Z7-Z6 Lenses

mhedges

Got my 24-200 Friday and shot a soccer game with it yesterday. Gotta say I was pretty impressed. AF was at least as good as what I get with my old 70-200 VRII and a little better than the 70-300 AF-P lens. Sharpness seemed fine, although I haven't pixel peeped the images that much yet. It was nice having the option to go wider than 70mm - for these games you can sit a couple feet off the sideline and sometimes have action right in front of you.

WestEndFoto

mhedges said:

Got my 24-200 Friday and shot a soccer game with it yesterday. Gotta say I was pretty impressed. AF was at least as good as what I get with my old 70-200 VRII and a little better than the 70-300 AF-P lens. Sharpness seemed fine, although I haven't pixel peeped the images that much yet. It was nice having the option to go wider than 70mm - for these games you can sit a couple feet off the sideline and sometimes have action right in front of you.

That looks like a pretty good lens for soccer Mhedges.

mhedges

WestEndFoto said:

That looks like a pretty good lens for soccer Mhedges.

Yep, at least for day games. For night games even a 2.8 lens is marginal. Next season she will be moving up to 11 on 11 and a field about twice as big so 200mm won't be long enough. I'm hoping the 100-400 or 200-600 will be out by then.

I need to use the 24-200 a bit more but I'll likely sell my 24-70 F4 lens, as long as I keep liking what I'm seeing from the former. I think the 24-70 lens value will plummet once the 24-105 comes out and want to get ahead of that.

mhedges

Looks like the 50 and 105mm macro lens announcements are pending. No 100-400 yet though which is a bit disappointing.

photobunny

mhedges said:

Looks like the 50 and 105mm macro lens announcements are pending. No 100-400 yet though which is a bit disappointing.

If they make an event of it, it makes the most sense to release the macro's together with some photographers focuses on macro talking about how these two lenses completely changed their lives for the better. The 100-400 and 200-600 I suspect will come together ether with a animal/bird eye AF update to the Z6ii or with the Z9.

photobunny

Preordered that 105 maco. Far to cheep to pass up on a bit of macro fun, I haven't photographed bugs for years.

mhedges

Yeah I'll be ordering it too I think.

The 50 seems expensive to me, even though the price really is more or less in line with the F mount shorter macro lenses. I guess I was expecting it to be more of a budget lens.

photobunny

I was surprised at the 50 too. I was expecting a lens I could recommend to Z5 owners or people just starting their photo journey. As it stands, even without the macro, the 50mm f/1.8 S is a much better buy and remains an absolute steal at £400.

NSXTypeR

Has anyone tried the 105mm FX macro on Z cameras? Anyone have any input on that? I'm kind of curious how it handles and if it's clumsy because of how dense it is.

PB_PM

Cannot say I have any issues with the F-mount 105 on the Z6. Handling is no worse than on a DX body like the D7000 you have. It’s better on the bigger bodies (D850 or gripped camera), but nothing that cannot be balanced with proper technique.

WestEndFoto

Well, I received the Noct today. One thing for sure, the limiting factor on taking great images is me, not the Noct. It is going to be alot of fun closing that gap.

Of immediate interest is the manual focus. From closest focus to infinity is an almost 360 degree twist of the manual focus ring. Yet that is what you need for fine focusing. I find myself moving it a few degrees to achieve focus.

Manual focusing is actually quite easy. Focus peaking helps and a little box turns green when it is in focus. Anybody complaining that they can't achieve focus wide open probably struggles with A, S or M mode on their camera.

The lens is obviously sharp wide open. Stopping down to f/1.8 makes an obvious additional improvement and there is a small but noticeable improvement going to 2.8. But this is pretty unscientific until I start comparing it to my other 50s.

The serial number is 20002777. The highest number on the Roland's site (http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/serialno.html) is 20002479 and that has not changed for about six months. Nikon has sold about 2,800 Nocts since it was launched 21 months ago.

WestEndFoto

Looking at Roland's site and looking at his serial numbers vs the serial numbers of the lenses that I have received, you can tell how many of each lens has sold roughly. I think that the sales to date are:

• 50mm 1.2S 4,646 since September 2020
• 58mm 0.95S 2,777 since October 2019
• 20mm 1.8S 11,112 since February 2020
• 24mm 1.8S 5,918 since September 2019
• 35mm 1.8S 38,240 since August 2018
• 50mm 1.8S 64,840 since August 2018
• 85mm 1.8S 29,789 since July 2019

mhedges

@WestEndFoto Interesting info thanks!

manhattanboy

WestEndFoto said:

Looking at Roland's site and looking at his serial numbers vs the serial numbers of the lenses that I have received, you can tell how many of each lens has sold roughly. I think that the sales to date are:

• 50mm 1.2S 4,646 since September 2020
• 58mm 0.95S 2,777 since October 2019
• 20mm 1.8S 11,112 since February 2020
• 24mm 1.8S 5,918 since September 2019
• 35mm 1.8S 38,240 since August 2018
• 50mm 1.8S 64,840 since August 2018
• 85mm 1.8S 29,789 since July 2019

Nikon needs to release some cheaper primes. The large and expensive lenses are holding back purchases, myself included. I use normal range primes as walkarounds; nobody wants to pay for that.

WestEndFoto

manhattanboy said:

WestEndFoto said:

Looking at Roland's site and looking at his serial numbers vs the serial numbers of the lenses that I have received, you can tell how many of each lens has sold roughly. I think that the sales to date are:

• 50mm 1.2S 4,646 since September 2020
• 58mm 0.95S 2,777 since October 2019
• 20mm 1.8S 11,112 since February 2020
• 24mm 1.8S 5,918 since September 2019
• 35mm 1.8S 38,240 since August 2018
• 50mm 1.8S 64,840 since August 2018
• 85mm 1.8S 29,789 since July 2019

Nikon needs to release some cheaper primes. The large and expensive lenses are holding back purchases, myself included. I use normal range primes as walkarounds; nobody wants to pay for that.

I think that the compact primes are meant for you.

NSXTypeR

PB_PM said:

Cannot say I have any issues with the F-mount 105 on the Z6. Handling is no worse than on a DX body like the D7000 you have. It’s better on the bigger bodies (D850 or gripped camera), but nothing that cannot be balanced with proper technique.

That's good to hear. Too bad there's a native Z mount 105mm macro now haha.

GAS is strong for me haha.

NSXTypeR

manhattanboy said:

WestEndFoto said:

Looking at Roland's site and looking at his serial numbers vs the serial numbers of the lenses that I have received, you can tell how many of each lens has sold roughly. I think that the sales to date are:

• 50mm 1.2S 4,646 since September 2020
• 58mm 0.95S 2,777 since October 2019
• 20mm 1.8S 11,112 since February 2020
• 24mm 1.8S 5,918 since September 2019
• 35mm 1.8S 38,240 since August 2018
• 50mm 1.8S 64,840 since August 2018
• 85mm 1.8S 29,789 since July 2019

Nikon needs to release some cheaper primes. The large and expensive lenses are holding back purchases, myself included. I use normal range primes as walkarounds; nobody wants to pay for that.

Agreed. As a DX user I'm waiting to see what Nikon Z DX offers. I want cheaper and wider primes, something like the 35mm DX.

PB_PM

Today I traded in my 28-300mm VR for a Z 24-200mm. Put it on my Z6 this evening and took a bunch of test shots around the house and in the garden. Sharpness and focus are good, much better than the 28-300mm, but the barrel distortion at 24mm, umm wow! Of course that is the in camera corrected stuff (since you cannot turn it off). I'd hate to see the uncorrected images. I have three days to decide if I want to take it back (that's how long they hold trade ins). Tough call...

ggbutcher

PB_PM said:

Today I traded in my 28-300mm VR for a Z 24-200mm. Put it on my Z6 this evening and took a bunch of test shots around the house and in the garden. Sharpness and focus are good, much better than the 28-300mm, but the barrel distortion at 24mm, umm wow! Of course that is the in camera corrected stuff (since you cannot turn it off). I'd hate to see the uncorrected images. I have three days to decide if I want to take it back (that's how long they hold trade ins). Tough call...

Lens correction in post seems to be part of the Nikon trade space for Z lens design. I've had to work through that, but, it seems to be an acceptable thing if the trade is for sharpness.

mhedges

Never used the F 28-300 but I'm loving the Z 24-200. Such a fun walkaround lens.

PB_PM

The F28-300 is a mixed bag, it was not too bad on the lower resolution bodies (12-24MP), but it was very weak on the D810-D850. My copy was good from 200-300, but weak at wider angles, which made it less desirable for its intended purpose as a travel zoom. Pictures just looked flat, even when sharp. It was clearly kit lens grade, which for the price was disappointing.

The Z24-200 does have a little of that, there’s no special qualities about it, and I was shooting in golden hour conditions. On the Z6 it’s snappy in good light as expected, a little slow in low light, but not as bad as I expected. It’s very sharp in the centre at, but that barrel distortion is a little off putting, makes things look odd. I would want to stick to one of my F-mount wide angels for landscape shooting. I’ll likely get the 14-30mm F4 at some point. I do miss the extra reach of the 28-300 a bit, but not the extra bulk. The Z is clearly a better made lens, the zoom lock at most seems pointless, unlike the 28-300 that would creep when pointed down.

WestEndFoto

PB_PM said:

The F28-300 is a mixed bag, it was not too bad on the lower resolution bodies (12-24MP), but it was very weak on the D810-D850. My copy was good from 200-300, but weak at wider angles, which made it less desirable for its intended purpose as a travel zoom. Pictures just looked flat, even when sharp. It was clearly kit lens grade, which for the price was disappointing.

The Z24-200 does have a little of that, there’s no special qualities about it, and I was shooting in golden hour conditions. On the Z6 it’s snappy in good light as expected, a little slow in low light, but not as bad as I expected. It’s very sharp in the centre at, but that barrel distortion is a little off putting, makes things look odd. I would want to stick to one of my F-mount wide angels for landscape shooting. I’ll likely get the 14-30mm F4 at some point. I do miss the extra reach of the 28-300 a bit, but not the extra bulk. The Z is clearly a better made lens, the zoom lock at most seems pointless, unlike the 28-300 that would creep when pointed down.

I would not let distortion impact my decision to buy a lens as it can be corrected and with modern imaging systems it is pretty much automatic.

What will impact my decision to buy a lens is sharpness, which distortion can contribute to when it is corrected - especially in the corners.

So what I mean is, if the sharpness is satisfactory or better, it is potentially a good lens.

If sharpness is not satisfactory, does it really matter what is causing it? I am not going to select Lens A over an equally sharp Lens B because the cause of any sharpness complaint is somehow more palatable on Lens A.

mhedges

Looks like I did get one of the first batch of 105 2.8's. Should arrive Monday or Tuesday. Anyone else get one?

PB_PM

WestEndFoto said:

I would not let distortion impact my decision to buy a lens as it can be corrected and with modern imaging systems it is pretty much automatic.

I’m talking about the corrected file, that’s what you get. Did you not read what I wrote in the previous post about it? Sharpness is fine, but the corrected file, which again is what you get, all Z bodies auto correct, you cannot turn it off on Z lenses, has some real weird stuff going on off centre. I know, it a super zoom, cannot expect magic, but man it’s worse than the old one (corrected is what I’m talking about, once again).

WestEndFoto

PB_PM said:

WestEndFoto said:

I would not let distortion impact my decision to buy a lens as it can be corrected and with modern imaging systems it is pretty much automatic.

I’m talking about the corrected file, that’s what you get. Did you not read what I wrote in the previous post about it? Sharpness is fine, but the corrected file, which again is what you get, all Z bodies auto correct, you cannot turn it off on Z lenses, has some real weird stuff going on off centre. I know, it a super zoom, cannot expect magic, but man it’s worse than the old one (corrected is what I’m talking about, once again).

Sigh.......it is a real bummer talking to you. I should limit my conversation to dumb people - then I wouldn't be exposed as a complete moron.