Updated roadmap for Z System's Lenses

Joined
Jul 25, 2017
Messages
955
Location
Pittsburgh, PA
Real Name
Ian
I’m interested in the small 40mm lens. I’ll wait to see how the 24-105 is relative to the 24-70 f/4 (the 24-105 looks to be about the same size as the 24-70 f/2.8).

The 200-600 will be an interesting lens. However, I’m SHOCKED to not see a 70-300 variable aperture lens, or a 70-200 f/4 lens. That seems like a really glaring omission from the lens line-up IMO.
 
Joined
Apr 30, 2005
Messages
3,692
Location
Massachusetts
Real Name
David
.....The 200-600 will be an interesting lens. However, I’m SHOCKED to not see a 70-300 variable aperture lens, or a 70-200 f/4 lens. That seems like a really glaring omission from the lens line-up IMO.
You're not alone. An S-line 60-210/240 keeping it to a 3.5x to 4x with a slight overlap in order to control size would be great. That would give people two VERY nice premium kits:

14-30 f/4 + 24-70 f/4 + 60-210 f/4* -- A set of 3 premium collapsible lenses that would make a nice small travel kit.
14-30 f/4 + 24-105 f/4 + 100-400 f/4* -- A set of 3 premium lenses prioritizing reach over compact size.

* could be f/4 or f/3.5-5.6, there's more to premium than just a constant aperture IMHO.

The Z-mount 14-30 and 24-70 are so much smaller than the F-mount 16-35 and 24-120 that I'd love to see a similarly compact 60-210 mid range telephoto (one can always dream).

Edit: meant to attach this for comparison.
 

Attachments

Last edited:
Joined
Jul 25, 2017
Messages
955
Location
Pittsburgh, PA
Real Name
Ian
You're not alone. An S-line 60-210/240 keeping it to a 3.5x to 4x with a slight overlap in order to control size would be great. That would give people two VERY nice premium kits:

14-30 f/4 + 24-70 f/4 + 60-210 f/4* -- A set of 3 premium collapsible lenses that would make a nice small travel kit.
14-30 f/4 + 24-105 f/4 + 100-400 f/4* -- A set of 3 premium lenses prioritizing reach over compact size.

* could be f/4 or f/3.5-5.6, there's more to premium than just a constant aperture IMHO.

The Z-mount 14-30 and 24-70 are so much smaller than the F-mount 16-35 and 24-120 that I'd love to see a similarly compact 60-210 mid range telephoto (one can always dream).

Edit: meant to attach this for comparison.
Yeah, it's very odd that Nikon did a fantastic job of offering its users an ultra-compact UWA and normal lens, but then have nothing to offer on the telephoto end. A collapsing 70-200 f/4 would've been an instant buy from me, but it now leaves me in this odd predicament of what to do for telephoto for travel with my Z6. This past summer I used a 70-300 AF-P on an FTZ which worked well, but it's not my preferred solution.

As you said, you could go 24-105 and then 100-400, but now you have a much larger and heavier kit, and to be honest I don't need 400mm of reach for my typical travel photography. 200mm of reach is more than sufficient.

Sigh...
 
Joined
May 5, 2005
Messages
21,611
Location
SW Virginia
This past summer I used a 70-300 AF-P on an FTZ which worked well, but it's not my preferred solution.
That's what I'm planning for our upcoming trip to southern Italy and Sicily in May. Of course the 24-70/4S will be the lens I'll use most of the time. However, I'm considering taking my 200mm f/4 AIS instead of the 70-300. I used it for my "long" lens on a trip to France several years ago and it worked out fine but I also had the 24-120 as the main lens.
 
Joined
Jul 8, 2019
Messages
373
Location
SF Bay Area, California, USA
Yeah, it's very odd that Nikon did a fantastic job of offering its users an ultra-compact UWA and normal lens, but then have nothing to offer on the telephoto end. A collapsing 70-200 f/4 would've been an instant buy from me, but it now leaves me in this odd predicament of what to do for telephoto for travel with my Z6. This past summer I used a 70-300 AF-P on an FTZ which worked well, but it's not my preferred solution.

As you said, you could go 24-105 and then 100-400, but now you have a much larger and heavier kit, and to be honest I don't need 400mm of reach for my typical travel photography. 200mm of reach is more than sufficient.

Sigh...
Planning out a multi year lens roadmap is HARD.
There are marketing, manufacturing and strategic considerations that we will never know about.
  • I don't know why Nikon did not bring out the faster f/2.8, 24-70 and 70-200 zooms early.
    • Some of the pros may have been waiting to convert to the Z system, until the f/2.8 lenses were available.
    • Maybe Nikon wanted to bring out the PRO level Z cameras with the f/2.8 lenses, for the Olympics.
    • Unfortunately this allowed Canon to get "bragging rights" to having the f/2.8 lenses out.
  • How do the f/4 zooms fit into a plan with the f/2.8 zooms?
    • Having a 70-200/4, I think the smaller/lighter f/4 line makes great sense for many of us, who do not NEED the f/2.8 aperture.
  • Extending/collapsing vs internal zoom.
    • For smoothness of zooming, I prefer an internal zoom.
    • For shorter lens length, I prefer the extending zoom.
      • But an extending zoom is probably FATTER than an internal zoom, so it is not as compact as it seems.
  • WHY the f/0.95 lens?
    • To me, that seemed like a waste of limited development and manufacturing resources, for a SMALL market.
    • Maybe it was to PROVE the Z mount's speed potential.
But of course some of the WHYs will never be released, cuz that would be telling the competition too much.

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


From the Nikon site, the roadmap above shows the f/2.8 and f/4 lines.
What seems obvious on the roadmap is, that the f/4 line forks with the 24-70 down one leg and the 24-105 down the other leg.
So what is the next lens after the 24-70/4?
Does it merge to the 100-400, or is it an unannounced 70-300? There are logical reasons for both alternatives.

Then Nikon confuses the roadmap by putting the DX lenses in the middle of the FX lenses.
Nikon should have either put the DX lenses at the bottom, or made a separate DX roadmap.

The issue for the DX guys is, the Z50 does not have IBIS, whereas the Z6/Z7 do, so the DX guys want a long lens or alternate FX lens with VR.
This makes the decision to use a FX lens on a DX camera more difficult in the Z world than it is in the F world.
In the F mount lenses, the VR is in the lens, not in the body, for both FX and DX.
Example, I was considering the FX 24-120 for my DX camera. The lens has VR, so I don't lose that function. I do not lose anything by using a FX lens on my DX camera.​
But in the Z mount, the 24-105 probably does NOT have VR, so with the D50 which does not have IBIS, there would be no IS. :(
 

Attachments

Joined
Mar 1, 2009
Messages
245
Location
Colorado
Really, really excited and can't wait for the 28 and 40mm compact primes.

Wish we had more specific information about release dates. I'm tempted to grab the 35mm in the interim, but I don't really need or want to end up with 28, 35 and 40mm primes. The 35 does look excellent, but I'm generally looking to go small if the compromises aren't too great.
 
Joined
Oct 8, 2018
Messages
516
Location
SE Michigan
Real Name
Chris
How about a 24-200 variable? Supposed to be announced today.
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 
Joined
Jul 8, 2019
Messages
373
Location
SF Bay Area, California, USA
...depending on the optics. It's not an S-line lens but we can hope.
Unlike the Olympus 12-100/4 Pro lens (equiv to the 24-200 in FL), the Nikon 24-200 is probably not an S-line.
But as a GP travel lens, it would probably be "good enough" for many. Especially if they don't blow up the image too much.
It's like the old question, "how many MP, do you need for a 4x6 print?"

Based on how good the S-line lenses are, I have hope that the non-S-line lenses would be equally improved over the non-pro F lenses.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Apr 30, 2005
Messages
3,692
Location
Massachusetts
Real Name
David
Planning out a multi year lens roadmap is HARD.
There are marketing, manufacturing and strategic considerations that we will never know about.
  • I don't know why Nikon did not bring out the faster f/2.8, 24-70 and 70-200 zooms early.
    • Some of the pros may have been waiting to convert to the Z system, until the f/2.8 lenses were available.
    • Maybe Nikon wanted to bring out the PRO level Z cameras with the f/2.8 lenses, for the Olympics.
    • Unfortunately this allowed Canon to get "bragging rights" to having the f/2.8 lenses out.
  • How do the f/4 zooms fit into a plan with the f/2.8 zooms?
    • Having a 70-200/4, I think the smaller/lighter f/4 line makes great sense for many of us, who do not NEED the f/2.8 aperture.
  • Extending/collapsing vs internal zoom.
    • For smoothness of zooming, I prefer an internal zoom.
    • For shorter lens length, I prefer the extending zoom.
      • But an extending zoom is probably FATTER than an internal zoom, so it is not as compact as it seems.
  • WHY the f/0.95 lens?
    • To me, that seemed like a waste of limited development and manufacturing resources, for a SMALL market.
    • Maybe it was to PROVE the Z mount's speed potential.
But of course some of the WHYs will never be released, cuz that would be telling the competition too much.

View attachment 1655155

From the Nikon site, the roadmap above shows the f/2.8 and f/4 lines.
What seems obvious on the roadmap is, that the f/4 line forks with the 24-70 down one leg and the 24-105 down the other leg.
So what is the next lens after the 24-70/4?
Does it merge to the 100-400, or is it an unannounced 70-300? There are logical reasons for both alternatives.

Then Nikon confuses the roadmap by putting the DX lenses in the middle of the FX lenses.
Nikon should have either put the DX lenses at the bottom, or made a separate DX roadmap.

The issue for the DX guys is, the Z50 does not have IBIS, whereas the Z6/Z7 do, so the DX guys want a long lens or alternate FX lens with VR.
This makes the decision to use a FX lens on a DX camera more difficult in the Z world than it is in the F world.
In the F mount lenses, the VR is in the lens, not in the body, for both FX and DX.
Example, I was considering the FX 24-120 for my DX camera. The lens has VR, so I don't lose that function. I do not lose anything by using a FX lens on my DX camera.​
But in the Z mount, the 24-105 probably does NOT have VR, so with the D50 which does not have IBIS, there would be no IS. :(
Unlike the Olympus 12-100/4 Pro lens (equiv to the 24-200 in FL), the Nikon 24-200 is probably not an S-line.
But as a GP travel lens, it would probably be "good enough" for many. Especially if they don't blow up the image too much.
It's like the old question, "how many MP, do you need for a 4x6 print?"

Based on how good the S-line lenses are, I have hope that the non-S-line lenses would be equally improved over the non-pro F lenses.
Canon and Nikon definitely took different paths and personally I question Canon's more than Nikon, and not just because I prefer Nikon.

Canon released two bodies that seem a lot more like their consumer APS-C line, something that it seems a 5D user would pick up and go o_O. Then they announce a bunch of "Pro" glass back a year ago now. I believe one is still yet to be release. And 7 of the 10 are $2300 and above. The 24-105 and 35 f/1.8 are the only enthusiasts lenses released, have there been more? I haven't seen any more.

Conversely Nikon's bodies are pretty familiar looking. True they're the enthusiasts and not the Pro layout, but still. Nikon also tends not to announce things too far ahead of release compared to Canon. The road map is actually more complete than I've noticed in the past, still they haven't filled in all the details or provided pictures of prototypes. Canon had pictures of the 70-200 a good 8-9 months before they showed it extended. It really wouldn't surprise me to find out the first pictures were put out before they even had one that would extend. And 6 of the 10 lenses they have released are under $1000. All 6 seen to be getting very good reviews. And you could add the 14-30, it's $1300, but still reasonable for a wide.

Another point about the time line. The APS-C lenses are in the middle of the map because they define the S and non S lenses. Everything above them is an S-Line, everything below is not. The 24-200 is not an S-Line.
 
Joined
Mar 20, 2017
Messages
1,224
Location
Central Ohio
Real Name
Andrew
...depending on the optics. It's not an S-line lens but we can hope.
i have faith and confidence in Nikon that they can make a good non pro optic. That’s not just from my hope and prayers but from real world delivery with lenses like the 35mm and 50mm f/1.8 f-mount primes and the 70-300/4.5-5.6E AF-P, 10-24, and 18-55 zooms.
I’ve not had the opportunity to use the z-mount APS-C lenses yet - but they have been doing a great job from what I can tell.

I’m very interested in the 24-200 for travel and general walk around. I’ve always wanted something like the f-mount 28-300 VR but never pulled the trigger on that. Makes me glad I did if this 24-200 is good and decently priced.
 

Latest posts

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