Why are primes larger and heavier than Fs?

[JimKasson]

Check the MTF charts, they are in a different league, very very impressive...

These charts seem to indicate that these lenses are, in terms of image quality, a huge step above the F mount 1.8 lenses, which are good value for money but not stellar. Actually the MTF looks better than the most praised comparable lenses (Sony 55F1.8, various Leicas etc., probably as well than the Sigma Arts as they don't improve that drastically from F1.4 to F1.8), but that is very speculative of course.

The early sample pictures show a bokeh that seems vastly better than the F versions (which are pretty nervous).

So all that for an extra 75g, that sounds like a real treat.

Indeed! Totally in another class.

F 50 1.8

Z 50 1.8

F 58 f/1.4, best "normal" from Nikon.

These are wide open. So, not a level playing field. The 58/1.4 was not designed to have good-looking MTF charts, and it doesn't. Are these simulated or measured?

Jim

Likely simulated, from Nikon site itself.

What wavelength? Is diffraction simulated, or ignored (Probably not too important at f/1.8)? We know the Otus MTF charts are measured.

 

[Reilly Diefenbach]

Edge to edge sharpness requires a bigger lens.

 

[JimKasson]

Edge to edge sharpness requires a bigger lens.

Or a high COGS:

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/860529-REG/Leica_11141_APO_Summicron_M_50mm_f_2_0_ASPH.html

Jim

 

[Bruno Zarokian]

Zeiss (and Leica) publish measures at 10/20/40lpmm, besides that is for the lens at f1.4.

Just extrapolating though, the Nikon MTF chart still look better to me. Now there is a difference between computed MTF charts (the Japanese makers) with measured ones (the German makers). Let's way (eagerly) and see...

 

[just Tony]

At this point, what new F lenses does Nikon need to release anyway?

The announcement ink is still wet on the 500mm 5.6.

300mm E.

Good 50mm choices.

200mm macro.

Upgrade the optics of the 105 macro.

Update the mechanicals on the 24, 45, and 85mm tilt-shifts.

This will be a lively sub-thread.

 

[SpinOne]

As already noted, it's probably due to image quality. 35mm and 50mm are key lenses for any lineup, and I'd guess they want something to brag about.

That said, I think they missed an opportunity to leverage mirrorless to result in a small package. They could have issued the same 50mm (to show off high quality), and a good quality pancake 35mm in the 200g range easy.

I don't think so, see above MTF charts, they are built at another level, I had missed that. They may eventually launch a pancake, but these are not run-of-the-mill basic lenses, they are in the Otus class.

Yeah, I need to see independent testing before even remotely believing a claim like that.

I don't see anything on the road map that looks like it will really leverage the size advantages we've seen with other mirrorless lenses. Again, that seems like a mistake to me.

 

[just Tony]

Likely simulated, from Nikon site itself.

What wavelength? Is diffraction simulated, or ignored (Probably not too important at f/1.8)? We know the Otus MTF charts are measured.

Well in the past they've based MTFs on modeling the design, so probably not doing anything different now. I expect that they probably did receive some real difference due to the higher complexity.

I agree that it can't be compared to Otus (different method), and shouldn't be compared to the Nikon 58 (different intent).

 

[coudet]

As already noted, it's probably due to image quality. 35mm and 50mm are key lenses for any lineup, and I'd guess they want something to brag about.

That said, I think they missed an opportunity to leverage mirrorless to result in a small package. They could have issued the same 50mm (to show off high quality), and a good quality pancake 35mm in the 200g range easy.

I don't think so, see above MTF charts, they are built at another level, I had missed that. They may eventually launch a pancake, but these are not run-of-the-mill basic lenses, they are in the Otus class.

I applaud the new direction. Higher quality primes is something to be excited about. MTF looks good. Dpreview wrote this about the new 50/1.8:

"Nikon is pretty proud of this one, and based on our early impressions, the company seems to have good reason. The Nikkor Z 50mm F1.8 S is an extremely sharp standard prime lens for the Z-mount, which Nikon claims has "nearly zero aberrations" when shot wide open at F1.8."

Btw, Renato- picture of new 14-30mm is here.

 

[rhlpetrus]

As already noted, it's probably due to image quality. 35mm and 50mm are key lenses for any lineup, and I'd guess they want something to brag about.

That said, I think they missed an opportunity to leverage mirrorless to result in a small package. They could have issued the same 50mm (to show off high quality), and a good quality pancake 35mm in the 200g range easy.

I don't think so, see above MTF charts, they are built at another level, I had missed that. They may eventually launch a pancake, but these are not run-of-the-mill basic lenses, they are in the Otus class.

I applaud the new direction. Higher quality primes is something to be excited about. MTF looks good. Dpreview wrote this about the new 50/1.8:

"Nikon is pretty proud of this one, and based on our early impressions, the company seems to have good reason. The Nikkor Z 50mm F1.8 S is an extremely sharp standard prime lens for the Z-mount, which Nikon claims has "nearly zero aberrations" when shot wide open at F1.8."

Btw, Renato- picture of new 14-30mm is here.

Nice! Perfect for my use, typically hand-held shooting. Need to start selling my F stuff to collect for the expenses ...

 

[rhlpetrus]

From

http://www.rossharvey.com/reviews/nikon-z7-review

35 f/1.8

--
Renato.

Renato Pedrosa

Explore Renato Pedrosa’s 937 photos on Flickr!

www.flickr.com

OnExposure member

http://www.onexposure.net/

Good shooting and good luck
(after Ed Murrow)

 

[JimKasson]

From

http://www.rossharvey.com/reviews/nikon-z7-review

35 f/1.8

Downrezzed.



--

the last word the last word - Photography meets digital computer technology. Photography wins -- most of the time.

Photography meets digital computer technology. Photography wins -- most of the time.

blog.kasson.com

 

[MoreorLess]

Because you might get it?

Just yesterday before the press event almost all that everyone wanted to talk about was how the wider opening of the mount would allow for better image quality, specifically calling out corner performance.

That directly implies that there will need to be wider glass elements. This 50mm f/1.8 also has 12 elements in 9 groups, far more than you've ever heard of in that FL and aperture class. More mass of glass and more area to polish drive up production costs, and its $600 price in this product class reinforces that point.

Nikon is making a bold claim for this lens:

"A 50mm f/1.8 like no other / Performance that totally defies expectations

Empowered by the Z system's larger mount, shorter flange distance, raw imaging power and video capabilities, the NIKKOR Z 50mm f/1.8 S will redefine your notion of what a 50mm f/1.8 lens can do"

Lenses with similar performance aspirations are available from Zeiss and Sigma, and they too are large and heavy.

If the claim is supported by great performance, no problem, maybe they will be actually better wrt bokeh and other characteristics, like CA. And, likely, we will see more compact lenses coming from both Nikon and 3rd party makers. Not worried, actually, just curious, here. Thanks for quote.

Sony's FE system seems to be geared to offering photographers basically the same kind of lens lineup as they would expect on DSLR and I spose that makes sense as Sony doesn't have much market share with FF DSLRs. Nikon on the other hand already has a good part of that market and they perhaps take the view that if people want high quality F/1.4 primes they will buy a D850 or D750. SO instead of just offering exactly the same on the Z-mount offer something that caters more directly to that systems benefits

A significant draw of mirrorless is still size/weight saving though so you could argue that many people will want really high quality primes that offer that. I mean if your shooting on the FE system and want high quality 35mm and 50mm primes then your having to buy F/1.4 options that cost around $1500 are quite long and weight about the same as the camera itself.

With Nikon you might well be looking at lenses that offer the same kind of quality but cost half or less the price and weigh half the amount. For that I suspect many people would be willing to give up 2/3rds of a stop of light.

As to why they don't make them smaller I would argue theres probably a limit beyond which users don't care as much. So making the 24-70mm as small as possible is an advantage but making the 35mm and 50mm smaller possibly damaging there performance wouldn't be an advantage, hence they end up a similar kind of size.

 

[KR Photo]

As already noted, it's probably due to image quality. 35mm and 50mm are key lenses for any lineup, and I'd guess they want something to brag about.

That said, I think they missed an opportunity to leverage mirrorless to result in a small package. They could have issued the same 50mm (to show off high quality), and a good quality pancake 35mm in the 200g range easy.

I really do hope they backtrack and one day offer a smaller 35, even if it's a 35. It seems odd to me to produce a smaller camera but with bigger lenses.

 

[Badwater]

Because it has that quality weight and metal feel that so many like.

 

[JimKasson]

As already noted, it's probably due to image quality. 35mm and 50mm are key lenses for any lineup, and I'd guess they want something to brag about.

That said, I think they missed an opportunity to leverage mirrorless to result in a small package. They could have issued the same 50mm (to show off high quality), and a good quality pancake 35mm in the 200g range easy.

I really do hope they backtrack and one day offer a smaller 35, even if it's a 35. It seems odd to me to produce a smaller camera but with bigger lenses.

I think the Zony 35/2.8 is a very useful lens, even though it doesn't get a lot of Internet love.

 

[pw-pix2]

They've stated that they are going for the highest optical quality and excellence in the Z mount lenses.

Have a look at the Zeiss Otus lenses, have a look at the Sigma Art lenses. They're all much larger than traditional optical designs for their focal length and max. aperture.

The new mount will allow things that they've had to compromise on before. For a FX camera I applaud their work in trying to create the best lenses they can.

I just wonder if we'll see a DX mirrorless body series, perhaps in a different form factor (rangefinder style, etc), that do come with a set of small and compact lenses (perhaps slower max. apertures) that maintain high optical quality. Something along the lines of the Fuji X-E3 or X-Pro2).

 

[Kent Ekasak]

Perhaps they are larger because Z mount is larger.. But we can expect higher IQ especially in the corner..

These 3 lens are suppose to be their smallest choices.. The rest of the future lens seem to be heavier than these..

 

[Slaginfected]

From

http://www.rossharvey.com/reviews/nikon-z7-review

35 f/1.8

--
Renato.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rhlpedrosa/
OnExposure member
http://www.onexposure.net/
Good shooting and good luck
(after Ed Murrow)

Canikon's nifty fifties are complete garbage when it comes to flares. I'm pretty sure this Z fifty is going to show much better results there, too.

 

[Sara Valentine]

At this point, what new F lenses does Nikon need to release anyway?

The announcement ink is still wet on the 500mm 5.6.

300mm E.

Good 50mm choices.

200mm macro.

Upgrade the optics of the 105 macro.

Update the mechanicals on the 24, 45, and 85mm tilt-shifts.

This will be a lively sub-thread.

In light of the 105E & 28E, the 35G and 85G are desired for updates.

Add in the 135 and 180

The 200G could use an update to FL in the optics to shed some grams.

The 70-200 F4 has some catching up to the 70-200 FL to do as well.

 

[zonoskar]

It's probably because of the flange distance of the Z. The flange distance of a DSLR is around 44mm. You can make a very simple lens design with a focal length of around that mark (so 35mm, 50mm) because you don't need either a retrofocus or telephoto lensgroup, which adds a lot of lens elements. So for the Z system, a 16mm lens would probably be very easy to make and small, but a 50mm requires a telephoto design now, so that adds bulk. You could take the DSLR lens design and add the 30mm that makes up the difference in FD as empty space, but that would make an even bigger lens.

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/zonoskar/