Z7-Z6 Lenses

145791029

Comments

  • WestEndFotoWestEndFoto Posts: 3,603Member
    Symphotic said:

    ...While I may avoid the zooms in the S line and stick to primes, if I was so inclined perhaps yes....

    I avoided zoom lenses for years. I didn't own one until I bought my D800. And even now I use them at the locks more than composing with the zoom.

    Anyway, I may be up in your area again soon to take delivery for a special project I'm working on. If I have a new lens by then, maybe we can go out and about again.
    Sure!
  • donaldejosedonaldejose Posts: 3,398Member
    My guess: the f2.8 zoom will be sharper than the f4 zoom, it will have better bokeh, it will be more durable, it will be an "upgrade" in many ways. I am also guessing that it has been designed with higher megapixel sensors (like 70 mp or more) to come in the next few years. The advantage of the f4 zoom over the f2.8 zoom will be its smaller size and lower price. If size and price are most important to you stick with the f4 zoom. If ultimate image quality is more important to you and you want to start buying lenses which were designed for very high megapixel sensors to come over the next few years get the f2.8 zoom. We will have to wait for the tests on production models of the lens to find out for sure and we will have to wait for Z8 and Z9 bodies to see how high the megapixels go on an FX sensor. I have my preorder in even though I only have a 24mp Z6 because I am expecting a "real pro body" Z8 with two CFast express card slots to be out in about a year.
  • SymphoticSymphotic Posts: 704Member
    edited February 2019
    I'll go ahead and pre-order. No harm in that. I can change my mind later, but I doubt I will. But that 24-70 f/4 really changed the game for kit lenses. It is better than anyone expected, and the f2/8 has a high bar to jump.

    I note that the release date for the 24-70 f/2.8 is the same as the 14-30 f/4. That will be a big hit on my purchasing account...
    Post edited by Symphotic on
    Jack Roberts
    "Discovery consists in seeing what everyone else has seen and thinking what nobody else has thought"--Albert Szent-Gyorgy
  • WestEndFotoWestEndFoto Posts: 3,603Member
    Looking closely at the MTF charts for the two 24-70s, it looks like Nikon is designing for similar optical performance in the S line regardless of aperture. I welcome this because if I have an application for which a wider aperture is suitable, I do not have to give up sharpness.

    I think that Nikon will come out with a modern version of the Series E line for those of us who are more budget conscious.
  • mhedgesmhedges Posts: 2,296Member
    Yep review of the MTF’s would suggest minimal difference. I’ll be sticking with the F4 version myself, and maybe saving up for the 70-200 F2.8.
  • BVSBVS Posts: 440Member
    mhedges said:

    Yep review of the MTF’s would suggest minimal difference. I’ll be sticking with the F4 version myself, and maybe saving up for the 70-200 F2.8.

    But the MTF charts are at max aperture, so the 2.8 is as sharp at 2.8 as the 4 is at 4. The 2.8 at 4 should be noticeably sharper than the 4 at 4 I would think.
    D7100, 85 1.8G, 50 1.8G, 35 1.8G DX, Tokina 12-28 F4, 18-140, 55-200 VR DX
  • BVSBVS Posts: 440Member
    Symphotic said:

    Would you buy the 24-70 f/2.8 if you already have the 24-70 f/4?

    The world wonders...

    I don't know, the f/4 is good but every time I try to use it indoors I wish it was faster.
    D7100, 85 1.8G, 50 1.8G, 35 1.8G DX, Tokina 12-28 F4, 18-140, 55-200 VR DX
  • mhedgesmhedges Posts: 2,296Member
    BVS said:

    mhedges said:

    Yep review of the MTF’s would suggest minimal difference. I’ll be sticking with the F4 version myself, and maybe saving up for the 70-200 F2.8.

    But the MTF charts are at max aperture, so the 2.8 is as sharp at 2.8 as the 4 is at 4. The 2.8 at 4 should be noticeably sharper than the 4 at 4 I would think.
    Yeah that's certainly possible. The photography life review of the F4 lens shows pretty minimal improvement stopped down. It will be interesting seeing how the 2.8 compares. It could maybe have less distortion and vignetting, even if the ultimate sharpness isn't really much better.
  • WestEndFotoWestEndFoto Posts: 3,603Member
    I would expect better corner performance for the 2.8 stopped down to 4.0, but similar centre performance.
  • donaldejosedonaldejose Posts: 3,398Member
    Generally, a lens is sharpest two stops down from maximum. Thus, the f2.8 lens should be sharper than the f4 lens at each f stop down until diffusion sets in. We will have to wait for the tests on the production lenses.
  • WestEndFotoWestEndFoto Posts: 3,603Member

    Generally, a lens is sharpest two stops down from maximum. Thus, the f2.8 lens should be sharper than the f4 lens at each f stop down until diffusion sets in. We will have to wait for the tests on the production lenses.

    I have been looking closely at the reviews and MTF charts for the 24-70s. I think that you are probably right.
  • WestEndFotoWestEndFoto Posts: 3,603Member
    Spraynpray, any thoughts on the coma performance of the z lenses?
  • SymphoticSymphotic Posts: 704Member
    The other question to ask if if you would buy the 24-70 f/2.8 S if you already have the G or E version.
    I have the G, and although I have taken great pictures with it, is is not really the best lens I own. It is heavy and awkward and has no VR, and the E is heavier and more awkward, although with VR and perhaps better optically. Putting the G on the Z7 with the FTZ is somewhat inelegant. So although I am not sure I am going to keep my pre-order for the S open, I haven't cancelled yet as there are always uses for a faster lens.
    It's too bad the release date is the same as the must have 14-30 f/4. This puts a dent in the cash flow and usually after I get a new lens I don't use anything else for at least a month on the first body I put it on, and I have only one Z body. Maybe I will cancel and see if I have potential body time after I get the 14-30. Otherwise it may become an expensive shelf-queen for at least a month.
    Jack Roberts
    "Discovery consists in seeing what everyone else has seen and thinking what nobody else has thought"--Albert Szent-Gyorgy
  • WestEndFotoWestEndFoto Posts: 3,603Member
    Symphotic said:

    The other question to ask if if you would buy the 24-70 f/2.8 S if you already have the G or E version.
    I have the G, and although I have taken great pictures with it, is is not really the best lens I own. It is heavy and awkward and has no VR, and the E is heavier and more awkward, although with VR and perhaps better optically. Putting the G on the Z7 with the FTZ is somewhat inelegant. So although I am not sure I am going to keep my pre-order for the S open, I haven't cancelled yet as there are always uses for a faster lens.
    It's too bad the release date is the same as the must have 14-30 f/4. This puts a dent in the cash flow and usually after I get a new lens I don't use anything else for at least a month on the first body I put it on, and I have only one Z body. Maybe I will cancel and see if I have potential body time after I get the 14-30. Otherwise it may become an expensive shelf-queen for at least a month.

    I have the holy trinity including the E in 24-70 and 70-200, so I am covered for VR. These are zoom lenses so I am using them for events, where I don't take IQ that seriously, though VR is important because often the light is poor. I see myself using the f-mount for this application for a good ten years. For the z-mount, I will by buying primes.
  • retreadretread Posts: 572Member
    If you put the 24-70 G on a Z body you should have the in body VR.
  • WestEndFotoWestEndFoto Posts: 3,603Member
    retread said:

    If you put the 24-70 G on a Z body you should have the in body VR.

    That could be a good reason to "go zed". Nikon hates this. They think it should be pronounced "zee".
  • Ton14Ton14 Posts: 617Member
    edited February 2019
    Tested my 24-70mm f/2.8 on the Nikon Z6 and made sharp photo's with a ISO 100 - f/8 and a 5th of a second, amazing. How different we are, for some (Symphotic) the 14-30 f/4 is a must and for others (me) 24mm is enough for my kind of photography and I prefer faster then f/4 if possible and primes.
    Post edited by Ton14 on
    User Ton changed to Ton14, Google sign in did not work anymore
  • spraynprayspraynpray Posts: 6,450Moderator

    Spraynpray, any thoughts on the coma performance of the z lenses?

    It seems to me that although I have no actual knowledge of the Z lenses, coma and the astigmatisms are best in lenses with little glass in them so I doubt that the Z's will be any better than the F's.

    Always learning.
  • SymphoticSymphotic Posts: 704Member

    Spraynpray, any thoughts on the coma performance of the z lenses?

    It seems to me that although I have no actual knowledge of the Z lenses, coma and the astigmatisms are best in lenses with little glass in them so I doubt that the Z's will be any better than the F's.

    I've got a handful of 50 mm lenses here and I can show some data if I get the time today. Stand by.
    Jack Roberts
    "Discovery consists in seeing what everyone else has seen and thinking what nobody else has thought"--Albert Szent-Gyorgy
  • SymphoticSymphotic Posts: 704Member
    Ton14 said:

    Tested my 24-70mm f/2.8 on the Nikon Z6 and made sharp photo's with a ISO 100 - f/8 and a 5th of a second, amazing. How different we are, for some (Symphotic) the 14-30 f/4 is a must and for others (me) 24mm is enough for my kind of photography and I prefer faster then f/4 if possible and primes.

    My 24-70 f/2.8G does work well on my Z body with the FTZ and as a bonus I get VR, but it is a better balance on the D850, so that is the proper body for it.

    It's funny how things change with time. I was not interested in anything wider than 28 mm in my film days. For the first 10 years of shooting 28 mm was the widest lens I owned. I bought a 24 mm lens for my F2 years ago and rarely used it. When I bought the D800 I got hooked on wide angle. So much so that on a trip to Japan last Summer I used a fisheye almost exclusively.

    I really like my 24-70 F/4. I can't praise the lens highly enough. But I keep cranking it to the stop at 24 mm.

    By the way, there is an old story about Bill Monroe, the Father of Bluegrass Music. A photographer's lens wasn't wide enough to frame the picture of Bill and his mandolin, so the photographer asked Bill to move back a bit. Bill said: "No, you move back!"
    Jack Roberts
    "Discovery consists in seeing what everyone else has seen and thinking what nobody else has thought"--Albert Szent-Gyorgy
  • SymphoticSymphotic Posts: 704Member

    Spraynpray, any thoughts on the coma performance of the z lenses?

    WestEndFoto:

    I've done an comparison of coma (well, black dot replication at the upper right corner) of the following lenses:

    Noct-Nikkor 58 mm 1:1.2
    Nikkor AF-S 50 mm 1:1.8 G
    Nikkor AF-S 24-70 mm 1:2.8 G
    Nikkor S 24-70/4 S
    Sigma Art 50 mm 1:1.4 DG
    Nikkor S 50/1.8 S

    I was going to add a couple more lenses, but tempus fugit, don't you know...

    The Nikkor S lenses do quite well, and the 24-70G 1:2.8 shows some issues. I am really interested in seeing how the 24-70/2.8 S-Line does. If it keeps the performance of the 24-70/4 down to f/2.8 it will be an amazing lens.

    I'll e-mail the results to you. Anybody else who might want it, please pm me.
    Jack Roberts
    "Discovery consists in seeing what everyone else has seen and thinking what nobody else has thought"--Albert Szent-Gyorgy
  • Ton14Ton14 Posts: 617Member
    edited February 2019
    Symphotic said:

    Ton14 said:



    My 24-70 f/2.8G does work well on my Z body with the FTZ and as a bonus I get VR, but it is a better balance on the D850, so that is the proper body for it.

    It's funny how things change with time.

    So right, the 24-70mm has much better balance on my D810, but not too bad on the Z6 and about changes, yes, for me it was from prime's to zoom lenses back to prime's, fun.

    In Lightroom I saw that 80% of my photo's with the 70-200mm f/2.8 are made with 200mm and it was not enough most of the time, so a 300mm prime is a better lens for me I think, with more zoom I only make photographs of atmospheric disturbances here in Holland.

    The Nikon power is that we can use all our lenses on new bodies, but the dedicated lenses are better and the second thing for me is "Image Quality". everybody wants the old 105mm f/2.8 VR macro at the moment because of the insane IQ on the Nikon Z, in Dutch pronounced as Nikon ZED, lol.
    Post edited by Ton14 on
    User Ton changed to Ton14, Google sign in did not work anymore
  • spraynprayspraynpray Posts: 6,450Moderator
    @Symphotic : Hmm, I wonder if paper-white dots on a black background show more faults than black dots on a white background?
    Always learning.
  • mhedgesmhedges Posts: 2,296Member
    Symphotic said:

    I'll go ahead and pre-order. No harm in that. I can change my mind later, but I doubt I will. But that 24-70 f/4 really changed the game for kit lenses. It is better than anyone expected, and the f2/8 has a high bar to jump.

    I note that the release date for the 24-70 f/2.8 is the same as the 14-30 f/4. That will be a big hit on my purchasing account...

    I would be pretty surprised if they were really released on the exact same day. I think that April 30 date is just approximate, and not set in stone for either lens. Similar to how they were saying November 30th for the Z6 for the longest time, but then it was actually released on the 16th or so.
  • SymphoticSymphotic Posts: 704Member
    edited February 2019

    @Symphotic : Hmm, I wonder if paper-white dots on a black background show more faults than black dots on a white background?

    I made white dots on a black backround and alternating black and white dots on a 18% gray background, but the dots are small and focusing was easiest with black dots on white. I thought that to see the coma better, I tried making a color reversal of each image, so that there are black dots on white.

    It turns out that it is easier to see the effect of coma if it is black on white. Although that may be personal. In the old days I used to count density on photographic plates with a microscopic densitometer, and we always used the negative image, i.e. black on white background.

    If I do this test again I will use glossy paper instead of luster, so my dots will come out more circular. I made about the smaller dots I could: periods with a font size of 5.
    Post edited by Symphotic on
    Jack Roberts
    "Discovery consists in seeing what everyone else has seen and thinking what nobody else has thought"--Albert Szent-Gyorgy
Sign In or Register to comment.