Z7-Z6 Lenses

snakebunk

Msmoto said:

Agree fully with the "F" mount lenses being introduced with a "Z" mount.... I am waiting... and, this would seem almost a no brainer.... very little development cost (the words of someone who actually knows nothing about this), maybe even build the lens without VR, and have lenses we "Z" folks would scarf up in a moment.

I don't know much about lens design either but I don't think the Z mount gives any optical advantage to long lenses, so it should (kind of) only be a matter of including the adapter in the construction.

Maybe Nikon is waiting for the introduction of the big pro Z camera with improved af to introduce a really nice long lens. Or they have just been too busy lately.

Anyhow, many fun long lens projects are possible, I am thinking about different combinations of built in converters, pf and the latest only-one-element-in-the-front design used by Sony and Canon to make even lighter super teles.

BVS

Camera Labs has sample shots and comparison images up from the 24-70/2.8S. Image quality appears better than both 24-70/4S and 24-70/2.8E.

https://www.cameralabs.com/nikon-z-24-70mm-f2-8-s-review/2/

They have shots from the 14-30/4 too, but they think they might have a bad sample and plan to test another one.

mhedges

yeah that's pretty dissapointing on the 14-30. I guess I hope it's a bad sample but that's not really a good thing either.

WestEndFoto

snakebunk said:

Msmoto said:

Agree fully with the "F" mount lenses being introduced with a "Z" mount.... I am waiting... and, this would seem almost a no brainer.... very little development cost (the words of someone who actually knows nothing about this), maybe even build the lens without VR, and have lenses we "Z" folks would scarf up in a moment.

I don't know much about lens design either but I don't think the Z mount gives any optical advantage to long lenses, so it should (kind of) only be a matter of including the adapter in the construction.

Maybe Nikon is waiting for the introduction of the big pro Z camera with improved af to introduce a really nice long lens. Or they have just been too busy lately.

Anyhow, many fun long lens projects are possible, I am thinking about different combinations of built in converters, pf and the latest only-one-element-in-the-front design used by Sony and Canon to make even lighter super teles.

I think the Z – mount will benefit long lenses as the flange on the f-mount still requires some light bending on the corners. However, the improvement will probably not be as spectacular with long lenses as with wide lenses. This also means that long lenses will likely be the last lenses that Nikon introduces, as they will still be stellar on f-mount cameras.

Msmoto

If I ask myself the questions... re: conversion of "F" lenses to "Z" by Nikon, simply redesigning the mount, I am thinking this could be possible, but as noted, why not just use the adapter? Maybe what I am really thinking is the idea of lenses designed as f/4 or 5.6, which can save a huge amount of $$$, and achieve super results. And, the adapter still limits the distance from the rear element to the focal plane, so eliminating this with shorter lenses is definitely the way to go.

All of what I say is purely guess work, or possibly what I would like to see. In any case, I think I will gather together all my "F" lenses, do some judicious editing of the fleet, and then look for the new "Z" lenses from Nikon.

What the heck, always fun to get something new....

ADKDaveyJ

Nikon needs long lenses for the Z6 and Z7. If not the users will be using FTZ and F Mount lenses. f4 to F5.6 telephoto S zooms please!

FreezeAction

ADKDaveyJ said:

Nikon needs long lenses for the Z6 and Z7. If not the users will be using FTZ and F Mount lenses. f4 to F5.6 telephoto S zooms please!

Absolutely as time is not on my side either. At least a 300mm F4 soon. Then a 200-500mm for the Z mount.

ADKDaveyJ

Question to FreezeAction.....Do you have a f Mount 200-500 5.6? Wouldn’t that be pretty close to the Z Mount? I know the native Z Mount zoom tele would be somewhat better. But it will take awhile to get in the pipeline. I believe the current 200-500 5.6 is the best reasonably priced wildlife glass I have ever used. Also in my opinion, the most reasonably priced great lens available. I am delighted I bought it when I did. I saw a guy using it at the Blue Angels Air Show in Key West with D500. But he was forced to use another Nikon to do handheld zooms with 70-300 to do quite a bit since the 200-500 is sometimes too long. I hope a 70-200 Z f4 or f4 to 5.6 Z Mount gets on the roadmap ASAP. The 2.8 is going to be too big, too heavy, too expensive and will be no better stopped down.

mhedges

A Z mount 200-500 would probably use linear motors (AF-P style) for focus and would likely focus faster than the 200-500. I've never used the 200-500 myself - how is the focus speed?

As far as Z mount tele's in general - I get that you guys want them, but my understanding is that tele lenses longer than a 70-300 don't sell in very big numbers. They may bring a lot of attention but the sales are mostly in shorter lenses. So I wouldn't expect a native Z on those for a while.

Back to the 14-30 - I took another look at that piece on CameraLabs where he found the sharpness lacking. It's dated early January? I didn't even think Nikon had samples of these out in the field then? Anyway I guess it's plausible it was an early model and the production units will be better. Here's hoping, anyway.

ADKDaveyJ

Focus speed on the 200-500 5.6 is very fast. Not as fast as the new 500 5.6 but fast. And I need zoom range. Not a prime lens. Every time I go out with a prime lens I am bothered by the limitations of fixed focal. I had well over 100K in large format glass. Everyone was fixed focal length. I finally started using Nikon due to their 70-200 2.8 zoom. Which I sold as I decided the 70-300 variables were better for my field use. Also I just plain seemed to get luckier with them! I have heard the 14-30 was very excellent and it is incredibly over ordered! Camera labs is only ONE tester. I will also add that I personally regard the 70-300 as one of the single most necessary tele lens for the dedicated amateur photographer. And in a sensible variable aperture zoom, hardly a f2.8! 70-200 zoom range is too tight a range. Don’t get me wrong, really wide ranges like 18-300 I will not own or buy. It is too demanding optically, and too damn heavy.

mhedges

Agree on the 70-300. I love the FX AF-P lens. It will be the only F mount lens I have left once the 14-30 is released.

mhedges

Nikon Ricci has his review of the 14-30 out. Looks good! Pretty excited to get it.

Symphotic

mhedges said:

Nikon Ricci has his review of the 14-30 out. Looks good! Pretty excited to get it.

I'm surprised at the results compared to the 14-24 f/2.8.

I'm happy to see I should have my 24-70/2.8 S by the end of the week...

mhedges

Symphotic said:

mhedges said:

Nikon Ricci has his review of the 14-30 out. Looks good! Pretty excited to get it.

I'm surprised at the results compared to the 14-24 f/2.8.

I'm happy to see I should have my 24-70/2.8 S by the end of the week...

Yes it did very well. And was much better than the 16-35 which is arguably its real F mount equivalent. Guess the new mount really does help with wide angle!

Be sure to let us know how you like the 2.8. Do you have the F4 version for comparison?

Symphotic

mhedges said:

...

Be sure to let us know how you like the 2.8. Do you have the F4 version for comparison?

Yes, I do. I have to go out to do a job for a joint FBI and Navy operation over the next little bit. (I just repaired their underwater camera system and now have change out the fiber optics that that gets the images to the surface. ) So I'm not sure I'm going to have time for a rigorous comparison, but maybe next weekend I can take some comparison photos.

It will be hard to beat the 24-70/4 for what I use it for.

rmp

Has anyone seen a chart that shows the dynamic range of the Z camera/lens and the human eye together?

FreezeAction

To go with the 14-30, 24-70, I'd like a 70-300 that is a pro quality lens at f4.0. Those would do anything I need to do for both video and still.

mhedges

Has anyone made a 70-300 F4? That would probably be pretty big, I imagine? I think you will probably have to settle for a 70-200 if you want F4.

rmp

Hogan recommends the Nikkor 70-300 f4.5-5.6. I have it and it works just fine. But, I am so pleased with the 24-70/f4 S -- it is so sharp I still want to see a new Z(S) lens in this range.

FreezeAction

mhedges said:

Has anyone made a 70-300 F4? That would probably be pretty big, I imagine? I think you will probably have to settle for a 70-200 if you want F4.

I have a 70-200 f4 and love it. The extra stop over a f5.6 would help with noise during early and late evening light. Also during good light the use of a TC 2X or a 600mm reach. So is it is a little big that would be OK as it would be on a tripod most of the time. It shouldn't be heavier than the 200-500mm would it? I'm doing more guessing here. I hate the idea of using the 120-300mm Sigma... That would be heavy. I will opt for the 24-70 f2.8 for that same stop for early and late shooting at close up range.

WestEndFoto

A 70-300 f/4.0 would be in the 200-400 f/4.0 price range.

FreezeAction

WestEndFoto said:

A 70-300 f/4.0 would be in the 200-400 f/4.0 price range.

That would be acceptable if it is sharp and renders colors like a pro lens should. It would fill a void in pro quality lenses. I'm believing at this point the S series lenses will all be pro grade rather than prosumer. That lens should be some less but maybe not a lot less. Only at this point Nikon knows. I have little hope such a lens will ever be made. One day one option might be to use TC's on the 70-200 f2.8. A 1.4 and 1.7 would dance around in the right zone.

retread

FreezeAction said:

mhedges said:

Has anyone made a 70-300 F4? That would probably be pretty big, I imagine? I think you will probably have to settle for a 70-200 if you want F4.

I have a 70-200 f4 and love it. The extra stop over a f5.6 would help with noise during early and late evening light. Also during good light the use of a TC 2X or a 600mm reach. So is it is a little big that would be OK as it would be on a tripod most of the time. It shouldn't be heavier than the 200-500mm would it? I'm doing more guessing here. I hate the idea of using the 120-300mm Sigma... That would be heavy. I will opt for the 24-70 f2.8 for that same stop for early and late shooting at close up range.

I have the Sigma 120-300 and love it. Yes it is heavy, I use it on a monopod or other support most of the time. I can hand hold but it gets heavy soon. I don't find the 70-200 f/2.8 hard to hand hold. I prefer a support with a 150-600 just because it is so long, the weight is not a problem but it does not take much wind to blow it around.

I like the 2x TC on the 70-200 f2.8 for insects and the 120-300 came with a 2x TC but have not had a chance to use it much. Interestingly the Sigma TC will stack on the back of the Nikon TC. The only lens I have that the Nikon TC will fit is the 70-200 f2.8, something to play with when the sun is extra bright.

mhedges

Looks like the 24-70 2.8 is starting to show up in stores. Haven't seen any reports on the 14-30 yet.

rmp

I just read the new 24-70mm f2.6 has a new focusing capability that enables "close focusing." Could that be used as a macro capability? If anyone has the lens, please try it and let us know.