Nikon and Canon have both introduced mirrorless bodies using new mounts, and the industry is at a crossroads. The new lenses that were introduced lack any promise or justification for their existence, and are more expensive while offering less useful features than past generations.Most lenses introduced in the last few years have been a disappointment. While they are technically impressive, offering unprecedented focal lengths or apertures, they are getting drastically heavier and more expensive, while making serious compromises on usability and filter compatibility. At the same time, they are often missing basic features, like image stabilization or filter threads. This trend seems only to have worsened with the new mirrorless mounts.
Nikon’s Z line is a prime example, pun intended. For the launch of a new mount, they rolled out a few obligatory lenses including a 24-70 and a few primes. Instead of developing a more useful lens, like a telephoto lens native to the mount for launch, they focused development on a ridiculous 58mm f/0.95 vanity lens. It is rumored to cost $6,000, and is so unwieldy it comes with it’s own tripod foot. Besides trying to grab headlines, I can’t figure out who this lens is aimed at, particularly given the attributes of the existing Z bodies. High performance 50mm lenses, like the Zeiss Otus, already exist. Meanwhile, Nikon claims their existing 50mm Z mount lens “will redefine your notion” of what a 50mm lens can do. Do photographers really need two definitions of a standard lens on a mount that only has 4 or 5 lenses to begin with?
I don't think even NIkon knows which direction they want to go.
Canon’s RF mount isn’t any better, with the 28-70 f/2 lacking the wider angle capability of their EF lenses and any form of image stabilization, all for twice the price of their well regarded 24-70 f/2.8 II. The lens features an insane 95mm filter diameter, and weighs 1.3lbs more than it’s EF competition. This throws away any weight savings from the switch to mirrorless, and seems to be another example of a product made for a cool sounding headline, rather than a genuinely better user experience. What sort of performance could Canon have delivered if they stuck to F2.8? Could they have fit in an IS system? That omission seems particularly egregious given the EOS R lacks any built in stabilization. If they are worried about low light performance, a 24-70 f/2.8 II shooter can bring another 1.3lbs of f/1.8 prime lenses for the best of both worlds.
I would have loved to see some f/4 zooms that match professional standards, and some wicked sharp f1.8 primes. The classic 24-70 f/2.8 shouldn’t be regressing, and image stabilization should be included whenever possible. The new bodies are hopefully on the cutting edge of ISO performance, and emphasize the weight savings inherent in mirrorless, so what is this fetishization of unnecessarily wide apertures? The expanded electronic communication abilities of the new mounts also seem to be going to waste, as Nikon’s halo lens is manual focus only, despite the razor thin depth of field. Canon and Nikon instead seem to have aimed for the most expensive options at every turn, without a meaningful improvement in product capability.
These lenses seem to be trying to justify the new mounts’ existence. Instead of genuinely addressing a photographer’s needs, Nikon and Canon built lenses in search of a problem. Viewing the new lenses in combination with their bodies only further highlights the disjointed nature of the lineups. The Z6 and Z7 offer photographers a practical, collapsible 24-70 f/4 and a monstrous, multi-thousand dollar prime lens, with nothing in between. If, however, you're looking for a 50mm lens, the Nikon Z lineup is perfect, featuring 3 variations of a 50mm lens out of 12 total lenses announced.
1 of 3 50mm lenses for the Z mount
I'm not saying the only direction to go is smaller, lighter, and slower. I'd love to see some alternatives to the bigger, faster, but wildly expensive lenses that are in vogue; I understand that new ground has to be broken for marketing wins. I think my problem instead lies with the unclear direction that Nikon and Canon are taking with their new mirrorless efforts. While the road maps they've provided offer more information than they have provided in the past, I don't see their overarching purpose. Is the Z lineup supposed to push the limits of what cameras can do, as the 58mm Noct would indicate? Then why does it's autofocus performance lag competitors and even the D850 it supposedly equals? It lacks the same level of customization in controls already present on less expensive, older bodies like the D500.
While some would say, if you don't like it, don't buy it, the very existence of these new lines also threaten the viability of existing models. Looking at the number of lenses that Nikon or Canon are capable of designing and launching, when combined with their road maps for the new mounts means new lenses for existing mounts are unlikely. The situation is even worse for users of the duo's first mirrorless efforts, as Nikon CX is discontinued and Canon's EF-M has an unclear future.
Nikon and Canon should ground their new mounts in reality. Once they’ve rolled out a competent set of practical tools, go ahead and build some $3,000 vanity lenses, but not while you’re still missing anything with a focal length above 105mm. As both mounts heavily rely on legacy compatible adapters to create any sort of complete kit, did the Z and RF mounts really need to exist? Nikon fans already complain of missing lenses for the DX mount, and I feel there are still holes in the F mount line, like a high performance, lighter mid-range zoom. Canon is having to juggle development for EF-S, EF, RF, and EF-M, which leaves the future of each mount in question.
Given the lenses introduced and revealed on the roadmap so far, I don’t believe Nikon and Canon are headed in the right direction. With tightening camera sales figures, manufacturers need to make rational, deliberate choices more than ever before, and manage their resources wisely.
Lead image by Szabo Viktor
Alex, this is what Nicky was b---ing about and I agree with your point. 3x50 is stupid. what were they thinking. it would be different if the F-UTZ adaptor worked with existing Nikon glass but the performance is dismal on a camera body that already struggles with tracking AF.
3 versions of 50mm is perfect. Some people don't have a lot of money, and some people do, so why not create options for both groups?
Market segmentation in a more mature product is fine, but it looks like 3 out of the first 12 Z lenses are 50mm. That's way too much overlap in a lineup that is missing some of the basics.
The 70-200 is coming out this year. They can't dump all the lenses that everyone wants; can't please everyone on launch. What they did launch in 2018 seems like a pretty reasonable cadre of lenses to start with for what most people probably want. In fact I'd posit that the 70-200 is probably more niche than the 50, 35, and 24-70 that they already have out.
When Nikon released the 14-30 f4 pretty much everyone complained about it not being f2.8 etc. I think the 14-30 f4 is a fantastic lens because it accepts screw filters, it is light and small in size. It is definitely the best choice for backpackers.
agreed. besides, the only people i’ve ever heard of who shoot an ultra-wide ƒ/2.8 lens fully open are real-estate photographers who don’t know how to use lighting. everyone else actually stops it down for a sharper image and uses lighting if necessary. or “videographers” who prefer to “run and gun”... aka 1-man blogging productions who use a Canon and have to overcome a crop with an ultra-wide angle lens. and even then, they use an aperture of ƒ/4 or smaller to give themselves a large enough depth of field to prevent needing critical focus.
Real estate photographers still stop down their lens for dof. Its Astro photographers who tend to shoot wide angle lenses totally open but they are generally using primes.
Agreed. Can't wait for the 14-30 to arrive.
It looks like Nikon is really nailing it with the f/4 lenses. The 24-70 is excellent, and I'm excited to see the 14-30. If there was a complete, native kit available for the Z, I believe a lot of photographers would be switching over- but without any native telephoto options, the diminished AF performance on adapted lenses is a concern.
Further, the disconnect I alluded to is apparent in your comment- the bodies and some lenses are perfect for small and light kits, but they'll be releasing 3 different 50mm lenses and no small/light telephoto.
Having rented and used a Z body with adapter on my AF-s lenses I can see no falloff in AF performance from the adapter. The lens itself has more to do with AF performance, my 70-200 and 200-400 are blazing fast, my 24-120 relatively pokey. If you have AF-d lenses you give up AF, but how many professionals still have a large selection of AF-d lenses? And the Z6 (have not tried the 7) is superior to my D850 with a tele-converter attached. When
They're the wrong direction? I put it to you that only the market can determine that.
For my money, I'm waiting to see what the Panasonic SR looks like; however, I'm liking the Nikons a lot.
If I were starting from scratch, the Z would be a strong contender. I've used the 24-70, and was very happy with it. For even a basic kit, however, there are some gaps. The 14-30 isn't out yet, and there is no small/light telephoto on the roadmap for years.
It'll be interesting to see if the L mount consortium is able to rollout a more comprehensive lens set.
"what ? Nikon dared to release a new mount and not release the holy trinity and every primes at once ?? But who are they to believe REAL pro photographers could bare that ?
REAL and PRO photographers (on the Interne) only trust manufacturers that release 50 lenses on release line-up, and SONY was the only one who cared to do it... hmmm, sort of... But now they have everything a FX MILC needs !"
Sorry, but you keep whining like a child... Nowhere it is an opinion, it is just a too rich child making big noise and asking for attention.
And now, your 'damage control' talking about Nikon f4 zoom being the right move is plain ridiculous. You wrote Nikon was wrong, but here you say they are doing well, but do not deliver enough Z mount lenses so far... seriously, is it a real argument ???
About the adapted lens, you really want to argue that SONY Alpha line does not have some caveats with their adapted lens ?? seriously ?
Niky calm down. did you forget to take your Nikon meds? It is clearly demonstrated that Nikon F-UTZ adapter makes the already bad tracking af on z6/7 even worse which is different from the seamless transition Nikon stated with that adapter. SONY DOES NOT MAKE FALSE CLAIMS LIKE NIKON ABOUT (F-UTZ) ADAPTER.
If you really wanted to get 'technical' about native lenses being introduced, considering the fact that Nikon and Canon produced adapters that allow their terrific lenses to work seamlessly makes it sensible that no new glass be introduced for the Z and R. Why bother since there's no drop off in lens/camera performance?
Of course, there should be native lenses for those that don't have the older mount lenses already, but would like to have a complete system. I'm sure the executives at Nikon and Canon didn't make their choices without considerable thought. It's really early to make any sort of prediction as to the outcome of Canon and Nikon's choices...way too early.
Unfortunately autofocus is already a weak point for the Z7, with adapted lenses taking an additional hit. While the optical quality isn't impacted, the weaker autofocus does seem to drop effective camera performance. This is particularly a problem given no native telephoto lenses- where autofocus is even more important.
One other point; we've become very spoiled (Nikon and Canon users) by the plethora of terrific lenses offered. However, that pile of lenses took a long time to accumulate. Nikon and Canon just released a new mount and already, there is clamoring for dozens (exaggerated for effect) of native lenses. It'll happen. There needs to be just a LITTLE patience.
funny how newcomers could be spoiled by some better AF features they never used before with SONY Alpha 7rIII or 9.
And how Nikon dSLR owner of D810/D750,D610,D800 and all entry levels dSLR could be really despise by Z6/Z7 'not good enough' AF !!!
Do whiners like you realise that not everybody nor pro have deep enough pockets to swap every year or two their cameras ?
Frankly, if you jump from Canon or Nikon to SONY a few months ago, would it be a real clever move to switch again for Nikon or Canon MILC ? seriously ?
If you already got hands onto Alpha 7R3, A7 Mk3 or A9, why the heck bothering with Canikon again ? Does your Alpha camera not work as intended ? or is just the marketing and vanity to own the latest touted device that drive your photograhic skills ?
Do you really believe you must toy around with the latest released camera to know your camera and used it properly ?
Is it a wise advice to tell photographer to swap their whole system every years to gain zero technical improvments ? Many touts how amazing latest sensors are, but previous iteration are from being bad. Since 2012, I don't see anywhere photos taken by 2018 cameras that 2012-2014 could not make.
But of course, actually, photographers have to make videos to be real photographers, it is a well known facts from influencers on youtube... even if video and photo are totally different work and mindset.
When you charge $3400 for a camera, it's a given that the AF on it should be good... Just sayin'
For the moment, all I see is youtubers and some photo gear reviewers having nitpicky AF issues.
Are Z6/Z7 worse than D810/D750 from the AF point of view ? No !
Are D810/D750 worse AF system on earth ? NO !
Many critics are spoiled by Nikon Z6/Z7 AF because they don't find their EYE-AF they are absolutly in love with nor the Nikon D850/D500/D5 excellent AF.
But critics are lame as hell, as they are almost all using huge bold words for an AF system that is at worst as good as D810/D750 AF system.
Funny how it was good enough until 2017 but totally flawed in 2018/2019... In fact no, it is not funny, just pityfull seeing guys making great pics but theirs ego making them claim childish and poor arguments.
While I agree to an extent, a $3400 camera release TODAY should not have AF on the level of a $3400 camera released 5 years ago. Yes, the Z6/Z7 AF is perfectly fine for shooting. The problem is that they aren't competing with cameras from 5 years ago. They are competing with cameras in their same price point TODAY. That means that you're not comparing the Z7 to the D810. You're comparing it to the D850. That's why these cameras are getting put down by reviewers. There was a time when the Nikon F5 was perfectly acceptable at autofocusing and people found a way around whatever limitations existed. If you released a camera like that today, you'd be universally panned. Standards evolve and the bar keeps getting higher.
It's not that the Z6/Z7 are bad cameras or that you can't take good photos with them. They are simply bad values for your money given the competition available for the same price (or lower in some instances).
YOU are saying Z6 and Z7 are POS, all days long, in every possible article around.
They are bad value for your POV, and this is you personnal POV. You already told here and there so many times you need a videocamera and EYE-AF with as much frame per second possible, so you picked Alpha 9. Why the heck do you need to make a crusade against Nikon Z cameras that can perfectly match to many Nikon photographers and newcomers in FX realm ? Just because you love SONY cameras and feel its datasheet is what everybody must have, or because you need everybody have to make the same choices as you ? feeling incomfortable with your own choice ? No, then stop spiting here and there Nikon is making crap, you already told it is not what you need nor like.
I have an A7RIII, not an A9 and I've been very open about the fact that Im very conflicted about it and that is not a perfect camera by the stretch of the imagination. The only reason that I own a Sony right now was because I wanted to sell the DSLR kit while the value was still high rather than invest more money into it and at the time Sony was the logical full frame choice as they had the most mature system.
I honestly have no idea where you're getting this from.
Oh, and not all reviewer are putting down Nikon Z6/Z7 cameras. You only look and use youtubers and influencers that are talking like you, but you are don't accept it is not really 100% your POV that is the right one. And this what is powering your constant crusade to slash Nikon Z cameras. But hey, too much ego to calm down, and must absolutly show the mankind how much the truth is in your brain.
I don't care about what reviewers say. I went and held one in my hands and tried it out. Maybe they'll get better with firmware upgrades, but as of launch, they are an objectively bad value for your money compared to what the competition offers in terms of performance.
The ergonomics are great and the weathersealing looks fantastic, but their AF performance is subpar for this generation of cameras.
If you are a Nikon diehard brand loyalist, then get one. Your purchasing decisions have zero effect on me. I'm calling it like I see it. Z-mount has the greatest potential right now, but the first generation cameras are lackluster. Honestly, that shouldn't surprise anyone. Sony's first gen cameras were much worse.
Oh, and if you happen to do photography involving people, Eye-AF is actually really awesome and every major manufacturer is definitely going to implement some form of it sooner or later.
Alex, I wonder how many times you will have to point out that the failing Z6/7 af is made even worse with the F-UTZ adapter before people will admit it. "seamlessly" is not a word that can be used with the nikon f-utz adapter performance.
So they both go crazy hyping up their new mounts but it makes no sense to release new glass for them?
That’s the first I’ve heard of this strategy ...
I want the SONY 50mm F1.2 G-master lens !
Really don’t understand this take. Canon released one of the best 50mm in the market and the 28-70 is optically excellent by all accounts and this year they are expected to release ~7 lenses ? Including some of the more “practical” choices you mention. Why do writers completely disregard the fact that you know there is a bigger ecosystem at play that they took into account when deciding what to roll out first plus aggressive Road maps.
because the photographers with the time to write a 1000 word, uninformed opinion piece don’t understand that reformulating a lens is more than just slapping a red ring onto an old design.
I never said the 28-70 was optically bad- I take issue with the weird trade-offs being made in these new lenses. To regress to 28mm on the wide end, with a massive pricetag and weight penalty, doesn't make sense when paired with an EOS R.
If the rumors of upcoming professional R bodies are true, the lens starts to make more sense, but right now it is a lens in search of a camera.
The price stinks hard to argue but i think it’s clear that this is built to future proof towards something else. It’s the 4mm vs the extra stop and shallower depth of field. Guarantee you that even when there is a traditional 24-70 many folks will still opt for the “regressed” 28mm. It’s choices and for a months old system i think the article is a bit over dramatic and short sighted imo
Canon should've pushed their EOS-M line and make models that are comparable with what Fuji is doing. No one can deny that the market is moving more towards hybrid shooters who need competitive video specs.
A lot of Pros and Prosumers love the small body and lens form factor and professional specs of the Fuji X line.
Ever since I purchased a pair of XT3's, my 1DX II and 5D3 only come out of my bag when necessary.
IMHO
bang on, but Canon wouldn’t be Canon without their fan base being constantly let down.
Tesla didn’t release a range of cars when Elon Musk “disrupted” the auto industry by trying to create a mass-market passenger car in the most inefficient way possible. even to this day, the X was released second and now the 3, to complete his childish lineup of S 3 X Tesla autos. even his SpaceX, or Space Sex, started with the Falcon rocket, moved to reusables, and is now strapping up to 5 together for the “Falcon Heavy.”
my point: when entering a new business or sector, your start small and work your way up from there. going balls-out and developing a whole lineup of cameras that share multiple missteps would be a financial disaster. you start with one and learn from there. for example, the level of blogger hate over Nikon’s single card slot. mind you, it took Sony 3 iterations to finally include a second slot. Nikon chose a more reliable, pro level card in XQD, yet the loudest of whiners still complain, equating it to Canon choosing a single SD card. Nikon likely based this on inputs from their actual users, specifically their professionals group. they made the best camera they could for their invested users, not bloggers shooting with a canon or sony. but, because time is infinite, there will be a future and it will include iterations of this product, an expansion of the line to address users above and below that level, and the necessary lenses to go with it. sure, you could say, “why didn’t they learn from sony?” and the truth is that Nikon users aren’t the same as Sony users, plain and simple.
equally disastrous: sticking dual card slots into entry-level cameras that are designed to be cheaper. but “everyone” wants dual card slots, you say?! wrong. most people don’t care. you barely know what you want, banging on about Nikon missing the boat by releasing the very types of Z-series lenses you claim they don’t have, and yet you think you’re able to make proper business decisions for others? even Nikon doesn’t know what their customers want in fine detail, hence the need, and plan, for iteration. your god, Sony, didn’t include 2 card slots in the first a7.
given time, Nikon and Canon’s lineup of mirrorless professional cameras will grow AND evolve based on customer reaction to these first models. part of that is hype to instill excitement into the new models, which these niche lenses provide. your whinging over it only proves my point, and their delivery of adapters for older lenses prolongs the time they have to adapt old lens designs with updated optical formulas to match the new lens mount’s requirements.
besides, the new mounts and mirrorless configuration are what affords these first lens designs coming out. later benefits will follow, especially in the wide-angle realm, as light will no longer have to be bent oddly to fit a wide field of view into a long, narrow channel within a mirror box to hit the film plane. this alone is a benefit of the wide diameter mounts and close imaging plane that will allow the reduction of aberrations like color fringing and coma to near zero.
want proof? compare the EF and R versions of the 50mm ƒ/1.2 and you’ll understand the new mount’s immediate benefits. or maybe not, based on your rant. there’s far more to it than just what lenses they released in their first batch of redesigns. patience is a tool of the adult for getting the things they want.
The Future is Bleak? Why are children so dramatic? :-/
Apparently Canon and Nikon were supposed to release an entire lens line up all at once. Sorry.
....and by the way the multi function ring on the Canon lenses apparently fell so far short for this guy it wasn't worth mentioning?
he wanted to ignore the stuff he didn’t understand by focusing on stuff he understands even less to make the point that he has no clue how any of this works.
and it directly contradicted his point about “innovation.”
Nikon also has multiple functions that can be configured for the ring on the native lenses.
everyone knows that is MF'ring sucks. no need to state the obvious.
that’s exactly what i said in a really long, wordy and expositional way.
i wish i’d gone your route as i’m quite sure i wasted all those keystrokes.
Not at all- I even mentioned the limited number of lenses that they will be able to release at a time.
But given that limited number of releases, their priorities are misaligned. No telephoto lenses, redundancy like having a 50 f/.95, 50 f/1.2, and 50 f/1.8 with only 12 lenses total.... It'll be 4 years of lens releases before you can build a native kit covering wide to 200mm, with no option longer than 200mm at all.
i guess you can put the different 50s on different nikon bodies.
Alex, the converters with their 100% native capabilities gives you a complete lineup and more!
Imaginary oped from 1987:
"Canon’s new EF mount is a disaster. Instead of developing a more useful lens, like a telephoto lens native to the mount for launch, they focused development on a ridiculous 50mm f/1.0 vanity lens.
Besides trying to grab headlines, I can’t figure out who this lens is aimed at. Meanwhile the new EF 85mm f/1.2L might have auto-focus, but manual focus what professionals do. What's more, it's absurdly large and heavy, even compared to the perfectly functional FD mount 85mm f/1.2L..."
In the real 1987: "Canon's New Mount- 15, 28, 50, 50 macro, 135, 300, 35-70, 35-105, 60-200, 70-210, 100-300"
2018: "Canon's New Mount- 28-70, 24-105, 50, 35 macro"
Little bit of a difference.
Very few of those were actually new. The majority of them were FD designs.
That's not much more effort than the EF R adapter.
I'm just not buying the NEVER ENDING STREAM of anti-Nikon and Canon articles. It's almost organized.
The market is always right, there is a reason why Sigma and Tamron have been doing so well, people are happy with the marginal loss in quality to save 40-60% on new lenses with superior warranties.