Mirrorless lenses on Z9 vs F mount with adaptor

[Johan Schmidt]

I am using Sigma 500 F/4 Sports for Nikon F mount. So far it is the best lens I have. Z 100-400 is usually too short for me and Z 800 is fickle in less than perfect atmospheric conditions.
I am not a wildlife shooter, my main hobby are AIF . (airplanes in flight)

How did your new Z mount lens compare to the F-mount equivalent on the Z9?

 

[Chris K]

I find essentially zero difference between my Z 24-70/2.8 and 85/1.8, and my F 58/1.4 and 105/1.4. I get more shots with the zoom because it’s a zoom, but otherwise all of the differences are within margin of error.

I have to say, the 85/1.8 feels the snappiest of all, but it doesn’t result in more keepers.

 

[BarryRic]

I have used the AF-P Nikkor 70-300mm f 4.5-5.6 E with the FTZ2 on my Z8, to photograph Rugby Union and Basket Ball, with good success. In terms of action, Basket Ball is much faster than rugby and it is played indoors under artificial light and on a much smaller area. With respect to AF and burst shooting, the camera lens combination gave excellent results.
This camera lens combination is much easier to handle (from a weight perspective), than using the Z 70-200mm f2.8 attached to the Z8.

 

[Mark Garfinkel]

Even though I sold off my basic F glass, I kept my FTZ adapter and my 1.4 TC for the when I rent a prime f mount lens. Because of cost I'd most likely own F800mm before a Z800mm. Always satisficed with the results I get with F mount glass.

 

[Ken Miracle]

How did your new Z mount lens compare to the F-mount equivalent on the Z9?

Better and more efficient in many ways. Like external controls on my Z800 that are fast for EV adjustment or toggling from fx to dx and back with the push of a button. The way they function together with the VR in the camera body maximize how slow you can go Hard to make direct comparisons to my most used lens the Z800 because I never had an f mount 800 mm only the 600 f/4E but between those two logistically the Z800 is leaps and bounds better and the image quality and focus speed is as good or better. I did not use many f mount lenses for any length of time on the Z9 after I got the Z100-400, the Z24-120 and then the Z800 5-1-22 I sold off all my remaining DSLR gear before the price took a big hit.

 

[BarryRic]

Here is an image I took, using the Z8 and AF-P 70-300mm lens.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

 

[Calson]

I was using very old lens designs for the most part with my DSLR camera, except the 500mm PF lens. I was delighted to get a new 24-120mm Z lens and the 100-400mm which were vast improvements over their f-mount counterparts. The only lens I considered hold onto was the 28-300mm VR that was great for wildlife videos and my PC-E lenses.

 

[ssheipel]

How did your new Z mount lens compare to the F-mount equivalent on the Z9?

Hi, still don't have a long Z lens; still waiting for delivery. Generally all my Z lenses (14-24, 24-70, 35, and most especially the 50 1.2) are incredible!

 

[Ken Miracle]

I am using Sigma 500 F/4 Sports for Nikon F mount. So far it is the best lens I have. Z 100-400 is usually too short for me and Z 800 is fickle in less than perfect atmospheric conditions.
I am not a wildlife shooter, my main hobby are AIF . (airplanes in flight)

I have never experienced any fickleness from the Z800 only from how far away I try to photograph a subject.

The big difference you are probably seeing is that with the 500 mm you are most likely looking through less atmosphere than with and 800mm where the subject is probably farther away.

If the distance to the subject is the same with the same atmospheric situation the 500 and 800mm will have no more or no less atmospheric distortion since there is the same amount of atmosphere between the lens and the subject. Only difference is youu will fill more of the frame with the 800mm.

 

[theEntreriCode]

My Tamron SP 35 F1.4 seems to be a bit slower, but, there is simply no other 35 mm prime that is as good, and until I can find one for the Z mount that is at-least its equal, it stays. It is a behemoth with the FTZ adapter though. I am still testing my 70-200 FL, but it looks like it performs better on the Z9 than it ever did on my D810

 

[Tibor Hrnko]

How did your new Z mount lens compare to the F-mount equivalent on the Z9?

I am replying only now, as I was away from my comp and I have not checked this forums on my mobile. Apologies.

As to the answer: Z lenses are more appropriate for the Z9. If for nothing else than it is one less bayonet contact - one less point of weakness. But optically I really see no difference between the two mounts at focal lengths I am using. The pictures are definitely sharper then the same lens on Nikon D850. If I had enough free money to buy without much financial hassle the new Z 600 F4, I would do swap it. But as it is not the case, I am very happy with the Sigma.

I used to have Nikon 300mm F2.8. It worked perfectly but I have swapped it for Z 100-400 S. It was too short for my shooting and too similar to Sigma 500 with a TC. The Z replacement is zoomable and very light, which offsets its higher f number.

 

[Tibor Hrnko]

I have never experienced any fickleness from the Z800 only from how far away I try to photograph a subject.

The big difference you are probably seeing is that with the 500 mm you are most likely looking through less atmosphere than with and 800mm where the subject is probably farther away.

If the distance to the subject is the same with the same atmospheric situation the 500 and 800mm will have no more or no less atmospheric distortion since there is the same amount of atmosphere between the lens and the subject. Only difference is youu will fill more of the frame with the 800mm.

I am aware of it Ken and I completely agree. But the whole point of longer focal lens in taking pictures of planes is not to increase the angular size of tiny object close enough, but to do it for quite large objects that are far. (Planes are nicer from certain angles and those are not necessarily the ones at their closest approach) That is alas exactly the case when the atmosphere is interfering.
I still like the lens a lot and it gets its chance when conditions are perfect. It is a great lens for pictures of deep space objects as well (with equatorial mount).

 

[Ken Miracle]

I am aware of it Ken and I completely agree. But the whole point of longer focal lens in taking pictures of planes is not to increase the angular size of tiny object close enough, but to do it for quite large objects that are far. (Planes are nicer from certain angles and those are not necessarily the ones at their closest approach) That is alas exactly the case when the atmosphere is interfering.
I still like the lens a lot and it gets its chance when conditions are perfect. It is a great lens for pictures of deep space objects as well (with equatorial mount).

Ironically I told my wiife this morning that some time I will have to take a photo of the moon with the Z800 who knows a bird might fly by.

I get it ... metal birds not something I photograph except just because one happens to fly by when I am out and about looking for feathered birds And of course those metal birds are creating some of their atmospheric distortion.

I sold a Sigma 150-600 sport to the son of a member of our Camera Club just for use on planes when out photographing with his dad.

From seeing his images it worked great for him. His dad travels a lot to photograph planes not just in airshows but at various military training locations etc.. He is a pilot himself and like you, and unlike me, knows the ins and outs of aircraft photography. I have learned from him it is far more complex to get a great shot than many would expect.

 

[EricBowles]

My 200-400 was consistently better on my Z cameras than on my DSLR cameras. On DSLR cameras it was good, but not quite sharp at the long end, with distant subjects, or with teleconverters. With the Z cameras it was great at the long end and with teleconverters as good as the base lens. As a result, I'm not in any hurry to sell the lens even though I have the Z 400mm f/4.5. The Z 400mm is better, but the 200-400 is very flexible and a good option with the TC covering a lot of situations.

I'd describe the AF on the Z cameras as significantly more accurate - not that any of these lenses were bad on a DSLR. But the consistency of accurate AF combined with the minimal need for AF Fine Tuning is a big plus.

The other aspect of this is AF Fine Tuning. While not mandatory, AF Fine Tuning was relevant to DSLR cameras. Fine Tuning is always done with the center sensor, even though outer AF sensors might be slightly different. There were also issues with different fine tuning results at different focal lengths. That's all largely gone with the Z cameras. You can use any AF point in the frame and get consistent results with accurate AF. You can use any focal length and focus is accurate. And you have the benefits of the EVF - focus peaking, magnification, and WYSIWYG viewfinder. I find manual focus is easier with the Z bodies than it ever was with F-mount bodies.

One final issue is with the age of the lens and teleconverter. The most recent F-mount lenses are similar in sharpness and performance to Z-mount lenses, but the Z lenses tend to be better in the outer areas of the frame. You also get better TC performance when pairing a lens and TC from the same time period. But in general, older F-mount lenses are more likely to need AF Fine Tuning on Z cameras - albeit at lower values than on DSLR cameras.

 

[Johan Schmidt]

My 200-400 was consistently better on my Z cameras than on my DSLR cameras. On DSLR cameras it was good, but not quite sharp at the long end, with distant subjects, or with teleconverters. With the Z cameras it was great at the long end and with teleconverters as good as the base lens. As a result, I'm not in any hurry to sell the lens even though I have the Z 400mm f/4.5. The Z 400mm is better, but the 200-400 is very flexible and a good option with the TC covering a lot of situations.

I'd describe the AF on the Z cameras as significantly more accurate - not that any of these lenses were bad on a DSLR. But the consistency of accurate AF combined with the minimal need for AF Fine Tuning is a big plus.

The other aspect of this is AF Fine Tuning. While not mandatory, AF Fine Tuning was relevant to DSLR cameras. Fine Tuning is always done with the center sensor, even though outer AF sensors might be slightly different. There were also issues with different fine tuning results at different focal lengths. That's all largely gone with the Z cameras. You can use any AF point in the frame and get consistent results with accurate AF. You can use any focal length and focus is accurate. And you have the benefits of the EVF - focus peaking, magnification, and WYSIWYG viewfinder. I find manual focus is easier with the Z bodies than it ever was with F-mount bodies.

One final issue is with the age of the lens and teleconverter. The most recent F-mount lenses are similar in sharpness and performance to Z-mount lenses, but the Z lenses tend to be better in the outer areas of the frame. You also get better TC performance when pairing a lens and TC from the same time period. But in general, older F-mount lenses are more likely to need AF Fine Tuning on Z cameras - albeit at lower values than on DSLR cameras.

Thanks Eric - that was my experience as well. My 200-400 f4 is much sharper on the Z9 and my fine tuning values using Focal were very small - think the max was -3 on one lens. Wish the 400 2.8 also had this 'jump' in sharpness on Z9

 

[Lance B]

Thanks for the reply - I meant how does the z mount lens compare to its F mount equivalent

I haven't tried too many Nikon F mount equivalents of Z lenses at the same time of ownership. There is more to it than just sharpness as there is AF speed, accuracy, CA, bokeh, overall IQ etc. The only real equivalent that I have owned at the same time in F mount and Z mount have been the 70-200 f2.8E FL VR and Z 70-200 f2.8 VR S also the 80-400 f4.5-5.6G VR and Z 100-400 f4.5-5.6 VR S. The 70-200 f2.8's were quite similar in performance except the Z version was way sharper wide open and in fact sharper wide open than stopped down in some focal lengths! It is an incredible lens wide open. AF speed etc was just as good if not better with the Z version as well. The Z 100-400 was a bit of a step up from the 80-400 f4.5-5.6G VR being sharper, less CA, better focus speed.

From my previous ownership of the F mount 14-24 f2.8 compared to the Z 14-24 f2.8S, the Z is quite a big step up as it is sharper across the board and overall IQ is better and yet much smaller and lighter. The same applies to the 24-70 f2.8E VR compared to the Z 24-70 f2.8S, the Z wins in every metric and again is smaller and lighter. It's the old cliche of a bag of primes in a zoom, in fact the 24-70 f2.8S beats many of the F mount primes in that focal range for sharpness and overall IQ.

IMO, the Z system has delivered a vastly improved set of lenses which are generally sharper, sharper wide open, sharper edge to edge, with great overall rendering and IQ. Things like bokeh, which is subjective, I think has been better in some lenses and maybe not others but the differences are minimal.

 

[Tibor Hrnko]

From my previous ownership of the F mount 14-24 f2.8 compared to the Z 14-24 f2.8S, the Z is quite a big step up as it is sharper across the board and overall IQ is better and yet much smaller and lighter. The same applies to the 24-70 f2.8E VR compared to the Z 24-70 f2.8S, the Z wins in every metric and again is smaller and lighter. It's the old cliche of a bag of primes in a zoom, in fact the 24-70 f2.8S beats many of the F mount primes in that focal range for sharpness and overall IQ.

This has to be universally correct for all short focus lengths IMO. Not only because of of new and better optical elements but Z mount has a bigger diameter too, allowing for bigger rear elements optics.

 

[Lance B]

This has to be universally correct for all short focus lengths IMO. Not only because of of new and better optical elements but Z mount has a bigger diameter too, allowing for bigger rear elements optics.

When the Z mount was announced, I fully understood that the Z mount would be very beneficial for their Z mount lenses and was one of the deciding factors that convinced me to buy the Z7 when it first came out in late 2018. I was an early adopter mainly due to the Z mount and the benefits it promised and has now delivered.

 

[Chappy]

I replaced my 70-200 f2.8 G model with a 70-200 S and the results were immediate on my Z6II. Later I got a Z mount 24-70 f2.8 to replace my G model after I got the Z9. The results were excellent.