Nikon just patented 16-35mm f/2.8 VR and 16-35mm f/4 VR lenses (patents were filed in March, but just released today). Do those specs raise any questions for you? Like why would VR be needed for full frame lenses?
If these were telephoto lenses, I'd understand the VR aspect, as at some longer focal length the advantage of having a pivot point far in front of the sensor is clear. But for wide angle? No, I'd say that sensor-based VR would be better.
So immediately you think of this: maybe Nikon is going to come out with a Z3 or Z4 lower cost full frame body without sensor-VR. But that doesn't make sense, either, as such a customer wouldn't be in the market for a low cost body and a high cost lens (f/2.8; even f/4 wouldn't be low cost). Though I should note that the f/2.8 seems to be only 16 elements, so maybe it is lower cost than I'd expect.
Both Canon and Nikon seem to be very active in their new mirrorless mounts with a constant string of patents showing up. I'm seeing both companies pretty much going through the full litany of past lens specifications and coming up with new variations.
Which brings me to some questions for you to answer:
- Would you really want a 16-35mm, given that we already have a 14-24mm and 14-30mm? And would you want that to be f/2.8 or f/4?
- Outside of lenses that are simply the same specs as things we've seen in the F-mount, what totally new focal length/aperture specs do you want to see emerge in the Z mount?
