Nikon Announces Mirrorless Z-Mount 24-70mm/f2.8 S and Future Firmware Upgrades

I picked up a Z6

Do you have any long non-VR teles to see how well the IBIS works?

Do you have any long non-VR teles to see how well the IBIS works?

 

I tried with my 200mm f/4 - really helps. The IBIS is not like a stabilized lens where you can move the lens about and the image stays locked, rather it damps out high sped vibration only - so the image still moves about, but the blur-inducing high speed vibrations are ironed out. I use it in conjunction with the electronic front curtain and that makes a difference too (if situation allows it).

 

I need to try it with my 500mm mirror lens - that will be the real challenge. That will have to be the weekend though sadly.

It's good to see for once a lens designed for mirrorless cameras that is not more expensive than its DSLR equivalent.

 

I wonder if the CF express support brings burst performance improvements or just provides compatibility of CF express cards at existing XQD speeds.

I wonder wether the CFExpress update will keep the compatibillity for XQD cards as is...

I wonder wether the CFExpress update will keep the compatibillity for XQD cards as is...

 

Yes, after the firmware update, the cameras (Z6, Z7, D500, D850, and D5) will be compatible with both CFexpress and XQD.

If "S" is the premium line, you'd kind of expect the 24-70 f/4 and 50mm f/1.8 to fall below it, although they're hardly budget lenses; they're not exactly the f/2.8 and f/1.4 pro staples. I guess a modern 24-70 f/2.8 was important for wedding shooters wanting silent shooting (if the 24-70 f/4 is designed to be portable), and Nikon figure the 70-200 FL is "good enough" on the adaptor. I'll be glad to see them get a new 14-24 out the door, since there are (minor) issues with the F-mount version and ultrawides are supposed to be benefitting from the new mount.

The Z-mount 70-200 f/2.8 is still on the roadmap for this year, and the 14-24 f/2.8 for next year, amongst others:

 

This is Nikon's Updated Mirrorless Lens Roadmap

 

Any guesses for the TBA lenses? A 70-200 f/4, together with 105, 28, and long tele primes seem obvious choices, plus cheaper kit zooms as they expand the range downwards. The adapter is a useful bridge that will encourage F-mount users not to jump ship if they switch to mirrorless, but Nikon won't want it to be the only option for any common lens on Z bodies a couple of years from now.

Edited February 22, 2019 by Richard Williams

Do you have any long non-VR teles to see how well the IBIS works?

 

Just tested my 500 mirror handheld. Stabilised perfectly handheld at 1/250 but slight blur at 1/125th. IBIS really makes a difference.

(double post due to browser crash) Edited February 24, 2019 by ilkka_nissila

Nikon's focus for the Z seems to be in wide angle and normal lenses with only two telephotos in the 12-lens roadmap. I would like to see new PC lenses that could have simpler optical designs due to the shallow and wide mount, and in some cases greater freedom of movement. Though with the F mount 19mm PC, I have come to the conclusion that it is easy to go excess on movements and this is not necessarily aesthetically the best choice. I always thought that having to tilt the camera down to be able to shoot near-to-far landscapes with tilt (rather than use shift to keep trees vertical) was an annoying limitation, but with the 19mm I have come to think that tilting the camera down actually can look more pleasing and natural in this kind of shots than using a lot of shift along with tilt to get more foreground in the pic (shift leads to greater distortion of foreground objects similar to what one sees in superwide angle group shots). Nevertheless having greater options on movwments is a good thing, even if mastery of how to use them in a pleasing way takes years of practice. For now I have no interest in playing with an adapter, but would be very interested in a Z camera if some in some ways improved tilt shift lenses were offered for the mount. Not that I am not happy with the current PC Nikkors, I am, but I would like to see better mechanics in the PC, similar to what is offered on the 19.

IBIS really makes a difference

FX or DX?

 

So, 1/500 for FX or 1/750 for DX by the 'old' 1/X theory of handholdability.

 

Always seemed a bit generous,.....!

FX or DX?

 

So, 1/500 for FX or 1/750 for DX by the 'old' 1/X theory of handholdability.

 

Always seemed a bit generous,.....!

 

FX mike. Actually the entered lens value has a drastic effect on the IBIS operation. I fitted a 20mm with 500mm entered and the IBIS went nuts.

and the IBIS went nuts.

Details to 'nuts' please!

 

Does this mean of you do it the other way around you get super stability?

Details to 'nuts' please!

 

Does this mean of you do it the other way around you get super stability?

 

Image was swaying around and jumping. When I set it correctly to 20mm, rock solid. In fact the IBIS did better with the wide lens than the tele.

When I reversed it, any IBIS confusion was lost in the lens movement from hand-holding.

The stabilization system measures movements (acceleration) and tries to estimate where the camera will be by the time the correction has been applied, and aims to carry out that correction, and then updates with new data etc. To do this estimation it can try to model the past movement history, e.g., when the hands shake up and down, there is some regularity to the movement, the heart beat, respiration etc. are all rhythmic. On tripod, I think vibrations may be more difficult to estimate because they could be caused by, e.g., the wind which doesn't have similar rhythms as a person hand holding the camera, but shutter vibrations might actually be more predictable, on the other hand, they may be too high frequency to fully correct. It seems that the algorithm has different parameters for telephoto and wide angle lenses because of the amplitude of the expected shake is different and thus the results are improved by giving the correct focal length to the camera in case of lenses that don't provide it. It just is something that improves the estimation.

I don't think Nikon would concentrate on long telephotos for the Z mount because E type F mount lenses in the telephoto range would work just as well on the Z with the adapter. Of course having to use the adapter is a little bit of a pain but not so much. I don't think for the telephoto Nikon can make them any smaller than the F mount version.

Any guesses for the TBA lenses? A 70-200 f/4, together with 105, 28, and long tele primes seem obvious choices

I doubt the long teles will be a primary focus. And given Nikon's history, a 70-200/4 and a 80-400 maybe a long ways down the road - even though it should be a high priority.

At least the f/2.8 trinity will be completed a lot faster than Sony managed to do.

And given Nikon's history, a 70-200/4 and a 80-400 maybe a long ways down the road

It depends on how far back you look; over the years, Nikon have made many intermediate and smaller aperture telezooms (70-210/4, 80-400/4, 80-400/4.5, 70-300/4.5-5.6, 75-300/4.5-5.6, 100-300/5.6, 80-400/4.5-5.6 etc.). The 70-200mm f/2.8 has a significant advantage in autofocus performance and applicability in low light environments though the price has increased. When Nikon didn't have the 70-200/4, they offered an 80-200/2.8 for about the same price as the f/4 is now, so it's not really clear to me whether it is an advantage or a disadvantage (it depends on budget and requirements). I would like to see modern 135mm and 180mm primes and if they're for Z then it would be something to draw me into that system. I don't like to compromise aperture to get a zoom in this range and Nikon have neglected the compact F mount mid tele primes. With an f/4 lens, all too often I'm at ISO 6400 at wintertime or indoors, and the autofocus isn't as good as with the f/2.8. At present I'm often using 105/1.4 indoors and cropping if needed, the lens is fortunately so sharp that this works out, to an extent, and the f/1.4 helps to avoid subject movement blur. Still, I miss the 135/2 and 180/2.8. The current 70-200/2.8 (FL) is a really excellent lens but most people probably see it outside of their price range. I see the f/4 version of more limited/narrow application, though as a light weight and compact lens it has its own appeal, but still, I find it hard to believe photographers would not want to own at least some faster telephoto lenses than f/4.

 

For longer focal length ranges, such as 300mm, 400mm, 500mm, f/4 or f/5.6 are not quite as much of a limitation as these focal lengths typically are used for outdoor subjects and if used for small birds or other smaller wild animals, the depth of field is already at f/5.6 quite shallow. Of course, in indoor sports the f/2.8 and f/4 still are important. Yes, I understand that if one gets away with f/5.6 at 400mm, then one may also use shorter focal lengths at those apertures, but the ability to isolate the subject from background at 80mm f/4.5 isn't perhaps quite as thrilling as it may be at 400/5.6, and at least my experience with the Nikon 80-400 (AF-S) was that I wanted to stop it down to f/8 all the time because of optical aberrations. The 70-200/4 is optically fine already at f/4 so in that sense it's a good, portable option, but I still find the AF advantage offered by the f/2.8 to be a significant benefit. For travel, the 70-200/4 may be a good option, though, but I tend to do a lot of street and event photography when traveling and in that context again the faster aperture gives an advantage though in the zoom it is much less pleasant to carry.

At least the f/2.8 trinity will be completed a lot faster than Sony managed to do.

 

Although Sony mirrorless cameras are now very popular and often seen on the streets and at events, I rarely see f/2.8 zooms being used on those cameras, so it's not that surprising that Sony didn't make them among the first lenses. A small camera body combined with a large and heavy lens isn't that great a match, in my opinion. Sony users seem to shoot, by and large, with primes (just reporting what I see, not trying to give universal statistics ;-)). Nikon made their Z6 and Z7 bodies somewhat larger but there is no vertical grip option, so at least for me it's difficult to imagine that I would buy a 70-200/2.8 for use with those bodies. Canon do offer a vertical grip for the EOS R. Nikon seem to be targeting the Z6/Z7 bodies for use with smaller lenses, mainly, whereas Canon started out with a 50/1.2 and 28-70/2, along with some smaller lenses. Of course, not everyone uses a vertical grip even on DSLRs.

Edited February 26, 2019 by ilkka_nissila

I find it hard to believe photographers would not want to own at least some faster telephoto lenses than f/4.

I can't lay claim to that I am one of them - I do own a 150/2.8 macro and a 90/2.8 macro (after getting rid of the 85/1.8G that just disappointed when used at apertures below f/2.8); both lenses will do for the rare occasion I do portraits (any faster tele I owned so far would need to be stopped down anyway to get rid of the often abhorrent CA; what good does better subject isolation do if everything OOF is bathed in green and magenta?). I did own the 80-200/2.8 two-ring for many years (most of which it spend on the shelf as I preferred the more versatile 70-180/4.5-5.6); I traded it for a 70-200/2.8 VR (first version) in the hope that I would use that lens more (which I did, despite the weight). When the 70-200/4 came out I happily traded the f/2.8 for it - a move I have never regretted; f/4 vs double the weight is a compromise I can live with.

 

For my needs the most important lenses are either a 12-24/4 or 16-35/4, 24-105/4 or 24-120/4 (24-70/4 is too narrow a range and Nikon choosing it as one of the first lenses for the Z system effectively turned me away for the time being), and a 70-200/4 (which on many occasions I use on a DX body). In a potential battle between a 70-200/2.8 and 80-400/4.5-5.6, the latter would almost always be the one to find its way into my bag; I simply don't have a need for either a 24-70/2.8 or a 70-200/2.8.

 

Sony offers with the 12-24/4, 24-105, 70-200/4 and 100-400/4.5-5.6 everything I need for the majority of my photography (except a functional DX body) - I seriously doubt that Nikon's Z lens system will offer me that even by 2022.

 

The current 70-200/2.8 (FL) is a really excellent lens but most people probably see it outside of their price range.

Count me as one of them - I simply can't justify the expense for what I shoot.

 

It depends on how far back you look;

I was mostly referring to how long the wait was for Nikon to replace the AF-D 80-400 and how long it took before an AF-S 70-200/4 arrived. The situation was quite similar to the eons it took to replace the AF-S 300/4. I am well aware of Nikon's history - the first 70-210/4 was a Series E (born out of the desire for cheaper lenses); the AF 70-210/4 was the same lens chipped and adapted for AF. It was rather short-lived and replaced with a variable aperture 70-210. Nikon never made a 80-400/4 or 80-400/4.5; I assume you mean 80-200/4 and 80-200/4.5. The latter is hardly a good example because there was no f/2.8 version available at the time - that happened during the 80-200/4 production when we had the rare occasion of one f/2.8 and two f/4 lenses (the above mentioned 70-210 and the 80-200/4).

Edited February 26, 2019 by Dieter Schaefer

(any faster tele I owned so far would need to be stopped down anyway to get rid of the often abhorrent CA; what good does better subject isolation do if everything OOF is bathed in green and magenta?)

 

Anti-LoCA club, Dieter?

 

Fortunately I've found the 85mm f/1.4 Art seems to be acceptable, at least by the standards of the 85mm f/1.8 AF-S (and what I've seen of the f/1.4). From reviews, the Sigma 105mm also seems to run out of cat's eye bokeh issues by f/2, unlike the Nikkor. Obviously there's also the Sigma 135mm f/1.8 - assuming Nikon doesn't come up with an STF solution. If I swap my current 35mm and 50mm Sigmas for the 40mm, I'll end up with a fast prime set that really doesn't gain a lot from the size benefits of a mirrorless body (although PDoS may not be detrimental to them). Between Sigma and Zeiss (and arguably the Nikkor Z 50mm), a lot of primes have been getting bigger these days - and sharper, obviously. It differentiates from what a smartphone can do, but pocketable it's not. At least I still have my Coolpix A!

 

I'd be interested if Nikon were to come up with some pancake lenses for the Z (presumably less pancake when they can't take advantage of the mirror box gap). But then I've long said I'd like them to follow Pentax and make some pancake F mount lenses, too.

I can't lay claim to that I am one of them - I do own a 150/2.8 macro and a 90/2.8 macro (after getting rid of the 85/1.8G that just disappointed when used at apertures below f/2.8); both lenses will do for the rare occasion I do portraits (any faster tele I owned so far would need to be stopped down anyway to get rid of the often abhorrent CA; what good does better subject isolation do if everything OOF is bathed in green and magenta?).

 

I have a few fast lenses where there is not that much LoCA (105/1.4, 200/2 II) but I don't mind using ones that do have more, for the most part, however, the autofocus is less reproducible with lenses with significant LoCA as it can't quite decide which color to focus on, and that part I don't like. For image rendering the LoCA can help add an appearance of skin with fewer imperfections as it reduces the appearance of red details in the outer skin. This is typical of most Nikon fast primes in the mid tele focal lengths, at least of a certain era. I can understand the motivation behind it and I do enjoy the 105 DC for its effect. But if one wants maximum detail, and shoot wide open then aberrations won't help and so in the modern era with high resolution sensors, there has been a growing popularity of lenses with better correction of LoCA, and aberrations in general. Personally I miss the 135 DC that I sold and may have to purchase another copy, despite the annoying AF, I got many pleasing images from that lens and haven't been really happy just with the modern alternatives. I remember the challenges and frustrations in using it but then that lens also produced some of my favorite images, and one could count on its out-of-focus rendering to be pleasing.

 

I was mostly referring to how long the wait was for Nikon to replace the AF-D 80-400 and how long it took before an AF-S 70-200/4 arrived. The situation was quite similar to the eons it took to replace the AF-S 300/4.

 

Yes, those lenses took a long time to replace, but then Nikon also produced the 200-500/5.6 and 500/5.6 as additional options in the lineup.

 

However, in the Z mount lens roadmap, the only tele that is longer than 85mm is the 70-200/2.8 for now. I understand why they put that there, as if one of the advantages of mirrorless cameras is the relative quietness of operation compared to DSLRs, so it makes sense to apply them for indoor event photography such as concerts, theatre, ballet, wedding ceremonies etc. where the quietness is likely appreciated. The 70-200/2.8 is among the most common lenses used at events.

 

I assume you mean 80-200/4 and 80-200/4.5.

 

Yes, of course. They did make also 50-300/4.5, 200-400/4, 180-600/8, 360-1200/11, etc. so many zooms but probably not very many users for those (expensive) lenses. I guess what I was trying to say is that although Nikon didn't have many intermediate or small aperture long lens options in the early autofocus era, before that, they had a lot of them, and recently have been getting back to making such lenses.

Edited February 28, 2019 by ilkka_nissila

The Sony 135mm f/1.8 seems to yield quite pleasing images, judging from what material has been published. But four AF motors?! Wasn't mirrorless supposed to result in fewer moving parts, lower manufacturing costs etc.? Yeah, right. Anyway, perhaps there is a modern 135mm Nikkor some day in the works.

Yes, I spotted that Sony had produced a recent 135mm. The Sigma one reviews well, but it's not entirely free of LoCA; the Sony sample images looked pretty clean, although I've not looked too closely, so I may still be able to have system envy as well as a desire to save up.

I noticed Delkin CFexpress cards can be preordered now. 249€ for 128GB model, 1450/450 MB/s read/write speeds (so it's similar to XQD in write speed and price, but faster to read). I can find Sony G series XQD 128GB for 249€ also. Delkin's 256GB CFexpress model has 1550/900 MB/s read/write speeds and costs 549€. So, if you want XQD write speed CFexpress, the price is comparable with the equivalent XQD card, but read speeds should be faster (so transfer to computer should benefit, if your drives are fast enough, which mine probably aren't). If you want to double write speed, you need to pay quite a lot! USA prices probably are significantly lower, though. It will be interesting to see what prices ProGrade Digital and Sony CFexpress cards will have.

SanDisk have just put their hat in the ring to make CFexpress cards too. CP+ show.

Now suddenly everybody is jumping into making CFexpress cards. Until mid last year (2018), I was totally unaware that everybody who makes XQD cards had to pay some sort of royalty to Sony, and that may even include SanDisk who is one of the three founders of the XQD standard (along with Sony and Nikon). Hence SanDisk never produced any commercial XQD cards. I don't know the details, but apparently the royalty isn't trivial. Lexar was in a better position when they were owned by Micron, which has its own suite of patents to negotiate and trade with Sony.

 

CFexpress cards are really just faster XQD cards with more parallel channels (lanes); the difference is not unlike SD (UHS-I) vs. SD UHS-II. I think the name change from XQD to CFexpress is mainly to get round the Sony legal/intellectual property issue. Since CFexpress is an open standard, there is no royalty involved and it will be cheaper to produce. Meanwhile CFast is reaching it technical limits so that future 8K video cams may need to use a faster medium. The timing seems to become right for CFexpress in the near future.

I think the name change from XQD to CFexpress is mainly to get round the Sony legal/intellectual property issue.

 

So FireWire/i.LINK vs IEEE.1394 all over again? Eugh. And just as weird USB standard naming has raised its head again.