Nikon Z lens -are S lenses worth it ?

[O]

The 70-200 f2.8E FL is one of Nikon's best zooms ever made. And the first zoom to match prime quality in the Nikon Ecosystem, as judged by Brad Hill. Besides the TCs advantages plus Synchro VR, the S Line model has ARNEO coatings that likely contributes to slightly improved optics

Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 S Lens Review | Thom Hogan

Review of the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 S lens

www.zsystemuser.com

Rationalizing Zoom Lens Sets | DSLRBodies | Thom Hogan

Rationalizing Zoom lens choices for DX and FX cameras

dslrbodies.com

Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8E FL ED VR Lens Review | DSLRBodies | Thom Hogan

Review of the Nikon Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8E FL lens for DSLRs

dslrbodies.com

As Thom after reading his lengthy read for choice in FX zooms seems to still come down to the all round usable kit for him as being
FX Quality

• Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8G
• Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8E
• Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8E FL

Interesting.

 

[Lee R]

Me too! After getting a Viltrox 56mm f1.4 for my Fuji system I was that impressed with its build quality and images that I got a Viltrox 85mm f1.8 for my Z6ii before I even got the camera. Consensus from respected reviewers was that it is 95% as good as the Nikon and I got it inc delivery for just £296!! At the time the Nikon was £699.

I've also got manual focus Samyang 12mm f2 and 85mm f1.8 and a Zonlai 22mm f1.8 for my Fujis and a Samyang 14mm f2.8 Z mount for the Z6ii and I'm very happy with them all.

I now use vintage manual focus lenses more than my modern AF ones.

The TT Artisan 75mm F2 was $173 shipped including taxes to my house. All metal and feels like a lens that cost much more. Compared with the 85 1.8S it's disturbingly close in image quality. If the Chinese are playing at this level already and start adding weather sealing into these lenses the 1st party brands are going to be in for a shock.

Wait until they start selling long focal length primes with autofocus for 1/4, 1/5th of what people are used to paying and 90-95% of the image quality. That'll happen eventually. TT Artisan already has a manual 500mm for $329.

Viltrox has LAB and PRO full frame lines coming probably this year. That'll be F 1.2 lenses to compete with first party, for probably less than half the price.

 

[RichF]

The same as 24 mp is better than 8 or 12 mp, 36 better than 16mp, 45 is better than 20 or 24, the difference between 45 and 60 isn't that huge but its the pathway to 80mp.
It depends on what i am doing, i crop a lot and make a photo from with in a photo often.

But using the right glass yes i can see where you coming from.

For much of what i do crop ability is important, the higher the number of pixels the greater the micro contrast - detail.

pathway to 80 MP. Why 80 MP - how large do you want to print? or is 80 MP a pathway to 120 MP or even 150 MP. Where does it end??? For me 45 MP is more than enough but it does get me 8K video.

 

[O]

pathway to 80 MP. Why 80 MP - how large do you want to print? or is 80 MP a pathway to 120 MP or even 150 MP. Where does it end??? For me 45 MP is more than enough but it does get me 8K video.

They told us when my Kodak digital 6490 camera was 6 mp it was the sweet spot and all you ever needed, then the D40 at 6mp, then 8, then DX 12 mp D300 and FF D3S 12mp, was considered amazing, along came 16 and and out of the blue, wow, 24 mp was considered MF standard, especially when my D3X came out along with its 16 bit blacks.


Then the game went to 36 mp, with a D800 followed by the amazing D800 E pushing the edges further, now we are at 45mp just another hailed sweet spot and all or more than you ever need, Sony is at 61mp and boy is it good.

As all this has moved along glass has progressed and been made to resolve it all, also technology processing buffer etc has all grown in capacity, so is the next sweet spot 60mp Canon is already for releasing in the future 80-100mp.

Ok pixel density is creeping up, what does a DX 24 mp sensor equate in pixel density and that equate to a FF sensor ??? is that 34mp ?

Stacking is the rage look at smart phones now 12 to 40mp but look at the way they achieve it.

At some time very soon the 35mm era will need to move up and Nikon is poised for that.

its a good question you ask, Do we need all this resolution, the answer from my perspective is really no, i am happy with 16mp in my DF or 45mp in my D850, Love the 61mp in the Sony, wow.

With each new change in resolution levels we question things and rightly so, if in the D40 6 MP day someone said 45 and 61mp will be great we would have taken a step back and said hey that not needed, today i shoot my D850 Z8 doing a landscape then do the same with a D4 DF D5 the difference is chalk and cheese.

60 or 80mp is just another progression, look at phones, who needs 40mp in a phone..........or do we to embrace the next world of Ai.

Personally i am happy with my underwater camera being my I Phone 6s 12mp but now i am eyeing of the iPhone 16 pro max or the Google pix pro top of the shelf because of its Ai features.

Cropability is valuable.

But your question and point is true and correct and respected...........i am just going with adapting with the benfits till they no longer exit or excite me, for now.

Only an opinion

 

[RichF]

They told us when my Kodak digital 6490 camera was 6 mp it was the sweet spot and all you ever needed, then the D40 at 6mp, then 8, then DX 12 mp D300 and FF D3S 12mp, was considered amazing, along came 16 and and out of the blue, wow, 24 mp was considered MF standard, especially when my D3X came out along with its 16 bit blacks.


Then the game went to 36 mp, with a D800 followed by the amazing D800 E pushing the edges further, now we are at 45mp just another hailed sweet spot and all or more than you ever need, Sony is at 61mp and boy is it good.

As all this has moved along glass has progressed and been made to resolve it all, also technology processing buffer etc has all grown in capacity, so is the next sweet spot 60mp Canon is already for releasing in the future 80-100mp.

Ok pixel density is creeping up, what does a DX 24 mp sensor equate in pixel density and that equate to a FF sensor ??? is that 34mp ?

Stacking is the rage look at smart phones now 12 to 40mp but look at the way they achieve it.

At some time very soon the 35mm era will need to move up and Nikon is poised for that.

its a good question you ask, Do we need all this resolution, the answer from my perspective is really no, i am happy with 16mp in my DF or 45mp in my D850, Love the 61mp in the Sony, wow.

With each new change in resolution levels we question things and rightly so, if in the D40 6 MP day someone said 45 and 61mp will be great we would have taken a step back and said hey that not needed, today i shoot my D850 Z8 doing a landscape then do the same with a D4 DF D5 the difference is chalk and cheese.

60 or 80mp is just another progression, look at phones, who needs 40mp in a phone..........or do we to embrace the next world of Ai.

Personally i am happy with my underwater camera being my I Phone 6s 12mp but now i am eyeing of the iPhone 16 pro max or the Google pix pro top of the shelf because of its Ai features.

Cropability is valuable.

But your question and point is true and correct and respected...........i am just going with adapting with the benfits till they no longer exit or excite me, for now.

Only an opinion

Only an opinion. Worth discussing ..

We don't know impact of higher resolution sensors upon the final image with today's software. Fact in tomorrow's software and advances in image enhancing quality, who knows what the max resolution your get out of an image. The image on the sensor is the convolution of the true image captured (the motif if you will) and degradation due to the system (diffraction and other factors). If we can correct for the latter (e.g., deconvolute the signal from the noise in the system) we will end up with better image. But how large will we need to go see the differences (or much of a crop will we need). i have shared all my knowledge (some of which is undoubtedly wrong in detail) about optics, lenses, etc.

If we could talk to the experts at Nikon ... we might gain additional insights.

 

[O]

Only an opinion. Worth discussing ..

We don't know impact of higher resolution sensors upon the final image with today's software. Fact in tomorrow's software and advances in image enhancing quality, who knows what the max resolution your get out of an image. The image on the sensor is the convolution of the true image captured (the motif if you will) and degradation due to the system (diffraction and other factors). If we can correct for the latter (e.g., deconvolute the signal from the noise in the system) we will end up with better image. But how large will we need to go see the differences (or much of a crop will we need). i have shared all my knowledge (some of which is undoubtedly wrong in detail) about optics, lenses, etc.

If we could talk to the experts at Nikon ... we might gain additional insights.

I agree with a lot of what your saying. Hell knows i am no expert

Its interesting to see how things are done and will be done going forward.

 

[JoelKlein]

The 35mm standards will have to move up in size. Even at 45mp if the sensor is bigger and each pixel is bigger it’s probably better, no?

 

[O]

The 35mm standards will have to move up in size. Even at 45mp if the sensor is bigger and each pixel is bigger it’s probably better, no?

In general one of the oldest things that hasn't changed is the 35mm format.

I think if that was superseded it would be a game changer.

large pixels means more light, less pixel density.

I wonder if Nikon's larger glass diameter on the lens mount end may have potential or be strategically under cover for future plans.

Its long overdue i think.

Only an opinion