Updated roadmap for Z System's Lenses

Joined
Jul 25, 2017
Messages
939
Location
Pittsburgh, PA
Real Name
Ian
I'd be interested to see how the 24-120 looks. I could see myself selling my 24-70 f/4 and 70-300 AF-P and picking up the 24-120 & 100-300.

The 28-70mm just seems like a waste IMO. We already f/2.8 and f/4 versions of the 24-70, why make something that falls in the middle?

I'm disappointed to see that there is no 70-200 f/4 on the list though. That would complete my f/4 travel-trifecta.
 
Joined
Apr 30, 2005
Messages
3,599
Location
Massachusetts
Real Name
David
I'd be interested to see how the 24-120 looks. I could see myself selling my 24-70 f/4 and 70-300 AF-P and picking up the 24-120 & 100-300.

The 28-70mm just seems like a waste IMO. We already f/2.8 and f/4 versions of the 24-70, why make something that falls in the middle?

I'm disappointed to see that there is no 70-200 f/4 on the list though. That would complete my f/4 travel-trifecta.
Maybe the 28-70 is a collapsible design? Something even smaller than the 24-70 f/4? That's the only way I can see it making sense.

I had the 16-35 / 24-120 / 70-200 f4 combo.

We'll have to see how good they are and how big they are. Previous versions of 70-200 zooms have been non telescoping, it looks like Canon's upcoming 70-200 f2.8 is going change that. A telescoping 100-300 f4 could very well be smaller than the current 70-200 f4. If these 2 f4s are as goog as the other 2 f4s already released and the 100-300 it's too big; I think a 100-300 is actually a better option than a 70-200. Not as much overlap and a nice bump is range.
 
Joined
Jul 8, 2019
Messages
228
Location
SF Bay Area, California, USA
I would guess that the two variable aperture lenses are extending zooms.
- 28-70/2.8-3.5 and 28-280/2.8-5.6

The problem that I have with extending zooms, it the effort it takes to turn the zoom ring.
To shove all that mass in/out, takes either
- leverage (shallow angle zoom cam, so longer throw of the zoom ring) or
- more force to turn the zoom ring (steep angle zoom cam, shorter throw of the zoom ring).

Personally, I prefer a low effort zoom ring, like on the 70-200/4, where I can zoom with my fingers.
I never got comfortable having to use my arm muscles to turn the zoom ring, on lenses with stiff zoom rings.
 
Joined
Jul 25, 2017
Messages
939
Location
Pittsburgh, PA
Real Name
Ian
Maybe the 28-70 is a collapsible design? Something even smaller than the 24-70 f/4? That's the only way I can see it making sense.

I had the 16-35 / 24-120 / 70-200 f4 combo.

We'll have to see how good they are and how big they are. Previous versions of 70-200 zooms have been non telescoping, it looks like Canon's upcoming 70-200 f2.8 is going change that. A telescoping 100-300 f4 could very well be smaller than the current 70-200 f4. If these 2 f4s are as goog as the other 2 f4s already released and the 100-300 it's too big; I think a 100-300 is actually a better option than a 70-200. Not as much overlap and a nice bump is range.
While the 28-70 could be collapsible, it's also shown as being an f/2.8-3.5 lens, making it faster than the 24-70 f/4. I'd be surprised if they manged to make the lens smaller than f/4 24-70 (look at the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 vs Sony 24-70 f/4, with the Tamron being a bit bigger). It just seems like an odd lens to release when there will be a 24-70 f/2.8, 24-70 f/4, and 24-120 f/4 (rumored).

I hope the 100-300 will be telescoping. The Canon 70-200 mock-up is TINY! However, even if it is collapsible, a collapsing 70-200 f/4 would be smaller/lighter, and still sufficient for landscape & travel. Speaking of...

The 28-280 f/2.8-5.6 could be interesting, IF the IQ holds up. I loved the 12-100 PRO lens for my Olympus cameras. If Nikon could create a lens similar to that, I could see it being an enticing option as well.


Then again, there's always the possibility that this is all just a farce. Only time will tell!
 
Joined
Nov 14, 2005
Messages
1,362
Location
Winter Haven, florida
If this list is confirmed, it sure helps with my decisions.
No macro lens, no true telephoto. I live at over 300mm. Or at macro ranges.
Yes I am sure the adapter will work, but it is a compromise.
I just boxed up my first long glass, selling it to B&H for store credit.
Mint condition 200-400mm vr2 is leaving.
Looks more and more like sony will be joining my other gear.
Gary
 
Joined
Apr 30, 2005
Messages
3,599
Location
Massachusetts
Real Name
David
While the 28-70 could be collapsible, it's also shown as being an f/2.8-3.5 lens, making it faster than the 24-70 f/4. I'd be surprised if they manged to make the lens smaller than f/4 24-70 (look at the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 vs Sony 24-70 f/4, with the Tamron being a bit bigger). It just seems like an odd lens to release when there will be a 24-70 f/2.8, 24-70 f/4, and 24-120 f/4 (rumored)........
I was just agreeing that it doesn't make sense unless there is "something" new and different. I guess price could also be something, but it's listed as an "S" so I doubt it will beat the 24-70 f4 on price. But even if it has something different I'm not sure 4 lenses in this focal range make sense. Personally a 24-70 f2.8, 24-120 f4, and 24/8-70 SMALL variable would have been enough.

.....I hope the 100-300 will be telescoping. The Canon 70-200 mock-up is TINY! However, even if it is collapsible, a collapsing 70-200 f/4 would be smaller/lighter, and still sufficient for landscape & travel. Speaking of....
Interesting they still haven't shown a working version of that 70-200, at least not that I seen. Well I can hope it's smaller. (Actually what am I saying, it's going to be BIG AND HEAVY so I won't get GAS and have to buy into the Z system.

......The 28-280 f/2.8-5.6 could be interesting, IF the IQ holds up. I loved the 12-100 PRO lens for my Olympus cameras. If Nikon could create a lens similar to that, I could see it being an enticing option as well.

Then again, there's always the possibility that this is all just a farce. Only time will tell!
Love my 12-100 as well. But I wish the 28-280 started at 24mm.
 
Joined
Apr 30, 2005
Messages
3,599
Location
Massachusetts
Real Name
David
I would guess that the two variable aperture lenses are extending zooms.
- 28-70/2.8-3.5 and 28-280/2.8-5.6

The problem that I have with extending zooms, it the effort it takes to turn the zoom ring.
To shove all that mass in/out, takes either
- leverage (shallow angle zoom cam, so longer throw of the zoom ring) or
- more force to turn the zoom ring (steep angle zoom cam, shorter throw of the zoom ring).

Personally, I prefer a low effort zoom ring, like on the 70-200/4, where I can zoom with my fingers.
I never got comfortable having to use my arm muscles to turn the zoom ring, on lenses with stiff zoom rings.
I agree, but it looks like all the Z lenses released so far do extend. I loved how the tripod mount on the old 80-200 two-ring rested in the palm of my hand making it easy to zoom with my finger tips.
 
Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Nikon Cafe is a fan site and not associated with Nikon Corporation.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Copyright © 2005-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom