# Industry News: Nikon announces the NIKKOR Z 28-75mm f/2.8 and development of the NIKKOR Z 800mm f/6.3 VR S



## Canon Rumors Guy (Dec 14, 2021)

> Nikon Also Announces Development of the NIKKOR Z 800mm f/6.3 VR S Super Telephoto Prime Lens
> *MELVILLE, NY (December 13, 2021)* – Today, Nikon Inc. announced the NIKKOR Z 28-75mm f/2.8, the latest lens to expand the impressive NIKKOR Z portfolio, putting the potential for boundless creativity and maximum versatility into the hands of enthusiasts. The NIKKOR Z 28-75mm f/2.8 is an affordable and appealing choice for those ready to step up to a full-frame medium zoom lens with the benefits of a constant f/2.8 aperture including gorgeous, softly blurred backgrounds and excellent low light capability.
> “Since the beginning of this year, we have announced numerous NIKKOR Z lenses for all levels of creators, which have been commended for their unrivaled quality and edge-to-edge sharpness,” said Jay Vannatter, Executive Vice President, Nikon Inc. “Now we are continuing this winning streak by adding an extremely enticing option for enthusiasts in the rapidly growing full-frame market.”...



Continue reading...


----------



## Berowne (Dec 14, 2021)

PF (Phase Fresnel) lens = DO-Element?


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Dec 14, 2021)

Berowne said:


> PF (Phase Fresnel) lens = DO-Element?


Yes, same principle or at least the same result. See the Nikon 300 PF and 500PF.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Dec 14, 2021)

Waiting to hit a pre-order button for that 800 f/6.3. It looks like it’ll be fantastic for skitterish (or dangerous) subjects. Which is great, I have a trip planned to go wild camping on a island with arctic foxes and polar bears.


----------



## nadroj (Dec 14, 2021)

Optical formula on the 28-75mm f/2.8 appears to be identical to the first generation Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 for E-Mount. Looks like it's just a rebranded version. That lens was pretty good, but it's a shame it's not the excellent second generation.


----------



## Emyr Evans (Dec 14, 2021)

WOW!!

If they can make that 800mm 2.5Kg I'm buying a Z9 and running two systems!


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Dec 14, 2021)

This 28-75mm F2.8 will get the rumor mill going. Is it really a rebranded Tamron lense? If so, I'd expect more of them to be released and Tamron hopefully to cooperate with Canon in the same way. Both companies would keep their "promises": 

Tamron: we will develop for RF mount
Canon: "there will be no third party lenses"... --> although I can't such an statement of a Canon exec online.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Dec 14, 2021)

Exploreshootshare said:


> This 28-75mm F2.8 will get the rumor mill going. Is it really a rebranded Tamron lense? If so, I'd expect more of them to be released and Tamron hopefully to cooperate with Canon in the same way. Both companies would keep their "promises":
> 
> Tamron: we will develop for RF mount
> Canon: "there will be no third party lenses"... --> although I can't such an statement of a Canon exec online.



It appears to be a rebranded Tamron so Nikon aren't expending resources on it. Tamron get to sell lenses to Zed mount that just work, Nikon users get a cheap and popular lens. I could see Canon doing the same.


----------



## slclick (Dec 14, 2021)

Zed is maturing nicely and outperforming the early reviews.


----------



## Juangrande (Dec 15, 2021)

nadroj said:


> Optical formula on the 28-75mm f/2.8 appears to be identical to the first generation Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 for E-Mount. Looks like it's just a rebranded version. That lens was pretty good, but it's a shame it's not the excellent second generation.


Go f2 or go home.


----------



## alexKan (Dec 15, 2021)

Photo Bunny said:


> It appears to be a rebranded Tamron so Nikon aren't expending resources on it. Tamron get to sell lenses to Zed mount that just work, Nikon users get a cheap and popular lens. I could see Canon doing the same.


I hope that Canon will do the same job
beside that a better price 
more lens to choose will always be good


----------



## mxwphoto (Dec 15, 2021)

I have to say I prefer what Canon's internal engineers come up with rather than outsourcing to use 3rd party old glass (in this case Nikon using Tamron's G1 lens, not even G2, repackaged). Outsourced lenses don't have the right coatings, have different color, and noisier motors. The Canon lenses so far have been unique and exciting (I just bought the RF 100-400) and I fear slapping on a rebrand of old 3rd party lens would kill innovation and cheapen the brand.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 15, 2021)

I've been following the Nikon forums on the 800mm f/6.3 (and Z9). There is excitement about the lens, and spirits have been raised. People are homing in at a guess of 2.5 kg. There is however, worry about when it will actually arrive. A year? But, it will make many happy.
I'm taking a different point of view. 800mm does have its place and would keep Photo Bunny at a safe distance from predatory polar bears. I do have the Canon 800mm f/11, but it is rather specialised for me and I can do as well with my 100-500 plus extenders for all practical purposes. The Nikkor 800mm f/6.3 is only a 1/3rd stop darker than the Nikon 800mm f/5.6 and should give better IQ than the Canon lens and suffer less from diffraction at f/8.8 with a 1.4x extender. However, the Canon lens can be easily carried on hikes, thrown into hand- or hold-luggage without much fear because of its size, weight and cheapness, and my wife and I could deploy it and the 100-500mm between us when we need extra focal length on trips.

In a nutshell, I prefer the way Canon is going: a much lighter body of the R3, and presumably its high resolution counterpart, than the Z9; the light R5 and R6 with their superior AF and lighter lenses currently available for the likes of me. I had a great time with the Nikon D850 and D500 and 500mm f/5.6 PF, and the image quality they produce is still at the very top. But, I can do just about as well with the R5 and RF 100-500mm and have their awesome AF, as well as the really light weight RF 100-400mm, and the R6. So, I have sold off all my Nikon gear, at very little loss as I bought it all used at good prices. Nikon makes great cameras and lenses but is not moving in the right direction for me. Those who can cope with the weight will differ as Nikon will deliver the goods on quality.


----------



## Joules (Dec 15, 2021)

AlanF said:


> The Nikkor 800mm f/6.3 is only a 1/3rd stop darker than the 800mm f/8 and should give better IQ than the Canon lens and suffer less from diffraction at f/8 with a 1.4x extender.


I think there is some confusion here.

Which 800 mm f/8 lens are you talking about?
And should the Nikon 800 mm f/6.3 not be 1/3 of a stop _brighter_ than such a lens?


----------



## AlanF (Dec 15, 2021)

Joules said:


> I think there is some confusion here.
> 
> Which 800 mm f/8 lens are you talking about?
> And should the Nikon 800 mm f/6.3 not be 1/3 of a stop _brighter_ than such a lens?


Oops - I meant the Nikon 800mm f/5.6, and I have corrected the typo. Thanks!


----------



## nadroj (Dec 15, 2021)

Juangrande said:


> Go f2 or go home.


Oh I agree, I shouldn't say this on the Canon Rumors forum, but I shoot the Tamron 35-150 f/2.0-2.8 on Sony E-Mount and it's spectacular. I like 'em all.


----------



## jd7 (Dec 15, 2021)

mxwphoto said:


> I have to say I prefer what Canon's internal engineers come up with rather than outsourcing to use 3rd party old glass (in this case Nikon using Tamron's G1 lens, not even G2, repackaged). Outsourced lenses don't have the right coatings, have different color, and noisier motors. The Canon lenses so far have been unique and exciting (I just bought the RF 100-400) and I fear slapping on a rebrand of old 3rd party lens would kill innovation and cheapen the brand.


I have to say, I couldn't disagree more!  The fact there are very few third party lenses for the R system is a major factor keeping me away from the R system, and making me seriously consider switching to Sony. I wouldn't be thinking about a switch to Sony if there was a wide range of third party lenses for the R system. After all, variety is the spice of life!  And while I do think the RF 16mm and RF 100-400 look very interesting, I have been quite disappointed in some of Canon's non-L RF lenses, particularly the RF 50 f/1.8 and RF 85 f/2 IS.


----------



## monu123 (Dec 15, 2021)

The 800mm PF announcement is very interesting as it allows users with the older Nikon super telephotos to migrate to this new lens with significant weight reductions of nearly 2kg (assuming it's roughly 2.5kg), which is pretty incredible, considering the only disadvantage is a reduction in light gathering capabilities of 1/3 of a stop (which I assume most users can live with). The F mount super telephotos weigh 4kg+, with the 800 f/5.6 weighing above 4.5kg.

So basically, this is the evolution of Nikon's F mount 800mm f5.6 - it's shorter, much slimmer and almost definitely much lighter (maybe even hand holdable?!). It's hard to comment on pricing, considering Canons and Nikon 800 f/5.6 are over $13k. It would probably be cheaper, as it's slightly slower in aperture and the glass elements will be smaller due to its slim profile. Overall, this looks to be a great upcoming lens for Nikon!

However, I'm unsure if Canon/Sony users with the 600mm f/4 with TCs will be as attracted to this lens as much vs Nikon users, simply because the Canon/Sony lenses have undergone significant amounts of weight reduction, coming just above 3.2kg - Nikon's equivalent is ~ 4kg. Depends on how much weight Nikon can save, the price of the lens, and if the next gen of Z cameras can get Z9 level tracking abilities for those who don't like the form factor and weight of the Z9.


----------



## tron (Dec 15, 2021)

Emyr Evans said:


> WOW!!
> 
> If they can make that 800mm 2.5Kg I'm buying a Z9 and running two systems!


The thought crossed my mind but the additional weight of Z9 vs say D850 or vs R5 will make things worse.
The length of the 800mm PF will be important too...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 15, 2021)

jd7 said:


> The fact there are very few third party lenses for the R system is a major factor keeping me away from the R system, and making me seriously consider switching to Sony. I wouldn't be thinking about a switch to Sony if there was a wide range of third party lenses for the R system. After all, variety is the spice of life!


I don't really get that viewpoint. Sure, variety is nice but if you need a truck do you really care if a manufacturer offers an infinite variety of sedans? What I care about is whether or not a system provides the lenses _that I personally need_.

For example, I use the TS-E 17L and TS-E 24L II a lot. AFAIK, Sony does not even make E-mount TS/PC lenses. There are a couple of options among the 'wide range of third party lenses' for the E mount, but the Rokinon 24 TS is optically weak, and the Laowa 15mm is shift only, no tilt. However, my two TS-E lenses adapt better than perfectly to the RF mount (better than perfect because the drop-in filter adapter means I can use convenient small ND and CPL filters for the TS-E 17 instead of the 145mm salad plates I used to carry for it).


----------



## Chaitanya (Dec 15, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> I don't really get that viewpoint. Sure, variety is nice but if you need a truck do you really care if a manufacturer offers an infinite variety of sedans? What I care about is whether or not a system provides the lenses _that I personally need_.
> 
> For example, I use the TS-E 17L and TS-E 24L II a lot. AFAIK, Sony does not even make E-mount TS/PC lenses. There are a couple of options among the 'wide range of third party lenses' for the E mount, but the Rokinon 24 TS is optically weak, and the Laowa 15mm is shift only, no tilt. However, my two TS-E lenses adapt better than perfectly to the RF mount (better than perfect because the drop-in filter adapter means I can use convenient small ND and CPL filters for the TS-E 17 instead of the 145mm salad plates I used to carry for it).


Laowa 15 Macro shift function is designed only for crop bodies.




> A shift mechanism is added at the rear end of the lens with a maximum adjustment of +/- 6mm for APS-C cameras, which is extremely useful for landscape/architecture photography for distortion correction.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 15, 2021)

Chaitanya said:


> Laowa 15 Macro shift function is designed only for crop bodies.


Thanks, but I was referring to the 15mm f/4.5 Zero-D Shift, which does ±11mm shift on FF. 









Laowa 15mm f/4.5 Zero-D Shift - LAOWA Camera Lenses


Laowa 15mm f/4.5 Zero-D Shift is currently the World’s Widest Shift lens for full frame cameras and medium format cameras. It comes with the 5 blades (in blu...




www.venuslens.net





Still no tilt...


----------



## jd7 (Dec 15, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> I don't really get that viewpoint. Sure, variety is nice but if you need a truck do you really care if a manufacturer offers an infinite variety of sedans? What I care about is whether or not a system provides the lenses _that I personally need_.
> 
> For example, I use the TS-E 17L and TS-E 24L II a lot. AFAIK, Sony does not even make E-mount TS/PC lenses. There are a couple of options among the 'wide range of third party lenses' for the E mount, but the Rokinon 24 TS is optically weak, and the Laowa 15mm is shift only, no tilt. However, my two TS-E lenses adapt better than perfectly to the RF mount (better than perfect because the drop-in filter adapter means I can use convenient small ND and CPL filters for the TS-E 17 instead of the 145mm salad plates I used to carry for it).


I agree with your point! Having options is all well and good, but what really matters is whether you have a good option for each lens you would actually buy and use.

However, for what it is worth, there isn't much in Canon's RF line up which excites me for the photography I do. For example, 35mm, 50mm and 85mm are focal lengths I use a lot, but Canon doesn't offer any RF lenses at those focal lengths which appeal to me. Obviously the RF 50mm L and 85mm L are fantastic lenses in many ways, but i simply don't want prime lenses which are that large and heavy (not to mention their prices). And the non-L RF lenses at those focal lengths are smaller and lighter, but do not excite me for other reasons. You can say I'm just complaining because Canon doesn't make exactly the lens I want them to make for me, and there is some truth in that. However, having more manufacturers making lenses would increase the chance that someone makes a lens which is pretty close to the lens I want. If I shot Sony, i would have a myriad of options at about those focal lengths, and some of those options come much closer to being the lens which I am looking for and would actually buy. At 35mm, the Sony 35mm GM looks fantastic to me. At about 50mm, the Samyang 45mm and Sony 55mm interest me. I'd look hard at the Sigma 65mm f/2. I'd consider the Samyang 75mm. And I'd be very interested in the Sigma 85mm DN Art, although the Samyang 85mm f/1.4 and Sony 85mm f/1.8 are worth a thought too. I could go on, including about other focal lengths and about zooms. The point is just that personally I find it hard to get that excited about the RF system at the moment, and having third parties making RF lenses should increase the chance there are lenses i would actually buy, which would make me more enthusiastic about the whole system.


----------



## Chaitanya (Dec 15, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Thanks, but I was referring to the 15mm f/4.5 Zero-D Shift, which does ±11mm shift on FF.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I had forgotten Venus offers a 15mm Shift lens other than their 15mm Macro which also has added shift function along with 1x macro.I guess designing Tilt-shift lens might be too expensive compared to shift only lens. There are some adaptors which allow Tilt-shift functionality with medium format lenses for most FF MILC mount.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Dec 15, 2021)

tron said:


> The thought crossed my mind but the additional weight of Z9 vs say D850 or vs R5 will make things worse.
> The length of the 800mm PF will be important too...





Based on the mount size and Nikon roadmap it is about as short as a 400 f/2.8.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 15, 2021)

I posted this about 2 hours ago on the previous page but managed to delete it! So here is is again.
I've estimated the length of the Nikkor 800mm f/6.3 to be 375-382mm using photos from Nikon. 375mm comes from estimating the front lens diameter to be 127mm and scaling the length. The 382mm from superposing the image of the 100-400mm and scaling from its unextended length of 222mm. This compares with the length of 237mm for the Nikon 500mm f/5.6 PF and the Canon 800mm f/11 fully extended of 360mm (and 470mm of the Canon 800mm f/5.6).


----------



## Czardoom (Dec 15, 2021)

jd7 said:


> I have to say, I couldn't disagree more!  The fact there are very few third party lenses for the R system is a major factor keeping me away from the R system, and making me seriously consider switching to Sony. I wouldn't be thinking about a switch to Sony if there was a wide range of third party lenses for the R system. After all, variety is the spice of life!  And while I do think the RF 16mm and RF 100-400 look very interesting, I have been quite disappointed in some of Canon's non-L RF lenses, particularly the RF 50 f/1.8 and RF 85 f/2 IS.


Personally, if I was looking for a wide variety of lenses from multiple manufacturers, then the R system can't be beat - because you have all the EF mount lenses to choose from. And at used prices, well, how can you beat that? Plus, if you like Canon ergonomics, color, user interface, dust removal, why go Sony?


----------



## AlanF (Dec 15, 2021)

Looking at the above measurements, I think I would like an RF 500 f/4 D0. It would have the same front diameter as the 800mm f/6.3. With a 2xTC it would be a 1000mm f/8 and if of similar length to the Nikon 500mm, only 237mm long, and 277mm with the 2xTC. With lighter weight construction than the 400 mm DO II, it could come in at 2-2.5kg.


----------



## Billybob (Dec 15, 2021)

Emyr Evans said:


> WOW!!
> 
> If they can make that 800mm 2.5Kg I'm buying a Z9 and running two systems!


Is this the new norm? I'm not ready to give up my R5, but I have a Z9 on order primarily because I find their forthcoming 400mm f/2.8 with built-in TC an intriguing option. I'm thoroughly impressed with the new 800mm pf, but that's not a lens for me.


----------



## Billybob (Dec 15, 2021)

AlanF said:


> The Nikkor 800mm f/6.3 is only a 1/3rd stop darker than the Nikon 800mm f/5.6 and should give better IQ than the Canon lens and suffer less from diffraction at f/8.8 with a 1.4x extender.


Isn't that f/10, not f/8.8, with a 1.4x TC?


----------



## AlanF (Dec 15, 2021)

Billybob said:


> Isn't that f/10, not f/8.8, with a 1.4x TC?


No, 6.3x1.4 = 8.82. About your previous mail, having used Nikon and Canon in parallel for a year or so, I'm sticking to one system.


----------



## AJ (Dec 15, 2021)

An 800/6.3 at 2.5 kg would be a miracle. Canon 500/4 with 1.4x TC weighs almost twice that.


----------



## Billybob (Dec 15, 2021)

Yep, I'm in error. My calculations were off, and I also was confused by your precision. My cameras always round off to f/9, which still isn't f/10.


----------



## Billybob (Dec 15, 2021)

AJ said:


> An 800/6.3 at 2.5 kg would be a miracle. Canon 500/4 with 1.4x TC weighs almost twice that.


The miracle of pf/DO technology. Based on the weight of the 500/5.6 pf--under 1.5kg--, the expectation/hope is that the 800 using similar tech will not be much more than 1 kg more. In the States, the 6lb (2.7kg) barrier seems to be the target. Thus, if Nikon produces a lens in the 2.5-2.7kg range, I think a lot of people will be thrilled.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 15, 2021)

Billybob said:


> Yep, I'm in error. My calculations were off, and I also was confused by your precision. My cameras always round off to f/9, which still isn't f/10.


Difference between f/9 and f/10 is 1/3rd stop. But, what’s that between friends shooting RAW? I agree about weights PF lenses. Nikon did a great job keeping the 500/5.6 so light, and taught Canon a thing or two there.


----------



## jd7 (Dec 16, 2021)

Czardoom said:


> Personally, if I was looking for a wide variety of lenses from multiple manufacturers, then the R system can't be beat - because you have all the EF mount lenses to choose from. And at used prices, well, how can you beat that? Plus, if you like Canon ergonomics, color, user interface, dust removal, why go Sony?


Yes, the option of adapting EF lenses is certainly there, and all the more so for someone like me who already has EF lenses. However, for me, spending money on a mirrorless body just to use EF lenses doesn't particularly excite me. Sure, I'd get a mirrorless AF system (which has its advantages), but I'd also have to use an EVF (I still prefer OVF) and have significantly shorter battery life. Neither of those issues is necessarily a showstopper, I'm just saying that for me there are pros and cons. Something which would help convince me to spend money on a mirrorless body is access to "better" lenses. "Better" means different things to different people, of course. To me, "better" generally means smaller and lighter while still maintaining good image quality (and inevitably, price is a factor too). So, for example, if I shot Sony, I could get the Sigma 85 f/1.4 DN Art, which has excellent image quality and weighs only 630g. What EF lens can I get which can compete with that? The EF mount Sigma 85 Art weighs 1135g. The Canon 85 f/1.4L IS weighs 950g. Then you have to add 110g for the weight of the EF/RF adapter (130g if you go with the control ring version). If I went with an 85 f/1.8, the Sony version is 371g, while the Canon EF is only a little heavier at 430g (although 540g once you include the adapter), but from everything I've seen the Sony is optically a step up. I won't go through more examples here, but if you look at the lenses I mentioned in one of my earlier posts, you will see a consistent theme.

Am I obsessing unnecessarily over a few hundred grams here and there? I shoot for fun, and the reality is these days, in any situation in which I am likely to take photos, I'm almost invariably with a young child and perhaps a few of his cousins, carrying a bunch of other things in addition to camera gear, and with other people who care a lot if I remembered the snacks and extra nappies but most of the time don't care at all if I brought my camera (even if they like having a few nice photos). Smaller and lighter has become generally more important to me than it once was (although even previously I had some gear where smaller and lighter was important to me, because I carried it on multi-day hikes where I had to carry a tent, food, etc). So, while obviously none of this is critically important in the grand scheme of things (certainly a first world problem!), being able to move to lighter and also physically smaller lenses would be a drawcard for me. Using EF lenses with an adapter does not represent the same drawcard. And as I've said in a previous post, having third party manufacturers providing more RF lens options increases the chance that someone will make a lens which comes close to being the lens I am looking for. I'm very happy to look at the fantastic photos people take with lenses such as the RF 85 f/1.2L, and I know many people would love to have an RF 85L, but it's an example of a lens I am not going to buy.


----------



## Emyr Evans (Dec 16, 2021)

AJ said:


> An 800/6.3 at 2.5 kg would be a miracle. Canon 500/4 with 1.4x TC weighs almost twice that.


This is a PF lens. It will weigh 2.4 - 2.5Kgs.


----------



## tron (Dec 16, 2021)

AJ said:


> An 800/6.3 at 2.5 kg would be a miracle. Canon 500/4 with 1.4x TC weighs almost twice that.


500 f/4 L IS II weighs about 3.2Kg (without hood) and 1.4III 225g so it's about 3.5Kg not 5!


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Dec 16, 2021)

Billybob said:


> Is this the new norm? I'm not ready to give up my R5, but I have a Z9 on order primarily because I find their forthcoming 400mm f/2.8 with built-in TC an intriguing option. I'm thoroughly impressed with the new 800mm pf, but that's not a lens for me.



I don't think it pays to be loyal to one system. Nikon have a lot off lenses I love and upcoming, Canon have some specialised lenses that only Canon will have. I wouldn't have a Z9 and R3 but would get a Z9 and R5/R6 so I can use some Canon only glass like the upcoming tilt-shift lenses.


----------



## tron (Dec 16, 2021)

Photo Bunny said:


> I don't think it pays to be loyal to one system. Nikon have a lot off lenses I love and upcoming, Canon have some specialised lenses that only Canon will have. I wouldn't have a Z9 and R3 but would get a Z9 and R5/R6 so I can use some Canon only glass like the upcoming tilt-shift lenses.


For me it's the other way round but the end result is similar:

I have Canon system comprising of Canon DSLRs (mostly FF) with many EF lenses and a R5 with rather many RF lenses but I also have D500 and D850 to be able to use my only Nikon lens: 500mm f/5.6 PF!


----------



## AlanF (Dec 16, 2021)

tron said:


> For me it's the other way round but the end result is similar:
> 
> I have Canon system comprising of Canon DSLRs (mostly FF) with many EF lenses and a R5 with rather many RF lenses but I also have D500 and D850 to be able to use my only Nikon lens: 500mm f/5.6 PF!


The 500mm PF is my top joint favourite lens of all time along with ---- the RF 100-500mm!


----------



## Billybob (Dec 16, 2021)

AlanF said:


> The 500mm PF is my top joint favourite lens of all time along with ---- the RF 100-500mm!



I'm with you in loving the 100-500. Not only an excellent wildlife lens, but also a great sports lens!




I really like the 500 pf as well, but the D850, not so much. It may be because I haven't mastered the AF system (and now I never will). After using the R5, it's just so hard to go back to DSLRs, but I've nonetheless gotten some good shots with the combo. Here's one of a tri-colored heron that came a bit too close.

I suspect that I'll be happier using the Z9s AF with the 500pf.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 16, 2021)

Billybob said:


> I'm with you in loving the 100-500. Not only an excellent wildlife lens, but also a great sports lens!
> 
> View attachment 201669
> 
> ...


I have nothing but praise for the D850/D500 + 500PF combination. But, I can't go back to a DSLR, and the Z9 is too heavy for me. If Nikon had brought out a Z7 with Canon-like AF, then I might have been interested.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Dec 16, 2021)

AlanF said:


> If Nikon had brought out a Z7 with Canon-like AF, then I might have been interested.



There is the Z6iii and Z7iii with Expeed 7 due at some point soon. The Expeed 7 is 12x faster than the dual Expeed 6 in the Z6ii/Z7ii and likely a bit faster than the Digic X, the only difference I see between Nikon and Canon in AF is that Canon realised the processor was king quicker and Nikon thought that a processor that rocks the DSLR world would also rock mirrorless. If we look at reviews, it isn't about how good the AF is now that they all can track subjects, it's about how sticky the tracking box is which is now almost entirely CPU/GPU bound (and can change from firmware to firmware).


----------



## AlanF (Dec 16, 2021)

Photo Bunny said:


> There is the Z6iii and Z7iii with Expeed 7 due at some point soon. The Expeed 7 is 12x faster than the dual Expeed 6 in the Z6ii/Z7ii and likely a bit faster than the Digic X, the only difference I see between Nikon and Canon in AF is that Canon realised the processor was king quicker and Nikon thought that a processor that rocks the DSLR world would also rock mirrorless. If we look at reviews, it isn't about how good the AF is now that they all can track subjects, it's about how sticky the tracking box is which is now almost entirely CPU/GPU bound (and can change from firmware to firmware).


I have no doubt that Nikon will produce an excellent Z7iii, eventually. Unfortunately, the Ziii series are still vapour-ware, and I have been able to shoot the R5 for the last 15 months and the 100-500mm for over a year. I don't think that far ahead.


----------



## AJ (Dec 16, 2021)

tron said:


> 500 f/4 L IS II weighs about 3.2Kg (without hood) and 1.4III 225g so it's about 3.5Kg not 5!


Ah yes, I forgot. 500/4 mk 1 was about 4 kg but mk2 is a lot lighter.


----------



## Czardoom (Dec 16, 2021)

jd7 said:


> Yes, the option of adapting EF lenses is certainly there, and all the more so for someone like me who already has EF lenses. However, for me, spending money on a mirrorless body just to use EF lenses doesn't particularly excite me. Sure, I'd get a mirrorless AF system (which has its advantages), but I'd also have to use an EVF (I still prefer OVF) and have significantly shorter battery life. Neither of those issues is necessarily a showstopper, I'm just saying that for me there are pros and cons. Something which would help convince me to spend money on a mirrorless body is access to "better" lenses. "Better" means different things to different people, of course. To me, "better" generally means smaller and lighter while still maintaining good image quality (and inevitably, price is a factor too). So, for example, if I shot Sony, I could get the Sigma 85 f/1.4 DN Art, which has excellent image quality and weighs only 630g. What EF lens can I get which can compete with that? The EF mount Sigma 85 Art weighs 1135g. The Canon 85 f/1.4L IS weighs 950g. Then you have to add 110g for the weight of the EF/RF adapter (130g if you go with the control ring version). If I went with an 85 f/1.8, the Sony version is 371g, while the Canon EF is only a little heavier at 430g (although 540g once you include the adapter), but from everything I've seen the Sony is optically a step up. I won't go through more examples here, but if you look at the lenses I mentioned in one of my earlier posts, you will see a consistent theme.
> 
> Am I obsessing unnecessarily over a few hundred grams here and there? I shoot for fun, and the reality is these days, in any situation in which I am likely to take photos, I'm almost invariably with a young child and perhaps a few of his cousins, carrying a bunch of other things in addition to camera gear, and with other people who care a lot if I remembered the snacks and extra nappies but most of the time don't care at all if I brought my camera (even if they like having a few nice photos). Smaller and lighter has become generally more important to me than it once was (although even previously I had some gear where smaller and lighter was important to me, because I carried it on multi-day hikes where I had to carry a tent, food, etc). So, while obviously none of this is critically important in the grand scheme of things (certainly a first world problem!), being able to move to lighter and also physically smaller lenses would be a drawcard for me. Using EF lenses with an adapter does not represent the same drawcard. And as I've said in a previous post, having third party manufacturers providing more RF lens options increases the chance that someone will make a lens which comes close to being the lens I am looking for. I'm very happy to look at the fantastic photos people take with lenses such as the RF 85 f/1.2L, and I know many people would love to have an RF 85L, but it's not a lens I am going to buy.


I understand completely the desire (and/or need) to go smaller and lighter. That's why my main camera is an Olympus MFT! But back in the spring, due to the lighter and smaller lenses (and cheaper FF camera alternatives) I switched to Nikon. I was interested in zooms - including their 24-200 all-purpose zoom, which was better optically, smaller and lighter than Canon's 24-240 - and also their 14-30 f/4 which was also nice and compact and light. The Z5 was $899 refurbished which was such a deal I could not pass it up. Alas, their were some downsides, and in the end I came back to Canon because the Canon color. 

But it is mostly about lenses, so I understand that aspect as well. Good luck whatever you decide.


----------



## Billybob (Dec 16, 2021)

AlanF said:


> I have no doubt that Nikon will produce an excellent Z7iii, eventually. Unfortunately, the Ziii series are still vapour-ware, and I have been able to shoot the R5 for the last 15 months and the 100-500mm for over a year. I don't think that far ahead.


Yep, I ordered the R5 and 100-500 the first day they were available for ordering and haven't looked back or had any regrets.


----------



## fox40phil (Dec 17, 2021)

I want that 800mm f6.3 !! Dayum Canon!.... And also Nikon will release a 200-600mm!

Nikon could easily get some market share soon....

They have great APS-C (D500 & Z5) and great lenses! Not those f11 stuff.... small f5.6 lenses like the PF 500 5.6!

If I would have the money I would go into two systems... Canon & Sony or Nikon. Sony has awesome small and bright lenses with the 14 1.8, 24 1.4, 50 1.2 & 135 1.8...and awesome internal zooms like the new 70-200 2.8 and the great 200-600! I think the rumored Sony 85 1.2 will be more lighter then the heavy Canon RF!
Nikon is a little bit cheaper and has great small and lightweight zooms and great tele options!


----------



## twoheadedboy (Dec 17, 2021)

AlanF said:


> No, 6.3x1.4 = 8.82. About your previous mail, having used Nikon and Canon in parallel for a year or so, I'm sticking to one system.





AlanF said:


> No, 6.3x1.4 = 8.82. About your previous mail, having used Nikon and Canon in parallel for a year or so, I'm sticking to one system.


Even though the math is pretty close here, it's not exactly correct.You lose a full stop of light with a 1.4x teleconverter; the "1.4x" is the focal length multiplier (so 800mm * 1.4 = 1120mm). f/6.3 is 1/3 stop smaller than f/5.6, so "three one-third stops" smaller would be f/9. A 2x teleconverter loses 2 stops, so that would be 1600mm f/13. If stacking was possible, the multiplier would be 2.8x with 3 stops of light loss, which would result in 2240mm (!) f/18.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 17, 2021)

twoheadedboy said:


> Even though the math is pretty close here, it's not exactly correct.You lose a full stop of light with a 1.4x teleconverter; the "1.4x" is the focal length multiplier (so 800mm * 1.4 = 1120mm). f/6.3 is 1/3 stop smaller than f/5.6, so "three one-third stops" smaller would be f/9. A 2x teleconverter loses 2 stops, so that would be 1600mm f/13. If stacking was possible, the multiplier would be 2.8x with 3 stops of light loss, which would result in 2240mm (!) f/18.


If you are going to nitpick about not being exactly correct, your figures are not exactly correct. 1 stop smaller than f/6.3 needs a multiplier of the square root of 2, ie 1.414 to 3 decimal places, giving f/8.91 as “three one-third stops smaller” smaller. 2 stops lower than f/6.3 is f/12.6, and 3 stops of light f/17.82. As if anyone would quibble.


----------



## DJP (Dec 17, 2021)

jd7 said:


> Yes, the option of adapting EF lenses is certainly there, and all the more so for someone like me who already has EF lenses. However, for me, spending money on a mirrorless body just to use EF lenses doesn't particularly excite me. Sure, I'd get a mirrorless AF system (which has its advantages), but I'd also have to use an EVF (I still prefer OVF) and have significantly shorter battery life. Neither of those issues is necessarily a showstopper, I'm just saying that for me there are pros and cons. Something which would help convince me to spend money on a mirrorless body is access to "better" lenses. "Better" means different things to different people, of course. To me, "better" generally means smaller and lighter while still maintaining good image quality (and inevitably, price is a factor too). So, for example, if I shot Sony, I could get the Sigma 85 f/1.4 DN Art, which has excellent image quality and weighs only 630g. What EF lens can I get which can compete with that? The EF mount Sigma 85 Art weighs 1135g. The Canon 85 f/1.4L IS weighs 950g. Then you have to add 110g for the weight of the EF/RF adapter (130g if you go with the control ring version). If I went with an 85 f/1.8, the Sony version is 371g, while the Canon EF is only a little heavier at 430g (although 540g once you include the adapter), but from everything I've seen the Sony is optically a step up. I won't go through more examples here, but if you look at the lenses I mentioned in one of my earlier posts, you will see a consistent theme.
> 
> Am I obsessing unnecessarily over a few hundred grams here and there? I shoot for fun, and the reality is these days, in any situation in which I am likely to take photos, I'm almost invariably with a young child and perhaps a few of his cousins, carrying a bunch of other things in addition to camera gear, and with other people who care a lot if I remembered the snacks and extra nappies but most of the time don't care at all if I brought my camera (even if they like having a few nice photos). Smaller and lighter has become generally more important to me than it once was (although even previously I had some gear where smaller and lighter was important to me, because I carried it on multi-day hikes where I had to carry a tent, food, etc). So, while obviously none of this is critically important in the grand scheme of things (certainly a first world problem!), being able to move to lighter and also physically smaller lenses would be a drawcard for me. Using EF lenses with an adapter does not represent the same drawcard. And as I've said in a previous post, having third party manufacturers providing more RF lens options increases the chance that someone will make a lens which comes close to being the lens I am looking for. I'm very happy to look at the fantastic photos people take with lenses such as the RF 85 f/1.2L, and I know many people would love to have an RF 85L, but it's not a lens I am going to buy.


I agree with you on the weight side of things. I found I hardly used my EOS R and lenses for general everyday use as I just didn't want to carry it and have a big bag with me. I bought a Ricoh GR III which I use extensively for the reasons you state, everyday life photos. Came with a little case that slips on my belt and I carry it all over now. Image quality is fantastic for such a small camera. I am getting the Ricoh GR IIIx once there is stock in the UK as I love the slightly longer focal length (eq ~40mm)

I still have my EOS R and other kit which I use when I am going out exclusively to take photos i.e Landscape photography


----------



## jd7 (Dec 17, 2021)

Czardoom said:


> I understand completely the desire (and/or need) to go smaller and lighter. That's why my main camera is an Olympus MFT! But back in the spring, due to the lighter and smaller lenses (and cheaper FF camera alternatives) I switched to Nikon. I was interested in zooms - including their 24-200 all-purpose zoom, which was better optically, smaller and lighter than Canon's 24-240 - and also their 14-30 f/4 which was also nice and compact and light. The Z5 was $899 refurbished which was such a deal I could not pass it up. Alas, their were some downsides, and in the end I came back to Canon because the Canon color.
> 
> But it is mostly about lenses, so I understand that aspect as well. Good luck whatever you decide.


Thanks Czardoom. Really interesting to hear about your dabble with Nikon. Perhaps I would end up doing a similar thing if I bought a Sony. I reckon until I have owned gear, or at least had a good opportunity to use it for a while, I really cannot be sure whether it is going to work for me, no matter how many reviews I read or watch. Anyway, for now I think I will just keep shooting my DSLR (and keep wishing we start seeing more third party RF lenses!).


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 17, 2021)

twoheadedboy said:


> Even though the math is pretty close here, it's not exactly correct.You lose a full stop of light with a 1.4x teleconverter; the "1.4x" is the focal length multiplier (so 800mm * 1.4 = 1120mm). f/6.3 is 1/3 stop smaller than f/5.6, so "three one-third stops" smaller would be f/9. A 2x teleconverter loses 2 stops, so that would be 1600mm f/13. If stacking was possible, the multiplier would be 2.8x with 3 stops of light loss, which would result in 2240mm (!) f/18.


Fail. If you’re going to go into full-on pedantic mode, at least get it right.


----------



## twoheadedboy (Dec 17, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Fail. If you’re going to go into full-on pedantic mode, at least get it right.


I did get it right.


----------



## twoheadedboy (Dec 17, 2021)

AlanF said:


> If you are going to nitpick about not being exactly correct, your figures are not exactly correct. 1 stop smaller than f/6.3 needs a multiplier of the square root of 2, ie 1.414 to 3 decimal places, giving f/8.91 as “three one-third stops smaller” smaller. 2 stops lower than f/6.3 is f/12.6, and 3 stops of light f/17.82. As if anyone would quibble.


The point is you add coarse fractional stops to the figure because that's what the camera does (just like the lens itself probably isn't exactly f/6.3), you don't just multiply the lens's biggest aperture by 1.4. There is no f/8.8 or f8.91 setting on a camera, it is f/9. Only the camera's setting matters because we are not talking about exposing/pushing/pulling film.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 17, 2021)

twoheadedboy said:


> The point is you add coarse fractional stops to the figure because that's what the camera does (just like the lens itself probably isn't exactly f/6.3), you don't just multiply the lens's biggest aperture by 1.4. There is no f/8.8 or f8.91 setting on a camera, it is f/9. Only the camera's setting matters because we are not talking about exposing/pushing/pulling film.


Stop twisting it around - you said that the maths was not exactly correct and that 1 stop greater than f/6.3 is f/9. And now you have changed tack by saying that the camera isn't exactly correct. It's such a trivial point it's not worth arguing about or taking further. Hardly any of the telephoto lenses have the exact aperture and focal length they are said to have in manufacturers description or in the the settings on the camera. The patents, which are accurate, on most telephotos tell you that the true f-numbers are generally narrower and the focal lengths shorter than the catalogue values. But, the camera will round them to the nearest number. The maths tells you that 1 stop narrower than f/6.3 is f/8.9095 to 4 decimal places and that is indisputable. The camera rounds off the numbers to the nearest integer or two at higher f-numbers and to a decimal place or larger at lower. The maths was correct whatever the f/numbers reported are.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 17, 2021)

twoheadedboy said:


> I did get it right.


The optical effect of a 1.4x TC is one stop, which is numerically equal to the square root of 2. That’s math, and it wasn’t ‘pretty close’ it was correct.

Camera settings are different. If I set my camera to use half-stop increments, it would be f/9.5.


----------



## mxwphoto (Dec 19, 2021)

SwissFrank said:


> Is it known to be the entire lens? If people are only noting that the formula is the same, it could be Nikon coatings, housing, motor, etc., simply with a lens formula from another shop.


The announcement doesn't speak of any of Nikon's proprietary coatings. Also, if Nikon only uses the G1 lens formula and have to grind their own lens elements then it is essentially them utilizing their own resources to build someone else's lens, which defeats the whole purpose of the outsourcing. I would not be surprised if Nikon gave the approval for brand badge, AF algorithm, and housing design and just told Tamron to go rehouse their lenses to spec and deliver to Nikon's doorsteps for sale.


----------



## vangelismm (Dec 20, 2021)

SwissFrank said:


> 3) maybe Nikon did the original design and licensed it to Tamron to use as their own product?


It is easy to believe in unicorns.


----------



## dilbert (Dec 21, 2021)

SwissFrank said:


> Not to be argumentative but some situations it'd make sense:
> 
> 1) they outsource the lens grinding, but either can use a patented coating of their own that the original maker couldn't, or use a publicly-available one that's better but more expensive



If the special coatings on the lens' optical surfaces changes the path of light then it makes no sense to do this.

The reality is that as the market contracts, expect to see more of this happening. Was it Sigma OEM'ing lenses for Leica? And Panasonic? Didn't Leica use an optical model from Tamon or was it Sigma?

The optical formula is what's difficult to change one part of (glass materials or coatings) because the precise design would take everything into account but the electronics, mechanisms and casing would eb easier.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Dec 23, 2021)

SwissFrank said:


> meh, 28-75/2.8 sounds pretty boring. I never felt I needed just 5mm more on the long end. Yes I want longer--but I want so much longer that I need either -100mm (e.g., 24-105/4) or I need a separate telephoto. In contrast, 4mm more on the short end is a game-changer.



It's a cheep lens that isn't on par with the L lenses from Canon nor the S lenses from Nikon. Nikon have a 24-70 f/4.0 S, 24-120 f/4.0 S, and a 24-70 f/2.8 S that are all better than the 28-75 f/2.8.


----------



## entoman (Dec 27, 2021)

Nikon are making a great impression on me these days, with the stunning Z9 and a series of lenses that in some instances seem to be "better" in terms of spec, design and ergonomics than Canon's RF series. Sony are also producing very impressive bodies (a9ii, a1) and lenses. We really are so spoilt for choice nowadays, that it's very difficult to decide which brand is "best" for my own usage.

Sony still seem to hold the AF crown, with IMO the best system for BIF. Canon for me still hold the crown for ergonomics and user enjoyment. Overall though, Nikon really deserve to be right at the top, but unfortunately they just don't seem to be able to market the cameras well enough, which is a great pity. They deserve more.


----------



## entoman (Dec 28, 2021)

SwissFrank said:


> ...... I went with RF instead of Nikon or Sony based on the gut feeling that over the next couple decades Canon would catch up.
> 
> My one solid fear is that Canon's lead in sales is so comprehensive, and so well-managed despite not having the best gear, that they may just get used to having good sales without being cutting edge.


Yes, this is the only real issue - Canon are a comparatively conservative company. They'd probably *claim* that their philosophy is to let other companies do the beta-testing, (and then only introduce things in Canon gear when they were satisfied they had the best and most reliable implementation), but the R5 overheating issues rather exploded that myth.

More likely is that Canon's sales success just leads them to sit on their laurels and appear complacent. The frustrating consequence for their customers is that we need a lot of patience as we wait for them to play catch-up, with new bodies and lenses. It's pretty much the opposite philosophy to Sony, who rush their latest technology out as fast as they can and thereby capture the early adopter techno-enthusiast market. Poor old Nikon meanwhile try very hard to produce class-leading cameras (and often succeed, ref D810, D850, Z9), but sadly have great difficulty convincing people to actually buy their products.

I'll probably stay with Canon for 2 reasons, a) the cost of switching is too prohibitive, and b) I prefer Canon ergonomics. But if I was rich enough to be able to afford to switch systems, I'd be very tempted by the Sony a1 and it's vast range of native glass. I'd rate Nikon and Canon about the same as far as lenses are concerned - Nikon have some lenses that I prefer to Canon nearest-equivalents, but likewise Canon score with others such as the RF 100-500mm. I'm very impressed by the specs and design of the Z9 (and the price!), but I don't like gripped bodies, so that kicks both the Z9 and the R3 into touch. Looks like I'll be staying with the R5 for another couple of years then.


----------

