ilkka_nissila
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
Lance B wrote:
My apologies for incorrectly attributing ISO1600's post to you. However, my point still stands from your above assertions. Nikon has targeted a different audience and thus should not be crucified for not delivering every type of lens for every market segment and just because a few people say they should do this or that. A few people on a forum does not a well selling lens make. They have limited resources and thus are going after market share that suits their best bottom line, not what maybe a few people on a forum say they should make. If Nikon thought a light weight consumer grade lens of 100-400 focal length would sell in numbers that Nikon would require to make such an investment, they would make it. You may think it is necessary or a good idea, but unless it fulfills Nikon's criteria and fits into their manufacturing etc they won't make it. Nikon has their research, would look at Canon's lenses and if research says a lightweight 100-400 will sell well and make good profits, then it will be made, otherwise, don't hold your breath. End of story. ...Show more →
I think Nikon has quite good lineup of telezooms and tele primes, with a few missing lenses still. Mainly I think a 300/2.8 is missing (whether supplied as a zoom or a prime is a separate question) and 200 mm MC. The consumer zooms include the DX 50-250/4.5-6.3, (the following have FX coverage 24-200/4-6.3, 70-180/2.8, 28-400/4-8, and 180-600/5.6-6.3. Tamron makes 70-180/2.8, 50-400/4.5-6.3, 70-300/4.5-6.3, and 150-500/5-6.7 in Z mount. I think that's already quite many options for the budget- and weight-prioritizing users to choose from. In the S-line, Nikon has 70-200/2.8 and 100-400/4.5-5.6. A particular niche 100-400/5.6-8 that doesn't fit into any of the listed Z mount lenses may exist but at least for me f/8 is already very small an aperture, and I generally try to avoid even the f/5.6 ones as there are situations where the images would suffer in detail and tone due to the too small ISO. I was just taking some photos of a fallow deer the other day and was at 560 mm f/8, my semi action freezing shot at 1/800 s was at ISO 9000 and then when I was comfortable that the deer stood still for a bit, I lowered the shutter speed to 1/200 s, leading to a ISO 2500-ish image. I compared the two and the ISO 2500 image was more detailed and had richer fur detail despite the slower shutter speed. If I had wanted to get some action photos (I actually did, but those were not of this particular animal) I would have had to compromise on the beautiful rendering of the fur which I got at the lower ISO. Thus a faster lens like a 600/4 would have been a better option to have in this situation (alas, I'm not committed or wealthy enough to buy one of those). In most situations I've always found myself suffering that I can't have both high image quality and motion-freezing shutter speeds in practical situations with long lenses, and thus an 400 mm f/8 just wouldn't do it at all for me, as the image required cropping from the 560 mm FOV to something like the equivalent of a 800 mm. I'd rather not take photos of such subjects at all than accept ISO 9000 image quality with a 2x crop as the best I can do. I do want to include some wildlife photos and thus I have to compromise between what works best and what I can afford and carry. But something that doesn't work at all is not what I want to spend any money on.
I also need versatility from the lenses that I own, for example, in my case, I have the 400 mm f/4.5 Nikon lens, which on its own is suitable for a lot of mammals photography, works also inside pine forests with adequate light, and is fast enough for my other long lens subjects such as figure skating, and other sports. The key is the maximum aperture and nice rendering which keep me happy, as I can choose between different depth of fields and motion-stopping shutter speeds and wide open I can use it even in indoor arenas. With the 1.4x, it is also suitable for small birds, stopped down a bit. It's much more expensive than a 100-400/5.6-8 but a fraction of the cost of a 400/2.8, sitting at a happy medium level for me. Its suitability for sports & wildlife, and very good hand-holdability and image quality mean the lens is used very often in my case and thus the cost can be tolerated. Now, when it comes to customers who prioritise even greater portability and lower cost than me, the 28-400 lets them shoot a lot of subjects at some level without changing lenses. The quality won't be the same, and this is also a lens I would not buy, but still, it shows how different manufacturers approach solutions to the same problems in slightly different ways. If they asked me they wouldn't make any lenses slower than f/4.5 or at worst f/5.6. ;-) In my opinion lenses that end at f/7.1 or f/9 feel like scamming the customer, at least where it comes to still photography. People will quickly learn how difficult it is to get shots in the sweet light before and just after sunrise and sunset using those lenses, while stopping movement for a sharp result. For artistic blur, or video, such apertures can be usable as the shutter speed can be 1/50 s or 1/100 s, which makes it much easier to get acceptable exposures for those situations than when someone wants a leaping deer or flying bird to be pixel-sharp.
Anyway, the manufacturers make choices based on their understanding of the technology, market demand, economics, production capabilities etc. and these choices and resulting product portfolios then compete for the customers' attention. It's perfectly reasonable that not every manufacturer makes every type of lens. Close enough matches to one's needs are usually good enough.
For me I can see both good and not so good in Nikon's lens lineup, but overall I think they did a good job with the first generation of Z lenses, from an advanced amateur/enthusiast/part time pro perspective. They made the most important lenses, and some flashy specialty lenses that showcase technology but may not be the most practical. There will no doubt be more options in the future, as well as some that will be discontinued, but on the top of my head I can't first see which lenses Nikon might discontinue for the reason that they chose to produce something that has no market. (Of course, previous versions will be discontinued when new II generation products hit the market). Nikon seems to have emphasized video compatibility in many lens designs by keeping focus shift upon zooming and FOV change during focusing minimized even in the hybrid lens lineup, which in some cases resulted in lenses that are a bit larger than competition, but these choices will always divide opinions but are not usually deciding factors for suitability.
Canon's portfolio for the RF mount includes a bit more consumer and small-aperture options and then the ultra top-of-the-line lenses but fewer lenses in the middle (which is where a lot of Nikon's lenses are). This is a result of a different understanding of the market and probably a business decision to support the sales of the top of the line by not offering many middle of the road options. I much prefer what Nikon did in this, as I don't need the ultra-fast-aperture ultra-expensive lenses and don't want them, but prefer something that has a fast but not silly fast maximum aperture, and correspondingly intermediate prices. Over time it's likely that both manufacturers fill in most blanks.
|
