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).
....and, in addition to optical performance, S lenses are weather sealed.
fulltimewanderer
Active member
Dmacfarl,
I just purchased a Z9 at the end of last year. I’ve always been happy with my selection of F mount glass ( 14-24 2.8, 24-70 2.8, 70-200 2.8, 80-400, 105 2.8, 600 F4 all G’s and a 500pf). So Far So Good with my F mount glass. If I find one that does disappoints then I’ll reevaluate and decide how often I use that lens. I’m not a Professional photographer so to me it’s hard to justify purchasing a new lens when what I have still works a satisfies me. I’d suggest for you to try out your current lenses and see if you are happy with the way they perform on your Z8.
O
Well-known member
I did an analysis of my recent shoots, 5% at 500-600mm, 15% at 300-400mm, 25% at 300mm - 195mm, the rest 55% at 195mm and under.
It used to be 80% 600 to 300mm.
Hence i rent the long exotics if needed.
Also i shoot mostly JPEG Fine and mostly between 5 - 10 fps sometimes 12-15, rarely 20 fps.
I do ZERO video
Hence i have gone easy on buying into new glass in a hurry.
I think a low k Z9 at $5500 AUD with adapter is a fair price i am looking at selling possibly.
A Z8 or ZF as an interim unit may compliment a Z7III 60mp.
With the ZF i like the 10 stops low light focusing that sounds like it may also solve a little low contrast focusing challenge in mirror less cameras generally, and the sensor VR is awesome i am told, something that may arrive i think in the Z9 II and Z8 II hypothetically LOL.
Nikon are raising prices heavily i have been warned.
Only an opinion
It used to be 80% 600 to 300mm.
Hence i rent the long exotics if needed.
Also i shoot mostly JPEG Fine and mostly between 5 - 10 fps sometimes 12-15, rarely 20 fps.
I do ZERO video
Hence i have gone easy on buying into new glass in a hurry.
I think a low k Z9 at $5500 AUD with adapter is a fair price i am looking at selling possibly.
A Z8 or ZF as an interim unit may compliment a Z7III 60mp.
With the ZF i like the 10 stops low light focusing that sounds like it may also solve a little low contrast focusing challenge in mirror less cameras generally, and the sensor VR is awesome i am told, something that may arrive i think in the Z9 II and Z8 II hypothetically LOL.
Nikon are raising prices heavily i have been warned.
Only an opinion
Last edited:
I think these four nail it for the optical side. In the beginning I really didn't think too much about then flange diameter as an advantage and actually it kept me away quite some time from switching to Z.
On the one hand there was/is an adapter available but on the other hand there were so many examples in the past - with phogotraphy is only one -, that when taking a closer look, connecting technical components by means of an adapter that do not fit natively came always with some caveats, being it functionaliy, quality, reliability.
Something that actually made me think differently was something so simple as looking to the front lenses of the AF-S 14-24 f2.8 G and the Z 14-24 f2.8 S. I am an engineer, but not into opticsm but this comparison made me digging for memories of optics lessons and ... yup, the larger flange definitely is a good idea
. Suddenly it was so obvious that the bigger the hole, the easier it is to squeeze a wide FOV through it , and what's good for the optical quality of large FOV lenses can't be bad for the long glas.But as there were quite a number of optical marvels among the F-mount lenses, using the new technology for actually making a lens even better in IQ (resolution, CA, ...) would use the benefits only half. The other effect is that you can achieve at least similar quality with less effort, meaning it bewcomes easier and thus cheaper to build a lens of a certain quality. The truth is - as always - somewhere in the middle, i.e. lenses in a similar price level have become better optically and buying a certain level of optical performance becomaes cheaper.
One interesting example for me is the previously mentioned AF-S 180-400 f4. I am a fan of zoom lenses and during my DSLR time I was constantly tempted to get one, but the price tag made it simply impossible. After having finally gone for a platform change to Z I was in doubt of whether or not trying the Z 180-600. Yes, there is still the issue with f6.3 at the long end, but something was amazing.
The guys at Photographylife are known to provide pretty darn comprehensive lens reviews including lab tests and because technical data number crunching is part of my job since mid of the 80's, I decided to collect their cate in a little private excel sheet to allow for easier comparison.
Sorry for not translating the table itself, but I think you get the message (Zentrum = center, Mitten = mid range, Ecken = corners)
Here are the values @ 400mm ...
And here for 560/600 mm (the AF-S 180-400 with TC engaged.
Before anybody starts complaining that I am comparing apples and oranges:
Yes, it is not really fair to put an F-mount lens with TC against a Z lens without, but if you look at it from a different perspective in terms of the technical effort to achieve a certain level of funcationality and the resulting financial effort for us to get it, I think this is still pretty remarkable. To me it's just an example for what a pretty radical change in technology can provide: similar level of technical capability while 2k versus 12k €, 2 kg versus 3,5 kg, 320mm versus 360mm, 110mm versus 128mm, ...
Yes, the results are as comparable as this kind of lab tests can be.
Knowing that Photograhylife changed their lab setup some time ago, I explicitely asked whether the valuesl can be put side by side and it was confirmewd that this is valid.
And this also gives one of the possible answers to the second part of the original question, because the Z 180-600 is not even an S lens and still gets amazingly close to one of the top notch F-mount guns.
I am happy with my Z zoom, but still stick with my F-mount oldie 500 f4 G, because it works great on the Z apart fomr one of the adapting caveats: I can't get the buttons on the lens work as configurable LFn buttons with the Z8.
May the litght be with you ...
fcotterill
Well-known member
The 14-24 G was singled out recently by Nikon among its most ground breaking optics of the day....I think these four nail it for the optical side. In the beginning I really didn't think too much about then flange diameter as an advantage and actually it kept me away quite some time from switching to Z.
On the one hand there was/is an adapter available but on the other hand there were so many examples in the past - with phogotraphy is only one -, that when taking a closer look, connecting technical components by means of an adapter that do not fit natively came always with some caveats, being it functionaliy, quality, reliability.
Something that actually made me think differently was something so simple as looking to the front lenses of the AF-S 14-24 f2.8 G and the Z 14-24 f2.8 S. I am an engineer, but not into opticsm but this comparison made me digging for memories of optics lessons and ... yup, the larger flange definitely is a good idea
However, it was in one of these interviews the engineers emphasized the advantages to design an even better, yet more compact 14-24 zoom by leveraging the "design freedom" opened up by the Z mount.
(And there are other useful links in this thread about the advantages of the Z mount)
Does flange distance impact sharpness?
I recently asked the folks running Greys of Westminster YouTube channel via live chat about why the Z lenses are significantly sharper than f mount glass. They implied that the larger Z mount with the 16 mm flange distance as opposed to the 46 mm flange distance on the f mount is a big reason...
bcgforums.com
2 years ago, thanks to the crash in Used market prices I was able to afford a mint 180-400 f4E TC14. It's one of my favourite lenses across all my telephotos, including the 100-400 S.
Yes it's 3.5kg but the constant f4, bokeh and integral TC are hard to match.
Brad Hill raved about the aperture independent sharpness of the 180-400 even though he sold his copy. But I won't be
I see these final f mount releases as Nikon's swan song of the F mount, and it's quite possible the engineers who designed them had the advantages of the latest computer tech in the R&D together with the newest optical glasses etc.... these included the 500 PF, 105 f1.4E, 180-400 TC, 70-200 f2.8E
Last edited:
Great, thanks ! I didn't have that on the radar. The step has been gone now, but still really interesting
I wasn't as lucky although I tried. The f4 would probably be the biggest argument for me. Especially when going out with my friend in the NP we are usually at the location before daylight and then you now immediately what kind of difference 1+ to 2 stops of extra light can make, even if the AF on the Z is more low light tolerant compared to the DSLR's.
Because I haven't found one at the time, it's probably easier for me to have a lens that doesn't even need a TC to go to 600mm. But if I had had them side by side the dsicision would have been most likely very difficult ...
Against the background of the interview you mentioned, it ould be really nice to see what F-mount 180-600 would have looked like compared to the 180-400 F-mount and the Z 180-600. To me it looks like the zoom range is another thing that can be handled more flexibly due to the flange diameter as well. before you get punished too hard in the field of IQ compromises. I need to fully read this thread some time.
fcotterill
Well-known member
Well, the 100-400 S is a significant improvement over the 80-400 G. However, at least for how and where I photograph wildlife subjects, the pairing of 70-200 f2.8E and 180-400 E are simply superb, and extended with the tighter framing of a 800.
I find the 2 major advantages of the Z S Line telephotos is
1. Lighter weight, and 2. potential to leverage the unique features in the Z9, video particularly.
As for the Uwides, the 14-30 S has important advantages: lighter and compact, 100 system filters, on the 82mm filter thread etc.
The 24-120 f4S is another significant advance in quality compared to the G type version.
I find the 2 major advantages of the Z S Line telephotos is
1. Lighter weight, and 2. potential to leverage the unique features in the Z9, video particularly.
As for the Uwides, the 14-30 S has important advantages: lighter and compact, 100 system filters, on the 82mm filter thread etc.
The 24-120 f4S is another significant advance in quality compared to the G type version.
fcotterill
Well-known member
Nevertheless, Nikon dropped the ball on the ergonomics of at least three of their pricey new S Line primes. This is really sad, considering the engineers made strenuous efforts to reduce their weight and improve balance for handholding, but fumbled on a design for how photographers handhold these lenses out in the wild:
The Rear Fn button is inaccessible on all S Line Telephotos I've handled, with partial exception of the 100-400 S. It's on the wrong side and placed too far back for hand holding. It should be on the right side, rear close to the Memory Recall button (oh, the latter button is missing from the expensive 100-400 S !?!).
The Focus ring is too far back on the 800 PF, and on the 400 f2.8S TC
Thom Hogan has similar criticisms, notably of the 400 f2.8S TC - see his How's It Handle?
bcgforums.com
The Rear Fn button is inaccessible on all S Line Telephotos I've handled, with partial exception of the 100-400 S. It's on the wrong side and placed too far back for hand holding. It should be on the right side, rear close to the Memory Recall button (oh, the latter button is missing from the expensive 100-400 S !?!).
The Focus ring is too far back on the 800 PF, and on the 400 f2.8S TC
Thom Hogan has similar criticisms, notably of the 400 f2.8S TC - see his How's It Handle?
Nikon 100-400 and 400 f/2.8 S, teleconverter Reviews - Thom Hogan
https://www.zsystemuser.com/z-mount-lenses/nikkor-lenses/nikon-z-mount-lens-reviews/nikon-400mm-f28-s-tc-vr.html Appended in Edit - https://www.zsystemuser.com/z-mount-lenses/nikkor-lenses/nikon-z-mount-lens-reviews/nikon-100-400mm-f45-56.html
bcgforums.com
Everybody handles equipment differently.
I use the rear Fn button for dof preview at smaller apertures than f5.6 - and have no problem using it.
I think its the other way around.
S is the normal lens the way it’s supposed to be. While non S is made on a budget cutting corners.
S is the normal lens the way it’s supposed to be. While non S is made on a budget cutting corners.