Sure, this is the remaining lens in Nikon's "Holy Trinity," and as such is the remaining candidate for a "marketing purposes" refresh.
What would there be to improve in this lens? Size and weight would be desirable traits to reduce, as this is a big, heavy lens. But can this very wide, relatively fast lens be made substantially lighter and smaller without diminishing its optical characteristics? I don't know enough optics to answer that question, but have doubts. If a smaller version came, say, at the cost of higher distortion, with the intent of correcting this in post, it would be a hard pass for me.
For me at least, improving this lens' autofocus would have no importance at all, since I've never used autofocus with it. I'll always take improved coatings, but have seen nothing wrong with the coatings on this lens at present.
OTOH, I can think of one change Nikon could make in this lens that would cause me to think seriously about buying a version two, but will bet my favorite hat that Nikon has this nowhere even close to their radar screen. This is: Place a flip-in/flip out, rotatable polarizing filter inside the lens, where it belongs. Microscopists know that the proper place for a polarizer is behind the objective, not in front of it. Landscape photographers could benefit from similar placement. Imagine a polarizing button instead of a giant front polarizing filter. (An internal polarizer could be pretty small, depending on where in the optics stack it's placed--but by no means must it be in front.)
But given Nikon's current revision toolkit of improved autofocus, lighter weight, and better coatings, where is the low-hanging fruit? Maybe the 100-400? One of the telephoto exotics?
(My druthers: Refresh the 58mm f/1.4 in a Z lens--also something unlikely to be on Nikon's radar screen.)
Chris S. wrote:
OTOH, I can think of one change Nikon could make in this lens that would cause me to think seriously about buying a version two, but will bet my favorite hat that Nikon has this nowhere even close to their radar screen. This is: Place a flip-in/flip out, rotatable polarizing filter inside the lens, where it belongs. Microscopists know that the proper place for a polarizer is behind the objective, not in front of it. Landscape photographers could benefit from similar placement. Imagine a polarizing button instead of a giant front polarizing filter. (An internal polarizer could be pretty small, depending on where in the optics stack it's placed--but by no means must it be in front.)...Show more →
A built-in polarizer... in a 14-24mm lens? That sounds like a lot of expense and bulk for a filter that is virtually unusable at those focal lengths.
To me the next one that will get an update is the 50mm f1.2 S.
Why so? Because it has been used as a symbol by many Sony FBs of how large Z mount lenses are supposed to be relative to Sony ones. It's AF is fine but not great compared to the more recent f1.2 Z primes and it would benefit nicely from all the improvements we have seen in the new 24-70mm f2.8 II and 70-200mm f2.8 II.
The 14-24mm f2.8 is a possibility also, but it still is the lightest in its class and the value of a faster AF would be limited compared to the other 2, it seems to be a lower priority.
Smiert Spionam wrote:
A built-in polarizer... in a 14-24mm lens? That sounds like a lot of expense and bulk for a filter that is virtually unusable at those focal lengths.
Such a filter need only have the diameter of the internal light path at the point in the optics stack where it is placed--which is likely quite narrow in parts. Yes, there would be the mechanism that swaps it in and out of the light path, and that rotates it. If these were placed in a region where the light path is narrow, one could conceive that these mechanisms might be contained within the existing diameter of the lens barrel.
In no sense would such a filter need to be remotely as large as the ones we put on the front--pretty much the worst possible place for a polarizer.
Virtually unusable at these focal lengths? I used the Photodiox Wonderpana polarizer on the 14-24mm G lens for years. Usability is in the eye of the photographer. At 24mm, I find it very useful; at 14mm, sometimes useful, sometimes not, but requiring more consideration for sure.
Even at 24mm, the polarization effect is very uneven with anything with an expanse of sky in it -- though of course that's not the only use for a polarizer. It just seems like asking for trouble to build a polarizer into a lens that wide. The manufacturer would be virtually guaranteed to face a lot of marketing misfires and complaints.
I do appreciate lenses with internal polarizer drawers, though those are typically on big teles.
Agreed on the 50mm f1.2, it’s been out for @6 years and IMO is due for a refresh, faster AF, better coatings and optical design for improved corner sharpness.
bernardl wrote:
To me the next one that will get an update is the 50mm f1.2 S.
Why so? Because it has been used as a symbol by many Sony FBs of how large Z mount lenses are supposed to be relative to Sony ones. It's AF is fine but not great compared to the more recent f1.2 Z primes and it would benefit nicely from all the improvements we have seen in the new 24-70mm f2.8 II and 70-200mm f2.8 II.
The 14-24mm f2.8 is a possibility also, but it still is the lightest in its class and the value of a faster AF would be limited compared to the other 2, it seems to be a lower priority.
Sure, this is the remaining lens in Nikon's "Holy Trinity," and as such is the remaining candidate for a "marketing purposes" refresh.
What would there be to improve in this lens? Size and weight would be desirable traits to reduce, as this is a big, heavy lens. But can this very wide, relatively fast lens be made substantially lighter and smaller without diminishing its optical characteristics? I don't know enough optics to answer that question, but have doubts. If a smaller version came, say, at the cost of higher distortion, with the intent of correcting this in post, it would be a hard pass for me.
For me at least, improving this lens' autofocus would have no importance at all, since I've never used autofocus with it. I'll always take improved coatings, but have seen nothing wrong with the coatings on this lens at present.
OTOH, I can think of one change Nikon could make in this lens that would cause me to think seriously about buying a version two, but will bet my favorite hat that Nikon has this nowhere even close to their radar screen. This is: Place a flip-in/flip out, rotatable polarizing filter inside the lens, where it belongs. Microscopists know that the proper place for a polarizer is behind the objective, not in front of it. Landscape photographers could benefit from similar placement. Imagine a polarizing button instead of a giant front polarizing filter. (An internal polarizer could be pretty small, depending on where in the optics stack it's placed--but by no means must it be in front.)
But given Nikon's current revision toolkit of improved autofocus, lighter weight, and better coatings, where is the low-hanging fruit? Maybe the 100-400? One of the telephoto exotics?
(My druthers: Refresh the 58mm f/1.4 in a Z lens--also something unlikely to be on Nikon's radar screen.)
If the V2 of this lens came out and they figured out how to use 82mm filters or better yet 77mm that would fall in line with the other 2 lens threads that would be ideal. Hell id be ok if we lost 1 or even 2mm at the wide end to get this done. Change it to a 16-24 and then come out with a 14mm prime.
I’m interested to know if Nikon can do their smaller/lighter trick with the 24-120/4, which is potentially the next lens I buy (unless I get the Tamron 35-100/2.8). As currently lack the funds for either it’s not an issue just now!
Nikon is saying that the 70-200 II represents the "second generation standards" that Nikon is seeking to bring to the lineup where they can...retaining excellent IQ with much faster AF motors and building lighter and smaller lens bodies.
They have mentioned that these are being spec'd for future cameras that are more AF-capable than the Z8/Z9.
Nikon is saying that the 70-200 II represents the "second generation standards" that Nikon is seeking to bring to the lineup where they can...retaining excellent IQ with much faster AF motors and building lighter and smaller lens bodies.
They have mentioned that these are being spec'd for future cameras that are more AF-capable than the Z8/Z9.
This may be more relevant than we may know. The probable much better AF ability of newer cameras is an often overlooked aspect that probably will play a role in requiring many lenses to be upgraded.
The 14-24 f2.8 seems a logical choice to upgrade so as to be in line with the 24-70 f2.8 II and 70-200 f2.8 II but as a few have said, it seems like it is as good as it can be, but we did say that about the other two also. Having said that, the new lenses are a minor IQ upgrade. Much of the newer lens "upgrade" was for weight, size and functional extras like Clickable Control Ring, Polarizer Window (I doubt we need that on the 14-24).
I am thinking the 100-400 needs the same sort of refresh as it could do with one. It also needs the Clickable Control Ring, Polarizer Window and can they do internal zoom? However, my preference is for a Z 100-300 f4 + TC - now that would get my juices going.
Lance B wrote:
This may be more relevant than we may know. The probable much better AF ability of newer cameras is an often overlooked aspect that probably will play a role in requiring many lenses to be upgraded.
The 14-24 f2.8 seems a logical choice to upgrade so as to be in line with the 24-70 f2.8 II and 70-200 f2.8 II but as a few have said, it seems like it is as good as it can be, but we did say that about the other two also. Having said that, the new lenses are a minor IQ upgrade. Much of the newer lens "upgrade" was for weight, size and functional extras like Clickable Control Ring, Polarizer Window (I doubt we need that on the 14-24).
I am thinking the 100-400 needs the same sort of refresh as it could do with one. It also needs the Clickable Control Ring, Polarizer Window and can they do internal zoom? However, my preference is for a Z 100-300 f4 + TC - now that would get my juices going. ...Show more →
It will certainly be the 14-24 because I have just bought one!
If Nikon refreshes the S f/1.8 lineup 20mm needs it most, OOF rendering is rough with those defined edges.
Sony 20mm f/1.8 G Lens is cheaper, wider, focuses close and has much smoother, buttery bokeh. Plus, it feels more like a GM with the aperture ring and buttons.
Z 50mm f/1.8 S Lens and Z 85mm f/1.8 S Lens are a different story though, those are absolutely worth it.
EB-1 wrote:
Is AF speed really an issue with the 14-24?
EBH
No issues, wide angle lenses in general are more forgiving, so AF doesn’t have to be as precise but it still matters when you push them (close distance, wide open, or video).
Nikon’s newer lenses are clearly being designed to not bottleneck future bodies. Something like a Z9 II will likely push higher FPS and stronger AF, so those “up to 3.5× faster AF” claims on Mark II glass will actually show on newer bodies.
I'm more concerned about MTF than AF. I hope the new lenses can handle higher-res sensors in the future like 80+MP. Reading these forums it's like everyone is obsessed with FOMO of the action and doesn't care so much about improving IQ.
I have zero issues capturing any image that I want at will with modern gear. If I can get the same IQ in a smaller package, sign me up.
EB-1 wrote:
I'm more concerned about MTF than AF. I hope the new lenses can handle higher-res sensors in the future like 80+MP. Reading these forums it's like everyone is obsessed with FOMO of the action and doesn't care so much about improving IQ.
