It is not going to stop there I am afraid. This is only the 1.8. It really makes me curious about the 50/1.2... (and the others yet to be announced)
The GetDPI Photography Forum
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
Nikon Z lens roadmap
- Thread starter Jack
- Start date
beware, from a friends pictures, to me it looks like the 85 is more "clean", a bit less character, so perhaps emotionwise more cold (?, but I don't own it, so I can't tell for sure)
JD who's going to Sony, didn't like it as much as his 105/1.4; then I talk to another guy who sold his 105/1.4 after getting the 85S because he always went for the 85S. I see the images, and I like what I see from the 85S. I do know from past, *I* prefer using an 85 for portraits and people and even environmental landscape isolations over a 105. Given I am now solidly in the Z camp, I think the 85S is going to land in my bag :thumbup:
Darin Marcus
Well-known member
Review just posted by Photography Life: https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-z-85mm-f1-8-s
I own both the 85s as well as the 105/1.4. I have noticed the 85 has more contrast and appears to be a tad sharper than the 105. The 85 may not be as stellar as the 50 but IMO it comes pretty damn close.
Jan Brittenson
Senior Subscriber Member
Sigh. Ordered the 85/1.8 S as well.
You guys aren't helping...
Seriously though, these lenses are such bargains given the incredible performance it's hard not to simply buy them!
You guys aren't helping...
Seriously though, these lenses are such bargains given the incredible performance it's hard not to simply buy them!
Completely agree. The 85 is very close to the stellar 50.
Jorgen Udvang
Subscriber Member
Damn... :wtf: but I was going to buy the D780 and 105/1.4, wasn't I :banghead:
I just have to bend over down in the dust considering the 85/1.8 I guess, but I'm lucky, I just can't afford it for the time being...
Jørgen, just as Jack did, you will feel more than just "coming home" using a Z...
I was convinced that the new 20/1.8S would be the one I just had to buy, but on the other hand, what can it offer that the 14-30 don't offer? better use in twilight? (but I wonder if I will use it at all in twilight), better bokeh?, but bokeh on a wide 20mm, come on, or what ????
Jørgen, just as Jack did, you will feel more than just "coming home" using a Z...
I was convinced that the new 20/1.8S would be the one I just had to buy, but on the other hand, what can it offer that the 14-30 don't offer? better use in twilight? (but I wonder if I will use it at all in twilight), better bokeh?, but bokeh on a wide 20mm, come on, or what ????
Thorkil, you raise another interesting point. The little zoom is so good, it obviates primes in that range for me since I don't need optical speed with ultra and wide angle. The 24-70/4 is as good or better, and will likely suffice for travel and all-around, but for the shallower DoF look I want some optical speed and these little 1.8S primes are simply killing it performance-wise! Point is, one can get by with a whole lot less than before if they choose wisely to suit their needs. On that topic, if I'm honest I do not need the 85 --- but I still want it for the look it renders :grin:
KeithL
Well-known member
When I bought into the Z system I intended to wait for the 20 S but got impatient and bought the 14-30 zoom. Could be my best buy ever!
Yes, but I still want the 20/18.S, but I honestly really don't know why, so I better be patient to look at some carefull made reviews to state if I need it or not. And I tend to walk with only one lens on, and if its the 20, I could not stumble over and do a courtyard-picture like my last one from Copenhagen, so...like Keith, I presume.. the 14-30 might be my most used lens
Firstly, I am the absolute last guy who should be lecturing on not giving into wants; if I want something bad enough, I will figure out a justification to get it! But for me, the only logic I had toward wide primes was I wanted the best possible image quality for landscape shots. But at the same time, I knew there was a negative side to them; and that is their inability to adjust framing from a fixed position often mandated in landscape imaging.
My story: I sold my favorite landscape zoom at the time -- a particularly good copy of the 17-35/2.8 AF, very sharp centrally but fell off to just "pretty good" in the outer third, to virtually unusable in the very corners. But the rest of it was so good, I learned to shoot it a little loose and crop the bad corners out when I needed good corners. What was interesting is a majority of the images I made with it were closer 24mm after the crop than they were 20mm. So I sold the 17-35 and bought a Sigma ART 24. An exceptional lens, perfectly sharp corner to corner. And a beast. First workshop out with it, I was left wanting the 17 end of the zoom I had sold... :facesmack: So before the next trip, I bought a 20/1.8 G -- another very good lens, but not quite as good as the Sigma, though not as massive either -- a good compromise. I liked the 20G so much, I sold the Sigma ART and bought the 24/1.8G -- it wasn't as good as the 20/1.8 and I never really connected with it. And most of all? I still missed that 17-35 zoom... Should have never sold it, and have felt remorse until now -- the 14-30S has finally assuaged my guilt of letting that 17-35 go... I respect your needs and desires may vary from mine, but I felt my story may be relevant
Jan Brittenson
Senior Subscriber Member
Focus separation where you allow objects partially obscuring one another to separate from each other by limiting the DoF so definition varies subtly by distance. A 20mm f/4 doesn't provide a whole lot of separation in something like a cityscape.
I'm totally with you here, specially your statement "if I want something bad enough, I will figure out a justification to get it!". I have always had that romantic vision, just one camera, one lens, I'm sure if that was the circumstances, one would be just as lucky, if not even more, instead of this consumption-circus we all are a part off.Firstly, I am the absolute last guy who should be lecturing on not giving into wants; if I want something bad enough, I will figure out a justification to get it! But for me, the only logic I had toward wide primes was I wanted the best possible image quality for landscape shots. But at the same time, I knew there was a negative side to them; and that is their inability to adjust framing from a fixed position often mandated in landscape imaging.
My story: I sold my favorite landscape zoom at the time -- a particularly good copy of the 17-35/2.8 AF, very sharp centrally but fell off to just "pretty good" in the outer third, to virtually unusable in the very corners. But the rest of it was so good, I learned to shoot it a little loose and crop the bad corners out when I needed good corners. What was interesting is a majority of the images I made with it were closer 24mm after the crop than they were 20mm. So I sold the 17-35 and bought a Sigma ART 24. An exceptional lens, perfectly sharp corner to corner. And a beast. First workshop out with it, I was left wanting the 17 end of the zoom I had sold... :facesmack: So before the next trip, I bought a 20/1.8 G -- another very good lens, but not quite as good as the Sigma, though not as massive either -- a good compromise. I liked the 20G so much, I sold the Sigma ART and bought the 24/1.8G -- it wasn't as good as the 20/1.8 and I never really connected with it. And most of all? I still missed that 17-35 zoom... Should have never sold it, and have felt remorse until now -- the 14-30S has finally assuaged my guilt of letting that 17-35 go... I respect your needs and desires may vary from mine, but I felt my story may be relevant
Your words encourage me to (for a while at least) be fully satisfied with the 14-30, while its just so much more mature than it's size let you know, more crisp than the old 14-24/2.8G, more interesting. Even though I think Jan is right with the statement above, you might always be able to separate enough, if you just get close enough. If it is street, trying to catch people, getting close, it's almost always a matter of being in the sufficient mood (which not always are there, but one can try to dig it out) to throw your inhibitions overboard, meeting people with an optimistic childish smile, hipshooting, and 95% of the time you will get the same childish smile including forgiveness back (apart from: the more educated or wealthy people are, the more difficult it often is to, for the needed seconds, to establish that rewarding ping-pong featherlight interaction, sorry to say, often a matter of willingness to play your whole human existence (also from the "victims") into the game without being afraid of status-loosing). With buildings I often have traditional and perhaps a bit boring approach wanting it all to be fairly sharp
, and the 14-30 just deliver.But yes, Jack, as you remember, I bought the 17-35 on your recommendation, still got it, didn't use it that much (too much choices, too many disturbing dreams, I guess), but on the Df it certainly did deliver, in a way I in one word would call: smooth (and charming). just a revisit back (and just to step in your wound..
) to one posted in 2017 (but at f8, and the Df sensor certainly is guilty in the (in my eyes) delicate drawing too), would the 14-30 on the Z7 be able to draw in the same way?, I doubt:
but I have just weighed them: the 17-35 is 764 grams and the 14-30 is just 512 gram, both with filter but without caps. 252 grams less, or in another way: the 17-35 weighs 49% more than the 14-30. So I think there is still no reason to regret...
, its so handy and communicating, the Z7/14-30 combo..Jan Brittenson
Senior Subscriber Member
Haven't shot much with the 85/1.8 S yet, other than to make sure it doesn't suffer from decentering.
It did get put to use a moment ago though; I put the Z7 with it (in P&S Auto Eye-AF mode) in the hands of my wife to capture a shot of me to use on linkedin. M 1/60 f/4 ISO 110. I wanted it to look casual, spontaneous, open, inviting, warm, friendly.
It did get put to use a moment ago though; I put the Z7 with it (in P&S Auto Eye-AF mode) in the hands of my wife to capture a shot of me to use on linkedin. M 1/60 f/4 ISO 110. I wanted it to look casual, spontaneous, open, inviting, warm, friendly.
Jack,
Enjoy the Z50mm 1.8, I knew you'd love it. I've decided to demo a Canon EOS R for the incredible f/1.2 and f/2 zoom RF lenses. Sony's are nice, but I don't need 60mp and prefer the ergonomics of the EOS-R. Actually, the build quality (EOS R) is outstanding. I think Nikon should have made at least a 1.4 prime at launch or a battery/ grip that actually works in portrait mode. Otherwise, it's a great camera. I watched a video recently, where someone said you buy Canon for the lenses and Nikon for the cameras, but the EOS R has me thinking otherwise:clap:
Enjoy the Z50mm 1.8, I knew you'd love it. I've decided to demo a Canon EOS R for the incredible f/1.2 and f/2 zoom RF lenses. Sony's are nice, but I don't need 60mp and prefer the ergonomics of the EOS-R. Actually, the build quality (EOS R) is outstanding. I think Nikon should have made at least a 1.4 prime at launch or a battery/ grip that actually works in portrait mode. Otherwise, it's a great camera. I watched a video recently, where someone said you buy Canon for the lenses and Nikon for the cameras, but the EOS R has me thinking otherwise:clap:
For sure! Enjoy the EOS system -- it's great too!
Jan Brittenson
Senior Subscriber Member
Got my 20/1.8 S, but unfortunately is shows a high amount of spherical aberration along the right 10-15% closest to the edge. The center and left side are stellar though. EXCELLENT optic, except I need to exchange it.
Form my very quick testing it shows nice bokeh, and very "classic" looking - probably from out-of-plane spherical aberration. (And, I suspect the defect in mine is excessive field curvature, since the edge improves when I explicitly focus on it, but then the rest of the image goes out of focus.)
Form my very quick testing it shows nice bokeh, and very "classic" looking - probably from out-of-plane spherical aberration. (And, I suspect the defect in mine is excessive field curvature, since the edge improves when I explicitly focus on it, but then the rest of the image goes out of focus.)
Darin Marcus
Well-known member
Sorry to hear that Jan.
I see that Jim Kasson is currently testing this lens, starting with https://blog.kasson.com/nikon-z6-7/20mm-f-1-8-nikkor-s-initial-testing/