Nikon 24-105mm f/4-7.1
p.3 #1Nikon 24-105mm f/4-7.1
I'm going to take the exact opposite approach. I actually do think this is necessary and there is a place for it in Nikon's lineup and in my gear bag.
There are times when I need/want the flexibility of a kit, but I don't want to carry a heavy load. My primary nature shooting kit is the Z9, Z8, 24-120, 100-400, and 4002.8TC... Top gear for what I do, but if I have to hike 5 miles or travel on a commuter plane, I need to start making choices.
In a second bag, I have my backup gear. This is what subs in when something goes down. My Z9 and 400TC took a few falls this year, and I had to send stuff into to be serviced. My back-up is the Z6III and 180-600. It's good stuff, but not the equal to my major kit. Yet, I confidently will sub both in when needed and use this kit for most of my aquatic excursions (kayak, canoe, catamaran, whale boats, etc..). I've been looking for a 24-120 type lens for my back-up kit, and one that I could handle on the water. When shooting on the water in a moving vessel or close to the water's surface, lighter is better. I've considered adding the 24-200, but the close-up capabilities of the 24-105 gives it the edge. Furthermore, if the lens falls in the ocean or becomes subject to salt spray I'm "only" out $500.
I'm pretty certain that I'll be pre-ordering this one.
bruce
There are times when I need/want the flexibility of a kit, but I don't want to carry a heavy load. My primary nature shooting kit is the Z9, Z8, 24-120, 100-400, and 4002.8TC... Top gear for what I do, but if I have to hike 5 miles or travel on a commuter plane, I need to start making choices.
In a second bag, I have my backup gear. This is what subs in when something goes down. My Z9 and 400TC took a few falls this year, and I had to send stuff into to be serviced. My back-up is the Z6III and 180-600. It's good stuff, but not the equal to my major kit. Yet, I confidently will sub both in when needed and use this kit for most of my aquatic excursions (kayak, canoe, catamaran, whale boats, etc..). I've been looking for a 24-120 type lens for my back-up kit, and one that I could handle on the water. When shooting on the water in a moving vessel or close to the water's surface, lighter is better. I've considered adding the 24-200, but the close-up capabilities of the 24-105 gives it the edge. Furthermore, if the lens falls in the ocean or becomes subject to salt spray I'm "only" out $500.
I'm pretty certain that I'll be pre-ordering this one.
bruce
Jan 08, 2026 at 11:34 AM
p.3 #2Nikon 24-105mm f/4-7.1
phinix wrote:
If Nikon will make 24-70/4 non-retractable version (so you dont have to retract it first to use it), I'll buy that instead.
It would end up being almost the same size as the 24-120mm then and be kind of pointless. The main USP the 24-70mm f4 still has in the Z lineup is how compact it is.
The new 24-105mm has its own place in the lineup: lightweight, cheap, flexible range. It makes for a great kit lens with the Z5II, leaving plenty of room for desire to upgrade later on.
I think it would be nice to also get a compact 70-300mm. But it kind of already exists from Tamron so not sure if it makes sense for Nikon (guess they could re-brand it).
If Nikon will make 24-70/4 non-retractable version (so you dont have to retract it first to use it), I'll buy that instead.
It would end up being almost the same size as the 24-120mm then and be kind of pointless. The main USP the 24-70mm f4 still has in the Z lineup is how compact it is.
The new 24-105mm has its own place in the lineup: lightweight, cheap, flexible range. It makes for a great kit lens with the Z5II, leaving plenty of room for desire to upgrade later on.
I think it would be nice to also get a compact 70-300mm. But it kind of already exists from Tamron so not sure if it makes sense for Nikon (guess they could re-brand it).
Jan 08, 2026 at 11:39 AM
p.3 #3Nikon 24-105mm f/4-7.1
fjablo wrote:
It would end up being almost the same size as the 24-120mm then and be kind of pointless. The main USP the 24-70mm f4 still has in the Z lineup is how compact it is.
The new 24-105mm has its own place in the lineup: lightweight, cheap, flexible range. It makes for a great kit lens with the Z5II, leaving plenty of room for desire to upgrade later on.
I think it would be nice to also get a compact 70-300mm. But it kind of already exists from Tamron so not sure if it makes sense for Nikon (guess they...Show more →
No - I just want a lens without needing to retract it in order to start shooting - do you know what I mean?
Size would stay the same, just that feature.
phinix wrote
If Nikon will make 24-70/4 non-retractable version (so you dont have to retract it first to use it), I'll buy that instead.The new 24-105mm has its own place in the lineup: lightweight, cheap, flexible range. It makes for a great kit lens with the Z5II, leaving plenty of room for desire to upgrade later on.
I think it would be nice to also get a compact 70-300mm. But it kind of already exists from Tamron so not sure if it makes sense for Nikon (guess they...Show more →
No - I just want a lens without needing to retract it in order to start shooting - do you know what I mean?
Size would stay the same, just that feature.
Jan 08, 2026 at 03:59 PM
p.3 #4Nikon 24-105mm f/4-7.1
RoamingScott wrote:
The 24-120's .4x at 120mm is...well...you can do the math 
Either way, your mag is basically the same and it's not a particularly compelling feature IMO.
haha, that's a fair point! I'll wait and see what used prices are for the new kit zoom. Neither is a lens that'll live on my ZF, so I just don't want to spend much on it to be honest. I LOVE a simple/cheap compromise zoom, like the old 28-105s of the old days... I'm primarily (ha) a prime shooter.
ISO1600 wrote
That .5 macro is a BIG factor in that.Either way, your mag is basically the same and it's not a particularly compelling feature IMO.
haha, that's a fair point! I'll wait and see what used prices are for the new kit zoom. Neither is a lens that'll live on my ZF, so I just don't want to spend much on it to be honest. I LOVE a simple/cheap compromise zoom, like the old 28-105s of the old days... I'm primarily (ha) a prime shooter.
Jan 08, 2026 at 04:20 PM
p.3 #5Nikon 24-105mm f/4-7.1
mklass wrote:
Nikon lets us down, again!
Again?
Nikon’s Z mount line up is absolutely fabulous and all the lenses are top notch in their respective segment.
I am not interested in this lens and prefer a 24-70mm f2.0 but I realize that I am not the Target and that many your photographers interested in lower end Z bodies may find this lens appealing. Image quality is probably very good.
Cheers,
Bernard
Nikon lets us down, again!
Again?
Nikon’s Z mount line up is absolutely fabulous and all the lenses are top notch in their respective segment.
I am not interested in this lens and prefer a 24-70mm f2.0 but I realize that I am not the Target and that many your photographers interested in lower end Z bodies may find this lens appealing. Image quality is probably very good.
Cheers,
Bernard
Jan 08, 2026 at 05:36 PM
p.3 #6Nikon 24-105mm f/4-7.1
phinix wrote:
No - I just want a lens without needing to retract it in order to start shooting - do you know what I mean?
Size would stay the same, just that feature.
Forgive my ignorance — if you don't like having to extend the lens prior to shooting, why retract if after you're finished the first time?
You could extend it once, and then just ... never retract it?
No - I just want a lens without needing to retract it in order to start shooting - do you know what I mean?
Size would stay the same, just that feature.
Forgive my ignorance — if you don't like having to extend the lens prior to shooting, why retract if after you're finished the first time?
You could extend it once, and then just ... never retract it?
Jan 08, 2026 at 09:42 PM
p.3 #7Nikon 24-105mm f/4-7.1
I gotta say, I absolutely love how the 24-70/4 and 14-30/4 collapse for compact storage. It's an amazing improvement in packability, and Nikon doesn't get the credit they deserve for the idea.
Jan 08, 2026 at 10:51 PM
p.3 #8Nikon 24-105mm f/4-7.1
indusphoto wrote:
There are people for whom Z5 II is either a 2nd/3rd camera or a toy. There are a lot of people for whom Z5 II is the camera to look up to. This lens is for them. At 105mm its subject separation is about same as 70mm at f/4 but it is cheap and light. This also has 0.5 macro capability.
If the IQ is any good it will be a good alternative to 24-70 for its close focusing ability (remains to be seen if that 0.5 magnification is at wide or long end). Canon has similar kit lens, but its...Show more →
The Nikon site says
Maximum magnification is achieved at minimum focus distance and focal lengths between 70-105mm.
https://www.nikonusa.com/p/nikkor-z-24-105mm-f4-71/20132/overview
I think people are looking at the fact that this lens has a slow aperture and ignoring the fact that this lens is a 350g half macro zoom. For me, someone who does a lot of product photography but also landscape and travel and casual family photos, this lens is actually interesting. The 24-120 is a phenomenal lens, one of my favorites actually, but it can get heavy on a Z8 for hours at a time.
It's unclear to me based on the images if this lens extends when zooming. It looks like it should but there are no product images showing this.
RoamingScott wrote
Now THAT'S a lens that doesn't feel necessary. Doesn't take the place of either the 24-70/4 or 24-120/4 with that very limiting aperture range.If the IQ is any good it will be a good alternative to 24-70 for its close focusing ability (remains to be seen if that 0.5 magnification is at wide or long end). Canon has similar kit lens, but its...Show more →
The Nikon site says
Maximum magnification is achieved at minimum focus distance and focal lengths between 70-105mm.
https://www.nikonusa.com/p/nikkor-z-24-105mm-f4-71/20132/overview
I think people are looking at the fact that this lens has a slow aperture and ignoring the fact that this lens is a 350g half macro zoom. For me, someone who does a lot of product photography but also landscape and travel and casual family photos, this lens is actually interesting. The 24-120 is a phenomenal lens, one of my favorites actually, but it can get heavy on a Z8 for hours at a time.
It's unclear to me based on the images if this lens extends when zooming. It looks like it should but there are no product images showing this.
Jan 08, 2026 at 11:24 PM
p.3 #9Nikon 24-105mm f/4-7.1
I was thinking about that too. It looks like there's an expanding barrel, and it's hard to believe there isn't with it going to 105mm, but they don't show it. Do you suppose it was on the brief that they must keep it at 24mm so it looks maximally compact?
Jan 08, 2026 at 11:55 PM
p.3 #10Nikon 24-105mm f/4-7.1
wowneatphoto wrote:
There are people for whom Z5 II is either a 2nd/3rd camera or a toy. There are a lot of people for whom Z5 II is the camera to look up to. This lens is for them. At 105mm its subject separation is about same as 70mm at f/4 but it is cheap and light. This also has 0.5 macro capability.
If the IQ is any good it will be a good alternative to 24-70 for its close focusing ability (remains to be seen if that 0.5 magnification is at wide or long end). Canon has similar kit lens, but its IQ is subpar.The Nikon site says
Maximum magnification is achieved at minimum focus distance and focal lengths between 70-105mm.
https://www.nikonusa.com/p/nikkor-z-24-105mm-f4-71/20132/overview
I think people are looking at the fact that this lens has a slow aperture and ignoring the fact that this lens is a 350g half macro zoom. For me, someone who does a lot of product photography but also landscape and travel and casual family photos, this lens is actually interesting. The 24-120 is a phenomenal lens, one of my favorites actually, but it can get heavy on a Z8 for hours at a time.
It's unclear to me based on the images if...Show more →
Exactly. If the IQ is decent (say same as 24-200mm), it will be a very good lens for product photography.
indusphoto wrote
RoamingScott wrote
Now THAT'S a lens that doesn't feel necessary. Doesn't take the place of either the 24-70/4 or 24-120/4 with that very limiting aperture range.If the IQ is any good it will be a good alternative to 24-70 for its close focusing ability (remains to be seen if that 0.5 magnification is at wide or long end). Canon has similar kit lens, but its IQ is subpar.
Maximum magnification is achieved at minimum focus distance and focal lengths between 70-105mm.
https://www.nikonusa.com/p/nikkor-z-24-105mm-f4-71/20132/overview
I think people are looking at the fact that this lens has a slow aperture and ignoring the fact that this lens is a 350g half macro zoom. For me, someone who does a lot of product photography but also landscape and travel and casual family photos, this lens is actually interesting. The 24-120 is a phenomenal lens, one of my favorites actually, but it can get heavy on a Z8 for hours at a time.
It's unclear to me based on the images if...Show more →
Exactly. If the IQ is decent (say same as 24-200mm), it will be a very good lens for product photography.
Jan 09, 2026 at 01:28 AM
|
p.3 #11Nikon 24-105mm f/4-7.1
phinix wrote:
It would end up being almost the same size as the 24-120mm then and be kind of pointless. The main USP the 24-70mm f4 still has in the Z lineup is how compact it is.
The new 24-105mm has its own place in the lineup: lightweight, cheap, flexible range. It makes for a great kit lens with the Z5II, leaving plenty of room for desire to upgrade later on.
I think it would be nice to also get a compact 70-300mm. But it kind of already exists from Tamron so not sure if it makes sense for Nikon (guess they could re-brand it).No - I just want a lens without needing to retract it in order to start shooting - do you know what I mean?
Size would stay the same, just that feature.
I understand what you want but it’s physically impossible. If they make it non-retractable it must get bigger. Maybe they could tweak the optical design to make it not quite as big as the 24-70 extended, but likely not that much you can do there.
fjablo wrote
phinix wrote
If Nikon will make 24-70/4 non-retractable version (so you dont have to retract it first to use it), I'll buy that instead.The new 24-105mm has its own place in the lineup: lightweight, cheap, flexible range. It makes for a great kit lens with the Z5II, leaving plenty of room for desire to upgrade later on.
I think it would be nice to also get a compact 70-300mm. But it kind of already exists from Tamron so not sure if it makes sense for Nikon (guess they could re-brand it).
Size would stay the same, just that feature.
I understand what you want but it’s physically impossible. If they make it non-retractable it must get bigger. Maybe they could tweak the optical design to make it not quite as big as the 24-70 extended, but likely not that much you can do there.
Jan 09, 2026 at 01:54 AM
RoamingScott
Offline
Activity
[X]
Details
p.3 #12Nikon 24-105mm f/4-7.1
Yes, it extends and nearly doubles in length. It’s kind of shady that the Nikon marketing doesn’t show this or say this in any way.
wowneatphoto wrote:
There are people for whom Z5 II is either a 2nd/3rd camera or a toy. There are a lot of people for whom Z5 II is the camera to look up to. This lens is for them. At 105mm its subject separation is about same as 70mm at f/4 but it is cheap and light. This also has 0.5 macro capability.
If the IQ is any good it will be a good alternative to 24-70 for its close focusing ability (remains to be seen if that 0.5 magnification is at wide or long end). Canon has similar kit lens, but its IQ is subpar.The Nikon site says
Maximum magnification is achieved at minimum focus distance and focal lengths between 70-105mm.
https://www.nikonusa.com/p/nikkor-z-24-105mm-f4-71/20132/overview
I think people are looking at the fact that this lens has a slow aperture and ignoring the fact that this lens is a 350g half macro zoom. For me, someone who does a lot of product photography but also landscape and travel and casual family photos, this lens is actually interesting. The 24-120 is a phenomenal lens, one of my favorites actually, but it can get heavy on a Z8 for hours at a time.
It's unclear to me based on the images if...Show more →
wowneatphoto wrote:
indusphoto wrote
RoamingScott wrote
Now THAT'S a lens that doesn't feel necessary. Doesn't take the place of either the 24-70/4 or 24-120/4 with that very limiting aperture range.If the IQ is any good it will be a good alternative to 24-70 for its close focusing ability (remains to be seen if that 0.5 magnification is at wide or long end). Canon has similar kit lens, but its IQ is subpar.
Maximum magnification is achieved at minimum focus distance and focal lengths between 70-105mm.
https://www.nikonusa.com/p/nikkor-z-24-105mm-f4-71/20132/overview
I think people are looking at the fact that this lens has a slow aperture and ignoring the fact that this lens is a 350g half macro zoom. For me, someone who does a lot of product photography but also landscape and travel and casual family photos, this lens is actually interesting. The 24-120 is a phenomenal lens, one of my favorites actually, but it can get heavy on a Z8 for hours at a time.
It's unclear to me based on the images if...Show more →
Jan 09, 2026 at 07:53 AM
p.3 #13Nikon 24-105mm f/4-7.1
The ability to AF at f/8 is certainly nice. And the ability to reduce high ISO noise in camera or in post is great, aperture is not just for that. Remember something called Depth of Field?
It wasn’t all that long ago that Nikon designed even consumer zooms with a long end aperture of f/5.6. Now it has slipped to f/6.3, then 6.7 and now 7.1. I know people will say the at it is only 1/3 stop or 2/3 stop, but ir makes a difference. And the 28-400 is now f/8.
And it is not just the aperture t maximum zoom.. What is the focal length with that aperture becomes the minimum? It can be at a much shorter zoom.
And , again, I will,point out, when the Z mount was introduced, one of Nikon’s selling points was it enhanced light gathering capability becausnof the wide mount. Where have we actually seen a lens that uses that?
And after 8:years, the lens lineup is relatively meager, compared to the F mount, with many useful lenses missing.
It wasn’t all that long ago that Nikon designed even consumer zooms with a long end aperture of f/5.6. Now it has slipped to f/6.3, then 6.7 and now 7.1. I know people will say the at it is only 1/3 stop or 2/3 stop, but ir makes a difference. And the 28-400 is now f/8.
And it is not just the aperture t maximum zoom.. What is the focal length with that aperture becomes the minimum? It can be at a much shorter zoom.
And , again, I will,point out, when the Z mount was introduced, one of Nikon’s selling points was it enhanced light gathering capability becausnof the wide mount. Where have we actually seen a lens that uses that?
And after 8:years, the lens lineup is relatively meager, compared to the F mount, with many useful lenses missing.
Jan 09, 2026 at 08:20 AM
RoamingScott
Offline
Activity
[X]
Details
p.3 #14Nikon 24-105mm f/4-7.1
mklass wrote:
Where have we actually seen a lens that uses that?
The Noct? It also allows for lenses like the 85/1.2 and Plena to exist with both no aberrations and perfect bokeh.
Where have we actually seen a lens that uses that?
The Noct? It also allows for lenses like the 85/1.2 and Plena to exist with both no aberrations and perfect bokeh.
Jan 09, 2026 at 08:39 AM
p.3 #15Nikon 24-105mm f/4-7.1
Ok, that’s a couple. What about a fisheye, t/s lenses, small f2.8 primes (the Z primers are big!), a macro longer than 105mm, a decent DX macro, DC lenses?
To add insult to injury, there are few Z 3rd party lenses because of Nikon’s greedy restrictions on licensing and for those few licensed lenses, the cost is $100 higher than the non-Z version. Sigma and Tamron have a great selection of mirrorless lenses that Nikon has no equivalent. Why not let them sell a Z version?
I am a longtime Nikon user, and I will stick with it. (I tried going Sony 2 or 3 years ago, but could not get comfortable with it.) But that doesn’t mean I can’t wish for Nikon to do better. I am not blind.
To add insult to injury, there are few Z 3rd party lenses because of Nikon’s greedy restrictions on licensing and for those few licensed lenses, the cost is $100 higher than the non-Z version. Sigma and Tamron have a great selection of mirrorless lenses that Nikon has no equivalent. Why not let them sell a Z version?
I am a longtime Nikon user, and I will stick with it. (I tried going Sony 2 or 3 years ago, but could not get comfortable with it.) But that doesn’t mean I can’t wish for Nikon to do better. I am not blind.
Jan 09, 2026 at 08:57 AM
p.3 #16Nikon 24-105mm f/4-7.1
mklass wrote:
Ok, that’s a couple. What about a fisheye, t/s lenses, small f2.8 primes (the Z primers are big!), a macro longer than 105mm, a decent DX macro, DC lenses?
To add insult to injury, there are few Z 3rd party lenses because of Nikon’s greedy restrictions on licensing and for those few licensed lenses, the cost is $100 higher than the non-Z version. Sigma and Tamron have a great selection of mirrorless lenses that Nikon has no equivalent. Why not let them sell a Z version?
I am a longtime Nikon user, and I will stick with it. (I tried going...Show more →
Fisheye: Sigma is the only one making a full-frame AF fisheye these days.
T/S lenses: Currently only made by Fuji for GFX. But yes, this is a common request.
Small 2.8 Primes: These exist in the compact 26mm, 28mm, and 40mm lenses.
Macro longer than 105mm: Similar to the first two above, none of the major manufacturers are making these for mirrorless. But a somewhat common request.
Decent DX macro: The 35mm f/1.7 DX exists and does 1:1.5, and the 50mm f/2.8 macro does 1:1 and is perfectly appropriate in size for a DX camera.
DC lenses: I'm not convinced these actually sold well in F-mount and would likely be very low volume sellers in Z-mount. They were never updated with AF-S motors and frankly the 105mm f/1.4E was so much better than the 105mm f/2 DC that there was no reason to update it. The 135mm f/2 DC has been replaced by the Plena and Nikon will likely release a 105mm f/1.4 at some point. As a former 135 DC owner, I would much rather own the Plena at this point.
Are you even in the market for all of the lenses you listed? Many of them probably wouldn't be in high enough demand to be priorities among any of Nikon/Sony/Canon/Panasonic. I'm willing to bet that Nikon will release one or two T/S lenses. I think Nikon's priorities are: cinema/video lenses, wide angle (fast primes and something like a 15-35 f/2.8), and telephoto (200 f/2, 100-300 f/2.8 TC and/or 180-400 f/4 TC, 400-800 PF). The fact is that Nikon has very quickly developed a well-rounded mirrorless lens lineup with budget, mid-level, and high-end options across a wide range of focal lengths and lens types.
EDIT: I think it's also been widely speculated that an 85mm f/1.4 is coming to round out the non-S f/1.4 line.
Ok, that’s a couple. What about a fisheye, t/s lenses, small f2.8 primes (the Z primers are big!), a macro longer than 105mm, a decent DX macro, DC lenses?
To add insult to injury, there are few Z 3rd party lenses because of Nikon’s greedy restrictions on licensing and for those few licensed lenses, the cost is $100 higher than the non-Z version. Sigma and Tamron have a great selection of mirrorless lenses that Nikon has no equivalent. Why not let them sell a Z version?
I am a longtime Nikon user, and I will stick with it. (I tried going...Show more →
Fisheye: Sigma is the only one making a full-frame AF fisheye these days.
T/S lenses: Currently only made by Fuji for GFX. But yes, this is a common request.
Small 2.8 Primes: These exist in the compact 26mm, 28mm, and 40mm lenses.
Macro longer than 105mm: Similar to the first two above, none of the major manufacturers are making these for mirrorless. But a somewhat common request.
Decent DX macro: The 35mm f/1.7 DX exists and does 1:1.5, and the 50mm f/2.8 macro does 1:1 and is perfectly appropriate in size for a DX camera.
DC lenses: I'm not convinced these actually sold well in F-mount and would likely be very low volume sellers in Z-mount. They were never updated with AF-S motors and frankly the 105mm f/1.4E was so much better than the 105mm f/2 DC that there was no reason to update it. The 135mm f/2 DC has been replaced by the Plena and Nikon will likely release a 105mm f/1.4 at some point. As a former 135 DC owner, I would much rather own the Plena at this point.
Are you even in the market for all of the lenses you listed? Many of them probably wouldn't be in high enough demand to be priorities among any of Nikon/Sony/Canon/Panasonic. I'm willing to bet that Nikon will release one or two T/S lenses. I think Nikon's priorities are: cinema/video lenses, wide angle (fast primes and something like a 15-35 f/2.8), and telephoto (200 f/2, 100-300 f/2.8 TC and/or 180-400 f/4 TC, 400-800 PF). The fact is that Nikon has very quickly developed a well-rounded mirrorless lens lineup with budget, mid-level, and high-end options across a wide range of focal lengths and lens types.
EDIT: I think it's also been widely speculated that an 85mm f/1.4 is coming to round out the non-S f/1.4 line.
Jan 09, 2026 at 09:41 AM
p.3 #17Nikon 24-105mm f/4-7.1
DWOfPaul 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 sharesI 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...Show more →
************I don't think I have ever met anyone who dropped 5k+ on their first camera and lens. **********
This has been changed for the young generation.
The young gen would overpaid for Fuji and also purchase Sony RX1 III or Leica Q without thinking because of the hype because of the look.
I know at least 5 people around me, they got their first camera last year was Leica Q or RX1 III.
Everything shoot at large aperture = good photo that is most of the youths learned from social media nowadays.
Ripolini wrote
DWOfPaul wrote
I don't think this lens is meant for those of us on gear forms who already own the 24-120mm f4 S or better lenses already. This is a kit lens to try and help get people who are newly into photos or video into the Nikon ecosystem. Maybe Nikon will also sell a few to photographers looking for a small lens with a decent range. If Nikon taught this was a lens for pro photographers, I would expect to see a lot more reviews already up on YouTube. For longevity, it's important that brands capture new users.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
************I don't think I have ever met anyone who dropped 5k+ on their first camera and lens. **********
This has been changed for the young generation.
The young gen would overpaid for Fuji and also purchase Sony RX1 III or Leica Q without thinking because of the hype because of the look.
I know at least 5 people around me, they got their first camera last year was Leica Q or RX1 III.
Everything shoot at large aperture = good photo that is most of the youths learned from social media nowadays.
Jan 09, 2026 at 10:49 AM
p.3 #18Nikon 24-105mm f/4-7.1
Are you even in the market for all of the lenses you listed? Many of them probably wouldn't be in high enough demand to be priorities among any of Nikon/Sony/Canon/Panasonic. I'm willing to bet that Nikon will release one or two T/S lenses. I think Nikon's priorities are: cinema/video lenses, wide angle (fast primes and something like a 15-35 f/2.8), and telephoto (200 f/2, 100-300 f/2.8 TC and/or 180-400 f/4 TC, 400-800 PF). The fact is that Nikon has very quickly developed a well-rounded mirrorless lens lineup with budget, mid-level, and high-end options across a wide range of focal lengths and...Show more →
Yes, I would be, in addition to a VR equipped 70-300 f/4-5.6, both FX and a smaller, lighter DX. (IBIS isn't very effective wiht long focal lengths.)
I will disagree with you about Nikon having a well rounded lens lineup. Compare it to what is available for Sony, both native lenses and 3rd party.
You may be right about Nikon's priorities, but they are obviously not the same as mine.
As for a 85mm f/1.4, it will probably be large, just like most other Z primes.
Yes, I would be, in addition to a VR equipped 70-300 f/4-5.6, both FX and a smaller, lighter DX. (IBIS isn't very effective wiht long focal lengths.)
I will disagree with you about Nikon having a well rounded lens lineup. Compare it to what is available for Sony, both native lenses and 3rd party.
You may be right about Nikon's priorities, but they are obviously not the same as mine.
As for a 85mm f/1.4, it will probably be large, just like most other Z primes.
Jan 09, 2026 at 12:20 PM
p.3 #19Nikon 24-105mm f/4-7.1
One thing I know for sure: I will never buy it regardless of the price.
Jan 09, 2026 at 12:51 PM
p.3 #20Nikon 24-105mm f/4-7.1
zi464 wrote:
************I don't think I have ever met anyone who dropped 5k+ on their first camera and lens. **********
This has been changed for the young generation.
You should see the Hasselblad subreddit. It's full of children dropping 10k on their first setup, posting blurry photos of their "broken" X2D2, not understanding how electronic shutter works.
************I don't think I have ever met anyone who dropped 5k+ on their first camera and lens. **********
This has been changed for the young generation.
You should see the Hasselblad subreddit. It's full of children dropping 10k on their first setup, posting blurry photos of their "broken" X2D2, not understanding how electronic shutter works.
Jan 09, 2026 at 12:53 PM