Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Nikon Neglect?
#41
(11-18-2019, 11:59 AM)Brightcolours Wrote: For 90% of the folk, cellphones do nicely, Dave.

FF is all about the possibility of shallow DOF. So, having the option to have f1.4 for wide/normal primes is kinda a must for FF platforms, as are f2.8 wide to portrait tele zooms. Does not mean every lens has to be (that) fast, but having the option to add one or a few, is kinda a must.

JoJu has pointed out the Z glass issues he has, I believe. He talked about hotspots, which I am curious about what he means by them in images, and leaving distortion correction up to software (would like to see that too).

  90% of ILCs if you like.

     The F1.4 and F1.2 lenses are on their way .... with the Z 85mm F1.8 costing around $900 I think Nikon did right to bring that to market first.

(11-18-2019, 12:51 PM)JJ_SO Wrote: And you also don't know the Z system by actually using it, right?

It's 14 months (very much to my own surprise). Did you compare the lens selection of Nikon with the one of Canon? Nikon has more lenses - by numbers. Canon has more interesting lenses - by far! A 35/1.8 macro (although "only" 1:2), 50 and 85 f/1.2, 28-70/2.0 (right from the beginning), a much more versatile 24-105/4 (whereas Nikon just doubles their 24-70s), and a 24-200 FF.

On Nikon's side, the number of available (so no 58/0.95) FF lenses is just one (!) more, which is one of the 24-70s, else than that only primes. Oh - forgot the 14-30/4. Yes, probably all of them are sharper as their F-pendants. None of them, except the 24-70/2.8, features a distance scale or at least an EXIF distance entry.

My opinion about my Z-lenses.
35: Nice, but not better than the Sigma 35/1.4 at f/1.8
85: Nervous bokeh wide open at certain distances, but compared to the (sharper and more bokehlicious) Art 85/1.4 a lightweight. Hunts in low light.
14-30: Sharp - but not as good as the Art 14-24/2.8. Horrible distorsions, awkward extension: @ 14 mm the tubes are in it's longest position, @ 24 mm in their shortest. To retract the tubes (for transport) I first need to extract it to the max, then it starts to retract. Weird.
24-70/4: Better than the lousy F 24-85/3.5-4.5, good for close-up (but not as good as the Canon 35).

Both zooms can show colour blobs because reflections between rear element and sensor are not perfectly eliminated. These are harder to treat than "normal" lens flare. And I haven't seen it when F-glass was adapted.

The good thing about all primes is their lightweight and weather resistance, silent focus drives.

The less good things are: too "many" different filter threads, no reliable distance scale (neither in-camera nor on the lens), zooms are depending on massive software correction and Canon's idea of an additional function ring (for aperture or VV-correction) did only find it's way in the expensive 24-70/2.8.

Then there are two more lenses because marketing found it cool to start an APS-C line. Actually if their Z 50 would have featured a tilt-swivel display, I would have jumped on it. Would have been awesome. 

The adapter. One of the weirdest devices. Again, look at Canon's design (extra control ring or drop in filter or nothing of all) and then see what went wrong with the stupid idea to integrate a tripod socket on another level than the camera's bottom plate. In practical use it's a nightmare to switch between F and Z glass when the camera is on tripod in a quick-release. They just copied the FT1 adapter (at the time a pricey device) and blew it up to scale. Nothing learnt. I can understand the tiny wheeny 1-mount needed all kind of (tripod) support to not rip it out when mounting an average FF lens, but the Z mount is bigger and includes more screws.

There were apparently not enough brain cells involved to donate an Arca compatible socket, but that stubborness is to be seen in all Nikon tripod collars - one big reason for me to buy Tamron or Sigma instead.

In short: If someone with a good set of Nikon DSLRs and nice lenses would ask me if it's good moment to buy into the Z-system, I would hesitate a "yes".

To get the curve towards the thread subject: Yes, there's a lack of reviews of Nikkor Z lenses. But there are "many" fewer alternatives than in other systems, so its really not that much of an issue.

No apart from just looking through the Z6 I've never used one.


However, I'm aware of the tripod screw on the adapter, pinky room on the grip and general haptic annoyances, one being remedied by the Meike all metal grip spacer. 
  Nikon's lens feet are in their own league ....... 

  Are these blobs the purple kind that used to turn up on early film lenses when mounted on DSLR bodies ??

 The lenses are devoid of what was compulsory in the good old days, distance scales, IR marks, DOF scales etc. .... a little sad.

    Other than that though, the Zs are 100% ........  Smile   Wink
Dave's clichés
#42
No f/1.4, Dave, only three f/1.2 (35, 50, 85 - so nothing new, one could say...). And all of them will be North of 2k$, I guess.

Also, an f/1.8G before was 57% of the Z-version. Or the Z version costs one 174% of the G version. You decide if the new Z is 74 % better than the old one. I know it is not better than the Sigma Art. But of course, the Z version really is improved and a lot lighter to carry around.
#43
In my view, the Z 85mm f1.8 renders quite a bit nicer (except at MFD, as JoJu has aptly demonstrated). The elevated price compared to the 85mm f1.8 also should be viewed in context of introduction date, 2012?
And of course, compared to the AF-S 58mm f1.4mm it is a steal ;-)

On the other hand, the FE 85mm f1.8 from Sony is lighter, costs less (3 elements less). But seems to render quite a bit worse on normal 85mm focus distances.

You can look at whether the Z 85mm f1.8 is priced fairly from so many angles, it can make your head spin.
#44
(11-18-2019, 12:51 PM)JJ_SO Wrote: In short: If someone with a good set of Nikon DSLRs and nice lenses would ask me if it's good moment to buy into the Z-system, I would hesitate a "yes".

Out of honest curiosity (and without the background of having read every thread around the topic here in the last months): why did you? What did you hope to find in a completely new system that a long established and matured system did not offer you?
Editor
opticallimits.com

#45
(11-18-2019, 11:59 AM)Brightcolours Wrote: ...
JoJu has pointed out the Z glass issues he has, I believe. He talked about hotspots, which I am curious about what he means by them in images, and leaving distortion correction up to software (would like to see that too).

I can prepare a small gallery with the distortions and the colour blobs lthough I think I already posted them?

Ok, colour blobs I just found here: https://sojujo.smugmug.com/Testshots/Z7-...t/n-nHST7z

The differences between the 85s you can find here:
https://sojujo.smugmug.com/Testshots/2-d...7/n-sBzfZt

So, I just need to throw some corrected and uncorrected 14-30 samples in.
#46
Thanks for the blobs image, now I see what you mean. Pretty odd to behold! Have these blobs been noticed/discussed by others? (by others I mean somewhere else in the internet)
#47
(11-18-2019, 02:34 PM)JJ_SO Wrote:
(11-18-2019, 11:59 AM)Brightcolours Wrote: ...
JoJu has pointed out the Z glass issues he has, I believe. He talked about hotspots, which I am curious about what he means by them in images, and leaving distortion correction up to software (would like to see that too).

I can prepare a small gallery with the distortions and the colour blobs lthough I think I already posted them?

Ok, colour blobs I just found here: https://sojujo.smugmug.com/Testshots/Z7-...t/n-nHST7z

The differences between the 85s you can find here:
https://sojujo.smugmug.com/Testshots/2-d...7/n-sBzfZt

So, I just need to throw some corrected and uncorrected 14-30 samples in.

      Quite a testing situation with the sun bursting through the tree.... producing some weird effects!
 Bokeh looks good on both lenses with the Sigma slightly nicer ..... maybe?
Dave's clichés
#48
Dave, honestly, on some shots I can't tell which lens I used. I am under the impression that the bokeh of the Sigma was a tad more smooth, more creamy, but there's a situation I used the Nikkor 85 S with object in certain distance (maybe 2-3 meters away) and behind there was a background with leaves and stuff in 6-8 meters (I don't measure, it's just guessing). With f/2 I was expecting the background to gently flow together - but everything stayed noticeably and a bit disturbing.

On some front light shots it's a bit weird if I need highlight recovery. Like this one here:

[Image: i-fS5qZFD-X3.jpg]

I already suspected I took a double exposure because of the transition zones - but I don't think I did. I find it interesting as picture, but not my ideal of a smooth bokeh. What do you think?
#49
(11-18-2019, 08:48 PM)JJ_SO Wrote: Dave, honestly, on some shots I can't tell which lens I used. I am under the impression that the bokeh of the Sigma was a tad more smooth, more creamy, but there's a situation I used the Nikkor 85 S with object in certain distance (maybe 2-3 meters away) and behind there was a background with leaves and stuff in 6-8 meters (I don't measure, it's just guessing). With f/2 I was expecting the background to gently flow together - but everything stayed noticeably and a bit disturbing.

On some front light shots it's a bit weird if I need highlight recovery. Like this one here:

[Image: i-fS5qZFD-X3.jpg]

I already suspected I took a double exposure because of the transition zones - but I don't think I did. I find it interesting as picture, but not my ideal of a smooth bokeh. What do you think?

  I sat and looked for many minutes ... the rendering remained smooth and soft which often doesn't when you look for a while .... very nice shot, I'm impressed !! ..... 
   Of what I've seen of this lens and I've seen many images hitting the forums, this is the lens I would like ..... but I want it on a DSLR Wink Smile ..... so I can't have it !!
   It's what I said Nikon are nailing it with these Z lenses ..... you can get the Z 50mm F1.8 for €330 euros ..... it's steal ....
Dave's clichés
#50
I know one pro who sold his 50 mm S lens because he was very unhappy with the bokeh. And I'm not using my 50 mm Art enough to double it.

The softness you're talking about I also like, but less so the sharp contours within the transition zone. I like the picture because it is weird, but I would not like it as a portrait.

Now, here is a gallery with samples of the 14-30: https://sojujo.smugmug.com/Testshots/Nik...S/n-HxmSQJ

First the corrected and uncorrected interior shots, then a comparison with Sigma Art 14-24.
  


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)