Z7-Z6 Lenses

1111214161730

Comments

  • FreezeActionFreezeAction Posts: 862Member
    Thanks Mark. I am most impressed with the image quality. I can see 24x52 panoramas with the 14-30 lens on a Z6. If images can be stitched super pans using the camera in portrait mode. 48"x10-12' very doable. With the silent shutter and low light capabilities I may just have to have a Z6 with a 14-30mm welded to it.
  • mhedgesmhedges Posts: 2,789Member
    You're welcome, Freeze.

    I also picked up the Z 50 1.8. I haven't done much with it, but I'll try to get some images up soon.
  • FreezeActionFreezeAction Posts: 862Member
    After reading Roger Cicala's MTF findings on some key Sigma A lenses I am so hoping they do the same for the Z bodies. Especially the 20mm, 28mm and 40mm. I can't help but wonder if the F mount Art lenses will be as sharp on the Z bodies using the F to Z adapter as they are on D800x bodies? Any real world tests out there or comparisons of the Nikon 35mm s to the Sigma 35mm A on the same Z6 or Z7 body?







    z
  • SymphoticSymphotic Posts: 704Member
    Initial impressions of the 24-70/2.8 S-line: It's good. Actually, it is excellent from corner to corner. I took some indoor photos in quiet mode and cropped way in instead of taking a long, obtrusive lens to this event. And quiet mode is quite quiet: together with using this small sized lens and body package and selecting EVF viewing only, I was able to stay unnoticed while I photographed.

    At f/2.8 it isolated my subject from the surroundings quite nicely. Focus on the Z7 was excellent: fast and accurate with moving subjects. With VR and face tracking (I was too far back for eye tracking) the results exceeded my expectations.
    Jack Roberts
    "Discovery consists in seeing what everyone else has seen and thinking what nobody else has thought"--Albert Szent-Gyorgy
  • Ton14Ton14 Posts: 673Member
    Ai @Symphotic, expensive message for me, I'm getting greedy.
    User Ton changed to Ton14, Google sign in did not work anymore
  • SymphoticSymphotic Posts: 704Member
    Ton14: as one of my colleagues says: “anybody can have money, but not just anyone can have a Z7.”
    Jack Roberts
    "Discovery consists in seeing what everyone else has seen and thinking what nobody else has thought"--Albert Szent-Gyorgy
  • WestEndFotoWestEndFoto Posts: 3,675Member
    Here we have it. The world's best 24-70 2.8 is the Nikon S line.

    https://photographylife.com/nikon-z-24-70mm-f2-8-s-performance
  • rmprmp Posts: 586Member
    Humm… 24-70 f4 is currently my favorite lens for the Z7. Those tests look pretty good. So, --- F4 or f2.8? Anyone have both?
    Robert M. Poston: D4, D810, V3, 14-24 F2.8, 24-70 f2.8, 70-200 f2.8, 80-400, 105 macro.
  • mhedgesmhedges Posts: 2,789Member

    Even Rockwell is giving it grudging admiration.

    https://kenrockwell.com/nikon/mirrorless/lenses/24-70mm-f28.htm

    He is but reading between the lines I don't think he actually has used it.
  • WestEndFotoWestEndFoto Posts: 3,675Member
    Agreed MHedges. He is basing it on Nikon’s MTF chart, which admittedly is a reliable indicator of wide open performance and is spectacular.
  • Ton14Ton14 Posts: 673Member
    rmp said:

    Humm… 24-70 f4 is currently my favorite lens for the Z7. Those tests look pretty good. So, --- F4 or f2.8? Anyone have both?

    Yep @Symphotic
    User Ton changed to Ton14, Google sign in did not work anymore
  • rmprmp Posts: 586Member
    Ton14, is the weight- size difference noticable? Is the image quality difference notiicable?
    Robert M. Poston: D4, D810, V3, 14-24 F2.8, 24-70 f2.8, 70-200 f2.8, 80-400, 105 macro.
  • FreezeActionFreezeAction Posts: 862Member
    edited May 2019
    I'd sure like to get my hands on some Z7 raw files from a 24-70 f4 lens take at 24, 35, 50, and 70 so see what I can milk from them. I've done so with some images that area jpg from the f2.8 24-70 and they are phenomenal. I'm leaning more everyday toward the Z7 not because of weight but image quality with the new S lenses. And then there's the comparison of the 24-70 @24 to the 14-30mm lens at 24mm up to the 30mm range. I seldom need anything wider now than 24 on FF bodies.
    Post edited by FreezeAction on
  • mhedgesmhedges Posts: 2,789Member
    Can't help you with Z7 files on the 24-70 but I just went through some images from the other week with Z6 + 50 1.8S. For the most part I was purposely shooting at 1.8 or 2.8 because I wanted to see what this lens gave me over the kit lens.

    https://flic.kr/s/aHsmBfV4Hn
  • FreezeActionFreezeAction Posts: 862Member
    I think I best rent the camera for a week and shoot it somewhere off the beaten trail working with focus shifting wide open or maybe a stop or two down to see what the absolute best and largest image is that I could print before degradation sets in.
  • Ton14Ton14 Posts: 673Member
    rmp said:

    Ton14, is the weight- size difference noticable? Is the image quality difference notiicable?

    I don't have them both, cannot compare.
    User Ton changed to Ton14, Google sign in did not work anymore
  • rmprmp Posts: 586Member
    Should I order the 2.8 -- shoot some examples --- compare the results --- then return the 2.8 ??? Or is that immoral?
    Robert M. Poston: D4, D810, V3, 14-24 F2.8, 24-70 f2.8, 70-200 f2.8, 80-400, 105 macro.
  • mhedgesmhedges Posts: 2,789Member
    You could rent it. Lensrentals has it for $119 for a week.
  • WestEndFotoWestEndFoto Posts: 3,675Member
    I would say that is immoral RMP. I would rent or borrow it.
  • FreezeActionFreezeAction Posts: 862Member
    I'm thinking seriously renting a Z7 with the 24-70 2.8 for 3 days just for testing in a state park 5-6 miles away. That's the only way to be sure of what to expect. I will push the package hard to see just how far I can take it. It only makes sense to be happy with my D500 for birding and some other wildlife and use a Z7 for landscape and anything else that is subject to being printed larger than poster size. While I've seen the insides of a model's eyes from a Z7 and f2.8 27-70 it's still not he same thing as a tree line reflecting in a lake or stream. One other test would be of a freight train coming out of a mountain tunnel. Panning to get one shot and the wait for a hopeful second chance with another.
  • donaldejosedonaldejose Posts: 3,446Member
    rmp. I don't think it is immoral because when you test it you won't be sending it back!
  • rmprmp Posts: 586Member
    I agree. I am a sucker for new toys and I still have a closet full of old toys I no longer use. It looks like I will be spending some more money on lenses.
    Robert M. Poston: D4, D810, V3, 14-24 F2.8, 24-70 f2.8, 70-200 f2.8, 80-400, 105 macro.
  • WestEndFotoWestEndFoto Posts: 3,675Member

    Chasing "ultimate bokeh" is a p...............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."
    I am starting to wonder if my original hypothesis that Nikon is concentrating on great sharpness on their 1.8S lenses and for their 1.2S lenses, while settling for similar sharpness while focussing on bokeh, is going to turnout to be false.

    I expected the new 24-70 2.8S to be roughly as sharp at f/4.0 and f/5.6 as the 4.0S. Instead, it is shockingly superior at 24mm and significantly superior at 70mm (I value across the frame performance on a zoom). Not what I expected and I wonder if it foretells what the 50 1.2S, the first 1.2 on the Nikon roadmap, will be like compared to the 50 1.8S. Remember, the 1.8S is pushing Otus territory. If the 1.2 is a similar improvement, it could be a fabulous lens.
  • donaldejosedonaldejose Posts: 3,446Member
    With all the reports of great sharpness for the 24-70 f4.0 S lens I too was expecting little, if any, significant improvement in the "pro" f2.8 version and was pleasantly surprised to find out it was a very significantly improved lens. Let's hope the same will be true for the other "pro" or "high end" versions of their S line. Then get that dual card slot and vertical grip Z8 or Z9 body out and Nikon will have compelling argument for increased market share.
Sign In or Register to comment.