# Industry News: Nikon officially announces the 14-24mm F2.8 S and 50mm F1.2 S for Z-mount



## Canon Rumors Guy (Sep 16, 2020)

> The Ultra-Wide NIKKOR Z 14-24mm f/2.8 S and Powerful NIKKOR Z 50mm f/1.2 S Lenses Bring Groundbreaking Advancements in Optical Performance and Design to the Nikon Z Series
> *MELVILLE, NY (September 16, 2020) –* Today, Nikon Inc. unveiled two exciting additions to the rapidly expanding NIKKOR Z lens lineup, demonstrating the brand’s commitment to the evolving Nikon Z series. These new full-frame S-Line1 lenses showcase the superior optical performance and capabilities of the Nikon Z mount for photographers and creators. The ultra-wide angle NIKKOR Z 14-24mm f/2.8 S is the world’s shortest2 and lightest2 full-frame f/2.8 zoom lens with a 14mm field of view, enabling a versatile range to capture expansive views including cityscapes, landscapes, astrophotography and more. Meanwhile, the NIKKOR Z 50mm f/1.2 S is the paramount fast-aperture prime lens engineered for optical excellence to help Z series users achieve unrivaled power, exceptional sharpness and show-stopping bokeh...



Continue reading...


----------



## Bert63 (Sep 16, 2020)

Too bad their mirrorless camera body line is so far behind the rest. Great lenses, great images, meh everything else..


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Sep 16, 2020)

Bert63 said:


> Too bad their mirrorless line is so far behind the rest. Great images, meh everything else..



Bodies change. These S lenses have been really fantastic.


----------



## twoheadedboy (Sep 16, 2020)

112mm filters on that 14-24! I complained about needing 82mm filters on the 15-35 but 112 is crazy. And I much prefer Canon's approach of giving you 35mm focal length in the zoom, or down to 11mm if you cut off at 24mm...I use both 15mm and 35mm a lot and would have to switch lenses more if I was cut off at 24mm.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Sep 16, 2020)

Nothing wrong with the Z bodies and they will get better. The lens lineup is much more appealing to me than Canon's.
Small but very good optical quality and weather sealed / internal zoom primes, great wildlife lens coming (200-600) and this 14-24 weights 200g less than Canon's 15-35.


----------



## Maximilian (Sep 16, 2020)

T'was about time, wasn't it?


----------



## Maximilian (Sep 16, 2020)

blackcoffee17 said:


> ... and this 14-24 weights 200g less than Canon's 15-35.


What's more important? Saving 200g or gaining 11 mm extra zoom? PLUS *IS *?
I'm sure there are a lot that will prefer the 11 mm and the IS.


----------



## Billybob (Sep 16, 2020)

Maximilian said:


> What's more important? Saving 200g or gaining 11 mm extra zoom? PLUS *IS *?
> I'm sure there are a lot that will prefer the 11 mm and the IS.


I don't care about IS at the wide end when IBIS is so good. However, the tradeoff between an extra mm on the wide end versus 11mm on the long end is important. I came down on the side of the additional 11mm, but I'm not sure I would make that choice if Canon had stuck with the traditional 16-35mm range. I like UW in the 12-15mm range, but if I'm using a zoom, I want it to be versatile. 14-24mm is too narrow and just doesn't go far enough into the normal range. I don't want to have to switch lenses for citiscapes. Accordingly, 15-35mm is "good enough" at the wide end and gives me enough flexibility at the long end. This allows Canon to release a more specialized UW lens like an 11-20mm f/2.8, whereas Nikon will likely need to release a 2.8 zoom that goes sub-20mm to 35mm.


----------



## AaronT (Sep 16, 2020)

twoheadedboy said:


> 112mm filters on that 14-24! I complained about needing 82mm filters on the 15-35 but 112 is crazy. And I much prefer Canon's approach of giving you 35mm focal length in the zoom, or down to 11mm if you cut off at 24mm...I use both 15mm and 35mm a lot and would have to switch lenses more if I was cut off at 24mm.


Maybe Nikon is trying to cut down on vignetting on their 14-24 with that large front glass. The Canon 15-35 has about 4.5 stops of vignetting at 15mm and F2.8, among the highest out there. There is always a trade-off. Most top line mirrorless have IBIS so IS isn't necessary, specially at the wide end.


----------



## Bert63 (Sep 16, 2020)

Codebunny said:


> Bodies change. These S lenses have been really fantastic.




Couldn't agree any stronger. It's just a bit of a shame (to me) to see Nikon so far behind the pack. I was in love with the 850 back when I bought my 5D4 and if not for glass I think I would have owned that body and could very well have been a disappointed Nikon shooter when this big push to mirrorless began.

Great glass (always) and great images. I just happen to believe that their mirrorless line is a bit behind the curve.


----------



## Del Paso (Sep 16, 2020)

Good news, Nikon must live!
(Still love my F2 )


----------



## PerKr (Sep 16, 2020)

Finally Nikon rejoins the f/1.2 club, good on them!

Though... Is it just me or is that 50/1.2 about the size of a 135/1.8? Had to look up the RF 50/1.2 and it's similarly huge so I guess it is what it is and there are reasons (image quality is important, no question there) but still...


----------



## Maximilian (Sep 16, 2020)

Billybob said:


> I don't care about IS at the wide end when IBIS is so good. ...


I don't care about any of those either as I am not planning to invest into such lenses in the near future.
But I've seen enough discussions here that I can imagine which lens will sell better. But time will tell.



> However, the tradeoff between an extra mm on the wide end versus 11mm on the long end is important. I came down on the side of the additional 11mm, but I'm not sure I would make that choice if Canon had stuck with the traditional 16-35mm range.
> ...


That is your opinion which I fully respect. But I am sure there are several more to one side or the other or even having a third or fourth opinion. 
Question (to the companies) is how they found out via market research which lenses would give them the best market approach.
Canon went that and Nikon the other way.


----------



## twoheadedboy (Sep 16, 2020)

Maximilian said:


> I don't care about any of those either as I am not planning to invest into such lenses in the near future.
> But I've seen enough discussions here that I can imagine which lens will sell better. But time will tell.
> 
> 
> ...



It probably has more to do with the lens it is replacing in the non-mirrorless line, than anything about the larger market including shooters not on a Nikon platform.


----------



## Maximilian (Sep 16, 2020)

twoheadedboy said:


> It probably has more to do with the lens it is replacing in the non-mirrorless line, than anything about the larger market including shooters not on a Nikon platform.


I think Canon did show that by building up a RF lens line that they were willing to think things completely new.
Personally I have no interest in buying a 28-70/2 lens but I welcome Canons courage to make it.
Also they made a 1*5*-35/2.8 *IS* out of a 100% trinity buy 16-35/2.8. Again some more courage.
If Nikon is right, that all the people loving the "old" 14-24 will get the new S lens they're fine - but they didn't add any extra mm or some IS, so they didn't show courage.


----------



## degos (Sep 16, 2020)

Maximilian said:


> Personally I have no interest in buying a 28-70/2 lens but I welcome Canons courage to make it.



Courage? Courage is putting your life in harm's way to achieve something.

Signing-off a fancy lens for development and production doesn't involve courage because there's no risk to the individual or company. It might just end the year with slightly less money that it couldn't manage to spend ( i.e. profit )


----------



## Maximilian (Sep 16, 2020)

degos said:


> Courage? Courage is putting your life in harm's way to achieve something.
> 
> Signing-off a fancy lens for development and production doesn't involve courage because there's no risk to the individual or company. It might just end the year with slightly less money that it couldn't manage to spend ( i.e. profit )


Questions:
Do you run a company?
Are you in charge of R&D or production invest?

If so I wonder that you are talking about that knowing that this could destroy a companys future.
E.g. doing wrong like Nikon 1 series. I am sure they still suffer from that. And because of that Nikon is playing safe.

If "_courage_" it the wrong word for you replace it by "_entrepreneurship_".


----------



## DJL329 (Sep 16, 2020)

In case anyone was wondering just how _large _the Nikon 50mm f/1.2 S actually is, here's a comparison chart I made using B&H.

It's half-an-inch _longer _than the Canon EF 200mm f/2.8L II and only _slightly_ lighter than the Sigma 85mm f/1.4 ART!


----------



## Eclipsed (Sep 16, 2020)

The Nikon 50 f1.2 is a quarter inch LONGER than the Canon RF 70-200! And a bit heavier.


----------



## Tremotino (Sep 16, 2020)

I do wonder when the nikon rumor will post an industry news of an other company like canon. In my opinion canonrumors ist much more pleasant.


----------



## Max TT (Sep 16, 2020)

Bert63 said:


> Too bad their mirrorless camera body line is so far behind the rest. Great lenses, great images, meh everything else..



Agreed, Z6s and Z7s needs to be delivered soon. These lenses look to be fantastic. 

Others here have a better understanding than I do of the technical aspects of how the components of a camera body affects certain things. Maybe they can chime in... 

A couple of my friends who shoot with Z6 and Z7 tell me that the AF issues are a result of the processor. And they seem to think that the Dual Expeed processors rumored to be in the updated bodies will greatly enhance the AF performance.


----------



## Billybob (Sep 16, 2020)

Maximilian said:


> I think Canon did show that by building up a RF lens line that they were willing to think things completely new.
> Personally I have no interest in buying a 28-70/2 lens but I welcome Canons courage to make it.
> Also they made a 1*5*-35/2.8 *IS* out of a 100% trinity buy 16-35/2.8. Again some more courage.
> If Nikon is right, that all the people loving the "old" 14-24 will get the new S lens they're fine - but they didn't add any extra mm or some IS, so they didn't show courage.


I agree with you that the 28-70/2 was courageous even if it is primarily a statement lens. I notice how quickly Canon followed if with a more traditional 24-70 IS 2.8 (using, including IS in such a lens has become par for the course). 

I don't think that 15-35/2.8 was particularly courageous but more a reflection of exploiting new capabilities or abilities afforded by the new RF mount. 

A more courageous effort was releasing the 100-500L as a 100-400L replacement with a 7.1 max aperture. When I first saw the announcement, I was sure that it was dead on arrival. Now I'm a proud owner (don't come to me for business prognostication).

Perhaps the most courageous thing Canon has done is offer these exotic lenses for $2200-$3000 and believing that there would be enough demand at these breathtaking levels for these lenses to provide a reasonable return!


----------



## fabiorossi (Sep 16, 2020)

Are there really people who think that Nikon's new mount offers better options that the RF mount? 
Of course, is subjective, but from the Nikon side, it was mostly complaints about the lenses they offer.


----------



## Bert63 (Sep 16, 2020)

Max C said:


> Agreed, Z6s and Z7s needs to be delivered soon. These lenses look to be fantastic.
> 
> Others here have a better understanding than I do of the technical aspects of how the components of a camera body affects certain things. Maybe they can chime in...
> 
> A couple of my friends who shoot with Z6 and Z7 tell me that the AF issues are a result of the processor. And they seem to think that the Dual Expeed processors rumored to be in the updated bodies will greatly enhance the AF performance.



That would be awesome. I hate to see them lagging.


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 17, 2020)

f/1.2 from Nikon. Nikon shooters are saying: "Thank you, Canon!"


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 17, 2020)

Billybob said:


> I agree with you that the 28-70/2 was courageous even if it is primarily a statement lens.


Nah, far more than a "statement" lens. Where the heck does that idea even come from?


----------



## Maximilian (Sep 17, 2020)

Billybob said:


> ...
> I don't think that 15-35/2.8 was particularly courageous but more a reflection of exploiting new capabilities or abilities afforded by the new RF mount.
> ...


From the pure spec list I agree with you. 
But without studying the patents and optical formulas of both EF 16-36 and RF15-35 I am sure that the RF was designed completely from scratch with all the time and R&D costs similar to a 28-70/2. 
With only one difference in enterprise: sales numbers will be noticeably higher


----------



## DJL329 (Sep 17, 2020)

You know, that 50mm ART lens doesn't look so big anymore!


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Sep 17, 2020)

Max C said:


> A couple of my friends who shoot with Z6 and Z7 tell me that the AF issues are a result of the processor. And they seem to think that the Dual Expeed processors rumored to be in the updated bodies will greatly enhance the AF performance.



As a user of the Z6 and currently trying out the 500mm f/5.6 PF with it. The DSLR type AF is fast and accurate, but the Nikon's lock on and eye AF is just that little bit too slow. When disabling things like exposure preview the AF gets a lot faster which suggests it really is just too much on that one processor. Canon also where only just able to get their ass in gear and it is largely thanks to the Digic X being a pretty damn fast processor. So Nikon ether can make a faster processor or use two processors in order to catch up.

Basically in my opinion, Canon and Nikon went into this mirrorless stuff with old thinking regarding processing requirements. They put a processor in that was plenty fast for a DSLR but didn't consider how much more is going to rely on that now or they just didn't have the processor power left. The Nikon's are also on their 3rd firmware that is so completely different from version one and with features that are way beyond what that CPU was asked of at first. 

However the Z6 and Z7 both have what I would still consider top tier sensors and everyone I know with one of these as a main or second camera just want the same exact sensors but with more CPU grunt.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Sep 17, 2020)

fabiorossi said:


> Are there really people who think that Nikon's new mount offers better options that the RF mount?
> Of course, is subjective, but from the Nikon side, it was mostly complaints about the lenses they offer.



Depends on everyone's needs. As a Canon user i find Nikon's lineup less impressive but more practical. 

50mm 1.8 - small, lightweight, internal focus, weather sealed and super good optically. Also doesn't costs an arm and a leg like Canon's RF 50 1.2. 
If you don't really need the 1 stop extra light and DOF then it's a better choice. I don't think Canon's future "cheap" 50mm will be as good optically.

24-70 and 14-24 F4 - great combo, both very good optically, affordable, lightweight and weather sealed

200-600 - A better wildlife lens than Canon's 100-500 for half the price. (i expect to be the same price as Sony's similar lens)


----------



## analoggrotto (Sep 18, 2020)

Hola Nikon! Welcome to Canon in the 90s!


----------



## pj1974 (Sep 21, 2020)

blackcoffee17 said:


> Depends on everyone's needs. As a Canon user i find Nikon's lineup less impressive but more practical.
> 
> 50mm 1.8 - small, lightweight, internal focus, weather sealed and super good optically. Also doesn't costs an arm and a leg like Canon's RF 50 1.2.
> If you don't really need the 1 stop extra light and DOF then it's a better choice. I don't think Canon's future "cheap" 50mm will be as good optically.
> ...



I definitely see what you're saying - and I agree with some of the points you make.

There are currently some different gaps between the Nikon S mount lenses and Canon RF mounts.. but this gap will close.

Canon's RF 24-105mm f/4 is very well regarded. I expect Canon will make a RF 24-70mm f/4 as a cheaper / smaller option (to both the RF 24-70mm f/2.8 and RF 24-105mm f/4).

I also expect Canon to come out with a RF 50mm (maybe f/2) - somewhat like the RF 85mm f/2.

The Canon RF 100-500mm is going to be more useful for those wanting more of a 'walk-around' telezoom, the 200mm on the Nikon wide end is much more limiting. (I speak from experience having used a ~200mm as a minimum, isn't helpful in all situations. For safari photos of long-distance wildlife though, it'll be absolutely great).

After a few more years, there will be far fewer gaps in either the lineup, and more lenses will be 'like for like' comparable. Both are doing great jobs.. Nikon started off with more consumer / everyday lenses, Canon with more Pro / extreme lenses.

Competition is good. I hope prices will 'mild down' somewhat on the Canon RF lenses too.

In the meantime though, the EF-RF adapter works VERY well using EF/EF-S lenses, especially on the R6 and R5 bodies.. (again speaking from experience).

PJ


----------



## Del Paso (Sep 21, 2020)

When hiking in the mountains, my lens-camera combo consists of:
EOS 5 D IV plus 100-400 L and 50 macro Zeiss
EOS R plus 16-35 f4 or Leica M with 28mm and 50 macro
A 200-600 wouldn't be practical at all, I'd really miss the 100mm option, and would need an additional 100mm lens.
200-600 :for birders OK, but for a more universal use: no way (for me!)
My next lens will be the 100-500 RF (but I'll always keep my beloved 100-400).


----------



## fabiorossi (Sep 21, 2020)

pj1974 said:


> I definitely see what you're saying - and I agree with some of the points you make.
> 
> There are currently some different gaps between the Nikon S mount lenses and Canon RF mounts.. but this gap will close.
> 
> ...



Yes, that's why I like the Canon initial approach more than the Nikon. Canon uses the new mount to create very unique and professional lenses, while you have the adapter to use the very capable EF lenses almost as natives.


----------

