Nikon finally proves that the Z mount makes a difference

[Ruekon]

Nikon has been claiming that the Z mount would be revolutionary since a while. They released fantastic Z lenses, but none that proved Nikon's claim in practice to me (there are fantastic lenses available for any other mount as well).

The new 105/2.8 macro lens appears different. Here is a comparison with the similarly specced and priced F version:

https://nikonrumors.com/2021/06/04/nikkor-105mm-f-2-8g-vr-if-e-vs-nikkor-z-mc-105mm-f-2-8-vr-specifications-comparison.aspx/

The large rear element seen in Z lenses seems to make a difference. More complex design and more ED glass along with reduced weight being a welcome bonus

 

[beatboxa]

Nikon has been claiming that the Z mount would be revolutionary since a while. They released fantastic Z lenses, but none that proved Nikon's claim in practice to me (there are fantastic lenses available for any other mount as well).

The new 105/2.8 macro lens appears different. Here is a comparison with the similarly specced and priced F version:

https://nikonrumors.com/2021/06/04/...05mm-f-2-8-vr-specifications-comparison.aspx/

The large rear element seen in Z lenses seems to make a difference. More complex design and more ED glass along with reduced weight being a welcome bonus

When Nikon first launched Z mount, they launched their first 3 lenses: 24-70/4, 35, and 50.

Of these 3 lenses, the 35mm has the same element count as the F-mount lens.

Compare:

• Z mount
• F mount

The Z mount lens extreme corners are generally better than the F-mount everywhere outside of the very center.

So if you follow the logic in your post here, Nikon proved this since day 1.

 

[dspoel]

Indeed, it is intriguing to see that the design is completely different, and as you mention such a large rear element would not be possible in the F-mount.. Just judging from the curves and Ricci's video it seems to make a large difference.

The complete new design also explains why it takes time to develop these new lenses. Maybe we should exercise some more patience rather than complaining about the lack of products, after all most of us want top quality glass that will last a long time.

 

[Ruekon]

...

So if you follow the logic in your post here, Nikon proved this since day 1.

Following your links, the 35/1.8 Z shows some improvement over the 35/1.8 F:


Nikon 35/1.8 F vs Z (right)

The improvement of the 105/2.8 is more convincing to me -- it even has a longer focal length:


from: https://nikonrumors.com/2021/06/04/...05mm-f-2-8-vr-specifications-comparison.aspx/

 

[BasilG]

Nikon has been claiming that the Z mount would be revolutionary since a while. They released fantastic Z lenses, but none that proved Nikon's claim in practice to me (there are fantastic lenses available for any other mount as well).

The new 105/2.8 macro lens appears different. Here is a comparison with the similarly specced and priced F version:

https://nikonrumors.com/2021/06/04/...05mm-f-2-8-vr-specifications-comparison.aspx/

The large rear element seen in Z lenses seems to make a difference. More complex design and more ED glass along with reduced weight being a welcome bonus

Can't follow you argument as to why this example is different from all the others. It's not like there aren't any good macro lenses for other mounts.

 

[Ruekon]

Nikon has been claiming that the Z mount would be revolutionary since a while. They released fantastic Z lenses, but none that proved Nikon's claim in practice to me (there are fantastic lenses available for any other mount as well).

The new 105/2.8 macro lens appears different. Here is a comparison with the similarly specced and priced F version:

https://nikonrumors.com/2021/06/04/...05mm-f-2-8-vr-specifications-comparison.aspx/

The large rear element seen in Z lenses seems to make a difference. More complex design and more ED glass along with reduced weight being a welcome bonus

Can't follow you argument as to why this example is different from all the others. It's not like there aren't any good macro lenses for other mounts.

Please see my above reply Re: 2018..

 

[Lance B]

I didn't need this lens to prove it to me. Every other Z mount lens has shown me quite easily why the mount makes the difference.

 

[BasilG]

Nikon has been claiming that the Z mount would be revolutionary since a while. They released fantastic Z lenses, but none that proved Nikon's claim in practice to me (there are fantastic lenses available for any other mount as well).

The new 105/2.8 macro lens appears different. Here is a comparison with the similarly specced and priced F version:

https://nikonrumors.com/2021/06/04/...05mm-f-2-8-vr-specifications-comparison.aspx/

The large rear element seen in Z lenses seems to make a difference. More complex design and more ED glass along with reduced weight being a welcome bonus

Can't follow you argument as to why this example is different from all the others. It's not like there aren't any good macro lenses for other mounts.

Please see my above reply Re: 2018..

Not sure why you think this addresses the question. The 105/2.8 VR F-mount lens is not the only other macro out there. Its reputation particularly close up wasn't stellar (even though I do own and like the lens). Therefore, your comparison alone doesn't resolve the question whether the new lens is "revolutionary" or the old lens just wasn't very good (compared to other macros out there).

 

[Leonard Shepherd]

I didn't need this lens to prove it to me. Every other Z mount lens has shown me quite easily why the mount makes the difference.

If the short bayonet to sensor and wide lens throat did not make significant differences, I would not already have 8 Z lenses plus the 1.4S TC.

If anybody had asked me in Sept 2018 when I got the Z7 that the Z mount lenses would be good enough to justify this level of expenditure I would have been very sceptical.

They are for me easily good enough to justify the money.

It is not just the mount though.

The multi-focussing system in many Z lenses helps get much better near and far distance optical performance than was generally not possible with F mount, and Arneo coating combined with Nano I find improves images including blue skies.

Turning to the market place in general rather than specifically Nikon; Canon with a near similar ML system are optically doing very well too - though with a different lens philosophy to Nikon.

Sony had some very decent optical performers combining a shorter lens flange/sensor distance and in particular multi focus systems before Nikon and Canon - giving them an initial lead.

What Sony lack is a wide lens throat meaning they are unlikely to be able to make large rear element lenses similar to those in the Nikon 105 S or the TC1.4 S optical designs.

Looking backward and forward my experience has been that it was several years before DSLR's could match the resolution of 100 ISO slide film - which for me came with the D3/D300 series.

Nikon has for me hit the ground running fast from day one with Z mount optics that are distinctly better performers all round than F mount lenses.

While F mount lenses perform just as well as when they were released, Z mounts produce noticeably better optical performance.

--
Leonard Shepherd
In lots of ways good photography is much more about how equipment is used rather than anything else.

 

[starbase218]

I didn't need this lens to prove it to me. Every other Z mount lens has shown me quite easily why the mount makes the difference.

 

[papajohnny]

The large rear element seen in Z lenses seems to make a difference. More complex design and more ED glass along with reduced weight being a welcome bonus

How is that a proof? Sony 90/2.8 macro seems to be just as good with a significantly smaller e-mount.

 

[Lance B]

The large rear element seen in Z lenses seems to make a difference. More complex design and more ED glass along with reduced weight being a welcome bonus

How is that a proof? Sony 90/2.8 macro seems to be just as good with a significantly smaller e-mount.

What test or review shows that the Sony is just as good as this new Nikon macro?

 

[Ruekon]

The large rear element seen in Z lenses seems to make a difference. More complex design and more ED glass along with reduced weight being a welcome bonus

How is that a proof? Sony 90/2.8 macro seems to be just as good with a significantly smaller e-mount.

What test or review shows that the Sony is just as good as this new Nikon macro?

The Sony 90/2.8 looks more like Nikon's F mount version, even worse actually:

Just MTF Charts: Sony FE Mount Prime Lenses

This is the fourth post publishing all of our MTF results so that methodology is consistent and they are easy to find. The previous have been by lens brand. This one is by the mount, since the Zeiss Batis and Loxia lenses fit more naturally here than with the Zeiss SLR lenses. Otherwise, no...

www.lensrentals.com

 

[michaeladawson]

It proves nothing. It could be Z mount, it may not. These are all redesigned lenses. In many cases more expensive. Sigma produces some equally good lenses in F mount. Sony produces some excellent optics with a narrow mount.

I'm a Z user and love the camera. But you can’t say the Z lenses are better because of the mount.

 

[Ruekon]

It proves nothing. It could be Z mount, it may not. These are all redesigned lenses. In many cases more expensive. Sigma produces some equally good lenses in F mount. Sony produces some excellent optics with a narrow mount.

I'm a Z user and love the camera. But you can’t say the Z lenses are better because of the mount.

Look at this comparison from nikonrumors.com. I should have copied it to my original post. The Z mount version looks exceptionally good to me -- and the large rear element very close to the sensor stands out:


from: https://nikonrumors.com/2021/06/04/...05mm-f-2-8-vr-specifications-comparison.aspx/

 

[Mako2011]

Look at this comparison from nikonrumors.com. I should have copied it to my original post. The Z mount version looks exceptionally good to me -- and the large rear element very close to the sensor stands out:

And that may be unrelated to why the chart shows improvement. Might be the increase use of more ED glass...or computer added optical design improvements... or...

from: https://nikonrumors.com/2021/06/04/...05mm-f-2-8-vr-specifications-comparison.aspx/

The Aspherical element at the rear could actually detract from IQ but be require to keep the image circle optimal for the decreased distance to the sensor. May be more about improvements in lens design overall and the new mount simply drove the need to re-design

--
My opinions are my own and not those of DPR or its administration. They carry no 'special' value (except to me and Lacie of course)

 

[BasilG]

It proves nothing. It could be Z mount, it may not. These are all redesigned lenses. In many cases more expensive. Sigma produces some equally good lenses in F mount. Sony produces some excellent optics with a narrow mount.

I'm a Z user and love the camera. But you can’t say the Z lenses are better because of the mount.

Look at this comparison from nikonrumors.com. I should have copied it to my original post. The Z mount version looks exceptionally good to me -- and the large rear element very close to the sensor stands out:

I think what most (certainly I) object to is not the idea that the Z-mount may contribute to the quality, but that this "finally proves" that the Z-mount is an asset and the use of the G lens (which didn't have the most stellar reputation) as the comparison to prove it.

Just look at e.g. the 24-70/2.8 or 14-24/2.8 S lenses, which are smaller, lighter, and better than their F-mount equivalents. Particularly the latter was already a pretty good indication that the Z-mount makes a difference. So I'd say it's long proven, not finally proven.

 

[Ruekon]

Look at this comparison from nikonrumors.com. I should have copied it to my original post. The Z mount version looks exceptionally good to me -- and the large rear element very close to the sensor stands out:

And that may be unrelated to why the chart shows improvement. Might be the increase use of more ED glass...or computer added optical design improvements... or...

from: https://nikonrumors.com/2021/06/04/...05mm-f-2-8-vr-specifications-comparison.aspx/

The Aspherical element at the rear could actually detract from IQ but be require to keep the image circle optimal for the decreased distance to the sensor. May be more about improvements in lens design overall and the new mount simply drove the need to re-design

Keep in mind that any F lens works on a Z camera with FTZ adapter. This is why the new mount does not require any optical redesign. But it enables a redesign, like seen here for the new 105/2.8.

 

[msu79gt82]

I didn't need this lens to prove it to me. Every other Z mount lens has shown me quite easily why the mount makes the difference.

If the short bayonet to sensor and wide lens throat did not make significant differences, I would not already have 8 Z lenses plus the 1.4S TC.

If anybody had asked me in Sept 2018 when I got the Z7 that the Z mount lenses would be good enough to justify this level of expenditure I would have been very sceptical.

Ditto, for me as well. I now have 2 Z bodies and 8 Z lenses

They are for me easily good enough to justify the money.

It is not just the mount though.

The multi-focussing system in many Z lenses helps get much better near and far distance optical performance than was generally not possible with F mount, and Arneo coating combined with Nano I find improves images including blue skies.

Looking backward and forward my experience has been that it was several years before DSLR's could match the resolution of 100 ISO slide film - which for me came with the D3/D300 series.

My first DSLR was the D300

Nikon has for me hit the ground running fast from day one with Z mount optics that are distinctly better performers all round than F mount lenses.

While F mount lenses perform just as well as when they were released, Z mounts produce noticeably better optical performance.

 

[msu79gt82]

Look at this comparison from nikonrumors.com. I should have copied it to my original post. The Z mount version looks exceptionally good to me -- and the large rear element very close to the sensor stands out:

And that may be unrelated to why the chart shows improvement. Might be the increase use of more ED glass...or computer added optical design improvements... or...

from: https://nikonrumors.com/2021/06/04/...05mm-f-2-8-vr-specifications-comparison.aspx/

The Aspherical element at the rear could actually detract from IQ but be require to keep the image circle optimal for the decreased distance to the sensor. May be more about improvements in lens design overall and the new mount simply drove the need to re-design

Keep in mind that any F lens works on a Z camera with FTZ adapter. This is why the new mount does not require any optical redesign. But it enables a redesign, like seen here for the new 105/2.8.

Valid point.