Industry News: Nikon announces the NIKKOR Z 28-75mm f/2.8 and development of the NIKKOR Z 800mm f/6.3 VR S

Chaitanya

EOS 5D Mark IV
Jun 27, 2013
1,581
772
36
Pune
I don't really get that viewpoint. Sure, variety is nice but if you need a truck do you really care if a manufacturer offers an infinite variety of sedans? What I care about is whether or not a system provides the lenses that I personally need.

For example, I use the TS-E 17L and TS-E 24L II a lot. AFAIK, Sony does not even make E-mount TS/PC lenses. There are a couple of options among the 'wide range of third party lenses' for the E mount, but the Rokinon 24 TS is optically weak, and the Laowa 15mm is shift only, no tilt. However, my two TS-E lenses adapt better than perfectly to the RF mount (better than perfect because the drop-in filter adapter means I can use convenient small ND and CPL filters for the TS-E 17 instead of the 145mm salad plates I used to carry for it).
Laowa 15 Macro shift function is designed only for crop bodies.


A shift mechanism is added at the rear end of the lens with a maximum adjustment of +/- 6mm for APS-C cameras, which is extremely useful for landscape/architecture photography for distortion correction.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
27,108
6,541
Laowa 15 Macro shift function is designed only for crop bodies.
Thanks, but I was referring to the 15mm f/4.5 Zero-D Shift, which does ±11mm shift on FF.


Still no tilt...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

jd7

EOS R
CR Pro
Feb 3, 2013
977
322
I don't really get that viewpoint. Sure, variety is nice but if you need a truck do you really care if a manufacturer offers an infinite variety of sedans? What I care about is whether or not a system provides the lenses that I personally need.

For example, I use the TS-E 17L and TS-E 24L II a lot. AFAIK, Sony does not even make E-mount TS/PC lenses. There are a couple of options among the 'wide range of third party lenses' for the E mount, but the Rokinon 24 TS is optically weak, and the Laowa 15mm is shift only, no tilt. However, my two TS-E lenses adapt better than perfectly to the RF mount (better than perfect because the drop-in filter adapter means I can use convenient small ND and CPL filters for the TS-E 17 instead of the 145mm salad plates I used to carry for it).
I agree with your point! Having options is all well and good, but what really matters is whether you have a good option for each lens you would actually buy and use.

However, for what it is worth, there isn't much in Canon's RF line up which excites me for the photography I do. For example, 35mm, 50mm and 85mm are focal lengths I use a lot, but Canon doesn't offer any RF lenses at those focal lengths which appeal to me. Obviously the RF 50mm L and 85mm L are fantastic lenses in many ways, but i simply don't want prime lenses which are that large and heavy (not to mention their prices). And the non-L RF lenses at those focal lengths are smaller and lighter, but do not excite me for other reasons. You can say I'm just complaining because Canon doesn't make exactly the lens I want them to make for me, and there is some truth in that. However, having more manufacturers making lenses would increase the chance that someone makes a lens which is pretty close to the lens I want. If I shot Sony, i would have a myriad of options at about those focal lengths, and some of those options come much closer to being the lens which I am looking for and would actually buy. At 35mm, the Sony 35mm GM looks fantastic to me. At about 50mm, the Samyang 45mm and Sony 55mm interest me. I'd look hard at the Sigma 65mm f/2. I'd consider the Samyang 75mm. And I'd be very interested in the Sigma 85mm DN Art, although the Samyang 85mm f/1.4 and Sony 85mm f/1.8 are worth a thought too. I could go on, including about other focal lengths and about zooms. The point is just that personally I find it hard to get that excited about the RF system at the moment, and having third parties making RF lenses should increase the chance there are lenses i would actually buy, which would make me more enthusiastic about the whole system.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users

Chaitanya

EOS 5D Mark IV
Jun 27, 2013
1,581
772
36
Pune
Thanks, but I was referring to the 15mm f/4.5 Zero-D Shift, which does ±11mm shift on FF.


Still no tilt...
I had forgotten Venus offers a 15mm Shift lens other than their 15mm Macro which also has added shift function along with 1x macro.I guess designing Tilt-shift lens might be too expensive compared to shift only lens. There are some adaptors which allow Tilt-shift functionality with medium format lenses for most FF MILC mount.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Sep 5, 2018
1,128
1,206
Scotland
The thought crossed my mind but the additional weight of Z9 vs say D850 or vs R5 will make things worse.
The length of the 800mm PF will be important too...
Screenshot 2021-12-15 at 10.19.43.png
Based on the mount size and Nikon roadmap it is about as short as a 400 f/2.8.
 
  • Like
  • Wow
Reactions: 5 users

AlanF

Stay at home
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
9,723
14,938
I posted this about 2 hours ago on the previous page but managed to delete it! So here is is again.
I've estimated the length of the Nikkor 800mm f/6.3 to be 375-382mm using photos from Nikon. 375mm comes from estimating the front lens diameter to be 127mm and scaling the length. The 382mm from superposing the image of the 100-400mm and scaling from its unextended length of 222mm. This compares with the length of 237mm for the Nikon 500mm f/5.6 PF and the Canon 800mm f/11 fully extended of 360mm (and 470mm of the Canon 800mm f/5.6).

Nikkor_800mm_vs_100-400mm.jpg
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users

Czardoom

EOS RP
Jan 27, 2020
500
1,099
I have to say, I couldn't disagree more! :) The fact there are very few third party lenses for the R system is a major factor keeping me away from the R system, and making me seriously consider switching to Sony. I wouldn't be thinking about a switch to Sony if there was a wide range of third party lenses for the R system. After all, variety is the spice of life! :) And while I do think the RF 16mm and RF 100-400 look very interesting, I have been quite disappointed in some of Canon's non-L RF lenses, particularly the RF 50 f/1.8 and RF 85 f/2 IS.
Personally, if I was looking for a wide variety of lenses from multiple manufacturers, then the R system can't be beat - because you have all the EF mount lenses to choose from. And at used prices, well, how can you beat that? Plus, if you like Canon ergonomics, color, user interface, dust removal, why go Sony?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 users

AlanF

Stay at home
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
9,723
14,938
Looking at the above measurements, I think I would like an RF 500 f/4 D0. It would have the same front diameter as the 800mm f/6.3. With a 2xTC it would be a 1000mm f/8 and if of similar length to the Nikon 500mm, only 237mm long, and 277mm with the 2xTC. With lighter weight construction than the 400 mm DO II, it could come in at 2-2.5kg.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 users

Billybob

800mm f/11 because a cellphone isn't long enough!
May 22, 2016
260
517
WOW!!

If they can make that 800mm 2.5Kg I'm buying a Z9 and running two systems!
Is this the new norm? I'm not ready to give up my R5, but I have a Z9 on order primarily because I find their forthcoming 400mm f/2.8 with built-in TC an intriguing option. I'm thoroughly impressed with the new 800mm pf, but that's not a lens for me.
 
Last edited:

Billybob

800mm f/11 because a cellphone isn't long enough!
May 22, 2016
260
517
The Nikkor 800mm f/6.3 is only a 1/3rd stop darker than the Nikon 800mm f/5.6 and should give better IQ than the Canon lens and suffer less from diffraction at f/8.8 with a 1.4x extender.
Isn't that f/10, not f/8.8, with a 1.4x TC?
 
Last edited:

AJ

EOS R
Sep 11, 2010
801
224
An 800/6.3 at 2.5 kg would be a miracle. Canon 500/4 with 1.4x TC weighs almost twice that.
 

Billybob

800mm f/11 because a cellphone isn't long enough!
May 22, 2016
260
517
Yep, I'm in error. My calculations were off, and I also was confused by your precision. My cameras always round off to f/9, which still isn't f/10:rolleyes:.
 

Billybob

800mm f/11 because a cellphone isn't long enough!
May 22, 2016
260
517
An 800/6.3 at 2.5 kg would be a miracle. Canon 500/4 with 1.4x TC weighs almost twice that.
The miracle of pf/DO technology. Based on the weight of the 500/5.6 pf--under 1.5kg--, the expectation/hope is that the 800 using similar tech will not be much more than 1 kg more. In the States, the 6lb (2.7kg) barrier seems to be the target. Thus, if Nikon produces a lens in the 2.5-2.7kg range, I think a lot of people will be thrilled.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users

AlanF

Stay at home
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
9,723
14,938
Yep, I'm in error. My calculations were off, and I also was confused by your precision. My cameras always round off to f/9, which still isn't f/10:rolleyes:.
Difference between f/9 and f/10 is 1/3rd stop. But, what’s that between friends shooting RAW? I agree about weights PF lenses. Nikon did a great job keeping the 500/5.6 so light, and taught Canon a thing or two there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users

jd7

EOS R
CR Pro
Feb 3, 2013
977
322
Personally, if I was looking for a wide variety of lenses from multiple manufacturers, then the R system can't be beat - because you have all the EF mount lenses to choose from. And at used prices, well, how can you beat that? Plus, if you like Canon ergonomics, color, user interface, dust removal, why go Sony?
Yes, the option of adapting EF lenses is certainly there, and all the more so for someone like me who already has EF lenses. However, for me, spending money on a mirrorless body just to use EF lenses doesn't particularly excite me. Sure, I'd get a mirrorless AF system (which has its advantages), but I'd also have to use an EVF (I still prefer OVF) and have significantly shorter battery life. Neither of those issues is necessarily a showstopper, I'm just saying that for me there are pros and cons. Something which would help convince me to spend money on a mirrorless body is access to "better" lenses. "Better" means different things to different people, of course. To me, "better" generally means smaller and lighter while still maintaining good image quality (and inevitably, price is a factor too). So, for example, if I shot Sony, I could get the Sigma 85 f/1.4 DN Art, which has excellent image quality and weighs only 630g. What EF lens can I get which can compete with that? The EF mount Sigma 85 Art weighs 1135g. The Canon 85 f/1.4L IS weighs 950g. Then you have to add 110g for the weight of the EF/RF adapter (130g if you go with the control ring version). If I went with an 85 f/1.8, the Sony version is 371g, while the Canon EF is only a little heavier at 430g (although 540g once you include the adapter), but from everything I've seen the Sony is optically a step up. I won't go through more examples here, but if you look at the lenses I mentioned in one of my earlier posts, you will see a consistent theme.

Am I obsessing unnecessarily over a few hundred grams here and there? I shoot for fun, and the reality is these days, in any situation in which I am likely to take photos, I'm almost invariably with a young child and perhaps a few of his cousins, carrying a bunch of other things in addition to camera gear, and with other people who care a lot if I remembered the snacks and extra nappies but most of the time don't care at all if I brought my camera (even if they like having a few nice photos). Smaller and lighter has become generally more important to me than it once was (although even previously I had some gear where smaller and lighter was important to me, because I carried it on multi-day hikes where I had to carry a tent, food, etc). So, while obviously none of this is critically important in the grand scheme of things (certainly a first world problem!), being able to move to lighter and also physically smaller lenses would be a drawcard for me. Using EF lenses with an adapter does not represent the same drawcard. And as I've said in a previous post, having third party manufacturers providing more RF lens options increases the chance that someone will make a lens which comes close to being the lens I am looking for. I'm very happy to look at the fantastic photos people take with lenses such as the RF 85 f/1.2L, and I know many people would love to have an RF 85L, but it's an example of a lens I am not going to buy.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

tron

EOS-1D X Mark III
CR Pro
Nov 8, 2011
5,124
1,502
An 800/6.3 at 2.5 kg would be a miracle. Canon 500/4 with 1.4x TC weighs almost twice that.
500 f/4 L IS II weighs about 3.2Kg (without hood) and 1.4III 225g so it's about 3.5Kg not 5!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Sep 5, 2018
1,128
1,206
Scotland
Is this the new norm? I'm not ready to give up my R5, but I have a Z9 on order primarily because I find their forthcoming 400mm f/2.8 with built-in TC an intriguing option. I'm thoroughly impressed with the new 800mm pf, but that's not a lens for me.

I don't think it pays to be loyal to one system. Nikon have a lot off lenses I love and upcoming, Canon have some specialised lenses that only Canon will have. I wouldn't have a Z9 and R3 but would get a Z9 and R5/R6 so I can use some Canon only glass like the upcoming tilt-shift lenses.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users

tron

EOS-1D X Mark III
CR Pro
Nov 8, 2011
5,124
1,502
I don't think it pays to be loyal to one system. Nikon have a lot off lenses I love and upcoming, Canon have some specialised lenses that only Canon will have. I wouldn't have a Z9 and R3 but would get a Z9 and R5/R6 so I can use some Canon only glass like the upcoming tilt-shift lenses.
For me it's the other way round but the end result is similar:

I have Canon system comprising of Canon DSLRs (mostly FF) with many EF lenses and a R5 with rather many RF lenses but I also have D500 and D850 to be able to use my only Nikon lens: 500mm f/5.6 PF!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users