Why are the Nikon Z mount primes so large?

[ArtHeals]

IMO Nikon Z mount bodies are excellent and very functional in terms of ergonomics and button layout especially the tilt screen and two front function buttons. But their primes are quite large and bland cylinders.

While Sony has plenty of native and 3rd party primes are pretty compact. Even Canon RF 35/1.8 and RF 85/2 are smaller, have IS and macroish. I hope the next batch of Nikon non-S F1.8 or F2 lenses are compact.

 

[LASR]

The diameter obviously needs to be wider than the entrance pupil in the front, and wider than the mount in the back, and the Z-mount is the widest in FF. The height depends on how well corrected is the lens, if you compare the Zeiss Otus or the Sigma Art with the Zeiss Planar or the Nikon 50 1.4, you see the difference. The pancakes are on the roadmap but I wouldn't expect the same optical quality as the S.

 

[Lance B]

IMO Nikon Z mount bodies are excellent and very functional in terms of ergonomics and button layout especially the tilt screen and two front function buttons. But their primes are quite large and bland cylinders.

While Sony has plenty of native and 3rd party primes are pretty compact. Even Canon RF 35/1.8 and RF 85/2 are smaller, have IS and macroish. I hope the next batch of Nikon non-S F1.8 or F2 lenses are compact.

When compared to other makers lenses and across all parameters, the Nikon primes have generally shown to be some of the sharpest wide open, sharp edge to edge, sharp at all apertures and sharp at all distances. Again, compared to others, they have very low to negligible CA, coma and flare etc and balanced with excellent bokeh which is not always easy to do considering the other parameter advantages. The 50 f1.8S and 85 f1.8S in particular are amongst the best there are given their price point and max aperture.

Nikon seems to have decided to go "all out" with their primes within reasonable boundaries of the price/performance/size/weight trade off. You can argue whether that trade off is correct or not, but there is no doubt that they are superlative lenses given their f1.8 max aperture.

The 50 f1.2, it is also shown to be the pinnacle when all parameters are considered, not to mention the amazing 58 f0.95. Add in the stunning f2.8 zooms and you have an amazing lens platform from Nikon.

It may be easy/easier to get some or most in of the parameters in the top shelf area, but Nikon seems to have done it across all or most parameters.

However, as you are a Canon user, I would think it was of no consequence to you anyway.

 

[VBLondon]

IMO Nikon Z mount bodies are excellent and very functional in terms of ergonomics and button layout especially the tilt screen and two front function buttons. But their primes are quite large and bland cylinders.

While Sony has plenty of native and 3rd party primes are pretty compact. Even Canon RF 35/1.8 and RF 85/2 are smaller, have IS and macroish. I hope the next batch of Nikon non-S F1.8 or F2 lenses are compact.

Nikon have chosen a more systematic and structured rollout for the Z than either Canon for RF or Sony FE.

Don't get me wrong, there are great lenses in all 3 systems, so I don't want to get into petty brand wars.

But as a counter point to your big primes/bland cylinders point, it seems to me Nikon are following a path which could be described as follows

Pro Fast Lenses - the 2.8 trio, the 50 1.2 and upcoming 85 1.2

Pro More Compact Lenses - the f4 zooms, the f1.8 primes

All these are S line. Then there are a couple of non-S 'kit zooms' which are still very good given their size and zoom range.

Conversely, it feels to me Canon RF and Sony FE are a bit of a mish-mash.

Canon - primes include a couple of pro 1.2s but then a random assortment of f1.8 or f2 with macro or not with macro, consumer-kit grade or prosumer grade. Zooms include a super pro 28-70 f2 but the 70-200 2.8 is a bit less pro with its compact telescoping and no TC capability.

Sony have the advantage of an extensive lens line in FE but the disadvantage that most of them aren't particularly exciting - a lot of the Sony FEs before the last couple of years feel to me like DSLR era designs with the adapter built in. Their branding is bafflingly complex: Sony, Sony-Zeiss, ZA Zeiss, G, GM - all sorts of confusing overlaps. They seem to be launching GM primes that compete directly with their own ZA primes (eg ZA 35 1.4 vs GM 35 1.4?). But some of the primes launched recently seem impressive to me - the 1.4s are relatively compact and seem to be optically excellent.

As a loyal Nikon user, I'll happily admit there are designs I personally prefer in Canon or Sony. I'm not a pro, so although my Z70-200 2.8 is arguably the world's best 70-200 2.8, I'd prefer the small Canon. As Lance says, the Z primes are exceptional, but I'd prefer the relatively compact Sony 1.4s. But, overall, I think the Z system is excellent for the high end prosumer market it was launched for and is building out for the Pro market. I know nothing about video, but I also get the impression the S lines are very video-suited. For example, I think one reason the Nikon S 'bland cylinder' primes and zooms are not so compact is that they've been engineered for zero or near zero focus breathing. I couldn't care less really, but for a video user its probably easier than having to remember which of the more mixed/muddled Canon and Sony lenses are more or less video friendly.

 

[VBLondon]

Nikon seems to have decided to go "all out" with their primes within reasonable boundaries of the price/performance/size/weight trade off. You can argue whether that trade off is correct or not, but there is no doubt that they are superlative lenses given their f1.8 max aperture.

I agree with your reasonable balance point. Going really, really "all out", you end up with Leica SL f2 primes https://www.dpreview.com/products/leica/lenses?subcategoryId=lenses&page=1

which are longer and significantly heavier than the Nikon f1.8s.

At the other end of the scale you have the tiny Canon RF 50 1.8

Which is the "right" design priority? There isn't one. The Canon is a very low cost compact lens for low light and shallow DoF. The Nikon is good for (i) low light/DoF (ii) 'close to ultimate' image quality but still not as huge as faster Sigma Arts or Zeiss Otus (iii) video. The Leica I guess aims for ultimate IQ.

 

[shadowplay84]

Honestly I have the same doubt. I really like the Z5 as camera and I was thinking on buying It.

But comparing the 35mm and 50mm size with other brands 50mm 35mm, I am disappointed by the size. I understand that Z lenses are top quality, but for a street use for example, I would prefer a smaller 35mm 1.8/2

I don't like Canon R bodies and I don't like Sony cameras so much, So I'm still here, thinking what to do

 

[briantilley]

The diameter obviously needs to be wider than the entrance pupil in the front, and wider than the mount in the back, and the Z-mount is the widest in FF.

A lens does not have to be as wide as its mount over its whole length. This one, for example:







https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/prod...0mm_f2_4_for_nikon_z_90mm_f_2_4_lens_for.html

 

[skyrunr]

I'd prefer wider rather than longer. It is better for manual focus, travel/street, and storage. My D500/D750 with a 50f1.4G was pretty slick.

 

[mjw3]

Honestly I have the same doubt. I really like the Z5 as camera and I was thinking on buying It.

But comparing the 35mm and 50mm size with other brands 50mm 35mm, I am disappointed by the size. I understand that Z lenses are top quality, but for a street use for example, I would prefer a smaller 35mm 1.8/2

I don't like Canon R bodies and I don't like Sony cameras so much, So I'm still here, thinking what to do

As mentioned earlier, there are tradeoffs. There’s no camera/lens that will do/be everything to everyone.

A smaller 35mm would more than likely have to make compromises, such as softer corners. Perhaps not a deal breaker for your use, but it seems Nikon went after image quality first (which makes absolute sense). The smaller primes will inevitably come, but maybe you should hold off until then?

 

[bmoag]

Regardless of optical performance the kit 24-70 that relies on in-camera stabilization is larger than the older kit 24-85 with in-lens VR.

So while delighted with the performance of my Z the over-all heftitude of carrying camera and lens around is not significantly less than the optical dSLR it replaced.

If you have a Z and older manual film era primes (no VR or autofocus) the heftitude of these adapted via dumber than FTZ adapters is markedly less than Z primes. I believe that is what many of us were hoping for with the move to mirrorless.

 

[JasonTheBirder]

Go to a site like lenstip and check out the resolution tests for any of the compact primes for any system. Often you will see good center performance but poor edge performance from them. That's usually the compromise with compact f/1.8 primes. I'm glad Nikon went with the high optical quality, larger approach.

 

[TheWillRogers]

Honestly I have the same doubt. I really like the Z5 as camera and I was thinking on buying It.

But comparing the 35mm and 50mm size with other brands 50mm 35mm, I am disappointed by the size. I understand that Z lenses are top quality, but for a street use for example, I would prefer a smaller 35mm 1.8/2

I don't like Canon R bodies and I don't like Sony cameras so much, So I'm still here, thinking what to do

Honestly, the Fuji ecosystem seems like the best street camera setup. Small prime, good enough AF, tiny bodies. Even when I had a tiny Mieke 35mm f1.7 on my Z50 the system felt too large and every time i'd go to take a photo people would instantly react and start to get upset lol. Hard to be discrete with this system.

 

[msu79gt82]

... of the lensholder

IMO Nikon Z mount bodies are excellent and very functional in terms of ergonomics and button layout especially the tilt screen and two front function buttons. But their primes are quite large and bland cylinders.

I do believe there is a physical limitation stipulating a cylindrical shape for lenses. I know I prefer a cylindrical look over cubic or rectangular. ;-)

I for one rather like the simple elegance of the Z lenses.

 

[ArtHeals]

msu79gt82 wrote: I know I prefer a cylindrical look over cubic or rectangular. ;-)

Cubic or rectangular isn’t a bad idea

 

[KR Photo]

When the Z system came out I was initially really out off by the size of the lenses and decided to pass. But then the 28 and 40mm compacts appeared on the road map and I jumped in.

While I’m still very excited about those two smaller lenses, and have added the very compact 24-50 for hiking, street attempts and more casual shooting, I’ve also come to realize that the Z primes I do have (the 35 and the 50), aren’t as offensively huge as I once thought they were. To me, in fact, the Z6 with one of those lenses has actually come to feels reasonably compact to me

Having said that, I’m still very much looking forward to the 28 and 40mm compacts and do intend to own them both.

 

[Satyaa]

Honestly I have the same doubt. I really like the Z5 as camera and I was thinking on buying It.

But comparing the 35mm and 50mm size with other brands 50mm 35mm, I am disappointed by the size. I understand that Z lenses are top quality, but for a street use for example, I would prefer a smaller 35mm 1.8/2

For that specific purpose you're stuck with Fuji at the affordable range or Leica M at the opposite end.

I don't know enough to say why Nikon can't make them small when Leica can, but others on this thread have given some valid answers.

I don't like Canon R bodies and I don't like Sony cameras so much, So I'm still here, thinking what to do

 

[photography-lover]

IMO Nikon Z mount bodies are excellent and very functional in terms of ergonomics and button layout especially the tilt screen and two front function buttons. But their primes are quite large and bland cylinders.

While Sony has plenty of native and 3rd party primes are pretty compact. Even Canon RF 35/1.8 and RF 85/2 are smaller, have IS and macroish. I hope the next batch of Nikon non-S F1.8 or F2 lenses are compact.

The F1.8 S lens offer the best image quality, typically bettering the excellent Canon RF f1.2 lenses.

Nikon is the first brand ever to provide such affordable best in class light lenses.

The RF f1.8/f2.0 options are far behind in image quality.

 

[Satyaa]

...
But as a counter point to your big primes/bland cylinders point, it seems to me Nikon are following a path which could be described as follows

Pro Fast Lenses - the 2.8 trio, the 50 1.2 and upcoming 85 1.2

Pro More Compact Lenses - the f4 zooms, the f1.8 primes

All these are S line. Then there are a couple of non-S 'kit zooms' which are still very good given their size and zoom range.

I agree with that summary. They have a collection of all common focal lengths in f/1.8 primes. Granted they are a bit pricey (if someone is looking for cheap lenses to get into the system) but otherwise consistent.

Conversely, it feels to me Canon RF and Sony FE are a bit of a mish-mash.

I think Canon was going for a mix of cheaper and exspensive lenses, but not well planned out.

Sony's case has been more an experiment as they started 5 years before the others, didn't know what they would need and where they were going.

...

Sony have the advantage of an extensive lens line in FE but the disadvantage that most of them aren't particularly exciting - a lot of the Sony FEs before the last couple of years feel to me like DSLR era designs with the adapter built in. Their branding is bafflingly complex: Sony, Sony-Zeiss, ZA Zeiss, G, GM - all sorts of confusing overlaps. They seem to be launching GM primes that compete directly with their own ZA primes (eg ZA 35 1.4 vs GM 35 1.4?). But some of the primes launched recently seem impressive to me - the 1.4s are relatively compact and seem to be optically excellent.

If someone can figure out those confusing alternatives, there are probably options for everyone at every price point.

As a loyal Nikon user, I'll happily admit there are designs I personally prefer in Canon or Sony. I'm not a pro, so although my Z70-200 2.8 is arguably the world's best 70-200 2.8, I'd prefer the small Canon. As Lance says, the Z primes are exceptional, but I'd prefer the relatively compact Sony 1.4s.

My thoughts as well... waiting for the 28/40 compact primes and their performance reviews.

 

[dkyl]

Honestly I have the same doubt. I really like the Z5 as camera and I was thinking on buying It.

But comparing the 35mm and 50mm size with other brands 50mm 35mm, I am disappointed by the size. I understand that Z lenses are top quality, but for a street use for example, I would prefer a smaller 35mm 1.8/2

I don't like Canon R bodies and I don't like Sony cameras so much, So I'm still here, thinking what to do

Wait for Nikon non-S Z primes. It shouldn’t be long now for the 28mm and 40mm compact primes.

 

[stratman1976]

Because it’s physics.