This topic is in the 2019 archive. You can read it and like its posts here. It is read only.
Archive 2019Pre-order: Nikon NIKKOR Z 24mm f/1.8 S Lens ($996.95)
p.2 #1Pre-order: Nikon NIKKOR Z 24mm f/1.8 S Lens ($996.95)
I think the 85 and 135 are their best!
24 is good tho!
85 has the most “look” imo
zhangyue wrote:
Sony’s 24 gm is their best glass offered. It is indeed special. I personally don’t consider 100g or 200g as a significant achievement as the bokeh and rendering of that glass. It is just special.
However, I think this is a moot point as for Nikon users, it doesn’t matter unless you want mess up with adapter which you could.
This 24S still offer one of best 24mm performance with $500 less and half stop slower. For most Z users, even they could adapter 24gm, I think most people will prefer a set of matched glass with native AF performance....Show more →
.
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.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.
24 is good tho!
85 has the most “look” imo
zhangyue wrote:
Sony’s 24 gm is their best glass offered. It is indeed special. I personally don’t consider 100g or 200g as a significant achievement as the bokeh and rendering of that glass. It is just special.
However, I think this is a moot point as for Nikon users, it doesn’t matter unless you want mess up with adapter which you could.
This 24S still offer one of best 24mm performance with $500 less and half stop slower. For most Z users, even they could adapter 24gm, I think most people will prefer a set of matched glass with native AF performance....Show more →
Arka wrote
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.
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.
Sep 05, 2019 at 08:00 PM
p.2 #2Pre-order: Nikon NIKKOR Z 24mm f/1.8 S Lens ($996.95)
Max Power wrote:
I was hoping for more of a 50mm 1.8s price than a 35mm 1.8s price, but I am not surprised. This is my most used FL, I am torn how much better this will be than my adapted Sigma Art, size and weight not considered. This is their most expensive prime yet for the Z, which gives me pause....
This pretty much destroys my hope for a sub $1000 20/1.8 next year. I need something compact and light like the 20/1.8g for the occasional astro, but with a decent focus ring. The Rokinon is just too heavy for what would be a single use lens for me and there are really no viable 2.8 or wider options under 400g. May have to look at Sony and run it with a dumb adapter.
I am with Arka here. Given my style of shooting (usually involves a good amount hiking) 200g makes a great difference, especially when summed up over 4-5 items.
Sep 05, 2019 at 09:09 PM
p.2 #3Pre-order: Nikon NIKKOR Z 24mm f/1.8 S Lens ($996.95)
GroovyGeek wrote:
This pretty much destroys my hope for a sub $1000 20/1.8 next year. I need something compact and light like the 20/1.8g for the occasional astro, but with a decent focus ring. The Rokinon is just too heavy for what would be a single use lens for me and there are really no viable 2.8 or wider options under 400g. May have to look at Sony and run it with a dumb adapter.
I am with Arka here. Given my style of shooting (usually involves a good amount hiking) 200g makes a great difference, especially when summed up over 4-5...Show more →
What about the 20mm f/1.8G ED? 355g and around $700. Might fit the bill?
Max Power wrote
I was hoping for more of a 50mm 1.8s price than a 35mm 1.8s price, but I am not surprised. This is my most used FL, I am torn how much better this will be than my adapted Sigma Art, size and weight not considered. This is their most expensive prime yet for the Z, which gives me pause....I am with Arka here. Given my style of shooting (usually involves a good amount hiking) 200g makes a great difference, especially when summed up over 4-5...Show more →
What about the 20mm f/1.8G ED? 355g and around $700. Might fit the bill?
Sep 05, 2019 at 10:48 PM
p.2 #4Pre-order: Nikon NIKKOR Z 24mm f/1.8 S Lens ($996.95)
85mm gm is my favorite Sony lens before even I didn’t own it but now I feel 24 is the most impressive achievement Sony have done.
There is no dog in 135 or 85mm lenses, but we cant say the same with 24mm, especially consider its rendering and size.
Having said that, 24mm is not on my priority list. At this focal, I mostly stop down and almost all zoom cover it. I will pass at this time.
Dj R wrote:
I think the 85 and 135 are their best!
24 is good tho!
85 has the most “look” imo
zhangyue wrote
Sony’s 24 gm is their best glass offered. It is indeed special. I personally don’t consider 100g or 200g as a significant achievement as the bokeh and rendering of that glass. It is just special.However, I think this is a moot point as for Nikon users, it doesn’t matter unless you want mess up with adapter which you could.
This 24S still offer one of best 24mm performance with $500 less and half stop slower. For most Z users, even they could adapter 24gm, I think most people will prefer a set of matched glass with native AF performance.
Arka wrote
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.
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.
Sep 05, 2019 at 11:40 PM
p.2 #5Pre-order: Nikon NIKKOR Z 24mm f/1.8 S Lens ($996.95)
Arka wrote:
What about the 20mm f/1.8G ED? 355g and around $700. Might fit the bill?
Have that, and that is what I am using on the Z6. If only it had a half decent focus ring. A mm is more than enough to take the stars OOF. This is what electrician's tape is made for but it it still annoying.
What about the 20mm f/1.8G ED? 355g and around $700. Might fit the bill?
Have that, and that is what I am using on the Z6. If only it had a half decent focus ring. A mm is more than enough to take the stars OOF. This is what electrician's tape is made for but it it still annoying.
Sep 05, 2019 at 11:49 PM
p.2 #6Pre-order: Nikon NIKKOR Z 24mm f/1.8 S Lens ($996.95)
Who preordered?
I did. But -
I’m not sure.
I always dual wield. And 35/85 is like peanut butter and jelly for me.
I really don’t need a 24. But 24/50/85 overall makes more sense than 35/50/85.
And I am not sure I want/need 24/35/50/85 primes.
The only thing that makes me consider having all four is that they are not as expensive as the stuff I sold off just a few months ago. Sony f1.4 24/35/50/85.
Anyone else stressing over this one?
Really not concerned with $ TBH. I just don’t like having gear that sits around. I guess I’m becoming responsible. I say that but I’ll have every thing they release lol.
I did. But -
I’m not sure.
I always dual wield. And 35/85 is like peanut butter and jelly for me.
I really don’t need a 24. But 24/50/85 overall makes more sense than 35/50/85.
And I am not sure I want/need 24/35/50/85 primes.
The only thing that makes me consider having all four is that they are not as expensive as the stuff I sold off just a few months ago. Sony f1.4 24/35/50/85.
Anyone else stressing over this one?
Really not concerned with $ TBH. I just don’t like having gear that sits around. I guess I’m becoming responsible. I say that but I’ll have every thing they release lol.
Sep 08, 2019 at 06:34 PM
p.2 #7Pre-order: Nikon NIKKOR Z 24mm f/1.8 S Lens ($996.95)
Just run with it. Looks awesome, could be great for close ups of stuff, might change how you shoot a little...
Dj R wrote:
Who preordered?
I did. But -
I’m not sure.
I always dual wield. And 35/85 is like peanut butter and jelly for me.
I really don’t need a 24. But 24/50/85 overall makes more sense than 35/50/85.
And I am not sure I want/need 24/35/50/85 primes.
The only thing that makes me consider having all four is that they are not as expensive as the stuff I sold off just a few months ago. Sony f1.4 24/35/50/85.
Anyone else stressing over this one?
Really not concerned with $ TBH. I just don’t like having gear that sits around. I guess I’m becoming...Show more →
Dj R wrote:
Who preordered?
I did. But -
I’m not sure.
I always dual wield. And 35/85 is like peanut butter and jelly for me.
I really don’t need a 24. But 24/50/85 overall makes more sense than 35/50/85.
And I am not sure I want/need 24/35/50/85 primes.
The only thing that makes me consider having all four is that they are not as expensive as the stuff I sold off just a few months ago. Sony f1.4 24/35/50/85.
Anyone else stressing over this one?
Really not concerned with $ TBH. I just don’t like having gear that sits around. I guess I’m becoming...Show more →
Sep 08, 2019 at 06:36 PM
p.2 #8Pre-order: Nikon NIKKOR Z 24mm f/1.8 S Lens ($996.95)
Tokina Firin 20mm f2 is pretty good for Astro. I think the MF versions can be found for sub $500 used. There’s a $20 FE to Z adapter on eBay/Amazon now.
GroovyGeek wrote:
Have that, and that is what I am using on the Z6. If only it had a half decent focus ring. A mm is more than enough to take the stars OOF. This is what electrician's tape is made for but it it still annoying.
GroovyGeek wrote:
Arka wrote
What about the 20mm f/1.8G ED? 355g and around $700. Might fit the bill?Sep 08, 2019 at 06:39 PM
p.2 #9Pre-order: Nikon NIKKOR Z 24mm f/1.8 S Lens ($996.95)
This will be a pass for me. Waiting for 20mm and 28mm, more pleasing focal lengths.
Sep 11, 2019 at 02:05 AM
p.2 #10Pre-order: Nikon NIKKOR Z 24mm f/1.8 S Lens ($996.95)
getting mine Friday
Edited on Oct 24, 2019 at 10:38 AM · View previous versions
Edited on Oct 24, 2019 at 10:38 AM · View previous versions
Oct 22, 2019 at 02:05 PM
p.2 #11Pre-order: Nikon NIKKOR Z 24mm f/1.8 S Lens ($996.95)
Dj R wrote:
Who preordered?
I did. But -
I’m not sure.
I always dual wield. And 35/85 is like peanut butter and jelly for me.
I really don’t need a 24. But 24/50/85 overall makes more sense than 35/50/85.
And I am not sure I want/need 24/35/50/85 primes.
The only thing that makes me consider having all four is that they are not as expensive as the stuff I sold off just a few months ago. Sony f1.4 24/35/50/85.
Anyone else stressing over this one?
Really not concerned with $ TBH. I just don’t like having gear that sits around. I guess I’m becoming...Show more →
24/50/105 is the answer. I shot primarily 35/85 for years, but when I fell back in love with 50, 35 and 85 both seemed too close to 50.
I could see an argument for 24/50/85 if you're shooting the 24 on Z7. Lots of room to crop there if you want a less wide view, or just shoot 5:4 as a compromise.
Who preordered?
I did. But -
I’m not sure.
I always dual wield. And 35/85 is like peanut butter and jelly for me.
I really don’t need a 24. But 24/50/85 overall makes more sense than 35/50/85.
And I am not sure I want/need 24/35/50/85 primes.
The only thing that makes me consider having all four is that they are not as expensive as the stuff I sold off just a few months ago. Sony f1.4 24/35/50/85.
Anyone else stressing over this one?
Really not concerned with $ TBH. I just don’t like having gear that sits around. I guess I’m becoming...Show more →
24/50/105 is the answer. I shot primarily 35/85 for years, but when I fell back in love with 50, 35 and 85 both seemed too close to 50.
I could see an argument for 24/50/85 if you're shooting the 24 on Z7. Lots of room to crop there if you want a less wide view, or just shoot 5:4 as a compromise.
Oct 22, 2019 at 02:17 PM
p.2 #12Pre-order: Nikon NIKKOR Z 24mm f/1.8 S Lens ($996.95)
GroovyGeek wrote:
Have that, and that is what I am using on the Z6. If only it had a half decent focus ring. A mm is more than enough to take the stars OOF. This is what electrician's tape is made for but it it still annoying.
Yes, the focus is a little "quick" shall we say. But the lens is really excellent and I have learned to work around it by making focusing the last thing I do before i hit the shutter. Don't even need tape, unless I am walking around for multiple shots.
The lens is so good, and so very, very lightweight, that the Z version would have to be something completely unbelievable to even consider a change.
Arka wrote
What about the 20mm f/1.8G ED? 355g and around $700. Might fit the bill?Yes, the focus is a little "quick" shall we say. But the lens is really excellent and I have learned to work around it by making focusing the last thing I do before i hit the shutter. Don't even need tape, unless I am walking around for multiple shots.
The lens is so good, and so very, very lightweight, that the Z version would have to be something completely unbelievable to even consider a change.
Oct 22, 2019 at 02:38 PM