The Nikon Z6 Starts Shipping on November 16 (2018) Plus Holiday Promotions

[DB_Gallery]

I have been using my Z6 / 24-70 S for most of the day, pretty damn amazing camera, really nice IQ at ISO 20,000. The 24-70 is *perfectly* matched for this system, very sharp, super silent operation and well balanced with the Z. F mount lenses like my 20mm and 24mm 1.8G, 105 1.4E and 70-200 FL are perfect with the adapter. Using focus peaking in the VF is a revelation with MF glass like my fave, the Milvus 50mm F2.

 

I think Nikon nailed it with this camera, exactly what I was hoping for!!

[Andrew Garrard]

The reason Nikon gave me is that depth of field is simply way too shallow for f0.95 to depend on AF.

 

But... you're supposed to get the focal plane right with focus peaking? And you're using an f/0.95 lens for something that holds still, on a tripod, so you don't have to worry about the focal plane moving while you're trying to lock it? It doesn't feel any easier for a user than for the camera - it should at least be able to use contrast-detect!

 

Also that is going to be a very big lens for a 58mm with tripod collar and all. Again, relative to the size and focal length, you'll need a pretty big AF motor to move so much glass.

 

Well, yes, but the AF-I lenses seemed to cope with the same problem. Unlike those, I don't think it needs to be fast, so everything else is a matter of gearing...

 

It just seems to be a lens that's going to be very hard to use, and it could differentiate itself from the competition by not being. :-)

[ShunCheung]

Personally, I wouldn't pay too much attention to the Nikon 58mm f0.95 Noct lens. To me, it is more a "statement lens" showing off the fact that the Nikon Z mount has a wide diameter so that an f0.95 lens is technically possible. When Canon first introduced the EOS system at the end of the 1980's, Canon also had a 50mm/f1 EF lens that was like $2000+ in 1990 money. I understand that lens was not that great optically, especially at f1.

 

I expect the 58mm, f0.95 Noct will be well over US$5000, and I am sure the Brits will complain it is even more expensive in Pound Sterling over in the UK. I can't imagine a whole lot of people outside of some wealthy collectors would spend $5000+ on a 58mm lens for photography purposes, regardless of how great it may be optically. Usually I am not particularly interested in using f1.4, f1.8 because the depth of field is way too shallow.

[DB_Gallery]

Even though it was a bit less when I bought it, my Leica 35mm 1.4 is now over $5,000 and worth every penny for what I need it for so I would not go as far as to say the 58mm .95 is only for wealthy collectors, I am certainly interested in it.

 

I just got done using my Z6 and 105mm 1.4E to take photos of deer in full moonlight handheld. The exposure was 1/4 of a second at ISO 20,000 and the IBIS did shockingly well in this role.

[Andrew Garrard]

Moi? Complain?

 

I don't really have an issue with Nikon charging silly money for the f/0.95 50mm if they think they can get it - and it's not like it's up there with the 6mm f/2.8 or the 1200mm Canon for silly money. (And probably not even the "usual" big telephotos.) Still, if designing a halo lens for an autofocus system, I'd still have thought finding some way to make it autofocus would help. The Canon f/1 lens does, after all, and having better optics ought to help.

 

Depth of field is small, but it depends on subject distance as well. Not every use for a fast 50mm involves filling the frame with the subject's head, and if you've got four rows of people in focus at f/5.6 you can do one row at f/0.95, either freezing their motion or with less noise. I'd generally prefer to get subject separation with a longer lens (the Canon 85mm f/1.2 was more of interest to me, although it's also optically not great, and this is why I have the 200 f/2) - but they all have their uses.

 

I'll be interested to see how it holds up optically when reviewed. Last I looked even the Noctilux wasn't all that hot on the test bench.

 

DB: Sounds like a cool shot - I hope you'll consider sharing, if it's not for commercial use. Glad the combo is working for you!

[ilkka_nissila]

The Noct-Nikkor 58/0.95 will be manual focus only, a traditional lens. Focus by wire implies the presence of an autofocus motor, which is not the case for the Noct.

 

Canon seem to be working towards a whole series of f/1.2 primes for the R, and some patent-originated discussion has mentioned a 14-20/1.4 or some such lens. So both Nikon and Canon seem to want to produce a series of wider aperture lenses than possible for their DSLRs. I don't know how much of a market there is for such things, but I imagine they probably did their market research. A 14/1.4 could be useful for wide field astrophotography, for what it's worth.

 

At least Nikon seem to make the majority of the lens offerings for the Z quite practical; a series of f/1.8 primes, some f/4 and f/2.8 zooms, and finally the exotic 50/1.2 and 58/0.95.

[BeBu Lamar]

Personally, I wouldn't pay too much attention to the Nikon 58mm f0.95 Noct lens. To me, it is more a "statement lens" showing off the fact that the Nikon Z mount has a wide diameter so that an f0.95 lens is technically possible. When Canon first introduced the EOS system at the end of the 1980's, Canon also had a 50mm/f1 EF lens that was like $2000+ in 1990 money. I understand that lens was not that great optically, especially at f1.

 

I expect the 58mm, f0.95 Noct will be well over US$5000, and I am sure the Brits will complain it is even more expensive in Pound Sterling over in the UK. I can't imagine a whole lot of people outside of some wealthy collectors would spend $5000+ on a 58mm lens for photography purposes, regardless of how great it may be optically. Usually I am not particularly interested in using f1.4, f1.8 because the depth of field is way too shallow.

 

Not too expensive for Andrew as he already said it. All Z lenses focus by wire that is they use the motor to focus even in manual. The 58mm won't have the motor?

[ShunCheung]

Not too expensive for Andrew as he already said it. All Z lenses focus by wire that is they use the motor to focus even in manual. The 58mm won't have the motor?

At least as far as I can tell, Andrew is not suggesting that he is going to pay around $5000 for a manual-focus 58mm/f0.95 lens. Otherwise, while I will not be buying one myself, I don't particularly have any problem with Nikon making such a lens either, if Nikon thinks it is good for their marketing. I just don't think it is an important lens for people (such as me) who are seriously into photography rather than collecting exotic equipment.

[DB_Gallery]

I just don't think it is an important lens for people (such as me) who are seriously into photography rather than collecting exotic equipment.

 

So do you consider my bread and butter manual focus 35mm 1.4 lens in Leica at $5,295 an exotic collector lens?

 

I just don't understand this need to label something you deem unneeded by you for "serious" amateur photography to be unneeded by anyone but a collector. If the 58mm .95 comes in at $5K or less then I will rent it. If I think it is something I can use for my work, then I will buy it and monetize what it can do, pretty simple really.

[ShunCheung]

So do you consider my bread and butter manual focus 35mm 1.4 lens in Leica at $5,295 an exotic collector lens?

 

I just don't understand this need to label something you deem unneeded by you for "serious" amateur photography to be unneeded by anyone but a collector. If the 58mm .95 comes in at $5K or less then I will rent it. If I think it is something I can use for my work, then I will buy it and monetize what it can do, pretty simple really.

DB Gallery, why are you do hung up on this issue? If you have $5000 to spend on a Leica 35mm/f1.4 or Nikon 58mm/f0.95 lens that is "bread and butter" for your photography, great for you. I would imagine that 99% of the Nikon users cannot afford Leica type prices or any 58mm/f0.95 or Zeiss Otus lens. Most of us are not that wealthy and/or happy with much more affordable alternatives. Regardless of whether one buys those exotic lenses for actual photography, collection, or just as a paperweight, the market is so narrow that I don't consider those important products; i.e. Nikon's Z system is not going to make or break regardless of whether Nikon makes a 58mm/f0.95, and if they do introduce one, whether it is optically excellent or not. IMO f0.95 is more for bragging rights.

 

It is none of my business how you spend your money. If you are really happy with the Leica 35mm/f1.4, great for you. Why would you need to worry about my or anybody else's opinion on it?

[DB_Gallery]

DB Gallery, why are you do hung up on this issue? If you have $5000 to spend on a Leica 35mm/f1.4 or Nikon 58mm/f0.95 lens that is "bread and butter" for your photography, great for you. I would imagine that 99% of the Nikon users cannot afford Leica type prices or any 58mm/f0.95 or Zeiss Otus lens. Most of us are not that wealthy and/or happy with much more affordable alternatives. Regardless of whether one buys those exotic lenses for actual photography, collection, or just as a paperweight, the market is so narrow that I don't consider those important products; i.e. Nikon's Z system is not going to make or break regardless of whether Nikon makes a 58mm/f0.95, and if they do introduce one, whether it is optically excellent or not. IMO f0.95 is more for bragging rights.

 

It is none of my business how you spend your money. If you are really happy with the Leica 35mm/f1.4, great for you. Why would you need to worry about my or anybody else's opinion on it?

 

I am not worried about anything really, just wonder if you realize how you come off with these unfortunate labels you seem to use. 99% of people who take photos with their phones ( often great ones at that ) won’t need a DSLR either and yet there is open minded discussion and respect for those who do want and or need a DSLR or a mirrorless for that matter.

 

It’s one thing to say you don’t need it for what you do, it’s another and very much unfortunate for this forum for you to say who this lens is for when it is not your place at all to do that.

Edited November 26, 2018 by Sandy Vongries

[Mary Doo]

It’s one thing to say you don’t need it for what you do, it’s another and very much unfortunate for this forum for you to say who this lens is for when it is not your place at all to do that.

To be fair, Shun was simply mentioning -- in these free-flowing exchanges of ideas and discussions -- that most people cannot afford it or probably would not consider it for general photographic use after balancing the cost-benefit scale. But surely such lenses, with their extreme shallow depth of field, can yield strikingly unique images that no other lenses are capable of. Meant no offense.

[BeBu Lamar]

The fact that they chose to make a f/0.95 lens turned me off. Why don't they just make the f/1.0 lens which has a much nicer number?

[Mary Doo]

The fact that they chose to make a f/0.95 lens turned me off. Why don't they just make the f/1.0 lens which has a much nicer number?

Did you mean to put a " ;) " there? Maybe there are mathematical issues. Actually I won't mind trying an f/0.95 lens. :cool: But I won't buy it unless the price is a lot lower because I don't think I would use it as much as, say a 24-70mm f/2.8 lens.

[BeBu Lamar]

Did you mean to put a " ;) " there? Maybe there are mathematical issues. Actually I won't mind trying an f/0.95 lens. :cool: But I won't buy it unless the price is a lot lower because I don't think I would use it as much as, say a 24-70mm f/2.8 lens.

 

I do mind and that's why I avoided f/1.8 and f/1.2 lens. I much rather have the f/2.0 or f/1.4. I hate it when the lens maximum aperture is not on a full stop.

[ShunCheung]

Again, if you understand it is a matter of bragging rights and marketing, f0.95 is even more eye-catching than f1, which Canon had already managed to produce in the late 1980's. Otherwise, Leica has a 0.95 lens that has a 5-digit price tag in US dollars.

 

Incidentally, the $5000 price tag for the Nikon Z mount 50mm/f0.95 is merely my very rough estimate. Potentially I could be way off, but given that Canon's new mirrorless 50mm/f1.2 RF lens is $2299: CanonRF 50mm f/1.2L USM Lens

An f0.95 costing twice as much is probably in the ballpark.

[mike_halliwell]

About 5 years ago I picked up 2 x 50mm f0.95 lenses. Couldn't resist the paperweights...for £5 each.

 

They were from ancient ex-MOD light-intensifier goggles, maybe mid 50's. They've got a back focus (flange) distance of ~ <20mm and could never work on any cameras I owned, Oh, and no helicoid!

 

However.... Nikon Z might just work.:cool:

 

Now where I've put them?, that's another question....;)

 

I suspect the IQ to be appalling!

[ilkka_nissila]

While I have not the money or desire to buy a 58/0.95, I do get why they make one; and it's not just to show that they can, but to give new creative possibilities to photographers who may want them. I have the 105/1.4, for example, and I find it to give interesting possibilities, for example, when photographing people in a crowd, or when directing the viewer's attention to something cleanly. To get a similar effect in a normal lens (50mm-ish), you need about 1 stop larger aperture, so the 58/0.95 should achieve that. The fact that it's manual focus may not be such a bad thing as a mirrorless camera provides additional focusing aids that are not available using the optical viewfinder of a DSLR. It may be possible to use. Additionally, video seems to be a priority for Nikon in the Z system and a 58/0.95 with a very long focus throw may work for such applications, with or without a focus puller. Manual focus in autofocus Nikkors is not generally all that good, and it is good that they consider making lenses where manual focusing is precise. On a movie budget, renting a 58/0.95 might not be so much of an issue. Yes, the depth of field will be shallow, but then documenting minute details may not be the intention, but a certain visual effect. I get that this kind of an effect is not everyone's cup of tea, but then the price of the lens will likely mean the effect will continue to be rare.

 

A couple of shots with the 105/1.4:

 

Untitled

Untitled

 

Coming back to Earth, I am considering buying a Z6 with 35/1.8 and the 85/1.8 (which is on the roadmap) for use in indoor concert and other types of situations where quietness is of extra value. With these two lenses I imagine I could get by these situations.

Edited November 27, 2018 by ilkka_nissila

[ShunCheung]

Speaking of concerts, I took the Z6 with the 24-70mm/f4 S to one a couple of days ago (although it was probably a different type of concert many of you have in mind).

No exotic or not so exotic f1.4/1.8 lens was used. I set the zoom to 35mm, f4.5, 1/125 sec and ISO 3200. I have learned from experience it is more important to use a not-too-slow shutter spped to freeze motion rather than increasing depth of field. The Z6 has great high-ISO capability, of course.

 

There was the symphony orchestra, four soloists (singers) and a choir in the background. For those who are somewhat familiar with classical music, it is not difficult to guess what piece they had just performed. No pictures were allowed during the concert. I captured this during the standing ovation with thunderous applause. The Z6's shutter was quiet, but that was a feature that didn't make any difference at that moment.

 

[mike_halliwell]

I always thought 58mm a very specific, but odd focal length.

 

Is it really 58mm or is it closer to 57 or 59, numbers which are never going to adorn a lens label!

 

The Z6's shutter was quiet

 

Oh, does it not have a truly silent shutter like the previous Nikon mirrorless cameras?

[ShunCheung]

Oh, does it not have a truly silent shutter like the previous Nikon mirrorless cameras?

The Z6 has this setting. If you use it, you can barely hear a whisper during image capture.

 

[ShunCheung]

Upon further checking, the whisper is due to the aperture closing down. If your aperture setting is f5.6 or wider, the aperture doesn't need to stop down from composition to capture, and it is essentially completely silent.

[mike_halliwell]

Ah, OK.

 

So what's the 'downside', ie why isn't it always 'ON'?

 

On the Nikon Series 1, Electronic Shutter makes no noise... period.

[ilkka_nissila]

The silent shutter has a slower read time (the Z7 read takes about 1/15s, not sure about the Z6) than the pass of the mechanical shutter, thus there can be distortion of the geometry of moving objects (should not be an issue at a typical concert) but also if the lights are flickering, there can be some banding effects. Thus probably the mechanical shutter is preferred for indoor available light photography, but this depends on the lighting and subject movement.

 

The electronic shutter itself doesn't cause a sound but focusing and aperture changes still involve mechanical movement which can cause some (faint) sounds. If I recall correctly the Z6/Z7 keep the aperture at the shooting aperture for live view and focusing also (thus there would not need to be a sound from the aperture when the picture is taken), but only up to f/5.6; if a smaller aperture is used then the focusing aperture and shooting aperture do not match and switching between the two could cause some faint sounds. At an indoor concert you're probably going to be shooting at a wider aperture than f/5.6 so in that case the main source of sound (if silent shutter is used) is the lens focusing, which in the case of at least the 35mm f/1.8 is very, very quiet.

[BeBu Lamar]

Upon further checking, the whisper is due to the aperture closing down. If your aperture setting is f5.6 or wider, the aperture doesn't need to stop down from composition to capture, and it is essentially completely silent.

If the set aperture is wider wouldn't the camera have to open it up?