- Sep 13, 2007
- Northern VA suburb of Washington, DC
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'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.
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).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.
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.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)........
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......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....
Love my 12-100 as well. But I wish the 28-280 started at 24mm.......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!
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.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.