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

[ShunCheung]

Mirrorless 24-70mm/f2.8 S Lens

 

We are in the second month of 2019 and we have the second installment of Z-mount lens in Nikon's roadmap, in this case the 24-70mm/f2.8 S. Unlike the 24-70mm/f4 S kit lens, the f2.8 version is a pro grade, top-of-the-line lens, and is priced accordingly.

 

Based on my discussion with Nikon, this new lens is designed to take full advantage of the absence of a mirror and the wide Z mount. It has edge-to-edge sharpness wide open at f2.8 with minimal focus breathing and distortion. The barrel has three rings. The middle one is for zooming. I believe the ring closest to the mount is a dedicated manual focus ring, and the third ring close to the front is a programmable control ring (I believe, but I may have the outside rings reversed).

 

The new 24-70mm/f2.8 S has 17 elements in 15 groups, with 4 aspherical elements and 2 ED. It has a new type of coating Nikon calls ARNEO to reduce ghosting with frontal lighting, while the Nano Crystal coating is used to reduce ghosting in backlit situations.

 

The new lens is very well weather sealed. Please see the last image below showing where Nikon has placed gaskets to block out moisture.

 

Unlike its F-mount counterpart, the new lens has no optical VR elements. It relies on in-body, 5-axes vibration reduction on the Nikon Z bodies. As a result, it is 25% lighter and 18% smaller than the fairly big 24-70mm/f2.8 E AF-S VR in the F mount, but it also uses 82mm front filters as its F-mount counterpart.

 

The new 24-70mm/f2.8 S lens will be available in the spring for US$2299.95, which is $100 cheaper than the F-mount, E AF-S VR version before discounts. (The older lens is currently $200 off in the US.)

 

Firmware Upgrade Pre-Announcement

 

Nikon is also announcing the development of new firmware for its mirrorless cameras and some DSLRs:

1. Z Bodies Supporting Eye-Detection AF, scheduled for release in May 2019
   
2. Increased AF/AE Performance, May 2019
   
3. Support RAW Video Output (no release date specified)
   
4. Support for CFexpress memory cards, again, no release date specified, but Nikon points out that new firmware will be available for the Z7, Z6, D5 (XQD type), D850, and D500 to support CFexpress cards. However, Nikon is not explicitly mentioning the D4 and D4S.
   

 

 

 

New product images copyright Nikon Inc.

 

 

 

 

[ShunCheung]

Link to Nikon corporate news announcement:

Nikon | News | Nikon releases the NIKKOR Z 24-70mm f/2.8 S, a standard zoom lens compatible with the Nikon Z mount system

[mike_halliwell]

Wow, that's a lot of aspheric glass!

 

Seems like 82mm is the new 77mm filter standard.

 

I've gradually started replacing my 77s for 82s necessary for the Sigma 135mm and soon to arrive, 40mm 1.4.

[ilkka_nissila]

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.

[John Crowe]

I had not noticed the "S" until now, and that the typical markings like ED, and IF have been dropped from the lens. Looking quickly I see it stands for "S-Line." Is this an all encompassing term/marking, like "L" for Canon, stating that the lens includes multiple technologies for the best possible performance? All Z-mount lenses currently carry the "S" designation, so can I assume that any standard lens offerings will simply drop the "S" ? Kudos to Nikon for this simplification if this is in fact the case.

[Andrew Garrard]

Hmm, looks like it'd be bigger but lighter than the Tamron G2, for what it's worth - though I hope it would have better edge sharpness. Of course, Nikon are never going to claim that a lens is soft, so we'll have to see actual tests.

 

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.

 

Not that I can afford to do consider switching, but if this performs well, the system is starting to look like it might have an advantage or two over the F mount. Then we just have to wait for the cameras to keep up. (The firmware may help with AF; the buffer size and frame rate limit probably needs new hardware.)

[ilkka_nissila]

The 24-70/4 and 50/1.8 are S Line lenses too. Nikon say there will be other lines (more economical) of Z lenses in the future.

[BeBu Lamar]

I will have to wait for Ken Rockwell to review the lens to see if I should get the Z. I don't like the 24-70 f/4.

[Andrew Garrard]

The 24-70/4 and 50/1.8 are S Line lenses too. Nikon say there will be other lines (more economical) of Z lenses in the future.

 

Oops; yes, I got distracted and meant to say more on that. I'll be interested to see the branding. Nikon always claimed they didn't have (expensive-as-)"L" lenses, although you could argue the "E"-series (that aren't "Nikkor") were the budget line. There were relatively few E lenses though, and budget stuff ended up being branded Nikkor (and occasionally getting gold rings irrespective of ED status) anyway - I imagine someone in marketing asked why someone would want to buy anything deliberately substandard. Not to say others haven't done this; Sigma had the "EX" series, and now have "Art" and "Sport" alongside "Consumer" (or whatever they called it), and Zeiss have the Milvus line as slightly less rarefied alternatives to the Otus.

 

I worry that if an f/4 kit zoom or an f/1.8 normal prime are "S", however good they may be, pitching something under that is going to be tricky - in the F mount, anything with those specs would be seen as fairly budget, even if Canon have some f/4 L lenses. Sony's (very good, at least by the standards of a couple of years ago) 50mm f/1.8 always suffered in my mind from "how much?" syndrome. Going as far as the specialist and limited exotics like Canon's f/2 zoom may not be necessary, but I wonder if throwing the kitchen sink at the low-specced (on paper) lenses was wise - even if Leica can sell an APO-summicron 50mm at stratospheric prices and Nikon can make the "adapt your F glass" argument. Then again, should they come out with a budget 50mm f/1.8 and 24-70 f/4 later, Nikon tried the "sell a lens with almost identical specs at several times the price" thing with the 58mm f/1.4, and we've got an active thread about how that went. Not that it's ever stopped either Canon or Nikon having multiple 70-200 or 70-300 lenses on the go.

 

Oh well, we'll find out how it gets marketed in time.

 

I will have to wait for Ken Rockwell to review the lens to see if I should get the Z. I don't like the 24-70 f/4.

 

"Incredibly sharp lens across the frame, shoot it wide open, nobody needs f/2.8 so you should get the f/4 instead, still not as good as a Mamiya 6 or iPhone, sharpness doesn't matter" I'm going to guess. (I'm cynical, but I really got burnt by the "super-sharp" 135mm DC thing. I read, but I don't entirely trust.)

[BeBu Lamar]

Oops; yes, I got distracted and meant to say more on that. I'll be interested to see the branding. Nikon always claimed they didn't have (expensive-as-)"L" lenses, although you could argue the "E"-series (that aren't "Nikkor") were the budget line. There were relatively few E lenses though, and budget stuff ended up being branded Nikkor (and occasionally getting gold rings irrespective of ED status) anyway - I imagine someone in marketing asked why someone would want to buy anything deliberately substandard. Not to say others haven't done this; Sigma had the "EX" series, and now have "Art" and "Sport" alongside "Consumer" (or whatever they called it), and Zeiss have the Milvus line as slightly less rarefied alternatives to the Otus.

 

I worry that if an f/4 kit zoom or an f/1.8 normal prime are "S", however good they may be, pitching something under that is going to be tricky - in the F mount, anything with those specs would be seen as fairly budget, even if Canon have some f/4 L lenses. Sony's (very good, at least by the standards of a couple of years ago) 50mm f/1.8 always suffered in my mind from "how much?" syndrome. Going as far as the specialist and limited exotics like Canon's f/2 zoom may not be necessary, but I wonder if throwing the kitchen sink at the low-specced (on paper) lenses was wise - even if Leica can sell an APO-summicron 50mm at stratospheric prices and Nikon can make the "adapt your F glass" argument. Then again, should they come out with a budget 50mm f/1.8 and 24-70 f/4 later, Nikon tried the "sell a lens with almost identical specs at several times the price" thing with the 58mm f/1.4, and we've got an active thread about how that went. Not that it's ever stopped either Canon or Nikon having multiple 70-200 or 70-300 lenses on the go.

 

Oh well, we'll find out how it gets marketed in time.

 

 

 

"Incredibly sharp lens across the frame, shoot it wide open, nobody needs f/2.8 so you should get the f/4 instead, still not as good as a Mamiya 6 or iPhone, sharpness doesn't matter" I'm going to guess. (I'm cynical, but I really got burnt by the "super-sharp" 135mm DC thing. I read, but I don't entirely trust.)

 

I don't doubt about the lens sharpness. I don't like it for different reason that I don't want to say it here.

[ShunCheung]

If you can wait a year or two, I can see this lens as part of the Nikon annual lens-only discount in February/March, with a $200 to $300 rebate, or it can be in the holiday-season discount in November/December.

 

Canon has just announced a consumer, $1300 FX mirrorless body. The weird part is that Canon doesn’t have a $500 mirrorless kit lens to go with it. Therefore one of Canon’s kits includes an EF DSLR lens and an adapter. I can see Nikon will have a similar consumer body with some non-S consumer zoom at $500 and maybe a consumer 50mm that is $200 all in the Z mount.

[Dieter Schaefer]

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

Some comfort I suppose - since the latest F-mount versions of the 24-70/2.8 and 70-200/2.8 already reached stratospheric price regions.

 

Sony's (very good, at least by the standards of a couple of years ago) 50mm f/1.8 always suffered in my mind from "how much?" syndrome.

You're talking about the Zeiss-branded 55/1.8? Tempted to get rid of my Sigma 50 Art - in terms of price that's now almost a wash.

Edited February 14, 2019 by Dieter Schaefer

[ilkka_nissila]

Some comfort I suppose - since the latest F-mount versions of the 24-70/2.8 and 70-200/2.8 already reached stratospheric price regions.

 

Value is very subjective, I probably shoot half of my photographs with those two lenses and very much like them. I can much more criticise the other lens purchases that I've made and their value.

 

But anyway, here the lack of necessity to put VR in the 24-70/2.8 S probably is responsible for the fact that it isn't following the 30% price increase per generation trend.

[Dieter Schaefer]

Value is very subjective

Naturally - but value and price aren't the same thing.

[robert_bouknight1]

I think I am still planning to get Z, probably Z6, while the "trade in" is in effect. Travelling light to Europe this summer, Don't plan to take the D810 and 2.8 zooms!

 

It sure would be good for Nikon to tempt me with a decent small reasonably priced pancake semi wide semi fast prime instead of a monster expensive midrange zoom.

 

Although my Sony A7 original is dead beyond economic repair, I still have the Sony FE 28/2, a very good lens for the money. Owning that lens, and looking at a new Sony A7 II for less than 1K has kept me from pulling the trigger on a Z.

[bgelfand]

If you can wait a year or two, I can see this lens as part of the Nikon annual lens-only discount in February/March, with a $200 to $300 rebate, or it can be in the holiday-season discount in November/December

 

If you can wait a year of two you will see Tamron or Sigma equivalents for about half the price - assuming the Z mount catches on and sells enough cameras.

[ilkka_nissila]

Naturally - but value and price aren't the same thing.

 

I also meant value per price, not just absolute value.

[Andrew Garrard]

You're talking about the Zeiss-branded 55/1.8? Tempted to get rid of my Sigma 50 Art - in terms of price that's now almost a wash.

 

Oh yes, probably. Sorry, I'm not an expert on Sony. I do like the 50mm Art (at least compared with my other 50mms, which I like mostly for size) - but I've got to say the reviews of the 40mm are scarily good.

[ilkka_nissila]

The Sony 50/1.8 FE is inexpensive ($223) but the Sony/Zeiss 55/1.8 is $948.

 

The Sigma 40mm f/1.4 weighs 1.2kg, which to me is a bit much for a slightly wide normal lens. I prefer the path of development where optical quality improvements are seeked without unduly increases in weight. If I buy a Nikon Z mirrorless camera, I would probably base my system of lenses around the f/1.8 S line primes.

[Andrew Garrard]

The Sony 50/1.8 FE is inexpensive ($223) but the Sony/Zeiss 55/1.8 is $948.

 

Oh yes, and the 55mm came out first. (I trust Nikon's non-S Z-mount 50mm f/1.8 will be similarly conventional.)

 

I prefer less weight, and sometimes choose it preferentially (hence my 50mm f/1.8 collection and RX100), but I'll generally put image quality first. It's one reason that I'm more interested in the Sigma 105mm f/1.4 than the smaller Nikkor version: the Sigma essentially has no cat's eye bokeh by f/2, whereas the Nikkor is still squashed at f/2.8. Unfortunately the 135mm f/1.8 doesn't match this, since I prefer the 85mm/135mm duo to the 105mm. I'd take them all if I won the lottery though. Once there's a 1kg camera + L plate on the back, and since I'm going to weigh a lot more than any glass not purely for astronomy, it takes some going for the weight of a lens to bother me much - not that I claim I can hand-hold a 600mm f/4 very well.

[BeBu Lamar]

This new lens according to Nikon doesn't change size when focus but does it change size when zoom?

[Dieter Schaefer]

The Sony 50/1.8 FE is inexpensive ($223) but the Sony/Zeiss 55/1.8 is $948.

I own the former in lieu of the latter. Naturally, in a direct comparison, the Zeiss has better AF and better corner performance up to about f/4. But my main use for the lens is static subjects shot at f/5.6 and slower - and in that regime, there's no discernible optical difference between the two lenses. When I wrote above that I am considering replacing the F-mount 50mm Art with the Zeiss 55/1.8 I was referring to the situation of me moving my main camera use away from DSLR and towards mirrorless - something I am not willing to do quite yet.

 

Once there's a 1kg camera + L plate on the back, ..., it takes some going for the weight of a lens to bother me much

I admit that the weight of the D810 with L-plate and Sigma 24-105/4 does bother me a bit - even though I am used to carrying a much higher weight in form of the D500/MB-D17/200-500 combo. I also admit that the weight of the Sigma 40/1.4 does give me pause in considering it to replace the 35 and 50 Art lenses.

 

This new lens according to Nikon doesn't change size when focus but does it change size when zoom?

Yes, it does. And the change in lens length is not hiding inside the lens hood as it does for the current (and former) 24-70 F-mount lens.

[Andrew Garrard]

I was referring to the situation of me moving my main camera use away from DSLR and towards mirrorless - something I am not willing to do quite yet.

 

Yes, if the lenses make the argument strongly enough (especially if eye-tracking AF is all it's cracked up to be) then it may be in my future, even though several of the advantages of mirrorless don't really matter much to me (notably size/weight, "live preview" in the finder). The current Nikon bodies would actively be a downgrade for me (from the D850, not so much the D810), so I'm waiting.

 

And I won't say that weight is irrelevant - my the 24-120 went away because it was heavy for what it was (and I still have half an eye on a 24-85). If you don't have the camera with you, or having it with you means you're not enjoying yourself, that's bad. I can just deal with a relatively low performance-to-weight ratio. I'm used to it in my normal physique.

 

(I was about to disagree about the old 24-70 behaviour, but then realised you said "inside the lens hood" - so you're right. By contrast, the 14-24 front and rear element move on zooming but never outside the fixed integrated hood, and the 70-200 lenses don't change external size at all.)

[Dieter Schaefer]

The current Nikon bodies would actively be a downgrade for me (from the D850, not so much the D810)

Your and my requirements for a camera differ substantially - I would definitely consider acquiring the Z7 to replace my D810 a downgrade.

and I still have half an eye on a 24-85

Look away - only regret awaits down that path.

[Ian Rance]

I picked up a Z6 - and my D850 is going nowhere! They are absolutely nothing alike, and if you want to try something different the Z6 is just that. Different for everyone of course but I have many lenses that cost me nothing that fit nothing I own, so by picking up a Z and a few adaptors I can try out new ideas and have fun.

 

I downloaded the new firmware 'just because' but I don't really care for all eye AF and similar - since my style is looking for a picture and taking my time, enjoying the experience and ambience.

 

Today I picked up two more free lenses - one is a made in the DDR Zeiss Tessar 50mm. I get the feeling that will be quite a character!