p.1 #1 · 135mm Plena → 400mm S… What Happens in Between?
Why doesn’t Nikon offer a fast prime between the 135mm Plena and the 400mm f/4.5 S?
Maybe someone with a better understanding of lens design or the market can explain this to me.
I absolutely love the 135mm f/1.8 Plena. The sharpness, compression and subject separation are phenomenal, and it got me looking at what Nikon offers if you want to go longer with a prime.
Unless I’m missing something, there’s basically a massive hole in the native Z lineup. You go from the 135mm f/1.8 Plena all the way to the 400mm f/4.5 S.
Why?
I would LOVE something around 200–235mm that follows the same philosophy as the Plena; an unapologetically premium, ultra-fast portrait/telephoto prime. Something like:
200mm f/1.8
200mm f/1.4
235mm f/1.8
I realize a 200mm f/1.2 would probably be enormous, extraordinarily expensive, or both, but even a 200–235mm f/1.8 seems like it would occupy a really interesting space.
I know the 70–200mm f/2.8 covers the focal length from a practical standpoint, but that isn’t really what I’m talking about. I’m thinking about the look you get from a purpose-built, extremely fast prime: subject isolation, compression, low-light capability and optical performance.
Nikon historically made lenses like the 200mm f/2, so I’m curious why that general category seems to have disappeared from the Z lineup.
Is there simply not enough demand anymore? Does the 70–200mm f/2.8 make a lens like this commercially redundant? Or are there optical/size/cost considerations that make an ultra-fast ~200mm Z prime unrealistic?
Because a Z 200mm f/1.8 S “Plena-like” lens would be extremely difficult for me to resist.
p.1 #2 · 135mm Plena → 400mm S… What Happens in Between?
jinx_703 wrote:
Is there simply not enough demand anymore? Does the 70–200mm f/2.8 make a lens like this commercially redundant?
I expect this is probably the main factor - the 70-200 f2.8 is so good, depth of field is already quite shallow at 200 f2.8, and many people prefer a zoom in that range for practical use, so it may be a pretty limited market to try and justify the development cost of something like a new 200 f2 (no denying it would be cool though).
They also have the 120-300 f2.8 tc adding to the range soon.
p.1 #4 · 135mm Plena → 400mm S… What Happens in Between?
Just a guess, but possibly the f-mount exotics are so good that it is difficult to improve on them with a z-mount version. As a result they remain on Nikon's back burner. While the handful of z-mount lenses I have are clearly better than their f-mount versions, my f-mount 200 f2 and 300 f2.8 are amazing lenses optically. Nikon would have to sell me on something other than optical performance for me to replace them with z-mount versions.
p.1 #5 · 135mm Plena → 400mm S… What Happens in Between?
jonshonda wrote:
I'm curious if Nikon found that those lenses just didn't sell well?
Classic focal lengths for Nikon have been the;
135DC (screw drive)
180 AF-D (screw drive)
200 f2
As another user pointed out, is the 70-200 2.8 (talking about the FL ED?) so good that they feel anything in the range won't sell well?
Aside from a 200mm f/2 or perhaps a 200mm f/1.8, I don't foresee any other lenses of this type appearing in the Z-mount lineup.
The era of 180mm f/2.8 or 200mm f/2.8 primes is long gone, unless Nikon takes the specialized route of a macro lens.
The current Z-mount 70-200mm f/2.8 VR S (I & II) zooms are so optically excellent and sharp—even wide open at f/2.8—that you would need a benchmark like the Plena to surpass their MTF figures.
Then there is the Nikon 70-180mm f/2.8, which is also teleconverter-compatible, as well as the newer 70-180/2.8 Tamron version for the Z-mount, which is not compatibe with TCs.
There is no longer a market for a standard 180mm or 200mm f/2.8 prime, especially since modern zooms weigh not much more than those old 180/200mm f/2.8 lenses did.
I also still have my old Canon FD 200/2.8 IF here.
It’s surprisingly sharp—especially in the center—for its age, but it has massive chromatic aberration.
The Plena has taken over that 135-200mm spot, and with a Z8, it also has sufficient crop reserve.
With AF and VR, a 180/200mm f/2.8 prime doesn’t end up weighing significantly less than a Z 70-200/2.8 VR S II.
Optically, there’s also little room for improvement in comparison.
If there’s one zoom range that’s practically indistinguishable from high-quality prime lenses of the same speed, it’s the professional 70-200mm zooms.
No other zoom category comes as close to the best primes as these do.
In fact, the Z 70-200/2.8 VR S (first version) even slightly outperforms the Z 85/1.8 S in Photography Life’s lab tests (shared aperture range)—even in the corners—despite the Z 85/1.8 S being known for its outstanding resolution.
A dedicated macro lens in that focal length range would certainly have a niche, but I don't see that being the case for a 180mm or 200mm f/2.8 non-macro prime anymore.
The 135mm f/2 DC has likely been dropped for good; the Z 135mm f/1.8 S Plena has taken its place in the Z-mount lineup.
Here, too, I see no significant demand for another lens in essentially the same speed category as the Plena.
Perhaps a compact 135mm f/3.5 for the Nikon Zf, but I don't foresee a revival of DC lenses in the Z-mount—that would be an extreme niche within a fixed focal length that is already a niche to begin with.
A niche where the secondhand market for the DC lenses meets the needs of enthusiasts of these lenses.
Nikon is likely extremely busy right now: the RED acquisition and its integration, cine lenses, and the upcoming new camera generation featuring Expeed 8—plus, there are more significant gaps in the lens lineup than a 180mm f/2.8 or 135mm f/2 DC.
On the other hand, I could certainly imagine a 200/2 or 200/1.8—possibly with an approach similar to the Plena—though likely only in the medium to long term.
p.1 #8 · 135mm Plena → 400mm S… What Happens in Between?
200mm 1.4.......can you imagine the size and cost of such a thing?!!! Completely impractical and unnecessary.
200mm 1.8 is pretty close to the 200 f2s out there. I'm not surprised that an update in a z form hasn't come out yet but I suspect one will come out one day. Incredibly niche lens but still big and heavy. People these days seem to be happy enough with the plena. I own the 200mm f2 vrii and love it but it's hard to justify in many cases.....but it is a legend and a look that defines itself in my opinion. I don't use it much but I won't sell it and I'd never pour more money in to a z version. Others would of course but I believe the market would be small. Ditto with the 300mm f2.8.
Lastly, noise reduction is so good now that the utility, size and weight of a 100-400mm 4.5-5.6 starts leaning into the advantages of buying a huge prime. Perhaps before the next summer olympics we'll see the 200mm and 300mm primes come out though....
p.1 #9 · 135mm Plena → 400mm S… What Happens in Between?
Nikon invested heavily into zooms in this range and want to sell those. The 180/2.8 was very popular despite its clunky old tech autofocus implementation. A modern version of the 180/2.8 could be 500-600 grams and half the price or one third of the price of the extremely expensive 70-200/2.8 S II. Similarly, a modern 300/2.8 would be half the weight of the 120-300/2.8 and half the cost. I would immediately buy one of each if Nikon were to make such primes. I will never buy the 120-300/2.8, it is ridiculously large and even more ridiculously expensive.
p.1 #10 · 135mm Plena → 400mm S… What Happens in Between?
Apparently sigma thinks differently, they have a relatively new 200mm 2.0 in Sony and L. I wonder if sigma can use the viltrox logic and start selling a mounts?
p.1 #11 · 135mm Plena → 400mm S… What Happens in Between?
On the matter of the 70-200/2.8 being The Way, I saw a documentary, about Peter Lindbergh. He was clearly using an F-mount AF-S 70-200/2.8G VR II, during a shoot with top-tier models and actresses. The man who could use any lens in the world, and had assistants to lug them about, had chosen the then-current f/2.8 work horse, at the telephoto end of the pro zoom trinity. (Actually, the successor FL E version may have already been extant, but would have still been quite new.) That may have been when I fully realized that my AF-S 200/2 VR I had become a dinosaur, though that was not the only factor in my realization.
I still have my AF-S 200/2 VR 1. It needs a CLA, if I can find someone willing to work on it. The AF motor has that well-known squeal, which a mere lube may not cure. This had been one of my early grail-quest lenses. Had. Been. Like some long-term grail quests, by the time it has been achieved, I had to ponder why I had ever wanted it so much.
I did notice that I had rarely used my original-generation AF-S 70-200mm f/2.8G VR past 135mm. This was why I did not let the reputation for the VR II to be “only a 135mm” at close range, when zoomed to 200mm, deter me from buying my VR II. I have never yet reached the point of upgrading to the FL E. (Not saying that I have chosen THE Way! I am not any kind of expert!)
When I have wanted to shoot longer than 135mm, it has seemed to be about 300mm or longer. In hindsight, my grail-quest tele should have been a 300mm f/2.8…
Now that I have finally started to step into the Z mount system, I have started to dream of the Plena, but, should make sure to keep it at the dream level. No more grail quests.
