New Lenses. Z 28-75mm f2.8 and Z 800mm f6.3 PF..

[mike_halliwell]

PS. I hadn't noticed that Tamron didn't release the Mk III in anything but the Sony mount.... and now shows it as discontinued on their website.

 

However, it's replacement, "the 28-75mm F/2.8 Di III VXD G2 (Model A063) is the successor of the 28-75mm F/2.8 Di III RXD (Model A036)"... is a naming nightmare.

 

What the heck is helpful between Di III VXD Model A063 and Di III RXD Model A036, one letter change and a pair of transposed digits?

 

The sharp eyed will spot the new one is the G2 model.....it's there right in the middle of the alphabet soup...:)

 

Why not call it the 28-75mm 2.8 G2?

 

Crazy.

Edited December 16, 2021 by mike_halliwell

[Mary Doo]

800mm/f6.3

f/6.3? Not desirable if it is heavy and expensive as well.

 

For wildlife I am currently on the cusp between Nikon and Olympus. I went to Zimbabwe with the Olympus 100-400 which stretches to f/6.3 at 400mm (800mm full frame), I was able to fit 3 M43 cameras with necessary lenses and accessories into one bag. Then I learned about the existence of the Olympus 150-400 which has a f/4.5 constant aperture with a built-in 1.25x extender, and handholdable at 4.1 lbs, It's not cheap but unlikely to be more costly than the Nikon 800mm. Perhaps this is the breaking point with Nikon now... at least with wildlife. :(

[ilkka_nissila]

Well, the thing is that by making it available as a Nikon lens (collaboration between Nikon and Tamron), Tamron doesn't need to reverse engineer the mount to get the lens to work on the Nikon mount protocols properly, so it could work better than a reverse engineered third-party lens. It may have taken Nikon some time to implement it, in the meanwhile Tamron has launched a new design for the Sony mount. But Nikon have a lot of standard zooms of their own for Z mount, so there is a lot of options for users. 24-50/4-6.3, 24-70/4, 24-70/2.8, 24-120/4, 24-200, and now 28-75/2.8. The Tamron G2 lens isn't directly available for the Z mount at least not yet, but perhaps it will be in the future. Edited December 16, 2021 by ilkka_nissila

[ilkka_nissila]

f/6.3? Not desirable if it is heavy and expensive as well.

 

For wildlife I am currently on the cusp between Nikon and Olympus. I went to Zimbabwe with the Olympus 100-400 which stretches to f/6.3 at 400mm (800mm full frame), I was able to fit 3 M43 cameras with necessary lenses and accessories into one bag. Then I learned about the existence of the Olympus 150-400 which has a f/4.5 constant aperture with a built-in 1.25x extender, and handholdable at 4.1 lbs, It's not cheap but unlikely to be more costly than the Nikon 800mm. Perhaps this is the breaking point with Nikon now... at least with wildlife. :(

 

f/6.3 on mirrorless camera shouldn't make a significant practical difference from f/5.6 as the AF works fine at even smaller apertures. Some people report shooting bird-in-flight on Sony cameras with maximum apertures of f/11. DSLRs are designed for maximum aperture of f/5.6 or faster, and the AF declines rapidly at smaller maximum apertures. Mirrorless AF is just different and smaller apertures can be used.

 

f/4.5 on micro four thirds is similar to having an f/9 lens on FX cameras, so a Nikon 800mm f/6.3 gives 1 stop more light over the whole area of the sensor in the same exposure time as the Olympus 150-400 mm at f/4.5. Also, the Z9 and Z7 (II) have 45 MP sensors so you get a lot more pixels on the bird (with an 800 mm lens) than Olympus cameras equipped with a 400 mm lens.

[Dieter Schaefer]

That would seem to be a 'Foot Shooting' exercise?

How so?

 

What the heck is helpful between Di III VXD Model A063 and Di III RXD Model A036, one letter change and a pair of transposed digits?

Tamron's naming scheme is indeed infuriating - especially when one tries to find out at a later time which used lens is actually being offered (when the A0xx number is often the only reliable option and equally often just simply not stated).

 

VXD vs RXD indicated a different type of AF motor. I have no idea wht the "III" is supposed to indicate as it is in the name of both lenses.

 

Perhaps this is the breaking point with Nikon now... at least with wildlife.

A local bird photographer made his decision recently - going from an Olympus m4/3 system to a Canon R5 with the 600/4 lens.

[rodeo_joe1]

I've extensively used 3 incarnations of Tamron's 28-75mm f/2.8 lens and wouldn't hesitate to recommend it to anyone at Tamron's price point.... But adding 250 quid onto a 700 quid lens? Bit cheeky, and at that price I'd think twice about my recommendation.

[Mary Doo]

A local bird photographer made his decision recently - going from an Olympus m4/3 system to a Canon R5 with the 600/4 lens.

That did cross my mind, but it would be a drastic equipment change since I don't own any Canon, and the R5-superiority in tracking can be temporary. Nikon Z has gone backward in this area but somehow I think they will catch up. Compared to Olympus, the equipment weight and bulk would still remain an important negative factor.

 

f/4.5 on micro four thirds is similar to having an f/9 lens on FX cameras, so a Nikon 800mm f/6.3 gives 1 stop more light over the whole area of the sensor in the same exposure time as the Olympus 150-400 mm at f/4.5.

You are right, almost forgot. Hwvr, the size and weight is much better and, also, the 150(300) - 400(800) zoom range is more useful for composition than a fixed 800mm focal length.

[Dieter Schaefer]

I don't own any Canon

My intention hasn't been to recommend Canon - it was merely about the choice between m4/3 and full frame. I don't think, I would ever move to Canon; my choice is rather between Nikon and Sony. And the z9 has the potential of keeping me with Nikon at least for wildlife photography portion (sweet 300 PF and 500 PF). For the remainder, I already use both and it is quite likely that the Nikon DSLR portion won't be around for much longer. Depends a bit on how much I will get for it when I finally decide to part with it.

[Mary Doo]

Nikon DSLR portion won't be around for much longer.

Sure thing. I am phasing out Non-Z equipment.

[mike_halliwell]

How so?

Everyone now knows it's a re-badged 'yesterday's', so-so IQ lens.... not such a good message. No?

Edited December 16, 2021 by mike_halliwell

[ShunCheung]

Everyone now knows it's a re-badged 'yesterday's', so-so IQ lens.... not such a good message. No?

Nikon is also trying to keep some separation between the 28-75mm/f2.8 and 24-70mm/f2.8 S. But I continue to feel that they have way too many Z mid zooms:

• 24-50
  
• 24-70mm/f4 S
  
• 24-70mm/f2.8 S
  
• 24-120mm/f4 S
  
• 24-200mm
  
• 28-75mm/f2.8
  

I, for one, will really miss the 24-27mm range for a mid zoom that I have little interest in the new 28-75. If anything, Nikon is probably better off with some transplant 70-200mm/f4 lens. The 70-200mm/f2.8 S is great, but it is expensive and pretty heavy.

[Mary Doo]

28-75mm/f2.8 and 24-70mm/f2.8 S.

Wonder which genius innovated this creative idea to generate another lens with such minute difference from the existing 24-70 and, in fact, much less useful because 28mm is not as acceptable to be a wide angle than 24mm, not to mention the multiple focal-length overlaps with many other midrange S lenses that you listed above. There are multiple midrange prime s lenses too. The field is crowded while people are anxiously waiting for longer zooms. A longer micro to replace the old 200mm f/4 would be nice too.

Edited December 17, 2021 by Mary Doo

[Dieter Schaefer]

But I continue to feel that they have way too many Z mid zooms

There's at least one variable aperture 24-85 missing - maybe a f/2.8-f/4? The venerable 28-105/3.5-4.5 could also use a revival - how about as a 28-105/2.8-4? And, of course, there is absolutely the need for a 28-300.

[ilkka_nissila]

The 28-75's price on Nikon's website in Finland is 1099€ and the 24-70/2.8's is 2599€ (street price is, however, lower, which I'd expect it to be both eventually) so there is quite a substantial difference in price. I would think in many countries in the world photographers can't afford the S-line f/2.8 zoom but need a fast maximum aperture to be able to shoot, e.g., indoor or night-time events, photojournalism, portraits etc. As there is barely any second-hand market for Z lenses, and Nikon are reluctant to open its mount, it's important that they offer something practical that is not limited to wealthy customers in first-world countries. While many online forums are focused on wildlife photographers' needs, the by far best-selling lenses over the years have been zooms that cover wide angle to short or mid telephoto.

 

As for what is considered wide angle, I guess that has a way of shifting over the years. The f/2.8 standard zoom was first 35-70 mm, then it got extended both wide and long, and eventually things settled around 24-70 and 70-200 for the f/2.8 zooms, but at least personally I would have preferred something like 85 mm on the long end, the problem was that none of the zooms that offered 85 mm were very good across the whole focal range (whether it was 28-105, 28-85, 24-85, or 24-120), and even with 24-70 mm either the short or long end is a bit weak (according to some people's expectations; personally I think the 24-70 mm lenses are fine). If given a choice of 28-85 mm with similar quality to 24-70 mm's I would have a difficult choice. However, here the 75 mm is not that different from 70 mm and the choice is mainly between two offerings with different size, weight, price and image quality.

 

Dieter, I am assuming you're being sarcastic. Nikon are offering 24-50/4-6.3 and 24-70/4 as new lens types and they have probably 10% of the customer base they used to have, so it's expected that not all lenses would be replicated in Z mount. However, it's clear Nikon see the standard zoom as a key product.

 

The 100-400 should be becoming available as we speak (some report having gotten shipment notifications) so the long zoom offerings are then covered. Or do we then need also 24-400, 28-400, 35-500, 70-400, 150-600, 70-300, and 300-800 in addition to the 100-400 that was launched and the 200-600 on the roadmap?

[mike_halliwell]

the 200-600

Still curious about how Nikon are going to stretch the 200-500mm by 100mm and what effect it's going to have on the aperture? Variable now or a much more likely constant f6.3?

[ilkka_nissila]

Still curious about how Nikon are going to stretch the 200-500mm by 100mm and what effect it's going to have on the aperture? Variable now or a much more likely constant f6.3?

 

Sony's 200-600 is f/5.6-f/6.3. Anyway the Sony lens is an internal zoom (unlike the Nikon 200-500) so it's quite different.

[Dieter Schaefer]

Dieter, I am assuming you're being sarcastic.

 

:D

Or do we then need also 24-400, 28-400, 35-500, 70-400, 150-600, 70-300, and 300-800 in addition to the 100-400 that was launched and the 200-600 on the roadmap?

70-300 for sure. 300-800 would be cool (Sigma makes/made one); especially if it could be made lighter and more compact through use of PF elements.

 

personally I would have preferred something like 85 mm on the long end

+1

the problem was that none of the zooms that offered 85 mm were very good across the whole focal range (whether it was 28-105, 28-85, 24-85, or 24-120)

Over the years, I owned each of the AF-S 24-85 lenses, none of them were good. Two of the three 24-120 (1st generation was fine on film, not so much on digital; 2nd one was a disaster; the copy of their 3rd generation one I tried wasn't better than any of the 24-85 and hence not worth the extra cost). On lower-MP digital, the 28-105 did OK though by no means was optically great. I never tried the AF 24-85/2.8-4 or the 28-85.

 

Now with the 14-30/4 and 24-70/4 Z-mount lenses Nikon has done something they haven't done in the DSLR era - offer excellent optically quality even in non-pro caliber (aka constant f/2.8) "cheaper" lenses.

 

I found the Sigma 24-105/4 to be quite good - aside from the battery-eating OS (at least on my D810). I now settled for the Tamron 15-30/2.8 G1 and Tamron 35-150/2.8-4 combo; both of which are doing fine optically. Such a combo works best if one can have them on two separate cameras; the biggest issue than is the weight. Though it is still more compact and lighter than carrying the 14-24/2.8, 24-70/2.8 and 70-200/2.8 trio (which I luckily don't need for what I do).

 

Sony's 200-600 is f/5.6-f/6.3. Anyway the Sony lens is an internal zoom (unlike the Nikon 200-500) so it's quite different.

I would hope that Nikon would go the same route with the 200-600. And from all I've seen, Sony's 200-600 is doing very well optically.

Edited December 17, 2021 by Dieter Schaefer

[ilkka_nissila]

I would hope that Nikon would go the same route with the 200-600. And from all I've seen, Sony's 200-600 is doing very well optically.

 

Right. Nikon were, however, able to design the new (extending) 100-400 in such a way that moving elements are counterbalanced by each other when one zooms so that there is only minimal shift in center-of-gravity (like 1 cm or so, judging from their video). So this seems like the best of both worlds, being more compact at its shortest focal length for transportation and still maintaining almost unchanging center of gravity at longer settings. The Sony 200-600 is quite big as a result of its internal zoom design so one needs to consider this when choosing which lens is small enough to fit in the bag. I do expect Nikon to also make the 200-600 an internal zoom, but the 100-400 is quite appealing.

[Dieter Schaefer]

Sony’s 200-600 is only about 4cm longer than Nikon’s 200-500 (and about 3cm shorter than the 200-500 at full extension); I rather have the Sony which zooms over the entire range in less than 90 degrees than the Nikon which needs some 270 degrees to cover its more limited range. A counterbalancing design is nice - provided the center of gravity isn’t too far forward. No reason for it not be incorporated into an internal zoom as well.

[mike_halliwell]

the 100-400 is quite appealing

And reasonably priced, in a relative kinda way.....;)

 

Anyone know, off hand, how much the Canon 100-400mm is?

[ShunCheung]

Anyone know, off hand, how much the Canon 100-400mm is?

Which Canon 100-400 are you referring to?

 

Canon's RF-mount, i.e. FX mirrorless, 100-400 is very much a consumer lens that is f5.6 - f8, i.e. f5.6 on the 100mm end and f8 on the 400mm end, at $649: Canon RF 100-400mm f/5.6-8 IS USM Lens

 

The EF-mount, i.e. (D)SLR, 100-400 is f4.5-5.6 @ $2399: Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM Lens

 

Two extremely different lenses, although both Canon 100-400.

 

The Sony 200-600 is an internal zoom. The trade off is that it is easier to zoom, but it doesn't collapse for traveling.

[ilkka_nissila]

And reasonably priced, in a relative kinda way.....;)

 

Very relative. ;-)

 

Anyone know, off hand, how much the Canon 100-400mm is?

 

Canon's premium long telezoom for the RF mount is 100-500 mm and in Finland it costs a bundle (3299€), although the maximum aperture is f/7.1 at 500 mm.

[mike_halliwell]

Which Canon 100-400 are you referring to?

Their equivalent one to the new nikon....;)

 

Edit. Oh, I see there isn't really anything similar yet!

Edited December 17, 2021 by mike_halliwell

[ShunCheung]

Very relative. ;-)

Canon's premium long telezoom for the RF mount is 100-500 mm and in Finland it costs a bundle (3299€), although the maximum aperture is f/7.1 at 500 mm.

Right, Canon L-line long zoom for the RF mirrorless mount is 100-500, but it is f7.1 on the 500mm end. I know quite a few Canon users with that lens and the R5. Some tell me that f7.1 is acceptable, but some find it too slow on the 500mm end.

 

For 500mm, I still prefer to have at least f5.6 such as the PF. For 800mm, maybe we need to compromise with f6.3, but 800mm even at f6.3 is going to be expensive.

[Mary Doo]

f/4.5 on micro four thirds is similar to having an f/9 lens on FX cameras, so a Nikon 800mm f/6.3 gives 1 stop more light over the whole area of the sensor in the same exposure time as the Olympus 150-400 mm at f/4.5.

I hadn't thought seriously about this before and I am glad to find that this is only partially true after some research.

 

There are two parts to an F-stop: The depth of field part is true. Thus f/4.5 on M43 is somewhat equivalent to f/9 on FX.

 

However, the admission of light is not true (thank goodness - at least for me): Thus Olympus 150-400mm's f/4.5 constant would admit 1 stop more light than the Nikon 800mm f/6.3.

 

Here's an example explanation. There are others:

 

Based on the two images below, even the depth of field difference is negligible. Hwvr, I believe this difference can be more pronounced in other situations.