What Z lenses are you looking forward to or hoping for

124

Comments

  • photobunnyphotobunny Posts: 326Member
    edited July 2020

    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.

    I did not intend to insult you. I am just genuinely curious about what people would really want to see. So far other than the 58mm, nothing has been too exotic, but I think we could see some new and exciting designs from Nikon.

    And I am not dismissing the 24-50mm is a disappointing lens, but it is probably not for anyone that would know enough to be checking a photography forum.

    I also don't think I have met Spraynpray yet, I'll it is a wee bit of a tricky website to navigate so I haven't found a user listing yet.
    Post edited by photobunny on
  • WestEndFotoWestEndFoto Posts: 3,491Member

    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.

    I did not intend to insult you. I am just genuinely curious about what people would really want to see. So far other than the 58mm, nothing has been too exotic, but I think we could see some new and exciting designs from Nikon.

    And I am not dismissing the 24-50mm is a disappointing lens, but it is probably not for anyone that would know enough to be checking a photography forum.

    I also don't think I have met Spraynpray yet, I'll it is a wee bit of a tricky website to navigate so I haven't found a user listing yet.
    The 24-50 will likely be a good lens for Nikon which means it will be good for us.

    I will answer the question. I will wait my turn. A solid lineup of 2.8 zooms, 1.8 primes, 1.2 primes, a couple of more nocts (unless the 1.2 primes are really really good, I will buy any Noct Nikon comes out with), some compact primes and consumer zooms are Nikon's first priority.

    Second priority is:

    -Telephotoes - high end fast and more consumer oriented glass like the 500 pf
    -PC lenses
    -Macros

    And my first choices, after the 1.8, 1.2 and 0.95 primes will be:

    1.
    A 200mm 2.0 or 1.8 to finish my portrait set (28 1.4, 58 1.4, 105 1.4, 400 2.8 and my 70-200 2.8E holding serve at 200mm until the prime comes out).
    2.
    A 19ish and 28ish PC lens (landscapes and architecture).
    3.
    A 200mm plus macro. I would love a 400mm 2 times reproduction ratio macro that I could use focus shift on (my main complaint now about my 200mm f/4.0D). I don't need anything faster than f/4.0 and could give a damn if it does not focus at infinity.
  • photobunnyphotobunny Posts: 326Member
    @WestEndFoto a 200mm macro would kill my need for the 70-200. I buy the 70-200 lens to use at 200 almost exclusively. A macro 200 would be far more useful for everything from forest critters to bugs.
  • tc88tc88 Posts: 537Member
    I would say just populate all the workman lens. If they manage to duplicate all their main F mount equivalents "for reasonable price", that will already be a very good first step. I don't care using my imagination on lens. The exotic lens are not made not because of technical difficulty, rather not enough people are willing to pay for those at the premium camera makers want to charge.
  • WestEndFotoWestEndFoto Posts: 3,491Member

    @WestEndFoto a 200mm macro would kill my need for the 70-200. I buy the 70-200 lens to use at 200 almost exclusively. A macro 200 would be far more useful for everything from forest critters to bugs.

    You might want to find a used 200mm f/4.0 and slap an FTZ on it. While I am sure that a Z mount would be killer, the ONLY complaint I have about mine is that focus shift on my D850 does not work with a D lens.

    Or perhaps an macro extension ring for your 70-200?
  • WestEndFotoWestEndFoto Posts: 3,491Member
    tc88 said:

    I would say just populate all the workman lens. If they manage to duplicate all their main F mount equivalents "for reasonable price", that will already be a very good first step. I don't care using my imagination on lens. The exotic lens are not made not because of technical difficulty, rather not enough people are willing to pay for those at the premium camera makers want to charge.

    That is a good way to articulate it. I think that they would priortized by how old the f-mount version is - so I don't anticipate a 28 1.2 or 105 1.2 any time soon, but a 85 1.2 or a 135 1.4 is probably only a couple of years away.
  • KnockKnockKnockKnock Posts: 394Member
    I'd like to see a more creative break-up of the zoom ranges. Instead of just the 2.8 or 4.0 trios, maybe something like:

    20-60 f/3.5
    75-150 f/3.5
    180-350 f/3.5

    Given modern optics, less of a wide range to cover, collapsable, no VR, these could be compact and higher IQ than what we've seen in the f/4 range to date. Also gives you an interesting option to carry just two of them for travel.
    D7100, D60, 35mm f/1.8 DX, 50mm f/1.4, 18-105mm DX, 18-55mm VR II, Sony RX-100 ii
  • PistnbrokePistnbroke Posts: 2,246Member
    Not upset at all Photobunny it was just too good an opportunity not to tell you to hop off.
    I don't want any primes just a nice 28-300mm. a 14mm Samyang in Z mount and a 100-400 for the birds but light. In truth, I don't think I shall buy any of them as changing from F mount to Z is a bit like going Nikon to canon.
  • photobunnyphotobunny Posts: 326Member
    I am going Canon EF mount to Nikon Z. A bit of a gamble, and I still lust over the big white lenses. But Nikon have put more effort into wildlife shooters of late. And if there is a Canon lens I must have, I can buy a body just for it.
  • spraynprayspraynpray Posts: 6,407Moderator

    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.

    :D He has a point if the lens is announced already P&B.
    Always learning.
  • spraynprayspraynpray Posts: 6,407Moderator

    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.

    I also don't think I have met Spraynpray yet, I'll it is a wee bit of a tricky website to navigate so I haven't found a user listing yet.
    I am here, watching you all....
    Always learning.
  • PistnbrokePistnbroke Posts: 2,246Member
    I thought the 16-50 was introduced for the Z50 but that the 24-50 was announced along with the Z5 hence my comment. I still dont get the short zoom and f6.3
  • photobunnyphotobunny Posts: 326Member

    I thought the 16-50 was introduced for the Z50 but that the 24-50 was announced along with the Z5 hence my comment. I still dont get the short zoom and f6.3

    I don't get the short but it kinda makes sense if it is something that is going to be a extra $100 with the camera. To my eyes it almost looks like one of them 17-55mm f/3.5 to f/5.6 which would end up being 24-80mm f/5 to f/8 if it was a FF lens. Certainly not exciting, not great for subject isolation, but for a beginner it is going to produce fantastic images that will look to them like pro shots.

    Looking at my stats from my 24-70. I take shots at 24 and I take shots at 70 and those shots at 70 could have been had at 50 by walking forward.
  • PB_PMPB_PM Posts: 4,337Member
    It does seem odd, the Z5 would have been perfect to pair with a 24-105 F3.5-5.6 zoom. Guess they want to up sell people to the 24-70 F4 by pairing it with a real odd ball lens like that.

    Nikon did make a bunch mid-range zooms like that in the early AF F-mount period, and they disappeared by the mid 2000s. There was the AF 24-50 F3.3-4 for example, 28-85mm F3.5-4.5, and 28-105mm F3.5-4.5, but those all had a nice stop range. I’d rather deal with a few optical comprises and have a compact kit lens like that than an optically perfect F4-6.3 garbage they are pushing now.
    If I take a good photo it's not my camera's fault.
  • photobunnyphotobunny Posts: 326Member
    I had a Canon 28-85 and 28-135 at one point. The focal length is nice for travel as you hit the longer ranges. I believe these where very much for film cameras where they didn’t have to be as perfect as something intended for 50MP sensors shot well past ASA 100 film.
  • tc88tc88 Posts: 537Member
    In film days, 400 ISO is probably the highest you can use. These days, the equivalent will be at least 1600 or 3200. So a f/6.3 lens will allow you to make the same shots. And the f/4 lens in normal range is not going to get you much bokeh anyway. In film days, there are no picture taking cell phones, so people still need those to take decent pictures.

    However, the issue I see with those f/6.3 lens is the price. If it's $100, sure. But they probably will cost $300+. And for general usage, the picture/compactness is not really going to beat pixel/iphone anyway. I guess the only advantage is that they still allow you some special applications, such as putting on filters and long exposures.
  • WestEndFotoWestEndFoto Posts: 3,491Member
    edited July 2020
    TC88, I think you hit the nail on the head. You can compensate for a slow lens today by increasing ISO and you will get better IQ then 10 or more years ago with faster zooms.
    Post edited by WestEndFoto on
  • PB_PMPB_PM Posts: 4,337Member
    edited July 2020
    You don’t buy kit lenses for bokeh, no doubt about it. I can see young families buying these thinking they will do well in their dark north facing condos that made the cell phones not work for shots of their kids. F6.3, 50mm, even on a bright day you’ll be hitting ISO 51,200 at 1/125s or faster. So two things happen, higher chance of missed focus, and dark noisy shots.

    Of course they have four choices, three of which Nikon will love, a) buy a flash, b) by a faster aperture lens, c) both of the above, D) give up and bad mouth Nikon “my $2.5 Nikon camera still takes $&## photos in my place, forget it!”
    Post edited by PB_PM on
    If I take a good photo it's not my camera's fault.
  • tc88tc88 Posts: 537Member
    edited July 2020
    I think D is more likely to happen. But it's an issue that's not Nikon specific. More likely people will give up dedicated camera forever.

    I do hate the downward creep of the specs in general. Instead of offering more for same money, all the camera/lens makers are offering less for same/more money. Even though it's only 1/3 stop worse from f/5.6 to f/6.3, obviously f/7.1 and f/8 lens are already in offering and will be more prevalent in the future. With the rise of cell phone cameras from the bottom, it just feels like death by a thousand cuts.
    Post edited by tc88 on
  • photobunnyphotobunny Posts: 326Member
    I dono, the f/5.6 500mm gives you a lot in exchange for a stop of light. The Canon 100-500mm gives you an extra 100mm instead of having to use a 1.4x converter.

    As long as it is giving you something extra I am all for it. Even 500mm and 600mm f/4.0 PF lenses will still be quite a bit heavier than f/5.6, little fat things.

    I think we have this new mirrorless tech and lens designers are going to go a little daft as they no longer have a hard limit of f/5.6 and in some cases that is ok. I could see a 800mm f/8 lens being popular with wildlife shooters.
  • PB_PMPB_PM Posts: 4,337Member
    There is a difference between using an F5.6 lens indoors and outdoors. Outdoors it really isn’t that big of a deal unless you are shooting at dawn or dusk. If you haven’t shot indoors in low light a lot you don’t realize how big of a difference half a stop can make in a low light indoor situation. Not everyone has fancy homes with wall to wall windows and skylights after all. :wink:

    Those of us with experience would grab a flash that has a good IR focus assist beam, no problem, but for the less savvy user, whom Nikon needs to get buying their products again, it’s not an intuitive thing to do.
    If I take a good photo it's not my camera's fault.
  • WestEndFotoWestEndFoto Posts: 3,491Member
    PB_PM said:

    You don’t buy kit lenses for bokeh, no doubt about it. I can see young families buying these thinking they will do well in their dark north facing condos that made the cell phones not work for shots of their kids. F6.3, 50mm, even on a bright day you’ll be hitting ISO 51,200 at 1/125s or faster. So two things happen, higher chance of missed focus, and dark noisy shots.

    Of course they have four choices, three of which Nikon will love, a) buy a flash, b) by a faster aperture lens, c) both of the above, D) give up and bad mouth Nikon “my $2.5 Nikon camera still takes $&## photos in my place, forget it!”

    I live in a south facing condo. But I closed my shades which I think is a good approximating of a dark north facing condo. I shot a 58 1.4G (but the lens really won't matter) at 1/125s, f/6.6 and ISO 4,000 which was exposed correctly. ISO 4,000 is fine and it will be on APS-C and will certainly be far superior to a cell phone. I had to go into a bathroom with no windows and turn the lights down to have to shoot at much higher than ISO 4,000.
  • PB_PMPB_PM Posts: 4,337Member
    edited July 2020
    Doesn't seem to match what I see in the back of my home, (which faces north). Even on a bright day I'll be hitting ISO 12,800 at F5.6. We have to keep in mind that there is more to light transmission than just the set aperture, it's the total lens design. More lens elements, smaller maximum aperture means less light. That lens will bring in more light than a theoritical 50mm lens that has a aperture of 6.3 by design alone. I can see this with lens I own today, I don't get the same metering on the same scene with a 50mm F1.4 as I do the 24-70mm F2.8 at 50mm. The amount of glass makes a big difference.
    Post edited by PB_PM on
    If I take a good photo it's not my camera's fault.
  • photobunnyphotobunny Posts: 326Member
    Regarding indoor shooting. I need f1.8 ISO 1000 and 1/25th on the 50mm. I can bump up the ISO for faster shutter, but can’t bring more light into a building from 1600 something even with the lights on. I would need a flash. A third of a stop between f/6.3 and f/5.6 isn’t going to save it. What might save kit lenses is a fast 40mm pancake, but people really want zooms.
  • PB_PMPB_PM Posts: 4,337Member
    edited July 2020
    Don't recall saying F5.6 would save it, just that the kit offerings might give less savvy users, the very people who would likely buy such kit lenses, a headache. Nothing more.
    Post edited by PB_PM on
    If I take a good photo it's not my camera's fault.
Sign In or Register to comment.