Pages: 1 ... 23 24 [25]   Go Down

Author Topic: Z mount native lenses  (Read 57625 times)

armand

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5202
    • Photos
Re: Z mount native lenses
« Reply #480 on: May 29, 2022, 02:37:13 pm »

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

armand

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5202
    • Photos
Re: Z mount native lenses
« Reply #481 on: May 29, 2022, 02:42:07 pm »

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.

armand

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5202
    • Photos
Re: Z mount native lenses
« Reply #482 on: May 29, 2022, 02:43:26 pm »

Also on my requirements weight plays a major part, and that's where a lot of the Sony appeal comes from.

armand

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5202
    • Photos
Re: Z mount native lenses
« Reply #483 on: June 12, 2022, 01:16:15 pm »

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.
Pages: 1 ... 23 24 [25]   Go Up