Nikon announces Z5 fullframe Mirrorless using SDxx cards for memory media

[Dieter Schaefer]

For me, literally the only F-mount lens that would have to work well on a suitable (and as of now non-existent) Z body is the 500PF. There's currently only one lens of interest to me in the native Z-mount - the 14-30/4; but again, no suitable Z body to go along with it. A body suitable to work with the 500PF for me needs to have a performance at least matching that of the D500. I wouldn't mind FX instead of DX - but then the pixel density needs to be at least that of the D850 or higher. Such a body would also suit me for use with the 14-30 and the other two lenses that would have to be available: 24-105 and 100-400. Once all that is in place and performing better than what Sony has available already now and by then, then I might consider going all in on the Nikon mirrorless. I wouldn't be surprised that a Nikon Z-mount 24-105 would cost $1500 or more and that the 100-400 exceeds the $3k barrier.

[ShunCheung]

Such a body would also suit me for use with the 14-30 and the other two lenses that would have to be available: 24-105 and 100-400. Once all that is in place and performing better than what Sony has available already now and by then, then I might consider going all in on the Nikon mirrorless. I wouldn't be surprised that a Nikon Z-mount 24-105 would cost $1500 or more and that the 100-400 exceeds the $3k barrier.

Currently, both of Canon's 24-105mm/f4 lenses, in the EF (EOS DSLR) and RF mounts, respectively, are $1100. Sony's 24-105mm/f4 is $1200. Nikon's future 24-105mm S, presumably also f4, cannot deviate much from those existing lenses. The excellent Nikon 24-70mm/f4 S has a MSRP of $1000, but it is available as a kit lens for the Z6 or Z7 for an additional $600. Most likely Nikon's future 24-105mm S will also be available as a kit lens with plenty of discount.

[Dieter Schaefer]

ony's 24-105mm/f4 is $1200.

Only because there's currently a discount on it - the original price was $1398.

Most likely Nikon's future 24-105mm S will also be available as a kit lens with plenty of discount.

I hope that ends up not just being wishful thinking. Not sure, but I believe Sony never bundled the 24-105 with a camera at a discount.

 

Sony's 100-400 is currently $2500; Nikon's 80-400 $2100 (IIRC, at introduction, the price was $2700). I expect Nikon to at least match those "old" prices. Though it appears that the Z-mount 70-200/2.8 comes in cheaper than the introductory price of the latest F-mount 70-200/2.8 FL (whose price since 2016 has dropped a few hundred dollars).

 

I have to admit that I am impressed by the images I have seen taken with the Sony 100-400 (and also 200-600) on a A7R3 or A7R4; I don't think I can match that with the 80-400 or 200-500 on a D810.

Edited July 30, 2020 by Dieter Schaefer

[ShunCheung]

Nikon's tends to price the Z lenses high but discounts are available a few months later. For example, I bought my 24-70mm/f2.8 S during Thanksgiving last year, and Nikon was discounting it by $300, merely just a few months after its introduction, and my local store had a "sale tax holiday" period.

 

I was interested in the 24-105 because I find the 24-70mm/f4 S too short on the long end for video, even in the DX crop mode. But now I think the 24-200mm is the better travel lens. That lens seems to be excellent for a super-zoom. I am wondering whether VR can hold up for hand held video capture at 200mm.

[Dieter Schaefer]

I was interested in the 24-105 because I find the 24-70mm/f4 S too short on the long end for video

Same here - but without the qualifier "for video"; just too short at the long end. 24-105 or 24-120 seems to be a good compromise.

But now I think the 24-200mm is the better travel lens.

Might well be - Sony (and also Canon) offers a 24-240; at least the Sony version is substantially heavier than the Nikon. I doubt that I would be happy taking only a single lens - at the very least, I'd add a superwide zoom or at least a superwide prime (18 or 20mm). But most likely would want something longer than 200 as well (and faster than f/6.3). With mirrorless a three-lens-set consisting of a superwide zoom (like 12-24 or 14-30), a 24-105, and a 100-400 appears to be a good compromise between too much bulk and weight and too little in terms of utility. Crucial only when space is limited (when flying for example); traveling by car usually imposes much fewer restrictions on what can be brought along.