Nikon Announces 14-24 f2.8Z and 50 f1.2Z

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by robert_davies|2, Sep 16, 2020.

  1. Quite looking forward to the 14-24, not sure about another 50 though.

    See press releases and make press enquiries

    At least it looks like we are getting past whatever supply problems they have been suffering with (for obvious reasons) this year.
     
    Mary Doo likes this.
  2. [​IMG]
    ARTISTRY IN DETAIL. NIKKOR Z 50MM F/1.2 S
    • Professional f/1.2 prime lens. Elaborate bokeh. Finely detailed point light sources. Incredibly sharp from edge to edge. Magnificent in low light.
    • Advanced optical construction. Featuring 17 lens elements in 15 groups, including two ED glass elements and three aspherical elements.
    • Unwavering autofocus. Autofocus is fast, smooth, and ever so quiet. Your area of focus is rendered sharply, even when shooting at close distances or with shallow depth of field.
    • Remarkably clean images. Nikon’s anti-reflective Nano Crystal Coat and ARNEO coating combat ghosting and flare, even in backlit situations.
    • Cinematic video footage. The large maximum aperture allows vast control over depth of field. Focus breathing is all but eliminated.
    • Professional controls. The control ring is silent, and the Fn button can be customised. The OLED information panel lets you quickly and easily confirm vital shooting data.
    • Weather-sealed. Every movable part of the lens barrel is sealed, and there is rubber sealing around the metal lens mount.
    [​IMG]
    MASTER OF SPACE. NIKKOR Z 14-24MM F/2.8 S
    • Professional f/2.8 ultra-wide zoom lens. The wide Z mount and constant f/2.8 aperture enable thrilling performance.
    • Superior optical performance. Sharpness is exceptional edge to edge. Nikon’s Nano Crystal and ARNEO Coat drastically reduce ghosting and flare.
    • Tough and reliable. Extensive sealing around all moving parts of the lens barrel keeps dust and moisture out. An aluminium-alloy mount reduces weight while increasing durability.
    • Movie-ready. Autofocus is smooth and silent, with virtually no focus breathing or focus-shift while zooming. You get precise control over depth of field right from the lens.
    • Filter ready. You can use 112 mm screw-on filters together with the included lens hood. A rear filter slot allows use of gel colour filters.
    Images (c) Nikon UK Facebook page
     
    Last edited: Sep 16, 2020
    Mary Doo likes this.
  3. Winner of "Largest Normal Lens Ever" award? OK, I can pick on it because I can't afford it. 14-24 looks fun though.
     
    robert_davies|2 likes this.
  4. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    With the introduction of these two lenses, Nikon has fulfilled all lenses (and then some) on their original roadmap when they launched the Z system on August 23, 2018.

    Personally, I doubt that I'll get these lenses. I have the F-mount 14-24mm/f2.8 AF-S that I rarely use, mainly because it is too inconvenient. The Z-mount version's front element is not as bulging as the F-mount one, but it is still big and you need to put the 112mm front filter on a lens hood. I already have the 14-30mm/f4 S that is fairly compact and convenient. That lens takes conventional 82mm filters.

    LensRoadMap.jpg
     
  5. Of course I've not jumped into the Z system yet, but the 14-24mm is compelling.

    My F mount 14-24 is a bit of a polarizing lens for me, and I go through spurts of using it all the time and followed by spurts of it sitting for a few months. I love what it's capable of when used correctly, and in general I rarely go out without some sort of UW on hand. Still, though, for a lot of reasons something as wide as 14mm can be challenging to use well, and to me it's kind of pointless to carry that unwieldy monster if you're not going to make full use of its zoom range.

    The Z mount version will hopefully be a bit more tame in terms of size, but I'd wait to see one in hand.
     
  6. The MTF curves of the 14-24 at 14mm look impressive. At 24mm, the corners not so much - but still a major improvement over the 14-24G.

    50/1.2S - half the weight and a quarter of the price of the 58/0.95 - and it does AF.

    About the same length with a somewhat reduced diameter. But apparently the filter gets mounted in the hood (can't mount a 112mm filter on a 89mm diameter lens) - and with that hood mounted, the diameter increases beyond that of the G version (98mm). About 400 g lighter too - quite a feat by Nikon.
     
    Last edited: Sep 16, 2020
  7. It's impressive stuff technically, but what I'm really waiting for are the micro lenses scheduled for 2021. Hopefully they won't be too crazy expensive. That should let one take full advantage of the built-in focus stacking.
     
    brian_niemi|1 likes this.
  8. Make that one of the two hoods that get delivered with the lens.
     
  9. So looking forward to the `14-24. Thanks.
     
  10. With so many wide aperture fifty-mills to choose from, you'd think that every other picture would have a 40 degree angle of view and razor-thin depth-of-field. But looking around... mm, not so much.

    Perhaps future archaeologists will one day find a giant pit where all those expensive but unused chunks of glass got bulldozed?
     
    robert_davies|2 likes this.
  11. I have piles of 50mm lenses, but for my purposes if I'm going out with one lens it's going to be a 35mm(either a 35mm f/2 for AF or 35mm f/1.4 for MF, even though the f/1.4 has a certain look that's not always right for a photo wide open).

    In fact, even when carrying multiple primes, I'll often do the 35mm-85mm combo and skip the 50mm(using the "double your focal lengths" rule of thumb loosely).

    One of my real revelations was after I ended up with a couple of different mid-range zooms-in my case 24-85mm, 24-120mm, and 24-70mm. Looking at my EXIF from a day out shooting with just twisting the zoom ring without really giving much thought to where I'm actually landing(i.e. just using the FL that looks good good for what I'm doing) I rarely end up at 50mm.
     
  12. I can't agree with that rule of thumb Ben. In fact I'd never heard of it until now.

    I used an old Praktina for years (rambling anecdote alert!), and my favourite lens with it was a 75mm f/1.5 Jena Biotar. Absolute garbage at f/1.5, but lovely stopped down a bit, and a terrific 'walk-around' focal length.

    I was gutted when I changed to Nikon and discovered that 85mm was the closest I could get to that beloved 75mm.

    But now the DX format has turned all my 50mm lenses into 75s. Whoopee! But do I need f/1.2? Probably as much as I really need another orifice in my body.
     
  13. IMO, f/1.2 is good for bragging rights but just how much more light and how much less DOF do you really get compared to a much less expensive f/1.4? And then how often do you use either one wide open? In the days of film, where ISO was quite limited, fast lenses were worth the price, but with today's digital sensors that last bit of light gathering or slight narrowing of DOF has to pay its way. For the impoverished amateur they're hard to justify.

    We all have our favorite focal lengths and 50 mm has never been mine. 35 mm suits me better for walk-around stuff, or maybe 105 mm for people and a tighter view. I'd never been a fan of zooms but the 24-70 on the Z body covers maybe 75% of what I need and a couple of primes brings it to over 90%.
     
    tholte likes this.
  14. I believe the rule is more like "in the "traditional" sequence of available fixed-focal-length lenses (like 20, 24, 28, 35, 50, 85, 105, 135, 200), skip every other". So if you start with 50, pick a 28 and 105 next, not a 35 or 85. If you start with 35, pick 24 and 85. Almost never works out in terms of double/half the focal length. So more like choose "in increments of 20 +/- 5 degrees diagonal AOV".

    My revelation in that regard was that I always use both ends of each zoom available to me the most - so when carrying a 16-35, 24-85/105/120, and 70-200, there were peaks at 16, 24, 35, 70, 85/105/120, and 200. And pretty much every focal length in between in almost equal amount. Replace the 16-35 with a 15-30 and there will now be peaks at 15 and 30 and not at 15 and 35. Might explain my difficulty in picking prime lenses to carry - I would need all of them (and someone to carry them, of course).

    I am thinking about adding the Voigtlander 40/1.2 to my bag - just because the lens has this dual personality - soft below f/1.8 and sharp beyond. I am slowly beginning to realize that I am never going to be happy with whatever prime lens I own when I have the same focal length covered with a zoom - out of sheer convenience the zoom will be with me and the prime will stay home. The exception might well be "primes with special character" (or other special properties like macro capabilities). I owned a 24/1.4 thinking I would love to play with the "shallow" DOF and wide perspective a lot - I didn't and ended up selling it. Same with a 21/1.8 - though that one was purchased out of the need for a 20/21mm lens and ended up just being an f/1.8 (with an amazing amount of field curvature).
     
  15. I think maybe I botched my explanation, and the idea if I'm only carrying primes is to not group your focal lengths too close together. I know that I have Nikon MF primes at every major focal length between 20mm and 300mm, and if I carried every conceivable focal length I'd have a heavy bag, and spend all my time deciding which lens I wanted to use.

    A typical kit for me might be 20mm-35mm-85mm or 105mm and then 135mm or 200mm. If I bump my wide up to 24mm, It might be a clearer "doubling" at 24mm, 50mm, 105mm, and 200mm(or 180mm if I feel like carrying it).

    The "split personality" thing is true of a lot of fast primes. The Nikon 35mm f/1.4(which is one of my favorite MF lenses) is a good example. It's sharp and dream wide open, and really sharp by the time you get to f/2.8.
     
  16. I've just been mulling this over.
    F/1.2? - One point two? Why?
    I mean, why on earth stop at that weird aperture?
    OK, that was the widest Nikon could squeeze onto the F mount, but I thought the whole point of the Z mount was that it gave ultimate optical freedom to Nikon's lens designers - no?

    So why does this 50mm behemoth limit itself to f/1.2? Hardly a record-breaking or world-beating aperture for your money. You could probably pick up a comparatively diminutive f/1.2 Noct-Nikkor for less.

    Theoretically, an f/1 50mm lens need only be about 2" in diameter, and if Nikon had created a neat 50mm f/1 lens that took 52mm diameter filters, then that would have been really something.

    Whereas walking around with Mount Palomar stuck to the front of your tiny camera, and only getting a pedestrian f/1.2 aperture for your trouble, is a bit derisible.
     
    Last edited: Sep 18, 2020
  17. P.S. I recently tested my old, small and cheap 55mm AI f/3.5 Micro-Nikkor as delivering a clean 200 line-pairs per millimetre. Is this gargantuan new 50mm going to beat that?
     
  18. What is weird about it? It's just a number. Nikon have a lineup of f/1.8 primes for Z, the f/1.2 gives a clear >1-stop difference so it makes sense for low light and effects use. f/1.4 and f/1.8 are IMO too close to each other to make sense to build both lineups. The f/1.2 f/0.95 is twice as heavy as the 50/1.2 and four times as expensive, and the Noct is manual focus. I think people will find the 50/1.2 appealing even though it's pretty big.

    The point is that it allows better optical designs. For example, the new 14-24/2.8 Z S has much higher MTF than the F-mount version but is 35% smaller. This is quite amazing.

    A 58mm f/1.2 Noct can cost between $3000 and $8000, depending on condition, and is extremely soft in the corners at all apertures. Likely the new lens will be much sharper wide open (especially towards the corners) than the 58/0.95 Noct is. And the autofocus should make working with the new 50/1.2 easier.

    The Leica Noctilux is a 50/1.0 lens that is quite small but it's more expensive than the Nikon 58/0.95 and nowhere near the MTF of the 58/0.95.

    It's the fastest autofocus lens that they've been able to make so far. I am sure it will be reasonably popular. Going to f/1.0 or f/0.95 multiplies the price.
     
    Last edited: Sep 18, 2020
  19. In defense of the 50mm focal length, many (if not all) were stuck with the focal length as it was typically the kit lens of the day. I'm going back 35 years, many of you further than that.
    I've always tried to keep a 'normal' lens somewhere in my bag and for the last 14 years or so that's been the 60mm AFD, handy for commercial work, copy work and (obviously) macro stuff. When perspective distortion needs to be avoided etc.
    Now since moving to mirrorless (almost exclusively), that puppy doesn't AF - no big deal, I've never been a fan of AF for close up stuff and the focus peaking works fine.
    When I was able to pick up the 50S for £300 last summer it was a no brainer and the revelation was (in these days of heavy f2.8 zooms) it was actually a pleasure to use.
    In fact (unlike older f1.4 50s I've owned in the past) it is truly usable wide open with hardly any downside. That's not marketing hype that's just the truth, same goes for the 85.
    Anyways.... back on topic, the f1.2 is probably not for me. But I'm sure it will be a very popular lens for those who need it. I'm sure the video guys will be happy.

    I'm certainly going for the 14-24, though I have the patience to wait till early next year when it's sure to be on promotion for 15-20% less.
     
  20. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    Ricci Talks video about the new 14-24mm/f2.8 S lens:

     
    Last edited: Sep 18, 2020

Share This Page