Nikon Z Lenses & Canon RF

Started 7 months ago | Discussions
BISCUT Regular Member • Posts: 363
Nikon Z Lenses & Canon RF
1

The title isn't a Z v RF for a reason.  Not the intention of my question.  I'm lucky enough to have some great Z lenses (never owned anything Canon).  I try and watch and read as much as I can.

I've seen guys like Polin (yes clickbait; but he's also a hell of a photographer) say the RF lenses are just the absolute bomb....and other review show them at top glass but also report weakness in the edges.  Why such disparity among what should all be legit pros?  I realize a lot of opinion.

My real questions is....

Is there something in my Z 50 1.8 or Z 85 1.8 or 24-70 2.8 that than makes them perform on par with the RF 1.4 lenses?  Again, not meant to be a versus question.  Just seems that a few of the S lenses at 1.8 deliver images on par with the RF 1.4's.  This is merely conjecture and me wanting to hear other opinions.  Nothing scientific.

 BISCUT's gear list:BISCUT's gear list
Nikon D850 Nikon Z7 Nikon Z6 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF Nikkor 135mm f/2D DC +14 more
SpacemanUA
SpacemanUA Senior Member • Posts: 1,697
Re: Nikon Z Lenses & Canon RF
10

I wouldn't take it too serious. They're bloggers and their work is to produce engaging content.

The reality is that almost all modern lenses from well-known brands are excellent. So, if you're into any modern mirrorless camera system, you have amazing lenses to choose from. The approach is different, however. Canon decided to release top lenses like 50/1.2 and 28-70/2 first while Nikon started with more mainstream f/1.8 S line. Are RFs good? They definitely are. Do they have flaws? Like any other lens, they do. For example, the one RF70-200/2.8 that dpreview had for their review has obvious decentering which can be seen in gallery and not that impressive in corners. But is it good in it's category? Sure, I guess. We've yet to see how Nikon's Z 70-200/2.8 will behave.

As for today, if you're choosing a FF MILC, I would say Nikon has a little advantage due to more reasonable approach. S line is really great and just good enough to work with both for amateurs and professionals. While with RF you'll have to either use adapted lenses or spend a really lot of money for RFs.

In the future we'll see same old rivalry where similar lenses are so close that there's no real difference and people will search for "Canon colors" or "Nikon sharpness" in them for years. Then there's L-mount with also great (and expensive) Panasonics. And there's brilliant Sony's G Master line. And Sigma constantly amazes everyone with their affordable but excellent lenses. Lot of choices and it seems that there's no wrong one.

And I'd rather stay away from saying that there's something special in S lenses. They're great modern products, just like they're supposed to be.

As for Jared - it seems that he's using "mock Nikon" card for last few moths to attract more attention and views. Provocative headers and content always collect more discussion.

NCB Senior Member • Posts: 1,444
Re: Nikon Z Lenses & Canon RF

I think Nikon have set the bar by introducing a mount which enables them to design top lenses, and design cameras using the mount which contains software which is effectively part of the lens design. Having done that they've also produced top quality cameras at each level they've addressed.

In other words, they're designing for the long term quality wise. They probably see that as their top selling strategy.

Canon's lenses are undoubtedly good. Maybe their overall approach so far has been mixed. I'd be tempted to say that if you're looking at the system overall then Nikon is in the lead, but I doubt if a Canon user feels short-changed.

 NCB's gear list:NCB's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1 Nikon D3100 Nikon Df Nikon Z6 Nikon Z50
Meerkato Regular Member • Posts: 194
Re: Nikon Z Lenses & Canon RF
1

BISCUT wrote:

The title isn't a Z v RF for a reason. Not the intention of my question. I'm lucky enough to have some great Z lenses (never owned anything Canon). I try and watch and read as much as I can.

I've seen guys like Polin (yes clickbait; but he's also a hell of a photographer) say the RF lenses are just the absolute bomb....and other review show them at top glass but also report weakness in the edges. Why such disparity among what should all be legit pros? I realize a lot of opinion.

My real questions is....

Is there something in my Z 50 1.8 or Z 85 1.8 or 24-70 2.8 that than makes them perform on par with the RF 1.4 lenses? Again, not meant to be a versus question. Just seems that a few of the S lenses at 1.8 deliver images on par with the RF 1.4's. This is merely conjecture and me wanting to hear other opinions. Nothing scientific.

Well I think you are asking for a comparison vs Z and RF lenses, even if you say you don't.

I shoot with Z lenses and has no RF. My take is that RF lenses are generally better and has a better selection, but I don't like the cameras.

I mainly think this because the RF lenses are typically:

  • higher end (1.2 vs 1.8 and probably better performing)
  • just a better design and/or selection, e.g. 70-200 is small size, 15-35 better range than 14-24, 24-105 better range than 24-70 F4 etc.
  • has extra functions (e.g. the ring)
  • Better built and more appealing

But more to your point: the specific lenses 50, 85, 24-70, both Nikon and Canon are great, and there is no way someone would be able to get any better results with either of the brands than the other. Maybe one is 2% sharper, but there is no way for a human to see that page.

forpetessake
forpetessake Veteran Member • Posts: 5,172
Re: Nikon Z Lenses & Canon RF
3

I've used RF 35/1.8 and 24-105/4 before I bought Nikon. I was not impressed with those RF lenses, the new Nikon 35/1.8 and 24-70/4 are definitely better in many respects.

The reason many youtube talking heads are so impressed with RF lenses is because many of them are fast, like those f/1.2, 28-70/2, etc. Those lenses are not really attractive to me, they are too big and expensive. I would like Nikon to continue making same high quality lenses rather than those monsters the youtube crowd is salivating for.

Meerkato Regular Member • Posts: 194
Re: Nikon Z Lenses & Canon RF

forpetessake wrote:

I've used RF 35/1.8 and 24-105/4 before I bought Nikon. I was not impressed with those RF lenses, the new Nikon 35/1.8 and 24-70/4 are definitely better in many respects.

The reason many youtube talking heads are so impressed with RF lenses is because many of them are fast, like those f/1.2, 28-70/2, etc. Those lenses are not really attractive to me, they are too big and expensive. I would like Nikon to continue making same high quality lenses rather than those monsters the youtube crowd is salivating for.

May I ask what was wrong with the Canon 24-105, and what made the Nikon 24-70 better for you?

Joop_S Regular Member • Posts: 181
Re: Nikon Z Lenses & Canon RF

BISCUT wrote:

Is there something in my Z 50 1.8 or Z 85 1.8 or 24-70 2.8 that than makes them perform on par with the RF 1.4 lenses? Again, not meant to be a versus question. Just seems that a few of the S lenses at 1.8 deliver images on par with the RF 1.4's.

The Canon RF lenses have no f/1.4 , only 3 have f/1.2 and a there is a f/1.8 macro.  If you see 1.4 lenses on a R camera they are adapted. There are also 2 Canon 24-70 lenses f/2.8 and f/2.

The RF cameras  are not at par with the Nikon Z on this moment.

So the L line prime lenses are better that what Nikon have now,  at a price point with is not pretty for the most persons. And Nikon have now better cameras.

But if I look to 2024, Nikon and Canon will have both a f/1.2 and a f/1.8 line primes and they will have both cameras at par.  And both lenses for everybody.

I have choice for Nikon in 1979 and will not chance to Canon. I think the line Nikon had chosen is better than Canon. I also think in 2024 Canon and Nikon have both a excellent range of ML cameras and lenses.

For me if you in the Nikon system, stay with Nikon and the same I can say for Canon.

 Joop_S's gear list:Joop_S's gear list
Nikon Z6 Nikon Z 50mm F1.8 Nikon Z 14-30mm F4 Nikon Z 24-70mm F2.8 Nikon Z 24mm F1.8 S +1 more
Nikonmaniac0620 Forum Member • Posts: 95
Re: Nikon Z Lenses & Canon RF
2

SpacemanUA wrote:

I wouldn't take it too serious. They're bloggers and their work is to produce engaging content.

The reality is that almost all modern lenses from well-known brands are excellent. So, if you're into any modern mirrorless camera system, you have amazing lenses to choose from. The approach is different, however. Canon decided to release top lenses like 50/1.2 and 28-70/2 first while Nikon started with more mainstream f/1.8 S line. Are RFs good? They definitely are. Do they have flaws? Like any other lens, they do. For example, the one RF70-200/2.8 that dpreview had for their review has obvious decentering which can be seen in gallery and not that impressive in corners. But is it good in it's category? Sure, I guess. We've yet to see how Nikon's Z 70-200/2.8 will behave.

As for today, if you're choosing a FF MILC, I would say Nikon has a little advantage due to more reasonable approach. S line is really great and just good enough to work with both for amateurs and professionals. While with RF you'll have to either use adapted lenses or spend a really lot of money for RFs.

In the future we'll see same old rivalry where similar lenses are so close that there's no real difference and people will search for "Canon colors" or "Nikon sharpness" in them for years. Then there's L-mount with also great (and expensive) Panasonics. And there's brilliant Sony's G Master line. And Sigma constantly amazes everyone with their affordable but excellent lenses. Lot of choices and it seems that there's no wrong one.

And I'd rather stay away from saying that there's something special in S lenses. They're great modern products, just like they're supposed to be.

As for Jared - it seems that he's using "mock Nikon" card for last few moths to attract more attention and views. Provocative headers and content always collect more discussion.

My views exactly. People like Jared Polin, fstoppers and Tony Northrup are nothing but clowns. I only watch DPReviewTV and Art of Photography these days. They truly put forth the efforts to make their episodes. Bless them!

 Nikonmaniac0620's gear list:Nikonmaniac0620's gear list
Nikon D4 Nikon D800 Nikon D4S Fujifilm X-T2 Nikon Z6 +8 more
OP BISCUT Regular Member • Posts: 363
Re: Nikon Z Lenses & Canon RF

Thank you for the replies and not turning it into a RF v Z discussion.  Interesting hearing the thoughts.

 BISCUT's gear list:BISCUT's gear list
Nikon D850 Nikon Z7 Nikon Z6 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF Nikkor 135mm f/2D DC +14 more
bhollis
bhollis Veteran Member • Posts: 3,891
Re: Nikon Z Lenses & Canon RF
3

BISCUT wrote:

The title isn't a Z v RF for a reason. Not the intention of my question. I'm lucky enough to have some great Z lenses (never owned anything Canon). I try and watch and read as much as I can.

I've seen guys like Polin (yes clickbait; but he's also a hell of a photographer) say the RF lenses are just the absolute bomb....and other review show them at top glass but also report weakness in the edges. Why such disparity among what should all be legit pros? I realize a lot of opinion.

My real questions is....

Is there something in my Z 50 1.8 or Z 85 1.8 or 24-70 2.8 that than makes them perform on par with the RF 1.4 lenses? Again, not meant to be a versus question. Just seems that a few of the S lenses at 1.8 deliver images on par with the RF 1.4's. This is merely conjecture and me wanting to hear other opinions. Nothing scientific.

Canon and Nikon took very different approaches to their initial mirrorless lens offerings.

Canon chose to go with large aperture lenses of the sort we're all used to with DSLR's--i.e., larger, heavier and more expensive, but optically superb. In short, Canon wasn't interested in minimizing size or weight--just maximizing optical quality.

Nikon, OTOH, recognized that the Z6 and Z7 are substantially smaller and lighter than DSLRs, and chose to come up with range of lenses that are likewise smaller and lighter than typical DSLR lenses, and also less expensive. These initial offerings tend to be f/1.8 versus f/1.4, but still provide outstanding image quality.

It's up to you which approach you prefer. As for me, I much prefer the smaller/lighter approach, which is why I bought a Z7 with the kit 24-70, despite having been a Canon shooter for years.

 bhollis's gear list:bhollis's gear list
Sony RX1R Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Nikon Z7 Canon EF 70-200mm F4L IS USM Canon EF 24-70mm F2.8L II USM +4 more
Leonard Shepherd
Leonard Shepherd Forum Pro • Posts: 20,131
Re: Nikon Z Lenses & Canon RF
2

BISCUT wrote:

Is there something in my Z 50 1.8 or Z 85 1.8 or 24-70 2.8 that than makes them perform on par with the RF 1.4 lenses?

If you do not know most test sites rate the Nikon S lenses extremely highly - and the 24-70 S 2.8 as the best mid range zoom available - maybe you are not looking very far.

-- hide signature --

Leonard Shepherd
In lots of ways good photography is much more about how equipment is used rather than anything else.

 Leonard Shepherd's gear list:Leonard Shepherd's gear list
Nikon D810 Nikon D500 Nikon D850 Nikon Z7 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED +28 more
Montanawildlives Senior Member • Posts: 1,182
Re: Nikon Z Lenses & Canon RF
2

Nikonmaniac0620 wrote:

SpacemanUA wrote:

I wouldn't take it too serious. They're bloggers and their work is to produce engaging content.

The reality is that almost all modern lenses from well-known brands are excellent. So, if you're into any modern mirrorless camera system, you have amazing lenses to choose from. The approach is different, however. Canon decided to release top lenses like 50/1.2 and 28-70/2 first while Nikon started with more mainstream f/1.8 S line. Are RFs good? They definitely are. Do they have flaws? Like any other lens, they do. For example, the one RF70-200/2.8 that dpreview had for their review has obvious decentering which can be seen in gallery and not that impressive in corners. But is it good in it's category? Sure, I guess. We've yet to see how Nikon's Z 70-200/2.8 will behave.

As for today, if you're choosing a FF MILC, I would say Nikon has a little advantage due to more reasonable approach. S line is really great and just good enough to work with both for amateurs and professionals. While with RF you'll have to either use adapted lenses or spend a really lot of money for RFs.

In the future we'll see same old rivalry where similar lenses are so close that there's no real difference and people will search for "Canon colors" or "Nikon sharpness" in them for years. Then there's L-mount with also great (and expensive) Panasonics. And there's brilliant Sony's G Master line. And Sigma constantly amazes everyone with their affordable but excellent lenses. Lot of choices and it seems that there's no wrong one.

And I'd rather stay away from saying that there's something special in S lenses. They're great modern products, just like they're supposed to be.

As for Jared - it seems that he's using "mock Nikon" card for last few moths to attract more attention and views. Provocative headers and content always collect more discussion.

My views exactly. People like Jared Polin, fstoppers and Tony Northrup are nothing but clowns. I only watch DPReviewTV and Art of Photography these days. They truly put forth the efforts to make their episodes. Bless them!

This. Jared, Angry P, and Tony jumped on the anti-Z train as soon as they could and are not even trying to be objective about the cameras or lenses. The only people who could stomach that would be Fuji fan boys (I'm in recovery) and other anti-Nikon folk. I sold all my Fuji stuff (about $4500) and got a Z7 and Z50 along with a couple of lenses (about $4500) and am absolutely THRILLED with my choice. Anyway, when Jared warned against the inexpensive and fabulous 24-70 f/4 I was holding in my hand, he lost all credibility (what little remained).

BTW, he's an awful photographer.  Boomify indeed.

-- hide signature --
 Montanawildlives's gear list:Montanawildlives's gear list
Fujifilm X-T1 Nikon Z50 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 35mm F1.8G Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D Nikon AF-S Teleconverter TC-14E III +7 more
Sacred
Sacred Regular Member • Posts: 448
Nikon Z is new Sigma Art

I was shocked today when I saw the size of 50/1.2 S lens. Nikon aims for maximum image quality they can get out of this new mount at the expanse of size, weight and cost. This goes for both f/1.8 and f/1.2 primes. I see that zoom lenses are somewhat smaller. Well, this is not how I imagined this would turn out. With bigger mount and more flexibility in lens design one could expect new lenses to be same size as F lenses but optically better, optically about the same but smaller size and Nikon is pushing third option to make even bigger and even better lenses. This is all fine when the biggest 50/1.8 lens they could make is that size, but 50/1.2 is insanely big. Maybe those who will own this lens are fine with it's physical properties but I'd very much like optically inferior lens in smaller package. Not everyone prints big and sometimes it's more about the effect and look than absolute sharpness. If Nikon would remake their AI lenses for Z mount that would be fun. Adapter just gets in the way and kills all the benefits of smaller camera.

 Sacred's gear list:Sacred's gear list
Nikon D7000 Nikon Z6 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR Nikon Z 24-70mm F4 Nikon Z 50mm F1.8
OP BISCUT Regular Member • Posts: 363
Re: Nikon Z Lenses & Canon RF

Leonard Shepherd wrote:

BISCUT wrote:

Is there something in my Z 50 1.8 or Z 85 1.8 or 24-70 2.8 that than makes them perform on par with the RF 1.4 lenses?

If you do not know most test sites rate the Nikon S lenses extremely highly - and the 24-70 S 2.8 as the best mid range zoom available - maybe you are not looking very far.

I'm in the Z world already and very happy with the bodies and lenses.  I've read about everything out there from the opinions to the hard data and mathematical analysis; not that I completely understand the nexus translating to imaging.

I wanted to hear some opinions is all.  Thanks for responding.

Can't wait to see how the 70-200 performs.

 BISCUT's gear list:BISCUT's gear list
Nikon D850 Nikon Z7 Nikon Z6 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF Nikkor 135mm f/2D DC +14 more
Leonard Shepherd
Leonard Shepherd Forum Pro • Posts: 20,131
Re: Nikon Z is new Sigma Art

Sacred wrote:

This goes for both f/1.8 and f/1.2 primes. I see that zoom lenses are somewhat smaller.

Some yes - some no.

The 2 f4 lenses need to be extended before they can be used to take a photograph.

Well, this is not how I imagined this would turn out. With bigger mount and more flexibility in lens design one could expect new lenses to be same size as F lenses but optically better, optically about the same but smaller size

What anyone imagines and reality, like many things in life, are not the same.

-- hide signature --

Leonard Shepherd
In lots of ways good photography is much more about how equipment is used rather than anything else.

 Leonard Shepherd's gear list:Leonard Shepherd's gear list
Nikon D810 Nikon D500 Nikon D850 Nikon Z7 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED +28 more
James Stirling
James Stirling Senior Member • Posts: 8,027
Re: Nikon Z is new Sigma Art
2

Leonard Shepherd wrote:

Sacred wrote:

This goes for both f/1.8 and f/1.2 primes. I see that zoom lenses are somewhat smaller.

Some yes - some no.

The 2 f4 lenses need to be extended before they can be used to take a photograph.

Well, this is not how I imagined this would turn out. With bigger mount and more flexibility in lens design one could expect new lenses to be same size as F lenses but optically better, optically about the same but smaller size

What anyone imagines and reality, like many things in life, are not the same.

Very true that damn bathroom mirror shatters my illusions every time I look at it

-- hide signature --

Jim Stirling:
It is not reason which is the guide of life, but custom. David Hume

 James Stirling's gear list:James Stirling's gear list
Sony RX100 IV Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH4 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX8 Panasonic Lumix DC-G9 Nikon Z7 +11 more
SpacemanUA
SpacemanUA Senior Member • Posts: 1,697
Re: Nikon Z is new Sigma Art
1

Sacred wrote:

I was shocked today when I saw the size of 50/1.2 S lens. Nikon aims for maximum image quality they can get out of this new mount at the expanse of size, weight and cost. This goes for both f/1.8 and f/1.2 primes. I see that zoom lenses are somewhat smaller. Well, this is not how I imagined this would turn out. With bigger mount and more flexibility in lens design one could expect new lenses to be same size as F lenses but optically better, optically about the same but smaller size and Nikon is pushing third option to make even bigger and even better lenses. This is all fine when the biggest 50/1.8 lens they could make is that size, but 50/1.2 is insanely big. Maybe those who will own this lens are fine with it's physical properties but I'd very much like optically inferior lens in smaller package. Not everyone prints big and sometimes it's more about the effect and look than absolute sharpness. If Nikon would remake their AI lenses for Z mount that would be fun. Adapter just gets in the way and kills all the benefits of smaller camera.

If you follow photography news, you might have noticed that industry is falling down. And the only sector of it that's profitable is "premium". Basically, to stay alive in photo business, you have to produce premium, elite products, and while they don't sell as impressive in quantities as some amateur-class APS-C DSLRs, they have more added value and profitable. In other words, it's more profitable to sell 1 Z7 than 100 D5600s. Numbers are made up, just as example.

Same approach goes for lenses. Cheap plastic fantastic 50mm won't bring enough profit and makes no real sense to produce today. While bigger, heavier (reasonable, though) and extremely good optically 50S will sell very well and is indeed a profitable product.

I like this way, actually. Those who wants cheap lenses, can always buy F-mount 50G or 85G. Still very good, but not as good as S line. Do you need "that good"? Depends on you. I, personally, like all this new stuff, new tech and new lenses. And while I could be ok with older G series lenses with FTZ adapter, I decided to get S trio. Just because why not Even if it's GAS. Would there be similar GAS if there were Z-mount copies of 50G and 85G? I really don't know. Not as much I would say. And since all that worked on me, I guess it worked on many others. So, Nikon made a right decision in their production strategy. I realize that $650 for 50/1.8 is a lot of money. Especially after $150 for 50G. But Iwantedthat lens And I think that calling out this felling in customer is a main goal for any business.

Sacred
Sacred Regular Member • Posts: 448
Re: Nikon Z is new Sigma Art

SpacemanUA wrote:

Sacred wrote:

I was shocked today when I saw the size of 50/1.2 S lens. Nikon aims for maximum image quality they can get out of this new mount at the expanse of size, weight and cost. This goes for both f/1.8 and f/1.2 primes. I see that zoom lenses are somewhat smaller. Well, this is not how I imagined this would turn out. With bigger mount and more flexibility in lens design one could expect new lenses to be same size as F lenses but optically better, optically about the same but smaller size and Nikon is pushing third option to make even bigger and even better lenses. This is all fine when the biggest 50/1.8 lens they could make is that size, but 50/1.2 is insanely big. Maybe those who will own this lens are fine with it's physical properties but I'd very much like optically inferior lens in smaller package. Not everyone prints big and sometimes it's more about the effect and look than absolute sharpness. If Nikon would remake their AI lenses for Z mount that would be fun. Adapter just gets in the way and kills all the benefits of smaller camera.

If you follow photography news, you might have noticed that industry is falling down. And the only sector of it that's profitable is "premium". Basically, to stay alive in photo business, you have to produce premium, elite products, and while they don't sell as impressive in quantities as some amateur-class APS-C DSLRs, they have more added value and profitable. In other words, it's more profitable to sell 1 Z7 than 100 D5600s. Numbers are made up, just as example.

Same approach goes for lenses. Cheap plastic fantastic 50mm won't bring enough profit and makes no real sense to produce today. While bigger, heavier (reasonable, though) and extremely good optically 50S will sell very well and is indeed a profitable product.

I like this way, actually. Those who wants cheap lenses, can always buy F-mount 50G or 85G. Still very good, but not as good as S line. Do you need "that good"? Depends on you. I, personally, like all this new stuff, new tech and new lenses. And while I could be ok with older G series lenses with FTZ adapter, I decided to get S trio. Just because why not Even if it's GAS. Would there be similar GAS if there were Z-mount copies of 50G and 85G? I really don't know. Not as much I would say. And since all that worked on me, I guess it worked on many others. So, Nikon made a right decision in their production strategy. I realize that $650 for 50/1.8 is a lot of money. Especially after $150 for 50G. But Iwantedthat lens And I think that calling out this felling in customer is a main goal for any business.

If that was the case then pancake lenses wouldn't be on the roadmap. I believe that in time Nikon will cover every single combination of focals and price points. They had to start somewhere. But the question remains, how would half the size 50/1.2 compare to this beast that they announced? Maybe the difference is not that big, maybe it's bigger than some would want to believe. And it remains to be seen how would Sony 20/1.8 G compare to Nikon 20/1.8 S I'm very interested in that comparison. I like what Nikon has done so far with lenses and I too enjoy those that I have.

 Sacred's gear list:Sacred's gear list
Nikon D7000 Nikon Z6 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR Nikon Z 24-70mm F4 Nikon Z 50mm F1.8
SpacemanUA
SpacemanUA Senior Member • Posts: 1,697
Re: Nikon Z is new Sigma Art

Sacred wrote:

If that was the case then pancake lenses wouldn't be on the roadmap. I believe that in time Nikon will cover every single combination of focals and price points. They had to start somewhere. But the question remains, how would half the size 50/1.2 compare to this beast that they announced? Maybe the difference is not that big, maybe it's bigger than some would want to believe. And it remains to be seen how would Sony 20/1.8 G compare to Nikon 20/1.8 S I'm very interested in that comparison. I like what Nikon has done so far with lenses and I too enjoy those that I have.

I didn't say that compact lenses are not demanded. I said that, I guess, cheap lenses that sacrifice performance for price don't make much sense (or profit rather) to produce at this period of time. I expect this compact primes will still cost about $400-500, which is not cheap, assuming they will be f/2.8. But they will be great optically as well.

As for 50/1.2 - Canon's RF 50/1.2 is huge and heavy too. I had a chance to hold it on several events and I don't think it's a lens I would go with even if I could afford it It's just beyond reasonable.

gabik Regular Member • Posts: 122
Re: Nikon Z Lenses & Canon RF

Jared is a blurry background freak. So anything which can blurs the background is his thing. I guess that's part of his enthusiasm for Canon 1.2 lenses which Nikon does not have yet.

-- hide signature --

www.artoflp.com
Awesome photo stories.

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads