Nikon Z lens -are S lenses worth it ?

[Dmacfarl]

Ho

Well. I’ve gone to the Z8. I am an experienced photographer. Not pro, mostly wildlife, landscape and some Astro. Fir my Ken pleasure. Some prints but I don’t sell.
Looking at the rather large price differential between “normal” Z lenses vs the S line, my question is - is there really that much of a difference. ? Especially compared to the F mount lenses…

 

[Patrick M]

Yes. The S lenses are better quality. S for Superior? Nobody knows. But generally the non-S lenses aren’t so sharp at the edges and corners a little softer at times. That’s a generalisation. Also it does look like all the S lenses perform better than their F equivalent.
But yes, some of the F lenses are terrific and work well with the FTZ adaptor.

 

[Len Shepherd]

Equivalent optic for equivalent optic there is a difference.
This can include flare control and AF speed as well as a resolution.

S lenses with two autofocus motors tend to hold higher resolution over a wide range of focusing distances whereas F mount lens tend to be at their optical best at only one focus distance.

Most high quality F Mount lenses come with a reasonable lens case. Z mound lenses do not.

 

[ButlerKid]

I suggest you get the FTZ adapter and use your F mount glass on the Z8. The F mounts may seem a bit better than on prior DSLR bodies. Then decide if you want/need a Z lens - or two!

 

[Dmacfarl]

Yes. The S lenses are better quality. S for Superior? Nobody knows. But generally the non-S lenses aren’t so sharp at the edges and corners a little softer at times. That’s a generalisation. Also it does look like all the S lenses perform better than their F equivalent.
But yes, some of the F lenses are terrific and work well with the FTZ adaptor.

Thanks. Do you mean that all of the Z lenses ( not just S line ) perform better that the F mounts in general? I’m using my 500PF and 70-200 f 2.8 F lenses with the FTZ ii and they seem fine..

 

[Geoff_G]

What Karen said. F mount glass works great. S glass is pretty darn decent and generally a step up from F mount counterparts. Even the non S glass takes advantage of the wider mount and are decent performers.

 

[Maljo]

S Lens are terrific, worth it to me.

 

[Dmacfarl]

What Karen said. F mount glass works great. S glass is pretty darn decent and generally a step up from F mount counterparts. Even the non S glass takes advantage of the wider mount and are decent performers.

I suggest you get the FTZ adapter that use your F mount glass on the Z8. The F mounts may seem a bit better than on prior DSLR bodies. Then decide if you want/need a Z lens - or two!

 

[Dmacfarl]

I suggest you get the FTZ adapter that use your F mount glass on the Z8. The F mounts may seem a bit better than on prior DSLR bodies. Then decide if you want/need a Z lens - or two!

hi

I have an FTZ , as above.

 

[Patrick M]

Thanks. Do you mean that all of the Z lenses ( not just S line ) perform better that the F mounts in general? I’m using my 500PF and 70-200 f 2.8 F lenses with the FTZ ii and they seem fine..

No. Just the S line. I have a non S, the 24-200 which is lovely as a holiday lens, ie posting to social media. For all of my photography I use S line only.

 

[RichF]

In a word, YES. At least that is my opinion. Partly because I think they are great lenses and partly because there is not a good selection of non-S to select from.

Unless I use a F-mount lens with the FTZ, find my a macro or tele that is non-S. Or...

 

[Calson]

No S version of the PC-E tilt shift lenses but the S 24-120m is quite good unlike the F-mount version that is much too soft. No real gain with the 70-200mm lenses but the 100-400mm is much better than the 80-400mm lens that had not been updated in the past 20 plus years. No version of the Nikon 200mm f/4 macro lens which kept me from moving to Nikon mirrorless until the Z9 arrived.

For portraits there is no S version of the Nikon 105mm DC lens. There is the Sony 100mm f/2.8 STF GM OSS lens that is big advance for portraits but for the most part has been completely overlooked even by those using Sony cameras.

My S lens gains were with the 24-120, 100-400mm, and the 800mm PF lenses. My losses were with the 500mm PF, 200mm macro, and 105mm DC. The tilt shift I can use with the FTZ adapter and I plan on continuing to use them.

 

[Dmacfarl]

No S version of the PC-E tilt shift lenses but the S 24-120m is quite good unlike the F-mount version that is much too soft. No real gain with the 70-200mm lenses but the 100-400mm is much better than the 80-400mm lens that had not been updated in the past 20 plus years. No version of the Nikon 200mm f/4 macro lens which kept me from moving to Nikon mirrorless until the Z9 arrived.

For portraits there is no S version of the Nikon 105mm DC lens. There is the Sony 100mm f/2.8 STF GM OSS lens that is big advance for portraits but for the most part has been completely overlooked even by those using Sony cameras.

My S lens gains were with the 24-120, 100-400mm, and the 800mm PF lenses. My losses were with the 500mm PF, 200mm macro, and 105mm DC. The tilt shift I can use with the FTZ adapter and I plan on continuing to use them.

Thanks. We’ll summarized.

 

[Len Shepherd]

No. Just the S line. I have a non S, the 24-200 which is lovely as a holiday lens, ie posting to social media. For all of my photography I use S line only.

I slightly;y disagree.
While S lenses (for which there is no zoom range equivalent) are optically better - the 24-120 FX I find dramatically better than something like the 18-200 DX lens.

 

[ElenaH]

Do you mean that all of the Z lenses ( not just S line ) perform better that the F mounts in general?

I don't think so, IMO.
I was testing AF performace of Sony's 200-600 with megadap adapter on Z9 against Z 100-400mm and Sony outperformed Nikon a bit. My Partner uses Sony 200-600 and Nikon Z 800mm and always says that AF of Sony on Nikon Z9 is faster than of Z800mm (photographing BIF)

I think, the biggest advantage of Z-lenses is in the camera correction and weight. And don't forget about marketing aspect, those Z-lenses must be good advertized to bring people to change their F-mount lens to Z-mount.
Each lens has also its own character, strong and weak points and in combination with particular camera under particular conditions works better or worse.

When you really start to test the lens (wih ISO chart and timer, etc..) then you may realise that F-mount lens can still compete with Z-mount very well. It is also important what works best for you.
I also use 500mm PF, it is an excellent lens and performs very well. I bought Z 70-200/2.8 becasue of its close-up capability. I have 70-200/2.8 of Tamron, which is perhaps even sharper that Z-lens but it cannot focus so close. So, for me to purchase a z-mount was an option and a wish, because I am using it for close-ups, too. But I think, that F-mount Nikon version (70-200/2.8 FL) has this feature as well and I am not sure if you need to change it.

Good way to make decisions is to rent the lenses for a couple of days and test it.

 

[fcotterill]

In several categories, there are two or Nikkors that deliver excellent images in both mounts: eg 14-24 f2.8; 70-200 f2.8; all the exotic telephotos.

Several F mounts have no equivalent in Z System: 120-300 f2.8E SR, 180-400 f4E TC14, 800 f5.6E with bespoke TC125; 200 f2G; the AFS models of the 300 f2.8 are also examples. With others it's also a matter of optical aesthetics eg rendering of the 58 f1.4G or 50 f1.8S or 50 f1.2S.

OTTH the 24-70 f2.8S outperforms the 24-70 f2.8E in the respective 3 Dragons, and the 70-200 f2.8S edges out the superb 70-200 f2.8E FL.

Weight and handling are also significant factors for choosing Z over F, so are filter fittings eg far simpler for the 14-30 f4S and 14-24 f2.8S.

These websites curate what seem to be about the most objective and thorough of comparisons, overall .... There's lots of reading therein if one digs into the respective reviews of all the F and Z lenses. There are any number of videos out there, but a thorough written review is hard to match :

Natural Art Images: Brad Hill: Real World Field Tests

Field Tests by Brad Hill - Wildlife Photographer. Nikon Cameras, Nikon Lenses, Nikon Accessories.

www.naturalart.ca

Natural Art Images: Brad Hill: Stuff I Use Part I: Cameras

Camera gear and related accessories regularly used by Brad Hill in the field. Part I - Cameras I currently use or have used.

www.naturalart.ca

Categorizing The Z Nikkors | Thom Hogan

Categorizing the Nikkor Z lenses

www.zsystemuser.com

Rationalizing All Nikkors | DSLRBodies | Thom Hogan

A Complete look at all Nikon f-mount lenses for DSLR cameras

dslrbodies.com

Best Nikon Z Lens Combinations

photographylife.com

The Nikon Z Lens Trinity is Remarkable

photographylife.com

Nikon Z Explained: Complete List of Cameras, Lenses & More (2024)

This article is a bird’s eye view of all Nikon Z products available at the moment, including cameras, lenses, and official accessories.

photographylife.com

 

[fcotterill]

The Z teleconverters are superior in quality, although the TC14 III is excellent in several select pairings: in my testing and experience, it is superb on the 200 f2G, 300 f2.8G, 400 f2.8E FL, 800 f5.6E FL and robust on the 70-200 f2.8E

Natural Art Images: Brad Hill: Stuff I Use Part II: Lenses

Camera gear and related accessories regularly used by Brad Hill in the field. Part II - Lenses I currently use or have used.

www.naturalart.ca

Nikon Z 1.4x and 2.0x Teleconverters Review

Today, I'll be reviewing Nikon's first teleconverters for the Z mirrorless system: the TC-1.4x and TC-2.0x. These two teleconverters multiply your focal length by 1.4× and 2.0× respectively, with the usual loss of light. How do the Nikon Z TCs hold up in practice? I'll answer in this review.

photographylife.com

A Teleconverter Assessment | Thom Hogan

Quick assessment of Nikon's two Z teleconverters on the 70-200mm f/2.8

www.zsystemuser.com

 

[Geoff_G]

The Z teleconverters are superior in quality, although the TC14 III is excellent in several select pairings: in my testing and experience, it is superb on the 200 f2G, 300 f2.8G, 400 f2.8E FL, 800 f5.6E FL and robust on the 70-200 f2.8E

Natural Art Images: Brad Hill: Stuff I Use Part II: Lenses

Camera gear and related accessories regularly used by Brad Hill in the field. Part II - Lenses I currently use or have used.

www.naturalart.ca

Nikon Z 1.4x and 2.0x Teleconverters Review

Today, I'll be reviewing Nikon's first teleconverters for the Z mirrorless system: the TC-1.4x and TC-2.0x. These two teleconverters multiply your focal length by 1.4× and 2.0× respectively, with the usual loss of light. How do the Nikon Z TCs hold up in practice? I'll answer in this review.

photographylife.com

A Teleconverter Assessment | Thom Hogan

Quick assessment of Nikon's two Z teleconverters on the 70-200mm f/2.8

www.zsystemuser.com

From my experience the TC14 III works well with the 500/4E FL too (and I'd add that combo is faster focusing on the Z9 than it was with my D850).

 

[agrumpyoldsod]

Well. I’ve gone to the Z8. I am an experienced photographer. Not pro, mostly wildlife, landscape and some Astro. Fir my Ken pleasure. Some prints but I don’t sell.
Looking at the rather large price differential between “normal” Z lenses vs the S line, my question is - is there really that much of a difference. ? Especially compared to the F mount lenses…

Worth it -- Yes to me -- better glass, better AF motors, more controls and just better.
How much better -- well this is personal taste and use case.
It is only better if you appreciate it -- given the extra cost.

It is better for me to use Z-mount glass rather than F-mount and an FTZ -- one less point of weakness. One less point where water can get in.

The Z-mount diameter is larger than f-mount and this appears to add something "more" -- more strength (probably)

The latest Z-mount glass is designed to work with the smaller flange depth, whereas some of the early Z-mount glass appears to "simply" be longer than f-mount by the difference in the flange depth (~20mm). AND then we have the super-teles with built in TC, linear AF motors and and and a price to match -- WONDERFUL.

However -- the new tiny lenses (muffins, pancake etc) and the new PF lenses are also great.

Not worth it -- well it is not worth it if one has say an AF-S 35/1.4 that you use occasionally -- it is not worth it to just buy a new Z-mount version if you only rarely use a lens. Same in every buying decision - the use case should rule what gets bought.

 

[Dmacfarl]

Thank you all for your input. Pretty much what I expected. But very helpful.

 

[Anjin San]

Thanks. Do you mean that all of the Z lenses ( not just S line ) perform better that the F mounts in general? I’m using my 500PF and 70-200 f 2.8 F lenses with the FTZ ii and they seem fine..

The Z lenses benefit from 3 major things…wider opening at the rear which doesn’t limit the physics as much…newer coatings…and more sophisticated optical design software and more powerful computers to run that software on than earlier F lenses. The combination makes most Z lenses better and or smaller/lighter than their F equivalents. Not universal maybe…I don’t recall seeing any ‘We tested everything’ articles…but most of them.

 

[Nimi]

The Z lenses benefit from 3 major things…wider opening at the rear which doesn’t limit the physics as much…newer coatings…and more sophisticated optical design software and more powerful computers to run that software on than earlier F lenses. The combination makes most Z lenses better and or smaller/lighter than their F equivalents. Not universal maybe…I don’t recall seeing any ‘We tested everything’ articles…but most of them.

The fourth, actually first in optical performance is flange distance.

 

[Anjin San]

The fourth, actually first in optical performance is flange distance.

Yeah…that helps too but I’m not enough of an optical engineer (actually I’m not an optical engineer at all)…to say whether that or the larger throat or the better design software is the biggest contributor…I would guess the software if I were to hazard a guess…probably.

 

[Nimi]

Yeah…that helps too but I’m not enough of an optical engineer

I am! Been 30 years since I designed a lens, but as soon as I saw the initial drawing that was obvious. That space was always a nemesis, and Nikon leapfrogged both Canon and Sony by putting the rear element so close to the sensor.

Academic. The Z lenses are great, so were the Fs and the entire system is outstanding as are the Rs and Es.

 

[fcotterill]

I stand to be corrected, but the Z lenses are being designed and manufactured in the vanguard of the advanced digital era, reliant on refined software, besides standing on the shoulders of the giants; these are the engineers who made great strides through the last few decades of the 20th century in their designs of faster and sharper primes, and then improved the capabilities of zooms.

Take the 70-200 f2.8S as an example of refined quality, which followed from the penultimate F mount E FL model. And in fact, the latter represents iterative advances in R&D since the 80-200 f4.5AI released in the late 1970s.

Manufacturing methods and quality have improved radically since the 1980s, and this has continued. Over the past decade, robotic manufacturing has become more and more central in the lens factories of the Far East. This probably accounts for improved efficiency and reduces copy variation etc, thanks to far more precise quality control.

Nikon's engineers have thought out the Z System carefully. They began to develop and manufacture the first Z products as they were releasing the latest F-mounts; and the 105 f1.4E, 180-400 TC14 and 120-300 f2.8E SR are arguably in the best dozen of the F Nikkors. Links to articles and interviews etc that provide glimpses into aspects of what has been, and is going on inside Nikon