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

[mxwphoto]

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.

 

[SwissFrank]

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

Not to be argumentative but some situations it'd make sense:

1) they outsource the lens grinding, but either can use a patented coating of their own that the original maker couldn't, or use a publicly-available one that's better but more expensive

2) they in effect outsource the formula design stage, which might make sense if they have manufacturing capability but their designers are busy. (Car companies often outsource parts of their design work to firms like Lotus, for instance. Or the opposite: the main company does the design then outsource production, as Porsche did with the Boxster. Or, as with BMW and the X3, outsource both design and production, to by Puch in Austria, while Puch of course could use BMW patents and trademarks such as the Hofmeister kink, and the final product is badged and sold as a BMW. Or, as with Diamond Star, one company (Chrysler) specs a car it would like to buy from another company (Mitsubishi) which does the actual design and manufacture, then they both sell it. Chrysler certainly had the ability to design and manufacture cars, but for surely good business reasons saw an appeal in another firm doing that while Chrysler concentrated on sales.

3) maybe Nikon did the original design and licensed it to Tamron to use as their own product?

In general, a company's not going to have a perfectly-balanced workflow with all departments equally utilized:

-- basic research
-- design of optic formula
-- construction
-- sales

so it makes total sense for Nikon, OR Tamon, to outsource a stage they're already saturated on, whichever stage that is.

 

[vangelismm]

3) maybe Nikon did the original design and licensed it to Tamron to use as their own product?

It is easy to believe in unicorns.

 

[dilbert]

Not to be argumentative but some situations it'd make sense:

1) they outsource the lens grinding, but either can use a patented coating of their own that the original maker couldn't, or use a publicly-available one that's better but more expensive

If the special coatings on the lens' optical surfaces changes the path of light then it makes no sense to do this.

The reality is that as the market contracts, expect to see more of this happening. Was it Sigma OEM'ing lenses for Leica? And Panasonic? Didn't Leica use an optical model from Tamon or was it Sigma?

The optical formula is what's difficult to change one part of (glass materials or coatings) because the precise design would take everything into account but the electronics, mechanisms and casing would eb easier.

 

[SwissFrank]

If the special coatings on the lens' optical surfaces changes the path of light then it makes no sense to do this.

They don't. Many famous lenses in history went from uncoated to single-coated to multicoated without the glass changing. Coatings do nothing except affect transmission, and sometimes hardness and ease of cleaning. They don't affect light paths outside of that. (Maybe some also adjust color slightly.)

 

[SwissFrank]

It is easy to believe in unicorns.

What are you talking about?

 

[Photo Bunny]

meh, 28-75/2.8 sounds pretty boring. I never felt I needed just 5mm more on the long end. Yes I want longer--but I want so much longer that I need either -100mm (e.g., 24-105/4) or I need a separate telephoto. In contrast, 4mm more on the short end is a game-changer.

It's a cheep lens that isn't on par with the L lenses from Canon nor the S lenses from Nikon. Nikon have a 24-70 f/4.0 S, 24-120 f/4.0 S, and a 24-70 f/2.8 S that are all better than the 28-75 f/2.8.

 

[entoman]

Nikon are making a great impression on me these days, with the stunning Z9 and a series of lenses that in some instances seem to be "better" in terms of spec, design and ergonomics than Canon's RF series. Sony are also producing very impressive bodies (a9ii, a1) and lenses. We really are so spoilt for choice nowadays, that it's very difficult to decide which brand is "best" for my own usage.

Sony still seem to hold the AF crown, with IMO the best system for BIF. Canon for me still hold the crown for ergonomics and user enjoyment. Overall though, Nikon really deserve to be right at the top, but unfortunately they just don't seem to be able to market the cameras well enough, which is a great pity. They deserve more.

 

[SwissFrank]

We really are so spoilt for choice nowadays, that it's very difficult to decide which brand is "best" for my own usage.

Sure, but I feel Canon is in it for the long haul. I shot EF for a quarter century and will shoot RF as long, with luck. Canon was momentarily on the back foot, with no IBIS, and a bit less dynamic range, but I went with RF instead of Nikon or Sony based on the gut feeling that over the next couple decades Canon would catch up.

My one solid fear is that Canon's lead in sales is so comprehensive, and so well-managed despite not having the best gear, that they may just get used to having good sales without being cutting edge.

On the other hand, these cameras are so awesome, which of us can say they can't get a good picture even with the oldest RF body, the R? If I don't have quite the best, I at least have far better than I need or deserve.

I'd also argue that Canon tends to like to out-spec Nikon. If Nikon had a 180/2, Canon made a 200/1.8. If Nikon had a 58/1.2, Canon had a 50/1.0, and so on. I think right now we see that in 1) 28-70/2.0, 2) zooms going to 1.4x, 3) DS, 4) 50/1.2's IQ being so good. If I switched bodies, it'd be to get access to a range of modest primes for street photog but I imagine Canon will release these in the next couple years anyway.

 

[entoman]

...... I went with RF instead of Nikon or Sony based on the gut feeling that over the next couple decades Canon would catch up.

My one solid fear is that Canon's lead in sales is so comprehensive, and so well-managed despite not having the best gear, that they may just get used to having good sales without being cutting edge.

Yes, this is the only real issue - Canon are a comparatively conservative company. They'd probably *claim* that their philosophy is to let other companies do the beta-testing, (and then only introduce things in Canon gear when they were satisfied they had the best and most reliable implementation), but the R5 overheating issues rather exploded that myth.

More likely is that Canon's sales success just leads them to sit on their laurels and appear complacent. The frustrating consequence for their customers is that we need a lot of patience as we wait for them to play catch-up, with new bodies and lenses. It's pretty much the opposite philosophy to Sony, who rush their latest technology out as fast as they can and thereby capture the early adopter techno-enthusiast market. Poor old Nikon meanwhile try very hard to produce class-leading cameras (and often succeed, ref D810, D850, Z9), but sadly have great difficulty convincing people to actually buy their products.

I'll probably stay with Canon for 2 reasons, a) the cost of switching is too prohibitive, and b) I prefer Canon ergonomics. But if I was rich enough to be able to afford to switch systems, I'd be very tempted by the Sony a1 and it's vast range of native glass. I'd rate Nikon and Canon about the same as far as lenses are concerned - Nikon have some lenses that I prefer to Canon nearest-equivalents, but likewise Canon score with others such as the RF 100-500mm. I'm very impressed by the specs and design of the Z9 (and the price!), but I don't like gripped bodies, so that kicks both the Z9 and the R3 into touch. Looks like I'll be staying with the R5 for another couple of years then.

 

[SwissFrank]

I'll probably stay with Canon for 2 reasons, a) the cost of switching is too prohibitive, and b) I prefer Canon ergonomics.

Exactly my case too.

In the 90s I had a 12-lens Canon system, but also a Yashica point and shoot (with a Leitz or Schneider lens, 28/3.5 if memory serves), a Contax G2 with 28/45/90, a Mamiya 7 with 43/80/150 (I loved the images!), and a Rollei SL66 with just an 80 (I loved the camera!). The cameras all had quite different capabilities. I've never run two 35mm SLR systems side by side and can't imagine how anyone can do so. I also switched from Minolta once I had three lenses for it and realized what a sickness photography would become :-D But since then I've shot solely Canon with the 1N, 1V, EOS-3, 1Ds, 1Ds II, 1Ds III, and finally the R. (I'm a hobbyist in the main, though I made about $30k from stock photography in the 90s so in effect paid for my Canon gear at least for free.)

I don't quite agree Canon's always been conservative. Introducing a new mount in '87 was radical. The USM motors were radical. More generally, Canon has a pretty long history of being a bit spec'ier than Nikon. Nikon has a 180/2? Canon makes a 200/1.8. Nikon has 58/1.2? Canon has 50/1.0. Even back in the early 70s Canon had a 50/0.95 for its rangefinder cameras. Also, when they FINALLY got into the MILFF market they introduced some frankly wild glass--the f/2 zoom still looks like a typo to me, the 50/1.2 is the sharpest lens ever made by anybody I think, and the DS is interesting. Also the bokeh control on the macro, the more-than-1:1 macro, etc. OTOH they've been pretty behind the curve with MILFF cameras and sensors and IBIS, so I certainly agree with you in part.