Sometimes a thought comes to you in a completely unspectacular place. For me, it was at breakfast this morning.
A video by Stefan Wiesner was playing on YouTube in the background. As so often with him, it was about news from the photo world, new cameras, lenses and what’s happening on the market. This time, among other things, it was about new Canon zoom lenses that are supposed to come with a constant maximum aperture of f/2. At first, mainly the designs – or rather 3D views – of the lenses were shown.
And while I was watching, a thought suddenly struck me: why isn’t there something like this for Nikon yet? More precisely: why is there no 50–150mm f/2 for Nikon Z?
Because a lens exactly like that could be pretty interesting for my way of taking pictures.
Sony has already shown how exciting this can be
For Sony, there’s already a 50–150mm f/2, a lens that goes pretty much exactly in this direction. And I can easily understand why so many photographers celebrate this lens.
50 to 150 millimeters at a constant f/2. That’s a pretty extraordinary combination.
For sports photography, the focal range is interesting. For portraits anyway. You can do an incredible amount with it at events, too. And in the business field, there are plenty of situations in which 50, 85, 105 or 135 millimeters are exactly the focal lengths you’d like to have available.
Actually, this one lens covers a huge part of what I regularly need as a photographer. And that’s exactly why I find the idea so exciting.
I shoot sports with two cameras anyway
It’s not that I’d have to change lenses constantly at a sports event. I don’t do that anyway.
When I photograph sports, I work with two cameras. One camera has, for example, a 24 or 35 on it, the other a 50, 85 or 135 prime. That way I have different focal lengths available at the same time and can switch very quickly between two perspectives.
So for me, a 50–150mm f/2 wouldn’t simply replace changing lenses. It would change something else. And that’s exactly what I find interesting.
I like prime lenses – precisely because they limit me
I love shooting with prime lenses. Not although they limit me, but because they limit me.
If, for example, I have an 85 on the camera, then I have 85 millimeters. I can’t just turn to 70 or 100 millimeters. So I have to deal with these 85 millimeters. I move. I get closer. I step back. I change my position. I look for a different background. I wait for a moment that works with this perspective.
And I find that incredibly creative.
I noticed it again over the weekend when I tried out my 24–70mm. It’s actually a fantastic lens. It can do 24. It can do 35. It can do 50. It can do 70. And that’s exactly where the problem sometimes lies for me.
A zoom can tempt me to move less
With a zoom lens, I quite quickly catch myself thinking: “70 millimeters would actually be better now.” So I turn the ring. Then I see a situation where 50 millimeters would work better. So I turn it again. Maybe I need a bit more of the surroundings. Turn again.
And suddenly I have a lot of options, but I’m not necessarily using them creatively. I change the focal length instead of changing my position.
That’s not the lens’s fault, of course. On the contrary: that’s exactly what a zoom is for. But I notice that I often shoot more deliberately with a prime. And that’s why I find the idea of a 50–150mm f/2 so exciting: I could combine both.
Not zooming constantly – but deliberately changing focal length
I explicitly don’t mean setting a 50–150 to 85 millimeters and then shooting exclusively at 85 millimeters all day. Nor do I mean: “Today I’ll shoot at 50. Tomorrow at 85. The day after at 150.” No, that’s not how I’d use it.
I’m thinking more of a concrete situation. I’m in a sports hall and start shooting at 85 millimeters. Then maybe I walk around the hall for ten minutes looking for my subjects with exactly this focal length. I move. I look for perspectives. I watch how the light falls. I wait for certain situations.
And at some point, my view of the situation changes. Maybe now I want to get closer to the action and isolate individual moments more. Then I set it to 135 or 150 millimeters. And then I shoot deliberately at that focal length again – maybe for ten minutes, maybe twenty. I walk around and look for my pictures at 150 millimeters.
Later, maybe I see a situation where I want to show more of the surroundings. So I go to 50 millimeters. And the search begins again.
The focal length changes – but not arbitrarily. It changes because I make a photographic decision for a different perspective. For me, that’s a big difference from constantly zooming around.
The prerequisite: you have to know the looks of the focal lengths
For this to work, however, it takes one thing you can’t buy: you have to know what the individual focal lengths look like.
A 50 renders differently from an 85. A 135 compresses the background quite differently from a 50, facial proportions change, the distance to the subject feels different, the space is told differently. If you don’t have these looks in your head, you turn the zoom ring until the crop somehow fits – and end up with whatever focal length happens to come out.
That’s exactly the knowledge you learn with prime lenses. If you’ve spent years out and about with a 35, an 85 and a 135, you know beforehand what the picture will look like. You imagine the perspective before you raise the camera to your eye. You choose 85 millimeters because you want the 85mm look – not because the crop happens to fit.
And only with this knowledge does a zoom like a 50–150 become the tool I have in mind: I don’t choose a crop, I choose a look. That’s the difference between zooming and deliberately changing focal length – and that’s why I believe prime lenses are the best school for using a lens like that properly later on.
And then f/2 gets really interesting
Now comes the second point that appeals to me so much about this concept: the constant aperture of f/2.
Because, to be honest, I don’t shoot my prime lenses wide open all the time. Of course I love the look of an 85 at f/1.8 or f/1.4. But there are many situations in which I deliberately stop down to f/2 or f/2.8. After all, more depth of field can also be a creative tool.
And then a 50–150mm f/2 suddenly becomes pretty interesting. Because at 50, 85, 105, 135 and 150 millimeters I’d still have f/2 available. So I’d have not only the flexibility of a zoom, but at the same time the light-gathering power and subject separation I’m used to from a fast prime.
And that’s where the question begins for me: how many prime lenses would I then really still need?
One lens for sports, portrait, event and business
When I look at my different areas of photography, things get even more interesting.
- As a sports photographer, I could show more of a situation at 50 millimeters and isolate individual moments at 135 or 150 millimeters.
- As an event photographer, I could switch between a slightly closer reportage perspective and highly compressed moments.
- As a business photographer, I’d have 85 or 105 millimeters for natural portraits and could react flexibly to different situations at the same time.
- As a portrait photographer, I’d have practically the entire range from 50 to 150 millimeters available.
That’s pretty powerful. And we haven’t even talked about the fact that 150 millimeters at f/2 can create a pretty special look.
That’s exactly why I’m surprised Nikon doesn’t offer anything like it yet
And this brings me to my actual wish: why isn’t there a lens like this for Nikon Z?
Of course, there are now interesting fast zooms from third-party manufacturers for Nikon, too. A 35–150mm f/2–2.8, for example, is already available. But a consistent 50–150mm at a constant f/2 would be something else again. I could imagine that exactly such a lens would be incredibly interesting for many photographers.
Of course it would be big. Of course it would be heavy. And of course it would be expensive. That’s probably unavoidable with a lens like this: 50 to 150 millimeters, constant f/2, autofocus, high optical quality – that’s a lot of glass to move.
But that’s exactly why, for me, it wouldn’t be a lens I’d buy for the lightest possible setup. I’d buy it because it combines an incredible number of photographic possibilities in one lens.
Maybe that’s exactly the problem for Nikon
And then there’s another thought. Maybe a lens like this isn’t necessarily ideal for a manufacturer.
Because if I own a 50–150mm f/2, maybe I actually need my 85mm prime less. Maybe the 105 stays at home more often, too. Maybe I no longer need my 70–200 in some situations. And maybe I’d actually think twice before a shoot about which other lenses I even need to take along.
For photographers, that’s obviously pretty attractive. For a manufacturer, on the other hand, it could mean that a single lens makes several other lenses partly superfluous. Whether that’s actually a reason why Nikon hasn’t built such a lens so far, I don’t know, of course. But it’s an interesting thought.
For me, the 50–150 wouldn’t replace prime lenses
Still, I don’t think I’d sell all my prime lenses. I enjoy shooting with them too much for that. I like the feeling of having one focal length on the camera and committing to it. I like having to move. I like the limitation. Because it’s exactly this limitation that sometimes leads me to take pictures I might never have come up with using a zoom.
A 50–150mm f/2 wouldn’t destroy this way of working for me, though. It would expand it. I could deliberately choose 85 millimeters and walk through a hall with it. Then at some point I could say: now I want 150 millimeters. And again I’d commit to that perspective. Later maybe: now I want 50 millimeters. And again I’d move and look for pictures.
So for me, the decisive point wouldn’t be “I can zoom,” but: “I can deliberately choose my focal length anew when my photographic idea changes.”
Maybe that’s the perfect mix
The longer I think about it, the more I believe that this is exactly where the appeal of such a lens would lie.
Prime lenses give me a limitation. Zoom lenses give me flexibility. A 50–150mm f/2 could combine the two. I could switch flexibly between different focal lengths without constantly changing lenses. But I could still say quite deliberately: now I’m shooting at 50. Now I’m shooting at 85. Now I want 135. And then I work with that focal length, move and look for my pictures.
Not zooming constantly. But deliberately changing perspective. For me, that would be the difference.
So, Nikon: please build it
Maybe in the end it’s simply a personal wish. But if Nikon announced a 50–150mm f/2 for the Z system one day, I’d probably prick up my ears pretty quickly. Because for my work as a sports, event, business and portrait photographer, this lens would be a damn interesting combination.
I wouldn’t need fewer cameras because of it. I probably wouldn’t sell all my prime lenses, either. But I could very well imagine that, with a lens like this, one or two primes would stay at home more often.
And maybe that’s exactly the point at which a zoom becomes really interesting: not because it saves me from moving. But because it lets me make my photographic decision anew, again and again.
Now Nikon just has to listen to someone.
50–150mm. f/2. Constant. Count me in.