Lens Announcements: Z-Mount 50mm and 105mm Macros, Up-Coming 40mm and 28mm Compact Lenses

Well it seems that Nikon has finally got round to releasing the macro lenses they promised

 

See press releases and make press enquiries

 

And a little further development news about the 'compact' primes

 

See press releases and make press enquiries

Yeah, I have been pointing out for a while that Nikon had not announced any new lens since the 50mm/f1.2 S and 14-24mm/f2.8 S on September 16, 2020 and no new camera bodies since the Z6 ii and Z7 ii on October 14, 2020. Finally we have two (or four) new lenses. What surprises me is that Nikon is announcing two macro lenses simultaneously, while there is still no Z lens longer than 200mm yet. I thought a longer lens would be a priority.

• 50mm/f2.8 macro, US$649.95
  
• 105mm/f2.8 S macro, US$999.95
  

Both macros can close up to 1:1, but only the 105mm is a higher-end S lens.

 

The two compact lenses, without much details, are:

• 40mm/f2
  
• 28mm/f2.8
  

Edited June 2, 2021 by ShunCheung

I sure hope Nikon is working on a 200mm f4 macro S lens for Z bodies. I recently picked up a used Nikon 105mm f2.8 VR from a friend who switched to Sony as the price was very attractive vs a new one. I have been using it along with my Nikon 200mm f4. I still prefer the 200mm for its longer working distance. I do agree that the 105mm is very handy for certain hand held shots, but for really sharp focus, I still find that using a tripod and manual focus is the best approach.

There are already some video preview/reviews on YouTube on the new macro lenses:

• Ricci:
  
  

• B&H:
  
  

On a related note, the Chinese web site Xitek interviewed the head of Nikon China Toru Matsuhara. Nikon is opening a flagship store in Shanghai. There is some discussion on Nikon's finances and future products, but of course these interviews rarely yields any new information that is not already in public. The web page is in simplified Chinese: 2021年P&E尼康中国董事长松原徹访谈纪实_器材_色影无忌 Not sure how good a job auto translate can do.

Edited June 2, 2021 by ShunCheung

I sure hope Nikon is working on a 200mm f4 macro S lens for Z bodies. I recently picked up a used Nikon 105mm f2.8 VR from a friend who switched to Sony as the price was very attractive vs a new one. I have been using it along with my Nikon 200mm f4. I still prefer the 200mm for its longer working distance. I do agree that the 105mm is very handy for certain hand held shots, but for really sharp focus, I still find that using a tripod and manual focus is the best approach.

This may disappoint you. According to Roland Vink's web site, Nikon has only sold some 30K copies of the 200mm/f4 AF-S macro but perhaps 700K of the 105mm/f2.8 AF-S VR ones, plus many more 105mm AF/AF-D versions. Therefore, a 200mm macro is perhaps not a priority. That maybe why Nikon never upgraded the 200mm to AF-S: Nikon Lens Versions and Serial Nos

 

I recently bought a 24-200mm super zoom. It turns out to be a much better lens than I had expected. Previously I never care for super zoom. The 24-200 turns out to be a decent macro lens also.

If it is priced reasonably, I will probably go for the 28 compact, Though I would prefer a little wider and faster, I can live with the compromises. When I had a Sony A7(XXX), the 28/2 was the only FE lens I had, and I used it often with good results. Wonder how one of those would do adapted to the Z, LOL, I don't have it any more. Probably not nearly as good as the native 28/2.8Z, I am sure Sony used a good bit of software correction for the 28/2.

 

The 40/2 as a carry one lens only, maybe. But I would rather go out with a 28 and short tele combo. Actually, I have become so used to the wide end of my 14-30 that I would not want to do much serious shooting without it handy.

The two "compact lenses" are not officially announced yet. According to the images, their front elements are tiny, and the mount seems to be plastic. I assume they will be in the $300 range. Those two are not S lenses. I think the emphasis will be light weight, small size, and affordability. The modest maximum apertures will keep the optical quality high enough.

 

BTW, Nikon USA is providing a "family portrait" of all the Z lenses available so far. The original is a huge 53M JPEG. I am reducing it to 3000 pixels across. The two compact lenses are included on the lower left side.

 

Edited June 2, 2021 by ShunCheung

Nikon has only sold some 30K copies of the 200mm/f4 AF-S macro but perhaps 700K of the 105mm/f2.8 AF-S VR ones, plus many more 105mm AF/AF-D

Err, typo on the 200mm f4 AF-S... no S, probably a D!

Err, typo on the 200mm f4 AF-S... no S, probably a D!

Not sure why I typed AF-S. The 200mm/f4 macro is an AF-D, and I have one. There has been discussion on and off why Nikon never upgraded it to AF-S. The low sales figure is often cited as the main reason. Of course, the fact that Nikon is selling the same version for a long time is also why few are buying it now.

Edited June 3, 2021 by ShunCheung

Interestingly the focus limiter on the 105mm Z works, for me, the right way around compared to the 105mm F 2.8 VR F mount micro.

 

And what's with the NO function/compatability with TC's?

 

How about extension tubes?

 

The Sigma 180mm 2.8 OS Macro is pretty highly regarded. I guess the R&D spread over the different mounts made it viable.

Will almost certainly be getting the Micro. My fear was that the price would be crazy, but this is right where they'll sell tons of 'em. Probably be out of stock after the first boatload comes over.

The cross-section diagram for the 105mm/f2.8 S is available on Nikon Imaging: Nikon | Imaging Products | NIKKOR Z MC 105mm f/2.8 VR S

 

There is one (blue) aspherical element right on the mount. Hence no TC is possible unless Nikon (or someone else) makes one with no protruding front element, similar to the F-mount TC-14a.

Been waiting on the 105 to get here, got the e-mail from B&H this morning and I pre ordered it, thought it might be a little more pricey around the 1200-1300 range. Any clue when they will hit the shelves?

Been waiting on the 105 to get here, got the e-mail from B&H this morning and I pre ordered it, thought it might be a little more pricey around the 1200-1300 range. Any clue when they will hit the shelves?

The two macros are supposed to be available in late June, but from B&H, you simply have no idea how many people are in front of you in the pre-order queue. I assume a 105mm macro is not going a hot item as the 500mm PF lens.

The two macros are supposed to be available in late June, but from B&H, you simply have no idea how many people are in front of you in the pre-order queue. I assume a 105mm macro is not going a hot item as the 500mm PF lens.

What I was thinking, put the order in at about 4:30 this morning before going to work so Im hoping it wont be too long.

....and the mount seems to be plastic.

 

[ATTACH=full]1390393[/ATTACH]

Unfortunately it looks like that from the little that shows in the photos. What worries me equally is that they may be made in China like the 24-50, which also had plastic mount, which would make it a no go for me.

Still crossing my fingers for metal mount compacts made in Thailand.

Unfortunately it looks like that from the little that shows in the photos. What worries me equally is that they may be made in China like the 24-50, which also had plastic mount, which would make it a no go for me.

Still crossing my fingers for metal mount compacts made in Thailand.

 

A question and I do mean this as a question. What is wrong with "plastic", assuming an appropriate plastic is used for a given purpose?

 

I read many posts where people (who should know better) use the term "plastic" as a pejorative term. Plastics are used in places where metals would be very inappropriate - think of (American) football helmets, motorcycle helmets, even my ski helmet (and I value my head). All these are required to adsorb punishment and protect the wearer. Many plastics are stronger than steel. For photographic equipment "plastic" parts usually have lower coefficients of thermal expansion than an equivalent metal part - a definite advantage when engineering precision parts that must function in a wide range of temperature - are strong, and are lighter than the equivalent metal parts. Do you want to try toting a steel tripod around rather than a carbon fiber one? The carbon fibers are held together with polymer resins - another form of plastic. Also plastics usually do not corrode or rust, and many are self-lubricating. There are definite advantages to polymers (plastics) if used in appropriate places.

 

And as long as I am asking questions, why do people use the term "build quality" when they mean cosmetics. To me "build quality" means how well an item is designed and constructed. how well it will function under adverse conditions and how long it will last, not how pretty it is.

A question and I do mean this as a question. What is wrong with "plastic", assuming an appropriate plastic is used for a given purpose?

 

I read many posts where people (who should know better) use the term "plastic" as a pejorative term. Plastics are used in places where metals would be very inappropriate - think of (American) football helmets, motorcycle helmets, even my ski helmet (and I value my head). All these are required to adsorb punishment and protect the wearer. Many plastics are stronger than steel.....

You should probably ask your question in the general forum if you want to discuss the subject of plastic and potential prejudice against it as a material in photographic equipment, because that has nothing to do with my comment that you quoted.

You should probably ask your question in the general forum if you want to discuss the subject of plastic and potential prejudice against it as a material in photographic equipment, because that has nothing to do with my comment that you quoted.

So what did you mean? Why do you prefer metal mounts over plastic ones, and make having a plastic mount a deal breaker?

A question and I do mean this as a question. What is wrong with "plastic", assuming an appropriate plastic is used for a given purpose?

I guess, in the context of lens mounts, it's the inherent softness of plastics in a place where rigidity is critical.

 

If you look at any plastic lens mounts that have been used a modest amount there is a lot of abrasion, which may give the impression of 'it's wearing away' and a sloppy fit is just around the corner. Whether that is in-fact the case, I don't know.

 

I do know it doesn't look nice, compared to a nice chromed brass mount.....:cool:

I have had a metal mount crack (granted it was from impact of camera + lens on hard surface but from only a 20 cm fall) in the camera body. I think probably Nikon know a lot more about which materials work best for each situation than I do. ;-)

 

Personally I like a lot that Nikon are emphasizing compact and reasonably compact (i.e. the S-line f/1.8 primes) but high-quality lenses in the Z lineup.

I think probably Nikon know a lot more about which materials work best for each situation

Whilst undoubtably true, they also build down to a cost for the lower end scale of their lenses.

 

Having said that, just how much money is saved by using a plastic mount rather than metal?

Plastics are great when you design for plastics. As a drop-in substitute for metal, not so much. Lens mounts have traditionally been metal and were designed strong enough to do the job, plus a bit more. AFAICS, the designs have not changed a lot, even when plastics are substituted for metal. And no, given the same thin sections, plastics are not as strong as metal, unless we're talking impacts, and often not even then. A plastic lens mount would not be a showstopper for me, but it would certainly be a disappointment.

Not a great fan of plastic mounts, but considering the dimensions of both the lenses... probably won't be much of an issue (if at all).

Whilst undoubtably true, they also build down to a cost for the lower end scale of their lenses.

 

Having said that, just how much money is saved by using a plastic mount rather than metal?

 

Plastic and metal have different thermal expansion coefficients so it could be that they chose a plastic mount because the inner barrel and supporting structures are also plastic, and it could be that the lens becomes more rugged by this choice of materials.

 

When Nikon had problems with autofocus accuracy and vibrations on the D800, in the succeeding D810 they moved to a different structure to house the mirror, which consisted of plastic composite instead of metal. The idea was that the plastic would be less likely bent by impacts (thus throwing off alignment of focusing) than metal and also it can help reduce vibrations and make the camera quieter. However, the problem was then that if the camera was dropped with a heavy lens attached, and hit the ground first, the threads in the plastic could be stripped off, making the camera completely unusable. Nikon went back to a metal structure in the D850, but that camera is quite a lot louder than the D810. So there are legitimate tradeoffs in these material choices, and metal is not best for everything.