Ripolini wrote:
If Nikon has to sell mediocre products to attract new users, it means that the guys in Tokyo believe the(ir) market is saturated.
Considering the profit margins that can be generated by a lens sold in a $350 kit, they would have to sell a lot of them to make a significant profit.
Or are they hoping to sell more Z5IIs with this small lens in the kit? I understand that they will be able to sell more Z50IIs with the 16-50/2.8 VR (not exactly a cheap lens...), but I don't see how users potentially interested in full frame could be attracted by this 24-105 and decide to buy Nikon instead of Canon or even APS-C (e.g., Fuji)...
After this announcement, I won't be rushing out to buy Nikon shares ...Show more →
I don't think I have ever met anyone who dropped 5k+ on their first camera and lens. My experience is that a lot of people start getting into photography when they're young, and every $100 matters to their purchases. Between the internet and talking to people, it's quick to jump to the conclusion that "FF = professional quality". For those who dig a bit deeper, they realize most lenses are FF, outside of Fuji. So now they want to buy their first FF camera. A Z5 + the new 24-105 f4-7 is listed around 2,200, a Sony a7v + 24-105 f4 is about 4,200, and a Canon R6 Mark III + 24-105 is around 4,050. That makes the Nikon appear significantly cheaper for a higher aperture value, which most people won't even fully understand yet.
My gut is this lens is also aimed at the ZR user, who knows even less about photography and lenses, but knows they want to get higher quality video for social media than their phone. All they're going to see is that this lens gives them more zoom at a lower price than the 24-120 or 24-200.
This falls in line with my experience too. My first "real camera" was a Nikon D90 kit with the 18-55mm and 55-200mm lenses that I saved up for in college. My priority was to get a camera that could take photos with better quality than my point and shoot camera, and take some video with better quality than my camcorder. I knew a FF camera like the D700 had even better image quality, but it was completely out of my price range at the time and did not take video. It took me a few years of use and buying a few more lenses to really come to appreciate things like aperture, build quality, and image quality. At first, I was just excited that I was getting better quality images and video than my old gear.
Well the lens certainly isn't for me, and the 7.1 aperture on the long end just feels like such an odd dangling point for the formula to land on vs 6.3 or 8 for whatever reason but if Nikon thinks it'll sell and make them money more power to em let's fund the R&D on the lenses I do care about.
Nikon has published a series of notated photos that reveal hints at minimum apertures, though the wide end isn't as clear:
24mm @ f/5.6 (obviously not the limit)
35mm @ f/5.6 (hopefully not the limit?)
50mm @ f/5.6
70mm @ f/6.0
85mm @ f/6.3
105mm @ f/7.1
Could certainly be worse. For me the utility of this lens hinges on this characteristic; hopefully we'll get more precise numbers soon, but this is a start. And not a terrible one.
Is 7.1 at the end really that bad?
Can someone maybe show an example of bad photo taken with ~f7?
I liked 24-70/4 but hated retracting system, was driving me crazy when I had to do that every single time I took camera off Capture clip. 24-105 would be a nice substitute. Am I wrong?
It depends on what kind of light you plan to shoot in. Early morning/dusk/blue hour will become considerably noisier. As a daytime, sunny weather lens, it'll be fine, though you'll have far less control of bokeh vs something like the 24-120. 120/f4 bokeh is a key reason I love that lens.
If you know what you're doing, this lens is likely a pass.
phinix wrote:
Is 7.1 at the end really that bad?
Can someone maybe show an example of bad photo taken with ~f7?
I liked 24-70/4 but hated retracting system, was driving me crazy when I had to do that every single time I took camera off Capture clip. 24-105 would be a nice substitute. Am I wrong?
Is very simple. If you are in darker place, let say photographing Gorillas in rainforest, f7.1 will push you to use very high ISO ...maybe 12800 which is not ideal. Is different to shoot f7.1 on purpose and shoot because you have no choice
This lens looks like it is designed to be a bigger number than the existing 24-50 f/4-6.3 and full out kits. Consumers like bigger numbers because bigger is better.
The 24-70S was an excellent statement at the start of the Z mount to prove what Nikon could do and establish the premium product line. It is supplanted by the 24-120S in many/most kits for the higher priced bodies now.
Enthusiasts have nothing to pay attention to here. Move along, move along.
huddy wrote:
This lens looks like it is designed to be a bigger number than the existing 24-50 f/4-6.3 and full out kits. Consumers like bigger numbers because bigger is better.
The 24-70S was an excellent statement at the start of the Z mount to prove what Nikon could do and establish the premium product line. It is supplanted by the 24-120S in many/most kits for the higher priced bodies now.
Enthusiasts have nothing to pay attention to here. Move along, move along.
Well stated. The faux outrage from people that would never consider this lens in the first place is funny, simply because Nikon didn't make the lens THEY wanted.
If you know enough about photography to be on this website, this lens is beneath you.
This actually answers what I'm currently looking for as my "next Z lens" better than anything in the Z lineup.
That .5 macro is a BIG factor in that.
1) lightweight/compact
2) cheap
3) flexibility not offered by my primes
4) better working distance at 105 for casual macro than a more expensive ~50mm macro.
I don't want to put a superzoom on my ZF. I don't want to drop $700 on a used 24-120 that doesn't have VR or go to .5x magnification. I suppose a 24-200 prob makes more sense for me, but still doesn't go to .5x.... which is a big selling point for me. I shoot lots of closeups, and the slower max fstop on that end actually helps with getting usable DoF.
PIOK wrote:
Is very simple. If you are in darker place, let say photographing Gorillas in rainforest, f7.1 will push you to use very high ISO ...maybe 12800 which is not ideal. Is different to shoot f7.1 on purpose and shoot because you have no choice
lol if you're shooting gorillas in the mist, I would hope you bring a better spec lens than an f7.1 kit zoom.
I have a different reaction than most here. Maybe because I shot m43? The Olympus 12-40/2.8 was perhaps the best midrange zoom of it's era, and I got loads of use out of mine backpacking around Europe. This new Nikon is slightly lighter, zooms further, and all while covering a sensor twice the size. In low light the Olympus might barely manage a tie, and in plentiful light, on a Z7, the Nikon would go soaring ahead.
If the quality is close to the Nikon 24-70/4, I'd gladly trade a little bit of aperture for the 150g less weight and 105mm. I usually stop down during the day anyway, and at night, f4 doesn't feel adequate to me to begin with.
ISO1600 wrote:
This actually answers what I'm currently looking for as my "next Z lens" better than anything in the Z lineup.
That .5 macro is a BIG factor in that.
1) lightweight/compact
2) cheap
3) flexibility not offered by my primes
4) better working distance at 105 for casual macro than a more expensive ~50mm macro.
I don't want to put a superzoom on my ZF. I don't want to drop $700 on a used 24-120 that doesn't have VR or go to .5x magnification. I suppose a 24-200 prob makes more sense for me, but still doesn't go to .5x.... which is a big selling point for me. I shoot lots of closeups, and the slower max fstop on that end actually helps with getting usable DoF....Show more →
All good points. One note that I didn't add but should have, f/8 and be there is a VERY good approach to much in photography, and the closer focusing capability is a big boon for some folks (one I don't usually think of as I don't shoot much in the world of closeups).
If Nikon got in the business of copying the Canon RF lenses, they probably chose the wrong 24-105 to copy (hint: that one had "2" and "8" in the aperture value, not "7" and "1").
Or they could / should have "reimagined" the 10-20mm f/4 L IS STM instead.
If the 24-70 f/4 wasn't as good as it is, this lens would have found itself in a better place. But the 24-70 is fantastic, almost too good to be a kit lens and making things difficult for the new lens especially considering in a while both lenses will be priced nearly the same in used markets.
