Z7-Z6 Lenses

1242526272830»

Comments

  • photobunnyphotobunny Posts: 536Member
    With the 400 f/2.8 TC, I wonder if we use our 1.4x TC with the built in one or use the 2x to get to 800. The built in ones are often better IQ but it is still not settled in my mind if the built in plus an extra 1.4x is better than just a 2x.
  • WestEndFotoWestEndFoto Posts: 3,675Member

    With the 400 f/2.8 TC, I wonder if we use our 1.4x TC with the built in one or use the 2x to get to 800. The built in ones are often better IQ but it is still not settled in my mind if the built in plus an extra 1.4x is better than just a 2x.

    Will this lens be compatible with TCs when the internal TC is engaged. I would not assume that. Does anybody know about the 180-400?
  • CEBluecloudsCEBlueclouds Posts: 1,882Member
    edited November 2021

    With the 400 f/2.8 TC, I wonder if we use our 1.4x TC with the built in one or use the 2x to get to 800. The built in ones are often better IQ but it is still not settled in my mind if the built in plus an extra 1.4x is better than just a 2x.

    Will this lens be compatible with TCs when the internal TC is engaged. I would not assume that. Does anybody know about the 180-400?
    there is some information on using an external TC with the internal TC engaged in this
    article

    https://www.richardpeters.co.uk/nikon-180-400-tc14-review-telephoto-zoom-king/#lensperformance

    and this also...

    https://bcgforums.com/index.php?threads/two-tcs-the-nikon-180-400-f4-at-400-560-and-800mm.9798/

    Post edited by CEBlueclouds on
  • photobunnyphotobunny Posts: 536Member

    With the 400 f/2.8 TC, I wonder if we use our 1.4x TC with the built in one or use the 2x to get to 800. The built in ones are often better IQ but it is still not settled in my mind if the built in plus an extra 1.4x is better than just a 2x.

    Will this lens be compatible with TCs when the internal TC is engaged. I would not assume that. Does anybody know about the 180-400?
    The previous lenses from Nikon and Canon with built in TC's have supported them so I have little doubt this new one will also support them. What remains the question in my mind is which TC or combination of TCs gets you the best IQ at 800(when 800 is needed).
  • mhedgesmhedges Posts: 2,645Member
    Anybody getting the 28 2.8? It's on my list but I think I will hold off till I get the 100-400 paid for.
  • photobunnyphotobunny Posts: 536Member
    I have the 28 SE on order for my Z fc. But already have the 24 f/1.8 S for my bigger bodies and it is small and light enough to not get a normal 28 f/2.8 as well.
  • WestEndFotoWestEndFoto Posts: 3,675Member
    I am picking up the Zfc 28mm kit on Saturday along with the 40. That was a four month wait.
  • snakebunksnakebunk Posts: 991Member
    @photobunny: I am pretty sure that the best way to build a TC 2 is not to stack two TC 1.4, and therefore I guess that a TC 2 is best when you want to double the focal length.
  • mhedgesmhedges Posts: 2,645Member
    Canon just announced an 800 5.6 and a 1200 F8. $17k and $20k respectively. Be curious to see where the Z 800 6.3 comes in - hopefully it's well under the Canon lens.
  • PB_PMPB_PM Posts: 4,493Member
    Don’t count on it being much different, higher prices are just the norm for new lenses.
    If I take a good photo it's not my camera's fault.
  • mhedgesmhedges Posts: 2,645Member
    Its going to be expensive for sure. I've seen some folks predict (or maybe just wish) for $8000 or so. To me there's no way its not 5 figures. But I do think there's a chance it comes in around $12K or so. Still a ton of money yes but quite a bit cheaper than the Canon.
  • PB_PMPB_PM Posts: 4,493Member
    I think a lot of the cost is simply due to the current surge of inflation on raw materials. Not something camera makers have much control over.
    If I take a good photo it's not my camera's fault.
  • photobunnyphotobunny Posts: 536Member
    Camera manufacturers are also repositioning themselves for lower sales but higher profits from only enthusiast and professional market. It isn’t surprising to see the mirrorless move bump the prices of many lenses.
  • mhedgesmhedges Posts: 2,645Member
    Honestly I'm not really seeing a big jump in the price of mirrorless lenses vs. their DSLR equivalents per se. Yes some are a little more expensive, especially when the DSLR version was very old, but nothing that can't be explained by inflation. The real difference is the lack of lower end options. No 70-300. No 28-85 type variable aperture zoom. No cheap 1.8 primes (at least for Nikon); that kind of thing.
  • PB_PMPB_PM Posts: 4,493Member
    edited February 25
    mhedges said:

    Honestly I'm not really seeing a big jump in the price of mirrorless lenses vs. their DSLR equivalents per se.

    The S 400mm F2.8 is thousands more than the F-mount E lens, 14-24mm f2.8 S, $1000 more than F-mount, 70-200 S is also about $500 more than the f-mount E lens, looks like an increase to me. You didn’t seem to be looking hard enough.
    Post edited by PB_PM on
    If I take a good photo it's not my camera's fault.
  • mhedgesmhedges Posts: 2,645Member
    edited February 27
    PB_PM said:

    mhedges said:

    Honestly I'm not really seeing a big jump in the price of mirrorless lenses vs. their DSLR equivalents per se.

    The S 400mm F2.8 is thousands more than the F-mount E lens, 14-24mm f2.8 S, $1000 more than F-mount, 70-200 S is also about $500 more than the f-mount E lens, looks like an increase to me. You didn’t seem to be looking hard enough.
    The 400 adds the 1.4 tc making it basically a 400 2.8 and a 600 F4. The F mount 14-24 is around 12 years old, and it cost $1800 when it came out. The E (FL) 70-200 2.8 cost $200 more than the Z lens when it came out. It’s only cheaper now because of its age and Nikons obvious desire to dump F mount product.

    I think I’m looking around ok. If you want to make these kinds of comparisons you need to look at the inflation adjusted MSRPs at product launch. You can’t compare prices of current gear to the discounted / reduced MSRP prices of old gear designed for a system that’s likely to be discontinued soon.
    Post edited by mhedges on
  • PB_PMPB_PM Posts: 4,493Member
    mhedges said:

    PB_PM said:

    mhedges said:

    Honestly I'm not really seeing a big jump in the price of mirrorless lenses vs. their DSLR equivalents per se.

    The S 400mm F2.8 is thousands more than the F-mount E lens, 14-24mm f2.8 S, $1000 more than F-mount, 70-200 S is also about $500 more than the f-mount E lens, looks like an increase to me. You didn’t seem to be looking hard enough.
    The 400 adds the 1.4 tc making it basically a 400 2.8 and a 600 F4. The F mount 14-24 is around 12 years old, and it cost $1800 when it came out. The E (FL) 70-200 2.8 cost $200 more than the Z lens when it came out. It’s only cheaper now because of its age and Nikons obvious desire to dump F mount product.

    I think I’m looking around ok. If you want to make these kinds of comparisons you need to look at the inflation adjusted MSRPs at product launch. You can’t compare prices of current gear to the discounted / reduced MSRP prices of old gear designed for a system that’s likely to be discontinued soon.
    Keep in mind, I’m nlooking at US MSRP.
    If I take a good photo it's not my camera's fault.
  • SearcySearcy Posts: 786Member
    edited April 30
    Long ago I paid $2000 for a used NIKOR 24-70 2.8 VR F mount. Some years later I switch to mirrorless and bought a demo NIKOR 25-70 2.8 S mount for around $2000 so in my world the new lenses have been cheaper.
    Post edited by Searcy on
Sign In or Register to comment.