Yep, I was gonna say it but you got it...
Last edited:
Nikon Z lens -are S lenses worth it ?
- Thread starter Dmacfarl
- Start date
If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).
JoPoV
Active member
Is it really ?
Angenieux I bought in the 80's were delivered with sharpness curve meaning each delivered optic had been full range tested and you known exactly the quality of your own model.
Sharpness and contrast were outstanding.
Is it the same now ?
fcotterill
Well-known member
There are no robust comparisons of samples, obviously. I've only used Nikkor and a few Zeiss lenses. Much depended on the models and quality control. With respect, public reports of inferior copies of high end Nikkor models have always been rare, unlike certain Nikkor zooms going back some years earlier. Telephotos and other primes: the manual focus Micro Nikkors, 105's are examples, and particularly the 58 f1.2AIS (each copy was tested with film for flare etc).
The reports of inconsistencies have been in certain zooms; two were the 24-120 f4G and 80-400 G - some copies inferior to others. The F-mount teleconverters also vary in quality between copies. The quality of the Z mounts is more consistent, particularly the zooms.
fcotterill
Well-known member
This Landscape photographer reviews his findings with only Z zooms over the past couple of years.
He shows interesting comparisons on the tradeoffs between image qualities, filter use and composition in single or twin lens kits.
Incidentally, my hiking kit is the 14-30 f4S, 24-120 f4S; and either 100-400 f4S, or a telephoto prime(s) depending on wildlife subjects.
The closest to this in a pick of F mount zooms is 18-35 G (or 16-35 G), 24-120 f4G, and 80-400 G. Alternatives for longer focal lengths could be 70-200 f4G with a TC14 and 500 PF; or 70-200 with 300 PF; or 70-300 E AFP
He shows interesting comparisons on the tradeoffs between image qualities, filter use and composition in single or twin lens kits.
Incidentally, my hiking kit is the 14-30 f4S, 24-120 f4S; and either 100-400 f4S, or a telephoto prime(s) depending on wildlife subjects.
The closest to this in a pick of F mount zooms is 18-35 G (or 16-35 G), 24-120 f4G, and 80-400 G. Alternatives for longer focal lengths could be 70-200 f4G with a TC14 and 500 PF; or 70-200 with 300 PF; or 70-300 E AFP
Last edited:
Just to raise an eyebrow or two - when I switched to the Z system after over 20 years using Nikon F mount - with a Z6ii having got fed up with waiting for the Z8, the two lenses I wanted most for my usage were a 70-200 f2.8 and an 85mm f1.8. I had an AF-S 80-200 f2.8 for many years and loved it, but with the spares situation now getting patchy I decided to sell it while I could and update it. At the time I had just spent £1200 on my car and had a new boiler in the house so money was tight and value for money was (is) top of the list. The £2600 cost of the Z 70-200 f2.8 was impossible to meet, so I decided to look for a good AF-S 70-200 f2.8 E FL and I'm pleased to say that I got a great one for just £1200. It is just excellent, but why did they swap the zoom and focus rings around? I'm so used to holding the lens close to the camera body. I guess in time I'll get used to it.
My beloved Nikkor 85mm f1.8 D that I've also had for many years had to go and this gave the opportunity to get a Z mount lens. The Z 85mm f1.8 S was getting great press too. Here I have to fill in with some background. I also use a Fuji XT system and a while before I got the Z6ii I wanted an 85mm f1.8 equivalent lens for this kit but the two Fuji 56mm f1.2 lenses available were excellent in qulity but again well over my budget at about £850 - £950. I'm a member of another forum that has a sales and wants like we have here and a guy was selling some Fuji kit including a Viltrox 56mm f1.4 (85mm f1.8 equivalent) with little use for just £200!! I snapped it up and was amazed at the build quality - all metal including the hood - and the images were great!
This led me to research the Viltox 85mm f1.8 mkii for the Z mount. My trusted YouTube reviewers' consesnus was that the Viltrox was 95% as good as the Nikkor Z 85mm f1.8 S that at the time was selling in the UK at £700 (gone up now) and I bought my Viltrox 85mm f1.8 for just £295 delivered! I'm very pleased with it at well under half of the cost of the Nikkor 85mm f1.8 and my old eyes probaly will never see what the other 5% is.
My beloved Nikkor 85mm f1.8 D that I've also had for many years had to go and this gave the opportunity to get a Z mount lens. The Z 85mm f1.8 S was getting great press too. Here I have to fill in with some background. I also use a Fuji XT system and a while before I got the Z6ii I wanted an 85mm f1.8 equivalent lens for this kit but the two Fuji 56mm f1.2 lenses available were excellent in qulity but again well over my budget at about £850 - £950. I'm a member of another forum that has a sales and wants like we have here and a guy was selling some Fuji kit including a Viltrox 56mm f1.4 (85mm f1.8 equivalent) with little use for just £200!! I snapped it up and was amazed at the build quality - all metal including the hood - and the images were great!
This led me to research the Viltox 85mm f1.8 mkii for the Z mount. My trusted YouTube reviewers' consesnus was that the Viltrox was 95% as good as the Nikkor Z 85mm f1.8 S that at the time was selling in the UK at £700 (gone up now) and I bought my Viltrox 85mm f1.8 for just £295 delivered! I'm very pleased with it at well under half of the cost of the Nikkor 85mm f1.8 and my old eyes probaly will never see what the other 5% is.
Feiertag
Well-known member
Apparently the "S" stands for Slim, not Superior.
I sincerely enjoy and appreciate the feedback OP's receive regarding their questions. I have learned a lot here.
My 2c...
Yes, S lenses are better than non-S lenses-for a number of issues.
However, non-S lenses, as others have said have their place.
I am not a pro or near-pro. I am not a wild life shooter. So, while I wouldn't mind having the S100-400...it is not for me. I want to keep my gear to a minimum for my use.
I have just gone from the Z6 to Z8..heavier yes, but an incredible upgrade. My work requires a wide angle..so the 14-30 S works just fine. I have the 24-200 for a general walk around and travel lens. I do take the 14-30 when I travel too. I am aware of the limitations of the 24-200, particularly sharpness at the edges when over zooming out. But, I can deal with this and it does not create any issues for me. Before I purchased the Z8 body, I went back and forth as to getting it as a kit, and save some $$ for the lens.
It came down to this: over 30% of my shots over the last year have been between 120-200mm. I couldn't give this up..not wanting to keep both.
And, if I needed to be in the 24-70 range, then my Z 24-70 f/4 would be perfect.
And, as to quality, not technical, but normal use in good and bad weather, I have never seen a complaint regarding the Non-S 24-200 from any pro who uses this lens for some of their work. Nor have I every had an issue.
So, yes, everything depends on your ultimate use...budget, while not an issue, is not my guiding light. So if the Z-Non-S lens fits into your needs, do not rule it out because it is not an S lens.
My 2c...
Yes, S lenses are better than non-S lenses-for a number of issues.
However, non-S lenses, as others have said have their place.
I am not a pro or near-pro. I am not a wild life shooter. So, while I wouldn't mind having the S100-400...it is not for me. I want to keep my gear to a minimum for my use.
I have just gone from the Z6 to Z8..heavier yes, but an incredible upgrade. My work requires a wide angle..so the 14-30 S works just fine. I have the 24-200 for a general walk around and travel lens. I do take the 14-30 when I travel too. I am aware of the limitations of the 24-200, particularly sharpness at the edges when over zooming out. But, I can deal with this and it does not create any issues for me. Before I purchased the Z8 body, I went back and forth as to getting it as a kit, and save some $$ for the lens.
It came down to this: over 30% of my shots over the last year have been between 120-200mm. I couldn't give this up..not wanting to keep both.
And, if I needed to be in the 24-70 range, then my Z 24-70 f/4 would be perfect.
And, as to quality, not technical, but normal use in good and bad weather, I have never seen a complaint regarding the Non-S 24-200 from any pro who uses this lens for some of their work. Nor have I every had an issue.
So, yes, everything depends on your ultimate use...budget, while not an issue, is not my guiding light. So if the Z-Non-S lens fits into your needs, do not rule it out because it is not an S lens.
Last edited:
ElenaH
Well-known member
Graham, which Forum is it? I am not interested much in sales but in BCG there is not many reviews of third-party lenses however they can be very good. I am just curious about third-party lenses reviews with examples.
It is, just like this forum, a specialist forum.
It is for photograhers, models make up artists, artists and other creatives to get together. UK based but with a worldwide membership. No reviews as such, but people ask about (and buy and sell kit differnt bits of kit) and get a broad response of answers.
PurplePort - The world's best web site for freelance models
PurplePort - The fastest growing network for freelance models and photographers.
I have the same username on there.
I have 105 mm F mount f1.4 portrait lens.
I am sure of the 85 mm F 1.2 a better lens.
As I do relatively little portraiture these days for me upgrading I consider not worthwhile.
Roy
Well-known member
I was a pro since 1978 but only a product photog - but I do know lenses.
All the Z glass is outstanding (except maybe the 24-200).
The AFS G lenses are very good and even better value now but the Z lenses are even better especially for video.
You pay much more for S lenses but few people need the faster glass.
An example could be the 24-70 - it comes in f4 or f2.8 S - I use both but mostly the f4 version because its lighter and more expendable.
Camera gear is just tools and its important to pick what you like using and what gets the job done...
O
Well-known member
It greatly depends on the actual lens as to the level of difference.
It also depends If your looking at charts and lab tests forensically or from the coal face real world use.
The S lenses in cases are slightly better than Z, and compared to DSLR lenses they are a little sharper edged to edge to accommodate the use of video as well as a little less CA etc.
What lots of photographers miss is that often we crop an image so the edge to edge sharpness is in those case really wasted or of no real benefit.
I mean its fair to assume edged to edge sharpness is important again for video and 3 D tracking.
Some considerations: Take a 16-35 F4 G DSLR versus a 14-24 F2.8 G DSLR lenses, the 16-35 G is 20% sharper in the middle but trades of in the corners and has some vignetting compared to the 14-24 G, the 14-24 G is more evenly sharp all over than the 16-35 G, and the 14-24 G is very good corner to corner, it also is F2.8 delivering lower iso needs for low light applications especially with astro work, so its all swings and round about. Are the S lenses better to a point yes, but in the real world hands on users who have a good level of skill sets influence things more and really narrow the gap between different lens.
My 50mm 1.8s lens i love, sharp corner to corner great colour, excellent for video, images look spectacular on the camera LCD, however i crop 98% of my images very slightly to get the final composition, now comparing this lens to my 85mm 1.4 G that has a whisker more CA but absolutely not an issue for me, my 85mm 1.4G is equally as sharp if not a whisker more and looks more organic, has a superior Bokah hands down as does the 35mm 1.4 g compared to the 35mm S version, now for video and 3 D tracking edge to edge the G lenses may be a tad softer compared to the S lens, but if your not depending on edge to edge performance or not doing video then the Bokah and pop of the G lens that rivals the S lens therefore for me making it exceptional value buying those G lenses in the used market at a fraction of the cost of expensive S lenses.
Its perfectly fine for people to feel or see things differently, this is only my opinion and i am the not an influence r LOL.
70-200 S lens, awesome i gave up trying to find a real difference compared to my brilliant sample of the 70-20 FL DSLR lens both used on the Z9. I mean in certain situations especially video there may be a difference but not enough to even remotely consider buying one, the 70-200 FL is excellent virtually much the same as the S version so why shell out a fortune for a over priced S version.
I mean don't get me wrong, the new S version of glass is designed to go with the new Z cameras and they work brilliantly together, some lenses are margenly better than others, that's always the case.
Sample variations can play a part in comparing lenses.
The new mirror less cameras have speed corner to corner focus capability, 3 D tracking etc, great video capability needing silent lenses that are sharp corner to corner, its all the beginning of new techology Bravo.
Bottom line, in general there are a lot of excellent DSLR lenses (tools) out there that you don't have to sell the farm just to get that 5% or 10% advantage with mirror less glass when 90% of what you achieve comes from YOU, any real difference in glass can often be narrowed down with good use of processing especially now AI is booming.
Its not always about bleeding eye sharpness that often leaves the viewer cold.
105 1.4 DSLR lens, 70-200 FL, 200 F2, are absolutely the best DSLR lenses Nikon has ever made and hold their own even in the mirror less filed, and the 105 2.8 Macro is a excellent all rounder for a few hundred $ US, 85 1.4 G, 35 1.5G, deliver superb bokah and organic look, that in a well taken shot the viewer often prefers the G file, the sectret is dont tell them which lens you used.
The S line of glass across the range is considered to be the best glass Nikon has released, the difference compared to DSLR glass is simply a matter of is it worth the premium cost.
Remember light can make most things all look the same.
Rent some things first.
Only an opinion
Last edited:
Where is this source?
It was not true of my copies of each lens (now both sold for higher performing Z lenses) - and a lens has to be around 35-45% sharper
to produce 20% more resolution once attached to a camera.To some extent repeating what has already been said - using electronics between lens and bodies to correct distortion and some other aberration leaving lens designers more scope to correct other aberrations, the wider lens throat and shorter flange distance providing more design options, some new glass types, multi focus AF keeping optical quality high at a range of focus distances, improved lens coatings for better contrast and (not exactly a lens issue) AF points across about 90% of the screen area means Z optic should generally be better than what was possible in the F mount era.
While the improved image quality is not essential for a lot of photography and often it comes with an extra price (excluding lenses such as the 24-120 and 24-200) - it is there for those who choose to buy it.
EDIT I agree recent lens designs have resulted in much less corner image resolution fall off at wider apertures.
Last edited:
O
Well-known member
The MTF charts indicate this from memory, a 16-35 F4 G DSLR versus a 14-24 F2.8 G DSLR lens, the 16-35 is around 20% sharper in the middle and a little softer in the extreme corners again from memory, and comments from some club users.Where is this source?
It was not true of my copies of each lens (now both sold for higher performing Z lenses) - and a lens has to be around 35-45% sharper
To some extent repeating what has already been said - using electronics between lens and bodies to correct distortion and some other aberration leaving lens designers more scope to correct other aberrations, the wider lens throat and shorter flange distance providing more design options, some new glass types, multi focus AF keeping optical quality high at a range of focus distances, improved lens coatings for better contrast and (not exactly a lens issue) AF points across about 90% of the screen area means Z optic should generally be better than what was possible in the F mount era.
While the improved image quality is not essential for a lot of photography and often it comes with an extra price (excluding lenses such as the 24-120 and 24-200) - it is there for those who choose to buy it.
EDIT I agree recent lens designs have resulted in much less corner image resolution fall off at wider apertures.
I was originally alerted to this from Thom Hogan years ago and then i searched some MTF charts.............. this example does not relate to z or s glass, its an example of showing that different lenses perform differently and each should be taken on their measure.
No question about the S glass functionality with newer technology cameras delivers impressive results.
That said, i judge the final image on a screen, ie: if in an image AB test is indistinguishable to tell if the lens was a 70-200 FL or a 70-200 S lens is what i am eluding to.
That doesn't mean the S lens is bad its actually brilliant and has its pupose to work with te new technolgy cameras especially for video, but it shows that the 70-200 FL is the best 70-200 DSLR lens Nikon ever made and in fact its believed there is nothing much between them..............at least that's evident in the coal face other than cost.
The OP was asking about Z versus S lens, as well as DSLR lenses, unless i misunderstood.
My take on it is Nikon has a real benefit with its new glass line up on new cameras which is impressive, but there are some very good DSLR optics that in cases can deliver image quality as good, or nearly as good, bring in is it worth the extra money for the S glass.
Only an opinion
Last edited:
fcotterill
Well-known member
"... The 14-24mm just blows the 16-35mm away in terms of sharpness, particularly at the wide end. While the 14-24mm also has considerable linear distortion, it's not quite as bad as the 16-35mm, and the other traits of the faster lens are generally better—or at least more predictable—too."
www.dslrbodies.com
Actually, the 18-35 G is still one of the F-mount bargains for all FX ILCs, to quote Thom's recommended for FX. I bought a Used copy some years ago (passed the heavier inferior 16-35 G), and it's still a reliable light hiking lens, and perfect on camera traps:
"The 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5 and 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5. The smaller size and weight better complements the 24mp camera bodies, and the optical performance is tuned just about right for those cameras, too. These lenses are almost good enough to recommend to D8xx users, and are actually some of Nikon’s best lens bargains in FX."
Nikon 16-35mm f/4G Lens Review | DSLRBodies | Thom Hogan
Review of the Nikon 16-35mm f/4G lens
Actually, the 18-35 G is still one of the F-mount bargains for all FX ILCs, to quote Thom's recommended for FX. I bought a Used copy some years ago (passed the heavier inferior 16-35 G), and it's still a reliable light hiking lens, and perfect on camera traps:
"The 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5 and 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5. The smaller size and weight better complements the 24mp camera bodies, and the optical performance is tuned just about right for those cameras, too. These lenses are almost good enough to recommend to D8xx users, and are actually some of Nikon’s best lens bargains in FX."
Yeah, this is more inline with what I remember....the 14-24G is a damn decent lens (altho it was not the sharpest at 24mm). The new S lens is even better.
Dmacfarl
Active member
My observations on S vs non-S vs F mount for lenses I have owned.
- 70-200 f/2.8 S version is sharper in the corners compared to the F mount, particularly in the 85-120 mm range
- 24-70 f/2.8 S version is sharper, especially in the corners compared to the F mount. the 24-70 f/4 is a very good lens but corners are softer than the 2.8 S
- 50 mm and 85 mm f/1.8 S lens are much sharper across the frame compared to the F mount versions
- 105 mm f/1.4 E There is currently no S equivalent. I foolishly sold this portrait lens gem during the transition to mirrorless
- The 500 mm PF was an very good DSLR lens and was just as good using the FTZ with Z mount cameras. I have limited experience with F mount super telephotos.
The 400 mm TC 2.8 shot at 560 mm f/4 is the best I have ever used but the long f mount lenses I rented a few times were also excellent. The Sigma 150-600 mm Sport was
versatile. but image quality never matched the 500 PF and it did not make the transition to mirrorless.
My summary, from wide angle through about 120 mm, the S lenses are much better than their F mount counterparts. S supertelephots are excellent but you have to look close to see IQ improvements over the best F mount counterparts. Non-S Z lenses appear to be pretty good but my experience is limited. The adapted F mount lenses worked well and focus consistency was perhaps a little better than on my DSLR. Is the IQ improvemnt worth the cost? Depends on the photographer......that is why there is a market for all the available lenses.
- 70-200 f/2.8 S version is sharper in the corners compared to the F mount, particularly in the 85-120 mm range
- 24-70 f/2.8 S version is sharper, especially in the corners compared to the F mount. the 24-70 f/4 is a very good lens but corners are softer than the 2.8 S
- 50 mm and 85 mm f/1.8 S lens are much sharper across the frame compared to the F mount versions
- 105 mm f/1.4 E There is currently no S equivalent. I foolishly sold this portrait lens gem during the transition to mirrorless
- The 500 mm PF was an very good DSLR lens and was just as good using the FTZ with Z mount cameras. I have limited experience with F mount super telephotos.
The 400 mm TC 2.8 shot at 560 mm f/4 is the best I have ever used but the long f mount lenses I rented a few times were also excellent. The Sigma 150-600 mm Sport was
versatile. but image quality never matched the 500 PF and it did not make the transition to mirrorless.
My summary, from wide angle through about 120 mm, the S lenses are much better than their F mount counterparts. S supertelephots are excellent but you have to look close to see IQ improvements over the best F mount counterparts. Non-S Z lenses appear to be pretty good but my experience is limited. The adapted F mount lenses worked well and focus consistency was perhaps a little better than on my DSLR. Is the IQ improvemnt worth the cost? Depends on the photographer......that is why there is a market for all the available lenses.
That is in keeping with what I've read on these lenses (and their MTF curves). I'd also add the 24-120 S that is also much better then the F mount versions (first hand experience + reviews). I've ordered the 50/1.8 S and I'm anxious to give it a try. The 105/2.8 macro is also (according to Nikon and reviews) much improved over the F mount. I going to give that one a try out.
The 85/1.2 S is the best lens I've ever used, spanning decades and systems. Looking forward towards a fast 135.
O
Well-known member
Absolutely, i find the money can be used to get other things.
I would rather have less tools i use more often the more tools i use less often LOL.
My radar to compliment the 70-200 FL is also the 500 pf for its size and weight, i am happy with the D850 and Z9 combo for now the cards and battery's are universal, and the pool of DSLR glass i have and use for lots of other things, 14-24, 24-70, 70-200 fl, 200-500 PUSH PULL VERSION, 300 2.8 vr II, TC 1.4 III, rent anything else if and when needed.
There will always be newer better different, with anything, its how much you benefit, need or like what you do and have.
Gear can always be talked about and compared as to what is better or not, the real difference is measured on what you hang on your wall or in the gallery.
Only an opinion
O
Well-known member
I am very happy with my 50mm 1.8 S its sharp and accurate right across the frame that's why i got it, also to use for video which i don't do much of, its my go to 50mm for mirror less.
I personally like the bokah on my 85mm 1.4 G which is better, or even the 35mm 1.4 G, their just smoother dreamier.
Let me know how you like the 105 macro, i have been sniffing around on that as well, but in no hurry. I have heard some excellent feed back especially that it works with the new cameras very well.
Only an opinion
Last edited:
My very first SLR [Pentax] had but one lens...the 'nifty 50'. IIRC it was f/2. So I kind of gravitate back to this FL. I had the 50/1.4G for awhile but I lost interest and sold it. I'm anxious to give this one a shot.
I haven't had a 105 macro for a long while but it's on sale (along with the 50
) so I'll take advantage of that [for a change....grrrr...always seem to buy just before the sale...but I digress].Good to hear you like the 50/1.8s!
I had both the 24-70/2.8E and the 70-200/2.8E FL. I liked both optics and would have kept them when I went mirrorless but I decided to go with the 24-120 S and 100-400 S. So far I'm not regretting that decision. I maybe should have tried to keep them but I needed the $$ to help bankroll the mirrorless conversion. But you're right there's very little to complain about with the 70-200/2.8 E (and it pairs up damn well with the 1.4TC III).
Last edited:
O
Well-known member
I would rather have less tools i use more often than more tools i use less often LOL.
Only an opinion
Last edited: