What Z lenses are you looking forward to or hoping for

WestEndFoto

PB_PM said:

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.

Hmmmm......something more to research.

PB_PM

It's kind of logical if you think about it. Hold up a series of anything, like tissue paper against a bright light. Each layer you add reduces the light transmission, the same is true for the glass and elements that make up modern lenses. Obviously the amount that modern glass optics cut down compared to semi-transparent objects is not the same, but the the principle remains true.

Optics manufacturers add more elements to correct for optical errors, CA, and such because people are pixel peepers and demand them to get rid of it all so they can have the perfect lens. Problem is, that doesn't exist, although we are closer today, but just like modern prescription drugs, there are possible side effects. One of which is reduced light transmission. There are plenty of tests out their showing the older, simpler optical designs have superior light transmission, this isn't something that hasn't been talked about in the photography community before.

WestEndFoto

PB_PM said:

It's kind of logical if you think about it. Hold up a series of anything, like tissue paper against a bright light. Each layer you add reduces the light transmission, the same is true for the glass and elements that make up modern lenses. Obviously the amount that modern glass optics cut down compared to semi-transparent objects is not the same, but the the principle remains true.

Optics manufacturers add more elements to correct for optical errors, CA, and such because people are pixel peepers and demand them to get rid of it all so they can have the perfect lens. Problem is, that doesn't exist, although we are closer today, but just like modern prescription drugs, there are possible side effects. One of which is reduced light transmission. There are plenty of tests out their showing the older, simpler optical designs have superior light transmission, this isn't something that hasn't been talked about in the photography community before.

Ah! You got it. We Nikonistas are drug addicts. Commonly referred to as GAAS.

Pistnbroke

Now come on lads you have been told by photobunney only to talk about lenses you want not released lenses.You will get a wack on the head from Mr Spray.....Only joking all that discussion is very valid.

photobunny

PB_PM said:

It's kind of logical if you think about it. Hold up a series of anything, like tissue paper against a bright light. Each layer you add reduces the light transmission, the same is true for the glass and elements that make up modern lenses. Obviously the amount that modern glass optics cut down compared to semi-transparent objects is not the same, but the the principle remains true.

Optics manufacturers add more elements to correct for optical errors, CA, and such because people are pixel peepers and demand them to get rid of it all so they can have the perfect lens. Problem is, that doesn't exist, although we are closer today, but just like modern prescription drugs, there are possible side effects. One of which is reduced light transmission. There are plenty of tests out their showing the older, simpler optical designs have superior light transmission, this isn't something that hasn't been talked about in the photography community before.

If lenses where measured using their T-stops or total light gathered, we might see a very different optical design. Perhaps the Nikon 200-500 would be f/5.6 to f/6.3 given the 500mm f/5.6 seems to take in more light. Or perhaps that 500 is f/5.0. f-stop always seems to be a good indication of light gathering on a photography lens but not the most accurate. For instance and unless I am very much mistaken, some/all 600mm f/4 lenses let in a lot more light that a 50mm f/4.

snakebunk

Is there any reliable source of T-stops for various (not cinematic) lenses?

I don't think it is as simple as more elements equals higher T-stop because elements come in different dimensions and materials.

photobunny

snakebunk said:

Is there any reliable source of T-stops for various (not cinematic) lenses?



I don't think it is as simple as more elements equals higher T-stop because elements come in different dimensions and materials.

I think you have to measure each lens, perhaps even on an individual level. At the very least you can put two f/?? lenses that match on a camera in controlled lighting and you'll see that something like a 105 a f/2.8 may bring in a lot more than a 85mm. There is a chap over on a other forum that went into all the nitty gritty. The big example I know of is the 200-500 being 1/3rd of a stop darker than the 500mm PF. It may also not be a 500mm. Like a lot of the 100-400mm lenses end at 380mm.

Pistnbroke

DXO gives you the T stop for all tested lenses.
I don't understand why you cannot take photos inside without flash ..I have been taking photos in 13th century churches lit with 60-watt bulbs for years at F8 and 1/30 auto iso without problems ..usually come in at 2500 iso

PB_PM

photobunny said:

If lenses where measured using their T-stops or total light gathered, we might see a very different optical design. Perhaps the Nikon 200-500 would be f/5.6 to f/6.3 given the 500mm f/5.6 seems to take in more light. Or perhaps that 500 is f/5.0. f-stop always seems to be a good indication of light gathering on a photography lens but not the most accurate. For instance and unless I am very much mistaken, some/all 600mm f/4 lenses let in a lot more light that a 50mm f/4.

There is nothing wrong with using F-stops as a measurement, it’s accurate at telling you the size of the aperture, which from a photographic standpoint is also relevant. Manufactures often round down the real F-stop to make a lens look better than it really is, particularly with zooms, but that’s a different issue altogether. After all, F-stops are also useful for figuring out the desired depth of field, which is in some ways more important in practice.

T-stops are used on pro video gear because they need to be sure different cameras being used to shoot different parts of a scene have the same exposure, which is less important for still shooting.

WestEndFoto

T-stops are not really relavent to photography except on a forum like this. I want to know the f-stop because it will effect the image. All the t-stop effects is shutter speed, which is likely less of a concern then f-stop if you are concerned about f-stop.

snakebunk

The aperture is much more important than minor variations in T-stop, but I still find it interesting. Thanks pistnbroke for the reference to DXO.

WestEndFoto

PB_PM said:

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.

I also think that we often forget about the benefits of VR. To me it is the single biggest feature of my 24-70 2.8E. It is not even the same lens as the 24-70 2.8G because of the VR.

With one stop of improvement, ISO of 12,800 (I don't know were you get that - seems off) becomes 6,400. Two stops and you are at 3,200 which for many uses is very decent IQ and light years ahead of a cell phone. Four stops becomes ISO 800.

I think that a 6.3 lens, coupled with modern high ISO performance and VR, is a non-issue.

PB_PM

VR doesn’t stop you from getting blurry shots of kids. Slower shutter speed are fine for still life, and would sure help with posed adult phots without question. A flash and a faster aperture lens are the only option for the scenario I gave on the last page. I guess I’m in the age group of people who see these things among my peers. I get it most people here are older, have a larger disposable income and all that jazz, and buying expensive high end gear is like a drop in the bucket to you. Thing is Nikon needs to attract younger buyers to insure their future, so you guys can keep buying fancy gizmos.

JustMe01

On my wants list are a z 105mm micro and a z 80-400mm F5/6

DaveyJ

I have the Z 6 II and the 24-70 F4, and use the Z50 and two kit lens and Z fc with the 16-50 kit lens WAY more than the Z 6 II. Smaller, lighter, maybe faster to use? The Low light capability of the Z 6 II is better or SET UP better than the Z DX cameras. I THINK this is because it is programmed for that, NOT due to Z DX inability?

DaveyJ

The Z 100-400 S zoom lens I have already ordered along with the Z9. I am the ONLY one that has ordered the 100-400 New Z zoom lens from my dealer. I wish the 200-600 Z non S zoom lens was closer to sales, and it still hasn't even been tested by ANYONE I know of. Sony 200-600 is very good on the A1 camera. We know that as we are using it now. Myself I want the Z9 and the Sony price tags are way too high on the A9 and the A1. My Son owns the A1 and now three lens for it.

NSXTypeR

Maybe a fast DX Z mount zoom, something like a 17-55 2.8? I'm still weighing my options, I definitely don't shoot much with cameras as much as I used to as there really aren't any opportunities to travel overseas as much for obvious reasons. I'd like a DX Z mount camera with an EN-EL15 battery so I can use my existing batteries, so I'll be waiting a bit while longer while the virus runs its course.

mhedges

DaveyJ said:

T I wish the 200-600 Z non S zoom lens was closer to sales, and it still hasn't even been tested by ANYONE I know of.

I think that lens is still somewhat early on. Probably not at the stage where folks outside of the factory/development center can test it.

NSXTypeR said:

Maybe a fast DX Z mount zoom, something like a 17-55 2.8? I'm still weighing my options, I definitely don't shoot much with cameras as much as I used to as there really aren't any opportunities to travel overseas as much for obvious reasons. I'd like a DX Z mount camera with an EN-EL15 battery so I can use my existing batteries, so I'll be waiting a bit while longer while the virus runs its course.

I just don't see the point of a lens like that. Put a F4 on a FF camera and it's going to be overall cheaper and just about the same size. And will give the same performance.

I do think they need a better DX kit lens though. At least if they do a higher end crop sensor body. I'd be interested in a mirrorless D500 like camera, using Z9 sensor tech. Would match up well with my Z6, methinks.

DaveyJ

Well I totally agree with mhedges, I would RATHER have a DX camera as it could come really close to a FX Camera, and I detest shallow depth of field so there is almost nothing in the FX stuff for me. It would be smaller, lighter, and cost less! I owned well over $100,000 LONG AGO in large and medium format and the Nikon F5 was actually more useful.

And today I use the Nikon Z50 a LOT! I own a Z6 II and it is a wonderful camera, but I use it less than the lighter, smaller cameras partly due to the convenience and I reserve the Z6 II for "safer" assignments. Also I have NO LONGER zoom telephotos for the Z6 II. Make a Z mirrorless D500 and it will sell BETTER than many believe. And after YEARS of taking photos looking at all these images today....the older cameras images are really good, but so are some of the newer ones that are taken with cameras that are much smaller. To me it is ALL about being at the right time, at the right place, with a good enough camera.

bcmmike

Wife is really looking forward to the 200-600

DaveyJ

I sincerely wish the Nikon Z 200-600 was already available. It just might be WHAT I need. The fact that is a non S lens to me bodes well.....lower price, and lighter. The 50-250 DX lens is VERY good.

mhedges

Interesting rumor about a new Z 28-75 2.8 lens. Only thing that makes sense to me is if it's a rebranded/reskinned version of the Tamron lens.

Wonder what the price would be? The Tamron (for E mount) is $850. I'd go with $1000 or so for a Nikon version, since Nikon will need to take a cut.

PB_PM

How about that Z 800mm f/6.3 VR S that just had development announced? Doubt I'd ever pay for one, but sports guys at the track might love it.

photobunny

@PB_PM stuff the sports guys, I’m having one for my arctic foxes and polar bears with my 1.4x TC attached to it.

mhedges

Yeah i think it’s more for wildlife. 800 is long for most sports.