Do you think many will buy the new Z16-50 F2.8 lens?

[travelfoodphoto]

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. And with current PP software, noise is really a non issue, IMHO.

I'd rather spend half the $900 on 2 Viltrox f1.7 primes.

What do you think, will it be a big seller?

Best,

Den

Just FYI, I was able to blur the background pretty nicely @75mm with the kit 16-50 lens.

 

[shuncheung]

The last constant f2.8 DX zoom Nikon introduced was the F-mount 17-55mm/f2.8 AF-S DX, introduced in 2003, in a era when Nikon had no FX DSLRs. Nikon wouldn't introduce any FX DSLR until August 2007, the D3, four years later.

I am a bit surprised that Nikon is now adding a DX constant f2.8 mid zoom. I thought they were not interested in adding any high-end DX lenses. However, while the new DX 16-50 is constant f2.8 throughout its zoom range, it is a $900 lens without the S-class designation. Even back in 2003, the 17-55mm/f2.8 DX AF-S was $1400 at introduction. Today, S-class constant f2.8 zooms are $2000 and above. The recently introduced Z 24-70mm/f2.8 S version 2 is $2800, over three times as much as the 16-50/2.8 DX. In other words, while it is a constant f2.8 DX zoom, it is not quite in the same class as the FX f2.8 zooms.

I think Nikon introduces this lens to compete against third-party DX mid f2.8 zooms.

 

[MrHollywood]

To make this lens more of a hit, the Z30 and Zfc should also get updated.

It will sell pretty well though. The Z50II is one of best budget cams around and a fast zoom really rounds it out nicely.

Robert

 

[JasonMulvern]

I'm still on the fence with this one. I seem to use the kit lens at 16mm the most, which is already F3.5 and not a great deal dimmer.

It's a nice option to have though.

I'm going to try the new 35mm first I think.

 

[Photo Philosopher]

I'd rather spend half the $900 on 2 Viltrox f1.7 primes.

What do you think, will it be a big seller?

I'm in the same camp. I already have an investment equal to or more than the cost of the new lens in fast primes, currently a set of Viltrox air lenses (15, 25, 35, and 56) plus a Nikon 50mm f2.8 MC.
Had Nikon come out with this lens three years ago, I would have undoubtedly replaced my old DX 16-80 with it, but after getting and using the primes for a while, I'm not sure it's necessary. On those occasions when I want to travel light, the original little 16-50 is still a great option. And if I feel the need for an S class lens, I've got a 24-70 f4 that does a great job on the DX body.
That said, I have almost stopped using my full frame Z5 since purchasing the Z50ii. It's such a great camera... maybe it deserves a Christmas present! The VR would be a sweet addition.

 

[pjm1966]

If I had a dx camera I would buy it in a second.

If it's anywhere near as food as the f-mount 16-80 f/2.8-4 is, it will be an amazing lens, and given the advantages of the z-mount I would imagine that it will be even better.

Not only do I think people will buy it; I imagine some people would buy a dx z-mount camera specifically because of it. By which I mean: people who were on the fence about buying a dx camera before because of lack of really compelling dx lenses would see this and be impressed enough to pull the trigger.

 

[mrbr]

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. And with current PP software, noise is really a non issue, IMHO.

I'd rather spend half the $900 on 2 Viltrox f1.7 primes.

What do you think, will it be a big seller?

Best,

Den

Just FYI, I was able to blur the background pretty nicely @75mm with the kit 16-50 lens.

I have the first 16-50 kitlens and also the Z6 + 24-70 f4 S lens , so i don't need it.

But if nikon would release a dx 16-80 f2.8-4 or dx 16-85 f3.5-5.6 I would be tempted.

I am glad nikon is going to invest in their dx line !

--
Greetings,
Marc

 

[SoCalAngler]

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. And with current PP software, noise is really a non issue, IMHO.

I'd rather spend half the $900 on 2 Viltrox f1.7 primes.

What do you think, will it be a big seller?

Best,

Den

Just FYI, I was able to blur the background pretty nicely @75mm with the kit 16-50 lens.

I already have 3 Viltrox f/1.7 primes but I intend to purchase this lens in the next 18 months.

Its a zoom so it provide some flexibility. It has VR! By Nikon's specs 5 stops, so maybe really 2-3 in practices. I will be able to handhold at slower shutter speed than an f/1.7 lens without VR. There is about a 1.5 stop difference between f/1.7 and f/2.8.

$900 is a pretty good price when you consider the variable aperture 18-140 is USD$679.95

As for blurring backgrounds, the f/2.8 aperture will facilitate accomplishing that over a wider range of scenes.

It won't replace my 16-50 kit lens which will get the nod when compactness is a primary consideration. Same for the primes, and the primes may still may perform better in the corners at the wider apertures. We will have to see how the new lens performs.

I thinks this new lens will be a popular enough lens with DX enthusiasts.

 

[starbase218]

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. And with current PP software, noise is really a non issue, IMHO.

You probably still have an upper limit regarding ISO, right? Maybe it’s 4000 or 6400? If you sometimes have to go over that, the new 2.8 is a drop-in replacement to help you out.

Also, even at those ISOs, if you use AI NR, the result will look different. I think sometimes it’s too smooth. It’s still better than a noisy image, but I’d much rather have a faster lens.

I'd rather spend half the $900 on 2 Viltrox f1.7 primes.

I’ve never understood this. A prime… is not a zoom. You can’t change focal lengths quickly. So for me that makes primes not an alternative to a zoom.

What do you think, will it be a big seller?

I don’t know, but more importantly, I think it will help sell the Z50II. I certainly feel better recommending Z DX to build a system around, now that this lens is out. Although Nikon still hardly has the best APS-C ecosystem.

Best,

Den

Just FYI, I was able to blur the background pretty nicely @75mm with the kit 16-50 lens.

Sure, if you get close to a small subject, you can get this effect even with a narrow aperture lens.

 

[obscura references]

I hope they start bundling it in some kits, especially if they do a Zfc or Z30 mark ii.

I'm glad it is out there, but the price does feel a little steep. It feels like it would be comparable to the 24-70 f/4 on FX. However, since that lens is so frequently sold as a kit or widely available used for about $500, you end up where the DX with this lens is getting close to the price of the FX kit.

Example based on current NikonUSA pricing, which does have a sale.

FX: $2,300 for Z5ii with 24-70 f/4 kit

DX: $1,900 total, with $1,000 for Z50ii and then $900 for the lens.

Not entirely fair, as the FX is a little older and on sale, but not untypical, either.

 

[NickZ2016]

Some of the specs will make it appeal to video shooters. I bet a DX version of the ZR is a thought .

 

[bitsponge]

It's a toss-up between the lens selling well and becoming the poster child for why Nikon doesn't bother with high end APS-C.

Now watch the chorus of "they need a $2,000 camera body selling for $900 or no thanks", "f/2.8 on DX is somehow exactly like f/4 on FX mathematics be damned so this should be selling for $399", "where's the fully stacked 45MP DX camera for $1200?"

 

[sirhawkeye64]

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. And with current PP software, noise is really a non issue, IMHO.

I'd rather spend half the $900 on 2 Viltrox f1.7 primes.

What do you think, will it be a big seller?

Best,

Den

Just FYI, I was able to blur the background pretty nicely @75mm with the kit 16-50 lens.

If I was buying a DX camera (and I might if Nikon ever makes a rangefinder APSC camera with IBIS) I'd likely buy a 16-50 2.8.

--
* PLEASE NOTE: I generally unsubscribe from forums/comments after a period of time has passed, so if I do not respond, that is likely the reason. *

 

[starbase218]

Now watch the chorus of "they need a $2,000 camera body selling for $900 or no thanks"

If Nikon would plan a USD2000 DX camera, they would probably have made this an S-line lens, and it would cost even more.

I do think the current price is a bit high, but not by as much as some people seem to think.

, "f/2.8 on DX is somehow exactly like f/4 on FX mathematics be damned

Actually, mathematics say it is fullframe-equivalent to a 24-75mm f/4.2 on fullframe. But let's not go there.

so this should be selling for $399"

I don't agree with that, despite the equivalency.

, "where's the fully stacked 45MP DX camera for $1200?"

The answer is always that it will be released tomorrow.

 

[Moosenice]

Definitely thinking about getting this lens and pairing it with the Tamron 50-400mm for a great DX kit. But both lenses are big. If this lens was a 16-80mm I would have preordered it that same minute it was announced.

I'll probably buy it at the first sale offering.

 

[monte12345]

Because the Z50II has such a rich feature set that more advanced users will find it a very attractive camera and that f2.8 General Purpose Zoom will be a near automatic purchase for the Z50II. Personally I chose to purchase a 17-70mm Tamron and a Viltrox adapter to fit this Sony Mount lens to my Z50II. It works well enough that I will take a pass on the 16-50 f2.8 but if that lens has been announce in Late June instead of mid October that would have been my choice. Hopefully some time in the next year or two we will see a 16-80mm f4 constant aperture DX zoom to fill in the "24-120" gap in the DX lineup. Because one small negative for the Tamron is that it seems that much of the Tamron lens is real metal because it is rather heavy at 535 grams. With the new 16-50 f2.8 coming in at just 330 grams it is the reason why I believe the Tamron is a lens mainly constructed with metal.

 

[Ryan Schwartz]

Still likely a pass from me for three reasons. I don't like the $900 price tag, I already have the AF-S 16-80 DX lens that gives me more reach on the long end at the expense of one stop of light, and when I use a fast lens on a crop sensor in low light, I tend to need a telephoto lens on it for sporting events to get the additional reach.

 

[aagirlz]

I think it will sell well, I am contemplating it but I will likely buy the Fuji 16-55 instead as I prefer to use the Fuji and I have the z50ii only for the 1.5 crop factor at the long end and the tiny 16-50. That said one of my daughters friends shoots a r7 with 70-200 most of the time, this 16-50 f2.8 is exactly what she has been looking for in the price range she is willing to pay, she is in the target market, they just need the next level of crop sensor camera to win people like her over.

 

[madecov]

I'm leaning heavily towards getting one. I sold off my 16-50 when I sold my Zfc, I did keep my 12-28mm, 18-140 and 50-250

Ive wanted a fastish zoom.

 

[Mizar11]

Now watch the chorus of "they need a $2,000 camera body selling for $900 or no thanks"

If Nikon would plan a USD2000 DX camera, they would probably have made this an S-line lens, and it would cost even more.

I do think the current price is a bit high, but not by as much as some people seem to think.

, "f/2.8 on DX is somehow exactly like f/4 on FX mathematics be damned

Actually, mathematics say it is fullframe-equivalent to a 24-75mm f/4.2 on fullframe. But let's not go there.

so this should be selling for $399"

I don't agree with that, despite the equivalency.

, "where's the fully stacked 45MP DX camera for $1200?"

The answer is always that it will be released tomorrow.

I really think we need a sarcasm emoji . . .

I’m thinking about it. I think it brings the Z50II closer to an all purpose travel camera that functions better in museums, dark street scenes etc. I’d just like to see how it compares optically with the existing 16-50 and an S lens like the 24-70 f4.

For clarity I have an essential tremor so IBIS/VR are important to me.