Announcement: Nikon Nikkor Z 24-50mm 1: 4-6.3

July 21, 2020 was officially announced Nikon Nikkor Z 24-50mm 1: 4-6.3 lens.

Nikon Nikkor Z 24-50mm 1: 4-6.3

Nikon Nikkor Z 24-50mm 1: 4-6.3

Basic properties

  • Designed for full-frame mirrorless cameras with Nikon Z mount
  • Second Amateur FF Nikon Z lens (not S-Series)
  • Folding design
  • Relative hole: 1: 4-6.3 to 1: 22-36
  • Focal length: 24-50 mm (EGF for Nikon Z DX is 36-75 mm)
  • MDF: 0.35 meters
  • Maximum magnification ratio 1: 5.9
  • Optical design: 11 elements in 10 groups, with 2 ED (Extra Low Dispersion) elements, 3 aspherical elements
  • SIC (Super Integrated Coating)
  • 7 diaphragm electromagnetic diaphragm
  • Focusing with a STM stepper motor
  • Internal focusing, minimized focus-breathing effect
  • Filter Diameter: 52 mm
  • Programmable control ring
  • Protected housing, plastic bayonet
  • The weight: 195 grams
  • Price: about $ 400. All prices for modern Nikon lenses are available. see here.

Appearance

List of all 'Nikon Nikkor Z' full-frame lenses for mirrorless cameras with Nikon Z mount

Fixes:

  1. Nikon Nikkor Z 20mm 1: 1.8 S
  2. Nikon Nikkor Z 24mm 1: 1.8 S
  3. Nikon Nikkor Z 35mm 1: 1.8 S
  4. Nikon Nikkor Z 50 mm 1:1.2 S
  5. Nikon Nikkor Z 50mm 1: 1.8 S
  6. Nikon Nikkor Z 58 mm 1:0.95 S Nod
  7. Nikon Nikkor Z 85mm 1: 1.8 S

Zuma:

  1. Nikon Nikkor Z 14-24 mm 1:2.8 S
  2. Nikon Nikkor Z 14-30mm 1: 4 S
  3. Nikon Nikkor Z 24-50mm 1: 4-6.3
  4. Nikon Nikkor Z 24-70mm 1: 4 S
  5. Nikon Nikkor Z 24-70mm 1: 2.8 S
  6. Nikon Nikkor Z 24-200mm 1: 4-6.3 VR
  7. Nikon Nikkor Z 70-200mm 1: 2.8 VR S

Lenses are designed to work with Nikon Z series cameras: Z5, Z6, Z6 II, Z7, Z7 II + Z50.

Materials on the topic

  1. Full-frame mirrorless systems. List of all cameras and lenses to them. Mirrorless fever, discussion, choice and more
  2. All cropped mirrorless cameras, discussion of systems
  3. Mirrorless crop that has stopped or is stopping its development
  4. Fallen Digital Mirror Systems
  5. JVI or EVI
  6. About mirrorless batteries
  7. Simple and clear medium format
  8. Smartphone Impact
  9. All announcements and news
  10. What's next?

Comments here on the site do not require any registration. In the comments, you can ask a question on the topic, or leave your feedback, or describe your experience. For the selection of photographic equipment, I recommend E-Catalog. Many little things for the photo can be found on AliExpress.

The material was prepared by Arkady Shapoval. My Youtube channeland Radozhiva's group on Facebook и VK.

Add a comment:

 

 

Comments: 82, on the topic: Announcement: Nikon Nikkor Z 24-50mm 1: 4-6.3

  • Jury

    Dark whale with 400x zoom and plastic mount for $ XNUMX, bingo! :)

    • Pokemon

      For a $ 400 Nikon F mount, there is a lot to find. Slightly add and buy Nikkor 28-70 / 2.8, Sigma 24-70 / 2.8 EX DG HSM, Sigma 24-70 / 2.8 EX DG Macro, Nikkor 35-70 / 2.8D or even a bunch of Sigma + Nikkor and something tells me that they will be more interesting than this funny whale. He generally looks surreal - not to prepare a quality 24-85 / 3.5-4.5 or 24-105 / 4 or 24-120 / 4.

      • Pokemon

        And yes, ambassadors and marketers rubbed us in about the new beautiful bayonet, but you can do it efficiently and inexpensively and with a good aperture ratio, but this is not a miracle.

    • Arkady Shapoval

      Even without a stub :)

      • Andrew Ch.

        Stub is in the cell.

    • Not + bot

      An incomprehensible complaint the lens is new and could not cost $ 100 .. just like a camera cannot cost 1000 ... but the quality must be looked at after the fact. The whale on the Z-50 crop turned out to be an excellent whale, albeit a dark one.

  • notapic

    Nikon is systematically destroying itself again. It would be a sensation if they rolled out for the same $ 400 a 24-85 / 2.8-4 kit with a metal mount, the same AF motor, etc. etc. And now users just got a plug for the bayonet, and for a lot of money.

    • Arkady Shapoval

      Indeed, a good 24-85 / 3.5-4.5 (without a stub, and later with a stub) went with a whale zoom for a full-frame digital SLR. And now the level has dropped - there is no stub either (for example, the z50 IBIS does not have, therefore, the stub in the lens is still a bit relevant), there is no increased aperture ratio (4.5 vs 6.3), there is no zoom ratio (24-50 is not as sweet as 24-85 ).
      In plus, I see only compactness and a new motor for video filming.
      Canon offers an amateur solution for exactly the same $ 400 Canon Lens RF 24-105mm F4-7.1 IS STM, even darker, but with a good zoom ratio, stub and macro 1: 2.

      • Oleg

        And on EF for the same money it offers 24-105 / 3.5-5.6. Now the aperture 5.6 looks just aperture, although the size is slightly larger than that of its dark counterpart.

        • Not + bot

          What is this new 24-105 at the EF ??? 2020? The lens just came out and almost no one saw it or tested it, the quality is unknown ... the only plug is the full-frame 35-70 and the first 18-55, the rest of the glasses are almost all usable ... I'm tired of this jerking off on aperture and UE, buy Yangnow they are cheap.

          • Oleg

            And what can be removed by 50 mm 6.3 what kind of creativity is easier to buy a phone already. No one really knows the difference. Just the mirror system offers 105 and not 5.6 at 7.1 mm. Is it worth the weight difference

      • wj

        @Arkady Shapoval
        The level of Z 24-50 / 4-6.3 did not decrease compared to AF-S 24-85 / 3.5-4.5, but quite the opposite. See the MTF comparison that I attached as a picture.
        And this lens does not need a stub at all, because it is already built into every full-size body from Nikon. No one in their right mind will screw this lens onto the crop Z50, because it already has its own even more compact and lightweight 16-50 / 4-6.3.
        Instead of an increased aperture ratio, we get an increased compactness, which is no better or worse, we just shifted the target audience.
        Canon's 24-105 / 4-7.1 is twice as heavy and larger, so not at all better, just different.

        • Arkady Shapoval

          I'm glad that someone liked him. The MTF chart to the lens level has the most indirect relation

          • wj

            @Arkady Shapoval
            What do you specifically mean by level and how does it relate to practice?
            MTF, for example, is understandable, since it allows you to roughly estimate how good a lens is optically.

            • Arkady Shapoval

              For example, I am currently reviewing a Nikon 70-200 VR1, a 2003 pro-lens, optically not strong at 200 mm. According to MTF, any modern dark 70-300 will bypass it now. But when you work with it, you understand that its level lies in the little things that are not available in the amateur segment: a front protective rubber bumper, AF fixation buttons (really useful), correct / good color (without over contrast), a thoughtful foot (when you take it off still opens up another place for a tripod), a hood with a metal latch, a large set of switches, body protection (at least seals) and very responsive operation. So, my point is that a level is a complex set of characteristics. The key ones are a set of focal length and aperture ratio. If earlier the kit lenses were 24-85 / 3.5-4.5 and 18-70 / 3.5-4.5 - only this made it immediately clear that they had a different level. So, for example, the 18-70 / 3.5-4.5 compared to the 18-55 had a ring focusing motor, M / A mode, and other little things that were not immediately obvious. The same applies to 24-85, which are a cut above the amateur film 28-80 / 3.5-5.6, 28-100 / 3.5-5.6, even though there is an age difference between them. This very level is not going anywhere. The optical part is another matter, but it usually correlates with the overall level.
              As for this 24-50, I believe that this is an analogue of the modern 18-55, which are also foldable and expensive (for example, Sony E 3.5-5.6 / PZ 16-50 OSS). And the dilemma is that 24-50 can be attributed to the level of 18-55 whales (or various modifications of 16-50, etc.), but in no way to the level at which 24-85 / 3.5-4.5 were. If Nikon released them in mirrorless form, then they would have incredible sharpness, but apart from that, there would be a different level. I assume that I can be wrong and everyone is entitled to their opinions.

              • wj

                @Arkady Shapoval
                Thanks for the explanation, now it becomes clearer what you mean. I would like to note that comparing or classifying lenses according to their level (in your understanding) seems to me useless, and maybe even harmful. Because, for example, the same 70-200 VR1 and its heirs VR2 and FL belong to the same conventional level, but objectively FL is better than both predecessors in a number of parameters. So these levels as a result are more like DxOMark scores, which are more confusing than helpful :)
                I suggest simply comparing features / characteristics directly where possible, so at least the comparison is clear and objective.

                Further, returning to our comparison of Z 24-50 and AF-S 24-85 and not operating with a conventional “level”, but starting only from the characteristics, we get the following picture:
                The advantages of the Z 24-50 are weight, dimensions, price, optical characteristics, smaller thread diameter for filters.
                The advantages of AF-S 24-85 are aperture ratio, stabilizer, focal range, focusing scale, rubber mount seal.
                Is the 24-85 a better lens than the 24-50? In absolute terms, as can be seen from the comparison - no! But not the worst either. They are just different. The best or worst one of them becomes only for a particular photographer, taking into account his needs. For me, compactness and optical quality are a priority, so the new 24-50 _for me_ is better than the old 24-85, no matter what level it belongs to. For other photographers with different criteria, 24-85 might be the best. That's the whole story.

              • Arkady Shapoval

                Of course, 24-85 for DSLRs, but no one knows what would have happened with a mirrorless like 24-85 (I'm talking about weight, size, etc.).
                I don't think that if you close 24-85 to f6.3 (and the difference between F / 4 by 50 mm in 24-85 and F / 6.3 by 50 mm in 24-50 is more than a step), it will be fundamentally worse than 24-50 ...

        • Pokemon

          It looks like a variant of Stockholm Syndrome.
          Stab is not needed, aperture ratio is not needed, plastic - well, let it be, “for only $ 0” - I'm going to buy it cool.
          I really hope that everyone who drowns for him here will gather their will into a fist and buy it. And they will prove with their pictures that this glass costs $ 400, which the impudent Nikon asks for it.

          • wj

            @ Pokemon
            You stubbornly do not want to understand why the stub, aperture ratio and materials are sacrificed for the sake of compactness and lightness. If you don't need the latter, this does not mean that no one needs it. For me specifically, this Nikon 24-50 / 4-6.3 looks much more attractive, for example, the Canon 24-105 / 4-7.1 with its stub and a wide range of focal lengths. I have, if anything, both of these systems on the farm, so the choice is not at all academic in nature :)

            Of course, I'm not going to buy it for $ 400, because this is the starting price. And she will soon begin to fall. This is the case with almost all glasses.
            Even the AF-S 24-85 / 3.5-4.5 mentioned in the comments cost $ 600 at the time of release. 600! Although now used. ugo can be found for $ 200-250. The situation will be the same with 24-50 in a year or two. You can easily take it for $ 200. Or take it as part of a whale for the same $ 200, to which prices will inevitably come for the Christmas season.

            • Pokemon

              I also have different Canon, Nikon, Fuji.
              I stubbornly do not want to understand why you are drowning behind WASTE glass, moreover, that you are not going to buy it and most likely you will never buy it.
              Buying garbage plastic glass, as dark as 3 basements, is a waste of money.
              I generally avoid buying dark lenses. The only dark glass I have now is the old Nikkor 28-105 / 3.5-4.5 AF-D.
              Everything else is 2.8 or lighter. I don't give a damn about the weight and dimensions.

              • Pokemon

                And yes, the new dark zooms for Canon / Nikon cause a facepalm and a keen desire to dump this bucket of noodles about new and better mounts back to the obscurantists and Canon / Nikon ambassadors.
                However, to Canon's credit, they are better prepared for the launch of the UPC ff and they now have everything they need to upgrade to the new system from the EF mount.
                I am against buying dark solutions, because this is a strange purchase both for the Zu50 (under which there are no normal glasses, in principle, and at the same time it costs awkward money), and for the Z7. For the Z6, normal people have already acquired a 24-70 / 4, and it seems to me that this lens is a more correct purchase than the dark 24-50, which, due to its parameters, is essentially a bayonet plug. It is strange to wear it on modern cameras at all - dark, and it is not clear that it has 24mm (most likely ugly distortion) and how a travel zoom that you don't mind drowning in a pool or the sea will also not work - no 70mm and 50mm dark as 3 basements ...

              • wj

                @ Pokemon
                I'm not just drowning for the "trash" glass, but even bought an even more "trash" 16-50 / 3.5-6.3 together with the Z50! :) And I am absolutely delighted with it, because it is the sharpest APS-C zoom I have tried. I use it with great pleasure on occasion during daytime walks.

                And again, if you badly need f / 2.8 in zoom, this does not mean that everyone needs them. A product that does not meet _your_ needs does not automatically make it a junk. Look at things more broadly, the world does not end with your needs alone.

              • Arkady Shapoval

                What APS-C lenses have you tried for mirrorless cameras?

              • wj

                @Arkady Shapoval
                From the APS-C zoom for mirrorless cameras, I also had Canon and Fujik whales 15-45mm. Canon completely disappointed with soapy corners, but fudzhik liked its sharpness. But its over-zoom seemed terribly inconvenient to me. There is no way to directly compare both of these zooms with Nikon's 16-50mm (those cameras with whales have already been sold), but according to subjective feelings Nikon is slightly better than the Fuji whale in sharpness and definitely wins in terms of ease of control and dimensions.

      • Visitor

        It has long been clear that Nikon has 24-70 / 4 as a kit for mirrorless cameras, this lens was promised to be dated to the Z5 and released in a very limited quantity.

        • wj

          @Visitor
          Where did you get the information about the limited amount?
          In general, it is customary to estimate the approximate number of copies issued by this plate: http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/serialno.html
          But there is no 24-50 in it yet due to the novelty of the lens.
          The old AF 24-50 / 3.3-4.5 at one time produced about 100000 units in 18 years.

  • Dmitriy

    Plastic mount - trying to reduce weight and / or save money?

    • Arkady Shapoval

      Rather, it's a matter of weight. We tried to make it compact and lightweight, so we cut everything - stub, zoom ratio, aperture ratio, bayonet, switches, hood included.

      • Jury

        they cut everything except the price - they wound it :)

        • Ivan

          This is the whole point. They also promised a new aperture ratio with a new mount. But in fact, they did not even fill the entire range of SLR lenses and did not offer anything new, except AF 0.95.

          • wj

            Nobody promised anything to anyone. The mount allows for f / 0.95, but “you can” does not mean “you need to”.

            • Ivan

              Read how Nikon advertised the Z mount two years ago. The emphasis was on the fact that it was made solely to increase the aperture ratio. Even the first commercial was about this.

              • wj

                @ Ivan
                Well, then you, too, re-read these same marketing materials, so as not to pass off your fantasies as facts. The emphasis was not so much on the possibility of increasing the luminosity as such (although this is also), but on expanding the possibilities in the design of new optics, which was mentioned literally in every interview. Well, it would be very naive to believe that the very possibility of creating lenses with an aperture of f / 0.95 would mean that from now on all lenses will go exactly with f / 0.95 :)

              • Arkady Shapoval

                Well, I think you're really shielding Nikon. But the point here is not 0.95, they don't even have 1.4 yet, not to mention 1.2. Still, no matter how optically their solutions are with 1.8, but 1.8 will not become 1.2, as in Canon. But they position 1.8 exactly as professional solutions of the S-line line. At the same time, the price tags are 1.8 higher than the price tags by 1.4 among the mirror counterparts. I remember earlier that guru-photographers-ambassadors sang songs about Nikon 1, they say there is 60 fps, and with their 800 / 5,6 you can get 3000 mm and shoot cheetahs for kilometers. And then everyone changed their shoes, some on Sony alpha, some on full frame. Of course, 24-50 will be in demand, because this is not the point, but the fact that the mirror system offers in many ways more balanced solutions, and the new, as it is accepted, should be better than the old, and in the main (focal and aperture) the novelty inferior. This is why many amateur photographers and photographers have such a reaction. If it were 24-80 / 4-6.3, there would be no questions, while it could be made foldable for lovers of compactness (like Sony's 16-50 PZ).

              • Ivan

                wj, you constantly distort and distort the meaning of what everyone here writes to you. I see no reason to argue with you, as the dispute reaches a dead end.

              • wj

                @Arkady Shapoval
                I have a really good attitude towards nikon, as my first DSLR was from nikon, and that leaves a mark :) But I am also pissed off by some of their gaps in product lines. Therefore, I also use the canon UPC, their system allows you to close those gaps.
                From the discussions in the thread, one can also make an unequivocal conclusion that most of the unsubscribed prefer lenses of a higher level, and from the lovers of compactness here, it seems, I am the only one, for which I get a portion of indignation :)

                Further, comparing the UPC-systems from Nikon and Canon. Again, I cannot say for sure that any of them are better in absolute terms. Various strategies for filling the rulers were chosen. Canon started with ultra-expensive lenses, forgetting to add cameras of the same level to them. Only now, with the release of R5 / 6, the situation begins to level out. Nikon decided to go the middle way, releasing a full line of 1.8 fixes and mid-range cameras. It goes without saying that over time, both lines will become complete. At the same time, the debate over which one is better is rather academic. After all, the owners of the canon canon will first of all go to the canon. And it's the same with Nikon.

                In an amicable way, Nikon would not need 24-80 / 4-6.3, but a whole line of "dark" zooms, which would consist of 24-50, 24-80 (or better even 24-105) and 24-200. So no one would remain offended. Canon did it differently and released 24-105 with 24-240, leaving those who would like an even more compact solution to “suck the paw”. It is possible that Nikon's and Canon's rulers will be supplemented. Or maybe they will decide that for now it will do. Only the future will show.
                Specifically, my needs so far are best covered by the combination of nikon + canon :)

              • Roman

                Lenses are made for years, if not decades. Canon has made all of its EF (and even EF-S) lenses fully compatible since 1987 and set the limits by launching the top 50 / 1.2, 85 / 1.2, 28-70 / 2.0 with relatively inexpensive “trial” cameras. Anyone who has bought expensive glasses can be sure that they will “open” with each new round of cameras. Now the tops will get a stub, and there will be a high pixel density camera for the studio. Then Canon began to close the holes with those glasses that he did not have or those that had long been in need of updating. For example, 85 / 2IS to replace 85 / 1.8, also with macro. Folding 70-200. Ultrazum 24-240. And even if nothing of the new products interests me with a fleet of old optics, I'm interested in new mirrorless cameras with a stub and their high ISOs, on which I can even hang crop glasses, plus I will use the same batteries.

                What did Nikon do? You can throw away your screwdriver lenses and buy our expensive and advanced 1.8 glasses. Or an almost useless manual super light. Or dark pancakes. All this is not interesting for professionals, for amateurs it is expensive and painful, only fans remain.

  • Roman

    The period of throwing a new platform has come. DSLRs had about the same when, after the first "ah", they began to produce all kinds of cheap rubbish.

    • Ivan

      Rather, not Z, but Nikon as a whole. Look at the announced accessories. First, they reduce the size, and then they mold all sorts of handles for a comfortable grip for both hands. And I'm not talking about the sale of exclusive hot shoe plugs. Nikon follows Olympus slowly, unfortunately ... https://photar.ru/skoro-anons-novyx-aksessuarov-dlya-kamer-nikon-z/

      • wj

        Someone forces you to buy these pens by force? :)
        If you don't need it, pass by.
        I have a similar pen for the Canon RP and I use it on occasion. If I take only one camera with one lens with me for a walk, then I screw on the handle for greater convenience. And if I take a photo bag with two carcasses and a pair of lenses, I remove the handle to save weight and size.

        • Ivan

          What do pens have to do with it? The point is that Nikon makes UPC for convenience worse than its own ZK, while more expensive, with a smaller fleet of optics. And attention is paid to glamorous hot shoe plugs, in the style of Lake. This is the end of the company if it does not know how to survive and what to offer to customers.

          • wj

            Where are your statements about the worse convenience of the UPC than the ZK from Nikon? Did you use them yourself? I ask as the owner of both. I personally did not feel any drastic difference.
            Further, about the price. Who is more expensive than whom? The Z6 / 7 is about the same carcass level as the D750 / 780 and cost the same at the start. The story is about the same with the Z50, although DSLRs have no analogue in the conventional class, it is more likely between the D5600 and D7500.
            The number of optics on Z is smaller, since the system is only 2 years on the market, it needs time to fill. No other manufacturer of photographic equipment can produce more than 8-10 lenses a year, if you look at the past. At one time, the same was the case with alpha and m3 / 4 and with samsung. Or do you expect the fairy to conjure up lenses for you? :)
            As for glamorous hot shoe plugs, Nikon has been producing them for many decades, nothing has changed here. You just do not know about this, so you are making hasty conclusions. Do not do like this.

            • Ivan

              wj, I not only held the cameras you listed in my hands, but also repaired many of them while working for Nikon. I'm already tired of your flood, I don't want to sink to your level.

              • wj

                @ Ivan
                If you really worked for Nikon, it’s all the more strange for me to read your unfounded criticism of its products. You didn’t bring a single argument defending your statements and didn’t bring a single counter-argument to my statements; instead, you simply leave the discussion.

    • wj

      24-50 is not rubbish at all, you can watch it on MTF. Other fixes can envy such sharpness.

      • Ivan

        You rely on MTF in every post. it is a kind of “spherical horse in a vacuum”. Read this article: https://vasili-photo.com/articles/mtf.html

        • Neo

          Yes, the graphs are like that, and 6.3 is 6.3, as well as 50 mm, how to twist it, you can't make a top lens from a whale. The old af 24-50 / 3.5-4.5 was even more interesting, squeeze it from 4.5 to 6.3 and it will also be better than this mirrorless

          • wj

            @ Neo
            What is this strange fad to compare a whale lens with a top lens? It is clear that f / 6.3 is not f / 2.8. Well, prices and weight are completely different. Different tasks, different tools.

            The old af 24-50 / 3.5-4.5 is no good for the new. Compare its MTF (https://photographylife.com/lenses/nikon-af-nikkor-24-50mm-f3-3-4-5d) with MTF new items. This is heaven and earth.

          • wj

            @ Neo
            Why are you comparing a whale lens to a top lens? It is clear that f / 6.3 is not f / 2.8. Well, prices and weight are completely different. Different tasks, different tools.

            The old af 24-50 / 3.5-4.5 is no good for the new. Compare its MTF (https://photographylife.com/lenses/nikon-af-nikkor-24-50mm-f3-3-4-5d) with MTF new items. This is heaven and earth.

        • wj

          @ Ivan
          I am well aware of the limitations of MTF charts. But they quite allow themselves to compare different lenses of the same manufacturer, since the methodology of their construction in this case does not differ.

      • Roman

        During the mirror era, Nikon experimented with the Pronea series and IX lenses. Canon released either PZ or PTZ - without manual focus. The situation was about the same - first a competitor releases a new platform, then Nikon tries to reinvent the bicycle, then Canon answers the bicycle with his bicycle. Then the venture is buried and returned to its origins.

        24-50 is quite a good glass, well solving the problem of being a compact whale. But does it have its own niche? If a person needs ultra-compactness, he has a phone with a couple of lenses with different focal lengths. And wider 24, and more authentic 50. And all this in an even smaller building, which is always with you. And those who are not satisfied with the convenience and quality of pictures from the phone will somehow be more relaxed about the size of the lens. In principle, I normally perceive telephoto cameras with 7.1 at the end, especially since autofocus works fine on them. That's 100-500, which is, in fact, a free extension of 100-400. That even the strange 600 and 800 with aperture 11. And even 24-105 / 4-7.1 somehow fits into this paradigm, you can make good portraits on a hundred square meters, even squeezing yourself to such a hole. But 24-50 is a too compromise solution. Size to suit everything else.

        • wj

          @Roman
          With phones, by the way, a good argument. Indeed, modern top-end smartphones shoot with their main module (usually 25-26 mm eq.) Already very badly thanks to computational photography, which allows us to partially neutralize the disadvantages of small matrices. The only problem is that their other modules (shirik and telephoto) are usually equipped with even smaller matrices, and here no computational miracles can deceive physics. Therefore, this 24-50 still has its own niche. Well, do not forget that no one limits the owner of the 24-50 to use this lens exclusively. He may well complement it with another lens.

          • Arkady Shapoval

            With this approach, even if Nikon released 24-28 / 6.3-11, one could write that there will be a niche. So far we have only 24-50, taking into account the market, pancakes cannot be expected.

            • wj

              @Arkady Shapoval
              And what niche can be found in the dark 24-28? Even light 1,5x widths like Tokin's 11-16 / 2.8 are of limited popularity. And it seems that everyone has forgotten about Tokin's 14-20 / 2.
              And why won't we wait for pancakes from Nikon? Of course, the pandemic makes major adjustments, but it doesn't change photographic needs. And financially, Nikon keeps everything under control, despite the collapse of the market, so we are unlikely to wait for the bankruptcy of the company.

              • Arkady Shapoval

                Ahaha, well you give. That's it, I'll stop there.

              • wj

                In the sense of "ahaha"? At first Ivan merged, unable to support his point of view, now here you are. Some kind of strange discussion turns out.

              • Arkady Shapoval

                How do you say, if you had a task to drain someone, and not come to some kind of true understanding of things. Moreover, I have nothing bad by 24-50. And you still cannot understand this, insisting on your own and not seeing the obvious indicated facts of others. Why then should I or others continue here?

              • Roman

                20/4 or even 24/4 is a full-frame pancake for a landscape with a standard 35 / 2.8 and some 135 / 2.8 for a TV range with a stub on the matrix - I would not mind. Like many other amateurs, I suspect so. I just don't need this high-aperture tokina of monstrous size - I have a regular 10-18, which more than suits me. If I replace it with a crop, then only something even smaller. In the full frame, I am looking very much towards the voigtlander skopar, but it's expensive, as for manual glass. Maybe I'll find it cheaper on the secondary.

              • wj

                @Arkady Shapoval
                I have no task to drain anyone. I wrote that Ivan merged. Himself. And if I had a hand in this, I would have leaked it. Do you feel the lexical difference? :)
                I really came close to understanding things - most commentators, as it turned out, do not like compact dark zooms. It really was a discovery for me.
                I in no way insist on my own, on the contrary, in many comments I emphasized that different tools are suitable for different tasks. Reread what I have written.

              • Pokemon

                “I really came close to understanding things - most commentators, as it turned out, do not like compact dark zooms. It really was a revelation for me. ”
                There is no point in wasting your life on shitty things.
                It doesn't matter if it's a favorite hobby or a job where people earn money by photography.
                It is more pleasant to use what brings more pleasure.

              • Ivan

                wj will not stop. I woke up two weeks later and again began to shower with my comments. I didn't merge. There is no point in communicating with bots. The bots do not hear or listen to anyone, but only stubbornly bend their line.

  • Andrew Ch.

    It is better then to buy an adapter for this money and use old glasses (without a screwdriver).

    • Ivan

      It's more logical not to switch to Z at all.

      • Eugene

        Why? For example, at one time choosing between 80d and m5 I chose m5. And not a single native glass has acquired. I went not for compactness, but for autofocus (where DSLRs have already reached the limit, and it does not satisfy me). It's just a thrill to shoot at 1.4 and not think about it or not. And choosing a focus point on the screen is mega convenient. I've been glad if the M5 was the size of my old 60d.

  • Vvs

    Arkady, can you make an overview of the video capabilities of the bzk? How to work with videodng. Should there be at least some advantages of this?

    • Arkady Shapoval

      I'm not good at this, I don't work with this, maybe someone will agree to make a post on this topic

  • Novel

    It would be better if they made adapters for optics from other manufacturers, the popularity would grow faster. By the way, tell me there is an engine for a screwdriver in the adapter?

    • Ivan

      With a screwdriver - of course not. The company is in deep crisis. Already such "simple" lenses are offered at inflated prices. Olympus went the same way, with its inadequate prices. What is the point of Nikon making adapters for other people's lenses? Take care of you? They don't look like a charitable organization.

      • Pokemon

        And Sony, with its motorized LA-EA4, looks like a charity.
        “It was not about the reel, just x .. sat in the cockpit” (c)

        • @ Lex

          Sonya had no choice. At the time of their release, they simply had nothing to oppose to the boot with Nikon. From there, both the open bayonet protocol and a bunch of perez
          adapters

          • Arkady Shapoval

            Sony had DSLRs and SLT cameras for the Sony A mount. Nikon and Canon had no plans for mirrorless cameras when the first Sony E-mount NEXs came out.

            • Trueash

              Sony took a somewhat risky step: "create a need - satisfy a need." As you can see, he justified himself - especially since they have experience in this.
              In 1952, Sony released the first mass-produced radio. The homes of wealthy Americans were equipped with incomparably higher quality RCA equipment, but the children preferred Sony's transistors, which they could carry with them. And where is RCA now?
              As far as I understand, Nikon now has to catch up, for which they were clearly not ready.
              Ken Wheeler can spit about Sony as much as he wants - they say, “They don't make cameras! They make consumer electronics! ” - but always the mass character + acceptable quality wins.

              • Oleg

                I completely agree with you. Moreover, at the moment Sony is the richest company with resources that will be quite enough to survive the attack of smartphones, at the expense of other production resources

  • wj

    $ 400 is the starting price, which almost always goes down after a few months. In addition, this lens will be even cheaper in a kit with a camera. And at flea markets in a year or two it will be possible to take it for 150-200, like any other full-size kit-zoom.
    Therefore, the allergic reaction of the commentators somewhat surprises me.
    Further, MTF charts show almost better sharpness than 24-70 / 4, which is a very good level. In fact, in this model we pay with aperture and focal range for the sake of compactness, but not detail. I think the exchange is very successful.
    Anyone who lacks the xx-85 range - just wait. Sooner or later, such a lens will appear, if not from Nikon, then from third-party manufacturers. Alas, not a single manufacturer of photographic equipment has yet been able to release more than 8-10 lenses per year, so the filling of all niches in Nikon (as well as in Canon) has to wait for many more years. This moment must be understood, and not lamentable that Nikon was blown away.

    • Oleg

      Kenon has 50 / 1.2 and it seems like two 85 / 1.2 Nikon has nothing lighter than 1.8 on the bzk

      • Ivan

        Well, Nikon is planning a 50mm f / 1.2, not counting the current 0,95:

    • Neo

      I wonder if Nikon pays someone to promote the basic kit in the comments? A whale he is a whale, and even stripped down. Would make a 24 / 2.8 or 35 / 2.8 pancake for 200-300 bucks, and not this double zoom for 400

      • Roman

        Of course it pays. Canon products.

      • wj

        @ Neo
        Look at Nikon's roadmap - it claims 28mm and 40mm pancakes.

  • Nina

    Thanks for the information.

  • Arkady Shapoval

    Here comes a new similar Sony FE 4-5.6 / 28-60, longer, lighter, cheaper and lighter (though not so wide).

  • Dmitriy

    With your permission, I will add my hundred grams, I'm not a pro, user opinion. My wife shoots on D90 with 28mm. He loves it very much, but one of the reasons for the desire to replace is the size. For my part, I want to buy her a Z5 (full frame in principle). And of course, neither for 400, nor for 200, I probably would not take this glass. But as a whale - yes. In fact, we get just compactness, of course this glass will not give anything else. And with any other glass with a Z-mount, or with an adapter ... this whopper will sit at home. Yes - dark. Poorly. But then I will buy her 50 or 35, for quality, but for walks or travel, a child for a walk, some landscape will be fine. No, I'm not saying good. It’s normal.

Add a comment

Copyright © Radojuva.com. Blog author - Photographer in Kiev Arkady Shapoval. 2009-2020

English-version of this article https://radojuva.com/en/2020/07/nikon-nikkor-z-24-50-mm-4-6-3/