Nikon Z50 mirrorless APS-C camera and two lenses (16-55mm and 50-250mm) to be announced soon

ooheadsoo

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Jan 13, 2018
Messages
484
Those lenses don't have me particularly excited. If I wanted small and slow...
 

robcee

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2016
Messages
513
Location
New Brunswick, Canada
Real Name
Rob Campbell
Nikon's never really given their DX lenses the attention they deserve. Main reason I never went back to the D500 (from D800, long-time user of the D300 and D300s) is because of the lack of dedicated lenses. If you want fast, you have to crop a full frame lens and carry the extra weight.

An 18-55mm f2.8, 55-135mm f2.8 and 10-20mm f2.8 UWA would be an awesome set of lenses. Round that out with fast 35mm, 24mm and a 14mm and you have a pretty solid lineup. Make them all weather sealed for bonus points.

I think Nikon's always been afraid the DX lineup would cannibalize their full frame lines. Or they just never had the investment dollars to put into a full DX line. I guess we're seeing the same thing from Sony and their E mount.

I think if I were going APS-C I'd have a hard time not going with Fuji. They're the only company that has really dedicated themselves to that format.
 
Joined
Jan 25, 2019
Messages
27
Location
Colorado
Real Name
John
Nikon's never really given their DX lenses the attention they deserve. Main reason I never went back to the D500 (from D800, long-time user of the D300 and D300s) is because of the lack of dedicated lenses. If you want fast, you have to crop a full frame lens and carry the extra weight.

An 18-55mm f2.8, 55-135mm f2.8 and 10-20mm f2.8 UWA would be an awesome set of lenses. Round that out with fast 35mm, 24mm and a 14mm and you have a pretty solid lineup. Make them all weather sealed for bonus points.

I think Nikon's always been afraid the DX lineup would cannibalize their full frame lines. Or they just never had the investment dollars to put into a full DX line. I guess we're seeing the same thing from Sony and their E mount.

I think if I were going APS-C I'd have a hard time not going with Fuji. They're the only company that has really dedicated themselves to that format.
It seems like Canikon have always had the problem with their DSLRs was that the crop lens choices were very limited (mostly consumer zooms with very few primes and a couple of nicer zooms). It always felt to me that with those systems you weren't really in the club unless you had a full frame sensor. I feel like Sony is in the same boat.
 

ooheadsoo

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Jan 13, 2018
Messages
484
Nikon has the 17-55/2.8 as well as the 16-80 2.8-4, both of which are fairly well received, so they don't fare so poorly on the wide end of normal, but it's true that prime selection is abysmal. The old sigma ex series was always the main stopgap measure, though performance was never spectacular.

How small must these new lenses be to make this kit worth buying? It looks like yet another way to funnel people towards the ff line up unless they are telephoto hobbyists.
 

ac12

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Apr 24, 2018
Messages
1,762
Location
SF Bay Area, California, USA
Weird...are they getting ready to jettison their entry level DSLRs and replace them with this camera?
Probably getting ready if/when the market shifts to mirrorless.
It would be really bad if the market shifts and they have nothing to sell.

IMHO, a good part of the consumer market is heavily price driven. So as long as the dSLRs are cheaper than mirrorless, they will sell.
 

ac12

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Apr 24, 2018
Messages
1,762
Location
SF Bay Area, California, USA
Nikon has the 17-55/2.8 as well as the 16-80 2.8-4, both of which are fairly well received, so they don't fare so poorly on the wide end of normal, but it's true that prime selection is abysmal. The old sigma ex series was always the main stopgap measure, though performance was never spectacular.

How small must these new lenses be to make this kit worth buying? It looks like yet another way to funnel people towards the ff line up unless they are telephoto hobbyists.
Yes, I was considering replacing my 18-140 with the 16-80/2.8-4.

Canon does not have a "normal" APS-C lens. Of all the lenses to not have ????
Then again, the APS-C market is not driven by the prime shooters.

On the long end BOTH Canon and Nikon dropped the APS-C ball.
Except for the discontinued Sigma 50-150/2.8 and the new Tamron 35-150/2.8-4, there is nothing in the APS-C world that is the equivalent or close to a 70-200/2.8 on a FF camera. That frustrated me to no end, and I was pushed to decide between the 24-120 and 70-200. It was this lens frustration that was pushing me to upgrade from DX/APS-C to FX/FF.
 

bassman

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Apr 22, 2013
Messages
1,064
Location
New Jersey
Real Name
The Bassman
Both Nikon and Canon probably saw APS/DX as a stop-gap back in the day when full frame sized sensors were too expensive. So they made a few lenses just to make DLSRs feasible replacements for 35mm film SLRs, but lost most of the plot as soon as they started making and selling full frame DLSRs.
 
Joined
Jun 1, 2019
Messages
308
Location
Seattle WA
Real Name
Amol
Nikon's enthusiasm or lack there of about DX pro/fast lenses always baffled me. Thankfully, Tokina, Sigma do fill up the gap to some extent.
Tokina's 11-16 and 11-20 f/2.8 lenses are superb on wide angle. While Sigma's 50-100 f/1.8 is a gem in itself but doesn't quite reach to 200mm (makes up to some extent with constant 1.8 I guess?). Sigma 18-35 fills up another gap that Nikon refused to. My only qualm against these two Sigmas is lack of VR. Sigma's other fast zoom, which is very long in the teeth now, 17-50 f2.8 also can be considered as reasonable replacement of FF 24-70 f2.8. Sigma 17-70C is also a great lens but with variable aperture.

Having said that, I know first party lenses do get preference over any third party lens and also there is almost complete lack of DX primes save for the lonely 35mm. A shame because Nikon has been churning out some phenomenal DX bodies year after year... without fast glass. Right now only "new" fast zoom, the 16-80 launched along side D500 is pretty good lens which will continue to work on new MLC DX but at $1000 it is hard pill to swallow.
 

robcee

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2016
Messages
513
Location
New Brunswick, Canada
Real Name
Rob Campbell
Another question I have for Nikon is how do they expect the Z mount to work with DX lenses? Does it adapt well or is the huge ring going to mean huge lenses for that format? It's possible the long flange will mean shorter lenses, but the bodies are going to be limited in (minimum) size because of it. There's no way to make it more compact.

I don't see them investing heavily in the "cropped" format. Another win for MFT! ;)
 
Joined
Jun 1, 2019
Messages
308
Location
Seattle WA
Real Name
Amol
Just like F mount, Z will be same on new apsc body. It's just that the sensor size will change (smaller) in apsc's case. All current Z mount lenses will work on new body.

Edit : as is usually the case, it's good idea to invest in FX lenses even for DX unless you never plan to upgrade to FX body.


Another question I have for Nikon is how do they expect the Z mount to work with DX lenses? Does it adapt well or is the huge ring going to mean huge lenses for that format? It's possible the long flange will mean shorter lenses, but the bodies are going to be limited in (minimum) size because of it. There's no way to make it more compact.

I don't see them investing heavily in the "cropped" format. Another win for MFT! ;)
 

ac12

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Apr 24, 2018
Messages
1,762
Location
SF Bay Area, California, USA
Nikon's enthusiasm or lack there of about DX pro/fast lenses always baffled me. Thankfully, Tokina, Sigma do fill up the gap to some extent.
Tokina's 11-16 and 11-20 f/2.8 lenses are superb on wide angle. While Sigma's 50-100 f/1.8 is a gem in itself but doesn't quite reach to 200mm (makes up to some extent with constant 1.8 I guess?). Sigma 18-35 fills up another gap that Nikon refused to. My only qualm against these two Sigmas is lack of VR. Sigma's other fast zoom, which is very long in the teeth now, 17-50 f2.8 also can be considered as reasonable replacement of FF 24-70 f2.8. Sigma 17-70C is also a great lens but with variable aperture.

Having said that, I know first party lenses do get preference over any third party lens and also there is almost complete lack of DX primes save for the lonely 35mm. A shame because Nikon has been churning out some phenomenal DX bodies year after year... without fast glass. Right now only "new" fast zoom, the 16-80 launched along side D500 is pretty good lens which will continue to work on new MLC DX but at $1000 it is hard pill to swallow.
BOTH Nikon AND Canon have treated APS-C as an entry/consumer camera.
Neither has an APS-C equivalent to the FF 70-200/2.8.
I guess they want you to upgrade to FX/FF if you are into serious lenses.

The Nikon FX 50/1.8 is priced similar to the DX 35/1.8. I got one. So IMHO, not having a DX 50 is not an issue.
Canon on the other hand does not even have a 35 APS-C lens.

Sigma is a near miss.
My major issue is that the zoom ring turns in the opposite direction than Nikon. If you shoot sports or action, you want all your lenses to zoom in the SAME direction. I've lost too many pictures by turning the Sigma zoom ring in the wrong direction. I will go with Tamron instead.
Sigma had a great lens in the 50-150/2.8, then they discontinued it for the faster but shorter 50-100/1.8.

Tamron just came out with the FX 35-150/2.8-4. This is finally a DX equivalent to the FX 70-200/2.8.

As for the $1000 cost of the 16-80, if you want pro grade glass, you have to pay for it, FX, DX or m4/3.
 

robcee

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2016
Messages
513
Location
New Brunswick, Canada
Real Name
Rob Campbell
Just like F mount, Z will be same on new apsc body. It's just that the sensor size will change (smaller) in apsc's case. All current Z mount lenses will work on new body.

Edit : as is usually the case, it's good idea to invest in FX lenses even for DX unless you never plan to upgrade to FX body.
yeah, this has always been true with Nikon. My point was, in the case of the Z-mount with its much wider ring, any DX lens designed for it is going to be vastly larger than a comparable F-mount DX lens, or Fuji X mount, or even Sony E mount which was initially designed for APS-C then wedged into a full-frame format. The Nikon glass is going to be bigger than their competitors' offerings, which kind of kills it as a "compact, go anywhere" format, IMO.
 
Joined
Jun 1, 2019
Messages
308
Location
Seattle WA
Real Name
Amol
Zoom ring and also the focusing issues on those Sigmas, especially 18-35. Totally forgot about Tamron. That new Tamron is on my radar but waiting for them to start showing up in used markets.

Sigma is a near miss.
My major issue is that the zoom ring turns in the opposite direction than Nikon. If you shoot sports or action, you want all your lenses to zoom in the SAME direction. I've lost too many pictures by turning the Sigma zoom ring in the wrong direction. I will go with Tamron instead.
Sigma had a great lens in the 50-150/2.8, then they discontinued it for the faster but shorter 50-100/1.8.

Tamron just came out with the FX 35-150/2.8-4. This is finally a DX equivalent to the FX 70-200/2.8.
 

davidzvi

Super Moderator
Joined
Aug 12, 2012
Messages
3,642
Location
Outside Boston MA
Real Name
David
BOTH Nikon AND Canon have treated APS-C as an entry/consumer camera.
Neither has an APS-C equivalent to the FF 70-200/2.8.
I guess they want you to upgrade to FX/FF if you are into serious lenses.

The Nikon FX 50/1.8 is priced similar to the DX 35/1.8. I got one. So IMHO, not having a DX 50 is not an issue.
Canon on the other hand does not even have a 35 APS-C lens.

Sigma is a near miss.
My major issue is that the zoom ring turns in the opposite direction than Nikon. If you shoot sports or action, you want all your lenses to zoom in the SAME direction. I've lost too many pictures by turning the Sigma zoom ring in the wrong direction. I will go with Tamron instead.
Sigma had a great lens in the 50-150/2.8, then they discontinued it for the faster but shorter 50-100/1.8.

Tamron just came out with the FX 35-150/2.8-4. This is finally a DX equivalent to the FX 70-200/2.8.

As for the $1000 cost of the 16-80, if you want pro grade glass, you have to pay for it, FX, DX or m4/3.
No neither Nikon or Canon did APS-C any favors. I think both figured people would just use film lenses. I never really followed Canon, but at least Nikon covered the wide end with the 12-24 f/4 and 17-55 f/2.8. But there were few other "better" options.

Sigma killed their 50-150 f/2.8 when they added OIS and made it the same size as their 70-200. The 50-100 f/1.8 is discontinued? It's still on sites and isn't listed as discontinued on Sigma's site that I can see.

Tokina also had an APS-C 50-135 f/2.8, but that didn't last too long.

The Tamron 35-150 is not an APS-C lens and not really meant to fill that roll. It's a FF portrait / event range zoom.
 

ac12

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Apr 24, 2018
Messages
1,762
Location
SF Bay Area, California, USA
No neither Nikon or Canon did APS-C any favors. I think both figured people would just use film lenses. I never really followed Canon, but at least Nikon covered the wide end with the 12-24 f/4 and 17-55 f/2.8. But there were few other "better" options.

Sigma killed their 50-150 f/2.8 when they added OIS and made it the same size as their 70-200. The 50-100 f/1.8 is discontinued? It's still on sites and isn't listed as discontinued on Sigma's site that I can see.

Tokina also had an APS-C 50-135 f/2.8, but that didn't last too long.

The Tamron 35-150 is not an APS-C lens and not really meant to fill that roll. It's a FF portrait / event range zoom.
Sigma had a great lens in the 50-150/2.8, then they discontinued it (the 50-150) for the faster but shorter 50-100/1.8.

The issue I have is, that this was version 1 of the 50-150/2.8. It appears to me, to have been made using the shell of a 70-200/2.8, therefore the large size. Could Sigma have reduced the size and weight in a version 2 ? I think they could have. But they made the strategic decision to be different, and make the fast f/1.8 zooms instead.

Yes, the Tamron 35-150 is a FF lens, and not meant to be a 70-200 equivalent DX lens. But it is the only lens that can fill the FF 70-200 role for a DX camera, so it gets the job.
As for the Tamron 35-150 being a FF lens, that is no different than what the DX shooters are forced to do when they have to use a FX lens. I got the FX 70-200/4. If the Tamron was available when I got my lens, I would have gotten the Tamron instead. When I shoot football (or similar field sports), I have to back up onto the track, to give myself enough distance to the sideline, to accommodate the long 70mm end of the 70-200 on my DX camera. I am anxiously waiting for the yearbook to get a Tamron 35-150 so that I can give it a try.
 

davidzvi

Super Moderator
Joined
Aug 12, 2012
Messages
3,642
Location
Outside Boston MA
Real Name
David
Sigma had a great lens in the 50-150/2.8, then they discontinued it (the 50-150) for the faster but shorter 50-100/1.8.

The issue I have is, that this was version 1 of the 50-150/2.8. It appears to me, to have been made using the shell of a 70-200/2.8, therefore the large size. Could Sigma have reduced the size and weight in a version 2 ? I think they could have. But they made the strategic decision to be different, and make the fast f/1.8 zooms instead.......
Actually you're missing the first 2 versions of the Sigma 50-150 f/2.8. The first two WERE smaller and lighter. It's the third version when they added OS that they used the shell of the 70-200 f/2.8. The Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8 EX DC HSM APO and Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8 II EX DC HSM APO were almost the same. The Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8 EX DC OS HSM APO was the mistake IMHO.
 

Attachments

ac12

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Apr 24, 2018
Messages
1,762
Location
SF Bay Area, California, USA
Actually you're missing the first 2 versions of the Sigma 50-150 f/2.8. The first two WERE smaller and lighter. It's the third version when they added OS that they used the shell of the 70-200 f/2.8. The Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8 EX DC HSM APO and Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8 II EX DC HSM APO were almost the same. The Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8 EX DC OS HSM APO was the mistake IMHO.
You are correct. I forgot about the non-OS lenses.
By version, I meant the OS lens. Because for me, I was only interested in a stabilized lens, so I ignored the non-stabilized lens.
Once I used a stabilized lens, there was no going back to a non-stabilized long lens.
 
Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Mu-43 is a fan site and not associated with Olympus, Panasonic, or other manufacturers mentioned on this site.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Copyright © 2009-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom