Thom Hogan

So here’s a question to ask yourself: what NIKKOR lens currently stands out as unique across all mounts these days?

Answer: 50mm f/0.95 NOCT.

Runner Ups: the 135mm f/1.8 Plena, 600mm f/6.3 VR S, and 800mm f/6.3 VR S.

Also considered: 28-400mm f/4-8 VR, 28-135mm f/4 PZ.

There was a time back in the film SLR and DSLR F-mount cycles when Nikon was continuous iterating truly unique lenses that no one else had: first zoom, first autofocus lens, first exotic telephotos, first 17-35mm f/2.8, first, first, first. And often times, those lenses stayed unique for a period of years. 

With the Z-mount Nikon seems gone more conservative and mainstream with their NIKKOR offerings. Instead of unique focal lengths and apertures, which drives different uses, we instead have seen Nikon opt for highest possible performance at well-known focal lengths and aperture combinations that are known to sell in quantity.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not complaining about the quality of Nikon’s Z-mount offerings. With very few exceptions they’ve all turned out to be at or near best-in-class, and edge-to-edge sharpness with few other drawbacks makes for detailed, sharp, and anomaly-free images. I’m all for that.

What’s missing this time around seems to be true creativity in optics: designing lenses that just haven’t existed before, or which push extremes more extremely, as does the NOCT, which is probably the best testing lens to ever hit the byThom labs. Likewise, the 400mm f/2.8 TC VR S put exotic telephotos on notice that there’s a new standard in town, though I don’t judge it to be pushing extremes too extremely (Sony’s 400mm f/2.8 is close). 

We have had an odd couple of lens incidentals that now seem to be abandoned. For instance, the OLED display on some of the top S lenses now seems to be a thing of that past (as it should be). At the time some thought it to be a step forward, but my eye is not hovering over the lens barrel, and if the information is available to the lens barrel where I can’t see it, it should also be available in the camera’s displays, right? Oops. Misfire.

What strikes me is that so many of Nikon’s unique F-mount lenses never made it to mirrorless:

• 8-15mm f/3.5-4.5E fisheye zoom — solved four use cases in one lens
• 16mm f/2.8 fisheye — created and fulfilled the full-frame fisheye standard for years
• 17-35mm f/2.8D — at the time, outside the parameters of what you could find elsewhere, and coveted
• 20-35mm f/2.8D — a forgotten lens that seems pretty well suited to the creator era
• 35-135mm f/3.5-4.5 — yes, Nikon was there early; Tamron has now usurped the spot with a faster lens
• 70-180mm f/4.5-5.6D Micro-NIKKOR — hands down the most interesting and practical macro lens I’ve used
• 180mm f/2.8 — smaller and lighter than the 70-200mm f/2.8 when you just needed something fast near 200mm
• 180-400mm f/4E TC — no, the 120-300mm f/2.8 TC isn’t going to solve the same problem; and this lens was Nikon’s followup to the popular 200-400mm f/4, one of the great all-around wildlife lenses
• 200mm f/4D Micro-NIKKOR — about 75,000 users wonder why this lens was left to die in D-dom
• any PC-E lens — sure, not a big seller, but tilt-shift establishes a camera use well beyond what we can do with current Z-mount lenses

The reason for the lack of more unique lenses in the Z-mount almost certainly is due to bean counters. A few of the lenses I just listed did sell well, but many had smaller customer bases that Nikon may now be afraid of in the current “everything must return instant profit” era.

One question I now have is this: if Nikon were to suddenly get their path-blazing design mojo back, exactly what would that lens or lenses be? The problem now is that Canon, Sigma, Sony, and Tamron have all been nibbling away at unique opportunities, so a lot of “different” lenses Nikon might consider today would now look more copycat than unique. 

Again, I have no problem at all with what Nikon has produced so far in the Z-mount. Most of my needs are now met by lenses better than I used before. And as I age out, my actual needs are narrowing (to lenses I already own). There’s perhaps six to eight lenses that really belong in my gear closet now, though I have a few more. And those six to eight are covered by existing NIKKORs just fine.

Still, I wonder what would happen if Nikon let their optical engineers off their tight bean-counting leash. After all, in the past Nikon was putting out lenses that allowed us to do new things photographically on a pretty regular basis. I still remember the first mountain bike photographer discovering the 16mm f/2.8 fisheye and how that impacted the editorial market almost instantly. As Sontag so clearly explained, photography gets stale if you just do the same old things the same way as the past practitioner has been doing. Even the Insta and Toker communities are discovering that the hard way these days.

Thus my challenge to the NIKKOR group at Nikon is simple: show us the optics that allow us to do things we haven’t been able to do before, and I’ll show you my credit card.

In a near perfect example of irony, the Japanese Intellectual Property High Court last week invalidated one of RED’s key patents.

If you’re forgotten, RED used the threat of legal action to hold off competitors from creating raw video files, claiming patent to the idea. RED sent cease and disist letters and demanded licensing fees from anyone trying to create raw video files.

Nikon was the first major player to reject RED’s patent claims and the two initially brought their disagreement to court. Nikon presented fairly clear evidence of prior work as well as obviousness in their briefs and legal arguments. However, before that case could be heard, Nikon bought RED, and Nikon had the case dismissed. 

When the patent that Nikon now held was challenged again in Japan by Panasonic, Nikon reversed position and argued to validate the claims of the (original RED) patent. The Intellectual Property High Court in Japan has now rejected the patent claim, and deemed it invalid. 

Here we go again. 

The latest Nikon camera firmware release (version 1.10 for the Nikon Z50II) has renamed things. This time, it’s “Cloud Picture Control” being renamed to “Imaging Recipe.” Apparently someone at Nikon finally noticed that their naming conventions across their products don’t match. For what it’s worth, both Nikon’s names here are wrong from a sound product marketing management viewpoint. It should be Picture Control Basic, Picture Control Creative, and Picture Control Recipe, not Picture Control, Creative Picture Control, and Imaging Recipe.

The out of sync problem? Well, other Nikon cameras now need a firmware update to update the wording to match.

This is the problem that happens when you rush things and don’t have all parts of the company talking (and agreeing) with one another. From the user perspective, names that are different and keep changing cause cognitive dissonance and confusion about what is what. When you put that naming confusion on top of the unique and strange UI necessary to even connect your camera to Nikon Imaging Cloud (where Recipes mostly come from), you almost certainly get fewer users adapting something you went to great lengths to create. Moreover, that something here (Recipes and Nikon Imaging Cloud) are both unique and useful additions that are getting ignored by most of the Z9-generation users (and if you’re a Z9 user, you’re just SOOL). 

If you make it hard to set up or difficult to understand, users don’t use it. When you make it both difficult to set up and hard to understand, users ignore it. So I have to ask: was Nikon Imaging Cloud and Imaging Recipes just make work for Nikon engineering teams, or did they actually expect users to embrace these new functions?

The truly sad aspect of this is that Nikon is probably the closest to any maker that can say “we have a complete range of products from entry (Z50II) to top-end pro (Z9) that operate and are controlled the same way, and really only differ on performance-related items.” Of course, now the Z50II uses different naming than the others, and the Z9 doesn’t even have the function that was renamed. Oops.

With today’s introduction of the (resurrected) Tamron 17-70mm f/2.8, it’s probably a good time to re-examine the state of lenses for DX. From the early days of great paucity we’re now in a far better situation, with 53 DX lenses now available.

Let’s start with the zooms (bold-faced entries have been reviewed on this site and the links lead to the review, not the specifications):

• NIKKOR 12-28mm f/3.5-5.6 PZ VR
• NIKKOR 16-50mm f/2.8 VR
• NIKKOR 16-50mm f/3.5-6.3 VR (kit lens)
• Tamron 17-70mm f/2.8 VC
• NIKKOR 18-140mm f/3.5-6.3 VR
• Tamron 18-300mm f/3.5-6.3 VC
• NIKKOR 50-250mm f/4.5-6.3 VR (second kit lens)

We now have 12mm to 300mm (18-450mm full frame equivalent) covered with seven zooms, though it would be nice to get a few more wider options. I tend to point people to the 12-28mm and 16-50mm for basic coverage, and then if they need real telephoto dip into the excellent full frame telephoto options that are available.

Now on to the autofocus primes:

• Viltrox 9mm f/2.8 (review in progress)
• 7Artisans 10mm f/2.8
• Yongnuo 11mm f/1.8
• Viltrox 13mm f/1.4 (review in progress)
• Viltrox 15mm f/1.7
• Sigma 16mm f/1.4
• Sirui 16mm f/1.2
• Yongnuo 16mm f/1.8
• Meike 23mm f/1.4
• Sirui 23mm f/1.2
• Viltrox 23mm f/1.4
• Yongnuo 23mm f/1.4
• NIKKOR 24mm f/1.7
• 7Artisans 25mm f/1.8 Lite
• SG-Image 25mm f/1.8
• Viltrox 25mm f/1.7
• 7Artisans 27mm f/2.8
• Viltrox 27mmm f/1.2 Pro
• AstrHori 27mm f/2.8
• TTArtisans 27mm f/2.8
• Sigma 30mm f/1.4
• Meike 33mm f/1.4
• Surui 33mm f/1.2
• Viltrox 33mm f/1.4
• Yongnuo 33mm f/1.4
• Yongnuo 33mm f/1.8
• NIKKOR 35mm f/1.7 (review just published)
• 7Artisans 35mm f/1.8 Lite
• TTArtisans 35mm f/1.8
• Viltrox 35mm f/1.7 Air
• BrightinStar 50mm f/1.4
• 7Artisans 50mm f/1.8 Lite
• Yongnuo 50mm f/1.8
• Meike 55mm f/1.4
• SG-Image 55mm f/1.8
• Meike 56mm f/1.7 Air
• Sigma 56mm f/1.4
• TTArtisans 56mm f/1.8
• Viltrox 56mm f/1.2 Pro
• Viltrox 56mm f/1.4
• Viltrox 56mm f/1.7
• Sirui 56mm f/1.2
• Yongnuo 56mm f/1.4
• Sirui 75mm f/1.2
• Viltrox 75mm f/1.2 Pro
• Viltrox 75mm f/1.8 EVO
• Viltrox 90mm f/2.2 EVO

That’s 46 prime lenses from 9mm to 90mm (14-135mm full frame equivalent), though I’m sure I haven’t caught up with the Chinese onslaught yet, plus several seem to re-badges between brands. I have over a dozen of these lenses in my studio, and all of them are competent, some of them excellent (more reviews coming soon).

In the past week I’ve touched on Nikon’s medium-term plans as well as what’s happening generally in the camera industry. The question I'm now getting even more than usual is “what’s Nikon’s future camera plans?”

Anticipating new Nikon products is always a risky business. While Nikon has a very specific engineering strategy and tactics that repeats, predicting the exact what and when is tough to get right. 

Here’s what I believe based upon my sources at the moment:

• The next Z System camera is almost certainly the Z30 iteration (call it the Z30II). Because of the RED acquisition and subsequent ZR design, there’s potential that this iteration turns out a little different than we might normally expect, as it could end up a ZR Junior. I expect this to be an anouncement sometime this summer or early fall.
• The most important upcoming Z System camera is the Z9II. I’m still hearing “end-of-year, start-of-next year” as the current target announce date, and this is delayed from the original schedule for reasons currently unknown, but almost certainly involving either the EXPEED or image sensor re-design (the most common thing I hear from sources is that Nikon didn’t quite hit their original global shutter goal and backed off to just a faster electronic shutter). The reason this camera is important is that it will establish the next generation of features and performance available in the Z System. And that’s a gating element for a number of other future products, unfortunately (e.g. any eventual Z5, Z6, or Z8 update).
• Beyond that, it gets very murky. I’m aware of several different ideas Nikon has considered and even prototyped, but none of those have gotten official approval that I know of. From the user base the two greatest demands currently are “Z7 iteration” and “higher-end DX.” Both those potential cameras interact with other products in the lineup, so that requires more top management buy in and that would have occurred during the top management discussions that occur with Nikon’s just ended fiscal year end. In other words, it might only be about now that additional models got green-lighted.

That said, Nikon repeats patterns. The one pattern I think we’d all like to see is a repeat of the D3/D300, D5/D500 parallel launch. Indeed, it would be the one thing I’d be strongly pursuing if I were in charge of Nikon’s product management. Ironically, the delay in the Z9II is what actually allows Nikon to consider another such parallel launch, as that would allow them to put EXPEED8 into a Z90 and sell it for the US$2500+ price point it’d likely need to be at. 

A dual FX/DX launch would give Nikon the quick re-use of EXPEED8 to keeps costs down, but it introduces a new problem: what’s the DX image sensor that goes with that? It would almost certainly have to be a variant of the Sony Semiconductor 26mp stacked sensor, which then puts that Z90 in the dreaded “only use of an image sensor” category and increases costs.

The other easily picked fruits in any potential future Nikon camera launch are these:

• The “simple” FX — Nikon experimented with a reduced complexity entry model (part of which led to the ZR user interface) I called the Z3. I believe a variant of that model is still on the table, as small and simple is strongly sellable at the moment. I doubt that we’d get back to a US$999 FX model this way, but this would still be a very affordable option should it happen. Moreover, it could be morphed into a fixed lens compact very easily, and Nikon also needs a high quality fixed lens compact.
• The 8K ZR — Basically take what was learned with the Z6III/ZR pairing and apply it one level higher, to the Z8 underpinnings. I suspect, however, that this would wait for EXPEED8 and whatever video options it adds.

You’ll notice that I didn’t put a Z7III into any of the above options. That’s because there are four angles Nikon could navigate to potentially satisfy Z7 upgrade requests:

1. Pixels — simply go with EXPEED7 and more pixels. This is the landscape/architecture option. Yes, the camera could be used for other things, but the design points would emphasize those two categories first and foremost. Indeed, quick rolling shutter for video would be a low priority. The fact that this hasn’t happened probably indicates that Nikon rejected this option.
2. Cheaper Z8 — Nikon is currently discounting the Z8 by US$900, which makes this idea troublesome, as that’s about the price point a Z7III with EXPEED7 and the current or modified image sensor would sit. That doesn’t accomplish much (it likely only picks up a few of the current Z7 and Z7II upgraders who didn’t make it to the Z8), though it does sustain the model.
3. New Form Factor — Stick with the current image sensor, put in the EXPEED7 processor, but use Sony’s A#C approach by putting the result in a smaller body with an offset viewfinder. This puts a new form factor in play that could find it’s way to other models in the future (e.g. Z5II iteration).
4. ZfII — Stick the Z7II image sensor into the Zf body and refine that body a bit. This solves both the Zf and Z7 iteration issues, though not all Z7/Z7II users would want the Zf body style.

None of those options is a slam dunk, which is why we haven’t seen a Z7II iteration yet.  I personally would have picked a combination of #1 and #3 (i.e. new form factor with higher pixel count). But that also produces a US$4000 camera with low sales volume. 

One of Nikon’s problems is that they’ve done an excellent job in building out their FX product line. We currently have the Z5II, Zf, ZR, Z6III, Z8, and Z9, which is a pretty broad range of full frame products and options that share a common set of features and functions and really differ only on performance and UX. I’d argue that the FX line is near complete and just needs maintaining. 

Which brings us back to DX. DX is not near complete. It’s also running mostly with older technology, as well. The biggest bang for the buck for Nikon would come in some form of Z30II, ZR Jr, Z70/90, and perhaps a 40mp ZfcII. But again, the issue Nikon has in DX really comes at the image sensor: they’ve been milking their 20mp creation for a decade now, and the DX image sensor now really needs refreshing. 

The problem with that, of course, is “refresh for all” or “use multiple DX sensors”? Nikon doesn’t really want to do the latter, and the former introduces other issues. Frankly, Nikon has been punting this decision down the road, and additional punts at this point start to fall into making existing users think that “Nikon gave up on DX.” I’d argue that the two recent DX lens launches (16-50mm f/2.8 VR DX and 35mm f/1.7 DX) suggest otherwise, but the demand is for new DX cameras more than it is for more DX lenses. 

Overall, it’s going to seem like a sparse year for new Z System cameras. But that’s been the case since 2021: we only get one or two new bodies a year, so a Z30II and Z9II would be par for Nikon’s current course. 

Well, not today, but a month from today, when version 1.6 launches on July 9th. 

Since it first appeared, I’ve complained to NPS about the US$3.99 a month charge for using NX MobileAir with multiple albums and more than 999 files. This was a bit like charging your best customers for taking images. At events and sporting events it was easy to exceed the “free” limit, and the lack of multiple albums meant you couldn’t organize your session, such as separating images out by quarter or half. 

Nikon quietly sent out a notice on June 3rd within the NX MobileAir app warning users about an issue if they weren’t updated to version 1.5 before the subscription mechanism shut down on June 9th. (Essentially, if you weren’t updated to 1.5 by June 9th, you’d either not be able to update to version 1.6 when it comes or lose all your on-mobile-device data.)

NX MobileAir has had and continues to have a range of Someone Not Paying Attention issues that make it far less useful than it could be. NX MobileAir should have the Show credits and Add hashtag capabilities that SnapBridge does (though we'd need user-editable hashtags). The iOS version still doesn’t have the save/load camera settings capability the Android version does. Many of the features, such as using NX MobileAir as a remote, only work on one (or few) cameras. Ironically NX MobileAir doesn’t support either Nikon Image Space or Nikon Imaging Cloud. 

Overall, Nikon’s software still seems to be a set of walled-off silos that never communicate. SnapBridge, NX MobileAir, and NX Field really should be a single, better designed, and better managed mobile app. It’s unclear why NX Tether isn’t simply a part of NX Studio, particularly since other products (such as the old Picture Control Utility) have found their way into that product. Finally, Nikon Image Space (NIS) and Nikon Imaging Cloud (NIC) seem like they don’t need to be separate (just have NIC write directly to NIS and sell extra cloud storage for NIS on the side). And let’s not forget that it’s been over two years now since Nikon acquired RED, and the RED software and firmware are still not integrated into Nikon’s download center.

So today? An eensy-teensy step forward for Nikon software, a smaller step for photographer kind.

I’m well behind on publishing full lens reviews at the moment, but that doesn’t mean that I haven’t been using those new lenses. Here are some brief comments about lenses that have reviews in progress:

• Nikon 16-50mm f/2.8 VR DX — Surprisingly not “sharper” than the kit lens wide open, but that’s at f/2.8 and f/2.8 instead of f/3.5 and f/5.6. Stop down, and yes, you’ll see a benefit. Use the kit lens for small, light kits, use this new mid-range zoom for a really solid DX workhorse. It’s on my Z50II a lot, and it’s not yet let me down. 
• Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8 S II — What was wrong with the original? Not much, though the LED display was all gimmick and no usefulness. What’s better with the new version? Really small things, like less focus noise while doing it faster. The new lens is clearly better, but most folk would be well-served by the original. I don’t see the II version as a lens you upgrade to from the original, but if you’re looking for arguably the best 24-70mm f/2.8 on the market, then you’ll find it here. 
• Nikon 35mm f/1.4 — Not my favorite focal length, so I haven’t been using it as much as some of the others. I was surprised to find how close to the 35mm f/1.8 S this lens is (at f/1.8). At this point, I’d tend to say which one you pick is a tossup, as each has some slight advantages as well as slight disadvantages versus the other. That wasn’t what I was expecting, so I need to look into that some more before publishing my final review.
• Nikon 35mm f/1.7 DX — This muffin sized lens is probably bigger than you’d think it should be, but it’s also near macro (at 1:2). That makes it a pretty versatile “normal” lens to put on a DX body, and I’ve been impressed with it in that respect. But remember, you won’t have VR, so watch your shutter speeds and handle your camera carefully.
• Nikon 58mm f/0.95 NOCT — I need to borrow this lens one more time to take some sample images, but this is probably the most well-corrected lens I’ve ever seen, particularly as you get to “real apertures” such as f/1.4 and smaller. It’s tricky nailing the focus point at f/0.95, since you’re doing that manually and there’s virtually no depth of field, so I suggest you set a black and white Picture Control and have Focus Peaking turned on.

Nikon’s mostly been hitting way more than singles each time they come up to bat with a new lens. A couple have been clear triples off the fence, one has been a grand slam, while the others are still all putting you into scoring position. Don’t be afraid of any Z-NIKKOR. Nikon’s upped their game in the mirrorless era, and I’m digging it.

Meanwhile, I’ve got quite a few third-party lenses in the queue, including:

• Tamron 35-100mm f/2.8 — I’m not giving up my Tamron 35-150mm f/2-2.8 for this new, smaller lens, as I have better background choices maxing out the aperture of the bigger lens. That said, I’m not unpleased with the 35-100mm; assuming you keep subjects out of the extreme corners, you’re going to find it remarkably useful and versatile as a portrait lens that’s easy to carry. 
• Tamron 150-500mm f/5-6.7 VC — I like it. A lot. Probably more than I do the Nikon 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6, even though I’m at a smaller aperture at every equivalent focal length with the Tamron. It’s a bigger and heavier lens than you might expect from the other Tamron telephoto zooms, and I find it too front-heavy on a Z50II, so make sure that you’re comfortable with how it handles. But optically, it does quite well.

Tamron, like Nikon, is hitting better than singles, though they really haven’t hit a three- or four-bagger yet. Given the relatively modest pricing in the Tamron lineup, solid lenses like the above almost make it into the “bargain” category.