Z7-Z6 Lenses

WestEndFoto

donaldejose said:

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.

The grip and dual card slot will also give me a compelling reason to buy a camera to attach to the Noct.

FreezeAction

The 50 f1.2 does pose an interest for astrophotography most of the time and the Noct might be an occasional rental lens if needed. I've made a list and checking it off thrice and am still in limbo. The only reason I can justify A hopeful Z8 60MP over a same sensor DSLR is for better sharper glass than what can be offered from Nikon or Sigma or ???? Doing art copy with a 60MP body and razor sharp color accurate 50MM lens is on our agenda. That will extend our active years where hiking wilderness trails will end. A 60MP body with Pro glass will make for a printer upgrade to a 44" SureColor 10000.

WestEndFoto

FreezeAction said:

The 50 f1.2 does pose an interest for astrophotography most of the time and the Noct might be an occasional rental lens if needed. I've made a list and checking it off thrice and am still in limbo. The only reason I can justify A hopeful Z8 60MP over a same sensor DSLR is for better sharper glass than what can be offered from Nikon or Sigma or ???? Doing art copy with a 60MP body and razor sharp color accurate 50MM lens is on our agenda. That will extend our active years where hiking wilderness trails will end. A 60MP body with Pro glass will make for a printer upgrade to a 44" SureColor 10000.

The Nikon lenses so far tend to control coma well, though perhaps not enough for Spraynpray. The Noct and 1.2 lenses will be interesting regarding coma.

FreezeAction

The Nikon lenses so far tend to control coma well, though perhaps not enough for Spraynpray. The Noct and 1.2 lenses will be interesting regarding coma.

Stopping down to help relieve coma while shooting the night sky goes against the grain of paying for high end glass that can't be used at or near wide open. The whole point is to get the image before long exposure noise muddles the image I would think. What good is a f.95 for f1.2 if it's only good at F8?

WestEndFoto

FreezeAction said:

The Nikon lenses so far tend to control coma well, though perhaps not enough for Spraynpray. The Noct and 1.2 lenses will be interesting regarding coma.

Stopping down to help relieve coma while shooting the night sky goes against the grain of paying for high end glass that can't be used at or near wide open. The whole point is to get the image before long exposure noise muddles the image I would think. What good is a f.95 for f1.2 if it's only good at F8?



For sure. The real main point is to get the exposure in less than 20 or 30 seconds before you get star trails.

WestEndFoto

I draw everyone's attention to the two reviews regarding the 14-30 f/4.0S.

https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-z-14-30mm-f4-s

http://www.sansmirror.com/lenses/lens-reviews/lenses-for-nikon-z/nikon-14-30mm-f4-s-lens.html

Personally, I think that this lens is an exceptional and market leading achievement by Nikon.

Many naysayers will say:

1.
Sure it is sharper than the 16-35 f/4.0, but it is not really any sharper than the Nikon 14-24 f/4.0 and its competitors.
2.
All that distortion (and I acknowledge it is a lot).
3.
All that vignetting.

To the naysayers I say, "We all know, or ought to know, that lens design is a set of compromises. Nikon has managed to make a tiny 14-30 that takes filters, is weather sealed and holds its own image quality wise against the best of them. If you want to critique Nikon for sharpness, either wait until a competitor to the 14-30 is revealed or wait for Nikon to launch the 14-24 f/2.8S and see how that lens compares against its competitors - if the 24-70 f/2.8S is any indication, it will wipe the floor with them.

Further, unless you have a reason to shoot with distortion control off, as the Photography Life article in particular speaks to, then criticizing distortion is missing the point because there isn't any. Yup, I said it - but - take a picture, process it through Lightroom and there is no distortion. End of discussion.

The point that is being missed is this, "Distortion, like many lens attributes, has the potential to affect sharpness, particularly in the corners. Sharpness is the issue, regardless of the cause, including distortion." If the corners are sharp enough for you, then who cares? If they are not, then criticize the sharpness, not the distortion. For all you know, there might be 3 factors affecting corner sharpness and distortion may be the least of the three causes.

Vignetting is a different issue. You are going to have more noise in the corners if there are dark areas that you need to correct for and that may nor may not be an issue. I would say it is generally not for me, but it might be for you.

FreezeAction

I've edited and printed a test shot from the 14-30 and found no fault. It was taken in good light with a Z6 and the IQ was awesome for 24MP to work with. On a Z7 there is room to crop out vignetting most of the time I'd think as long as at the widest end you still need the whole frame. It will go in my lens stable unless the 14-24 2.8 arrives and is a much better lens for a Z7 or a rumored Z8 at 60MP. The proof will be in the print.

Symphotic

WestEndFoto said:

I draw everyone's attention to the two reviews regarding the 14-30 f/4.0S.
....

Good reviews. In real life, I just came back from two weeks travel with this lens and found it excellent. The key is it is VERY portable and easy to use.

I also used my 24-70 /2.8 and found that this is the best lens I have seen in this range. We got to try out other manufacturer's lenses at Yodobashi Camera, but I like this the best.

I use the 24-70 /4 when I am looking for ultimate portability and don't need f/2.8, but I don't find the f/2.8 to be much heavier and it certainly is a great performer. I get much better images at 2.8 than I do with my D850 and 24-70 2.8 G combination in a package I could carry all day. I did as much as 15 km per day on foot (and I'm and older guy) but I could easily manage this with the 24-70 /2.8S and the 14-30 /4S in a small shoulder bag. I would have been pretty unhappy at the end of the day with a 14-24 2.8G, 24-70 2.8G and a D850 by the end of the day.

rmp

Thanks Symphotic, your comments about IQ ands weight were just what I needed to hear.

Symphotic

rmp said:

Thanks Symphotic, your comments about IQ ands weight were just what I needed to hear.

I should have mentioned that the /2.8 additional ring is great. I was using it for either aperture control, as I mostly work in aperture priority, or I switched it over to exposure compensation, as it is much more convenient to change exposure compensation with that ring instead of the button and dial on top. The only down side is that it is TOO easy and I have to make sure of my exposure compensation before each shot, as I tend to bump it.

One more thing on the /2.8: The close focus is less than a half meter. I was able to sneak up on a lizard and get excellent photos of it.

About the depth of field indicator on the /2.8: if you rotate the focus ring, focus peaking is activated. This gives a great indication of the depth of field, so I didn't use the depth of field indicator on the /2.8 lens itself. It is handy to have it, I suppose, but I was using focus peaking instead.

My colleague, who was traveling with me part of the time and rocking a D850 with the 24-120 f/4, was very impressed by the eye-focus following on the Z7, although I didn't really use it much.

I didn't get a chance to set up and do any panoramas, so I don't know about the nodal point settings for this lens, but I have assumed it would be the same as the /4. We have a long weekend coming up, so if I get a chance, I'll set up my test rig.

spraynpray

Looking at @mhedges images, I am very impressed with the 14-30. The edge distortion looks super. I hope to see some good astro images from it.

mhedges

85 1.8 announced. Dual focus groups like the 35mm. $800. Seems pretty reasonable to me.

WestEndFoto

Photography Life's article including MTF comparisions to the G's suggest that Nikon's home runs are not limited to the wide end. If so, the Z line is looking better every day.

https://photographylife.com/news/nikon-z-85mm-f-1-8-s-announcement

Symphotic

The 85 looks pretty nice. I just bought some other hardware that I need for work, so it will have to wait until later in the year. No Noct yet, though.

Edit. I'll pre-order anyway. I should have a big check arriving for an underwater video and sonar gig before this is released.

WestEndFoto

Symphotic said:

The 85 looks pretty nice. I just bought some other hardware that I need for work, so it will have to wait until later in the year. No Noct yet, though.

Edit. I'll pre-order anyway. I should have a big check arriving for an underwater video and sonar gig before this is released.

You are all in on the Zed Symphotic. I think I will pull the trigger when a body with the ergonomics of the D850 with a grip comes out and my first lens will be the Noct, since that is the only lens in the line that can do something that my F-mount lenses cannot do. I might also grab the 50 1.2 and 50 1.8 when the 1.2 comes out. That would be a fun comparison and IQ wise, 50 is the big gaping hole in my F-mount line up - my 50 1.4G and 50 1.2AIS are not adequate. The 1.4G is a piece of junk and the 1.2 is great for certain uses, but those are a small minority. My 58 1.4G is wanting wide open. My 105 1.4E and 28 1.4E have spoiled me.

Symphotic

WestEndFoto said:

,,,The 1.4G is a piece of junk and the 1.2 is great for certain uses, but those are a small minority. My 58 1.4G is wanting wide open. My 105 1.4E and 28 1.4E have spoiled me.

I get that, WEF. That 105 is very sweet and probably better in most cases than the 85 1.8 on the Z. My issue is size and weight as I am on foot and moving over long distances for both work and pleasure, and I just can't carry the weight anymore. The Z is the best carry camera since my Minolta CLE. That doesn't mean I won't keep my D850: it spends it's time majestically poised upon a massive tripod peering out to the distance.

WestEndFoto

Symphotic said:

WestEndFoto said:

,,,The 1.4G is a piece of junk and the 1.2 is great for certain uses, but those are a small minority. My 58 1.4G is wanting wide open. My 105 1.4E and 28 1.4E have spoiled me.

I get that, WEF. That 105 is very sweet and probably better in most cases than the 85 1.8 on the Z. My issue is size and weight as I am on foot and moving over long distances for both work and pleasure, and I just can't carry the weight anymore. The Z is the best carry camera since my Minolta CLE. That doesn't mean I won't keep my D850: it spends it's time majestically poised upon a massive tripod peering out to the distance.

That would be very intimidating to Sony users. :-)

Sorry, just trolling for Sony trolls.

Symphotic

WestEndFoto said:

...
That would be very intimidating to Sony users. :-)
....

!.

If you recall, I looked at the Sony before going with the Z7. I decided on the Z camera because of the ability to use my existing lenses--a decision that turned out to be less important than I expected--and the feel and ease of use of the camera in my hands, a subjective choice. I don't fault anyone for going with Sony, but at the time I thought it would brick a lot of my Nikon glass.

Just like my path from D800 through D810 to D850, I expect to buy another Z body in the future. (I'm already putting a little money aside each month in anticipation of the next body.) There are a lot of critics of the Z body (some not relevant to me at all, such as the number of memory cards) but bodies are not a one time purchase, lenses are. So far I have not been been disappointed by any Z lens I've bought, and I can't say that for any other lens brand except the Sigma Arts.

Ton14

@Symphotic exactly the same here.

I keep in my mind that, I gave Sony a try and bought the very expensive Sony NEX-7 many years ago, because it was small and Sony promised a stream of lenses that would come into production that year. 2 years later I sold the thing, because it was a very bad camera and the lenses never came.

The Nikon Z lenses also come much too slowly for me, but so far Nikon has kept what they promise And that IQ .....

Quickly the 70-200 mm f / 2.8, a 40 mm pancake lens and I'm done.

rmp

I am waiting for the 70-200/2.6 and a 105 macro (or 135 macro).

mhedges

Ton14 said:

The Nikon Z lenses also come much too slowly for me, but so far Nikon has kept what they promise And that IQ .....

It would be great if they did come out faster, but once we get the 85 1.8 that will be 6 lenses in 1 year. I don't know that its reasonable to expect much more than that. Canon (a much bigger company) has only managed 5. And of those 5 there are only two that I would consider accessible.

Symphotic

Ton14 said:

.... a 40 mm pancake lens ....

I would so love that.

BVS

Symphotic said:

There are a lot of critics of the Z body (some not relevant to me at all, such as the number of memory cards) but bodies are not a one time purchase, lenses are. So far I have not been been disappointed by any Z lens I've bought, and I can't say that for any other lens brand except the Sigma Arts.

Personally, I don't understand why some people are still critical of the Zs, particularly post 2.00. They're awesome cameras that solve nearly all the things that were annoying about DSLRs (e.g. AF fine tune, video AF, AF point coverage, face/eye detect, IBIS, etc.). Nikon just needs to make a Z8/9 pair with dual slots, grip, and a few more buttons, keep working on the AF system, viewfinder refresh, and connectivity, and release a flash with green AF assist beam, and it'll be a near perfect camera.

mhedges

BVS said:

Symphotic said:

There are a lot of critics of the Z body (some not relevant to me at all, such as the number of memory cards) but bodies are not a one time purchase, lenses are. So far I have not been been disappointed by any Z lens I've bought, and I can't say that for any other lens brand except the Sigma Arts.

Personally, I don't understand why some people are still critical of the Zs, particularly post 2.00. They're awesome cameras that solve nearly all the things that were annoying about DSLRs (e.g. AF fine tune, video AF, AF point coverage, face/eye detect, IBIS, etc.). Nikon just needs to make a Z8/9 pair with dual slots, grip, and a few more buttons, keep working on the AF system, viewfinder refresh, and connectivity, and release a flash with green AF assist beam, and it'll be a near perfect camera.

Agree - I think it's an excellent camera. The only thing I would like is slightly better action AF. I find mine still focuses on the background somewhat frequently.

rmp

The z7/24-70f4 is a terrific camera/lens. I can shoot a closeup (1 ft.) then do a little cropping (47mp) and it is almost as good as a macro setup. It is a good portrait setup at 70 mm. At 24 mm it is a good landscape setup. The image stabilization really helps with handholding. The autofocus is better that what I can do (without my glasses.) Complainers must be talking about a different device.