RoamingScott wrote:
Now THAT'S a lens that doesn't feel necessary. Doesn't take the place of either the 24-70/4 or 24-120/4 with that very limiting aperture range.
There are people for whom Z5 II is either a 2nd/3rd camera or a toy. There are a lot of people for whom Z5 II is the camera to look up to. This lens is for them. At 105mm its subject separation is about same as 70mm at f/4 but it is cheap and light. This also has 0.5 macro capability.
If the IQ is any good it will be a good alternative to 24-70 for its close focusing ability (remains to be seen if that 0.5 magnification is at wide or long end). Canon has similar kit lens, but its IQ is subpar.
I think Nikon is going for something like Canon’s numerous 24-105s. Cheap and decent glass. A good carry around lens at a great price… well below the 24-120’s retail price. Nikon says good for video… personally, I’d never use this for video.
This lens will be available at a retail price of $550. It'll also be available in a kit with the Z5II at around $350 more than the camera's standalone retail price (see: https://www.dpreview.com/news/6736846120/nikon-24-105-f4-7p1-full-frame-lens-announcement). I wonder what the net profit margin is and how many of these can be sold ...
When I started out in photography, third-party manufacturers used to make lenses that were cheaper, slower or of lower quality than the original ones. Today, Sigma, Tamron, Cosina, and various Chinese manufacturers make lenses that are just as good as Nikon's, and sometimes even better.
The bottom line is that today, “toys” can only be sold by original lens manufacturers under their own brand name (to give an aura of supposed quality), while third-party manufacturers have to make products that are better than the originals in order to stay in the market.
Anyway, I won't order it
Why do I feel Nikon likes to release lenses in reverse order? This should have been kit lens from day 1 on Z mount. 24-70 S was clearly overqualified for a kit.
Once you have established supremacy of 24-70 and 24-120 S lenses, it's a tough sell.
They could have done a 28-60 F4 ultra compact instead.
This lens arrived after the market narrative is already written.
I don't know what happened to the designers of Nikon's legendary lenses, but this isn't even close to one of them. Like the 16-50,, f/3.5-6.3, it is unambitious.
F/7.1? (I wonder at what FL that kicks in.) So much for the Z mounts ability to capture more light.
I realize that this is relatively cheap and light, but I doubt many people were asking for this. With so many holes in the Z mount lens lineup, and few third party options, this seems like a lens in search of a market.
mklass wrote:
I don't know what happened to teh designers of Nikon's legendary lenses, but this isn't even close to one of them. Like the 16-25,, f/3.5-6.3, it is unambitious.
F/7.1? (I wonder at what FL that kicks in.) So much for the Z mounts ability to capture more light.
I realize that this is relatively cheap and light, but I doubt many people were asking for this. With so many holes in the Z mount lens lineup, and few third party options, this seems like a lens in search of a market.
Nikon lets us down, again!
Alas, many people do not understand the meaning of the maximum aperture and choose the lens based on range and price. Canon also sells these very small-apertured lenses.
On the other hand, there may be some photographers who might be specializing in something else (such as wildlife photography) and just need a generic zoom lens for the stuff that can't be covered by their main lens. For example, if you have enough light to shoot birds or other wildlife with a 180-600/5.6-6.3, you also have enough light to use this 24-105 mm lens on tripod for a landscape or close-up (it goes to 1:2). Many wildlife photographers seem to de-prioritize every other subject and want to minimize weight required for those other subjects.
Personally my main subject is people and f/2.8 is as slow as I'm willing to go in this focal range. I wouldn't even buy the 24-120/4 as in many cases it would limit my ability to photograph people in the winter, indoors, or at night. I also use the 24-70/2.8 for landscape photography a lot, and wouldn't want to use a slower lens since they tend to be less well corrected optically. However, I know a lot of people who have different priorities or who photograph in brighter lighting conditions for the most part. I do believe many people will be severely limited by the possibilities that the 24-105 offers and may be discouraged from investing further time or money into photography as a result of bad experiences with a slow lens.
mklass wrote:
I realize that this is relatively cheap and light, but I doubt many people were asking for this.
It isn't small (74 mm diam.; 107 mm length).
The 16-50/3.5-6.3 has much more sense: not much range, but tiny.
ilkka_nissila wrote:
... if you have enough light to shoot birds or other wildlife with a 180-600/5.6-6.3, you also have enough light to use this 24-105 mm lens on tripod for a landscape or close-up (it goes to 1:2). Many wildlife photographers seem to de-prioritize every other subject and want to minimize weight required for those other subjects.
For "serious" landscape and macro you don't (always) need f/2.8 but you need top notch sharpness and even rendition across the frame. I doubt that this lens does meet the minimum requirements for landscape and/or macro photography. If it does, I'll sell the 24-70/4 S and the 105 MC
Seems to me this is a step up over the 24-50 - a light lens with an expanded range and (better?) near-macro. I never understood the 24-50 either except as a 'starter/kit' lens where the 24-105 seems squarely aimed.
The problem is that the 24-70 and 24-120 S lenses set such a high bar.
Ripolini wrote:
It isn't small (74 mm diam.; 107 mm length).
The 16-50/3.5-6.3 has much more sense: not much range, but tiny.
For "serious" landscape and macro you don't (always) need f/2.8 but you need top notch sharpness and even rendition across the frame. I doubt that this lens does meet the minimum requirements for landscape and/or macro photography. If it does, I'll sell the 24-70/4 S and the 105 MC
"Need" is always relative. Many post their landscape shots on Instagram which allows about 1080 pixels wide images without scrolling ... so, not much sharpness is needed to satisfy that(!). However, if we do require across the field sharpness and intend to display the image at large sizes, then it may be worth noticing that the Z 24-70/2.8 S (I don't have experience with the II version) has about 10-15% higher MTF50 values in the corners at f/11 than the 24-120/4 and better evenness of sharpness across the frame. Whether this is important or not is of course subject to personal opinion and usage. My objection to the 24-120/4 for landscape use has more to do with subjective aspects of image aesthetics, how it renders flare etc. but I identify a crisper overall feel is typical of the 24-70/2.8 and 70-200/2.8 designs. I don't mind the weight of the 24-70/2.8 as it is lighter than what I'm used to in the 24-70/2.8 VR for the F mount and relative to telephoto lenses it's still fairly small and lightweight, and covers (to me) the most important focal lengths for landscape. It can be used for general photography, portraits, etc. without having to repack gear used in the bag over the course of a day that may include different shooting scenarios. This is fairly common for me as I may do portraits during the day and landscape in early morning or late afternoon/evening.
indusphoto wrote:
There are people for whom Z5 II is either a 2nd/3rd camera or a toy. There are a lot of people for whom Z5 II is the camera to look up to. This lens is for them. At 105mm its subject separation is about same as 70mm at f/4 but it is cheap and light. This also has 0.5 macro capability.
If the IQ is any good it will be a good alternative to 24-70 for its close focusing ability (remains to be seen if that 0.5 magnification is at wide or long end). Canon has similar kit lens, but its IQ is subpar....Show more →
Speaking broadly, MOST people that buy a true kit lens like this would do well to simply save a little more money for a better lens. The people this lens would appeal to likely don't understand how aperture even works yet, and why this lens will be so limiting in certain situations. I'd recommend the 24-70/4 over this to just about anyone, which is the same price if buying used. You can get a mint used 24-120 for $750-800 on most days!
Now, some will get this lens with a kit, and maybe it winds up really being a $300 lens to them based on the price break. That changes the conversation somewhat, but the above is for folks buying the lens outright by itself.
Pretty sure there’s a much larger addressable market in the amateur segment than all the pros and semi pros here that Nikon wants to cater too as well. Those are sensitive to reach and size and aperture is less critical with modern ISO. And can’t see why this wouldn’t be the last released of the normal zooms, A) you don’t want a rep of the crap kit lens if it’s all that’s available at release so the 24-70 f/4 made a lot of sense at the time and B) the same market that is interested in this lens isn’t shopping Fm B&S and the price of the 24-70 and 24-120 is a good bit higher most any other shopping channel.
I get it’s not what the FM community wants but we’re a fickle bunch at times.
I don't think this lens is meant for those of us on gear forms who already own the 24-120mm f4 S or better lenses already. This is a kit lens to try and help get people who are newly into photos or video into the Nikon ecosystem. Maybe Nikon will also sell a few to photographers looking for a small lens with a decent range. If Nikon taught this was a lens for pro photographers, I would expect to see a lot more reviews already up on YouTube. For longevity, it's important that brands capture new users.
DWOfPaul wrote:
I don't think this lens is meant for those of us on gear forms who already own the 24-120mm f4 S or better lenses already. This is a kit lens to try and help get people who are newly into photos or video into the Nikon ecosystem. Maybe Nikon will also sell a few to photographers looking for a small lens with a decent range. If Nikon taught this was a lens for pro photographers, I would expect to see a lot more reviews already up on YouTube. For longevity, it's important that brands capture new users.
Looks like a kit lens for the Z5 II. All depends on how it performs
DWOfPaul wrote:
I don't think this lens is meant for those of us on gear forms who already own the 24-120mm f4 S or better lenses already. This is a kit lens to try and help get people who are newly into photos or video into the Nikon ecosystem. Maybe Nikon will also sell a few to photographers looking for a small lens with a decent range. If Nikon taught this was a lens for pro photographers, I would expect to see a lot more reviews already up on YouTube. For longevity, it's important that brands capture new users.
If Nikon has to sell mediocre products to attract new users, it means that the guys in Tokyo believe the(ir) market is saturated.
Considering the profit margins that can be generated by a lens sold in a $350 kit, they would have to sell a lot of them to make a significant profit.
Or are they hoping to sell more Z5IIs with this small lens in the kit? I understand that they will be able to sell more Z50IIs with the 16-50/2.8 VR (not exactly a cheap lens...), but I don't see how users potentially interested in full frame could be attracted by this 24-105 and decide to buy Nikon instead of Canon or even APS-C (e.g., Fuji)...
After this announcement, I won't be rushing out to buy Nikon shares
1:2 at 70-105mm is about all the macro most people will ever need. Nice spec.
I have a 28-400, which also has a slow aperture at tele. I think of it like an f/5.6 lenses on APS-C. Not great, not horrible.
For some reason we all freak out when we see any max aperture smaller than f/5.6… a SLR phase-detect AF sensor hangover effect, perhaps? In any case, if you don’t need a large aperture for effect, there isn’t much difference between f/5.6 and f/8, creatively, or in terms of IQ. If you can’t get the look you want at 100mm f/8, you probably can’t get it at 100mm f/5.6, either.
Biggest problem for this new 24-105 is the existence of Nikon’s other 24-105. The best argument for this lens seems to be price, or maybe as a “I might shoot some closeups today” lens.
