Z mount native lenses

[BernardLanguillier]

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...



Cheers,
Bernard

[jeremyrh]

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 :-)

[BernardLanguillier]

Before vs After would be instructive :-)

Sorry, I have no easy way of uploading this but it is very visible.

Cheers,
Bernard

[BernardLanguillier]

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

[kers]

Would like an f1.4  14-300mm TS lens so I only need one tiny lens...
Please Nikon listen to your costumers!

[BernardLanguillier]

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

[faberryman]

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.

[armand]

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.

[Dan Wells]

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?

[kers]

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/

[John Camp]

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.

[adriantyler]

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

[armand]

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.

[BernardLanguillier]

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.



Cheers,
Bernard

[faberryman]

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".

[KLaban]

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.

[BernardLanguillier]

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

[kers]

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.

[adriantyler]

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...

[Rob C]

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