toomanycanons
Forum Pro
I use the original 16-50 and an 18-140 F mount on my Z50 and that covers all my needs
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
New Nikon 16-50 DX f2.8 and 35mm MC DX f1.7
- Thread starter Mizar11
- Start date
About time they came out with this but not me, would rather be ordering a FF version. I'll just stick with my old Sigma 17-50/2.8 EX and Z 16-50VR (great lens). Good addition though and it does make me wonder about another DX body coming.
Last edited:
unhappymeal
Senior Member
- Messages
- 4,168
- Reaction score
- 4,673
No VR on a near 1:1 macro lens is a bit of a miss. Yeah, yeah tripod, but not everyone wants to break one out.
1000DTL
Leading Member
I won’t be preordering. I have been using the Sigma 18-35 f1.8 and 50-100 f1.8 with the FTZ adapter and Fuji lenses with the Shoten XTZ adapter. Fuji has a 16-55 f2.8 lens so I will pass on these two. Interesting the images appear to show metal lens mounts on these two lenses. I first for Z DX lenses. Is Nikon starting to treat DX seriously?
Howard V
Veteran Member
Maybe APS-C with VR bodies are in the plans? Sony already has them in APS-C, right?
monte12345
Senior Member
Adding dual card slots and IBIS to the Z50 will mean a larger camera, probably the same as the Z5II. If Nikon were to offer it with a 24-28mp Stacked or Semi Stacked sensor it would create lot of interest. However there is the matter of Noise that will come along with the increase in resolution. I expect that this would also drive the cost to match that of the Z6 III.
Ryan Schwartz
Senior Member
Nice surprise from Nikon that they are still supporting the DX line.
Was interested in the 16-50 f/2.8 until I saw the price. Seems a bit high, especially for being a DX lens. Probably will wait and grab a used or refurbished copy. I find my F-mount 16-80 f/2.8-4 to be a more versatile focal range anyway with the FTZ adapter. Yes, it’s not a native mount, but at this point, I don’t really care since lens options are still limited for DX.
Agree with no VR on the macro lens being a miss, but this is typical of Nikon on primes. I’ll just use my FF 35 f/1.8 and call it a day.
Was interested in the 16-50 f/2.8 until I saw the price. Seems a bit high, especially for being a DX lens. Probably will wait and grab a used or refurbished copy. I find my F-mount 16-80 f/2.8-4 to be a more versatile focal range anyway with the FTZ adapter. Yes, it’s not a native mount, but at this point, I don’t really care since lens options are still limited for DX.
Agree with no VR on the macro lens being a miss, but this is typical of Nikon on primes. I’ll just use my FF 35 f/1.8 and call it a day.
Last edited:
cyuill2007
Senior Member
I won’t be preordering. I don’t have an immediate need for a Z DX lens. But I think this shows that DX does have a future with Nikon.
Someone over at NR discovered that synchro VR rating of 5.5 stops was stated for this new 16-50mm lens on a Z6III. That is only important for DX cameras if they have IBIS, which none of them do. Some on NR are wondering if this is a sign that DX cameras with IBIS will finally be introduced. Just speculation so far — but who knows?
MJ_Photo38
Veteran Member
I doubt it. The expensive 16-50 f/2.8 having VR indicates they intend this lens to be used with a camera that has no IBIS.
So either a Z50II, or a slightly more expensive model that wouldn't have IBIS either, but at this point I doubt they would release such a model.
I'd rather put my money on a high end video options with a DX sensor that would be competing with the FX30, or something like a Zfc II
So either a Z50II, or a slightly more expensive model that wouldn't have IBIS either, but at this point I doubt they would release such a model.
I'd rather put my money on a high end video options with a DX sensor that would be competing with the FX30, or something like a Zfc II
Vince P
Senior Member
The strange part is, if it didn't have VR, on a Z6iii, then a16-50mm would have at least 8 stops, as well as working with focus point stabilisation.
Last edited:
I prefer to wait for the first reviews and comparisons with similar products. European prices with VAT + shipping sometimes make pre-ordering less advantageous than waiting a couple of months and buying at a discount
Me too, but there is one thing I don't like about the existing 16-50 which is the lock and unlock part about the design. It seems to slow things down when you want to just pick it up and get a shot quickly.
Hal Wilson
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,173
- Reaction score
- 1,298
Hmm. The 16-50 would be fairly useful to me; I'm currently using a 12-28 and a FX 24-70 f4, but tbh, I think I'll just spend the £120 or so it'll take to get a mint/practically unused 16-50 f3.5-6.3 'kit' lens. As that'll be significantly cheaper, and offer pretty similar IQ. And have VR. Been thinking about picking one up as a 'general purpose' lens; had one on my old Zfc, and it was ok. I do prefer the 12-28 overall, because of the much wider angle. NGL the new f2.8 version would be quite useful on myZ50ii, particularly in very low light, but tbh I'm gonna buy other things before I spend £799 on a DX lens.
The 35mm f1l.7 on the other hand; that's very interesting. I have the 24mm f1.7 DX, but I've never been a 35mm type of person tbh. the 52.5mm equivalent focal length is more appealing to me. Even at f2.55 equivalent, it's still going to have less DoF than the 24mm. The macro feature is also interesting. And it's half the price of the new 16-50.
Nice to see a release that nobody 'predicted'....
Last edited:
TheWillRogers
Leading Member
And there it is, 16-50mm, exactly what I expected this lens would materialize as but absolutely not what I and others wanted. This is a functional equivalent to the 24-70mm f4 in terms of field of view, depth of field, and cumulative light on sensor. Only $100 cheaper. We can compare some kit differences here
Prices in USD
~~~~~~ BNIB prices
$1900 :: Z50ii ($1000) + 16-50mm f/2.8 VR ($900)
$2600 :: Z5ii ($1600) + 24-70mm f/4 S ($1000)
Before I continue, holy crap has this all gotten so expensive. When I got my Z50 I did so because the Z5 + 24-70 F4 S kit was $1600 and that was just a massive pile of cash to spend on a toy. Even as a senior engineer in the US the $1900 price for the Z50 kit can be summarily dismissed for being too high...
Both combos have vibration compensation, Z5 has IBIS and 16-50mm has VR, which I prefer. Z5 kit would be more "rugged" than the Z50ii kit, though my Z50 survived many, many rainstorms with minimal protection. Only to the die from a loose screw inside the body bridging two contacts a few years after a repair by Nikon Service...
~~~~~~ refurb prices (with obvious exception)
$1800:: Z50ii ($730) + 16-50mm f/2.8 ($1000)
$2200 :: Z5ii ($1350) + 24-70mm f/4 ($800)
Yikes lol. I remember passing on multiple people selling their almost brand new 24-70mm f/4 for $200ish. In fact you can still find these lenses in extremely good condition selling for $400 on ebay, at which point it's just 'better' to go with the Z5ii kit.
IDK, at this price point I would have been jazzed if Nikon rolled out a 16-80mm f2.8-4 VR, but a functional equivalent of the 24-70mm F4, with a less rugged construction, really doesn't excite me. Had it been the 16-80mm I would consider taking out a loan to pay for the lens when I finally can swing replacing my dead Z50.
35mm f/1.7 MC is very nice, I just don't need more than a 23mm and 50mm lens and find extension tubes to be more than adequate. Some folks are gonna love this.
Prices in USD
~~~~~~ BNIB prices
$1900 :: Z50ii ($1000) + 16-50mm f/2.8 VR ($900)
$2600 :: Z5ii ($1600) + 24-70mm f/4 S ($1000)
Before I continue, holy crap has this all gotten so expensive. When I got my Z50 I did so because the Z5 + 24-70 F4 S kit was $1600 and that was just a massive pile of cash to spend on a toy. Even as a senior engineer in the US the $1900 price for the Z50 kit can be summarily dismissed for being too high...
Both combos have vibration compensation, Z5 has IBIS and 16-50mm has VR, which I prefer. Z5 kit would be more "rugged" than the Z50ii kit, though my Z50 survived many, many rainstorms with minimal protection. Only to the die from a loose screw inside the body bridging two contacts a few years after a repair by Nikon Service...
~~~~~~ refurb prices (with obvious exception)
$1800:: Z50ii ($730) + 16-50mm f/2.8 ($1000)
$2200 :: Z5ii ($1350) + 24-70mm f/4 ($800)
Yikes lol. I remember passing on multiple people selling their almost brand new 24-70mm f/4 for $200ish. In fact you can still find these lenses in extremely good condition selling for $400 on ebay, at which point it's just 'better' to go with the Z5ii kit.
IDK, at this price point I would have been jazzed if Nikon rolled out a 16-80mm f2.8-4 VR, but a functional equivalent of the 24-70mm F4, with a less rugged construction, really doesn't excite me. Had it been the 16-80mm I would consider taking out a loan to pay for the lens when I finally can swing replacing my dead Z50.
35mm f/1.7 MC is very nice, I just don't need more than a 23mm and 50mm lens and find extension tubes to be more than adequate. Some folks are gonna love this.
Last edited:
Hal Wilson
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,173
- Reaction score
- 1,298
I bought a D3300 with the 18-55mm AF-P kit lens, for under £400 in 2016, so still less than £550 now. Even the Z30 with the 16-50 kit lens is £799 now. The Z range has jumped up in price by quite a bit, relatively.
At the start of the Z revolution, some of the lenses were a LOT cheaper than they are now. I bought my 50mm f1.8 Z for £349 from John Lewis', a high street retailer that invariably sells at RRP or very little under. They were available for as little as £320 I heard. Current RRP is £579, dipping just below £500 now and then. UK prices jumped up significantly following Brexit, and have continued to rise, although not too much lately.
A 16-80 f4 or even f2.8 would have definitely had me a lot more interested. As it is, the 24-70 covers the FX range of 36-105mm, so not too bad.
As Hogan notes, this is a pleasant surprise but not necessarily indicative of a new DX body coming. What it does signal is an unexpected growth of Nikon support for its DX lineup with step-up lenses. The last time Nikon created an f/2.8 DX standard zoom was in 2003. The new 35mm is reminiscent of the well-received 2009 f/1.8 35. This time it's a quasi-macro.
Like Hogan, I would have wanted a DX equivalent to the FX 24-120 f/4, but that would have been too big and too expensive. Remember the wallet screams when the 16-80 f/2.8-4 was introduced?
madecov
Veteran Member
I think the 35mm makes total sense. It matches the 50mm mc on FX. I'll be ordering the new 16-50mm in January to replace my 16-50mm that I sold with my Zfc.
The 18-140 is just too slow indoors.
The 18-140 is just too slow indoors.
Black friday?
whoosh1
Senior Member
These are not available in the Z mount, maybe because Nikon wants to release one?
Probably the 70-180mm f/2.8 will make do. There may not be much weight savings at the tele end.
I guess, I will continue with my Nikon Z 14-30mm f/4 (~500g), Nikon Z 24-70mm f/4 (~500g) and Nikon Z 70-180mm f/2.8 (~800g) on a Z7 II. Slightly heavier but not insanely heavier.
The 35mm is sensible in some ways, but a 35mm macro (really a quasi-macro) has too short of a focal length for living subjects. For a true macro a 100mm focal length is more practical, but then you'd have a VERY niche lens that wouldn't sell in great quantities.
I see it more as the update to the 2009 f/1.8 35 DX f-mount, which was a useful low-light walkaround prime.
The 16-50 range in an f/2.8 DX hasn't been seen since 2003 (!).
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum