Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 9   Go Down

Author Topic: Z mount native lenses  (Read 9758 times)

faberryman

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 984
Re: Z mount native lenses
« Reply #100 on: April 29, 2019, 11:27:05 am »

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.

KLaban

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1647
Re: Z mount native lenses
« Reply #101 on: April 29, 2019, 12:02:10 pm »

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.
Logged

armand

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3310
    • Photos
Re: Z mount native lenses
« Reply #102 on: April 29, 2019, 12:45:58 pm »

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.

faberryman

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 984
Re: Z mount native lenses
« Reply #103 on: April 29, 2019, 01:17:40 pm »

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?

KLaban

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1647
Re: Z mount native lenses
« Reply #104 on: April 29, 2019, 02:24:16 pm »

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.
« Last Edit: April 29, 2019, 02:27:50 pm by KLaban »
Logged

kers

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2256
    • Pieter Kers
Re: Z mount native lenses
« Reply #105 on: April 29, 2019, 02:54:14 pm »

...
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.
Logged

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12536
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: Z mount native lenses
« Reply #106 on: April 29, 2019, 03:21:39 pm »

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, Iíll 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 isnít 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
« Last Edit: April 29, 2019, 04:32:59 pm by BernardLanguillier »
Logged

armand

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3310
    • Photos
Re: Z mount native lenses
« Reply #107 on: April 29, 2019, 05:08:11 pm »

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.

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 21999
Re: Z mount native lenses
« Reply #108 on: April 29, 2019, 05:25:35 pm »

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

armand

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3310
    • Photos
Re: Z mount native lenses
« Reply #109 on: April 29, 2019, 05:29:01 pm »

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.

faberryman

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 984
Re: Z mount native lenses
« Reply #110 on: April 29, 2019, 05:41:05 pm »

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.

KLaban

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1647
Re: Z mount native lenses
« Reply #111 on: April 29, 2019, 05:47:35 pm »

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.

;-)
Logged

KLaban

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1647
Re: Z mount native lenses
« Reply #112 on: April 29, 2019, 05:48:32 pm »


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.
Logged

kers

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2256
    • Pieter Kers
Re: Z mount native lenses
« Reply #113 on: April 29, 2019, 07:25:09 pm »

....
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.
Logged

armand

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3310
    • Photos
Re: Z mount native lenses
« Reply #114 on: April 29, 2019, 08:44:01 pm »

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.

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12536
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: Z mount native lenses
« Reply #115 on: April 30, 2019, 12:52:18 am »

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

Dan Wells

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 978
Re: Z mount native lenses
« Reply #116 on: April 30, 2019, 03:14:20 am »

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.

Logged

kers

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2256
    • Pieter Kers
Re: Z mount native lenses
« Reply #117 on: April 30, 2019, 07:38:04 am »

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
Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 21999
Re: Z mount native lenses
« Reply #118 on: April 30, 2019, 07:48:01 am »

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

KLaban

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1647
Re: Z mount native lenses
« Reply #119 on: April 30, 2019, 09:05:39 am »

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.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 9   Go Up