(01-09-2019, 11:22 PM)JJ_SO Wrote: [ -> ]Since I use the Z7, the Fuji basically is much less the portable option with great IQ - the Z7 simply is better. The teaser video of the upcoming eye-detect AF also looks promising. A 20-70 would just have more distortions on the short end than the 24-70 already "shines" with.
For the new 14-30 f4 vs the Fuji 10-24 that's likely true.
However, the Z primes are very large for their not so bright f1.8 apertures.
If they had made these much more compact, I'd definitely be interested. As it stands, not so much.
The 35 is a bit thinner, about same length as the Sigma Art version, yes - so not smaller. But a lot lighter: 358 to 659 grams. I don't think they could become much smaller, and I don't want that - for some Fuji lenses (like the f/2.0 versions) I don't save much space in my bag - the bags are made for normal sized lenses, smaller lenses just mean more air in the bag. Especially when one lens is ø 43 and the other 62 mm.
And speaking of wide angle zooms: I know somebody who exchanged his 14/2.8 for the 10-24/4, and now he bought the 14/2.8 again because it's better. The Nikkor Z 14-30 will eat the Fuji zoom for breakfast, even if it's only for more details for the bigger sensor. Here's where I see so much more in the Nikkor pictures than in the Fuji's, although the lenses are very good.
(01-10-2019, 12:09 AM)JJ_SO Wrote: [ -> ]The 35 is a bit thinner, about same length as the Sigma Art version, yes - so not smaller. But a lot lighter: 358 to 659 grams. I don't think they could become much smaller
[
attachment=43]
That Canon lens does look quite a bit smaller, even though both designs contain 11 elements.
(01-10-2019, 02:32 PM)Brightcolours Wrote: [ -> ] (01-10-2019, 12:09 AM)JJ_SO Wrote: [ -> ]The 35 is a bit thinner, about same length as the Sigma Art version, yes - so not smaller. But a lot lighter: 358 to 659 grams. I don't think they could become much smaller
That Canon lens does look quite a bit smaller, even though both designs contain 11 elements.
Yep, and it does macro on top of it which makes it much more versatile.
The Canon is a much more interesting proposition.
True. But then you'd still have to buy a dated sensor
(01-10-2019, 04:04 PM)thxbb12 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-10-2019, 02:32 PM)Brightcolours Wrote: [ -> ] (01-10-2019, 12:09 AM)JJ_SO Wrote: [ -> ]The 35 is a bit thinner, about same length as the Sigma Art version, yes - so not smaller. But a lot lighter: 358 to 659 grams. I don't think they could become much smaller
That Canon lens does look quite a bit smaller, even though both designs contain 11 elements.
Yep, and it does macro on top of it which makes it much more versatile.
The Canon is a much more interesting proposition.
It even has better background bokeh and less LoCA :-O
Won't mount on Nikon Z, though. But who knows, maybe the 4mm difference will make an adapter possible in future, from some enterprising company?
Would I pollute my beautiful Nikon with Canon glass? yuk. And get reminded every time I use it that the genial second ring is useless on a Nikon? And no one in Nikon's design department had a similar clever idea to come up with? No, I don't think so.
(01-08-2019, 10:42 PM)Klaus Wrote: [ -> ]Regarding the retractable design - I'm having doubts from a mechanical perspective. Based on what I've seen so far such lenses are more prone to centering issues. You may argue that there haven't been any high-end lenses with this mechanism but still ...
Keep in mind that the lens weighs 485 grams, and the retract mechanism (of the 24-70) is pretty solid. I don't think of it as a high-end lens. First, it's a zoom, second only f/4.