[JJ_SO]

...
I just don't see the Z system as being compelling compared to the competition, sorry.

I think Nikon should have followed a different strategy: two sets of primes: 24, 35, 50 in f2 (slow but super compact variants) and f1.4 (fast but larger variants).
A 85 f1.4 for portrait shooters and a 24-105 f4 zoom instead of the short 24-70.

This would be much more interesting IMO.

This is why you can't work in Nikon marketing, thxbb12

You are incapable of selling f/1.8 lenses as something breathtaking instead of what they are: a foul compromise. Back in the day, the cheap SLR body + nifty fifty always came in two versions: One with f/1.7, f/1.8, even f/1.9 And the good ones had to have f/1.4.

The difference was not that big and I'm sure you can make f/1.8 lenses really great (see Sigma 14/1.8 or 135/1.8, or 18-35/1.8), but I can't connect to the S-line as an outstanding product. Specs without a soul and no love to details, but much effort to cost-saving.

[Brightcolours]

F1.8? F1.4? Lets put things in perspective. f1.4 for "50mm"(55, 58) was normal fast, f1.2 really fast. For 85mm, f1.8 was the norm for a while, until f1.4 (and f1.2 for Canon) was the fast edition. For 35mm, f2 was "fast" for a very long time, until the Nikkor 35mm f1.4 appeared. For 135mm, f2 was the fast norm until, the latest generation, where f1.8 appeared.
So it does depend on focal length whether f1.8 is to be considered fast, or just a meh safe choice.

[JJ_SO]

37 years ago I bought a 85/1.4 Zeiss Planar and a 35/1.4 Distagon for Contax/Yashica. Don't try to make a f/1.4 look like something modern - it's not. There was a Planar 85/1.2 (1982) for Contax a while before Canon also had one (1989). Fast primes are no novelty. From 1928 Dr. Erich Salomon used an Ermanox with an f/2 lens, which later became f/1.8. Pre-war stuff...

And by putting things into perspective: I know it's not very common in the Netherlands to see prices like 1.98 € and pay them - usually it's 2.00 € then. But camera manufacturers tried to avoid the "slow" f/2.0 (as a lot of cheap lenses were f/2 something) and went for the compromise.

It's difficult to steer away from this reputation of cheap compromise. Fuji has two lines, one with f/1.4 or faster and one with f/2.0 or slower, and much more compact. This inbetween crap makes me wonder if Nikon really thinks someone is gonna pay an extra added plus for an f/1.4 to come? There's only one f/1.2 on the roadmap. One is close to "none". And as it's just another bloody 50 mm, I'm not interested anyway.

Also, for just f/1.8 no one needs a bigger mount diameter aslong as the primes are not exceeding 105 mm.

[davidmanze]

37 years ago I bought a 85/1.4 Zeiss Planar and a 35/1.4 Distagon for Contax/Yashica. Don't try to make a f/1.4 look like something modern - it's not. There was a Planar 85/1.2 (1982) for Contax a while before Canon also had one (1989). Fast primes are no novelty. From 1928 Dr. Erich Salomon used an Ermanox with an f/2 lens, which later became f/1.8. Pre-war stuff...

And by putting things into perspective: I know it's not very common in the Netherlands to see prices like 1.98 € and pay them - usually it's 2.00 € then. But camera manufacturers tried to avoid the "slow" f/2.0 (as a lot of cheap lenses were f/2 something) and went for the compromise.

It's difficult to steer away from this reputation of cheap compromise. Fuji has two lines, one with f/1.4 or faster and one with f/2.0 or slower, and much more compact. This inbetween crap makes me wonder if Nikon really thinks someone is gonna pay an extra added plus for an f/1.4 to come? There's only one f/1.2 on the roadmap. One is close to "none". And as it's just another bloody 50 mm, I'm not interested anyway.

Also, for just f/1.8 no one needs a bigger mount diameter aslong as the primes are not exceeding 105 mm.

" a foul compromise"  ........ I had to laugh .... all the implications of an undersized sewer pipe ......

[faint]

I don't argue, everyone has a point of view.

Fujinon APS-C lenses are light and compact, because they offer an optical compromise. To date, I haven't see an optical engineer defy the laws of physics. It works fine for street and portrait, their color-blind XTrans sensor - as well, but when you want to get anything serious, it's not there. And not having Sigma lenses means that you have no choice either.

For me, personally, the Nikon Z line of lenses offered two lenses that I like a lot - 24/1.8S and 50/1.8S. I already have better 85 than the 85/1.8S, I have a better 40 than the 35/1.8S, and I don't like zoom lenses much.

If you need a compact combo, wait for both compact primes that are coming up. Or use Olympus/Panasonic m4/3 or Fuji/Sony/Canon/Nikon/Pentax/Ricoh/Leica APS-C.

On the other hand, 1.8S primes make a lot of sense for me - yes, they hefty, compared to Canon EF 40/2.8 STM, or all plastic 50mm lenses, but they are also way better corrected, way sharper, and weather sealed than these. In addition, they still cost less than Sony F1.4 or Canon F1.2 lenses. So, the Z lineup is way better balanced and lighter than the competing Full-Frame lenses, offering comparable, if not better IQ for less. If you need 1/2 or 2/3 EV faster glass on FF, go with the other four companies..

And since Nikon makes better deals in Europe, it's as expensive as running a Fujifilm system.

[Brightcolours]

37 years ago I bought a 85/1.4 Zeiss Planar and a 35/1.4 Distagon for Contax/Yashica. Don't try to make a f/1.4 look like something modern - it's not. There was a Planar 85/1.2 (1982) for Contax a while before Canon also had one (1989). Fast primes are no novelty. From 1928 Dr. Erich Salomon used an Ermanox with an f/2 lens, which later became f/1.8. Pre-war stuff...

And by putting things into perspective: I know it's not very common in the Netherlands to see prices like 1.98 € and pay them - usually it's 2.00 € then. But camera manufacturers tried to avoid the "slow" f/2.0 (as a lot of cheap lenses were f/2 something) and went for the compromise.

It's difficult to steer away from this reputation of cheap compromise. Fuji has two lines, one with f/1.4 or faster and one with f/2.0 or slower, and much more compact. This inbetween crap makes me wonder if Nikon really thinks someone is gonna pay an extra added plus for an f/1.4 to come? There's only one f/1.2 on the roadmap. One is close to "none". And as it's just another bloody 50 mm, I'm not interested anyway.

Also, for just f/1.8 no one needs a bigger mount diameter aslong as the primes are not exceeding 105 mm.

I was not saying or pretending to say that f1.4 is something modern... I was pointing out that for instance 50mm lenses have been f1.4 and f1.2 like forever, that 85mm f1.4/f1.2 is of a later date, that after that wider angle lenses showed up with f1.4 and that longer lenses (135mm, 200mm) are super fast now at f1.8 "only". So, that f1.8 does not mean much in itself if you do not consider the focal length too.

And to correct you: Canon's 1st 85mm f1.2 dates from January 1976, the 2nd 85mm f1.2 dates from March 1980, both predating that Contax comfortably.

I agree that on the whole, f1.8 reads and "feels" really slow... As long as we are not talking about 135mm, 200mm, 17mm lenses and such. I do not really understand why there is for instance not even a 85mm f1.4 on the roadmap.

[faint]

Official roadmaps are to show you what's behind the corner, and the company wants to disclose. I've read recently a great argument for not revealing everything - some lenses might give away what Nikon is cooking behind the scenes. And Nikon wants you to buy stuff right now, not to wait another year for the next body or a faster lens.

The thing is, for me, things are pretty straight forward:
- Canon does not offer great sensors, otherwise fast lenses and great Dual Pixel tech
- Sony has more difficulties with corner performance because of the tight mount, but great for portrait
- Pana does not have too many lenses right now, and they stopped offering S1 with the 24-105, which is a mistake IMHO.
- I cannot afford Leica
- Nikon is the middle of the road, offering a balanced experience, which attracts many people. F and manual focus lenses work great!

[Klaus]

I don't see any special corner issues on Sony FF cameras.
I'd say, however, that Sony's designers are, on the average, not on Canon's level.
Pana's S cameras are too big. It's Ok to have a big camera in the lineup but not all of them.
I agree that Nikon is nice but their lenses don't impress me. e.g. the 14-30mm is a better fisheye and the 24-70mm f/4 is a retractable lens, really?

[Rover]

BC is right, judging aperture values without linking them to the focal length is silly. A 50/1.8 is commonplace; 200/1.8 or even 300/1.8, not so much. Even for 135mm f/1.8 is about as good as it (reasonably) gets. For 14mm, it's the bleeding edge.

But even in the midrange, I'm not opposed to having a high-end 50ish lens (in my case, the Tamron 45/1.8).

[faint]

Let the team review some of the lenses, and than we will discuss again whether or not is it worth it.

F1.4 with the same optical performance will be huge, and if you are shooting at 5.6 anyway, it makes no sense... F1.8 is a great compromise on FF.