What Z lenses are you looking forward to or hoping for

snakebunk

@tc88: I don't know either if mirrorless lenses are opened up during af, but I think so. I'll try to find out.

@PB_PM: Can you share a link to a test about mirrorless being worse in low light?

photobunny

@snakebunk Z6 can set to focus open or stopped down. In the Z custom menu under shooting/display set "Apply settings to Live View" off if you want to focus wide open. This will make the EVF work more like a OVF in that it won't show an exposure preview.
On a Canon R and RP these always focus wide open and their focus system is quite alien to whats on the Nikon Z.

There is a AF improvement on the Z6 if "Apply settings to Live View" is off, this can be quite big but you loose the exposure preview and have to rely on the meters and exposure bar.

snakebunk

@photobunny: Thanks!

PB_PM

snakebunk said:

@tc88: I don't know either if mirrorless lenses are opened up during af, but I think so. I'll try to find out.



@PB_PM: Can you share a link to a test about mirrorless being worse in low light?

Just search YouTube for Z cameras vs Nikon DSLR in low light, there are tons of them.

photobunny

@snakebunk just to give you some context. I would shoot with "Apply settings to Live View" ON when doing a wedding, people, walk about, photography. And switch it off for keeping focus on that little rabbit that runs into the street to give the AF the best it can(this is where the second processor in the rumoured Z6s would come in handy)

Searcy

I'm really thinking of getting the 85mm 1.8S . I wonder if it would make a good macro lens.

photobunny

Searcy said:

I'm really thinking of getting the 85mm 1.8S . I wonder if it would make a good macro lens.

It does not focus close enough sadly. You can see how close I was able to get.

WestEndFoto

Searcy said:

I'm really thinking of getting the 85mm 1.8S . I wonder if it would make a good macro lens.

Get the 60 on the roadmap when it comes out. But if you are using it as a true macro, longer focal lengths trump everything. I have been spoiled by my 200mm f/4.0D and I will never go shorter. I don't even use my f-mount 60mm as a macro even though it is.

photobunny

@WestEndFoto and @Searcy there is also the 105mm S macro coming out which is on my wish list.

Pistnbroke

My DXO started working right after an upgrade so I had a look at the Z lenses,
The 50/35 and 24-70 f2.8 looked great (Z7) but the 14-30 and 24-70 F4 were horrible using less than half the sensor resolution. So what do I want ...good lenses

Pistnbroke

I suppose we should be saying a 800mm F11 after todays anouncement by cannon.Thom hogan is not convinced by the F11 but with the viewfinder being electronic I guess it wont go dark. OK if you like to shoot at 6400 so lets make it F8 please Nikon and DX would keep the weight down.

photobunny

Pistnbroke said:

I suppose we should be saying a 800mm F11 after todays anouncement by cannon.Thom hogan is not convinced by the F11 but with the viewfinder being electronic I guess it wont go dark. OK if you like to shoot at 6400 so lets make it F8 please Nikon and DX would keep the weight down.

https://www.parkcameras.com/p/1242180F/canon-mirrorless-lenses-rf-mount/canon/canon-rf-800mm-f11-is-stm-super-telephoto-lens if you check the sample shots here they are at ISO1600 and one at ISO3200 using a higher shutter speed. The f/11 lenses have made wildlife photography a real thing for a normal person to achieve(much like the Nikon 200-500mm). Before you needed £10,000 lens + gimbal head and tripod to even get a shot at taking the picture.

Nikon could certainly do something for the entry level here or go the middle route and bring a f/8 PF 800mm.

snakebunk

I think Canon has done something smart, using do(/pf)-elements, telescope expanding lens body and high aperture. It is new interesting stuff like this that attracts new customers.

Nikon needs to show us some long lenses for the mirrorless cameras. It seems they cannot rely on Tamron and Sigma for the Z mount so they must come up with a complete line themselves.

tc88

The f/11 tele lens are just a novelty. But no, you don't need 10k to achieve the same thing. You can get 200-500 + 2x extender for less than 2k and that will be much more useful compared to a single 800 f/11. Or in Canon land, you can have the 100-400 + 2x extender. That's about 2k+? Now personally, I'm not a fan of the extender. But f/11 is quite useless too in my opinion unless everything aligns for you.

Now if Nikon comes out those on Z, the price will be 50% higher than the F-mount version even if no improvement. Until Tamron/Sigma bothers to do something in that area. That's actually same for every camera maker. Canon's RF lens are also way more expensive compared to their EF versions. That's probably why they came up with the f/11 in the first place. To fill some space at the bottom of the barrel.

photobunny

tc88 said:

The f/11 tele lens are just a novelty. But no, you don't need 10k to achieve the same thing. You can get 200-500 + 2x extender for less than 2k and that will be much more useful compared to a single 800 f/11. Or in Canon land, you can have the 100-400 + 2x extender. That's about 2k+? Now personally, I'm not a fan of the extender. But f/11 is quite useless too in my opinion unless everything aligns for you.

Now if Nikon comes out those on Z, the price will be 50% higher than the F-mount version even if no improvement. Until Tamron/Sigma bothers to do something in that area. That's actually same for every camera maker. Canon's RF lens are also way more expensive compared to their EF versions. That's probably why they came up with the f/11 in the first place. To fill some space at the bottom of the barrel.

I can see your points, though I think it isn't fair to dismiss what these f/11 lenses are. They don't even have aperture blade and they can collapse into hand luggage. Someone just getting into wildlife now has two lenses that are under 1k. These aren't for people that would buy a 100-400 nor know what to do with a 2x extender.

Now i personally may buy the 800 for giggles as it is practically a disposable lens at that price, however, these aren't for me or for anyone into photography enough that they would visit a forum. I am still lusting over the 500mm f/5.6 PF and know that it is better in every way than these or the 200-500, its only issue it is isn't a native Z mount and the updated super fast AF Z bodies need to make their way soon.

Pistnbroke

The F11s will solve the weight problem ..I have gone from T 150-600 (crap) to N200-500 (brilliant) to a Tamron 100-400 (= to 200-500) because of the weight. I usually shoot at F8 so is F 11 so much different ? If I got a Z7s thats the lens I would put on it along with the N28-300 and Samy 14mm

tc88

Depends on what you are shooting and what type of standards you have. The following are the shutter speeds from the webpage photobunny provided.

1/1000th sec. ISO 3200. f/11
1/320th sec. ISO 1600. f/11
1/40th sec. ISO 1600. f/11
1/160th sec. ISO 1600. f/11

Except the first one, I don't know when's the last time I shot wildlife using shutter speeds that low. Note those pictures are non moving animals. As I said, if everything aligns for you, yes you can get the shots. But ...

WestEndFoto

tc88 said:

Depends on what you are shooting and what type of standards you have. The following are the shutter speeds from the webpage photobunny provided.

1/1000th sec. ISO 3200. f/11
1/320th sec. ISO 1600. f/11
1/40th sec. ISO 1600. f/11
1/160th sec. ISO 1600. f/11

Except the first one, I don't know when's the last time I shot wildlife using shutter speeds that low. Note those pictures are non moving animals. As I said, if everything aligns for you, yes you can get the shots. But ...

That is a big but. And I am sure that those shots were taken in bright sunlight. Even on a cloudy day 95% of the light is gone. And I was never very pleased at ISO 1600. Over ISO 400 and I start to cringe. However, given the diffraction that you are going to get at f/11.0, I doubt that you can tell the difference between ISO 64 and 400.

That said, I am being quite the snob. As entry level kit for someone upgrading from s smartphone, it is going to be quite an upgrade. In that sense, it is not that different from buying a Nikon P1000 and you would probably get better results.

photobunny

WestEndFoto said:

That said, I am being quite the snob. As entry level kit for someone upgrading from s smartphone, it is going to be quite an upgrade. In that sense, it is not that different from buying a Nikon P1000 and you would probably get better results.

In wildlife often shooting at ISO 800+ is the norm. But regardless, if I had a 800mm f/11 lens when I was just getting into wildlife I would be pretty happy. I have pushed the Z6 to ISO 10,000 and it looks better than my old Canon 5D Mark II at ISO 1600.

I've said this before, but it still holds true: Anyone visiting a photography rumours forum is not the target market for this. Someone with a Canon RP they bought for £999 can now buy a f/11 600 or 800mm lens that performs as good as they except from their f/4 to f/7.1 kit lens. Nikon have this covered with the 200-500mm f/5.6 which is a much better lens but also very heavy and more expensive than the 600mm option here.

@tc88 I often shoot stationary birds in the woods at 1/100 to 1/250 to keep the ISO down on my f/4.0 70-200. If you are just going though the woods snapping pics, it is fine. And I manage that without IS and IBIS(but can't wait to get a long lens on my Z6 to get more keepers out of my daily stroll).

WestEndFoto

photobunny said:

WestEndFoto said:

That said, I am being quite the snob. As entry level kit for someone upgrading from s smartphone, it is going to be quite an upgrade. In that sense, it is not that different from buying a Nikon P1000 and you would probably get better results.

In wildlife often shooting at ISO 800+ is the norm. But regardless, if I had a 800mm f/11 lens when I was just getting into wildlife I would be pretty happy. I have pushed the Z6 to ISO 10,000 and it looks better than my old Canon 5D Mark II at ISO 1600.

I've said this before, but it still holds true: Anyone visiting a photography rumours forum is not the target market for this. Someone with a Canon RP they bought for £999 can now buy a f/11 600 or 800mm lens that performs as good as they except from their f/4 to f/7.1 kit lens. Nikon have this covered with the 200-500mm f/5.6 which is a much better lens but also very heavy and more expensive than the 600mm option here.

@tc88 I often shoot stationary birds in the woods at 1/100 to 1/250 to keep the ISO down on my f/4.0 70-200. If you are just going though the woods snapping pics, it is fine. And I manage that without IS and IBIS(but can't wait to get a long lens on my Z6 to get more keepers out of my daily stroll).

Yes, I agree with you. I am not saying I don't shoot over 400. I am just saying I cringe.

I shoot wildlife on manual. I set the f-stop at the maximum aperture, set the optimum shutter speed and let the ISO float with Auto-ISO. I do this for everything that is action oriented.

And I also agree, many of those f/11.0 customers are not going to be coming here.

tc88

@photobunny, thinking it more, I do agree those f/11 have its uses.

I know multiple people carrying 500/600 f/4 lens on a gimbal. All they do is shooting stationary birds like warblers, etc. But those documentary and ID shots are dime a dozen and so boring to me. Don't get me wrong, they are way better than me in differentiating the birds from the sounds and spotting those little creatures. But they can't swing their lens worth a damn, (I'm not sure gimbal is better than hand hold for BIF anyway), I feel bad for their equipment. I think those f/11 lens can be enough for that purpose, and save the f/4 from the torture.

On the other hand, Canon wants $900 for those f/11 lens. I remember I got my first few gold rings for about that much. Think about how much lens price creep has happened over the years.

photobunny

Seems I am able to post here again without it fussing.

@WestEndFoto I shoot most wildlife at 300mm f/2.8, or at least I used to. I have started stopping down more as I like to see more of the animal in focus and have been getting used to f/5.6 for when I get a 500mm. I personally think I will buy the 800mm f/11 for my Canon as I can see a use for it. Perhaps even just visiting someplace I don't want a £3500 lens stollen or even on going on a boat out to the Isle of May to get snaps of the puffin's as the boat circles around.

@tc88 if these chaps are just bird spotting and want a perched bird, they now have a super cheep lens. I'll also add I think the new Z lenses look smashing but the old F gold rings look a bit naff. Perhaps my big white red ring bias.. and looks are irrelevant once the cover is on it, but still, it's my hobby/toy.

Also let's try to get back on track, this is a Wishlist for Z lenses. And right up there for me is any super telephoto S prime.

Pistnbroke

What I am not hoping for is a 24-50mm f4-6.3. WTF use is that?

photobunny

Pistnbroke said:

What I am not hoping for is a 24-50mm f4-6.3. WTF use is that?

It Is already announced so it isn't really relevant here. What do you want to see?

Not curious to see if Nikon can pull of some f/2 zooms or short and fat super tele's?

Pistnbroke

hop off...I know if you start a thread you think you own it but this is the super flexible world of Spraynpray so saying what you don't want or like is indicative of what you do want.