Industry News: Nikon officially announces the 14-24mm F2.8 S and 50mm F1.2 S for Z-mount

[Max TT]

Too bad their mirrorless camera body line is so far behind the rest. Great lenses, great images, meh everything else..

Agreed, Z6s and Z7s needs to be delivered soon. These lenses look to be fantastic.

Others here have a better understanding than I do of the technical aspects of how the components of a camera body affects certain things. Maybe they can chime in...

A couple of my friends who shoot with Z6 and Z7 tell me that the AF issues are a result of the processor. And they seem to think that the Dual Expeed processors rumored to be in the updated bodies will greatly enhance the AF performance.

 

[Billybob]

I think Canon did show that by building up a RF lens line that they were willing to think things completely new.
Personally I have no interest in buying a 28-70/2 lens but I welcome Canons courage to make it.
Also they made a 15-35/2.8 IS out of a 100% trinity buy 16-35/2.8. Again some more courage.
If Nikon is right, that all the people loving the "old" 14-24 will get the new S lens they're fine - but they didn't add any extra mm or some IS, so they didn't show courage.

I agree with you that the 28-70/2 was courageous even if it is primarily a statement lens. I notice how quickly Canon followed if with a more traditional 24-70 IS 2.8 (using, including IS in such a lens has become par for the course).

I don't think that 15-35/2.8 was particularly courageous but more a reflection of exploiting new capabilities or abilities afforded by the new RF mount.

A more courageous effort was releasing the 100-500L as a 100-400L replacement with a 7.1 max aperture. When I first saw the announcement, I was sure that it was dead on arrival. Now I'm a proud owner (don't come to me for business prognostication).

Perhaps the most courageous thing Canon has done is offer these exotic lenses for $2200-$3000 and believing that there would be enough demand at these breathtaking levels for these lenses to provide a reasonable return!

 

[fabiorossi]

Are there really people who think that Nikon's new mount offers better options that the RF mount?
Of course, is subjective, but from the Nikon side, it was mostly complaints about the lenses they offer.

 

[Bert63]

Agreed, Z6s and Z7s needs to be delivered soon. These lenses look to be fantastic.

Others here have a better understanding than I do of the technical aspects of how the components of a camera body affects certain things. Maybe they can chime in...

A couple of my friends who shoot with Z6 and Z7 tell me that the AF issues are a result of the processor. And they seem to think that the Dual Expeed processors rumored to be in the updated bodies will greatly enhance the AF performance.

That would be awesome. I hate to see them lagging.

 

[Ozarker]

f/1.2 from Nikon. Nikon shooters are saying: "Thank you, Canon!"

 

[Ozarker]

I agree with you that the 28-70/2 was courageous even if it is primarily a statement lens.

Nah, far more than a "statement" lens. Where the heck does that idea even come from?

 

[Maximilian]

...
I don't think that 15-35/2.8 was particularly courageous but more a reflection of exploiting new capabilities or abilities afforded by the new RF mount.
...

From the pure spec list I agree with you.
But without studying the patents and optical formulas of both EF 16-36 and RF15-35 I am sure that the RF was designed completely from scratch with all the time and R&D costs similar to a 28-70/2.
With only one difference in enterprise: sales numbers will be noticeably higher

 

[DJL329]

You know, that 50mm ART lens doesn't look so big anymore!

 

[Deleted member 381342]

A couple of my friends who shoot with Z6 and Z7 tell me that the AF issues are a result of the processor. And they seem to think that the Dual Expeed processors rumored to be in the updated bodies will greatly enhance the AF performance.

As a user of the Z6 and currently trying out the 500mm f/5.6 PF with it. The DSLR type AF is fast and accurate, but the Nikon's lock on and eye AF is just that little bit too slow. When disabling things like exposure preview the AF gets a lot faster which suggests it really is just too much on that one processor. Canon also where only just able to get their ass in gear and it is largely thanks to the Digic X being a pretty damn fast processor. So Nikon ether can make a faster processor or use two processors in order to catch up.

Basically in my opinion, Canon and Nikon went into this mirrorless stuff with old thinking regarding processing requirements. They put a processor in that was plenty fast for a DSLR but didn't consider how much more is going to rely on that now or they just didn't have the processor power left. The Nikon's are also on their 3rd firmware that is so completely different from version one and with features that are way beyond what that CPU was asked of at first.

However the Z6 and Z7 both have what I would still consider top tier sensors and everyone I know with one of these as a main or second camera just want the same exact sensors but with more CPU grunt.

 

[blackcoffee17]

Are there really people who think that Nikon's new mount offers better options that the RF mount?
Of course, is subjective, but from the Nikon side, it was mostly complaints about the lenses they offer.

Depends on everyone's needs. As a Canon user i find Nikon's lineup less impressive but more practical.

50mm 1.8 - small, lightweight, internal focus, weather sealed and super good optically. Also doesn't costs an arm and a leg like Canon's RF 50 1.2.
If you don't really need the 1 stop extra light and DOF then it's a better choice. I don't think Canon's future "cheap" 50mm will be as good optically.

24-70 and 14-24 F4 - great combo, both very good optically, affordable, lightweight and weather sealed

200-600 - A better wildlife lens than Canon's 100-500 for half the price. (i expect to be the same price as Sony's similar lens)

 

[analoggrotto]

Hola Nikon! Welcome to Canon in the 90s!

 

[pj1974]

Depends on everyone's needs. As a Canon user i find Nikon's lineup less impressive but more practical.

50mm 1.8 - small, lightweight, internal focus, weather sealed and super good optically. Also doesn't costs an arm and a leg like Canon's RF 50 1.2.
If you don't really need the 1 stop extra light and DOF then it's a better choice. I don't think Canon's future "cheap" 50mm will be as good optically.

24-70 and 14-24 F4 - great combo, both very good optically, affordable, lightweight and weather sealed

200-600 - A better wildlife lens than Canon's 100-500 for half the price. (i expect to be the same price as Sony's similar lens)

I definitely see what you're saying - and I agree with some of the points you make.

There are currently some different gaps between the Nikon S mount lenses and Canon RF mounts.. but this gap will close.

Canon's RF 24-105mm f/4 is very well regarded. I expect Canon will make a RF 24-70mm f/4 as a cheaper / smaller option (to both the RF 24-70mm f/2.8 and RF 24-105mm f/4).

I also expect Canon to come out with a RF 50mm (maybe f/2) - somewhat like the RF 85mm f/2.

The Canon RF 100-500mm is going to be more useful for those wanting more of a 'walk-around' telezoom, the 200mm on the Nikon wide end is much more limiting. (I speak from experience having used a ~200mm as a minimum, isn't helpful in all situations. For safari photos of long-distance wildlife though, it'll be absolutely great).

After a few more years, there will be far fewer gaps in either the lineup, and more lenses will be 'like for like' comparable. Both are doing great jobs.. Nikon started off with more consumer / everyday lenses, Canon with more Pro / extreme lenses.

Competition is good. I hope prices will 'mild down' somewhat on the Canon RF lenses too.

In the meantime though, the EF-RF adapter works VERY well using EF/EF-S lenses, especially on the R6 and R5 bodies.. (again speaking from experience).

PJ

 

[Del Paso]

When hiking in the mountains, my lens-camera combo consists of:
EOS 5 D IV plus 100-400 L and 50 macro Zeiss
EOS R plus 16-35 f4 or Leica M with 28mm and 50 macro
A 200-600 wouldn't be practical at all, I'd really miss the 100mm option, and would need an additional 100mm lens.
200-600 :for birders OK, but for a more universal use: no way (for me!)
My next lens will be the 100-500 RF (but I'll always keep my beloved 100-400).

 

[fabiorossi]

I definitely see what you're saying - and I agree with some of the points you make.

There are currently some different gaps between the Nikon S mount lenses and Canon RF mounts.. but this gap will close.

Canon's RF 24-105mm f/4 is very well regarded. I expect Canon will make a RF 24-70mm f/4 as a cheaper / smaller option (to both the RF 24-70mm f/2.8 and RF 24-105mm f/4).

I also expect Canon to come out with a RF 50mm (maybe f/2) - somewhat like the RF 85mm f/2.

The Canon RF 100-500mm is going to be more useful for those wanting more of a 'walk-around' telezoom, the 200mm on the Nikon wide end is much more limiting. (I speak from experience having used a ~200mm as a minimum, isn't helpful in all situations. For safari photos of long-distance wildlife though, it'll be absolutely great).

After a few more years, there will be far fewer gaps in either the lineup, and more lenses will be 'like for like' comparable. Both are doing great jobs.. Nikon started off with more consumer / everyday lenses, Canon with more Pro / extreme lenses.

Competition is good. I hope prices will 'mild down' somewhat on the Canon RF lenses too.

In the meantime though, the EF-RF adapter works VERY well using EF/EF-S lenses, especially on the R6 and R5 bodies.. (again speaking from experience).

PJ

Yes, that's why I like the Canon initial approach more than the Nikon. Canon uses the new mount to create very unique and professional lenses, while you have the adapter to use the very capable EF lenses almost as natives.