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
just Tony said:
Mako2011 said:
JimKasson said:
just Tony said:
just Tony 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...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
For some long teles, I think it is fine to recycle recent F-mount lenses with an integrated "extension tube" to make up the registration distance. For example, the two "new" Canon RF 400mm/f2.8 and 600mm/f4 are exactly done that way.

I can see Nikon using that same approach for the fairly new 180-400mm/f4 + 1.4x TC and 120-300mm/f2.8, but if Nikon can make some adjustments to take advantage of the wider throat in the Z mount, that would be even better.

I wouldn't like that approach for wide lenses, and Nikon is not doing that at all.
just Tony said:
just Tony said:
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...
If Nikon builds a lens with a Z mount, it IS a Z-mount lens, period. It really is that simple.
Click to expand...
Right. If Nikon or anybody else makes a lens that can be directly mounted on Z bodies and take pictures with them, that is a Z-mount lens.
just Tony said:
What a recycled F optical design lens would NOT be is a success in the market. The user base would never accept such a half-baked concept that pointedly leaves possibility just sitting on the table unused. The new potentials available in the Z world are the oxygen.
Click to expand...
 
I knew I had to revise my reply but I missed the deadline. You are correct, the mount makes no difference in those cases. Perhaps the 400 and 600 would go that way if they keep their same apertures.

However a 200mm f/0.95 would benefit from the Z geometry. 😎

--
Wag more; bark less.
 
Last edited:
just Tony said:
I knew I had to revise my reply but I missed the deadline. You are correct, the mount makes no difference in those cases. Perhaps the 400 and 600 would go that way if they keep their same apertures.

However a 200mm f/0.95 would benefit from the Z geometry. 😎
Click to expand...
Interesting to see here that a 105/2.8 benefits as well. Who knows what new designs might offer for longer teles in the future.
 
just Tony said:
I knew I had to revise my reply but I missed the deadline. You are correct, the mount makes no difference in those cases. Perhaps the 400 and 600 would go that way if they keep their same apertures.

However a 200mm f/0.95 would benefit from the Z geometry. 😎
Click to expand...
I don't agree about long teles not benefitting from the Z mount throat. If you look at some of the Canon fast tele designs, which suffer less from mechanical vignetting than the similar Nikon teles, they wouldn't work with the F mount, but could work fine with the Z mount.
 
just Tony said:
Mako2011 said:
JimKasson said:
just Tony said:
just Tony 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...
If Nikon builds a lens with a Z mount, it IS a Z-mount lens, period. It really is that simple.
Click to expand...
True...never said otherwise
just Tony said:
What a recycled F optical design lens would NOT be is a success in the market. The user base would never accept such a half-baked concept that pointedly leaves possibility just sitting on the table unused. The new potentials available in the Z world are the oxygen.
Click to expand...
Also very true! Well said. Nikon's Specs/Requirements for new Z lenses have changed for the better

--
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)
 
JimKasson said:
There are many F-mount lenses that offer advantages in some circumstances over the existing Z-mount lenses: the Otus 28, 55, 85, and 105, the 135 Apo-Sonnar, the CO 60/4 UV-VIS-IR, the CV 125/2.5, 15/2.8 Distagon, many of the Milvus lenses, and some of the Sigma ART lenses.

Not that all of those couldn't be redesigned as Z mount lenses, but they haven't yet been, and some of them -- like the CO macro -- probably will never be. So why not enjoy photographic possibilities that you can't get with Z-mount lenses?
Click to expand...
Precisely.
 
nikpharm said:
I absolutely agree that zeiss lenses are superior
Click to expand...
Arguably not all of them. The 15 and 21 come to mind as no longer commanding a lead.
nikpharm said:
and if zeiss can make those lenses with f mount why nikon is unable to match them with even wider mount when it comes to edge and corner sharpness.
Click to expand...
The 50/1.8 S is one of the closest approaches to the 55 Otus that has appeared, in a substantially friendlier form factor, at a vastly more affordable price, and with AF. That counts as a major win to more people than will ever buy the Otus. Sometimes a slight loss in one factor, when accompanied by significant advantages in multiple others, can amount to the greater net achievement.
 
Ruekon said:
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 :-)
Click to expand...
Are you talking about the 105mm F2.8G IF-ED? If so, you're comparing a brand new lens, designed and produced using the most modern methods, materials and technology, to a lens that was developed in 2005/2006. Noticeable and easily measured improvements in IQ and handling have been developed in all mounts, even the F mount, in the latest generation of lenses. It is not the mount, it's the generation. Look no further than the Sigma ART lenses. They are superior, in F mount, to all the Z lenses.

It's not the mount.

I'm not suggesting there are NO advantages to it.. there certainly are.. but if Nikon just spent the last number of months developing a brand new 105 micro for the F mount, you could be pretty confident that it too, would be much improved over their old lens.
 
Last edited:
Barleyman said:
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..
Click to expand...
Lens designs for mass production are always limited by cost constraints.
 
CptAmerica said:
Ruekon said:
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 :-)
Click to expand...
Are you talking about the 105mm F2.8G IF-ED? If so, you're comparing a brand new lens, designed and produced using the most modern methods, materials and technology, to a lens that was developed in 2005/2006. Noticeable and easily measured improvements in IQ and handling have been developed in all mounts, even the F mount, in the latest generation of lenses. It is not the mount, it's the generation. Look no further than the Sigma ART lenses. They are superior, in F mount, to all the Z lenses.
Click to expand...
I don't believe that's universally true. As one example, the Nikkor Z 24-70mm f/2.8 S outperforms Sigma's 24-70mm f/2.8 DG DN Art in most ways.
CptAmerica said:
It's not the mount.

I'm not suggesting there are NO advantages to it.. there certainly are.. but if Nikon just spent the last number of months developing a brand new 105 micro for the F mount, you could be pretty confident that it too, would be much improved over their old lens.
Click to expand...
 
briantilley said:
CptAmerica said:
Ruekon said:
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 :-)
Click to expand...
Are you talking about the 105mm F2.8G IF-ED? If so, you're comparing a brand new lens, designed and produced using the most modern methods, materials and technology, to a lens that was developed in 2005/2006. Noticeable and easily measured improvements in IQ and handling have been developed in all mounts, even the F mount, in the latest generation of lenses. It is not the mount, it's the generation. Look no further than the Sigma ART lenses. They are superior, in F mount, to all the Z lenses.
Click to expand...
I don't believe that's universally true. As one example, the Nikkor Z 24-70mm f/2.8 S outperforms Sigma's 24-70mm f/2.8 DG DN Art in most ways.
Click to expand...
Correct, that isn't university true. I didn't mean to say ALL the sigma ART lenses out performed their Nikkor counterparts, only that there ARE F mount lenses that are top of the food chain. Primarily, the ART primes. There is nothing that can touch the 40, 105, and 135 in the ART lineup.
 
CptAmerica said:
briantilley said:
CptAmerica said:
Ruekon said:
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 :-)
Click to expand...
Are you talking about the 105mm F2.8G IF-ED? If so, you're comparing a brand new lens, designed and produced using the most modern methods, materials and technology, to a lens that was developed in 2005/2006. Noticeable and easily measured improvements in IQ and handling have been developed in all mounts, even the F mount, in the latest generation of lenses. It is not the mount, it's the generation. Look no further than the Sigma ART lenses. They are superior, in F mount, to all the Z lenses.
Click to expand...
I don't believe that's universally true. As one example, the Nikkor Z 24-70mm f/2.8 S outperforms Sigma's 24-70mm f/2.8 DG DN Art in most ways.
Click to expand...
Correct, that isn't university true. I didn't mean to say ALL the sigma ART lenses out performed their Nikkor counterparts, only that there ARE F mount lenses that are top of the food chain. Primarily, the ART primes. There is nothing that can touch the 40, 105, and 135 in the ART lineup.
Click to expand...
Hypothetically... if Sigma were to develop a Z-mount 40mm f/1.4 Art from scratch, I'd put money on it outperforming the F-mount version.
 
CptAmerica said:
Ruekon said:
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 :-)
Click to expand...
Are you talking about the 105mm F2.8G IF-ED? If so, you're comparing a brand new lens, designed and produced using the most modern methods, materials and technology, to a lens that was developed in 2005/2006. Noticeable and easily measured improvements in IQ and handling have been developed in all mounts, even the F mount, in the latest generation of lenses. It is not the mount, it's the generation. Look no further than the Sigma ART lenses. They are superior, in F mount, to all the Z lenses.

It's not the mount.

I'm not suggesting there are NO advantages to it.. there certainly are.. but if Nikon just spent the last number of months developing a brand new 105 micro for the F mount, you could be pretty confident that it too, would be much improved over their old lens.
Click to expand...
It was my fault to only include a link, but not the picture I had in mind into the thread opener:

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/

Significantly improved MTF, particularly towards higher resolutions, along with a quite interesting optical design, adding a large aspherical lens close to the sensor -- only possible with the Z mount (maybe R and L too) -- just think of an additional inch of empty space needed for the F lens to the left.
 
CptAmerica said:
Noticeable and easily measured improvements in IQ and handling have been developed in all mounts, even the F mount, in the latest generation of lenses. It is not the mount, it's the generation. Look no further than the Sigma ART lenses. They are superior, in F mount, to all the Z lenses.
Click to expand...
Sigma's ART lenses are all superior to the Z lenses? That's a pretty big statement without any hard measurements to back it up. There are a number of subjective tests that show the Z lenses are at least on par with Sigma, but until Roger Cicala tests some Z mount glass to provide something more concrete to go by, there are too many variables to declare a clear winner.

Heck, some of Sigma's F-mount lenses were not as good as Nikon's designs (24-70mm, 70-200mm for two examples) while others were clearly better (50mm, 85mm, 105mm). It just depends on which lenses you want to cherry pick, such as older Nikon 1.4 glass next to the ART primes...
 
briantilley said:
briantilley said:
...
Click to expand...
Hypothetically... if Sigma were to develop a Z-mount 40mm f/1.4 Art from scratch, I'd put money on it outperforming the F-mount version.
Click to expand...
That's the dilemma of Sigma. They need to develop a lens that works with the E mount too, limiting them to a narrow throat diameter, like the Sony 90/2.8 that might be compared to the new Nikon 105/2.8 Z:

See https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2019/04/just-mtf-charts-sony-fe-mount-prime-lenses/

See https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2019/04/just-mtf-charts-sony-fe-mount-prime-lenses/
 
nikpharm said:
Absolutely. The Z lenses are the main attraction of Nikon mirrorless system.

But even with the larger mount and more freedom in designing the lenses, the improvements and gains are more visible at wider apertures (f1.8 to f5.6) and are marginal at apertures after f5.6.

Secondly, even with the larger mount and ease in designing the lens, there are significant differences between the center sharpness and the sharpness at the edge and corner of the frame at the wide apertures, based on the Imatest of the Z lenses.

While if you see the tests for Zeiss lenses for F-mount, Zeiss was able to achieve the same sharpness level at the edge and corner with the older design in the f-mount.

I am not sure if the difference in sharpness between the center and edge/corner in Z lenses was intentional and the lens was designed in such a way to give priority to center sharpness rather than the sharpness across the frame.

Because Nikon was able to do the same as Zeiss lenses with the 105 1.4E even in f-mount with amazing center sharpness and same sharpness level at the edges and corner of the frame.

If Zeiss can design lenses with same edge and corner sharpness with f-mount and nikon can itself do it with nikon 105 1.4E, it would not be difficult for Nikon to do the same with Z mount.

Z lenses are still the best mirrorless lenses when it comes to sharpness but achieving the same sharpness level at the mid and corner as in 105 1.4E would have proved without a doubt the real advantage of the wider mount.
Click to expand...
To be honest if you like Zeiss lenses use them. Why the need to argue that they are superior?

I owned a couple of Zeiss lenses that I sold and now own Nikon and 1 Sigma.

BTW it is impossible to compare limited production mechanical lenses with mass production AF lenses.
 
JimKasson said:
Barleyman said:
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..
Click to expand...
Lens designs for mass production are always limited by cost constraints.
Click to expand...
Of course. But after managing hundreds of engineering projects, I know sometimes the box we are put in is small, and sometimes large. I imagine it's the same way for lens projects.
 
JimKasson said:
just Tony said:
I knew I had to revise my reply but I missed the deadline. You are correct, the mount makes no difference in those cases. Perhaps the 400 and 600 would go that way if they keep their same apertures.

However a 200mm f/0.95 would benefit from the Z geometry. 😎
Click to expand...
I don't agree about long teles not benefitting from the Z mount throat. If you look at some of the Canon fast tele designs, which suffer less from mechanical vignetting than the similar Nikon teles, they wouldn't work with the F mount, but could work fine with the Z mount.
Click to expand...
I see that now. In recent 400mm f/2.8 designs neither Nikon nor Canon fill their irises when the incoming light is destined to land at the frame corners, but the deficit appears to be greater in the Nikon. In the Canon it appears to me that the optical elements are the ultimate limiters, while in the Nikon the elements are right up near the restriction of the mount.

Nikon 400mm f/2.8
Nikon 400mm f/2.8

Canon 400mm f/2.8.
Canon 400mm f/2.8.

--
Wag more; bark less.
 
Last edited:
briantilley said:
CptAmerica said:
briantilley said:
CptAmerica said:
Ruekon said:
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 :-)
Click to expand...
Are you talking about the 105mm F2.8G IF-ED? If so, you're comparing a brand new lens, designed and produced using the most modern methods, materials and technology, to a lens that was developed in 2005/2006. Noticeable and easily measured improvements in IQ and handling have been developed in all mounts, even the F mount, in the latest generation of lenses. It is not the mount, it's the generation. Look no further than the Sigma ART lenses. They are superior, in F mount, to all the Z lenses.
Click to expand...
I don't believe that's universally true. As one example, the Nikkor Z 24-70mm f/2.8 S outperforms Sigma's 24-70mm f/2.8 DG DN Art in most ways.
Click to expand...
Correct, that isn't university true. I didn't mean to say ALL the sigma ART lenses out performed their Nikkor counterparts, only that there ARE F mount lenses that are top of the food chain. Primarily, the ART primes. There is nothing that can touch the 40, 105, and 135 in the ART lineup.
Click to expand...
Hypothetically... if Sigma were to develop a Z-mount 40mm f/1.4 Art from scratch, I'd put money on it outperforming the F-mount version.
Click to expand...
Maybe. That would be an interesting test. My bet would be very little if any difference.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

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