Nikon Z Lens Roadmap, Updated 28 October 2021

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by ShunCheung, Oct 28, 2021.

  1. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    The 24-105mm S becomes a 24-120mm/f4 S.

    The 400mm/f2.8 with a 1.4x TC built-in is pre-announced, but according to this roadmap, there will still be 400mm, 600mm, and 800mm super-teles; no max aperture is specified. Could some of those be PF lenses? (BTW, Canon has a 600mm/f11 and 800mm/f11 for their mirrorless RF mount.)

    And there will be another compact, FX lens, a 26mm.

    Two new DX lenses are added, a 24mm compact and a 12-28mm DX wide zoom.

    Yet to be introduced, 200-600mm and a 85mm S, most likely an f1.2.
    Last edited: Oct 28, 2021
  2. It's good news that Nikon intend to expand the compact prime lineup, I really like those lenses at least on paper without having had the chance to use one yet. They are less expensive and more compact. A DX wide angle compact prime should be great for Z50 and Z fc users.
  3. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    The thing is that among "compact lenses," there are already two flavors of the 28mm/f2.8 and one 40mm/f2. Another 26mm seems strange; unless that is a macro, but then it should be listed under macros.

    I am glad to see two more DX lenses on the map, though. The 12-28mm DX is a much needed wide DX zoom.
  4. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    A different version of the new roadmap.

    The 26mm FX seems to be a true "pancake" lens.

    We know that the 400mm/f2.8 S has a built-in 1.4x TC, similar to the F-mount 180-400mm zoom. The other 400mm S looks small. It could be a 400mm/f5.6 PF lens. The 800mm S looks awfully short for an 800mm also. The 600mm S is almost certainly an f4.

  5. Yes, the 26 mm appears really neat, especially considering the Z bodies can be quite thin it's nice that the lens doesn't stick out as much.
  6. I'm all for pancakes and have placed an order for the 40/2, but anything more narrow than the grip is irrelevant IMO - unless of course they intend to make another body without a grip.
  7. The Z fc has no grip. I would think they'll make an FX version of that camera body soon.
  8. 800mm f8 PF?
  9. To my eye the 800mm appears like it could be an f/5.6 and the smaller 400 mm maybe f/4? Give or take.
    mike_halliwell likes this.
  10. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    The front of the 800mm seems to be just as wide as the 400mm/f2.8. That should make it a 800mm/f5.6, and you definitely need PF to make it short. But a 800mm/f5.6 PF is really going to be expensive.
    mike_halliwell likes this.
  11. Doubtful - the front diameter looks about the same as that of the 200-600 (which I expect to have a 95mm filter diameter); so the 400 can't be f/4 (requires 100mm filter diameter at least). It might be f/4.5 though as f/5.6 would not need a large front as shown in the image. I expect a 400/4.5PF to cost substantially less than a 400/4PF (factor of 2?).
    $18k? Or breaking the $20k barrier?
    What about the 400/2.8 with 1.4x TC? The current 400/2.8 is some 11k, so the new one is going to be $13k+? Even $15k?
  12. My "give or take" was meant to account for the possibilty of f/4.5. 1 stop is typically worth a doubling or halving of the price of a lens, given equal quality. One third stop has only a minor effect on the price.
  13. I look at it differently - front element larger than 100mm = $$$$$$, less than 100mm can be substantially cheaper. I expect a 400/4PF to cost $8-9k at least whereas a 500/5.6 is less than $4k. Yes, it is one stop but it is also just around that 100mm borderline.
  14. The Canon 400/4 DO IS II is $6899. I don't see a jump in price at any particular threshold of element diameter.
  15. yay, a 24-120/4, rather than the shortened 24-105. :)

    70-200/4 is still missing. :(
  16. I should know this since I once owned the 80-400 but, I wonder what focal length changes the new 100-400 to f5.6. Or, I guess asked in another way, what focal lengths will enjoy f4.5?
    Last edited: Oct 28, 2021
  17. For me, if I had the new 100-400mm, I would likely not buy any new 70-200mm, either f2.8 or f4. I would likely keep my current 70-200mm f4 and use it with the FTZ adapter. My S lenses would the 14-30 f4; 24-70 f4; 100-400mm; and a 500mm or 600mm f5.6 pf (if ever made by Nikon).
  18. The 100 - 400 mm f/4.6-5.6 VR S will be the second Z lens to work with the Z Teleconverters.
  19. So, why the 24-105mm 'typo'?

    Trying to spot a leaker?

    Fast lenses are now so much more about using shallow DoF and OOF effects than letting in enough light to get a fast enough shutter speed etc. Film completely ran out of gas at ISO3200,

    I don’t start worrying about noise until well past ISO4000 on the Z6ii.

    Anyone know how good those long and very slow Canon lenses are?
  20. The lenses in the roadmap that have not been officially announced are in development and the specifications can change before they go into production. This also happened to the 60mm macro in the earlier roadmap, it became a 50mm.

    For me they are about both things and I often need both.

    I felt ISO 400 was maximum for colour film if I wanted the images to look nice and if going into larger prints, ISO 100. There are lots of opportunities in low light that could not be used for quality photography back then.

    Just one week ago I was forced to ISO 70000 with an f/2.8 lens. It would have been nice to have a fast lens in that situation and shoot at ISO 6400. There are lots of dark situations and places. Lower ISO always looks nicer than higher ISO. When using a high resolution camera, the difference is more obvious.

    I got tired of the high ISO I often had to use with the 500/5.6 and sold the lens in favour of a shorter and faster lens. I can't imagine working with an f/11 super tele. f/4 is OK, faster would be nicer IMO. :) But I realize an 800mm f/4 is not very realistic to use without a robot.
    Last edited: Oct 30, 2021
    mike_halliwell likes this.

Share This Page