Nikon TTArtisan 27mm f/2.8 coming to Nikon Z

[MoonMind]

The TTArtisan AF 27mm f/2.8 lens is coming for Nikon Z-mount - Nikon Rumors

The TTArtisan AF 27mm f/2.8 lens is coming for Nikon Z-mount. This will be the second TTArtisan autofocus Z lens after the 32mm f/2.8. TTArtisan AF 27mm f/2.8 lens additional information: Compact and lightweight Autofocus lens Clicked aperture Metal-built body Price: $149 Pre-orders will be open soon (sold also at Amazon) Technical specifications and additional […]

nikonrumors.com

After the release of the Z 26mm f/2.8, not the most exciting piece of news, but given the very low price tag, interesting nonetheless.

Christopher is a bit of a perfectionist, but in a good way, he has rigorous views when it comes to technical image quality and his reviews are systematic, meticulous and engaging - if he gives a lens a recommendation, usability as well as usefulness are assured. He gives the lens a somewhat less than glowing review - but look at the images; I think it's pretty usable ...

M.

 

[MoonMind]

I did another outing with the Z 26mm f/2.8; this lens is turning out to be way more desirable than I first thought: It's sharp and very well behaved, with its only downside being spotty AF performance. And it's only marginally heavier (30g - about 1oz) than the TTArtisan whose only advantage appears to be price in this context (since AF isn't the best either).

That said, at roughtly 1/4 of the cost, it might still be an interesting option for APS-C only shooters.

M.

 

[mpeterson]

I did another outing with the Z 26mm f/2.8; this lens is turning out to be way more desirable than I first thought: It's sharp and very well behaved, with its only downside being spotty AF performance.

I’m curious under what conditions you find AF to be spotty, Matt. I’ve been pleasantly surprised with mine - AF has been faster and more certain, even in very-low light, than I expected for a non-S lens.

 

[MoonMind]

I’m curious under what conditions you find AF to be spotty, Matt. I’ve been pleasantly surprised with mine - AF has been faster and more certain, even in very-low light, than I expected for a non-S lens.

Yes, that's why I say it's spotty - it works well most of the time, and then doesn't; the camera may contribute as well.

The problem concerns layered subjects - sometimes, AF simply will not catch on to small foreground detail. I have to switch to pinpoint AF much more often than I have to with other lenses. And sometimes, it'll not focus correctly at all, and unfortunately, MF override isn't very precise. It actually cost me one image yesterday (not a great one, but interesting) as I simply wasn't able to get the focus plane right. This has happened on the Z 6 before, but with the Z 26mm f/2.8, it happens regularily. Now, I'm also a rangefinder shooter and I'm used to getting a correctly focused image on the minutest detail if I so choose - maybe I'm just expecting too much from AF. That said, I've yet to find another combo that does fail at this this regularily. Again, I'm pretty sure the Z 6 is part of the problem - but it works better with other lenses. Actually, I may try the same shot again today with a different lens (light's comparable) - that'd show what part of the setup is to blame.

In short: When things work, speed is fine, but false positives are considerably more likely than with other native lenses. But the whole "issue" (it's not a big deal, to be honest) may be caused by my own overblown expectations as well as the camera body used.

FWIW, I've never had a speed issue with non-S lenses at all - focus speed isn't noticeably worse with any of them for me (some are probably a bit slower - the Z 40mm f/2 can be, but never to the point I'd care).

M.

 

[mpeterson]

Yes, that's why I say it's spotty - it works well most of the time, and then doesn't; the camera may contribute as well.

The problem concerns layered subjects - sometimes, AF simply will not catch on to small foreground detail. I have to switch to pinpoint AF much more often than I have to with other lenses. And sometimes, it'll not focus correctly at all, and unfortunately, MF override isn't very precise. It actually cost me one image yesterday (not a great one, but interesting) as I simply wasn't able to get the focus plane right. This has happened on the Z 6 before, but with the Z 26mm f/2.8, it happens regularily. Now, I'm also a rangefinder shooter and I'm used to getting a correctly focused image on the minutest detail if I so choose - maybe I'm just expecting too much from AF. That said, I've yet to find another combo that does fail at this this regularily. Again, I'm pretty sure the Z 6 is part of the problem - but it works better with other lenses. Actually, I may try the same shot again today with a different lens (light's comparable) - that'd show what part of the setup is to blame.

In short: When things work, speed is fine, but false positives are considerably more likely than with other native lenses. But the whole "issue" (it's not a big deal, to be honest) may be caused by my own overblown expectations as well as the camera body used.

FWIW, I've never had a speed issue with non-S lenses at all - focus speed isn't noticeably worse with any of them for me (some are probably a bit slower - the Z 40mm f/2 can be, but never to the point I'd care).

M.

Interesting, thanks for the info, Matt. I've overwhelmingly used the 26 on my Z 7ii so far and haven't experienced these things. I'll pop it onto a Z 6 today and see if I obtain different performance. Honestly, in my experience the AF performance gap between the Z 6 and the Z _ii cameras isn't as big as the internet would have one believe it to be (since the last Z 6 firmware update, that is). Not saying in any way that it doesn't exist, but I have found AF performance differences between my Z 6 and Z 7ii bodies to be difficult to induce. So far my 105 Micro Z lens is the only one on which I've observed a notable difference. But perhaps the 26 is another use case that surfaces whatever actual gap does exist.

I know this thread is about the TTArtisan 27, though (sorry to sidetrack): it's cool that there are some less-expensive options coming to Z-mount.

 

[MoonMind]

Interesting, thanks for the info, Matt. I've overwhelmingly used the 26 on my Z 7ii so far and haven't experienced these things. I'll pop it onto a Z 6 today and see if I obtain different performance. Honestly, in my experience the AF performance gap between the Z 6 and the Z _ii cameras isn't as big as the internet would have one believe it to be (since the last Z 6 firmware update, that is). Not saying in any way that it doesn't exist, but I have found AF performance differences between my Z 6 and Z 7ii bodies to be difficult to induce. So far my 105 Micro Z lens is the only one on which I've observed a notable difference. But perhaps the 26 is another use case that surfaces whatever actual gap does exist.

I know this thread is about the TTArtisan 27, though (sorry to sidetrack): it's cool that there are some less-expensive options coming to Z-mount.

No sidetracking at all - I'd love to get to the bottom of this, and the Z 26mm is a natural competitor for the 27mm, so it's not OT, specifically not because I'm more and more certain I want to try the 27mm as well (should it become available here), if only to be sure I know what it can - and can't - do.

The Z 26mm stays anyway - in spite of my mutterings, I really like it; it's a nifty lens with nice optics and great build quality. And in fact, after posting, it occurred to me I should check my firmware version ... which I just did, it's still the current one (3.50) from October 22; in fact, we haven't had a recent one, so it's perfectly possible we'll see better performance after the next update.

Today, I took the 40mm with me - no comparable problems in the same spot.

EDIT: Here's the first of two images I tried to fool the 40mm into behaving like the 26mm. It wouldn't - not even in the second case where I chose a much farther distance in order to emulate the framing of yesterday's attempt with the 26mm; it's not a great shot (as I said), but it illustrates the point: The buds I aimed for (with standard AF field size) are as sharp as they get with the 40mm ... Oh, and there's also the M 262 with the Lomography Atoll 17mm f/2.8 ...

Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Also, good to know that the lens performs flawlessly on the Z 7 II - I own that camera and will check the lens on that body soon.

So, there's still hope. And again, it's not as if we were talking about a serious problem - it's a minor nuisance that hits in very specific circumstances, so it's certainly not a deal-breaker.

M.

 

[mpeterson]

No sidetracking at all - I'd love to get to the bottom of this, and the Z 26mm is a natural competitor for the 27mm, so it's not OT, specifically not because I'm more and more certain I want to try the 27mm as well (should it become available here), if only to be sure I know what it can - and can't - do.

Good point, thanks - I suppose most conversations about this TTA 27 will include comparison to at least the Nikon Z 28/2.8, as well as the more-expensive Nikon 26. One of the biggest challenges the TTA lens might face at its US$149 price point is the fact that the Nikon 28/2.8 can now pretty easily be found pre-owned in mint condition for US$200, at least here in the US. I've even seen some copies priced lower than that ($190-195) when it's been on sale by Nikon USA at US$249 new. For me the TTA lens would have to be pretty darn good in order for me to not recommend just springing an extra $50 for a mint/used Nikon 28. (I already have the 28, and I've told myself I'm keeping it...at least for now...but honestly I actually haven't touched it since getting the 26; I've found the 26 to be superior on most every parameter that matters - to me - if only barely on a few).

Today, I took the 40mm with me - no comparable problems in the same spot. Also, good to know that the lens performs flawlessly on the Z 7 II - I own that camera and will check the lens on that body soon.

So, there's still hope. And again, it's not as if we were talking about a serious problem - it's a minor nuisance that hits in very specific circumstances, so it's certainly not a deal-breaker.

Thanks for mentioning that you had a different experience with focus with the Z 6 + 40/2 than you did with the 26. The 40 has been my Nikon EDC for the past ~18 months since it came out, though I've recently supplanted it with the 26 in order to get to know this newer lens. I've intended the 26 + 40 to be a lightweight carry-everywhere pair, and you've reminded me that I need to get the 40 back into rotation. I've always thought the 40mm to perform well-above its price point and I really like its characteristics. But I guess I would have expected comparatively better AF performance from the 26. I need to play with this combo a bit more: perhaps the 40 stays on a Z 6 and the 26 stays on a Z 7ii to optimize performance from both.

 

[MoonMind]

Good point, thanks - I suppose most conversations about this TTA 27 will include comparison to at least the Nikon Z 28/2.8, as well as the more-expensive Nikon 26. One of the biggest challenges the TTA lens might face at its US$149 price point is the fact that the Nikon 28/2.8 can now pretty easily be found pre-owned in mint condition for US$200, at least here in the US. I've even seen some copies priced lower than that ($190-195) when it's been on sale by Nikon USA at US$249 new. For me the TTA lens would have to be pretty darn good in order for me to not recommend just springing an extra $50 for a mint/used Nikon 28. (I already have the 28, and I've told myself I'm keeping it...at least for now...but honestly I actually haven't touched it since getting the 26; I've found the 26 to be superior on most every parameter that matters - to me - if only barely on a few).

I have the Z 28mm SE - the lens is staying, if only for the fact that it's the Z fc's kit lens. But I also like that its focus is smooth and silent, and I don't mind the size. But yes, I fully agree that optically as well as mechanically, the Z 26mm is superior. It's a sturdy lens (except for the lens cap that I feel is going to be scratched quite easily) - the 28mm SE feels flimsy by comparison. But even so, I like its rendering - not as well corrected as the 26mm, but nice and distinctive without major flaws, great for the price. I prefer it over the 40mm on the DX bodies.

I've added an image in the post above from the 40mm - taken from the same distance I tried the 26mm yesterday, just to check. No issues.

M.

 

[mpeterson]

Thanks Matt! Good point about the 28 on DX bodies. I’ve been intending to pick up a Z fc but haven’t yet done so. I really want a black one (for purely superficial reasons - merely to accompany my black FM2N). However, Nikon USA only sells the black body in a kit with the 16-50mm zoom. I know, everyone says the lens is good and just get it. I still might, but my intent with the Z fc is to use it with the small primes; I’m confident I’d never touch the kit zoom. But I need to keep the 28 at the very least until I experiment with the Z fc, in case I prefer that combo vis-a-vis the 26.

Your added photo well-illustrates the situation you faced. You’re a week or so ahead of us here on spring blossoms, but I’m curious to see how my camera/lens combos might react in a similar circumstance. I may take your findings as a little self-assignment this week

 

[MoonMind]

Thanks Matt! Good point about the 28 on DX bodies. I’ve been intending to pick up a Z fc but haven’t yet done so. I really want a black one (for purely superficial reasons - merely to accompany my black FM2N). However, Nikon USA only sells the black body in a kit with the 16-50mm zoom. I know, everyone says the lens is good and just get it. I still might, but my intent with the Z fc is to use it with the small primes; I’m confident I’d never touch the kit zoom. But I need to keep the 28 at the very least until I experiment with the Z fc, in case I prefer that combo vis-a-vis the 26.

Your added photo well-illustrates the situation you faced. You’re a week or so ahead of us here on spring blossoms, but I’m curious to see how my camera/lens combos might react in a similar circumstance. I may take your findings as a little self-assignment this week

Don't talk to me about the black Z fc! Since Nikon Switzerland made it availabe on their website (exclusively, the rascals!) body-only and sells it at a discount (again, the ... you know what I mean), I have to quickly click away whenever I browse the site, for whatever purpose (like looking for firmware updates ...). I'm being silly, I know, but I really like its looks. That said, the original is fine as well, and I'm still hoping (in vain?) for a Z f ...

Let's hope for your sake that Nikon USA see sense.

M.

 

[Irene McC]

I still might, but my intent with the Z fc is to use it with the small primes; I’m confident I’d never touch the kit zoom. But I need to keep the 28 at the very least

My Z fc came with the 16-50 as kit lens. I use it all the time. Like, ALL the time. I've really taken a shine to it.
Yes, it's slow, yes it needs distortion correction ... but it's small and fun and I'm happy with the output

What's not to love ?

Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

 

[mpeterson]

My Z fc came with the 16-50 as kit lens. I use it all the time. Like, ALL the time. I've really taken a shine to it.
Yes, it's slow, yes it needs distortion correction ... but it's small and fun and I'm happy with the output

What's not to love ?

Thanks Irene! I’ve followed your stream of awesome images with the lens - including this one you’ve attached here. You’re a great ambassador for this combo! Sigh, I should probably just do it.

Don't talk to me about the black Z fc! Since Nikon Switzerland made it availabe on their website (exclusively, the rascals!) body-only and sells it at a discount (again, the ... you know what I mean), I have to quickly click away whenever I browse the site, for whatever purpose (like looking for firmware updates ...). I'm being silly, I know, but I really like its looks. That said, the original is fine as well, and I'm still hoping (in vain?) for a Z f ...

Let's hope for your sake that Nikon USA see sense.

M.

Hahaha, I’m so glad I’m not the only one! All winter I’ve had plans to be in Italy for much of this upcoming summer, and a while ago I discovered that Nikon Italy lists it body-only in black, also. So I’d been thinking I’d just pick up or advance-order one for when I got to Rome in June. But now we’ve had to postpone that trip, so I’m back to square one. I don’t mind the silver body, but the black one!! I always preferred the black Df to silver, as well.

And now that you’ve brought up the Z f, that’s the only other thing that’s held up my Z fc purchase. I’d love for the Z f to become a reality, but I’m 100% confident that the very day after I buy a Z fc, whenever or wherever that may be, the Z f will be announced

 

[Irene McC]

What are we anticipating a Z f to be?

 

[MoonMind]

What are we anticipating a Z f to be?

Anticipating? We hope it to be a Z fc with FF sensor (the Z 6 IIs would do) and I.B.I.S. - but that's just daydreaming. There's been no indication it's on its way - except maybe because the ideal kit lens (Z 26mm f/2.8) has already been launched ...

M.

 

[Irene McC]

Anticipating? We hope it to be a Z fc with FF sensor (the Z 6 IIs would do) and I.B.I.S. - but that's just daydreaming. There's been no indication it's on its way - except maybe because the ideal kit lens (Z 26mm f/2.8) has already been launched ...

M.

Ooooh aaaaah

 

[Irene McC]

Done ! I've just come home with it (FTZ mount adaptor, sorry, going off topic). I took the 24-120 along with me to mount straightaway in the shop and did a bit of a quick shoot while out and about.
Very happy - fingers crossed - seems to do what it says on the box

 

[mpeterson]

What are we anticipating a Z f to be?

There's been a lot of speculation. FF Z fc certainly could make sense, as Matt mentioned, and something along these lines is perhaps most anticipated (I'd be thrilled with a Z6ii wrapped in a Z fc shell). However, I've also seen some speculation that as the Df employed the SLR design, the Z f could potentially emulate/celebrate the Nikon SP - i.e., a rangefinder styled camera. Such a camera could potentially further explain the 26/2.8Z lens, as well: short kit lens that won't block the viewfinder. Both are intriguing, but both are pure speculation at this point.