Z7-Z6 Lenses

RogerMathus

Is the new Nikon Z 70-200 mm f2.8 shipping yet?

BVS

PB_PM said:

The thing I don't get about the 24-200mm is why they didn't follow the older formula of 3.5-5.6. Surely it isn't a size and weight issue. F6.3 at 200mm makes it more difficult to isolate subjects that aren't right on top of you.

Yeah, I'm sad about that too, especially since it's f/6.3 not just at 200mm but from about 70mm on. So basically all the extra reach you get vs. the 24-70 is all f/6.3. I was looking forward to this lens, but now I'm thinking I'll just wait for the 24-105 instead.

Symphotic

RogerMathus said:

Is the new Nikon Z 70-200 mm f2.8 shipping yet?

Standing by...some are saying it will ship at the end of this month. Can that be confirmed?

Symphotic

Zowie! I post this, and moments later the blog states it is shipping this week.

Well, we will see. I tried to check my shipping status on NikonUSA's site, but the site is not operating properly. I ordered on 7 January.

photobunny

Hopefully the wait for the 100-400 and 200-600 won't be anywhere near what we've had with the 70-200. Long native Z lenses being missing gives me worries that there is some issue with long lenses on the Z mount(I know it sounds daft, but I am stuck at 85mm here).

Symphotic

photobunny said:

... Long native Z lenses being missing gives me worries that there is some issue with long lenses on the Z mount(I know it sounds daft, but I am stuck at 85mm here).

I get that. NikonUSA's website will not update my order status and continues to return server errors. I'm thinking there is something wrong that they don't want to tell us.

donaldejose

No issue with long lenses on Z mount. They are likely to be better than the F mount equivalent. Nikon just has limited resources and needs to devote much of those resources into producing new Z bodies such as the Z5, Z6s, Z7s, and Z8 or 9. Transitioning from F mount to Z mount lenses will take years. Nikon likely will put their limited resources into lenses which they sell more of.

mhedges

donaldejose said:

No issue with long lenses on Z mount. They are likely to be better than the F mount equivalent. Nikon just has limited resources and needs to devote much of those resources into producing new Z bodies such as the Z5, Z6s, Z7s, and Z8 or 9. Transitioning from F mount to Z mount lenses will take years. Nikon likely will put their limited resources into lenses which they sell more of.

Exactly. Long lenses, especially long prime lenses, make a lot of noise but they sell in low numbers compared to shorter lenses. They will come eventually, and in the meantime one can always just adapt F mount glass.

photobunny

mhedges said:

donaldejose said:

No issue with long lenses on Z mount. They are likely to be better than the F mount equivalent. Nikon just has limited resources and needs to devote much of those resources into producing new Z bodies such as the Z5, Z6s, Z7s, and Z8 or 9. Transitioning from F mount to Z mount lenses will take years. Nikon likely will put their limited resources into lenses which they sell more of.

Exactly. Long lenses, especially long prime lenses, make a lot of noise but they sell in low numbers compared to shorter lenses. They will come eventually, and in the meantime one can always just adapt F mount glass.

I don't particularly want to invest in F lenses. I am starting on Nikon with Z, why would I want to buy into a 50 year old mount that means buying an insanely over priced adaptor that is ugly as sin to rub a wee extra salt in. Nikon have 20mm to 85mm well covered and with overlapping lenses too.

And for the most part we are worried about the ever delayed 70-200 f/2.8, that is a bread and butter lens. Killing for a 200mm+, but I'll take a 70-200 in the mean time, when I bought my Z6 in March there where reviews on the new zoom and then it went dark(partially Covid's fault for sure).

tc88

photobunny said:

when I bought my Z6 in March there where reviews on the new zoom and then it went dark(partially Covid's fault for sure).

Haha, welcome to the Nikon world. Some of us long timers know only make buy decisions based on what's already available, not what may appear in the future.

photobunny

tc88 said:

photobunny said:

when I bought my Z6 in March there where reviews on the new zoom and then it went dark(partially Covid's fault for sure).

Haha, welcome to the Nikon world. Some of us long timers know only make buy decisions based on what's already available, not what may appear in the future.

After decades on Canon I thought I would give Nikon a go, at the very least the time Z6 and the fast primes make for an excellent point and shoot to walk about with. But I have not been able to use it for wildlife yet, I just can't bring myself to buy a FTZ and 'old' lenses.

snakebunk

@photobunny: I understand you situation. The Z mount is not on my list of possible mirrorless mounts until there is at least one long prime lens available. If Nikon wanted to they could easily (I think) have made the latest long lenses, 120-300/2.8 and 500/5.6 PF, available for the Z mount. I need to see that Nikon wants to be on the wildlife market with the Z mount, and I do not want to use an adapter as a permanent solution, especially not in combination with a converter. Sorry for repeating myself from earlier posts, but in case Nikon didn't read them... .

photobunny

@snakebunk that 500mm f/5.6 PF is screaming at me that it should have been a mirrorless lens. Though I fear like the 200-600, Nikon are planning on making the Z versions that little bit different. I am hoping the 200-600 will be f/5.6 throughout, but fear they'll make a variable aperture lens instead.

Symphotic

I understand the clamor for long lenses, but long lenses should be easier than WA. The real trick is short lenses, and it appears Nikon has hit on the trick for making short lenses with the mirrorless mount. I haven't done a side by side comparison of my 20 mm F mount with the 20 mm Z mount, but the performance of my 14-30 f/4 is a treat to use.
The 100 - 400 S-Line that is out there should be a pretty interesting lens, but we have to see how the 70-200 really works, as I no longer trust the Ricci and the others who claim to have tested the 70-200.
After the 70-200 I just wait for the Macro.
I have the 300 PF and it works so well and is still small enough with the FTZ that I don't think I need a PF in Z mount. I run the PF on the D500 most of the time anyway.

tc88

Symphotic said:

but the performance of my 14-30 f/4 is a treat to use.

Care to elaborate on that? With the huge amount of distortion and the resulted in camera correction, I don't think it actually reaches 14mm, not to mention the impact on resolution which DXO says is very so-so. Seems to me the only thing going for it is the size.

mhedges

Symphotic said:

but the performance of my 14-30 f/4 is a treat to use.
The 100 - 400 S-Line that is out there should be a pretty interesting lens, but we have to see how the 70-200 really works, as I no longer trust the Ricci and the others who claim to have tested the 70-200.

Agree on the 14-30. It is a very fun lens to use. Easy to carry around all day, and plenty sharp for me on Z6. I was using the Sigma ART 14-24 on FTZ and really there's no comparison - the 14-30 is so much more pleasant to use.

I'm also looking forward to the 100-400 but worried about the price. If it's too expensive it may make sense to just get the 70-200 and use the TC's as necessary.

I kinda see what you are saying about Ricci. I think his videos can still be useful but I wish he did a bit more "real-world" type testing, particularly when it comes to the working distance. His test setups seem to be all at fairly close distances which may or may not equate to results at more typical distances.

Symphotic

tc88 said:

Symphotic said:

but the performance of my 14-30 f/4 is a treat to use.

Care to elaborate on that? With the huge amount of distortion and the resulted in camera correction, I don't think it actually reaches 14mm, not to mention the impact on resolution which DXO says is very so-so. Seems to me the only thing going for it is the size.

The lens is great. Note that I used very subjective terminology. It is "a treat to use".

tc88

Symphotic said:

tc88 said:

Symphotic said:

but the performance of my 14-30 f/4 is a treat to use.

Care to elaborate on that? With the huge amount of distortion and the resulted in camera correction, I don't think it actually reaches 14mm, not to mention the impact on resolution which DXO says is very so-so. Seems to me the only thing going for it is the size.

The lens is great. Note that I used very subjective terminology. It is "a treat to use".

Ok. Fair enough. I was confused by the use of the word "performance" which typically carries meaning of objective quantities like speed or resolution measured in numbers. I certainly understand the benefit of small size which seems to be what you guys are basing instead.

WestEndFoto

photobunny said:

@snakebunk that 500mm f/5.6 PF is screaming at me that it should have been a mirrorless lens. Though I fear like the 200-600, Nikon are planning on making the Z versions that little bit different. I am hoping the 200-600 will be f/5.6 throughout, but fear they'll make a variable aperture lens instead.

So a couple of things.

First, Nikon is not going to just convert an f-mount lens to z-mount. That would be terrible marketing and of no value as the user can accomplish exactly the same thing by putting the FTZ on the lens. Nikon is going to take full advantage of the z-mount and design z-mount lenses from scratch.

Second, Nikon needs to first build lenses that customers want and measuring what customers want should be determined by sales and profit generated by each lens (profit is important because if the customer won't pay Nikon enough to make a profit, then Nikon should not make the lens).

Customers don't want telephoto lenses longer than 200mm. Oh sure, a few do and I am one of them. But those customers are gnats sitting on the asses of buffalo in the high prairie. They are a niche. However, it would seem that more than half of those gnats generate noise on forums such as this one.

Nikon is focussing on the lenses that most customers will want to buy. If they focus on long telephotes, then they will sell 100,000 cameras every year, not 1,000,000 plus.

Finally, Nikon only has so much design bandwidth. They can design and produce 8, maybe 9 lenses per year. I am sure that they are working flat out.

I really see no alternative for the long lens owner that wants to shoot a Z camera other than the FTZ adapter or a camera for that lens.

I will use myself as an example. I have what I call a portrait set, which is the 28 1.4, 58 1.4, 105 1.4 and 400 2.8. I am missing the 200 2.0 as I was waiting for the G version to update as it was due. I just use the 70-200 2.8 for now as a good enough. I will continue to use these lenses on my D850 and probably D880. Then someday Nikon will release a 200 2.0 Z lens and I will use a Z-body on that lens and an F-body on the other lenses when I shoot. And then if the F-bodies wear out sometime around 2030, I will permanently affix an FTZ to the 400 2.8 and probably not notice it is there. For a 15,000 lens, I think that is a reasonable solution. For the other lenses in this portrait set, I will likely replace them with Z versions when the f-bodies wear out.

Symphotic

tc88 said:

....
Ok. Fair enough. I was confused by the use of the word "performance" which typically carries meaning of objective quantities like speed or resolution measured in numbers. I certainly understand the benefit of small size which seems to be what you guys are basing instead.

This reminds me of my son disputing my calling a Prius a “high performance automobile”. It is if your figure of merit is fuel efficiency. With the 14 - 30 I consider light weight, a wide zoom range, portability, and ease of use to have objectively quantifiable figures of merit. But any selection of figures of merit (such as distortion) is subjective. My fisheye distorts more, but still is a joy to use.
How would you deal with people who bang on about “bokeh” as an objective quantity?

tc88

Symphotic said:

This reminds me of my son disputing my calling a Prius a “high performance automobile”. It is if your figure of merit is fuel efficiency. With the 14 - 30 I consider light weight, a wide zoom range, portability, and ease of use to have objectively quantifiable figures of merit. But any selection of figures of merit (such as distortion) is subjective. My fisheye distorts more, but still is a joy to use.

How would you deal with people who bang on about “bokeh” as an objective quantity?

Haha, I didn't realize you are so defensive that you want to justify "size" as "performance". What a pity. All I know is that most people would consider those quite separate aspects. Anyway, we can agree to disagree.

rmp

I forgot -- Was it 'hot cars and fast women" or "fast cars and hot women"?

RogerMathus

Any update on the Z 70-200mm lens? Did Nikon ship any to dealers?

Symphotic

RogerMathus said:

Any update on the Z 70-200mm lens? Did Nikon ship any to dealers?

I tried to check the website on my order but I get a "server error." I called NikonUSA and the rep stated: "We expect it to be released soon, but we do not have a date yet. There is a push to get it released immediately." She followed up with an e-mail apologizing for the delay and asking me to check in with her next week.

Yodobashi's Japanese website shows it is not available yet, and BandH still shows it as "Preorder."

I suspect anything from hours to weeks.

mhedges

There’s a trickle at least shipping, going by what I see on the Z FB group.