Arka
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
|
 p.1 #15 · p.1 #15 · Pre-order: Nikon NIKKOR Z 24mm f/1.8 S Lens ($996.95) | |
MayaTlab wrote:
Leica's SL summicron lineup is even bigger than Nikon's 1.8 S lineup  .
I simply wouldn't compare MF / AF lenses or lenses with wildly different optical performances.
Comparing M mount lenses with the S lineup makes very little sense and besides most M mount lenses below 50mm aren't as well corrected off centre as their equivalent S primes anyway (you won't like doing astrophotography with the 24mm summilux for example).
In regards to the 35 and 50 S, there are some very significant design differences to them that may explain (emphasis on "may", I'm not an optical engineer) why they're bigger than their Sony counterparts. The 35 S is significantly better corrected past the APSC circle (at least a good copy should - basically you just won't find a better corrected 35mm in the corners than it below $1000 I think, other than Tarmon's latest 35mm, and we're talking about the sort of correction that matters for bokeh or niche applications like astro), has a lot less CA, performs better overall closed down (possibly including vignetting). Conversely the Sony 35mm seems to have been design to have a super fast AF, it seems that AF speed wasn't as much a concern with the Nikon. The 50 S has no focus breathing (the Sony 55 has), way less CA than the Sony by an order of magnitude (night and day difference here), possibly less vignetting. Obviously the price target was wildly different. Don't know about flare / glare. Basically at these two focal lengths I think that the design intentions may have been divergent enough that the size difference may be partly explained by them. It's difficult to know what Nikon could have achieved in terms of size if they had relaxed the 50mm's colour correction for example.
In regards to the 85, it isn't actually that much bigger than the Sony. We'll know more about it later on I guess but given some early samples (https://www.fotopolis.pl/testy/obiektywy/32660-nikkor-z-85-mm-f-1-8-s-pierwsze-wrazenia-i-zdjecia-przykladowe) I'm not expecting it to disappoint much if not quite the contrary.
In regards to the 24 : that's where it becomes more difficult to find good excuses . The Sony has some limitations. While in many regards it's exceptional (I'm impressed by how little deformation point light sources exhibit in the corners of the frame for a fast 24mm), it's also subpar in some other areas (CA correction). We already know from early samples that the Nikon won't be quite as well corrected for CA than the 50 S is (first shot in DPR's gallery makes that obvious), so perhaps more in line with the 35 S. I'm expecting better LACA correction than the Sony (that shouldn't be too hard to achieve), but perhaps only a very slight advantage in terms of LOCA if at all. I'm not expecting the 24 S to match the Sony 24 in terms of point light source correction in the corners, but I'm expecting it to be second or third best for a 24mm prime if it matches the 35 S or if the design intentions the MTF curves evoke are well translated into manufactured products . Closed down the Nikon may have lower vignetting (some of Sony's wide angles seem to have "persistent" vignetting when closed down) and possibly perform a bit better. I'm also expecting the Nikon 24 to have more onion rings, although no more than the 35 S. The Nikon is designed with low focus breathing, I don't know about the Sony. Not sure about how on axis aberrations will be tuned and their implications on bokeh. To be frank I think that it may be the closest match yet in terms of performance targets and design intentions, other than the aperture. I'm not expecting the price to hold at €1200 for a long time, so I think that in the long run some people may simply see this lens as being basically a Sony 24mm GM for €600 less with 2/3 of a stop less speed in the centre of the frame (peripheral illumination remains to be seen).
Or maybe Nikon's lens engineering just sucks. But my little finger tells me that this may not be 100% accurate. Well, maybe it sucks a little. I have some reservations about the manufacturing consistency of the new Z lenses for example. ...Show more →
The L-mount consortium is generating some of the largest and most ridiculously expensive lenses I've ever seen for 35mm FF. I have a hard time understanding who those costly baubles are even for, but hey, it's a free country. But you'll never see my purchasing any of those monstrous SL lenses, optical perfection notwithstanding. Life's too short to carry that much crap around just to take pictures.
My comments are limited to wide angles, and most critically the 20-35mm range. No one seems to know how to make a a lightweight 50 or 85 anymore. But in the wide angle space? Forget Sony for a minute - even Nikon has a pretty good idea on how to make lightweight f/2 primes for F-mount. That doesn't seem to be making it over to the Z mount. Maybe the purported optical advantages are worth it to some, but not to me. I'll take slightly worse CA correction in a Sony 24mm f/1.4 over a slightly heavier 24mm f/1.8 any day.
|
