Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
petapixel.com
If it were half the size and weight, it wouldn't be f/1.8. The old AF Nikkor 135mm f/2 was 815g, just 180g less.
No need to complain. They (Nikon) do have smaller lenses around. Not every other camera manufacturer does have this type of lens, though
I had all the smaller Z lenses from Nikon and I wanted faster but smaller than 1.2 versions - we call that 1.4 aperture primes ....No need to complain. They (Nikon) do have smaller lenses around. Not every other camera manufacturer does have this type of lens, though
The 135/1.8 lens has about the same weight as the 1.4/105 (which I still own), but is about 4cm longer, IIRC, with a similar diameter. I think that is more or less ok. I would have to sell the 105 and 70-200 to make this happen, so that lens is not going to enter my home anytime soon
the 38 makes me not wanting a Q anymore. Really nice and light lens.
Nikon seem to have omitted the f/1.4 line for the Z mount. I guess they want a line of lenses where they can actually pull all (or most strings). For that purpose and differentiation against f/1.8, a f/1.2 line makes more sense. I did not buy any of the 1.2 lenses so far, because like for you they are too large for my uses and I am happy with the 1.8 lenses for most cases. For the blurrr-it-all-shot I recently purchased a relatively compact Voigtländer 1.0 with manual focus and native Z mount.I had all the smaller Z lenses from Nikon and I wanted faster but smaller than 1.2 versions - we call that 1.4 aperture primes ....
Sony can do this look at their 1.4/50 and even their 1.2/50 is much smaller compared to the Nikon, Sigma can do this nicely look at their 1.4/85 for E-Mount and L-Mount and even Leica's 1.4/50 is reasonably smaller.
Unfortunately such directions did not happen and made me finally leave Nikon Z .... where is obviously also another mindset around - right?
So even if there is enough to complain IMHO I stopped doing so some time ago and just looked elsewhere
But look at Sony, which is not my preferred brand, BUT they meanwhile managed to have a very excellent range of fast primes that are reasonably small.
As most of us know, the intentionally larger Z mount is to allow the design of a lens to perform well into the corners (to reduce vignetting, aberratons, etc.). The result is a larger, bulkier lens that has the convenient consequence of allowing a larger aperture. I don't think Nikon are going to negate the rationale of the Z mount by producing smaller aperture lenses that would be no better than their F mount equivalent (the design leeway of a shorter back-flange for the Z mount lenses aside), at least to any great extent.
I have both the 50mm 1.8S and 50mm 1.2S, the 1.8 is a go anywhere anytime lens and the 1.2 is like skydiving with lead shoes: You put that thing in the bag, you are committed to using it, lol!
