Z7-Z6 Lenses

rmp

Some people work with any tool, some people don't.

spraynpray

I wouldn't work with him!

Pistnbroke

Moron ? are you saying he is a second Trump.

Searcy

Pistnbroke said:

Moron ? are you saying he is a second Trump.

No, even Trump doesn't claim to be a brilliant Buddhist quantum physicist photographer with an advanced understanding of light waves and magnetism that gives him an edge.

rmp

I thought this was the one site where I could avoid political crap. So sad.

spraynpray

No politics please.

WestEndFoto

Here is your new astrophotography lens Spraynpray.

https://www.cameralabs.com/nikon-z-14-24mm-f2-8-s-review/

If I decide I want ultra wide in Z and Nikon does not offer a prime, I can see myself buying this lens for "wider than 20", as I would almost certainly have the 20 1.8S.

spraynpray

Oh dear. Just what I didn't want to see!

£2.5k though...

photobunny

Delighted to report after a wee delay my 70-200 f/2.8 S arrived and now I just need to try it out and get the TC's.

rmp

I see a 105-macro on the lens road map. I assume it will be a 2.8 like the current one. Any guess as to when it will be available? Will it be a 2.8?

mhedges

Everything on the roadmap is supposed to be out by the end of 2022. I'm sure that doesn't exactly help. My guess is it will be 2.8 but it's not certain.

The 100-400 is rumored to be one of the next lenses announced. Not sure what else - maybe the 24-105? Or the compact primes.

photobunny

The 100-400 is the natural one to round out the with the trinity. The 400 and 600 I am expecting to see with a new body. 105 macro could be a f/2.8 or f/3.5 it has been on the roadmap for quite some time suggesting it is/was imminent.

mhedges

Yes agree. They need to get a telephoto lens out and I think the 100-400 makes the most sense right now.

[Deleted User]

I have been using the 28G for about 40% of my images as it is quite good for intimate landscapes (notwithstanding slight field curvature) and the color output is outstanding. I use the 55MM 2.8 Micro (very flat field) for a lot of my closeup work (non macro work) as the 60G has far too much focus breathing and microcontrast isn't the best. The 60MM D has too much lateral chromatic aberation as does the 105 G micro in my experience, and neither are particularly commendable at infinity. Hence I use a 90 Tamron instead of the 105, which also has flat field and is equally at home with landscapes and macro.

I see a Z non-S 28MM compact and 50MM Macro on the RM. Nikon hasn't produced a non S prime yet, so it's anyone's guess as to quality, both optically and structurally. I would expect that these would be F2.8 of perhaps F3.5, but given my abundant use of these focal lengths, it is unclear whether a move to Z lenses would make sense for me at this point. Though I am super careful with my lenses, I would not accept a cheap plastic outer shell with less than optimum quality components inside, if the DX 24-50 Z lens is any indication.

I was hoping for optically improved/updated Z T/S lenses as well and none are on the list.

The 100-400 would be of interest provided that it is at least 5.6 wide open at 400mm, and it has excellent sharpness wide open at 400MM both closeup and at infinity. Given Nikon's track record heretofore with the two 80-400 versions, I am not optimistic. I will punt if the aperture at 400MM is slower than 5.6 in any event. A 400MM f5.6 (non-P) with high resolving power would have been preferred, but both Canon and Nikon are focused on teles zooms rather than tele primes at least at this point.

So a move to the Z system would not be productive for me (I also use the 24 F1.8g, 50MM F1.8G (infrequent), 200-400G VRII and 600MM G AFS. I have owned several others including the 24MM F1.4, 80-200 AFS, and 85PCE, but sold them for one or more issues. There being no good alternative, I guess I will sit this one out for a few years.

WestEndFoto

flip said:

I have been using the 28G for about 40% of my images as it is quite good for intimate landscapes (notwithstanding slight field curvature) and the color output is outstanding. I use the 55MM 2.8 Micro (very flat field) for a lot of my closeup work (non macro work) as the 60G has far too much focus breathing and microcontrast isn't the best. The 60MM D has too much lateral chromatic aberation as does the 105 G micro in my experience, and neither are particularly commendable at infinity. Hence I use a 90 Tamron instead of the 105, which also has flat field and is equally at home with landscapes and macro.

I see a Z non-S 28MM compact and 50MM Macro on the RM. Nikon hasn't produced a non S prime yet, so it's anyone's guess as to quality, both optically and structurally. I would expect that these would be F2.8 of perhaps F3.5, but given my abundant use of these focal lengths, it is unclear whether a move to Z lenses would make sense for me at this point. Though I am super careful with my lenses, I would not accept a cheap plastic outer shell with less than optimum quality components inside, if the DX 24-50 Z lens is any indication.

I was hoping for optically improved/updated Z T/S lenses as well and none are on the list.

The 100-400 would be of interest provided that it is at least 5.6 wide open at 400mm, and it has excellent sharpness wide open at 400MM both closeup and at infinity. Given Nikon's track record heretofore with the two 80-400 versions, I am not optimistic. I will punt if the aperture at 400MM is slower than 5.6 in any event. A 400MM f5.6 (non-P) with high resolving power would have been preferred, but both Canon and Nikon are focused on teles zooms rather than tele primes at least at this point.

So a move to the Z system would not be productive for me (I also use the 24 F1.8g, 50MM F1.8G (infrequent), 200-400G VRII and 600MM G AFS. I have owned several others including the 24MM F1.4, 80-200 AFS, and 85PCE, but sold them for one or more issues. There being no good alternative, I guess I will sit this one out for a few years.

And I am sure that you produce some fantastic images with those lenses. No reason to upgrade as long as you are still happy.

snakebunk

Doing nothing is often a good option. Especially when it comes to buying stuff.

[Deleted User]

"...fantastic images..."

I appreciate your kind words, but "interesting" or "unique' perhaps is more accurate. In reality, I am extremely frustrated with market place options and have defaulted to lenses which I feel get me closer to some of my objectives. Once you use movements on the view camera, it is difficult not to see the possibilities with them. But view cameras and their digital technical counterparts are extraordinarily slow, cumbersome, and the latter quite expensive.

"Doing nothing" is not an option, as I have too many ideas that I cannot express using current marketplace choices. Technical cameras which are obscure and not well advertised are very expensive, delicate, modular, and not facile enough in the field. And then there are the lenses for these, and the quality runs the gamut when using movements and prices are generally ridiculous (i.e. $13k for a recently introduced Rodenstock 90mm shift lens for MFD).

Then there is color, and Nikon gets it close to what I see, whereas the alternatives are too saturated (Canon, Fuji), too digital, unnatural looking (Sony, Fuji), color biased (Canon shift to yellow). There is Hasselblad which I have not tried and which is next on my list (landscapes), but there are no TS lenses (there is a 1.5x TS converter) and I fear they are too fragile for long term use outdoors. Nikon will remain for birds and wildlife as the results are stunningly good.

Some have suggested Leica S and this is an option if I can get to Leica store at some point to try it out. I have read however that lens reliability is an issue with many having to replace AF modules.

I don't like spending hours in post trying to modify say a Fuji GFX image to Nikon color gamut, no matter how MFD eclipses FF in acutance. And the Fuji brown bias, oversaturation (plastic look), and artifacts in their 50 MP sensor is very annoying.

Phase One XF is out of reach by choice as I will not justify this amount for non-commercial landscape photography. It doesn't make sense, especially with all the lenses I would want.

I was hoping Nikon would come through with some specialty lenses, but they are still seeking market support for their Z cameras.

Here's what I would want if I had a choice:

1. 28MM TS lens, highest quality optics (or equivalent in MFD)
Alternatively, a major upgrade to the existing 24mm TS, or a 28MM F1.8-F2 S lens of highest image quality which can be used without distortion adjusting SW, and focuses as close as the 28MM G. This lens would have to be great to the edges and in the corners stopped down.

2. 50-60mm macro with extraordinary image quality, no focus breathing, and preferably TS.

3. 75MM F1.4/1.8 for both nature portrait and landscape work (a focal length which is is not well represented industry wide). I really like this focal length having used a 50MM FF lens for years on a DX camera.

5. 85-90MM Micro with extraordinary optics for macro and landscape (TS lens preferred, and with AF as possible).

6. 400MM F5.6 AF/VR non P for carrying around bird and wildlife photography, highest quality optics.

7. 600MM F5.6 AF/VR Non P with excellent image quality strictly for bird and wildlife photographers. Great with 1.4 converter.

I don't think we'll be seeing any of the above from any manufacturer for years if ever.

C'est la vie.

In the meantime, bring on the D850 replacement.

[Deleted User]

P.S. Add to my list a Nikon Z FF point and shoot with fixed 28MM F2-F2.8 lens not unlike the Leica Q2 but with a sharper lens, with much better corners and edge resolution then the Summilux 28MM F1.7. Having used the Q for some time, I can say that it had the some of the same limitations as the Nikon 24 F1.4, with mushy corners and low edge quality until F 2.8 and with the Summilux, thereafter until F 11. Good for portraits but unless you stop to F8, still poor edges.

photobunny

Just to report in, the Z 1.4X TC does not reduce the IQ or focus speed in the slightest on my 70-200 S f/2.8 and the Z6. It is just half the light for an extra 280mm. And the TC is very metal, perhaps to reflect the material in the 400mm f/2.8 and 600mm f/4.0, certainly different feeling than the 70-200 and other Z S-line lenses.

My 2x is still maybe coming soon and I don't expect as much from it, but also only really plan to use it on the 400mm f/2.8 at times when there isn't another option for the subject.

spraynpray

photobunny said:

Just to report in, the Z 1.4X TC does not reduce the IQ or focus speed in the slightest on my 70-200 S f/2.8 and the Z6. It is just half the light for an extra 280mm. And the TC is very metal, perhaps to reflect the material in the 400mm f/2.8 and 600mm f/4.0, certainly different feeling than the 70-200 and other Z S-line lenses.

My 2x is still maybe coming soon and I don't expect as much from it, but also only really plan to use it on the 400mm f/2.8 at times when there isn't another option for the subject.

That's impressive. Be interested in the 2x results.

mhedges

Just ordered the 24-200 - couldn't resist that $100 discount. Anyone here have one?

WestEndFoto

photobunny said:

Just to report in, the Z 1.4X TC does not reduce the IQ or focus speed in the slightest on my 70-200 S f/2.8 and the Z6. It is just half the light for an extra 280mm. And the TC is very metal, perhaps to reflect the material in the 400mm f/2.8 and 600mm f/4.0, certainly different feeling than the 70-200 and other Z S-line lenses.

My 2x is still maybe coming soon and I don't expect as much from it, but also only really plan to use it on the 400mm f/2.8 at times when there isn't another option for the subject.

Very impressive. I wonder what the result would be on a Z 7ii?

photobunny

WestEndFoto said:

photobunny said:

Just to report in, the Z 1.4X TC does not reduce the IQ or focus speed in the slightest on my 70-200 S f/2.8 and the Z6. It is just half the light for an extra 280mm. And the TC is very metal, perhaps to reflect the material in the 400mm f/2.8 and 600mm f/4.0, certainly different feeling than the 70-200 and other Z S-line lenses.

My 2x is still maybe coming soon and I don't expect as much from it, but also only really plan to use it on the 400mm f/2.8 at times when there isn't another option for the subject.

Very impressive. I wonder what the result would be on a Z 7ii?

AF speed wont change between camera bodies. And the IQ should be just as fantastic on the 45 MP bodies, as reported by others and you can check out Ricci Talks on Youtube who does a rundown on a Z7/Z7ii.

WestEndFoto

Yes, but IQ differences that are not obvious at 24mp may be obvious at 45. There is some degradation by the TC. It is still a triumph in optical engineering, but that does not mean that it is perfect.

photobunny

WestEndFoto said:

Yes, but IQ differences that are not obvious at 24mp may be obvious at 45. There is some degradation by the TC. It is still a triumph in optical engineering, but that does not mean that it is perfect.

Again checkout Ricci talks or just about any review. The 70-200 S loses nought on the 45mp bodies with the 1.4x and negligible on the 2.0x