Nikon finally proves that the Z mount makes a difference

sportyaccordy said:

nikpharm said:

sportyaccordy said:

I'm not convinced

I'm brand agnostic and I like Z mount.............. but Sony just came out with F/1.4 primes that are not much bigger than Z mount F/1.8 primes, that are also optically and functionally amazing

A lot of RF glass has significantly worse vignetting than the EF glass it replaces and leans on software correction

Etc. etc.

The big mount myth is dead

Click to expand...

The big mount is not dead and it indeed facilitates in designing a lens.

But it looks like Nikon is designing lenses where priority is given to center sharpness ( Z lenses ) whereas Sony is designing lenses where priority is given to sharpness, size and weight (24 1.4 and 35 1.4 GM) and Sigma and Tamron are designing lenses for f-mount with sole priority to absolute sharpness across the frame without considering weight and size ( sigma 40 1.4 art and tamron 35 1.4 SP ).

With the big mount, it was easy to design lenses with absolute sharpness across the frame from wide to narrow aperture but so far that is not the case.

Click to expand...

So big mounts facilitate better lenses, and Canon/Nikon are just choosing not to use that capability (despite using the promise of big mounts in their marketing)

I subscribe to Occam's Razor and think the advantage is just overblown. If they could they would

Click to expand...

anotherMike said:

Sticking my thoughts somewhere in this thread....

My thoughts are that it's funny that the OP considers the 105 macro Z "the" proof, because I considered the F mount lens he compared it to - the 105/2.8G VR, one of the *weakest* Nikon F mount efforts in recent history, almost an embarrassment given their historic strength at 105mm. It's just not a great lens - just a good one, nothing more. So I would be downright shocked if a new 105 macro didn't absolutely school it frankly - in any mount.

So, mount wise. Where (I'm thinking) the Z mount offers the greatest chance to contribute to the lens design being better than an F mount possible contender is in the wide angles, particularly the trouble spot of the F mount wides, meaning 20mm and below. I say this because as a D850 shooter with *both* the Nikon 20/1.8G and Zeiss 18/2.8 Milvus, I'm honestly not happy with either - they are decent - sure, the Zeiss is amazing in the central region only, but neither really meets my standards. Neither is anywhere within a mile of things like the 25/1.4 Milvus or within tens of miles of a Sigma 40/1.4 Art.

So what to do? I decided to augment (not replace) the D850 with a Z7 and the 20/1.8S in the landscape kit. In early tests, it shocked me - this lens is markedly superior to the 20/1.8G and frankly, it's not a close race. It also has *much* better edge/corner performance than the 18/2.8 Zeiss Milvus and while I won't have a "final answer" (from long testing) until mid July, my early impression is that the 20/1.8S renders both of my F mount 18/20mm options utterly irrelevant in my kit. At the same time, the 40/1.4 Art is better than the 50/1.8S, the 35/1.4 Zeiss Milvus (stopped down), 40/1.4 Art, and 35/1.4 Tamron are all better than the 35/1.8S by varying degrees, and while I'm likely at some point to get the 85/1.8S and this new macro, the reality is the magnitude of difference between them and current state of the art in F mount (which in many cases is not Nikon branded - the 105G Macro is nowhere near state of the art and has never been) really isn't that much, if at all. So from where I sit, the ultra wides are where the mount parameters are an advantage (other than of course the F/1.2 designs)

I haven't shot the 14-24S or 24-70/2.8S, but I hear amazing things about them - and it's likely because of the wide angle "component" of these optically complex lenses where the Z mount contributes to their success. But the 105 Macro? No, that's just because the original 105/2.8G VR just wasn't anything special at all....

-m

Click to expand...

Ruekon said:

sportyaccordy said:

Leonard Shepherd said:

sportyaccordy said:

that are also optically and functionally amazing

Click to expand...

Are you implying the Z lenses are not amazing?

Click to expand...

No, not sure how you missed the "also" in that quote

Bottom line the big mount promise has failed to deliver.

Click to expand...

Did you miss the arguments in this thread? There is no black/white.

Click to expand...

Member said:

Sony FE is neither dead nor will Nikon take it all.

Click to expand...

Member said:

But Nikon delivers many evidences supporting the mount promise, including the 50/1.8 being smaller and cheaper than the Otus,

Click to expand...

Member said:

the 24-70/2.8 being simpler, smaller and lighter than the F mount version, yet better,

Click to expand...

Member said:

and now the 105/2.8. The large rear element is eye-popping.

Click to expand...

nikpharm said:

sportyaccordy said:

nikpharm said:

sportyaccordy said:

I'm not convinced

I'm brand agnostic and I like Z mount.............. but Sony just came out with F/1.4 primes that are not much bigger than Z mount F/1.8 primes, that are also optically and functionally amazing

A lot of RF glass has significantly worse vignetting than the EF glass it replaces and leans on software correction

Etc. etc.

The big mount myth is dead

Click to expand...

The big mount is not dead and it indeed facilitates in designing a lens.

But it looks like Nikon is designing lenses where priority is given to center sharpness ( Z lenses ) whereas Sony is designing lenses where priority is given to sharpness, size and weight (24 1.4 and 35 1.4 GM) and Sigma and Tamron are designing lenses for f-mount with sole priority to absolute sharpness across the frame without considering weight and size ( sigma 40 1.4 art and tamron 35 1.4 SP ).

With the big mount, it was easy to design lenses with absolute sharpness across the frame from wide to narrow aperture but so far that is not the case.

Click to expand...

So big mounts facilitate better lenses, and Canon/Nikon are just choosing not to use that capability (despite using the promise of big mounts in their marketing)

I subscribe to Occam's Razor and think the advantage is just overblown. If they could they would

Click to expand...

Because after big mount, factors affecting lens design include weight, size, cost, profits, margins etc.

where as Sony does all this irrespective of cost.

Click to expand...

sportyaccordy said:

nikpharm said:

sportyaccordy said:

nikpharm said:

sportyaccordy said:

I'm not convinced

I'm brand agnostic and I like Z mount.............. but Sony just came out with F/1.4 primes that are not much bigger than Z mount F/1.8 primes, that are also optically and functionally amazing

A lot of RF glass has significantly worse vignetting than the EF glass it replaces and leans on software correction

Etc. etc.

The big mount myth is dead

Click to expand...

The big mount is not dead and it indeed facilitates in designing a lens.

But it looks like Nikon is designing lenses where priority is given to center sharpness ( Z lenses ) whereas Sony is designing lenses where priority is given to sharpness, size and weight (24 1.4 and 35 1.4 GM) and Sigma and Tamron are designing lenses for f-mount with sole priority to absolute sharpness across the frame without considering weight and size ( sigma 40 1.4 art and tamron 35 1.4 SP ).

With the big mount, it was easy to design lenses with absolute sharpness across the frame from wide to narrow aperture but so far that is not the case.

Click to expand...

So big mounts facilitate better lenses, and Canon/Nikon are just choosing not to use that capability (despite using the promise of big mounts in their marketing)

I subscribe to Occam's Razor and think the advantage is just overblown. If they could they would

Click to expand...

Because after big mount, factors affecting lens design include weight, size, cost, profits, margins etc.

where as Sony does all this irrespective of cost.

Click to expand...

The 50 GM is just as fast while being smaller, lighter and cheaper than the Z 50 1.2 S.... and AFAIK all the top glass from the big 3 is within 10% of each other price wise. Everyone is restrained by weight/size/cost/financials.......... yet Sony has been putting out the kinds of lenses we thought big mounts would enable

Again I'm not trying to bash big mounts but the situation is the situation. Sony's lens situation was pretty crappy for a long time. Now despite having a tiny mount they are easily at the cutting edge of optics in the FF MILC space.

Click to expand...

JimKasson said:

If the throat diameter were critical to the Nikon 20 performance, the Sony 20 wouldn’t be so close to it. Although wide open in the corners, Nikon is ahead in a comparison.

https://blog.kasson.com/nikon-z6-7/sony-20-1-8-g-20-1-8-nikkor-s-on-nikon-z7/

https://blog.kasson.com/nikon-z6-7/sony-20-1-8-g-20-1-8-nikkor-s-on-nikon-z7/

Click to expand...

papajohnny said:

Ruekon said:

michaeladawson said:

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

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

Click to expand...

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


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

Click to expand...

And this is Sigma 105mm f2.8 EX DG OS HSM Macro with a tiny Sony E-mount. Looks even better. So what does the mount have to do with anything?

Click to expand...

• The advantage of using “Geometric MTF” data is that it is easy to measure and calculate since it does not consider the diffraction quality of light, yet it tends to show higher values in the graph than actual images.

nikpharm said:

I am not talking about center sharpness . Please read it again.

Can edge and corner sharpness of otus or zeiss can be matched.

Click to expand...

anotherMike said:

Sticking my thoughts somewhere in this thread ....

Click to expand...

anotherMike said:

So, mount wise. Where (I'm thinking) the Z mount offers the greatest chance to contribute to the lens design being better than an F mount possible contender is in the wide angles, particularly the trouble spot of the F mount wides, meaning 20mm and below. I say this because as a D850 shooter with *both* the Nikon 20/1.8G and Zeiss 18/2.8 Milvus, I'm honestly not happy with either - they are decent - sure, the Zeiss is amazing in the central region only, but neither really meets my standards. Neither is anywhere within a mile of things like the 25/1.4 Milvus or within tens of miles of a Sigma 40/1.4 Art.

So what to do? I decided to augment (not replace) the D850 with a Z7 and the 20/1.8S in the landscape kit. In early tests, it shocked me - this lens is markedly superior to the 20/1.8G and frankly, it's not a close race. It also has *much* better edge/corner performance than the 18/2.8 Zeiss Milvus and while I won't have a "final answer" (from long testing) until mid July, my early impression is that the 20/1.8S renders both of my F mount 18/20mm options utterly irrelevant in my kit. At the same time, the 40/1.4 Art is better than the 50/1.8S, the 35/1.4 Zeiss Milvus (stopped down), 40/1.4 Art, and 35/1.4 Tamron are all better than the 35/1.8S by varying degrees, and while I'm likely at some point to get the 85/1.8S and this new macro, the reality is the magnitude of difference between them and current state of the art in F mount (which in many cases is not Nikon branded - the 105G Macro is nowhere near state of the art and has never been) really isn't that much, if at all. So from where I sit, the ultra wides are where the mount parameters are an advantage (other than of course the F/1.2 designs)

Click to expand...

beatboxa said:

Ruekon said:

beatboxa said:

beatboxa 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)

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):



(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.

Click to expand...

anotherMike said:

Sticking my thoughts somewhere in this thread....

My thoughts are that it's funny that the OP considers the 105 macro Z "the" proof, because I considered the F mount lens he compared it to - the 105/2.8G VR, one of the *weakest* Nikon F mount efforts in recent history, almost an embarrassment given their historic strength at 105mm. It's just not a great lens - just a good one, nothing more. So I would be downright shocked if a new 105 macro didn't absolutely school it frankly - in any mount.

...

Click to expand...

JimKasson said:

Mako2011 said:

JimKasson said:

The fact that a Z-mount lens is better than its F-mount equivalent does not mean that the Z-mount specs made the difference.

Click to expand...

Perhaps it does as Nikon's own specs for a Z-mount lens means an improvement like we see. Nikon does have a tendency to improve with each new redesign after all

Click to expand...

I used the word "specs": advisedly.

Let me spell it out: The fact that a Z-mount lens is better than its F-mount equivalent does not mean that the mechanical Z-mount specifications (throat diameter, FFD, etc) made the difference.

Click to expand...

just Tony said:

nikpharm said:

I am not talking about center sharpness . Please read it again.

Can edge and corner sharpness of otus or zeiss can be matched.

Click to expand...

An obvious lack of side-edge and corner sharpness in the 15mm ZF.2 led me to sell it. It has the form of a radial smear that does not clean up when stopping down. I don’t know if it is technically considered to be astigmatism but it brings that word to mind.

There are times when it is important to have the same look across the frame even if no records are being set. I really liked the 15 over roughly the same scene area that a 20mm lens covers though. It is gorgeous there.

The Tamron 15-30 doesn’t go quite as wide as the Zeiss, and it’s aberrations are in a different form, but at f/8 one might prefer it’s corners.

My 14-30 f/4 S is more satisfactory to me than the Zeiss was, in the sense that it hasn’t ruined any shots. The Zeiss’s corners didn’t ruin a lot of shots for me but the number was more than 0. Every one that I later ended up cropping into is a keeper. But I bought the “15” for the 15. The f/2.8 was no practical advantage given the class-trailing vignetting problem it has.

I have no intention to slander Zeiss, and I expect I’ll never have a reason to sell my 85 or 25 Milvuses. It’s probably fair to say that their percentage of optical class leaders is itself class leading.

Click to expand...

nikpharm said:

I am not talking about center sharpness . Please read it again.

Can edge and corner sharpness of otus or zeiss can be matched.

Click to expand...

Dan DeLion said:

JimKasson said:

Mako2011 said:

JimKasson said:

The fact that a Z-mount lens is better than its F-mount equivalent does not mean that the Z-mount specs made the difference.

Click to expand...

Perhaps it does as Nikon's own specs for a Z-mount lens means an improvement like we see. Nikon does have a tendency to improve with each new redesign after all

Click to expand...

I used the word "specs": advisedly.

Let me spell it out: The fact that a Z-mount lens is better than its F-mount equivalent does not mean that the mechanical Z-mount specifications (throat diameter, FFD, etc) made the difference.

Click to expand...

Jim – you’re invoking your usual technical miasma. The output (not some meaningless test) of all the Z-S lenses I own, are spectacularly better than the F lenses they’re replacing. Nikon says the mount plays an important part in that result. I’ll go with Nikon explanation not some highly improbable technical concern of yours.

Click to expand...

RazorSharpWO said:

nikpharm said:

I am not talking about center sharpness . Please read it again.

Can edge and corner sharpness of otus or zeiss can be matched.

Click to expand...

Well I don't have any of the Otii, but the 14-24 f/2.8 zoom outclasses (and will soon replace) my Zeiss 15 f/2.8 ZF.2, the 21 f/2.8 ZF.2, and the 25 f/2.8 ZF.2, and that includes the corners.

If you're talking about the Otus 55 f/1.4 the Nikkor Z 58 f/0.95 Noct. outclasses it significantly in a number of areas, in particular rendering/bokeh, though the Zeiss does have better corners.

Click to expand...

nikpharm said:

I have been unable to understand why Z lenses are compared to old lenses with older design like f-mount lenses and Zeiss ZF.2 lenses so far in this thread.

Same focal lengths in f-mount are anywhere from 7-15 years old compared to Z lenses.

Nikon came up with the idea of wide mount and designed the Z lenses from scratch using latest technology and new tools to help designing these lenses.

We have Z lenses in the focal length 20, 24, 35, 50, 85 and other zooms.

If a comparison needs to be done, it should be done with current modern lenses from Zeiss, sigma and tamron in the same focal length range which includes milvus 21, 25, 35, 50, 85 and sigma 40art and tamron 35 sp.

Click to expand...

Dan DeLion said:

JimKasson said:

Mako2011 said:

JimKasson said:

The fact that a Z-mount lens is better than its F-mount equivalent does not mean that the Z-mount specs made the difference.

Click to expand...

Perhaps it does as Nikon's own specs for a Z-mount lens means an improvement like we see. Nikon does have a tendency to improve with each new redesign after all

Click to expand...

I used the word "specs": advisedly.

Let me spell it out: The fact that a Z-mount lens is better than its F-mount equivalent does not mean that the mechanical Z-mount specifications (throat diameter, FFD, etc) made the difference.

Click to expand...

Jim – you’re invoking your usual technical miasma. The output (not some meaningless test) of all the Z-S lenses I own, are spectacularly better than the F lenses they’re replacing. Nikon says the mount plays an important part in that result. I’ll go with Nikon explanation not some highly improbable technical concern of yours.

Stay safe - Dan

Click to expand...