Reading mode: Light Dark

Nikon finally proves that the Z mount makes a difference

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ruekon
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Go to last post
Ruekon said:
beatboxa said:
Member said:
...
Click to expand...
So if you follow the logic in your post here, Nikon proved this since day 1.
Click to expand...
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)
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:
Click to expand...
Yes, though degree of improvement is different from whether improvement exists or not.

I'd also want to point out that MTF's are often not immediately intuitive, since each distance does not cover equal area--area is distance squared. So let's map this out: Here are the areas that the MTFs cover (x-axis on MTF):

7bd7a1e1b615447d9fee0d606011cd6c.jpg.png

(And reference points: on a 36x24 full-frame sensor, 12 = vertical edge, 18 = horizontal edge).

So on the 35's, what we see is:
  • The "5" areas are roughly the same
  • The "10" area is far superior on the Z. For fine detail (30 lp/mm), 50% vs. 70%.
    Plus, quite a bit of astigmatism on the F.
  • The "15" area is also 50% (F) vs. 70% (Z). Also, astigmatism on the F.
  • The 20 area is IQ dropoff, though still better on the Z. 30% (F) vs. 50% (Z)
So the 10, 15, 20 are all far superior on the Z, such that the 10 & 15 areas of the F are similar to the the 20 areas on the Z.

And this is where one can get a sense of how big of a difference these lenses have, even though this may not be immediately intuitive from the MTF's.
 
Last edited:
Ruekon said:
Mako2011 said:
Ruekon said:
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:
Click to expand...
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...
Member said:
from: 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/
from: https://nikonrumors.com/2021/06/04/...05mm-f-2-8-vr-specifications-comparison.aspx/
Click to expand...
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
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
Not really?...as the lens must be redesigned optically to function without an adapter. It's why the Aspherical element must be included and the new optical design must take it into account...I think



--
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)
 
The lens mount may indeed make a difference but this does not prove it. There are so many other differences that contribute to the optical quality. A common characteristic of the new Z lenses is more ED elements and more aspherical elements. In this example, the F lens has one ED and no aspherical elements, while the Z lens has three ED and one aspherical element. Those would make a big improvement in optical quality in any mount. In addition there are more applications of technologies such as multi-motor and multi-element focusing, along with improved CAD tools and manufacturing technologies.

With so many variables, only the designers really know how much difference the lens mount makes. And despite the narrow mount aperture of the FE mount, Sony, Zeiss, Sigma, and Tamron succeed in producing excellent lenses for it. I suspect that the wide apertures of the Z (and RF) mounts are a relatively modest advantage in most lens designs (very large apertures excepted). I also suspect that the short flange distance in all the mirrorless mounts makes a much larger difference that contributes to the generally superior performance of the recent mirrorless lens designs compared to their DSLR predecessors.
 
Last edited:
Without the insight of the designer, it's is hard to say one way or another. I assume some lenses were developed where the designers got a 'free hand" and others were limited by time or cost constraints.

I am interested to see the long lenses for the Z. You would think that they would be built off the F, given their relative length, but maybe a complete redesign would be in the works.

I agree with the other posters that my Z glass is the best optically I have ever owned.
 
Mako2011 said:
Ruekon said:
Mako2011 said:
Ruekon said:
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:
Click to expand...
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...
Mako2011 said:
from: 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/
from: https://nikonrumors.com/2021/06/04/...05mm-f-2-8-vr-specifications-comparison.aspx/
Click to expand...
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
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
Not really?...as the lens must be redesigned optically to function without an adapter. It's why the Aspherical element must be included and the new optical design must take it into account...I think
Click to expand...
No. You could just build in the adapter and be done with it, without any changes to any of the lens elements (similar to some of e.g. Sigma's early mirrorless lenses). Exact same optics.
 
Right. The only optical function of the adapter is to add the correct spacing to the sensor. This extra spacing could be added to any DSLR lens design without any other optical changes.
 
Mako2011 said:
Ruekon said:
Mako2011 said:
...
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
Not really?...as the lens must be redesigned optically to function without an adapter. It's why the Aspherical element must be included and the new optical design must take it into account...I think
Click to expand...
The simplest redesign would be to add empty space between the rear element of an existing F lens and the Z mount. Don't know if this already classifies as *new optical design*, but it would work. Sigma did this with their first L-mount lenses.

This is why I conclude that the new large aspherical rear element offers a benefit over old designs for narrower/more distant mounts -- and contributes to the excellent MTF.
 
Last edited:
BasilG said:
No. You could just build in the adapter and be done with it, without any changes to any of the lens elements (similar to some of e.g. Sigma's early mirrorless lenses). Exact same optics.
Click to expand...
Which is not the same as a Z lens that has no adapter so requires an optical redesign. Build a lens with no associated adapter, built in or not, requires an optical redesign...as we have seen with the actual non-adapter Z lenses to date
 
Mako2011 said:
BasilG said:
No. You could just build in the adapter and be done with it, without any changes to any of the lens elements (similar to some of e.g. Sigma's early mirrorless lenses). Exact same optics.
Click to expand...
Which is not the same as a Z lens that has no adapter so requires an optical redesign. Build a lens with no associated adapter, built in or not, requires an optical redesign...as we have seen with the actual non-adapter Z lenses to date
Click to expand...
It sounds like you have a different definition of optical design than I do. I define the optical design as the collective geometry, composition, and position of the elements. That's what you see in a patent application. The optical design doesn't say anything about the mechanical assembly. With that definition, the optical design of any F-mount lens could be used in a Z-mount lens. Whether it would be is another issue.
 
Ruekon said:
Mako2011 said:
Ruekon said:
Member said:
...
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
Not really?...as the lens must be redesigned optically to function without an adapter. It's why the Aspherical element must be included and the new optical design must take it into account...I think
Click to expand...
The simplest redesign would be to add empty space between the rear element of an existing F lens and the Z mount.
Click to expand...
Which is practically just a built in adapter to a non-Z lens. Build a lens from the ground up that's optimized for the new mount...means the internal optical design must differ from a lens with an old optical formula with an adapter space built in. After all...we see that's the case with all the new Z mount only lenses? We certainly don't want Nikon to just use old stuff and "add an Adapter" do we ?
 
Leonard Shepherd said:
Lance B said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
Absolutely agree and very well said!
 
JimKasson said:
Mako2011 said:
BasilG said:
No. You could just build in the adapter and be done with it, without any changes to any of the lens elements (similar to some of e.g. Sigma's early mirrorless lenses). Exact same optics.
Click to expand...
Which is not the same as a Z lens that has no adapter so requires an optical redesign. Build a lens with no associated adapter, built in or not, requires an optical redesign...as we have seen with the actual non-adapter Z lenses to date
Click to expand...
It sounds like you have a different definition of optical design than I do. I define the optical design as the collective geometry, composition, and position of the elements.
Click to expand...
As do I. Just as we see with all the New Z lenses ... different collective geometry, composition, and position of the elements vs the older F-mount counter parts
JimKasson said:
That's what you see in a patent application.
Click to expand...
Patent application doesn't necessarily match what one sees on the store self.
JimKasson said:
With that definition, the optical design of any F-mount lens could be used in a Z-mount lens.
Click to expand...
Yes it could...do we really want to see new Z mount lenses being just recycled F mount lenses with an internal adapter?
 
Mako2011 said:
JimKasson said:
Mako2011 said:
BasilG said:
No. You could just build in the adapter and be done with it, without any changes to any of the lens elements (similar to some of e.g. Sigma's early mirrorless lenses). Exact same optics.
Click to expand...
Which is not the same as a Z lens that has no adapter so requires an optical redesign. Build a lens with no associated adapter, built in or not, requires an optical redesign...as we have seen with the actual non-adapter Z lenses to date
Click to expand...
It sounds like you have a different definition of optical design than I do. I define the optical design as the collective geometry, composition, and position of the elements.
Click to expand...
As do I. Just as we see with all the New Z lenses ... different collective geometry, composition, and position of the elements vs the older F-mount counter parts
Click to expand...
Agree. That's the would part.
Mako2011 said:
Mako2011 said:
That's what you see in a patent application.
Click to expand...
Patent application doesn't necessarily match what one sees on the store self.
Click to expand...
WRT the definition of optical design, that doesn't matter.
Mako2011 said:
Mako2011 said:
With that definition, the optical design of any F-mount lens could be used in a Z-mount lens.
Click to expand...
Yes it could...do we really want to see new Z mount lenses being just recycled F mount lenses with an internal adapter?
Click to expand...
Not I.
 
Mako2011 said:
Ruekon said:
Mako2011 said:
Ruekon said:
Mako2011 said:
...
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
Not really?...as the lens must be redesigned optically to function without an adapter. It's why the Aspherical element must be included and the new optical design must take it into account...I think
Click to expand...
The simplest redesign would be to add empty space between the rear element of an existing F lens and the Z mount.
Click to expand...
Which is practically just a built in adapter to a non-Z lens. Build a lens from the ground up that's optimized for the new mount...means the internal optical design must differ from a lens with an old optical formula with an adapter space built in. After all...we see that's the case with all the new Z mount only lenses? We certainly don't want Nikon to just use old stuff and "add an Adapter" do we ?
Click to expand...
You shifted the goal post from "function without an adapter" to "optimised for the new mount".
 
Last edited:
JimKasson said:
JimKasson said:
JimKasson said:
With that definition, the optical design of any F-mount lens could be used in a Z-mount lens.
Click to expand...
Yes it could...do we really want to see new Z mount lenses being just recycled F mount lenses with an internal adapter?
Click to expand...
Not I.
Click to expand...
After all, by definition (Nikon's) a Z mount lens is "The combination of new optical formulas and Nikkor’s proven glass types results in greater resolution from the center of the frame to the far edges". So the proposed older F-mount optical formula with an adapter space built in...really isn't a Z-mount lens according to nikon
 
Mako2011 said:
JimKasson said:
Mako2011 said:
Mako2011 said:
With that definition, the optical design of any F-mount lens could be used in a Z-mount lens.
Click to expand...
Yes it could...do we really want to see new Z mount lenses being just recycled F mount lenses with an internal adapter?
Click to expand...
Not I.
Click to expand...
After all, by definition (Nikon's) a Z mount lens is "The combination of new optical formulas and Nikkor’s proven glass types results in greater resolution from the center of the frame to the far edges". So the proposed older F-mount optical formula with an adapter space built in...really isn't a Z-mount lens according to nikon
Click to expand...
Now there's an interesting way to parse marketing language.

By that logic, if a lens doesn't have greater resolution (than what?) from the center of the frame to the far edges, it's not a Z mount lens.
 
BasilG said:
BasilG said:
Which is practically just a built in adapter to a non-Z lens. Build a lens from the ground up that's optimized for the new mount...means the internal optical design must differ from a lens with an old optical formula with an adapter space built in. After all...we see that's the case with all the new Z mount only lenses? We certainly don't want Nikon to just use old stuff and "add an Adapter" do we ?
Click to expand...
You shifted the goal post from "function without an adapter" to "optimised for the new mount".
Click to expand...
Sorta not really as Nikon defines a Z-Mount lens, a lens that doesn't require an adapter to function on a Z mount body, as "The combination of new optical formulas and Nikkor’s proven glass types results in greater resolution from the center of the frame to the far edges".

So for the new lens to function without an adapter...it also requires a new optical formula to be a Z Mount lens :)
 
BasilG said:
Mako2011 said:
Ruekon said:
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.
Click to expand...
Not really?...as the lens must be redesigned optically to function without an adapter. It's why the Aspherical element must be included and the new optical design must take it into account...I think
Click to expand...
No. You could just build in the adapter and be done with it, without any changes to any of the lens elements (similar to some of e.g. Sigma's early mirrorless lenses). Exact same optics.
Click to expand...
Quite. That's exactly what Canon have done with some mirrorless lenses - the RF versions of the 400mm f/2.8 L IS USM and 600mm f/4 L IS USM are basically the EF versions with an extended rear barrel. Optically, the EF and RF versions are identical.
 
JimKasson said:
By that logic, if a lens doesn't have greater resolution (than what?) from the center of the frame to the far edges, it's not a Z mount lens.
Click to expand...
Yep...not a Z-mount lens compared to it's older F-mount counter part. And that's what we are currently seeing...I think. Have to go back and compare but I do think the charts show all the Z mount lens out resolve their F mount counter parts. Not sure though there is always a counter part to compare.
 
Mako2011 said:
JimKasson said:
By that logic, if a lens doesn't have greater resolution (than what?) from the center of the frame to the far edges, it's not a Z mount lens.
Click to expand...
Yep...not a Z-mount lens compared to it's older F-mount counter part. And that's what we are currently seeing...I think. Have to go back and compare but I do think the charts show all the Z mount lens out resolve their F mount counter parts. Not sure though there is always a counter part to compare.
Click to expand...
So what would you call a lens that mounted directly on, say, a Z7, that didn't meet your other criteria?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

M
Will FE mount optical formulae work in a Z mount environment?
2
Replies
24
Views
10K
Mr Bolton
M
Skraaal
Moving to the Nikon Z mount system, all in after my D850 was stolen.
2 3
Replies
48
Views
6K
PHXAZCRAIG
PHXAZCRAIG
M
  • Question Question
nikon Z 28-400 or Tamron 50-400 ??
Replies
12
Views
4K
jhunna
J
H
Shots are not sharp when shooting at a long focal length with the NIKKOR Z 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR S
3 4 5
Replies
81
Views
8K
ajr images
A
Rohitash
Tamron 50-400mm and 150-500mm for Nikon Z mount
Replies
11
Views
8K
Randy_A
Randy_A

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
p
Previous
n
Next
w
Next unread
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top