Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Lenstip review of the Nikkor Z 24 mm f/1.8 S
#11
(04-21-2020, 07:08 AM)faint Wrote: Many thanks, David! Yes, my first copy was pretty bad in selected regions, but otherwise - it was looking food in some places, e.g. close to the centre. Now, my lens was on display, it was maybe one of the first units that were imported, and the only one available. So, someone might have given it a knock - I don't exclude that possibility since there was another lens that I was previously interested in - the Zeiss Milvus 1.4/35mm, but it has a small dent so I decided to pass and go for Sigma Art 40/1.4 instead.

I'm yet to test the new replacement properly, but it seems like a decent lens - not thrilling, but not awful either. By f/8, it is good for landscape with little visible CA, etc.

The question regarding price/performance and QC remain valid and the whole experience having to deal again with the local Nikon rep left a bitter taste in my mouth, but to be fair - all new lenses are more expensive because of weather sealing, coatings, and market stagnation. I just wish they were worth it!

It would also have been easier to discuss the topic if there were more test of 24mm lenses around on the same place, so we can have a better picture of the market. Unfortunately, that costs money!

   Perhaps when you have tested the lens you could link a wide open RAW image to dropbox or something ...... even of the same scene in the thread .......... that would be nice ...... fun even.
Dave's clichés
#12
I don't think we will ever get any information about the problems Nikon faced when transferring production lines to Thailand and China. The S-line zooms are made in Thailand (even the cheapos for APS-C, and they are pretty good), the primes are made in China.

I don't want to come up with old prejudices, there is good quality coming from China - but also a lot of crap, if it has to be only cheap. But somehow I think about the time of experience with lens construction in Japan and what I read about work ethics in Japan. How can this be transferred to another country? Which was primarily selected by Nikon to cut costs (and raise margins, too) due to low salaries.

The S-line lenses are not exactly cheap, and they are not exactly fast. If I want nice bokeh, I use the FTZ adapter and mount a Sigma. The fastest zooms are f/2.8, the fastest AF-primes are f/1.8 at price close to f/1.4 of third party manufacturers. And then there is a manual focus showcase lens beyond the financial possibilities of 98 % of Z-owners. The best thing one can say about Nikon's product strategies is, it is different from others. But with the new EOS R5 Canon increases the gap and Nikon keeps falling back. At least, I'm not guilty of having Z recommended to anybody. Shy
#13
(04-21-2020, 10:16 AM)JJ_SO Wrote: I don't think we will ever get any information about the problems Nikon faced when transferring production lines to Thailand and China. The S-line zooms are made in Thailand (even the cheapos for APS-C, and they are pretty good), the primes are made in China.

I don't want to come up with old prejudices, there is good quality coming from China - but also a lot of crap, if it has to be only cheap. But somehow I think about the time of experience with lens construction in Japan and what I read about work ethics in Japan. How can this be transferred to another country? Which was primarily selected by Nikon to cut costs (and raise margins, too) due to low salaries.

The S-line lenses are not exactly cheap, and they are not exactly fast. If I want nice bokeh, I use the FTZ adapter and mount a Sigma. The fastest zooms are f/2.8, the fastest AF-primes are f/1.8 at price close to f/1.4 of third party manufacturers. And then there is a manual focus showcase lens beyond the financial possibilities of 98 % of Z-owners. The best thing one can say about Nikon's product strategies is, it is different from others. But with the new EOS R5 Canon increases the gap and Nikon keeps falling back. At least, I'm not guilty of having Z recommended to anybody. Shy

I'm getting a little nervous about Nikon ....... the Z bodies are pretty good ...... but still lagging behind with their AF ..... the S lenses are decent overall but unadventurous ..... many will be switching from F1.4 glass to F1.8, or use the adapter .... 
   Canon seems to be marching along nicely with already spectacular glass and as you say are cutting a pretty decent lead ....... has Nikon accepted to be second to Canon ? ....
  At this time of change with so many DSLR shooters peering over the fence looking at the ML options ...... it starting to look a little underwhelming from the Nikon camp !!

 ...... Nikon better get on the case pretty smartish ..... because when most have made the change to ML (willingly or not) and bought a few lenses ..... 
 
  ........ what sort of size market will exist after that for huge corporate camera companies?
Dave's clichés
#14
I think the word "lead" does not apply to both Nikon and Canon in this market segment. Both are distant followers at best.

Canon has high-end lenses but no camera to match. There are no affordable ultra-wide nor tele lenses (Ok, there's the Samyang 14 if you like to collect breadcrumbs).

Nikon is not too bad from my perspective actually but the question remains why bothering with a secondary platform in the first place.

Of course, the die-hards will buy them anyway but that's more an emotional decision than anything else. Of course, there's nothing wrong with emotional purchases. That's the business model of many brands.
Chief Editor - opticallimits.com

Doing all things Canon, MFT, Sony and Fuji
#15
(04-21-2020, 11:14 PM)Klaus Wrote: I think the word "lead" does not apply to both Nikon and Canon in this market segment. Both are distant followers at best.

Canon has high-end lenses but no camera to match. There are no affordable ultra-wide nor tele lenses (Ok, there's the Samyang 14 if you like to collect breadcrumbs).

Nikon is not too bad from my perspective actually but the question remains why bothering with a secondary platform in the first place.

Of course, the die-hards will buy them anyway but that's more an emotional decision than anything else. Of course, there's nothing wrong with emotional purchases. That's the business model of many brands.

When I said "lead" that was between Canon and Nikon ..... not leading the overall market ....... the race between the two big DSLR companies ..... 

  What about the upcoming EOS R5 ?
 
 Are you asking why Nikon has taken the step towards ML?
Dave's clichés
#16
(04-21-2020, 11:14 PM)Klaus Wrote: I think the word "lead" does not apply to both Nikon and Canon in this market segment. Both are distant followers at best.

Canon has high-end lenses but no camera to match. There are no affordable ultra-wide nor tele lenses (Ok, there's the Samyang 14 if you like to collect breadcrumbs).

Nikon is not too bad from my perspective actually but the question remains why bothering with a secondary platform in the first place.

Of course, the die-hards will buy them anyway but that's more an emotional decision than anything else. Of course, there's nothing wrong with emotional purchases. That's the business model of many brands.

Mr. Schroiff knows how to provoke answers Dodgy Big Grin

I'd say, buying a camera is mostly an emotional decision - no one needs one and the few pros are benefitting of some millions of amateurs who keep the manufacturers of pro cameras alive. All what we read about cameras are not much more than "facts tickling the guts" but also subjective impressions of testers. As we also come to an emotional impression when we touch the tool to create pictures - or simply to snap some memories.

I totally agree on the leadership which doesn't belong to CaNikon, they were late at the party.

I disagree on "Of course, the die-hards will buy them anyway...." - these "die-hards" are glued to their DSLR with apparently gazillion years of learning how to work around the systematic weaknesses of these tools. If you like to know about them die-hards just mention EVF...

I don't consider myself a die-hard. I was just tired of endless sessions of at least check the cooperation between lens and AF-system and trying to improve them. Getting a slightly better guess-rate out of this system consumed hours.

I dipped my toe into ML waters long before Nikon came out with Z, then Canon with R and regretfully the latest to the party, the L-mount guys. But talking about FF alone would be missing the point. There's much more DNA of Nikon's 1 system in the Z than the average reviewer tells us, as most of the average reviewers never cared about this system. "Care" like in "using it on a daily basis". It was as easy to judge it as "too small" as it is to judge Sony's menus as "cluttered" or Canon's sensor as "dated". Common sense" can also mean "common misunderstandings".

Now, I'm interested how long Sony will keep up their leadership in FF mirrorless bodies, how long they will look at customers buying their bodies but ignoring most of their lenses? A friend of me got two of these bodies. From the beginning he went for Tamron, Voigtländer and Laowa lenses. The only Sony lens he aquired later, the incredibly cool 200-600.

A decision for a (and against "the others") camera system is always a gut based one. We collect facts to make us look like rational people, but who buys a superior camera with an ugly design and a lousy grip?
#17
I fully agree with you regarding the ergonomics of Sony cameras - I mentioned that several times.

However, this is also a number game ...

Full format AF lenses:
* Sony: 72 (+16 non-AF with electronic coupling)
* Nikon: 10
* Canon: 12
* L-mount: 29

Full format cameras - so far:
* Sony: 11
* Canon: 2
* Nikon: 2
* L-mount: 6

Even the adapter argument doesn't count - there are AF adapters from Canon EF & Nikon to Sony FE.

Heck, even L-mount is more attractive than CaNikon as of now ...

But yes, this will change over time.
Chief Editor - opticallimits.com

Doing all things Canon, MFT, Sony and Fuji
#18
(04-22-2020, 08:22 AM)JJ_SO Wrote:
(04-21-2020, 11:14 PM)Klaus Wrote: I think the word "lead" does not apply to both Nikon and Canon in this market segment. Both are distant followers at best.

Canon has high-end lenses but no camera to match. There are no affordable ultra-wide nor tele lenses (Ok, there's the Samyang 14 if you like to collect breadcrumbs).

Nikon is not too bad from my perspective actually but the question remains why bothering with a secondary platform in the first place.

Of course, the die-hards will buy them anyway but that's more an emotional decision than anything else. Of course, there's nothing wrong with emotional purchases. That's the business model of many brands.

Mr. Schroiff knows how to provoke answers Dodgy Big Grin

I'd say, buying a camera is mostly an emotional decision - no one needs one and the few pros are benefiting of some millions of amateurs who keep the manufacturers of pro cameras alive. All what we read about cameras is not much more than "facts tickling the guts" but also subjective impressions of testers. As we also come to an emotional impression when we touch the tool to create pictures - or simply to snap some memories.

I totally agree, the leadership doesn't belong to CaNikon, they were late to the party.

I disagree on "Of course, the die-hards will buy them anyway...." - these "die-hards" are glued to their DSLR with apparently gazillion years of learning how to work around the systematic weaknesses of these tools. If you like to know about them die-hards just mention EVF...

I don't consider myself a die-hard. I was just tired of endless sessions of at least check the cooperation between lens and AF-system and trying to improve them. Getting a slightly better guess-rate out of this system consumed hours.

I dipped my toe into ML waters long before Nikon came out with Z, then Canon with R and regretfully the latest to the party, the L-mount guys. But talking about FF alone would be missing the point. There's much more DNA in Nikon's 1 system in the Z than the average reviewer tells us, as most of the average reviewers never cared about this system. "Care" like as in "using it on a daily basis". It was as easy to judge it as "too small" as it is to judge Sony's menus as "cluttered" or Canon's sensor as "dated". Common sense" can also mean "common misunderstandings".

Now, I'm interested how long Sony will keep up their leadership in FF mirrorless bodies, how long they will look at customers buying their bodies but ignoring most of their lenses? A friend of "mine" got two of these bodies. From the beginning he went for Tamron, Voigtländer and Laowa lenses. The only Sony lens he acquired later, the incredibly cool 200-600.

A decision for a (and against "the others") camera system is always a gut based one. We collect facts to make us look like rational people, but who buys a superior camera with an ugly design and a lousy grip?
Quote:

"I'd say, buying a camera is mostly an emotional decision"

   So is getting married ...... however ....  Smile

    Many of these so called Die-hards of Canon and Nikon have "died-hard" already  ..... going to Sony especially ........ or just lost once and for all to the smart phone market.
 
...... Pentaxians are probably the best example of die-hards ..... and I don't think many would bet their shirt on their survival .....

   I just hope for Nikon's sake they are burning the midnight oil designing and manufacturing the Z8/Z9, with all the wherewithal to match and improve over Sony's example (at least technically).
Dave's clichés
#19
(04-22-2020, 10:59 AM)Klaus Wrote: ...
However, this is also a number game ...

Full format AF lenses:
* Sony: 72 (+16 non-AF with electronic coupling)
* Nikon: 10
* Canon: 12
* L-mount: 29
....
Well, one needs to look behind the numbers - and very soon the 10 of Nikon are melting down as some of them are simply redundant: 2 × 24-70 (covering 24, 35, 50, 58), 14-30 (covering 20 and 24). The lenses are solid performers, but there's not a single one which could serve as reason to switch or at least get a Z-body.

Btw., I counted 10 Canon lenses (currently at their website) and 13 Nikkors - of which 4 are not available - one can preorder them but I haven't found dealers with sort of reliable delivery dates.

Anyway, I care not much about numbers of lenses I could mount, I care about if the lenses I'd like to use are available. I had some hopes Nikon would deliver, and they would deliver faster. By the time they come up with a 100 mm-ish macro, a lot of owners will have bought a Laowa APO 100 - I assume that one only falls short if one likes to see EXIF, but optically it's super-hard to compete with.
#20
Of course, the sheer number is meaningless on a personal level - but they are surely relevant on a globally.

In my case, I'd be a happy camper with a (FF-equiv) ~18, 24-105, 100-~400 and a ~85/2.

FWIW, I filtered the numbers here (in German):
https://geizhals.de/?cat=acamobjo&xf=223...FKleinbild

PS: Sony doesn't top the list. MFT offers 86 different AF lenses.
Chief Editor - opticallimits.com

Doing all things Canon, MFT, Sony and Fuji
  


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
4 Guest(s)