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
Well-known 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.
O
Well-known member
The same as 24 mp is better than 8 or 12 mp, 36 better than 16mp, 45 is better than 20 or 24, the difference between 45 and 60 isn't that huge but its the pathway to 80mp.
It depends on what i am doing, i crop a lot and make a photo from with in a photo often.
But using the right glass yes i can see where you coming from.
For much of what i do crop ability is important, the higher the number of pixels the greater the micro contrast - detail.
I think that if you are considering any particular lens you need to read the reviews and comments posted here,
There are a few general rules however,
1. There are some very fine F mount lenses that will perform admirably on a Z camera. If you have one of the good ones don't let it go just to go to Z mount. Research and decide whether the improvement is worth making the change.
2. the Z mount offers inherent advantages over the F mount which has to do with the shorter distance to focal plane and the wider ones opening. In addition all Z lenses are newer designs and as a general rule they are sharper and have improvement in image quality compared to their F mount equivalent.
3. The S mount lenses are more expensive because they are made of more costly parts and they also are more rigorously constructed. S mount lenses are built for the rigors of professional use and they are designed to meet professional standards for performance and reliability.
4. As a general rule you get what you pay for. While there are some lenses that provide exceptional value, for the most part the more expensive lenses will perform better than their less expensive counterparts.
There are a few general rules however,
1. There are some very fine F mount lenses that will perform admirably on a Z camera. If you have one of the good ones don't let it go just to go to Z mount. Research and decide whether the improvement is worth making the change.
2. the Z mount offers inherent advantages over the F mount which has to do with the shorter distance to focal plane and the wider ones opening. In addition all Z lenses are newer designs and as a general rule they are sharper and have improvement in image quality compared to their F mount equivalent.
3. The S mount lenses are more expensive because they are made of more costly parts and they also are more rigorously constructed. S mount lenses are built for the rigors of professional use and they are designed to meet professional standards for performance and reliability.
4. As a general rule you get what you pay for. While there are some lenses that provide exceptional value, for the most part the more expensive lenses will perform better than their less expensive counterparts.
O
Well-known member
O
Well-known member
I love my 70-200 FL, to sell and upgrade to a S is costly and means the lens wouldn't be backwards compatible as i still use the D850 DF rented D6, i am not investing any more into mirror less at this stage, i get done what ever in need with what i have.............the Z8 is fine but if i like the size and weight of the Z7III.
Away from the topic of lens quality and price - MP affects potential image quality in 2 different ways.
There is more to higher MP than potential increased image detail "sharpness" - especially when cropping.
When not needing to crop I consider 24 MP comfortably enough for image sharpness - though there is another potential advantage of more MP.
If a detail in an image is covered by 100 pixels using 24 MP, the same detail is covered by approximately 140 pixels using 45 MP, and approximately 200 pixels using 100 MP.
Extra pixels covering a zone of image detail makes for smoother separation and transition of fine colour and density detail in an image.
This "better" smooth transition improves the perceived image quality of a large and well printed image on close inspection - assuming you eyesight remains good enough to resolve very fine detail !
When it comes to potential sensor image resolution, going from 45 to 60 MP (mentioned in the thread as not a big difference) is 33% more pixels in the image, but only approximately 15% more pixels on the long dimension of the frame - which is where sensor resolution (in isolation) is mainly determined.
When combined with a good lens 15% extra sensor resolution is likely to result in 7.5% to maybe 10% more resolution in an image.
This level of increase I consider useful rather than significant.
Back to lens quality - there are grounds for expecting a 15% increase in image resolution to increase the price 100%
As many are budget limited there is the conundrum of an extra lens/lenses at a moderately lower image quality level, or fewer lenses of higher quality for the same amount of money.
Roy
Well-known member
I'm using a mix of Z lenses, F mount and some pretty inexpensive Chinese lenses.
For pure resolution the S line Z lenses are tough to beat. BUT that's not really important to me for a lot of my needs. I'm finding even the least expensive Chinese primes now have shockingly good performance (the 75mm F2 TTartisan I just bought).
I buy more for lens look/character now more than anything and that's not the Nikon S lenses in some cases.
A recent wedding I shot the couples favorite images came off a AI-S 50 1.2 for example, shot wide open. That lens is NOT sharp at 1.2 but the effect it makes has its own quality and that was what they liked. They liked the S prime look as well but that older lens delivered. I shot it on the FTZ with the Zf in manual focus. (I had S primes on the Z8).
So I'd buy the look you want at the resolution that works for you personally. We have a plethora of options and prices now which is fantastic. But I wouldn't be shy to use the FTZ or jump into trying a TT artisan/Viltrox or others these days either.
Another favorite of mine is a Yasuhara Anthy 35 1.8 manual lens in Z mount. Cheap by lenses standards and I like the look it renders. Not razor sharp like the S primes but that's not everything in images for me personally. I'm curious about the Artralab Nonnikkor lenses too. I already have the original Nikon AI-S in the focal lengths I use, but these Chinese lenses keep impressing me with the looks they render, they've based them off of a bunch of older Leica/Zeiss/Nikon etc and others and the results are often quite nice. Thypoch is one that comes to mind.
For pure resolution the S line Z lenses are tough to beat. BUT that's not really important to me for a lot of my needs. I'm finding even the least expensive Chinese primes now have shockingly good performance (the 75mm F2 TTartisan I just bought).
I buy more for lens look/character now more than anything and that's not the Nikon S lenses in some cases.
A recent wedding I shot the couples favorite images came off a AI-S 50 1.2 for example, shot wide open. That lens is NOT sharp at 1.2 but the effect it makes has its own quality and that was what they liked. They liked the S prime look as well but that older lens delivered. I shot it on the FTZ with the Zf in manual focus. (I had S primes on the Z8).
So I'd buy the look you want at the resolution that works for you personally. We have a plethora of options and prices now which is fantastic. But I wouldn't be shy to use the FTZ or jump into trying a TT artisan/Viltrox or others these days either.
Another favorite of mine is a Yasuhara Anthy 35 1.8 manual lens in Z mount. Cheap by lenses standards and I like the look it renders. Not razor sharp like the S primes but that's not everything in images for me personally. I'm curious about the Artralab Nonnikkor lenses too. I already have the original Nikon AI-S in the focal lengths I use, but these Chinese lenses keep impressing me with the looks they render, they've based them off of a bunch of older Leica/Zeiss/Nikon etc and others and the results are often quite nice. Thypoch is one that comes to mind.
O
Well-known member
Roy
Well-known member
I'm retired now and no longer a Pro.
There is not much to complain about with F Lenses - some better than others.
The 2 advantages of Z glass is firstly video - they are much quieter and secondly being usable wide open.
We have to keep paying for new gear to keep youtubers and the camera industry going ...
Me too! After getting a Viltrox 56mm f1.4 for my Fuji system I was that impressed with its build quality and images that I got a Viltrox 85mm f1.8 for my Z6ii before I even got the camera. Consensus from respected reviewers was that it is 95% as good as the Nikon and I got it inc delivery for just £296!! At the time the Nikon was £699.
I've also got manual focus Samyang 12mm f2 and 85mm f1.8 and a Zonlai 22mm f1.8 for my Fujis and a Samyang 14mm f2.8 Z mount for the Z6ii and I'm very happy with them all.
I now use vintage manual focus lenses more than my modern AF ones.
O
Well-known member
Thank you, sounds good and also like your spot on.
At the moment i am getting about 95% plus of what i want from the FL, i am selling more gear than buying, for big special moments i rent as needed.
fcotterill
Well-known member
The 70-200 f2.8E FL is one of Nikon's best zooms ever made. And the first zoom to match prime quality in the Nikon Ecosystem, as judged by Brad Hill. Besides the TCs advantages plus Synchro VR, the S Line model has ARNEO coatings that likely contributes to slightly improved optics
dslrbodies.com
dslrbodies.com
Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 S Lens Review | Thom Hogan
Review of the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 S lens
www.zsystemuser.com
Rationalizing Zoom Lens Sets | DSLRBodies | Thom Hogan
Rationalizing Zoom lens choices for DX and FX cameras
Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8E FL ED VR Lens Review | DSLRBodies | Thom Hogan
Review of the Nikon Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8E FL lens for DSLRs