Z7-Z6 Lenses

FreezeAction

@retread

May I ask which body do you primarily use it on? and how fast does it focus? Used on a Z6 with the adapter may be interesting from a tripod. A 7.5lb lens defeats the purpose of saving weight for a mirrorless camera I would think but when the real reason for a Z6 is a quiet shutter and a tripod is a given then it may make since especially starting at f2.8.

retread

FreezeAction said:

@retread

May I ask which body do you primarily use it on? and how fast does it focus? Used on a Z6 with the adapter may be interesting from a tripod. A 7.5lb lens defeats the purpose of saving weight for a mirrorless camera I would think but when the real reason for a Z6 is a quiet shutter and a tripod is a given then it may make since especially starting at f2.8.

I use the 120-300 mostly on a D500. Focus speed is on par with my Nikon lenses. Focus was good out of the box but at wide apertures it back focused a little so some tuning with the USB dock made it really sharp.

120-300 on a D500 & a 150-600 G2 on a D7200 are my most used wildlife set up. The G2 also benefitted from some fine tuning with a tap in console.

They are each tuned to the primary camera I use them on but still very good if swapped around.

For night time outdoor sports it is the D500 and 120-300 backed up with the D7200 and 24-70 or the 70-200. Daytime outdoor sports may see the 150-600 get a little use for some really long shots.

The D500 with grip and the 120-300 = 11 pounds on bathroom scale. My best pelican in flight is hand held with this combination. I saw it coming out of the corner of my eye and just got a single shot as it went by. No time to set D500 on continuous shutter release.

Msmoto

I am really thinking about the Samyang 14mm F2.8 UMC Super Wide Angle .... this could be a winner, relatively inexpensive, maybe a very sharp lens. But also thinking Sigma will be the real stunners if they get something together for the Z mount.

ggbutcher

Msmoto said:

I am really thinking about the Samyang 14mm F2.8 UMC Super Wide Angle .... this could be a winner, relatively inexpensive, maybe a very sharp lens. But also thinking Sigma will be the real stunners if they get something together for the Z mount.

There's a thread at dpreview discussing these lenses; it seems they're heavier than the equivalent F-mount lens + FTZ adapter. Looks like the F-mount design with a built-in adapter.

I need to confirm all this, but my thought is to get the F-mount 14mm to use with my free FTZ...

BVS

24-70/2.8S vs. 24-70/2.8E sharpness comparison from Ricci:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYpRziUSJOA

FreezeAction

@retread

Thanks for the reply. Now I feel a better about investing in the 120-300mm sigma for use on my D500 as well as taking stills with a Z6 after Nikon upgrades the firmware. I shoot in an environment where 200-300mm is favored and 2.8 in low light would be a great asset.

retread

@FreezeAction

You are very welcome. I hope it serves you well should you decide to get it. I thought a long time about the $$$ I had to part with.

WestEndFoto

If Nikon comes out with an updated 200mm f/2.0E, my entry into the Z realm will be delayed.

ADKDaveyJ

I have really good Pelican in flight photos taken with the D7200 and the 70-300 AF-P DX VR lens. Why, there are lots to photograph in Key West. Also they often fly by in formation giving you a good shot at least some or one. Some birds in flight like the considerably faster Northern Goshawk or Ruffed Grouse are far more difficult partly due to their habitat and they don’t fly in formation. I have had Northern Goshawks which used to be the preferred species for Viking Royalty fly by me about two foot away. But that individual would have to repeat that 20 times to get such a event finally photographed well. I have had Wild Turkeys do fly bys as a flock and got as many as eight or nine images all in perfect focus with the 16-80 lens. The camera focus adjustment just happened to be optimum when they started flying by. When I buy the Z6 WithFTZ and 24-70 S f4 in about half a year it will be mostly due to the video rating. My son and grandson are doing a wedding today with 6K video and that one pays enough to buy a new camera in one day. I do look forward to the Z6 set up. I think the 24-70 and a FTZ with some Nikon lens I already have and use will be very good.

Symphotic

Looking at the MTF curves of the 24-70 S vs E, it seems that the somewhat higher cost of the S is only justified if you need a more compact and lighter lens: they are both excellent lenses. I have the 24-70 G version, so perhaps I can post some comparisons, but the E version is better at the wider angles than the G version, and that is where I am more interested in the performance. Wide angle together with excellent resolution and contrast across the frame is worth a lot of money to me. Make is smaller and lighter and I am happier.
I'm thinking the 24-70/4 S is still going to be my daylight walking around lens, and we will use the 24-70/2.8 S for portraits and low light. Although I have always liked my 24-70 G, I am not keen on the size and weight, and never went to the E version, as in low light I preferred primes. We will see if the 2.8 S changes that. I should have it here by Wednesday. I'm off to England at the end of the month, so maybe I can take photos in my favorite pubs.

mhedges

Nikon Ricci has a good comparison video up - the S line lens is quite a bit better than the E. It actually isn't even particularly close.

He has another video comparing the F2.8 and F4 Z lenses. The 2.8 does seem a tad better but the difference is very marginal (except at f/2.8, of course).

WestEndFoto

I am not surprised that the 2.8 and 4.0 lenses are really close. It is nice that someone that wants a professional grade of lenses is not forced to to buy 2.8 or 1.2. Nikon was smart to adopt this strategy.

donaldejose

Right! I am hoping the 85mm f1.8 obviates the need for heavy and expensive f1.4 portrait glass.

WestEndFoto

The one exception may be bokeh. The 50 1.8S suggests that if you want the best bokeh, you are buying the 1.2. That is a logical strategy if you think about it.

mhedges

True. But judging by the size of the 50 1.2 any 85 1.2 (or 1.4) would likely be enormous. I'm hoping the 85 1.8 is good - it might be my one (for now) prime lens.

WestEndFoto

I am not worried about size if I am chasing IQ wide open. If I want small I will get the 1.8s. I may end up buying every Z prime if I am not careful.

rmp

I'm afraid WestEndFoto is going to be right -- I'm switching to Z lenses as fast as my budget allows.

Symphotic

rmp said:

I'm afraid WestEndFoto is going to be right -- I'm switching to Z lenses as fast as my budget allows.

WestEndPhoto is rarely wrong...
I am not a bokeh nut. Having said that, I went to a memorial service for a dear friend on Saturday. The photograph at the front of the chapel was one I took using the 105mm f/2.8 micro-nikkor at f/3. The bokeh was very nice in that photo. I was honored that the family used that portrait, as I am sure they had no idea where it came from. (It was a 95th birthday present.)

WestEndFoto

Symphotic said:

rmp said:

I'm afraid WestEndFoto is going to be right -- I'm switching to Z lenses as fast as my budget allows.

WestEndPhoto is rarely wrong...
I am not a bokeh nut. Having said that, I went to a memorial service for a dear friend on Saturday. The photograph at the front of the chapel was one I took using the 105mm f/2.8 micro-nikkor at f/3. The bokeh was very nice in that photo. I was honored that the family used that portrait, as I am sure they had no idea where it came from. (It was a 95th birthday present.)

Well, I often couch my ideas with words like "might" and "maybe", so it is hard to be wrong if you are not saying anything.....

donaldejose

Chasing "ultimate bokeh" is a passing fad in my opinion. Only photographers look at two portraits and focus on whether or not the good bokeh should or could be better. As long as there is separation from the main subject and a pleasing blur I am happy. That is why I am hoping the 85 1.8 will have pleasing bokeh. Sure a 1.4 lens or a 1.2 lens (like Canon's 85mm f1.2 which Irene Rudnyck shoots with) or a f0.95 (which Nikon will soon produce) may will produce more ultimate bokeh but DOF issues become too much of a problem to me once you start shooting lower than f4 if you don't have significant distance between you and your model. I would not trade one eye out of focus for better background blur. I find shooting portrait at f4 to be "safe" in that I rarely get that rear eye significantly out of focus to be and obvious distraction. TWO sharp eyes are the "heart" and "soul" of a good portrait. Once you are further away from the subject you can shoot at f2. f1.4 or f1.2 is fine for full body shots like Irene does but not for headshots. But that is just my preference. To each his or her own. I once started a thread on the old NR website about two sharp eyes in portraits and caught all sorts of hell from some members who were very proud of their very expensive fast Ziess MF glass. I do expect all of Nikon's S line will be great lenses and I expect f1.8 to be good enough for me. But who knows, I may be seduced by the faster glass once they produce it. I do have two Sigma Art f1.4 lenses and was going to get their 85mm f1.4 but now am holding off expecting the 85mm S f1.8 to be better for me.

Symphotic

The 24-70/2.8 S has a nice feature that the night sky shooters will like: the focus distance indicator on the outside of the lens is illuminated and when it indicates infinity, it really is focused at infinity. I'm assuming that will be on the coming 14-24/2.8 S as well, and that will make it a lens to have for the astro shooters.
Another nice feature is the the L-FN button, in default mode, is an AE-Lock. Using that with the AF-lock on the back of the camera is nice.
The size is about the same as the 24-70 G, but it is much lighter, and of course, if you put the G on the Z camera, you need the adapter, too the assembled Z plus S lens is a nice, comfortable size.
IQ at the corners at 24 mm is much better than the G on a D850. I have been tied up on another job, so I haven't taken it out in the field yet, but will take it with me to a family event tonight.
The 24-70/4 has amazing image quality, so it will be hard to justify the additional expense of the /2.8. But we'll see at the indoor event tonight.

WestEndFoto

donaldejose said:

Chasing "ultimate bokeh" is a passing fad in my opinion. Only photographers look at two portraits and focus on whether or not the good bokeh should or could be better. As long as there is separation from the main subject and a pleasing blur I am happy. That is why I am hoping the 85 1.8 will have pleasing bokeh. Sure a 1.4 lens or a 1.2 lens (like Canon's 85mm f1.2 which Irene Rudnyck shoots with) or a f0.95 (which Nikon will soon produce) may will produce more ultimate bokeh but DOF issues become too much of a problem to me once you start shooting lower than f4 if you don't have significant distance between you and your model. I would not trade one eye out of focus for better background blur. I find shooting portrait at f4 to be "safe" in that I rarely get that rear eye significantly out of focus to be and obvious distraction. TWO sharp eyes are the "heart" and "soul" of a good portrait. Once you are further away from the subject you can shoot at f2. f1.4 or f1.2 is fine for full body shots like Irene does but not for headshots. But that is just my preference. To each his or her own. I once started a thread on the old NR website about two sharp eyes in portraits and caught all sorts of hell from some members who were very proud of their very expensive fast Ziess MF glass. I do expect all of Nikon's S line will be great lenses and I expect f1.8 to be good enough for me. But who knows, I may be seduced by the faster glass once they produce it. I do have two Sigma Art f1.4 lenses and was going to get their 85mm f1.4 but now am holding off expecting the 85mm S f1.8 to be better for me.

I agree with you in most circumstances Donaldjose. The difference between great bokeh and so so bokeh is subtle.

There is also a common misperception that bokeh shot at f/1.4 is better than bokeh at f/2.8 even if shot on the same lens. I don't agree with this. It is different and there is perhaps "more" (I struggle with this word choice) at 1.4, but that is simply an artistic decision.

My hypothesis, however, is a little different. Any lens designer has to make trade offs. My hypothesis is that Nikon made little effort to design for great bokeh on the 1.8 S lenses, instead concentrating on sharpness and other optical characteristics. The bokeh is fine, but I don't believe it is on the level of the 58 1.4G I believe that this is a sensible strategy on Nikon's part because unless you are into bokeh in a big way, the 50 1.8S is perhaps the best 50 on the market with the possible exception of the Otus - and certainly better than the Sigma Arts. The 35 1.8S is very good too. My further hypothesis is that the 1.2 S primes will not be any sharper than the 1.8 S primes but they will be designed to produce great bokeh.


My hypothesis is just that, a guess. It is educated based on what I have seen and read so far about the S line lenses. However, we will not know until Nikon has a few 1.2 primes on the market which will enable the hypothesis to be tested. I am particularly looking forward to the 50 1.2S for this reason.


One final note. I used "believe" and "hypothesis" a lot. I cannot be wrong. However, my hypothesis may not be correct since a hypothesis can be falsified. Not being wrong is just in exercise in careful choice of words. I come up with hypotheses all day long that are falsified. I often tell my staff, "This is my hypothesis, now try and falsify it."

Symphotic

I would rather not pay a lot for bokeh when I can use Photoshop to smooth backgrounds. I prefer to pay for across the frame sharpness. The 58 f/1.4 (and the my old Noct) have pretty bokeh, but aren't the sharpest lenses out there. I find when I experiment with bokeh, composing the bokeh is just as much a job as composing the subject.
I use my lenses on my job for a somewhat different purpose than artistic photographers do, so my preferences don't apply to them. For recreational purposes, I use what I have. So I'm not likely to buy the Noct /.95 as I can't think of an application for it. A native S mount 105 Micro-Nikkor /2.8 would be a great lens for me, though.

donaldejose

WEF: I also believe great bokeh will be one of the design criteria for Nikon's new f1.4, f1.2 and f0.95 lenses. I do not have (and will not get) the 58 f1.4G but friends who do have it love it even though it isn't the sharpest lens wide open. I am looking forward to a Z9 and a great series of S lenses. It seems to me that there will be no new Nikon DSLR bodies in my future and no more F mount lenses. I have a Z6 and all the S lenses produced to date but won't purchase a Z7 body (waiting for a two card slot body). I did just buy a used D3s and a used D4 since the prices finally fell enough to justify having them to play with along with plenty of the F glass I still have. I don't think any of my Nikon DLSR bodies will now ever wear out now. They will just become historical artifacts I can enjoy using. You just don't know how you will feel about a body until you are shooting with it. My favorite at this time is the D4. It just feels right in my hands and is noticeably lighter than the D3s. As to image quality it is interesting to compare DxOMark 82 rated 2009 D3s with the DxOMark 100 rated 2017 D850. You would think a change of 18 points would be obvious: it isn't when viewing normal images. As long as you have your exposure correct you really don't need that additional dynamic range for portraits and you can so easily "expand" your dynamic range a stop or two by bringing up the shadows in post processing if you want. You would think a change from 12 megapixels to 45 megapixels would also be obvious; it isn't when viewing normal image sizes. When viewed on a monitor or printed 8x10 or 16x20 they are indistinguishable. We really are being seduced by more than we actually need for most of the use of photos today. Of course there are many technical advantages offered by the new cameras and for a distinct minority of photographers those advantages are invaluable. It is just interesting to use some of the older equipment and realize that for most of us for most of the time a 10 year old D3s for $600 would work just fine and at ISO 2000 to ISO 3000 would produce less noisy images than today's $600 DX body. Once you are above a DxOMark combined rating of 80 I think you in safe territory for portraits, especially if you are using an FX sensor. I even know a guy who prefers shooting black and white film with his 50's era Leica M3! I do not know anyone currently shooting with a view camera and I am not going to that far back myself!

ADKDaveyJ

I do not miss view cameras in any way. My brother Kermit, a US Coast Guard Captain ret. asked my son about Nikon Film Cameras. Robin replied perfect for taking photos of your horse and buggy! These days are so over.....I only miss my Fuji GX 617 and all the lens panels. But that camera is still working today. Owned by the owner of a big Long Island Photo Store Owner. I still have my Nikon F5 and will keep it for all of my years. But I will take only a few photos with it. I would get the film from B&H and would have to even give some thought to what film, but it would be Fuji for certain. The whole bokeh fad is strange to me and never held any allure. Depth of field, edge to edge sharpness, etc., is where it is at. The Nikon S Z Mount lens are my next purchase and the Z6,FTZ, And 24-70 f4 is the certain choice.

Nikon has made some very good moves. I am personally certain the current cameras are a marvel and the only concerns I have is the ability to get out in the right place at the right time with good subject material. Nikon Cameras are already there.