Z mount native lenses

[KLaban]

I wish they'd gone with a 35mm compact prime instead of 28mm & 40mm.

But I'll take the 40mm.

[BernardLanguillier]

New Lens Roadmap.

Nikon Z Roadmap

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

[BernardLanguillier]

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

[KLaban]

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!!!

[BernardLanguillier]

And 2 kilograms!!!

I have been training with my 200mm f2.0, that is ok...

Cheers,
Bernard

[Dustbak]

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.

[gkroeger]

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!

[jeremyrh]

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 ....

[BJL]

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

[BernardLanguillier]

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

[John Camp]

Not un-reasonnable all things considered.
Cheers,
Bernard

I think it's unreasonable.

[BernardLanguillier]

I think it's unreasonable.

It’s probably unreasonable to buy it!

Cheers,
Bernard

[D Fuller]

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.

[kers]

If I had $8k doing nothing, I’d pre-order it today.

+ 1000

[John Camp]

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...

[Christopher]

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!!

[D Fuller]

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.

[Christopher]

Your correct... hm hoped for some magic. 

[BernardLanguillier]

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

[BernardLanguillier]

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