Just curious how cropped sensor Z camera owners feel about the new $900 lens. I personally feel the much lighter and quite sharp kit 16-50 Z lens is more than adequate.
I feel that the new f/2.8 zoom fills one of the most glaring gaps in the Nikon APS-C system. However, by itself it doesn’t solve the scarcity of zoom lenses in the system, which limits its popularity and ultimately caps the potential success of the lens itself. A small base of installed camera bodies means a low lens acquisition number.
The whole situation feels a bit like a re-run of the Nikon 1 conundrum: a solid kit of low-end f/5.6 lenses with only a few highlights among the more expensive ones. That alone doesn’t create a well-rounded, universal system and leaves the impression that there’s no clear vision or strategy behind it other than pushing users to full-frame, which feels bad.
And with current PP software, noise is really a non issue, IMHO.
I hope people eventually stop using this tired argument. Post-processing (PP) doesn’t make an f/5.6 lens any better than an f/2.8, because you can apply PP to an f/2.8 shot as well and achieve even better results. Let’s also not ignore that PP isn’t a free lunch — it introduces its own problems, such as higher equipment and workflow costs, as well as risks of false AI-generated data.
I'd rather spend half the $900 on 2 Viltrox f1.7 primes.
I’m not sure prime lenses are the best reference point for comparison, but I do see the price as a problem. Looking at the weight, size, optical formula, number of elements, and MTF charts, this new lens seems quite similar in design philosophy to the Sigma 18–50mm f/2.8:
Sure, MTF charts aren’t directly comparable and are theoretical, but they still give a rough estimate of what a lens is and how it might perform — and this one doesn’t seem to outperform the Sigma.
So the question arises: is the €500 vs. €900 price difference justified by a 16mm vs. 18mm wide end and the addition of VR? My feeling is that the price should be lower, especially considering the Tamron 17–70mm f/2.8 VC, which is said to be optically superior to the Nikon but sells for around €600.
Some might argue that both the Sigma and Tamron aren’t available in Z-mount. I’d counter that by asking: why stay with the Z APS-C system at all then? I don’t want to be a hostage to the system and pay top dollar for gear that’s significantly cheaper in other mounts.
What do you think, will it be a big seller?
If the price drops, the lens will certainly become more attractive — but a big seller? Unlikely. It simply doesn’t have any standout features compared to the competition, not to mention the overall Nikon APS-C situation.
Just FYI, I was able to blur the background pretty nicely @75mm with the kit 16-50 lens.
Let’s be honest — every lens can blur the background at minimum focusing distance, even a point-and-shoot or a smartphone one
