, I had kept the 58/1.4G around as one of my last F-Mount lenses. But the new bodies to my eye simply expose the flaws of that lens which now outweigh the "character". The 50/1.2 has IMMENSE character, but at the price of immense size and weight.
I await the (likely) 85/1.2 which is bound to be oozing with character.
And I'm about to add the 40/2, which seems like a wonderful compromise.
For me the biggest "holes" in the lineup are:
- A Z-mount version of the 105/1.4 (the 105/2.8/micro is incredible, but missing the extra bit of magic from the 1.4. I think I saw a post on Nikon rumors about a Nikon patent for a DC-type lens. Whatever the flavor, would love a true portrait lens around the 100-135mm range.
- A better 35mm. Unlikely we are going to see a 35/1.2, and not sure I'd want to carry it around anyway. But the current S-Line 35/1.8 is to me sadly missing character. It is a competent lens, but not special. The weakest link in the S-Line(up).
- Z-Mount Tiltshift - Haven't heard anything about this. Not hight on my list, but would be welcome.
-
For me, the biggest remaining hole is a 70-200 f/4 or similar. I love the 70-200 f/2.8, but it is too heavy and massive for hiking. Even if Nikon would rebrand Tamron's 70-180 f/2.8, that would do the trick for me.
-
In most of the tests the new Sony primes are really good and in some ways better than Nikon's Z lenses..
i am thinking of the 35mm 1.4 gm , the 24mm 1.4 GM and the 20mm 1.8 G lens.
Mostly lighter, sharper and better with coma in the corners... but with huge vignetting that does not really go away when stopping down.
Nikon's vignetting is usually a bit better better as are the coatings ...
Anyway- i have my d850 and good lenses so i will be watching this year... not buying..
-
Further to my previous post...
The Nikon AF-S 58mm f1.4 G lens, at long last I bit the bullet and bought it earlier this week. Both of these quick and dirty images shot on a Nikon Z7 using the FTZ adapter, the car in comparatively soft light, the scene in harsh and contrasty light (I thought this would be a good test to show any flaws). I love that the bokeh balls are circular to the edges of the FX frame and have no discernable onion rings when viewed at 100%. When shot wide open the bokeh balls still behave themselves, are very attractive and thankfully there is no distracting and busy swirly bokeh. So far this lens is all I was hoping it would be and definitely a keeper.
ISO 400, f/2, 1/125s.
(https://www.keithlaban.co.uk/Car58.jpg)
ISO 220, f2.8, 1/125s.
(https://www.keithlaban.co.uk/Rhodo58.jpg)
-
Further to my previous post...
The Nikon AF-S 58mm f1.4 G lens, at long last I bit the bullet and bought it earlier this week. Both of these quick and dirty images shot on a Nikon Z7 using the FTZ adapter, the car in comparatively soft light, the scene in harsh and contrasty light (I thought this would be a good test to show any flaws). I love that the bokeh balls are circular to the edges of the FX frame and have no discernable onion rings when viewed at 100%. When shot wide open the bokeh balls still behave themselves, are very attractive and thankfully there is no distracting and busy swirly bokeh. So far this lens is all I was hoping it would be and definitely a keeper.
ISO 400, f/2, 1/125s.
(https://www.keithlaban.co.uk/Car58.jpg)
ISO 220, f2.8, 1/125s.
(https://www.keithlaban.co.uk/Rhodo58.jpg)
Nice! From all the current F mount lenses it comes to this and the 105 to still be worth buying. In a way it's ironic considering that the 58 got a lot of bad publicity because it's not that sharp.
-
Nice! From all the current F mount lenses it comes to this and the 105 to still be worth buying. In a way it's ironic considering that the 58 got a lot of bad publicity because it's not that sharp.
Thanks.
Agreed, two classic lenses, good to have the option to use them. Really, Z users are well catered for in regards to native, sharp lenses.
The 58 is somewhat soft in comparison when used wide open but sharpens up and still maintains character when stopped down a tad.
-
Thanks.
Agreed, two classic lenses, good to have the option to use them. Really, Z users are well catered for in regards to native, sharp lenses.
The 58 is somewhat soft in comparison when used wide open but sharpens up and still maintains character when stopped down a tad.
What i noticed using it is that the coatings are really good, giving very good contrast and deep colours. While the lens get sharp in the central area, the corners are always a bit soft...
It is a special lens indeed, with very nice bokeh.
-
What i noticed using it is that the coatings are really good, giving very good contrast and deep colours. While the lens get sharp in the central area, the corners are always a bit soft...
It is a special lens indeed, with very nice bokeh.
A good summary.
I wouldn't be using this lens for flat-field work where across the image sharpness is of primary importance, but it is these special and specific differences that give it its character and make it so appealing for other forms of work. Another plus, I can hardly believe how light and compact it is for a fast lens even when used with the FTZ.
-
A newer adapter for Sony E to Nikon Z hit the market, and for my mostly landscape/slower focus requirements I expect that one of the adapters to work good enough.
Do you guys use any adapted Sony E lenses? Or do you have any specific Sony E lenses envy which you are considering?
-
I don't have any 'Sony Envy." There are some Sony that are equal to the Nikon Z lenses that I know, but not particularly better. And we could ask: better at what?
I have different requirements for what kind of photography I am doing. If I am in the studio, then weight and the need for a tripod don't matter. If I am out in the field, then weight and so forth matter. The absence of the various aberrations ALWAYS matter to me. Here is a list of the the Nikon Z lenses that I know something about, and most I have. It may or not be helpful to any of you, but then it might. I am a close-up and macro photographer, for the most part. I am VERy impressed with the Nikon Z lenses that are part of the "S" series.
Here are some of the Nikon Z lenses that interest me for field work and brief comments for my kind of close-up work.
The Nikkor NOCT 0.95 has a DXOMark rating of T=55, with a sharpness rating of S=35, weighs in at 4.4 lb. with a near distances of 1.64 ft. I love this lens, but it is too heavy, bulky, for hiking and no autofocus. I use it in the studio for the most part.
Nikon Z 85mm f/1.8 S gets a high rating from DXOMark T=49, with a sharpness rating of S=41, is light enough (1.03 lb.), but has a near focus distance of 2.62 ft., which is too far for my close-up work. I have it but seldom use it.
The Nikon Z 70-200 F/2.8 S gets a DXOMark rating of T=38, with a sharpness rating of S=38, but weighs 2.99 lbs. and has a near focus of 1.64’. Heavy, but otherwise a very useful lens. I would need a tripod, probably.
The Nikon Z 24-70 f/2.8 gets a DXOMark rating of T=36, with a sharpness rating of S=26. It is a little heavy at 1.77 lbs. and has a near focus of 1.25’. A good lens for my work, but probably not for hiking. I might just use this one while hiking anyway.
The Nikon Z 24-70 f/4, gets a DXOMark rating of T=29, with a sharpness rating of S=19, weighs a light 1.1 lb., and a near focus of 11.81”. This is a main candidate, IMO, for taking into the field. I have had good results with it so far.
The Nikon Z 50mm f/1.8 gets a DXOmark of T=44, with a sharpness rating of S=37, weighs a light of 14.64 oz, with a near focus of 1.31 ft, a little long and I don’t tend to use a 50mm lens much.
The Nikon Z 105mm Macro f/2.8 S (not DXO rated) weighs a light 1.4 lbs. and has a near focus of 11.4”. This probably is the best candidate for my work, although not wide enough for small dioramas. I may just take this into the field. This is the most-used "S" lens that I have.
The Nikon Z 24-120 f/4 S (not DXO rated) weighs a light 1.4 lb. and has a near focus of 1.1’. I want to try it out, but may have too much chromatic aberration. I will see how it does. Not so great.
The Nikon Z 100-400 S f/4.5 (not DXO-rated) weighs a hefty 3.2 lbs. and has a near focus distance of 2.5’. I will use this on a tripod, but not carry it far. I have it, but have not had a chance to shoot critters with it.
The Nikon Z MC 50mm f/2.8 Macro is not DXO rated, and has a 6.3” near distance, and weighs 9.2 oz. Not an ‘S’ lens as I have found out. Not quite sharp enough, but fills a slot that needs to be filled..
Nikon Z 35mm f/1.8 has a DXOMark rating of T=38 and a sharpness rating of S=30, weighs 13 oz, with a close focus of 9.84”. I don’t have this lens, but I might try it and see how good it is. I don't have this one.
-
Few that I've considered in the past are 2 Tamrons, the 17-28 F2.8 and 70-180 F2.8, but I have to look more into the sharpness of the first and the bokeh of the latter. The newest Sony 16-35 F4, maybe the Sony 135 F1.8.
There are some that I think are better that the Nikon variants but not enough to justify adapting then, such as the Tamron 28-200 F2.8-5.6 or the Sony 20 F1.8
-
I don't have any 'Sony Envy." There are some Sony that are equal to the Nikon Z lenses that I know, but not particular better. And we could ask: better at what?
I have different requirements for what kind of photography I am doing. If I am in the studio, then weight and the need for a tripod don't matter. If I am out in the field, then weight and so forth matter. The absence of the various aberrations ALWAYS matter to me. Here is a list of the the Nikon Z lenses that I know something about, and most I have. It may or not be helpful to any of you, but then it might. I am a close-up and macro photographer, for the most part.
Here are some of the Nikon Z lenses that interest me for field work and brief comments for my kind of close-up work.
The Nikkor NOCT 0.95 has a DXOMark rating of T=55, with a sharpness rating of S=35, weighs in at 4.4 lb. with a near distances of 1.64 ft. I love this lens, but it is too heavy, bulky, for hiking and no autofocus. I use it in the studio for the most part.
Nikon Z 85mm f/1.8 S gets a high rating from DXOMark T=49, with a sharpness rating of S=41, is light enough (1.03 lb.), but has a near focus distance of 2.62 ft., which is too far for my close-up work.
The Nikon Z 70-200 F/2.8 S gets a DXOMark rating of T=38, with a sharpness rating of S=38, but weighs 2.99 lbs. and has a near focus of 1.64’. Heavy, but otherwise a very useful lens. I would need a tripod, probably.
The Nikon Z 24-70 f/2.8 gets a DXOMark rating of T=36, with a sharpness rating of S=26. It is a little heavy at 1.77 lbs. and has a near focus of 1.25’. A good lens for my work, but probably not for hiking. I might just use this one anyway.
The Nikon Z 24-70 f/4, gets a DXOMark rating of T=29, with a sharpness rating of S=19, weighs a light 1.1 lb., and a near focus of 11.81”. This is a main candidate, IMO, for taking into the field. I have had good results with it so far.
The Nikon Z 50mm f/1.8 gets a DXOmark of T=44, with a sharpness rating of S=37, weighs a light of 14.64 oz, with a near focus of 1.31 ft, a little long and I don’t tend to use a 50mm lens much.
The Nikon Z 105mm Macro f/2.8 S (not DXO rated) weighs a light 1.4 lbs. and has a near focus of 11.4”. This probably is the best candidate for my work, although not wide enough for small dioramas. I may just take this into the field.
The Nikon Z 24-120 f/4 S (not DXO rated) weighs a light 1.4 lb. and has a near focus of 1.1’. I want to try it out, but may have too much chromatic aberration. I will see how it does.
The Nikon Z 100-400 S f/4.5 (not DXO-rated) weighs a hefty 3.2 lbs. and has a near focus distance of 2.5’. I will use this on a tripod, but not carry it far.
The Nikon Z MC 50mm f/2.8 Macro is not DXO rated, and has a 6.3” near distance, and weighs 9.2 oz. Not an ‘S’ lens as I have found out. Not quite sharp enough.
Nikon Z 35mm f/1.8 has a DXOMark rating of T=38 and a sharpness rating of S=30, weighs 13 oz, with a close focus of 9.84”. I don’t have this lens, but I might try it and see how good it is.
Still vaguely considering that Nikon 70-200 F2.8 because I'm so taken by my Fuji 90 F2, but I'm not convinced that I can get over the weight even if it brings a lot more range.
The Nikon 85 F1.8 has great rendering but as you said, the minimal focus is longish.
-
Also on my requirements weight plays a major part, and that's where a lot of the Sony appeal comes from.
-
Funny thing, just took a look through the E mount lenses and thought hard which lenses I would actually get, and to my surprise there are fewer than I thought initially. Now part of that is because I have already got something close enough that I can't justify one that would fit better and I also have 2 other systems that I use.
The only one that I would definitely get would be a 70-300 F4-5.6 (I don't have the Nikon E version, only the 70-200 F4)
On potential ones, I have my eye on the newer 16-35 F4 but has to be better than the Nikon 14-30 F4. A couple of Tamron F2.8 zooms. A 135 f2 or so. All others are more theoretical wants that are not that likely to convert to buys.