Industry News: Nikon releases their Z mount lens roadmap

amorse

EOS RP
Jan 26, 2017
721
915
www.instagram.com
But for wildlife you need the reach and to be fair 500mm is not a lot on a full frame. It's not even a lot on APSC. So you have to crop a lot and Canon does not have high megapixel RF body, apart from the R5.

Plus the 100-500 is very expensive, almost double the price of the excellent Sony 200-600.
I don't disagree, but I don't really see this as a lens designed specifically for wildlife - it seems more like a 100-400 with a bit of extra reach, and the f/7.1 caveat if you're going to use that last little bit of reach. I'd want to use it for landscapes personally, so none of that is limiting for me - I'm much more interested in sharpness, contrast, small size and weight limitations. I don't think there is any question that if wildlife is the target, this is not the most ideal tool in the shed - I'm sure it would work in a pinch, but it wouldn't be the first choice for many.
 

Random Orbits

EOS 5D Mark IV
Mar 14, 2012
2,411
291
But for wildlife you need the reach and to be fair 500mm is not a lot on a full frame. It's not even a lot on APSC. So you have to crop a lot and Canon does not have high megapixel RF body, apart from the R5.

Plus the 100-500 is very expensive, almost double the price of the excellent Sony 200-600.
The 100-500 is more of a competitor to Sony's 100-400, not the 200-600. By your logic, Sony's 100-400 is also overpriced given that it's within 10% in price to Canon's 100-500.
 

amorse

EOS RP
Jan 26, 2017
721
915
www.instagram.com
But the Canon one has 100mm less, f7.1 aaaand is over 1/3 or 50% more expensive then the Sony!

More expensive (>3.000€ is huge!) -> less photographers use it. Nice for those who can afford it^^ ;)

For me it would be also enough to have a 300-600 f5.6 ^^... for eveything else you could pick up other lenses :) (70-200 / 24-105 or 120-300 2.8)
I can understand that perspective, but again I see it as a 100-400 with an extra 100mm: I think that's a much closer comparison than a 200-600. In the 100-400 realm, the price is comparable to both Sony and Canon, as is the size and weight. I really don't think of this as a wildlife first lens because of that 7.1 aperture and the compromises made to keep it small. It makes a lot of sense as a long distance landscape lens, in my opinion anyway.

For me, I'd want to swap this into my kit and swap out my 70-200, adding 300mm more reach, reducing weight, and maintaining the same number of lenses to cover 16mm up to 500. Adding more lenses to my hiking kit is a no go - the bag is too heavy as it is! In this use case I think it makes a lot of sense, but definitely not as much sense if you're planning on shooting wildlife with one lens.
 

blackcoffee17

EOS RP
Sep 17, 2014
540
588
The 100-500 is more of a competitor to Sony's 100-400, not the 200-600. By your logic, Sony's 100-400 is also overpriced given that it's within 10% in price to Canon's 100-500.
I know it's not a competitor for the 200-600. But because that's the only zoom lens Canon offers (until a 200-600 type lens arrives), there is nothing else to compare to, RIGHT? If you want a long zoom on Canon land, the only option is the 100-500 or EF 100-400 with 50% less reach or third part EF lenses.
 

amorse

EOS RP
Jan 26, 2017
721
915
www.instagram.com
Yes, of course if you do a lot of hiking the 100-500 fits your needs better. For my birding attitudes each mm of focal length is wellcome. Also it is tooooo much pricy
Btw.: Great shots on your site.
Thank you very much! I completely agree with you - it wouldn't be my first choice for birding either. I figure for my use it wouldn't really be used for wildlife except for in a real pinch - long distance landscapes would be its bread and butter for me.
 

blackcoffee17

EOS RP
Sep 17, 2014
540
588
I don't disagree, but I don't really see this as a lens designed specifically for wildlife - it seems more like a 100-400 with a bit of extra reach, and the f/7.1 caveat if you're going to use that last little bit of reach. I'd want to use it for landscapes personally, so none of that is limiting for me - I'm much more interested in sharpness, contrast, small size and weight limitations. I don't think there is any question that if wildlife is the target, this is not the most ideal tool in the shed - I'm sure it would work in a pinch, but it wouldn't be the first choice for many.
Yes, its more like an everything lens, focused on image quality and small size. The problem is that Canon never had another lens in the EF era either, only the 100-400. If you wanted longer reach your next option was the 500mm F4 for the price of a car.
 

yankiefrankie

CR Pro
Sep 10, 2020
2
0
What an absurd post. You really need to read what you have said.
What is absurd about it? I agree and have both the 100-500 and the 800 f11 for exactly the same reasons. I can see how this may not suit everyone, but for those who prefer versatility and only occasionally need the super telephoto, this is preferrable than a 200-600.
 

tron

EOS R5
CR Pro
Nov 8, 2011
4,728
964
What is absurd about it? I agree and have both the 100-500 and the 800 f11 for exactly the same reasons. I can see how this may not suit everyone, but for those who prefer versatility and only occasionally need the super telephoto, this is preferrable than a 200-600.
How preferable? Like when you see a distant bird you will switch lenses? And then switch back? That much preferable?
P.S I agree about portability and I use 500mm lenses myself but a 600mm is much more powerful resulting a 44% bigger image than a 500mm lens.
 

yankiefrankie

CR Pro
Sep 10, 2020
2
0
How preferable? Like when you see a distant bird you will switch lenses? And then switch back? That much preferable?
P.S I agree about portability and I use 500mm lenses myself but a 600mm is much more powerful resulting a 44% bigger image than a 500mm lens.
I think Canon needs both satisfy the majority of customers.
 

crazyrunner33

EOS RP
Nov 4, 2011
300
116
Nope over there we bitch that the Z6ii/Z7ii aren't better than the D850 yet.
In terms of sensors, there won't be a big leap until they get a decent agreement from Sony. Sony Semiconductor is real picky on who gets what sensors and what features are allowed. It's part of the reason that GoPro was using an ancient sensor until recently, and even then, it's not the most modern generation of Sony sensors.
 

Codebunny

EOS R1
Sep 5, 2018
647
627
In terms of sensors, there won't be a big leap until they get a decent agreement from Sony. Sony Semiconductor is real picky on who gets what sensors and what features are allowed. It's part of the reason that GoPro was using an ancient sensor until recently, and even then, it's not the most modern generation of Sony sensors.
The sensors on Nikon are fine. And the important ones are still Nikon designed and Sony fabricated, they could go elsewhere with the design.

It looks like they where limited by CPU performance as that second processor had done a lot more than expected. I think they need their “Digic X” more than new sensors, that d850 to Z7ii sensor is still competitive with the best from Sony and Canon.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: crazyrunner33

dwarven

EOS 90D
Dec 12, 2019
194
250
I totally agree! I can see how 200-600mm is tempting for birders and wildlife, but I can hardly see any use and it is very bulky compared to the RF 100-500mm. The Canon lense is much more versatile and when wanna shoot wildlife at long distance I'd pick up a 800mm F11.
Anyone buying one of these supertelephotos doesn't care about "versatility". Chances are they're going to be using it fully extended most of the time to shoot birds or other wildlife, with the shorter end of the range being used mostly for tracking purposes. And 200mm is plenty short enough to zoom out for tracking. The 200-600 is just better for critters all around, especially if it's going to max out at f/6.3.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tron

Random Orbits

EOS 5D Mark IV
Mar 14, 2012
2,411
291
I know it's not a competitor for the 200-600. But because that's the only zoom lens Canon offers (until a 200-600 type lens arrives), there is nothing else to compare to, RIGHT? If you want a long zoom on Canon land, the only option is the 100-500 or EF 100-400 with 50% less reach or third part EF lenses.
There is also the much more expensive 200-400 f/4L which gets to f/5.6 at 560mm with built-in TC, but it is heavy and pricy (although the used prices have dropped a lot) although it can take TCs. So yes, right now most people are best served by a third party options (i.e. 150-600s). Canon has holes in its lineup, including this one. Canon will fill it if it finds it profitable to do so after the higher priority lenses are released. Canon does what is best for its bottom line. Users should use whatever fits their needs, whether it comes from Canon or a third-party.
 

Mahk43

EOS R
CR Pro
Feb 28, 2020
39
43
France
www.clarenc.art
This is good for us to see this roadmap because in the chess game between Sony, Canon and Nikon they each wait the others moves.
This is a big move from Nikon.
Even if Canon don't publish their own roadmap within a few months (I think they will do), at least they will release future lenses taking this into account.
If we don't see some lenses from Canon aligned to nikon in a few years, it will be clear that Canon voluntarily chose do not release it.