Why the lack of Z 26mm f/2.8 reviews?

I've looked in all the usual places, and the usual reviewers I check (here, zsystemuser, kenrockwell, and so on) haven't put up reviews for the Z 26mm f/2.8 lens. Here at DPR, there's a gallery for it, but no review. That seems a bit unusual, since it is in stock (at Adorama, for example) and not very expensive.

Anyone have any idea why this might be?

pcgeekesq said:

I've looked in all the usual places, and the usual reviewers I check (here, zsystemuser, kenrockwell, and so on) haven't put up reviews for the Z 26mm f/2.8 lens. Here at DPR, there's a gallery for it, but no review. That seems a bit unusual, since it is in stock (at Adorama, for example) and not very expensive.

Anyone have any idea why this might be?

Click to expand...

Nikon started shipping that lens very recently, just a couple of weeks ago. And IMO they are pricing it too high. I doubt that it is/will be all that popular, and the amount of interest is limited. I am hoping for discounts. If not, I won’t miss it.

shuncheung said:

Nikon started shipping that lens very recently, just a couple of weeks ago. And IMO they are pricing it too high. I doubt that it is/will be all that popular ...

Click to expand...

Not getting any reviews might affect how popular it is: odds are if credible reviewers gave it high marks, it would sell better. But instead we have ... silence.

Hopefully that's not because the lens is seriously flawed and none of the credible reviewers want to go on the record with that. But if so, I don't have a problem with "if you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all" as a philosophy, even if it isn't mine.

pcgeekesq said:

shuncheung said:

Nikon started shipping that lens very recently, just a couple of weeks ago. And IMO they are pricing it too high. I doubt that it is/will be all that popular ...

Click to expand...

Not getting any reviews might affect how popular it is: odds are if credible reviewers gave it high marks, it would sell better. But instead we have ... silence.

Hopefully that's not because the lens is seriously flawed and none of the credible reviewers want to go on the record with that. But if so, I don't have a problem with "if you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all" as a philosophy, even if it isn't mine.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't worry about that. E.g. Thom Hogan is often overly critical about Nikon in general.

I just don't think the 26mm/f2.8 pancake will ever be a popular lens so that it is not a priority for reviewers, as they won't get that many web hits. It is much easier to post more rumors about the Z8 and you will get a lot more attention and therefore income.

From what I have read, the 26mm seems to be a nice lens, but a pancake lens cannot be telecentric, and a non-telecentric wide angle is unlikely to be optically great on digital. That is pretty much a given. It looks like the main complaints about it are (1) noisy AF and (2) the center part sticks out when focused to close distance. Ricci, who clearly has close financial ties to Nikon, did not hesitate to point those out in his video preview with a pre-production sample.

But I maintain the point of view that at US$499, this lens is a tough sell.

I happen to think it'll sell well, and it's only a matter of time before the reviews start appearing.

Something similar happened with the muffin lenses, which I had been eagerly waiting for. They were released and it was some time before actual reviews started appearing, though there were some early unboxing videos (as there are with the 26).

tough sell - especially because 26mm f2.8 is covered by a number of 24-xx lenses already

I can't see this being a high volume seller ever really

It is advertised by Nikon as a fun lens. From the construction, I would suspect it is not an excellent lens, just small. There are no miracles.

{Apologies just seen the ref to this above}

There is a "first look" by Ricci. Full review to follow in time..


In general I would guess any decent reviewer needs to spend more time than has been available with it

My guess is we will see reviews soon, as well as comparisons with the much less expensive (and quieter) 28mm f2.8. The 26mm may be more useful for vloggers, and it has a metal mount, but the 28mm is not exactly a large or heavy lens and hundreds cheaper, so I am not surprised it is in stock and available.

Generally speaking, the Z lenses have been notable optical improvements (compared to the f-mount lenses). And this lens isn't really in that direction. So those that want it are buying it specifically for its size and maybe for its cost--but not really for the optics. Which is fine, but what do you really need a review to tell you at that point--that's it's smaller and lighter and cheaper (though still overpriced)?

PaulDunlopPhotography said:

tough sell - especially because 26mm f2.8 is covered by a number of 24-xx lenses already

I can't see this being a high volume seller ever really

Click to expand...

I agree. And for almost half the price, I'm satisfied with the 28mm I have for now.



--
https://www.mlgreenephotography.com/

Jim Keye said:

Generally speaking, the Z lenses have been notable optical improvements (compared to the f-mount lenses). And this lens isn't really in that direction. So those that want it are buying it specifically for its size and maybe for its cost--but not really for the optics.

Click to expand...

In the Ricci video linked above, he says that "the image quality is incredible," and better than the 28mm f/2.8. So why do you think no one would buy it for the optics?

The lens is still very new, similar to the Z 85mm f/1.2 S there are almost only previews, first impressions or hands-on's of pre-production units, but no in-depth reviews.

Cameralabs review of the Nikon Z 26/2.8 is coming soon.

https://rotomerge.blogspot.com/p/all-my-lens-reviews.html

____

https://www.digitalcameraworld.com/reviews/hands-on-nikon-nikkor-z-26mm-f28-lens-review

https://www.thephoblographer.com/2023/02/06/nikon-z-26mm-f2-8-first-impressions/

PaulDunlopPhotography said:

tough sell - especially because 26mm f2.8 is covered by a number of 24-xx lenses already

I can't see this being a high volume seller ever really

Click to expand...

I disagree. The main reason is because Nikon doesn't have an FX body with expeed7, stacked sensor, 30mp, and flippy screen. Vlog friendly, but also suited for enthusiasts. I feel like all of the companies are creating donut hole product lines.

Much like buying a car these days. Only the limited trim has the features you want, with a $10k premium, but only the compromised sport/trail version looks nice.

I would be happy with an updated Z50 with the features the other DX bodies offer, and maybe a screen that tilted an flip. Most of the time I just need it to rotate down 90 degrees instead of the 45 limit on the FX Z's, but I'd still want to slip it forward, because it is 2023!

--
SkyRunR
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
TIPS: Be kind, RT#M, use gear not signature, limit/shorten replies with quotes!
'The first casualty, when war comes, is truth' - Hiram Johnson (1866-1945)

I have the 26mm f/2.8 in hand and will be using it later this week.

Initial observations:

Really small - about the size of the Z 1.4 TC.

Relatively solid feel - heavier than the TC. Solid and well build with a metal mount.

Hood design is unusual. Lens cap fits the lens without the hood or with the hood mounted. Hood is a little snug when mounting the first time and needs pressure to click into place, but fine after that.

The lens element (not the lens) extends slightly when focusing, so you can't have the camera turned on and the cap on the lens without the hood in the correct position. It can be turned on if the hood is mounted and the cap is on the hood.

Front element is very small - about the size of a dime. Even though the lens is mounted on a wide Z mount, the front element is tiny. I can't imagine the optical formula to go from such a small front element to a large mount and FF sensor.

There is definitely a sound when focusing for stills or video - manual or AF. I don't think it is a big deal for stills, but for video may be an issue.

Small size and light weight is definitely a keeper. You can quibble about the price, but it's not bad. The metal mount and solid build are positives. The design is very different and worth the time and effort.

Initial images are excellent - sharp, good toward the corners, etc. Need more testing.

pcgeekesq said:

Jim Keye said:

Generally speaking, the Z lenses have been notable optical improvements (compared to the f-mount lenses). And this lens isn't really in that direction. So those that want it are buying it specifically for its size and maybe for its cost--but not really for the optics.

Click to expand...

In the Ricci video linked above, he says that "the image quality is incredible," and better than the 28mm f/2.8. So why do you think no one would buy it for the optics?

Click to expand...

Well, I wondered aloud in another thread whether it’s IQ would be good enough for me and others scoffed at the idea that a person could even remotely be interested in how this lens performed given that all the supposed target audience cared about was its size. If indeed that is the case, that it’s target market is merely interested in the lens for its size and not its performance, then there is no need for reviews because its size is easily knowable.

Personally, if I’m shelling out $500 for a lens it better perform good enough for me to think it’s worth it. But I freely admit while its size is attractive it’s not preeminent for me.

In a word, it’s a B-O-R-I-N-G lens that fills no voids in the line, except for those wanting tiny lenses. For me, the 28/2.8 is plenty small enough.

I bet the 26mm 2.8 pancake will be offered as a kit lens for the forthcoming Zf.

Then we'll see a lot more of them in the wild.

I want it for sure, but not at $500. When it hits $350, I'll take out my wallet, after hopefully selling the 28mm 2.8 on Craigslist for $200.

pcgeekesq said:

Jim Keye said:

Generally speaking, the Z lenses have been notable optical improvements (compared to the f-mount lenses). And this lens isn't really in that direction. So those that want it are buying it specifically for its size and maybe for its cost--but not really for the optics.

Click to expand...

In the Ricci video linked above, he says that "the image quality is incredible," and better than the 28mm f/2.8. So why do you think no one would buy it for the optics?

Click to expand...

Yeah...purple fringing in the highlights, no special coatings so flare seems to be a thing. You can see this in the first sample show he shows. (Also, worse bokeh than the 28.) His basic take is that it's better than the 28. Well, ok...it's also priced at almost twice as much. It had better be better.

No I haven't seen MTFs for it, but it seems pretty clear there are better options if optical quality is the main goal. Obviously those optical improvements come at several costs, which aren't nothing--size, weight, cost, etc.

I'm not dissing the lens. It doesn't have to be "bad." But optics aren't going to be the primary driver of its purchase. Cost maybe, size absolutely. And maybe a cost/optics ratio that works for some people. And that's fine. But that probably also explains why no one is bending over backwards to put out a review--you already know the two most important selling points. If you're intrigued by the lens, the optics wasn't the intrigue. And that's kind of the only thing a review can provide new info on.

Jim Keye said:

pcgeekesq said:

Jim Keye said:

Generally speaking, the Z lenses have been notable optical improvements (compared to the f-mount lenses). And this lens isn't really in that direction. So those that want it are buying it specifically for its size and maybe for its cost--but not really for the optics.

Click to expand...

In the Ricci video linked above, he says that "the image quality is incredible," and better than the 28mm f/2.8. So why do you think no one would buy it for the optics?

Click to expand...

Yeah...purple fringing in the highlights, no special coatings so flare seems to be a thing. You can see this in the first sample show he shows. (Also, worse bokeh than the 28.) His basic take is that it's better than the 28. Well, ok...it's also priced at almost twice as much. It had better be better.

No I haven't seen MTFs for it, but it seems pretty clear there are better options if optical quality is the main goal. Obviously those optical improvements come at several costs, which aren't nothing--size, weight, cost, etc.

I'm not dissing the lens. It doesn't have to be "bad." But optics aren't going to be the primary driver of its purchase. Cost maybe, size absolutely. And maybe a cost/optics ratio that works for some people. And that's fine. But that probably also explains why no one is bending over backwards to put out a review--you already know the two most important selling points. If you're intrigued by the lens, the optics wasn't the intrigue. And that's kind of the only thing a review can provide new info on.

Click to expand...

It’s better than the 28 in every way except for focus motor noise.