Sony lens quality compared to Nikon?

[SNJops]

I own the 70-200mm f2.8 GM II and shoot it on a 61mp body both outdoors and in studio; from what I see in my images it has no optical compromises whatsoever. From the reviews I have seen the Sony and Nikon are optically equal but the Sony is a fair bit lighter. On the subject of 70-200mm f2.8s Canon are about to release another version for RF mount.

I'm not sure what comments like this are trying to assert. The 70-200mm lenses have two things going for them: (1) they have a long optical progression history as new problems get solved; and (2) they have enough volume to justify continued progression.

My comment was in response to an OP claiming that Sony had to make compromises to achieve a smaller and lighter 70-200mm f2.8 GM II, based on using the lens since its release I haven’t found that to be true at all. In fact the GM II significantly improves on the original in every way.

The moderate telephoto length is also an easier one to design for, particularly if you keep to long back focus.

To me, the current situation with 70-200mm f/2.8 lenses is similar to 45/50mp camera bodies: one can argue that the latest is slightly better than the previous ones. However, I'd bet that way more than 90% of those buying them can't tell the difference in image quality.

70-200mm f/2.8 quality says nothing about lens mount. It didn't when Nikon had the most restrictive mount, it doesn't now that Sony has the most restrictive mount.

Back to the topic of Nikon vs Sony in terms of lens quality. Sony leads on wide angles, Nikon leads on telephotos.

I also have some problems with this comment. Sony has made more wide angle lenses, Nikon has made more telephoto lenses (even with a shorter mirrorless mount history).

But Sony also relies heavily on lens corrections with those wide angle lenses, and in my experience, has more issues with flare. One problem with many of their lens corrections is that Sony hard codes the raw data with them, they don't apply it later in raw processing. This has been a bane of astrophotographers, for instance, as the vignetting correction can show up as concentric rings with heavy processing.

I also own the 12-24mm f2.8 GM and it can be used with out corrections if need be.

It's been interesting and informative to play with Halide's latest iPhone app: stripping away Apple's iPhone image processing reveals what the image sensor and lens is really doing. You may prefer the iPhone Camera output, or you may prefer dealing with the Halide nearest-to-raw output and post processing it yourself, but it's important to make a distinction between what the hardware (sensor, lens) is doing and what the downstream processor is doing (corrections).

 

[SNJops]

Back to the topic of Nikon vs Sony in terms of lens quality. Sony leads on wide angles, Nikon leads on telephotos.

This to me is very curious, because the wide throat of the Nikon Z mount is supposed to make it so superior. Yet even here Sony seems to have no trouble competing.

Sony as I understand it spend a lot on R&D which has yielded them new ways to design and manufacture their optical elements.

 

[primeshooter]

I own the 70-200mm f2.8 GM II and shoot it on a 61mp body both outdoors and in studio; from what I see in my images it has no optical compromises whatsoever. From the reviews I have seen the Sony and Nikon are optically equal but the Sony is a fair bit lighter. On the subject of 70-200mm f2.8s Canon are about to release another version for RF mount.

I'm not sure what comments like this are trying to assert. The 70-200mm lenses have two things going for them: (1) they have a long optical progression history as new problems get solved; and (2) they have enough volume to justify continued progression.

The moderate telephoto length is also an easier one to design for, particularly if you keep to long back focus.

To me, the current situation with 70-200mm f/2.8 lenses is similar to 45/50mp camera bodies: one can argue that the latest is slightly better than the previous ones. However, I'd bet that way more than 90% of those buying them can't tell the difference in image quality.

70-200mm f/2.8 quality says nothing about lens mount. It didn't when Nikon had the most restrictive mount, it doesn't now that Sony has the most restrictive mount.

Back to the topic of Nikon vs Sony in terms of lens quality. Sony leads on wide angles, Nikon leads on telephotos.

I also have some problems with this comment. Sony has made more wide angle lenses, Nikon has made more telephoto lenses (even with a shorter mirrorless mount history).

But Sony also relies heavily on lens corrections with those wide angle lenses, and in my experience, has more issues with flare. One problem with many of their lens corrections is that Sony hard codes the raw data with them, they don't apply it later in raw processing. This has been a bane of astrophotographers, for instance, as the vignetting correction can show up as concentric rings with heavy processing.

Astrophotographer here. You might be interested to realise that even on the Z mount, nikon have exactly the same concentric rings issue that sony do on their much smaller mount: https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/746131-nikon-coloured-concentric-rings/

They likely do not even realise that the peripheral shading correction they are applying on f mount and now z mount is seriously mangling astro data...especially when we stack multiple hours of it together. We would advocate for an 'astro raw mode' if they don't turn this off.

This is a little like when you (this is only the hearsay story I know) apparently years ago, had to go to them about the star eater they employed and they still didnt see the problem until you put it under their nose. Interesting to note that the most recent sony a7rV finally doesnt seem to have this, or green stars which came about from serious raw data filtering on previous Sony cameras.

https://www.markshelley.co.uk/Astronomy/sony_concentric_rings.html

https://www.markshelley.co.uk/Astronomy/sony_coloured_polygons.html

https://www.markshelley.co.uk/Astronomy/NikonConcentricRings/nikon_hardcoded_correction.html

https://www.markshelley.co.uk/Astronomy/NikonConcentricRings/nikon_lossy_compression.html

https://www.markshelley.co.uk/Astronomy/NikonConcentricRings/nikon_ring_generation.html

So as you can see; you can have the big fancy pants mount but if you don't do the right things with it, you still get mangled data. (And I like and own a Z 8, but this is an annoying issue).

It's been interesting and informative to play with Halide's latest iPhone app: stripping away Apple's iPhone image processing reveals what the image sensor and lens is really doing. You may prefer the iPhone Camera output, or you may prefer dealing with the Halide nearest-to-raw output and post processing it yourself, but it's important to make a distinction between what the hardware (sensor, lens) is doing and what the downstream processor is doing (corrections).

--
Thom Hogan
author, Complete Guides to Nikon bodies
bythom.com dslrbodies.com sansmirror.com zsystemuser.com

 

[Lance B]

They would come with compromises just as the updated Sony's have. I don't want to have the Nikon trinity compromised to save weight. If they can do it without compromise, then maybe.

What compromises? That was my original question. So far, the conclusion seems to be that Sony's newer lenses are of very high quality and very comparable to Nikon. And especially this new trio of f/2.8 lenses seem to be very well regarded.

There are compromises that have to be made and has been pointed out on numerous occasions by AnotherMike, Thom Hogan and many others, there no free lunches and no one lens designer has the "magic formula" that no one else possesses. Read carefully what Mike and Thom have written here and elsewhere, they are correct and there is no wishful thinking that gets around this.

Those compromises will be made up of the following either singly or as multiple effects: mechanical robustness, optical performance, AF performance and other factors etc. Again, to labour the point as it is important as pointed out by the aforementioned people, as far as optical performance is concerned, there will be compromises as far as all sorts of optical parameters that can/will be affected. The designer may have been instructed to not be concerned with a number of parameters that can be mostly fixed or partly fixed with software. However, these "fixes" can only be best solved partially across the full zoom range and a few focus distances as it would be near impossible to have software that is adept at every scenario, every light source etc. Easier of a prime as you only have one focal length, but multiple focus distances and light sources.

So, the one aspect that Nikon does have over Sony is the wider throat of the Nikon Z mount which *does* mean that there are less compromises that have to be made in certain optical design aspects and that *cannot* be dismissed as mere marketing - a lazy way to denigrate the benefit of the Z mount to fit a Sony-can-do-as-well-with-a-narrower-mount narrative. The fact is, it frees up the designer to have more scope to have less optical compromises.

those are general statements. I owned the 70-200mm gmii for some time and the ONLY complaint I have is its bokeh is a bit harsh in the transition. There are tradeoffs in design but it is not a zero sum game. Not every design is fully optimised.

But isn't that what I have been saying?

You can have improvement in weight without tradeoffs or minimal tradeoffs if you have advances in your design or manufacturing.

I think it is wrong to assume the other guy cannot do better without actually trying out the lens. Brand loyalty aside, even if you compare sony 70-200mm gm mark1 vs mark2, you can obviously see Sony had made huge reduction in weight and yet improved on optical performance.

Yes, but so what? It's a much younger lens and more costly I would also say. Add some better corrective glass elements, lighter alloy mixes for the lens barrel and there you have it. A more costly lens that performs better. Who would have thought.

If you are happy with your Sony system, then be happy and I am happy for you. You don't need to come here and try and convince me of something that *you* believe in that I do not because it won't happen.

ok, at least now you agree that we can have a better lens with minimal tradeoffs with better technology which is different what you said earlier about compromises.

No it's not what I said. I never said anything about the amount of tradeoff whether it be minimal or large. I said that there were less design compromises that have to be made with the wider throat of the Z mount.

If you can agree that a newer gmii is lighter and better than the gm mark 1, why is it difficult to admit that the gmii is better than the Nikon 70-200mm? The fact is that for the 70-200mm focal range, the Nikon lens is REALLY heavy and without apparent benefits compared to lets say Sony or Canon.

But there is no proof it is better or as good in every aspect, we only have subjective reviews. I never said it was worse or better. All I said was that there are tradeoffs and the Z mount allows for more freedom in design and that can't be denied.

I am not a sony fan and I tried many lens, sony, sigma, canon, Nikon. There are "good" and "bad" lens from every brand depending on what your prioritise and the lens itself.

I never said any different. You are reading into what I said to advance your cause. But again, what you just stated is exactly what I have stated, there are tradeoffs but the Z mount means that there will be less design constraints.

 

[Lance B]

Surely the only way to genuinely compare lens quality is to shoot each one on exactly the same camera? This is what I've done with some of my lenses (just for personal interest; I have seldom seen anything more than very slight differences between lenses really). And currently, the only lens mount capable of being able to do this is the Nikon Z mount, which can take pretty much anything currently on the market and a lot more beyond. But importantly, you can mount and use Sony, Canon, Pentax, Fuji, Leica, Panasonic/Olympus M43, and loads of other lenses, and compare them. I don't pay all that much attention to many comparative reviews for this reason; it's too easy to be able to weight any tests by choosing particular cameras. But using one single camera would be the best way to accurately compare performance, as you'd have exactly the same software processing and sensor attributes every single time. Because ultimately, regardless of any electronics, it's the glass, and physics, creating the image.

Why don't DXO etc do this?

From what I can recall there are minor differences in the sensor cover thickness that may affect the outcomes from the lenses. The Lenses are designed to accommodate for this. However, I really do not know whether Sony or Nikon are different or different enough to make a difference. Thom or other's may know more about this.

 

[Nebido]

Back to the topic of Nikon vs Sony in terms of lens quality. Sony leads on wide angles, Nikon leads on telephotos.

This to me is very curious, because the wide throat of the Nikon Z mount is supposed to make it so superior. Yet even here Sony seems to have no trouble competing.

The decision in favor of the dimensions of the Z-mount is first and foremost a forward-looking orientation.
A smaller flange distance and wider diameter gives the lens designers significantly fewer restrictions and more freedom.
This gives them significantly more options to exert a targeted influence where they were otherwise more limited.
Conversely, however, this does not mean that Nikon makes use of the advantages of the mount for every lens design.

So far, this is more likely to apply to a minority of Z lenses, at least those that really make use of it, and Nikon has made special use of it for the Noct and Plena, where some of Nikon's best engineers have invested a great deal of development work.

Examples of where the possibilities of the new Z-mount have been exhausted are the Z 58/0.95 Noct, or the Z 135/1.8 S Plena, which would not have been possible without the possibilities offered by the new Z-mount.
In the case of the Plena, this was primarily achieved via an oversized rear element.
The Z-mount therefore enables constructions that were previously not possible with the F-mount and that would not be possible in the form of the Plena without the option of significantly oversizing the rear element.

However, this does not mean that Nikon exhausts or even utilizes the possibilities of the new mount with every lens.
It is also a question of costs and development work, lenses like the Plena are not created overnight, many years of work and basic research have gone into them.

Although it is ultimately an advertising campaign for the Plena, it does give an insight into how the possibilities of the new Z-mount have been used on the Plena and how the effects and aberrations associated with vignetting have been virtually eliminated.

The decision for the mount is therefore primarily a decision for the future.
It enables Nikon to create optical constructions that were not possible before in this form and with these means.
We will certainly see more of this in the future, tilt/shift would be predestined, but also other constructions.



In Part2 @ 0:52sec one of the engineers talks about how the possibilities of the new Z-mount have been exhausted in the Plena.



There are areas, especially with extreme optical designs such as the Noct or the Plena, where the engineers who have to work with the Sony E-mount are much more limited.
Either such designs cannot be realized at all, or the toolkit to achieve the goals is noticeably more limited.
Where the Nikon engineer can use the full potential of the Z-mount to, for example, almost completely eliminate vignetting and its aberrations by optical means, the Sony engineer has to look for other ways to achieve his goal or have to make more compromises in the designs.

The Z-mount therefore fundamentally allows more radical optical designs and at the same time significantly expands the possibilities for future designs.

Will this be reflected in the wide range of Z lenses?
Probably not, at least in such a way that Nikon really exhaust the possibilities of the Z-mount like they did with the Noct or Plena.

Not in areas where it drives up costs too much, so it will probably concentrate on special optical constructions and the upper price range for the time being.
Where it pays off to invest the corresponding development work and costs.

 

[Fabian Joya]

Back to the topic of Nikon vs Sony in terms of lens quality. Sony leads on wide angles, Nikon leads on telephotos.

This to me is very curious, because the wide throat of the Nikon Z mount is supposed to make it so superior. Yet even here Sony seems to have no trouble competing.

The decision in favor of the dimensions of the Z-mount is first and foremost a forward-looking orientation.
A smaller flange distance and wider diameter gives the lens designers significantly fewer restrictions and more freedom.
This gives them significantly more options to exert a targeted influence where they were otherwise more limited.
Conversely, however, this does not mean that Nikon makes use of the advantages of the mount for every lens design.

So far, this is more likely to apply to a minority of Z lenses, at least those that really make use of it, and Nikon has made special use of it for the Noct and Plena, where some of Nikon's best engineers have invested a great deal of development work.

Examples of where the possibilities of the new Z-mount have been exhausted are the Z 58/0.95 Noct, or the Z 135/1.8 S Plena, which would not have been possible without the possibilities offered by the new Z-mount.
In the case of the Plena, this was primarily achieved via an oversized rear element.
The Z-mount therefore enables constructions that were previously not possible with the F-mount and that would not be possible in the form of the Plena without the option of significantly oversizing the rear element.

However, this does not mean that Nikon exhausts or even utilizes the possibilities of the new mount with every lens.
It is also a question of costs and development work, lenses like the Plena are not created overnight, many years of work and basic research have gone into them.

Although it is ultimately an advertising campaign for the Plena, it does give an insight into how the possibilities of the new Z-mount have been used on the Plena and how the effects and aberrations associated with vignetting have been virtually eliminated.

The decision for the mount is therefore primarily a decision for the future.
It enables Nikon to create optical constructions that were not possible before in this form and with these means.
We will certainly see more of this in the future, tilt/shift would be predestined, but also other constructions.
In Part2 @ 0:52sec one of the engineers talks about how the possibilities of the new Z-mount have been exhausted in the Plena.
There are areas, especially with extreme optical designs such as the Noct or the Plena, where the engineers who have to work with the Sony E-mount are much more limited.
Either such designs cannot be realized at all, or the toolkit to achieve the goals is noticeably more limited.
Where the Nikon engineer can use the full potential of the Z-mount to, for example, almost completely eliminate vignetting and its aberrations by optical means, the Sony engineer has to look for other ways to achieve his goal or have to make more compromises in the designs.

The Z-mount therefore fundamentally allows more radical optical designs and at the same time significantly expands the possibilities for future designs.

Will this be reflected in the wide range of Z lenses?
Probably not, at least in such a way that Nikon really exhaust the possibilities of the Z-mount like they did with the Noct or Plena.

Not in areas where it drives up costs too much, so it will probably concentrate on special optical constructions and the upper price range for the time being.
Where it pays off to invest the corresponding development work and costs.

I suspect Nikon designers got carried away by the new and bigger Z mount. Freed from 50 years of constraints by the F mount, they put a lot of focus into showcasing what the new mount could do, and not enough into other considerations such as weight, cost and utility.

I do get the feeling that Nikon may be turning into the new Leica. A once popular company that has become a niche brand loved by affluent afficionados, while most photographers switch to other brands that offer options that better serve their needs.

I do hope Nikon wakes up and adjusts course. The Nikon Z8/Z9 are a great start. Easily the best cameras available on the market today IMO. But the lens lineup is much more of a mixed bag.

When I look at the new Sony lens lineup starting around 2018, and how consistent and well thought-out it is, I recognize that Nikon has formidable competition. And in addition the E mount enjoys massive 3rd-party support, which both Nikon & Canon actively discourage.

 

[michaeladawson]

The *amount* of software correction varies between lenses, even within a line. Some lenses in the Nikon lineup have very, very little - a touch of vignetting correction, a touch of distortion. Some have a bit more, some have a bit. Same thing with everyone else. Sad thing is, software correction isn't a free lunch.

I think software correction *is* a free lunch compared to not having software correction. Anytime the optical designers get another tool, it allows them to improve the results. Maybe even reduce the cost.

I think the key thing is to accept that software correction is becoming a thing across all brands, to varying degrees and from lens to lens.

To me the choices and extremes are:

1. Purists who want (their personal definition of) optical perfection - and accept a bulkier heavier lens to get there.

2. The more practical photographers - who embrace technology and the opportunities to achieve recently unheard of optical performance in a smaller lighter package, thanks to some software corrections and manufacturing advances.

I fall into the latter category, but respect that there's some old school/purists who are wired the opposite way.

At the end of the day, pick your poison (and be prepared to carry it).

No matter how perfect your lenses are, they photograph nothing when left at home due to excessive bulk and weight (which, to me, applies to camera bodies as well as the lenses).

Perhaps you don’t see it. But your post has a (not so) subtle judgement in it. Adding in your “respect” doesn’t change it.

It’s like saying you respect the other political party’s views when you clearly believe they’re wrong.

 

[michaeladawson]

The easiest thing to pick on with software correction is vignetting. It seems like an easy and benign correction. But it’s not. I think it exemplifies what you wrote. For an average evenly lit and well exposed photo it presents minor issues. But take an underexposed image and you are going to end up with noise in the corners and edges after correction.

There will always be vignetting on a fast wide angle lens. But some lenses are worse than others. I’ll take a lens with less vignetting over one with heavy vignetting.

 

[Alantkh]

Back to the topic of Nikon vs Sony in terms of lens quality. Sony leads on wide angles, Nikon leads on telephotos.

This to me is very curious, because the wide throat of the Nikon Z mount is supposed to make it so superior. Yet even here Sony seems to have no trouble competing.

The decision in favor of the dimensions of the Z-mount is first and foremost a forward-looking orientation.
A smaller flange distance and wider diameter gives the lens designers significantly fewer restrictions and more freedom.
This gives them significantly more options to exert a targeted influence where they were otherwise more limited.
Conversely, however, this does not mean that Nikon makes use of the advantages of the mount for every lens design.

So far, this is more likely to apply to a minority of Z lenses, at least those that really make use of it, and Nikon has made special use of it for the Noct and Plena, where some of Nikon's best engineers have invested a great deal of development work.

Examples of where the possibilities of the new Z-mount have been exhausted are the Z 58/0.95 Noct, or the Z 135/1.8 S Plena, which would not have been possible without the possibilities offered by the new Z-mount.
In the case of the Plena, this was primarily achieved via an oversized rear element.
The Z-mount therefore enables constructions that were previously not possible with the F-mount and that would not be possible in the form of the Plena without the option of significantly oversizing the rear element.

However, this does not mean that Nikon exhausts or even utilizes the possibilities of the new mount with every lens.
It is also a question of costs and development work, lenses like the Plena are not created overnight, many years of work and basic research have gone into them.

Although it is ultimately an advertising campaign for the Plena, it does give an insight into how the possibilities of the new Z-mount have been used on the Plena and how the effects and aberrations associated with vignetting have been virtually eliminated.

The decision for the mount is therefore primarily a decision for the future.
It enables Nikon to create optical constructions that were not possible before in this form and with these means.
We will certainly see more of this in the future, tilt/shift would be predestined, but also other constructions.
In Part2 @ 0:52sec one of the engineers talks about how the possibilities of the new Z-mount have been exhausted in the Plena.
There are areas, especially with extreme optical designs such as the Noct or the Plena, where the engineers who have to work with the Sony E-mount are much more limited.
Either such designs cannot be realized at all, or the toolkit to achieve the goals is noticeably more limited.
Where the Nikon engineer can use the full potential of the Z-mount to, for example, almost completely eliminate vignetting and its aberrations by optical means, the Sony engineer has to look for other ways to achieve his goal or have to make more compromises in the designs.

The Z-mount therefore fundamentally allows more radical optical designs and at the same time significantly expands the possibilities for future designs.

Will this be reflected in the wide range of Z lenses?
Probably not, at least in such a way that Nikon really exhaust the possibilities of the Z-mount like they did with the Noct or Plena.

Not in areas where it drives up costs too much, so it will probably concentrate on special optical constructions and the upper price range for the time being.
Where it pays off to invest the corresponding development work and costs.

I suspect Nikon designers got carried away by the new and bigger Z mount. Freed from 50 years of constraints by the F mount, they put a lot of focus into showcasing what the new mount could do, and not enough into other considerations such as weight, cost and utility.

I do get the feeling that Nikon may be turning into the new Leica. A once popular company that has become a niche brand loved by affluent afficionados, while most photographers switch to other brands that offer options that better serve their needs.

I do hope Nikon wakes up and adjusts course. The Nikon Z8/Z9 are a great start. Easily the best cameras available on the market today IMO. But the lens lineup is much more of a mixed bag.

When I look at the new Sony lens lineup starting around 2018, and how consistent and well thought-out it is, I recognize that Nikon has formidable competition. And in addition the E mount enjoys massive 3rd-party support, which both Nikon & Canon actively discourage.

If you compare Nikon and Canon, Canon has closed rf mount and there aren’t any adapters so Canon makes profit from all rf mount lens. Nikon mount allows so many adapters and if Nikon does not price their lens competitively, they aren’t going to sell many lens. The plena in my country is more than 1.5 times more expensive than the Sony Gm or Canon 135 mm rf. Sure the plena performance is good but is it worth 1.5 times more than the very good Sony Gm or the even better 135mm rf (to me)?

 

[chambeshi]

Back to the topic of Nikon vs Sony in terms of lens quality. Sony leads on wide angles, Nikon leads on telephotos.

This to me is very curious, because the wide throat of the Nikon Z mount is supposed to make it so superior. Yet even here Sony seems to have no trouble competing.

The decision in favor of the dimensions of the Z-mount is first and foremost a forward-looking orientation.
A smaller flange distance and wider diameter gives the lens designers significantly fewer restrictions and more freedom.
This gives them significantly more options to exert a targeted influence where they were otherwise more limited.
Conversely, however, this does not mean that Nikon makes use of the advantages of the mount for every lens design.

So far, this is more likely to apply to a minority of Z lenses, at least those that really make use of it, and Nikon has made special use of it for the Noct and Plena, where some of Nikon's best engineers have invested a great deal of development work.

Examples of where the possibilities of the new Z-mount have been exhausted are the Z 58/0.95 Noct, or the Z 135/1.8 S Plena, which would not have been possible without the possibilities offered by the new Z-mount.
In the case of the Plena, this was primarily achieved via an oversized rear element.
The Z-mount therefore enables constructions that were previously not possible with the F-mount and that would not be possible in the form of the Plena without the option of significantly oversizing the rear element.

However, this does not mean that Nikon exhausts or even utilizes the possibilities of the new mount with every lens.
It is also a question of costs and development work, lenses like the Plena are not created overnight, many years of work and basic research have gone into them.

Although it is ultimately an advertising campaign for the Plena, it does give an insight into how the possibilities of the new Z-mount have been used on the Plena and how the effects and aberrations associated with vignetting have been virtually eliminated.

The decision for the mount is therefore primarily a decision for the future.
It enables Nikon to create optical constructions that were not possible before in this form and with these means.
We will certainly see more of this in the future, tilt/shift would be predestined, but also other constructions.
In Part2 @ 0:52sec one of the engineers talks about how the possibilities of the new Z-mount have been exhausted in the Plena.
There are areas, especially with extreme optical designs such as the Noct or the Plena, where the engineers who have to work with the Sony E-mount are much more limited.
Either such designs cannot be realized at all, or the toolkit to achieve the goals is noticeably more limited.:-D
Where the Nikon engineer can use the full potential of the Z-mount to, for example, almost completely eliminate vignetting and its aberrations by optical means, the Sony engineer has to look for other ways to achieve his goal or have to make more compromises in the designs.

The Z-mount therefore fundamentally allows more radical optical designs and at the same time significantly expands the possibilities for future designs.

Will this be reflected in the wide range of Z lenses?
Probably not, at least in such a way that Nikon really exhaust the possibilities of the Z-mount like they did with the Noct or Plena.

Not in areas where it drives up costs too much, so it will probably concentrate on special optical constructions and the upper price range for the time being.
Where it pays off to invest the corresponding development work and costs.

I suspect Nikon designers got carried away by the new and bigger Z mount. Freed from 50 years of constraints by the F mount, they put a lot of focus into showcasing what the new mount could do, and not enough into other considerations such as weight, cost and utility.

To replace whimsical guesswork with the facts and feedback from the designers - linked interviews posted in this thread - they are very clear about the benefits already flowing from the R&D. The light 400 f4.5S telephoto prime is an example of a middle of the road prime. Z System architecture allowed for a novel optical design of the rear elements (see Thom Hogan's review and this interview )

Pertinently, Z Mount architecture undergirded the designs of the industry leading 14-24 f2.8S and even lighter 14-30 f4S UWides that fit significantly compact filter systems... A boon for landscape photographers, such that these 2 zooms are catalysts in their own right to switch to the Z System

Yes, it's not only the new Plena, and light superb Z Telephotos catalyzing Switchers into Nikonland from CaSony ;-) :-D

https://www.imaging-resource.com/ne...-help-lens-design-and-af-nikon-tech-interview

I do get the feeling that Nikon may be turning into the new Leica. A once popular company that has become a niche brand loved by affluent afficionados, while most photographers switch to other brands that offer options that better serve their needs.

I do hope Nikon wakes up and adjusts course. The Nikon Z8/Z9 are a great start. Easily the best cameras available on the market today IMO. But the lens lineup is much more of a mixed bag.

There are gaps in the Z System obviously, but Nikon must know all these, including Ultrawide primes. However, the cross mount adapters enable many more choices in 3rd party lenses to optimize a Z System of one's choices.... And of course, Nikonians are fortunate to have the superior haptics and sensible menu designs of Nikon Z cameras.

When I look at the new Sony lens lineup starting around 2018, and how consistent and well thought-out it is, I recognize that Nikon has formidable competition. And in addition the E mount enjoys massive 3rd-party support, which both Nikon & Canon actively discourage.

The Z System is well thought through. Nikon released the triad of Fast Dragons and mid range primes through 2019 into 2021, notwithstanding shortages of electronic parts and a pesky pandemic.

As already stated, the roll out of the Z Telephotos over the past 3+ years has catalysed long order queues, including system switchers besides the many owners of their excellent F-mount telephotos.

The minor differences in individual weights of short focal length and mid range primes and the Fast Dragons across Mount Systems might prompt the most pedantic grasshopper to leap into a different system.

In the case of Nikonians, the majority couldn't give a proverbial about whatever Sony sells. Evangelists are wasting oxygen preaching about any inflated superiority. In the real world, any differences are trivial out in the world of practicing photographers.

The consensus is the Z Lenses range from Good to Excellent

https://www.zsystemuser.com/z-mount-lenses/nikkor-lenses/nikon-z-mount-lens-reviews/

 

[Hal Wilson]

Surely the only way to genuinely compare lens quality is to shoot each one on exactly the same camera? This is what I've done with some of my lenses (just for personal interest; I have seldom seen anything more than very slight differences between lenses really). And currently, the only lens mount capable of being able to do this is the Nikon Z mount, which can take pretty much anything currently on the market and a lot more beyond. But importantly, you can mount and use Sony, Canon, Pentax, Fuji, Leica, Panasonic/Olympus M43, and loads of other lenses, and compare them. I don't pay all that much attention to many comparative reviews for this reason; it's too easy to be able to weight any tests by choosing particular cameras. But using one single camera would be the best way to accurately compare performance, as you'd have exactly the same software processing and sensor attributes every single time. Because ultimately, regardless of any electronics, it's the glass, and physics, creating the image.

Why don't DXO etc do this?

Each lens is optimized on the specific system. Each manufacturer is using different sensor thickness and the lenses eg that are manufactured for Leica mount have corner issues (especially wide angle ones) if they are used on Nikons or Sony's.

You can read more below.

https://phillipreeve.net/blog/diffe...mean-for-us-sony-e-nikon-z-leica-m-kolari-ut/

That appears to be little more than an advert for a service which offers dubious benefits. And ignores the fact that light behaves the same way regardless of sensor. Using the same sensor for a range of lenses would reveal optical differences far better than using various cameras.

 

[Leonard Shepherd]

Conversely, however, this does not mean that Nikon makes use of the advantages of the mount for every lens design.

You perhaps overlook a THIRD huge difference with Z lenses - and other ML lens systems perhaps starting with Olympus about 15 years ago - of introducing dramatically improved electronic communication between lens and body; not possible with DSLR's without a new lens mount with more electronic contacts - which is what Z has.

Nikon probably makes use of improved electronic communication in every Z lens ;-)

Digressing moderately - the image coming out of the back of a lens is upside down and wrong way round when it reaches the sensor surface.

In-camera electronics show a right way round, right way up image through an ML viewfinder and on a rear monitor including DSLR's.

Some lens type have inherent distortion issues. Optically distortion is very difficult to correct without introducing other lens aberrations; limiting image quality in other areas. While some object to electronic distortion correction (yet accepting ML corrected viewfinder images) doing so enables greater control of other aberrations and for some types of lens designs significantly improved Z lens image quality.

In principle as I use Lightroom and Nikon Studio I am only primarily interested in the image that comes off the memory card rather what happens in camera to produce the final image

Other benefits of improved lens/body electronic communication include accurate focus distance availability (only a few Z lenses use this ability), more precise aperture readouts, faster lens AF etc.

Digressing to longer focal length lenses I understand that you still have to select with a switch between panning and non-panning using VR or its equivalent with Sony lenses.

Thom Hogan has said the Nikon 180-600 is optically better than the Sony 200-600 - though this does not necessarily apply to all other lens comparisons.

In the background once a photographer has developed a good level of skill often around 90% of the quality in an image becomes photographer dependent rather than lens brand dependant.

--
Leonard Shepherd
In lots of ways good photography is similar to learning to play a piano - it takes practice to develop skill in either activity.

 

[SNJops]

Surely the only way to genuinely compare lens quality is to shoot each one on exactly the same camera? This is what I've done with some of my lenses (just for personal interest; I have seldom seen anything more than very slight differences between lenses really). And currently, the only lens mount capable of being able to do this is the Nikon Z mount, which can take pretty much anything currently on the market and a lot more beyond. But importantly, you can mount and use Sony, Canon, Pentax, Fuji, Leica, Panasonic/Olympus M43, and loads of other lenses, and compare them. I don't pay all that much attention to many comparative reviews for this reason; it's too easy to be able to weight any tests by choosing particular cameras. But using one single camera would be the best way to accurately compare performance, as you'd have exactly the same software processing and sensor attributes every single time. Because ultimately, regardless of any electronics, it's the glass, and physics, creating the image.

Why don't DXO etc do this?

Each lens is optimized on the specific system. Each manufacturer is using different sensor thickness and the lenses eg that are manufactured for Leica mount have corner issues (especially wide angle ones) if they are used on Nikons or Sony's.

You can read more below.

https://phillipreeve.net/blog/diffe...mean-for-us-sony-e-nikon-z-leica-m-kolari-ut/

That appears to be little more than an advert for a service which offers dubious benefits. And ignores the fact that light behaves the same way regardless of sensor. Using the same sensor for a range of lenses would reveal optical differences far better than using various cameras.

Its well known that Leica M lenses perform better on M bodies than they do on Sony ones. The sensor stack difference is a very real thing. Its why Voigtlander optimise their lenses for each platform to account for this. Their 35mm and 50mm f2 APO-Lanthars come in versions for M,E and Z mount. You could do comparison of the M mount version adapted to E and Z but its likely you would see poorer corner performance than the version native to each mount.

--
Portraits - https://instagram.com/stephane_james
Nature - https://instagram.com/stephanejames_nature
Street - https://instagram.com/stephanejames_street

https://www.flickr.com/photos/154854356@N08/

 

[Alantkh]

Surely the only way to genuinely compare lens quality is to shoot each one on exactly the same camera? This is what I've done with some of my lenses (just for personal interest; I have seldom seen anything more than very slight differences between lenses really). And currently, the only lens mount capable of being able to do this is the Nikon Z mount, which can take pretty much anything currently on the market and a lot more beyond. But importantly, you can mount and use Sony, Canon, Pentax, Fuji, Leica, Panasonic/Olympus M43, and loads of other lenses, and compare them. I don't pay all that much attention to many comparative reviews for this reason; it's too easy to be able to weight any tests by choosing particular cameras. But using one single camera would be the best way to accurately compare performance, as you'd have exactly the same software processing and sensor attributes every single time. Because ultimately, regardless of any electronics, it's the glass, and physics, creating the image.

Why don't DXO etc do this?

Each lens is optimized on the specific system. Each manufacturer is using different sensor thickness and the lenses eg that are manufactured for Leica mount have corner issues (especially wide angle ones) if they are used on Nikons or Sony's.

You can read more below.

https://phillipreeve.net/blog/diffe...mean-for-us-sony-e-nikon-z-leica-m-kolari-ut/

That appears to be little more than an advert for a service which offers dubious benefits. And ignores the fact that light behaves the same way regardless of sensor. Using the same sensor for a range of lenses would reveal optical differences far better than using various cameras.

Its well known that Leica M lenses perform better on M bodies than they do on Sony ones. The sensor stack difference is a very real thing. Its why Voigtlander optimise their lenses for each platform to account for this. Their 35mm and 50mm f2 APO-Lanthars come in versions for M,E and Z mount. You could do comparison of the M mount version adapted to E and Z but its likely you would see poorer corner performance than the version native to each mount.

Below is a sample of the 14mm gm adapted on my Z8 at f1.8. Focused on the building and the top right corner to test corner sharpness. It is pretty good and is pretty similar to what I get with a7r5. It might be SLIGHTLY softer but hard to tell. I have a f4 comparison and both shots are sharp at the corners. Honestly, I don't see much downside.

I read the philipreeve article, I think blaming the sensor stack for the corner sharpness issue is not right, I would rather blame the adapter mount error leading to the image not aligned perfectly to the sensor. My megadap ETZ21 pro has some play when the lens is mounted. When I mount most lens natively, the fit is very good.

http://www.keehian.com/images/z8f18.jpg

http://www.keehian.com/images/z8f4.jpg

 

[Hal Wilson]

Its well known that Leica M lenses perform better on M bodies than they do on Sony ones. The sensor stack difference is a very real thing. Its why Voigtlander optimise their lenses for each platform to account for this. Their 35mm and 50mm f2 APO-Lanthars come in versions for M,E and Z mount. You could do comparison of the M mount version adapted to E and Z but its likely you would see poorer corner performance than the version native to each mount.

That simply proves that manufacturers are using electronics to mask/correct inadequacies in the optical performance of lenses. Hence why a 'neutral'* sensor would be much better in accurately assessing optical qualities of lenses, than less than scientific 'tests' using various different camera bodies.

 

[Nebido]

Yes, that certainly needs to be formulated more precisely.
I was mainly concerned with the fact that, according to their own statements, they have really exhausted the possibilities with lenses such as the Noct or Plena for the first time.

Ultimately, of course, all Z lenses are designed for the Z-mount, for MILC without a mirror box.
Flange distance and mount diameter allow a lot more leeway and this is also utilized with pretty much every one of my Z lenses, which is noticeable in the placement of the rear elements

I was concerned with lenses in the Z range where the full potential of the mount has really been exploited, where special effort has been made to really exhaust the possibilities of the mount.

This is addressed in the three-part “Making of Plena” series in part 2 and part 3.
Where the engineers talk about it
"Until now we believed that we understood the potential of the Z-mount in theory, but the whole Plena development team shared a dream to bring its greatness to its full potential, enabling us to go beyond anything we've developed before."

In this respect, the features and key data of the new Z mount are of course incorporated into all Z lens designs, but not all lenses make this effort to really exhaust the possibilities of the Z mount.

That's why the Nikon engineers of the Plena project speak of having really fully utilized the features of the Z mount here.

 

[Fabian Joya]

To replace whimsical guesswork with the facts and feedback from the designers - linked interviews posted in this thread - they are very clear about the benefits already flowing from the R&D. The light 400 f4.5S telephoto prime is an example of a middle of the road prime. Z System architecture allowed for a novel optical design of the rear elements (see Thom Hogan's review and this interview )

Pertinently, Z Mount architecture undergirded the designs of the industry leading 14-24 f2.8S and even lighter 14-30 f4S UWides that fit significantly compact filter systems... A boon for landscape photographers, such that these 2 zooms are catalysts in their own right to switch to the Z System

Yes, it's not only the new Plena, and light superb Z Telephotos catalyzing Switchers into Nikonland from CaSony ;-) :-D

https://www.imaging-resource.com/ne...-help-lens-design-and-af-nikon-tech-interview

Thanks for sharing these links!

Sony offers a very interesting 16-35/4 which is lighter (and cheaper) than the Nikon 14-30/4. And a 16-35/2.8 that is lighter than the Nikon 14-24/2.8.

Why are the Nikon lenses so much more compelling?

It seems to me that the shorter flange distance (common to all mirrorless) has much more impact on wide angle lens design than a wider mount.

There are gaps in the Z System obviously, but Nikon must know all these, including Ultrawide primes.

If they do, they are (sadly) ignoring those gaps. The recently introduced 35mm f/1.4 is a great example. Nikon just told the world they will not be releasing a quality set of f/1.4 lenses. So if you value those, Nikon just told you to look elsewhere!

When I look at the new Sony lens lineup starting around 2018, and how consistent and well thought-out it is, I recognize that Nikon has formidable competition. And in addition the E mount enjoys massive 3rd-party support, which both Nikon & Canon actively discourage.

The Z System is well thought through.

I completely disagree with this. I think the Z lens system is very poorly thought through.

The trio of f/2.8 zooms: The 70-200/2.8 has completely different (and IMO very poor) ergonomics.

The trio of f/4 zooms: There is no trio. The 70-200/300 is missing. And the other two lenses have that silly zoom-to-use mechanic.

The Tamrikon trio: Even Tamron now offers a better f/2.8 trio.

The obvious gaps in the lens lineup: f/1.4 primes, 70-200/4, 70-300/4.5-5.6, etc.

(Note that Sony has refreshed most of their lens lineup since 2018 - the year the Z system was introduced. So it's not like Nikon hasn't had the time.)

Then there are the ergonomics and features, which are all over the place, with silly gimmicks like the EL display, and a control ring implementation most users hate.

And buyers of cheaper and smaller lenses are punished by having features taken away (e.g. the Tamrikons, the 180-600, the f/1.8 primes), even when there is no upgrade alternative offered by Nikon.

Now compare that to Sony's post-2018 lenses:

- Every lens offers an aperture ring (with click on/off switch)
- Every lens offers a lens function button
- The focus/zoom/aperture ring locations are consistent
- The location of all lens controls are well thought out
- Every lens has the same controls
- The lineup is extensive, with few gaps
- Full 3rd-party lens support

Sony has understood that consistency is important. And that it is hard to rely on a feature if only some lenses offer it and others don't. And they are rapidly closing any quality gaps.

And I say this as a fan of Nikon. I have been a Nikon user for 20 years, and would like to see Nikon succeed and do well, because it is the brand I prefer.

 

[SNJops]

Its well known that Leica M lenses perform better on M bodies than they do on Sony ones. The sensor stack difference is a very real thing. Its why Voigtlander optimise their lenses for each platform to account for this. Their 35mm and 50mm f2 APO-Lanthars come in versions for M,E and Z mount. You could do comparison of the M mount version adapted to E and Z but its likely you would see poorer corner performance than the version native to each mount.

That simply proves that manufacturers are using electronics to mask/correct inadequacies in the optical performance of lenses. Hence why a 'neutral'* sensor would be much better in accurately assessing optical qualities of lenses, than less than scientific 'tests' using various different camera bodies.

What is neutral sensor and how would it be defined to be as such? Also Sony having a thicker sensor stack, are they wrong to do so? Judging by the images I have gotten from my previous A7III and current A7RIV I would say absolutely not as having a thicker sensor stack works for them. I also own an M10 and I get wonderful images from that sensor too so Leica are correct to use a thinner sensor stack as it works for them.

If a Leica lens performs poorly on a camera that it wasn’t intended to be used on that’s not the fault of Leica, nor is the fault of the camera maker.

 

[michaeladawson]

Its well known that Leica M lenses perform better on M bodies than they do on Sony ones. The sensor stack difference is a very real thing. Its why Voigtlander optimise their lenses for each platform to account for this. Their 35mm and 50mm f2 APO-Lanthars come in versions for M,E and Z mount. You could do comparison of the M mount version adapted to E and Z but its likely you would see poorer corner performance than the version native to each mount.

Below is a sample of the 14mm gm adapted on my Z8 at f1.8. Focused on the building and the top right corner to test corner sharpness. It is pretty good and is pretty similar to what I get with a7r5. It might be SLIGHTLY softer but hard to tell. I have a f4 comparison and both shots are sharp at the corners. Honestly, I don't see much downside.

I read the philipreeve article, I think blaming the sensor stack for the corner sharpness issue is not right, I would rather blame the adapter mount error leading to the image not aligned perfectly to the sensor. My megadap ETZ21 pro has some play when the lens is mounted. When I mount most lens natively, the fit is very good.

http://www.keehian.com/images/z8f18.jpg

http://www.keehian.com/images/z8f4.jpg

I'm not sure I would agree. I have been researching wide angle lenses for astrophotography use. I forget the site now, but it was a review of the 16mm Viltrox lens. The author did extensive testing with the Vitrox lens in Z mount and compared to the same Sony lens on the Z body with an adapter.

The adapted Sony lens was noticeably blurrier in the corners. He went and tried other focal lengths of Viltrox lenses for Sony mount on the Z and found the same thing.

It may be that in shooting terrestrial subjects the corner sharpness is not as noticeable as when you have a star field to examine.

If this was a simple case of an adapter mount error I think you would be able to tell. You would likely get worse focus in one corner or edge over another.

The Leica M mount lens performance on a Sony body is well documented. In this case it is clearly not a poorly aligned adapter. As far as I know there is not a similar issue with M mount lenses on a Nikon body.