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

AlanF

Stay at home
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
10,129
16,210
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!
The 500mm PF is my top joint favourite lens of all time along with ---- the RF 100-500mm!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users

Billybob

800mm f/11 because a cellphone isn't long enough!
May 22, 2016
262
518
The 500mm PF is my top joint favourite lens of all time along with ---- the RF 100-500mm!

I'm with you in loving the 100-500. Not only an excellent wildlife lens, but also a great sports lens!

Men's race--6.jpg

I really like the 500 pf as well, but the D850, not so much. It may be because I haven't mastered the AF system (and now I never will). After using the R5, it's just so hard to go back to DSLRs, but I've nonetheless gotten some good shots with the combo. Here's one of a tri-colored heron that came a bit too close.
Men's race-3.jpg I suspect that I'll be happier using the Z9s AF with the 500pf.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users

AlanF

Stay at home
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
10,129
16,210
I'm with you in loving the 100-500. Not only an excellent wildlife lens, but also a great sports lens!

View attachment 201669

I really like the 500 pf as well, but the D850, not so much. It may be because I haven't mastered the AF system (and now I never will). After using the R5, it's just so hard to go back to DSLRs, but I've nonetheless of gotten some good shots with the combo. Here's one of a tri-colored heron that came a bit too close.
View attachment 201670 I suspect that I'll be happier using the Z9s AF with the 500pf.
I have nothing but praise for the D850/D500 + 500PF combination. But, I can't go back to a DSLR, and the Z9 is too heavy for me. If Nikon had brought out a Z7 with Canon-like AF, then I might have been interested.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Sep 5, 2018
1,177
1,254
Scotland
If Nikon had brought out a Z7 with Canon-like AF, then I might have been interested.

There is the Z6iii and Z7iii with Expeed 7 due at some point soon. The Expeed 7 is 12x faster than the dual Expeed 6 in the Z6ii/Z7ii and likely a bit faster than the Digic X, the only difference I see between Nikon and Canon in AF is that Canon realised the processor was king quicker and Nikon thought that a processor that rocks the DSLR world would also rock mirrorless. If we look at reviews, it isn't about how good the AF is now that they all can track subjects, it's about how sticky the tracking box is which is now almost entirely CPU/GPU bound (and can change from firmware to firmware).
 

AlanF

Stay at home
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
10,129
16,210
There is the Z6iii and Z7iii with Expeed 7 due at some point soon. The Expeed 7 is 12x faster than the dual Expeed 6 in the Z6ii/Z7ii and likely a bit faster than the Digic X, the only difference I see between Nikon and Canon in AF is that Canon realised the processor was king quicker and Nikon thought that a processor that rocks the DSLR world would also rock mirrorless. If we look at reviews, it isn't about how good the AF is now that they all can track subjects, it's about how sticky the tracking box is which is now almost entirely CPU/GPU bound (and can change from firmware to firmware).
I have no doubt that Nikon will produce an excellent Z7iii, eventually. Unfortunately, the Ziii series are still vapour-ware, and I have been able to shoot the R5 for the last 15 months and the 100-500mm for over a year. I don't think that far ahead.
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

AJ

EOS R
Sep 11, 2010
824
241
500 f/4 L IS II weighs about 3.2Kg (without hood) and 1.4III 225g so it's about 3.5Kg not 5!
Ah yes, I forgot. 500/4 mk 1 was about 4 kg but mk2 is a lot lighter.
 
Last edited:

Czardoom

EOS RP
Jan 27, 2020
546
1,215
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 not a lens I am going to buy.
I understand completely the desire (and/or need) to go smaller and lighter. That's why my main camera is an Olympus MFT! But back in the spring, due to the lighter and smaller lenses (and cheaper FF camera alternatives) I switched to Nikon. I was interested in zooms - including their 24-200 all-purpose zoom, which was better optically, smaller and lighter than Canon's 24-240 - and also their 14-30 f/4 which was also nice and compact and light. The Z5 was $899 refurbished which was such a deal I could not pass it up. Alas, their were some downsides, and in the end I came back to Canon because the Canon color.

But it is mostly about lenses, so I understand that aspect as well. Good luck whatever you decide.
 

Billybob

800mm f/11 because a cellphone isn't long enough!
May 22, 2016
262
518
I have no doubt that Nikon will produce an excellent Z7iii, eventually. Unfortunately, the Ziii series are still vapour-ware, and I have been able to shoot the R5 for the last 15 months and the 100-500mm for over a year. I don't think that far ahead.
Yep, I ordered the R5 and 100-500 the first day they were available for ordering and haven't looked back or had any regrets.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

fox40phil

5DIV & RP
Apr 12, 2013
284
180
Germany
www.phileas-schoenberg.de
I want that 800mm f6.3 !! Dayum Canon!.... And also Nikon will release a 200-600mm!

Nikon could easily get some market share soon....

They have great APS-C (D500 & Z5) and great lenses! Not those f11 stuff.... small f5.6 lenses like the PF 500 5.6!

If I would have the money I would go into two systems... Canon & Sony or Nikon. Sony has awesome small and bright lenses with the 14 1.8, 24 1.4, 50 1.2 & 135 1.8...and awesome internal zooms like the new 70-200 2.8 and the great 200-600! I think the rumored Sony 85 1.2 will be more lighter then the heavy Canon RF!
Nikon is a little bit cheaper and has great small and lightweight zooms and great tele options!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

twoheadedboy

EOS R5
CR Pro
Jan 3, 2018
289
423
Kenosha, WI
No, 6.3x1.4 = 8.82. About your previous mail, having used Nikon and Canon in parallel for a year or so, I'm sticking to one system.

No, 6.3x1.4 = 8.82. About your previous mail, having used Nikon and Canon in parallel for a year or so, I'm sticking to one system.
Even though the math is pretty close here, it's not exactly correct.You lose a full stop of light with a 1.4x teleconverter; the "1.4x" is the focal length multiplier (so 800mm * 1.4 = 1120mm). f/6.3 is 1/3 stop smaller than f/5.6, so "three one-third stops" smaller would be f/9. A 2x teleconverter loses 2 stops, so that would be 1600mm f/13. If stacking was possible, the multiplier would be 2.8x with 3 stops of light loss, which would result in 2240mm (!) f/18.
 

AlanF

Stay at home
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
10,129
16,210
Even though the math is pretty close here, it's not exactly correct.You lose a full stop of light with a 1.4x teleconverter; the "1.4x" is the focal length multiplier (so 800mm * 1.4 = 1120mm). f/6.3 is 1/3 stop smaller than f/5.6, so "three one-third stops" smaller would be f/9. A 2x teleconverter loses 2 stops, so that would be 1600mm f/13. If stacking was possible, the multiplier would be 2.8x with 3 stops of light loss, which would result in 2240mm (!) f/18.
If you are going to nitpick about not being exactly correct, your figures are not exactly correct. 1 stop smaller than f/6.3 needs a multiplier of the square root of 2, ie 1.414 to 3 decimal places, giving f/8.91 as “three one-third stops smaller” smaller. 2 stops lower than f/6.3 is f/12.6, and 3 stops of light f/17.82. As if anyone would quibble.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users

DJP

EOS R
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 not a lens I am going to buy.
I agree with you on the weight side of things. I found I hardly used my EOS R and lenses for general everyday use as I just didn't want to carry it and have a big bag with me. I bought a Ricoh GR III which I use extensively for the reasons you state, everyday life photos. Came with a little case that slips on my belt and I carry it all over now. Image quality is fantastic for such a small camera. I am getting the Ricoh GR IIIx once there is stock in the UK as I love the slightly longer focal length (eq ~40mm)

I still have my EOS R and other kit which I use when I am going out exclusively to take photos i.e Landscape photography
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

jd7

EOS R
CR Pro
Feb 3, 2013
1,008
356
I understand completely the desire (and/or need) to go smaller and lighter. That's why my main camera is an Olympus MFT! But back in the spring, due to the lighter and smaller lenses (and cheaper FF camera alternatives) I switched to Nikon. I was interested in zooms - including their 24-200 all-purpose zoom, which was better optically, smaller and lighter than Canon's 24-240 - and also their 14-30 f/4 which was also nice and compact and light. The Z5 was $899 refurbished which was such a deal I could not pass it up. Alas, their were some downsides, and in the end I came back to Canon because the Canon color.

But it is mostly about lenses, so I understand that aspect as well. Good luck whatever you decide.
Thanks Czardoom. Really interesting to hear about your dabble with Nikon. Perhaps I would end up doing a similar thing if I bought a Sony. I reckon until I have owned gear, or at least had a good opportunity to use it for a while, I really cannot be sure whether it is going to work for me, no matter how many reviews I read or watch. Anyway, for now I think I will just keep shooting my DSLR (and keep wishing we start seeing more third party RF lenses!).
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
27,581
7,386
Even though the math is pretty close here, it's not exactly correct.You lose a full stop of light with a 1.4x teleconverter; the "1.4x" is the focal length multiplier (so 800mm * 1.4 = 1120mm). f/6.3 is 1/3 stop smaller than f/5.6, so "three one-third stops" smaller would be f/9. A 2x teleconverter loses 2 stops, so that would be 1600mm f/13. If stacking was possible, the multiplier would be 2.8x with 3 stops of light loss, which would result in 2240mm (!) f/18.
Fail. If you’re going to go into full-on pedantic mode, at least get it right.
 

twoheadedboy

EOS R5
CR Pro
Jan 3, 2018
289
423
Kenosha, WI
If you are going to nitpick about not being exactly correct, your figures are not exactly correct. 1 stop smaller than f/6.3 needs a multiplier of the square root of 2, ie 1.414 to 3 decimal places, giving f/8.91 as “three one-third stops smaller” smaller. 2 stops lower than f/6.3 is f/12.6, and 3 stops of light f/17.82. As if anyone would quibble.
The point is you add coarse fractional stops to the figure because that's what the camera does (just like the lens itself probably isn't exactly f/6.3), you don't just multiply the lens's biggest aperture by 1.4. There is no f/8.8 or f8.91 setting on a camera, it is f/9. Only the camera's setting matters because we are not talking about exposing/pushing/pulling film.
 

AlanF

Stay at home
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
10,129
16,210
The point is you add coarse fractional stops to the figure because that's what the camera does (just like the lens itself probably isn't exactly f/6.3), you don't just multiply the lens's biggest aperture by 1.4. There is no f/8.8 or f8.91 setting on a camera, it is f/9. Only the camera's setting matters because we are not talking about exposing/pushing/pulling film.
Stop twisting it around - you said that the maths was not exactly correct and that 1 stop greater than f/6.3 is f/9. And now you have changed tack by saying that the camera isn't exactly correct. It's such a trivial point it's not worth arguing about or taking further. Hardly any of the telephoto lenses have the exact aperture and focal length they are said to have in manufacturers description or in the the settings on the camera. The patents, which are accurate, on most telephotos tell you that the true f-numbers are generally narrower and the focal lengths shorter than the catalogue values. But, the camera will round them to the nearest number. The maths tells you that 1 stop narrower than f/6.3 is f/8.9095 to 4 decimal places and that is indisputable. The camera rounds off the numbers to the nearest integer or two at higher f-numbers and to a decimal place or larger at lower. The maths was correct whatever the f/numbers reported are.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
27,581
7,386
I did get it right.
The optical effect of a 1.4x TC is one stop, which is numerically equal to the square root of 2. That’s math, and it wasn’t ‘pretty close’ it was correct.

Camera settings are different. If I set my camera to use half-stop increments, it would be f/9.5.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

mxwphoto

R6 and be there
Jun 20, 2013
75
115
Is it known to be the entire lens? If people are only noting that the formula is the same, it could be Nikon coatings, housing, motor, etc., simply with a lens formula from another shop.
The announcement doesn't speak of any of Nikon's proprietary coatings. Also, if Nikon only uses the G1 lens formula and have to grind their own lens elements then it is essentially them utilizing their own resources to build someone else's lens, which defeats the whole purpose of the outsourcing. I would not be surprised if Nikon gave the approval for brand badge, AF algorithm, and housing design and just told Tamron to go rehouse their lenses to spec and deliver to Nikon's doorsteps for sale.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users