[thxbb12]

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.

[JJ_SO]

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.

[Brightcolours]

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

  Screen-Shot-2019-01-10-at-15.30.16.jpg (Size: 135.1 KB / Downloads: 9)

That Canon lens does look quite a bit smaller, even though both designs contain 11 elements.

[thxbb12]

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.

[JJ_SO]

True. But then you'd still have to buy a dated sensor

[Brightcolours]

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?

[JJ_SO]

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.

[JJ_SO]

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.