Updated roadmap for Z System's Lenses

[ac12]

It is, the aforementioned Olympus 12-100 Pro is a bit of a beast compared to other m4/3 lenses. The 24-200 actually looks pretty small by comparison.

Agree.
As soon as I picked up the 12-100, I knew it was NOT going to be a travel lens, for me.
But it has a definite place in my tool box of lenses, and it ain't goina be sold.

 

[davidzvi]

Agree.
As soon as I picked up the 12-100, I knew it was NOT going to be a travel lens, for me.
But it has a definite place in my tool box of lenses, and it ain't goina be sold.

Not selling mine either. But I do use it for some travel, all depends on the kit and the travel.

 

[ijm5012]

It is, the aforementioned Olympus 12-100 Pro is a bit of a beast compared to other m4/3 lenses. The 24-200 actually looks pretty small by comparison.

The 24-200 looks like a very interesting lens. I’ll for sure be keeping my eye out for reviews to see how it performs in the real world.

 

[JeeperDon]

Why is the largest prime planned only the current 85/1.8?

 

[Mike Buckley]

Why is the largest prime planned only the current 85/1.8?

Probably because they can only design and release a certain number of new lens models before the end of 2021 and they think the higher priority should be making longer focal lengths in zoom lenses. Making that decision also results in zoom lenses that cover the entire range of 14mm to 600mm at that time.

 

[davidzvi]

Why is the largest prime planned only the current 85/1.8?

I guess it might also make you wonder how well (or how poorly) the 105mm and 135mm non-macro options sell.

 

[Martin Norden]

I will pick up the 20mm once the price has come down a bit, certainly not paying £1,000+ for it, the 24-200 doesn't appeal. For the future the 24-105 S Line will become my standard zoom when it is launched, the 100-400 S Line will join it. This will give me a FX range of 20-400mm over 3 lenses which will make an ideal set-up when out and about and which should cover all my options. However, if a bit more reach is required I can put the Z7 into DX and pick out that central part of the image giving an impression of a 600mm. I have been critical of Nikon's lens line up but we finally appear to be getting some decent choices in Z mount which is great.

 

[MNglass]

I will pick up the 20mm once the price has come down a bit, certainly not paying £1,000+ for it, the 24-200 doesn't appeal. For the future the 24-105 S Line will become my standard zoom when it is launched, the 100-400 S Line will join it. This will give me a FX range of 20-400mm over 3 lenses which will make an ideal set-up when out and about and which should cover all my options. However, if a bit more reach is required I can put the Z7 into DX and pick out that central part of the image giving an impression of a 600mm. I have been critical of Nikon's lens line up but we finally appear to be getting some decent choices in Z mount which is great.

I admit some interest in the 24-200 just as a 'knockabout' lens. But like you I am probably going to wait for the 24-105 (which is hopefully a bit faster) and if it lives up to its other S brethren may offer a bit better IQ.

 

[newbiebob]

Just went on the Amazon site and, according to them, the new 70-200 will be released on 2/29.

 

[Martin Norden]

I admit some interest in the 24-200 just as a 'knockabout' lens. But like you I am probably going to wait for the 24-105 (which is hopefully a bit faster) and if it lives up to its other S brethren may offer a bit better IQ.

The 24-105 is just such a good range for a standard zoom, not sure why Nikon didn't launch this lens with the Z cameras in 2018 instead of the 24-70. But enough moaning it is on its way, hopefully this year.

 

[daveg]

If they had released the 24-105 before the 24-70 then fewer people would buy the 24-70.

Now, many of those who bought the 24-70 will upgrade to the 24-105. More sales??

Or is that just me being cynical?

 

[BillM]

If they had released the 24-105 before the 24-70 then fewer people would buy the 24-70.

Now, many of those who bought the 24-70 will upgrade to the 24-105. More sales??

Or is that just me being cynical?

Whether it is a replacement for the 24-70 or an adjunct to the 24-70 may boil down to whether it collapses like the 24-70 and the 14-30 do.

I have gotten used to the 24-120 range, but the loss of 50 mm on the long end has not stopped me from using the 24-70.

On the other hand, even if I owned them all, I can only use one at a time

 

[MNglass]

If they had released the 24-105 before the 24-70 then fewer people would buy the 24-70.

Now, many of those who bought the 24-70 will upgrade to the 24-105. More sales??

Or is that just me being cynical?

I consider it pretty healthy to be cynical about corporations and technology. Any indication on how fast the 24-105 will be? Another constant f4 lens would be fine and the 24-70 2.8 would still have a place.

 

[Mike Buckley]

Or is that just me being cynical?

More like being wise.

 

[davidzvi]

How did I just notice that the 24-200 is a VR lens?

I consider it pretty healthy to be cynical about corporations and technology. Any indication on how fast the 24-105 will be? Another constant f4 lens would be fine and the 24-70 2.8 would still have a place.

I'd expect it to be a constant f/4, otherwise I'd expect it to a compact lens option. Based on the lineup image, it's bigger than the 24-70 f/4 and 24-200 f/4-6.3 VR.

If they had released the 24-105 before the 24-70 then fewer people would buy the 24-70.

Now, many of those who bought the 24-70 will upgrade to the 24-105. More sales??

Or is that just me being cynical?

I think size is probably the answer. The 14-30 and 24-70 paired with the Z6 or Z7 make for a tidy little package compared to Canon's offered 24-105.

 

[Martin Norden]

My personal opinion is that the correct lens at the Z launch should have been a 24-105/f4, this has become the standard zoom for many other brands so I am unsure why Nikon went with 24-70/f4 when they were clearly going to introduce a 24-70/f2.8 as the first 'pro-spec' lens within 12 month of launching the system. Please don't get me wrong, the 24-70/f4 is one superb lens and gets a lot of time on my camera but I miss having that 70+ telephoto range that I enjoyed with my D750 and 24-120

 

[Martin Norden]

How did I just notice that the 24-200 is a VR lens?


I'd expect it to be a constant f/4, otherwise I'd expect it to a compact lens option. Based on the lineup image, it's bigger than the 24-70 f/4 and 24-200 f/4-6.3 VR.

View attachment 1655287

I think size is probably the answer. The 14-30 and 24-70 paired with the Z6 or Z7 make for a tidy little package compared to Canon's offered 24-105.

View attachment 1655290

Is the Canon lens not bigger due to having IS built into the lens, whereas Nikon has IBIS?

 

[davidzvi]

Is the Canon lens not bigger due to having IS built into the lens, whereas Nikon has IBIS?

Could be some of it. But the point being "marketing" says "mirrorless is smaller and lighter"*. Nikon's basic starting kit fits that perception. Would it surprise me to also find out that some "if we put out the 24-105 first we wouldn't sell any of the 24-70 lenses"? No, not at all.

But, for example, I have an ONA Bowery bag, my current favorite bag to bring for family get a together. It holds my E-M1.2, flash, and a few primes. It would also easily hold a Z6, 14-30, 24-70, and flash or one if the f/1.8s. That fact has me thinking, it's not something I can afford to do anything about right now, but it still ahs me thinking.

*We know glass is still glass, but I'm not sure we're the general public.

 

[ac12]

Whether it is a replacement for the 24-70 or an adjunct to the 24-70 may boil down to whether it collapses like the 24-70 and the 14-30 do.​

I have gotten used to the 24-120 range, but the loss of 50 mm on the long end has not stopped me from using the 24-70.

On the other hand, even if I owned them all, I can only use one at a time

I would say it is both.
Like the FX 24-70 and 24-120.

For some (like me) the 24-105/4 will be a GP lens.

I personally like the 24-120 range as a GP lens, I use the equivalent 12-60 on my m4/3 camera.​

But the 24-120 is a somewhat large and heavy lens.​

​

For others who want a smaller/lighter lens, the 24-70/4 will be the lens.

Small and light requires a compromise. And for some of us who want/need small/light, the compromise of shorter zoom range and f/4 rather than f/2.8, will be worth it.​

​

Or if you need the extra stop faster lens, the 24-70/2.8 will be the lens.

And for some of us, there are times and places where that one extra stop will be important. Like to let you shoot at ISO 6400 instead of ISO 12800.​

I look at lenses like tools in a tool box.
Based on what and how you shoot, you select the lens that best meets YOUR needs.
For ME, it might be the 24-105, as a wider range GP lens.

For better or worse, I think extending/collapsing zooms is the standard design now.
I have a love/hate relationship with extending zooms. They pack smaller than an internal zoom, but the extending mechanism makes the zoom ring stiffer to turn than an internal zoom.