Industry News: Nikon officially announces the 14-24mm F2.8 S and 50mm F1.2 S for Z-mount
- Thread starter Canon Rumors Guy
- Start date
112mm filters on that 14-24! I complained about needing 82mm filters on the 15-35 but 112 is crazy. And I much prefer Canon's approach of giving you 35mm focal length in the zoom, or down to 11mm if you cut off at 24mm...I use both 15mm and 35mm a lot and would have to switch lenses more if I was cut off at 24mm.
Upvote
0
Nothing wrong with the Z bodies and they will get better. The lens lineup is much more appealing to me than Canon's.
Small but very good optical quality and weather sealed / internal zoom primes, great wildlife lens coming (200-600) and this 14-24 weights 200g less than Canon's 15-35.
Small but very good optical quality and weather sealed / internal zoom primes, great wildlife lens coming (200-600) and this 14-24 weights 200g less than Canon's 15-35.
Upvote
0
I don't care about IS at the wide end when IBIS is so good. However, the tradeoff between an extra mm on the wide end versus 11mm on the long end is important. I came down on the side of the additional 11mm, but I'm not sure I would make that choice if Canon had stuck with the traditional 16-35mm range. I like UW in the 12-15mm range, but if I'm using a zoom, I want it to be versatile. 14-24mm is too narrow and just doesn't go far enough into the normal range. I don't want to have to switch lenses for citiscapes. Accordingly, 15-35mm is "good enough" at the wide end and gives me enough flexibility at the long end. This allows Canon to release a more specialized UW lens like an 11-20mm f/2.8, whereas Nikon will likely need to release a 2.8 zoom that goes sub-20mm to 35mm.
Upvote
0
Maybe Nikon is trying to cut down on vignetting on their 14-24 with that large front glass. The Canon 15-35 has about 4.5 stops of vignetting at 15mm and F2.8, among the highest out there. There is always a trade-off. Most top line mirrorless have IBIS so IS isn't necessary, specially at the wide end.
Upvote
0
Couldn't agree any stronger. It's just a bit of a shame (to me) to see Nikon so far behind the pack. I was in love with the 850 back when I bought my 5D4 and if not for glass I think I would have owned that body and could very well have been a disappointed Nikon shooter when this big push to mirrorless began.
Great glass (always) and great images. I just happen to believe that their mirrorless line is a bit behind the curve.
Upvote
0
Finally Nikon rejoins the f/1.2 club, good on them!
Though... Is it just me or is that 50/1.2 about the size of a 135/1.8? Had to look up the RF 50/1.2 and it's similarly huge so I guess it is what it is and there are reasons (image quality is important, no question there) but still...
Though... Is it just me or is that 50/1.2 about the size of a 135/1.8? Had to look up the RF 50/1.2 and it's similarly huge so I guess it is what it is and there are reasons (image quality is important, no question there) but still...
Upvote
0
I don't care about any of those either as I am not planning to invest into such lenses in the near future.
But I've seen enough discussions here that I can imagine which lens will sell better. But time will tell.
That is your opinion which I fully respect. But I am sure there are several more to one side or the other or even having a third or fourth opinion.
Question (to the companies) is how they found out via market research which lenses would give them the best market approach.
Canon went that and Nikon the other way.
Upvote
0
I think Canon did show that by building up a RF lens line that they were willing to think things completely new.
Personally I have no interest in buying a 28-70/2 lens but I welcome Canons courage to make it.
Also they made a 15-35/2.8 IS out of a 100% trinity buy 16-35/2.8. Again some more courage.
If Nikon is right, that all the people loving the "old" 14-24 will get the new S lens they're fine - but they didn't add any extra mm or some IS, so they didn't show courage.
Upvote
0
Courage? Courage is putting your life in harm's way to achieve something.
Signing-off a fancy lens for development and production doesn't involve courage because there's no risk to the individual or company. It might just end the year with slightly less money that it couldn't manage to spend ( i.e. profit )
Upvote
0
Questions:
Do you run a company?
Are you in charge of R&D or production invest?
If so I wonder that you are talking about that knowing that this could destroy a companys future.
E.g. doing wrong like Nikon 1 series. I am sure they still suffer from that. And because of that Nikon is playing safe.
If "courage" it the wrong word for you replace it by "entrepreneurship".
Upvote
0
Similar threads
