I'm Suspicious of Nikon, and it's Sony's Fault

[Note: Be sure to see the later "update" at the end of the main post, which changes the tenor of this post; the fears expressed in the post were wrong. —Ed.]

-

Sir Thom
"First off" as they say—a locution I hate—"first" does just exactly as much work as "first off," making the "off" in "first off" 100% redundant, superfluous, unnecessary and uncalled for*—but it's what the thirtysomething kids say and I like to pretend to be hip—first off, as I was saying, noble Sir Thom Hogan has an excellent analysis of the new Nikon Z's. Skip the first part—the article is camouflaged in the beginning as just one more article describing features, but it's not—and start reading where the little line section break (I mean the section break is a line) occurs, where it begins with "If we ignore the Nikon 1 for a moment...."

Read from there on. If you're interested in the new cameras, you won't want to miss it.

Second off, here's what would worry me about Nikon Z. First off, they introduced a whole new lensmount—this is really epochal for Nikon, that is if they mean it—with three native lenses.

Three.

Three. There's a Nikkor Z 24–70mm ƒ/4 S ($996.95) (because, um, that's what Sony has), a Nikkor Z 35mm ƒ/1.8 S ($846.95), and a Nikkor Z 50mm ƒ/1.8 S ($596.95).

Are we happy yet? No we are not yet.

That doesn't seem like a big commitment, when there's only one more lens than there are cameras. Isn't Nikon supposed to be a lensmaking company? That's why I tried to put a brave face on it yesterday and emphasize the FTZ. But it worries me.

Once bitten, twice shy
Why would I be sensitized to this? Well, it's partly Nikon's fault, because the company basically stopped making APS-C SLR primes about 27 years ago (in digital years). But it's also because of Sony. I was a relatively early-ish adopter of the NEX line (NEX-6, which I bought in 2013). At the time, Sony was glibly promising gobs of future support and buckets of future lenses for the NEX line. Then it caught the FF bug and developed the cameras Nikon's now copying, and those took off big-time, and all those promises—well, a lot of them, anyway—went out the window.

It wasn't so much that there were no lenses for NEX. It was that Sony lost enthusiasm for the cause. And you could tell.

Nikon is supposed to be a lensmaking company.

You pick a camera, sez me, based on the lens line. It's the main reason why you would choose Fuji X or Micro 4/3. For that matter, it's the main reason why you would choose Nikon or Canon FF DSLRs! Heck, it's a good thing the D500 came along so late, or I would have had to buy one just to use the DX 17–55mm ƒ/2.8G, a lervely lens I've always had the jones for. So, given that I like to use native lenses with camera bodies, not adapted ones, I'm suspicious of a launch that should be highly significant for the company but that includes a mere three new lenses.

But you know what really worries me? That 35mm.

With no mirror to clear and a shorter flange distance (the flange distance is the distance from the front surface of the lensmount ring to the sensor plane) and only a moderate wide-angle, there's no need to use a retrofocus lens design for a 35mm for the Z series. All else being equal, a moderately fast wide angle for a mirrorless camera should be smaller and lighter than a moderately fast wide angle for an SLR (and Nikon's G lens is relatively large already). And it should have fewer elements, because retrofocus designs require more elements than non-retrofocus ones.

There's no direct comparison to the Sony FE 35mm ƒ/2.8 ($798)—different speeds—but the Sony lens is definitely designed for mirrorless and the A7[x] flange distance.

But the Z Nikkor ƒ/1.8 is heavier, and has the same number of elements, as the AF-S Nikkor 35mm ƒ/1.8G. And the same maximum aperture. And the same minimum focus distance. And a larger filter diameter, which makes zero sense from a lens design standpoint, although I'm no expert. And it's longer.

Does not compute.

Note the 'If...Then'
Does not compute...unless Nikon just warmed over its SLR lens for the new Z series and the new lens is the same basic design with some tweaks. They can't be identical, because there's a different number of groups. But that doesn't mean the new lens is all new, either.

I haven't been able to find block diagrams (cross sections) for the two lenses. So there's no conclusion to be drawn here. I'm not sounding any alarms. (I don't even actually know if the G lens is a retrofocus design; I'm just assuming.)

But if Nikon introduced a brand new lens mount, and there are only three initial lenses for it, and the company didn't even bother to design a standard wide angle that takes advantage of the shorter flange distance of the new Z system, which should be one of the new system's big inherent advantages— then I would consider it a sign of corporate cynicism, as well as a lack of enthusiasm inside Nikon—I mean among the people who design the cameras and the lenses and determine the extent of the system as a whole—for FF mirrorless as a category. Are they going to pull a Sony?

Because one thing you look for when a company jumps into a whole new category is, of course, how enthusiastic they are about it.

Sir Roger
So I sent you to Thom at the beginning of this post. But the person I'm really waiting to hear from is Roger...Roger Cicala at Lensrentals. What I want to know is how much pride there is in that Z Nikkor 35mm. Because of course Nikon would do a good job on the cameras. The lenses are what will show us how much juice there is behind the concept. Is there still enough room behind the last element of the new 35mm for a flipping mirror? Is there sufficient excuse for it to cost $850? Roger will know that. Did Nikon throw together a warmed-over SLR lens as one of the three lances it's taking into battle to slay Sony with? Prithee, what say thee, Sir Roger?

It's not the question on everybody's lips, but it's where my thinking went last night. As usual, I know nothing.

Of course if you just want to use adapted lenses, this would not be much of a concern. But remember, you pick cameras for lenses, not the other way around.

Mike

*You see what I did there. As Craig Ferguson used to say, I amuse myself, and that's half the battle.

UPDATE: Here's the block diagram of the Nikkor Z 35mm ƒ/1.8 S:

This bears no discernible relationship to the design of the existing SLR lens. And here's the wide-open MTF graph for the same lens:

(Charts courtesy Nikon with thanks to Eamon Hickey)

This charts only the MTF wide open, not at any other aperture. The left-hand edge of the graph is the center of the image circle (superimposes with the center of the sensor). The x-axis is the image height (distance from the center) in millimeters. The edge of the horizontal dimension of the sensor is at about 18mm. The right-hand edge of the graph is the extreme corner of the image. On the y-axis, all you need to know is that 1 is perfect transfer, with no loss. The solid lines are for sagittal line pairs (lines parallel with the radius of the image circle) and the dotted lines represent meridional (also called tangential) line pairs (at right angles, or tangential, to the sagittal lines).

Note that all manufacturers have their own way of measuring transfer and their own standards for showing the information, and one chart seldom tells you everything. But since this is a manufacturer's chart, we can assume the target distance is at the optimum for the lens design. Also, Nikon isn't shirking the hard tests: the red lines at for 10 line pairs per millimeter and the blue lines for 30. (Some charts will show graphs for 5 and 20 lp/mm which naturally make the lens look a little better.)

Very generally, the lower frequency (red lines) reports on contrast and the blue on resolution; how close the solid and dotted lines are to being superimposed generally predicts "good," smooth bokeh.

You can't compare MTF charts from different sources directly, but regardless, this is an excellent result ("outstanding" would not be hyperbole) for a moderately fast moderate wide-angle prime at maximum aperture. It looks to be better than some quite fine moderate-speed 35mm's stopped down.

The lens design is considerably different than the AF-S 35mm ƒ/1.8G, and the MTF performance wide open is very substantially (I even want to say "radically") better. We'll have to await Roger's comments about sample variation and build quality, but I'm satisfied that the new lens has nothing to do with the SLR lens and should perform considerably—and visibly—better wide open.

I feel much better now. Nikon is a lensmaking company!  :-)

Here are Eamon's comments:

"Mike, I think you didn't fully hear the message that Nikon is screaming about the Z system: ultimate optical performance. They're making direct claims that the S-Line lenses will surpass all previous 35mm format lenses.

"I was at the launch yesterday and they said that the 35mm ƒ/1.8 you're talking about will set new standards of optical performance for its class, including—get this—achieving maximum resolution at full aperture across the entire image field.

"They are positioning the new 58mm NOCT as the Mona Lisa of camera lenses (excluding military/industrial specialty lenses etc.)

"So their aim point was not compactness, or efficiency, or frugality—their aim point was previously unknown levels of optical quality in general market camera lenses. And this will be their main differentiator for this system—that's their primary answer to the "why buy a Nikon Z camera?" question.

"Now, you don't have to believe it, or want it, but that's the horse they are riding.

"I shot with the 35mm and the 24–70mm at the launch (you can see some my pictures at Imaging-Resource). Both can produce wickedly sharp pictures, even wide open, but I didn't do the kind of comparison testing that would allow me to say 'yes, they are the best I've ever seen,' or 'no, Nikon is full of baloney.'

"Now, I'm not advocating for Nikon's choice here (ultimate optical quality is not actually my thing, so this value proposition doesn't really float my boat). I'm just trying to elucidate it; I think you've missed their point a bit. They had no desire to make a small symmetrical 35mm lens; they wanted to make the best performing 35mm ƒ/1.8 lens ever made for this format.

"And the last thing I'll say on that is that, whatever else one wants to say about Nikon, aiming for ultimate optical quality is entirely credible for them. They already make the highest precision lenses ever made in human history (for semiconductor lithography machines). Only Zeiss can say the same.

"I can't give away any more information at this point, but they may broaden their aim points as the Z system develops, and things like compactness and value for money may reappear on the horizon."

—Eamon Hickey

Original contents copyright 2018 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

B&H Photo • Amazon US • Amazon UK
Amazon Germany • Amazon Canada • Adorama

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

Rick: "OK, Mike, I can see why you weren't flown to Tokyo (like the others), and likely won't be feted at the fiesta in NYC this weekend (with even more of the others).  :-) "

Mike replies: The only photo-industry junket I was ever offered—Paris and Rome no less, with hotels and meals comped—I turned down. I never get offered anything, wonder why.

Charles Lanteigne: "That was my intuition when I saw these mock-up lenses—it's like they just added an adapter in the back of DSLR lenses—though that may just be cosmetically throwing me off."

hugh crawford: "Firstly: first off is for things that are going off. Secondly: a lens designer could use the space taken up by the flipping mirror to straighten out the rays to make the lens more telecentric and add some more correction. Two elements and four surfaces would give a lens designer a lot to play with. It will be interesting to see the diagram of that 35mm."

Dave Van de Mark: "After declaring boldly yesterday I was going to buy a Z7—plain, simple, period—I began to squirm later that afternoon. First, I noticed the word 'kit' being applied to the 24–7mm ƒ/4 lens. Second, I simply didn’t see any fairly specific comments regarding initial impressions of the individual lenses.

"Until this morning when I read some brief DPReview comments. They were most impressed with the 50mm; had some quibbles about bokeh on the zoom; but had very disturbing comment regarding LoCa on the 35mm, which I was thinking of switching to. They were all declared 'sharp' which, in this day of age, is hard not to achieve! What concerns me more are all the other 'distortions' and flare characteristics they might have and those specs are what separates the great from the merely good. None of that info seems available yet from an independent reviewer. I’m still very impressed with camera body and I now have access to an older AF-S G level 24–70 ƒ/2.8 lens which I might try before plunking down for any of these initial lens offerings. This will give some time for more observations by many reviewers. When I was considering the Sony A7R, I was ready to go for some Loxia lenses which are known to be excellent and come in a wide range of focal lengths. Since Nikon won’t publish specs for their new mount, chances of seeing Loxia quality manual lenses anytime soon are nil. So now, a day after launch, I’m less sure about it all."

Dogman: "Yep. I was noticing the photo accompanying the previous article. That 35mm lens on the camera is kinda big in relation to the camera size. My Fuji 35mm ƒ/2 and 23mm ƒ/2 'Fujicrons' are kinda tiny in relation to...well, everything. Of course they're for an APS-C size sensor so I can understand why the FF sensor might need a larger lens. But I look at my clunky old Canon 35mm ƒ/2 (bought years ago for Canon film cameras) and it's not a big lens. Not at all.

"Yet when I look at these first three lenses Nikon is offering, I'm impressed. 50mm, 35mm and 24–70mm zoom. Pretty much all I would ever need. And even I still have three beat-up old Nikkor lenses left over from my days with the F and F2. That's icing."

Oskar Ojala: "I handled the Z7 with the 35mm ƒ/1.8. It was not far off from handling a DSLR, definitely beefier than other mirrorless. Whether that's bad or not depends on the user. It did seem like a fine lens, but did not give any groundbreaking impression. That said, the price is so steep that one expects very high image quality. We'll see soon if that's the case."

mikegj: "The 'Update' diagram is interesting, but the inclusion of the 84 degree AOV indicator makes me wonder if a cut/paste error was made. 35mm AOV on FF is 63 degrees. 84° would be from a 24mm lens, or 35mm on a sensor somewhat larger than 24x36mm."

Mike replies: Hmm. Interesting. Here's the whole entry for the lens:

Thom Hogan: "I concur with Eamon. Overall, Nikon has sort of failed to clearly deliver the optical quality message in a way that everyone hears and understands. Some of that has to do with the first lenses: they seem more amateur in spec, which is a dissonance to the message, though they attain better than pro quality IMHO.

"The guys Nikon had do the lens shooting in prototype rave about the optical quality, but it's not being shown very well in Nikon's marketing (dare I say, 'as usual'?). As I wrote in another article (how many articles have I written this week? ;~), where you want to look for clues is in the NOCT information. I suspect that Nikon will try making a bigger optical message splash when they announce that lens. There's a ton of new tech, ideas, and features in that lens."

John McMillin: "They're all big, heavy lenses, for a camera that's also a brick. My ancient and antiquated Pentax K-1 is a half pound lighter than the Z7! And there's nothing like the excellent Limited primes or the rest of Pentax's legacy of small, high-quality lenses. But the real Nikon Man doesn't care. He'll bolt on a battery grip and never take it off. Let Olympus and Fuji make those little cameras for weak-wristed amateurs...the larger lens mount probably will never have a truly compact lens made for it. Even if the lens is short, it will have a large diameter, thus a lot of weight."

Comments

[Timo Virojärvi]

My take is that sensor stacks in Z cameras are same as in DSLRs not cause problems using F-mount lenses and this requires also the new lenses to be telecentric.

Still the new 35/1.8S is lighter and slimmer than my current Tamron 35/1.8 Di VC. So while I would have preferred something small like AF-D 35/2, I am not too disapointed.

I ordered Z7 and the three lenses right away. They were just what I would have chosen.

[John Krumm]

It seems to me like more and more high-end modern primes follow this same design, mirrorless or not. Kind of long, kind of fat. Like the three Olympus 1.2 primes, the 17, 25 and 45, which all look the same side. My Pentax HD FA* 50 1.4 is the same.

My guess is Nikon wanted to make sure there was more optical correction than digital correction, even though these are not quite high-end primes.

[Øyvind Hansen]

If i remember correctly, the Fuji X-system was launched with only three lenses of which only one was top notch. That didn't stop it from turning out pretty well.

[KeithB]

Wouldn't it have to be "firstly"?

[KeithB]

A 50mm f/1.8 lens for $600? It had better be *really* good!

[Dave in NM]

With regard to the lens sizes, I had the same thought myself. The 35 is a bit outsized for the camera. Since, in my opinion, a primary feature that distinguishes these cameras from Nikon’s DSLRs is size, I would think that the first native lenses they would offer would be compacts, to take advantage of that feature.

Fortunately, this isn’t really something that I’m concerned with, as I’m in no position to drop $3,400 on a new camera when my D800e is still going strong. Nor would I consider trading in my Nikon 35/1.4, a lens they’ll have to pry from my cold, dead hands before I give it up...

[Stephen Scharf]

So, after my (previous) comment about the size of the new 50mm "standard" S lens for the Nikon Z6/Z7 being larger than the "standard" 63mm lens on the medium-format GFX50S, so is the 35mm f/1.8!

MIke's right...

[John]

I never understood "First Off" (just like I never understood "One Off.") Seems to me that "First of all" makes more sense. Similar to "Before all else." That's assuming you have a list.

[Aleksey]

New lens has better MTF and presumably better image quality.

Old:
https://imgsv.imaging.nikon.com/lineup/lens/f-mount/singlefocal/wide/af-s_35mmf_18g/img/mtf.png

New:
https://imgsv.imaging.nikon.com/lineup/lens/z-mount/z_35mmf18s/img/mtf.png

That is quite the reason to be larger and heavier, just compare Sigma Art 50mm or 85mm to older 1.4 variants.

Unlike in DSLR era they seem to be going Leica way with slower lenses being made as good as they can be instead of being cheaper variants with related compromises.

[Michael Perini]

With all the talk about the new lens mount being large enough to accommodate f0.95 lenses freeing Nikon from some of the restrictions of the F mount, and given that Nikon and Canon are playing Catchup in the mirrorless world I would have expected a couple of drool worthy lenses at launch. And, Given the long criticism of Sony for having no lenses (which they worked hard to overcome) I expected Nikon to announce something more than f/1.8 and f/4 lenses in polycarbonate structures. These APPEAR at least to be 'Kit 'type lenses. (they may in fact be excellent.
Given the emphasis on video now I also would have thought that they would have included aperture rings, and long throw focusing.

None of this says that this is not a fine new system, but if you are chasing Sony, some of these features would seem to be no brainers.

Lastly, as you have also commented, one of the true advantages of mirrorless cameras is that there is no need for retrofocus designs.
If you do not have to add extra elements to move the focal plane back, or add groups of elements and motors to do image stabilization it becomes easier to design great lenses.

I was disappointed with the initial choices.
If the money is indeed in the high end, this would have been a perfect time to introduce a line of premium lenses with premium features that both still and video shooters would aspire to own.
Now Nikon is telling us that these lenses ARE special and have a new "S " designation, but I find that difficult to believe that 35,& 50 f/1.8's and a 24-70 f/4 polycarbonate barrel offerings with no aperture rings are in any way special. They seem adequate and unexciting.
I read that the upcoming 58 f/0.95 while sexy, will be Manual Focus !
Is the future of Nikon Mirrorless really manual focus ?

Nikon has given the world some of it's best cameras & lenses for a LONG time. I am rooting for them, but these things are head scratchers

[Aleksey]

New 35mm might be also better-made which might add some weight.

[Robert Pillow]

I understand your concern about S lens availability. However, “ ... you pick cameras for lenses, not the other way around … ” is not the axiom it may have been when we were just still photographers. After six years of hearing and reading commentary from people who want video and still performance from one camera, I’ve gotten the idea that some have switched to Canon DSLR and Sony mirrorless bodies because of their respective video capabilities, not lens availability.

[SteveW]

This is pretty much why I'm sticking with my D750. I'm happy with the lenses I'm using and have no interest in using them on a Z camera with an adaptor. My thinking is similar in that I'm willing to wait to learn more about the Z-Mount and the S-Lenses. The cameras themselves don't get me fired up although I do like the styling, which reminds me of a very slightly down-sized D750. I was hoping for smaller/lighter lenses, but the two primes are larger/heavier and more expensive than the 1.8G versions and make overall size/weight about a wash.

Maybe someday a Nikon DX mirrorless with a set of small primes? I know what Thom would say: Buzz Buzz. (He's right of course, and it does feel like 27 years since the last DX prime).

[Daniel]

You don't like "first off"?

How about "These Ones"?

Or "To be honest with you" or "To tell the truth"?

Or, you could be in Minnesota and "Go With". Maybe in Utah and be "ignernt" and proud of it.

[Nathan DeGargoyle]

First off: I would imagine this is shortening of "First of all" a perfectly reasonable emphasis.

[BH]

As someone who loves 35mm, I'm not exactly enticed here.

I can use my existing Nikon 35mm and make it larger thanks to the adapter, or I can buy the new 35mm which is practically twice the cost of what you can get the existing 35 1.8 for. I want to hold one of these in my hand, because if the build quality on these new lenses feels like the plastic fantastic G series there's no way I'm biting.

This looks like a nice camera, but I'm not touching ye olde credit carde until more is known about where this whole thing is going.

And just for some perspective: It would cost me $4k to buy this new rig with three lenses. (That's with the cheaper Z6.) On the used market I could buy an X-T2 and about seven Fujinons for that price.

[Eric Rose]

It's off topic but I wonder if anyone has ever done a real forensic analysis of the corporate structures of Sony/Nikon/Canon. With the way Japanese corporations are so intertwined who knows who owns who. Many of the ownership(s) are off book from what I understand. It would be interesting to find out though.

[s.wolters]

Read also interesting comments by Thom here @ https://www.43rumors.com/tony-northrup-believes-the-new-canon-nikon-mirrorless-will-force-olympus-and-panasonic-to-change-strategy/#disqus_thread

[Dave Stewart]

I was wondering along different lines regarding that lens. I had noted that both it and the 50mm seemed excessively large, and considered that the 50mm f/1.8G lens mounted on say a Nikon Df, may be shorter than the new 50mm on a Z6, but wasn't bothered enough to check. What did have me wondering, was that there seemed to be a lot verbiage about how special the 50mm lens was, but very little mention of the 35mm, other than it was also available. Then I saw the price was even higher than that of the 50mm. Why so? What's special about it? Come on Nikon. Do your sales pitch for me, because I want to know.

I know it's going to be a couple of months behind the arrival of the first Z7's in the shops, but I'm interested in the one that'll probably sell more of the two cameras, the Z6. Everyone else seemed to be taking about the Z7. Or was that just the photo press community.

Perhaps I should hold on until things start happening amongst their really high volume selling ranges - the APS-C sensor cameras. I'm interested to see if, when they start becoming mirroless, they also have the likes of sensor stabilisation. Wouldn't be surprised if they also had a mount that's large relative to the sensor size - the F-mount. It may live onward there.

[Peter Wright]

I can relate to your psychological scars from your Sony camera ownership. I used to own a Sony computer – they don't make computers any more. I own a Sony TV – they don't make TVs any more. I own a Sony audio amplifier – they don't make amplifiers any more... So I refrain from buying Sony cameras because I don't want my (Sony owning) friends to find they have something that is unsupported and unrepairable. Hopefully we won't have that problem with Nikon as they don't have too many other business interests.

[Dennis]

"You buy a camera for the lenses" - that is the key ! Right now, Z is the obvious FF mirrorless for Nikon F lens owners and probably should not be under serious consideration for anyone not planning to adapt F mount lenses. I mean, if it interests you, then by all means, look at it, but I would wait for the native lenses I want to be available.
Like you, I was sort of burned by my eagerness to buy into APS-C e-mount early on. I even upgraded along the way, added a couple 3rd party primes, tried lenses that I didn't expect to be good because some people insisted they're not so bad (and found that my expectations were right). At this point, I have a couple of bodies and half a dozen lenses to sell off.
The latest & greatest Sony rumors even have a new high end performance-oriented APS-C body with dual control dials ... but still no mention of any new APS-C lenses.
The Z intrigues me as a Nikon lens owner, but as an APS-C Nikon owner, half my lenses are DX and the cost to upgrade is more than I need to spend. And, like Sony, Nikon seems to have zero enthusiasm for APS-C. (I'd consider switching to Fuji or m43 just for their ongoing commitment, but there's no compelling reason to spend money to do much of anything right now, except keep taking pictures).

[Andrew]

Had there initially been a very high quality relatively compact 50mm f2 lens available I just might bite now. As it stands, I'll wait and see.

That said, the Z7 looks pretty sweet and well thought out. I'm just not in the market for another "system" camera.

What I'm holding out for is a fixed-lens 50mm camera, if one ever shows up. Or a compact mirrorless (that word again) camera + very high quality relatively compact 50mm lens (that's not a Leica rangefinder (or a Sony for that matter)).

[Fulvio Senore]

IMHO the lens selection (even those in the roadmap) clearly shows the target for this cameras. It looks like these cameras are not aimed at people interested in taking photographs, but at people interested in reading and making test shots.

The question is: who is expected to buy these cameras? People buy full frame cameras for the image quality, and they buy mirrorless because they are smaller and lighter than DSLRs.
The prime lenses are very large, so there is almost no difference from F-Mount ones: I really don’t understand why somebody should buy a Z7 instead of a D850.

I think that Nikon should have designed also some lenses like a 28 mm f/2.8, a 35 mm f/2.8 and maybe even an 85 mm f/2.8. To me f/2.8 is fast enough with a modern sensor and designing very high quality lenses with such an aperture would be a rather simple task. They could be designed quickly and they could be very small and light. Not as small as Leica M lenses, for obvious reasons, but they could be much smaller than DSRLs ones. Couple such lenses with a mirrorless camera and you have a much smaller and lighter kit that should appeal to a lot of photographers. Last but not least, such lenses are simpler, with fewer and smaller elements, so only greed could make them expensive.

The size of the 35 mm f/1.8 and 50 mm f/1.8 suggests that Nikon has decided to maximize image quality even at larger apertures in order to show great results in tests. As we have seen lately with 50 mm f/1.4 lenses you need huge ones for the best results at full aperture. Somebody suspects that DOF at f/1.4 is so thin that there in no way that the borders of the frame will be in focus when the center is in focus, unless you are photographing a test sheet, but it looks like a lot of people use those tests to decide what to buy.

So I believe that Nikon is hoping to sell this new system to people who want the best possible image quality and is willing to spend a lot of money for it, and they don’t care about size and weight. Of course there the risk that those people already have a D850 and they don’t see any reason to buy a Z7 to get a camera with similar weight and a much shorter battery life.

[Gordon T Cahill]

Since about the only brands I'm not into are Canikon, take this as the uneducated opinion of a fat middle aged white guy with no credibility and access to a keyboard....

Weren't the SLR versions of these two primes highly regarded? From my reading it seems that the SLR 35 and 50 1.8 are very good lenses that may be better than their price indicates.

So that would indicate it's a very good thing that Nikon has basically adapted them for mirrorless, wouldn't it? Same optical performance adapted to AF better on the new cameras. If they are mirrorless adaptations then we *know* that they will be fine lenses worthy of the Z7 sensor. They're more expensive because all camera stuff is. Manufacturers can't survive on the old high volume/low margin days. All brands are doing this.

I don't really see how bringing a good lens to mirrorless is a negative...

Gordon

[Peter Williams]

I've taken the prime lens sizes to be part of the statement about the S-Line lenses being of superior optical quality to all that has gone before (from Nikon). They seem to be more like the Zeiss Otus and Sigma Art lenses, larger and more complex and more highly corrected. They spoke of near zero aberrations in the 50/1.8 during the system announcement presentation.
I hope we get some credible reviews of the initial lenses soon.

[Andre Y]

Check out the Z lens brochure: it has the lens cross sections of the Z lenses. The 35/1.8 Z looks very different than the existing FX 35/1.8ED.

https://cdn-4.nikon-cdn.com/e/Q5NM96RZZo-RRZZFeeMiveET0gpU-PYm90DZMEpjBfZRR51BYn9b4sjxcCuc2_t9Tr8iw3d-qf0=/Misc/NIKKOR-Z-Brochure.pdf

The 50's front element looks interesting too: it's very concave!

[Andre Y]

Mike, an addendum to my previous post: this is an easier to access page to get the lens diagrams for the 3 Z lenses.

https://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/lens/z-mount/

Click on each lens, and then click on Specifications to see the lens diagram as well as the (presumably) computed MTF.

[Steve Jacob]

Interesting analysis by Thom, and one I broadly agree with. Sony and Nikon duking it out at the top end will allow Canon (and others) to capitalise at the volume end.

The comparison pick of the GFX and Z7 is very telling.

[Eolake]

“Locution”, eh? You’re so dang erudite. :-)

[Eolake]

If you like to pretend to be with it, you have to stop having “goes” in the phrase “as far as ... goes”. The usual phrase now is “as far the weather, I think it’s too hot.”
Perversonally I hate it, but they tell me the language changes.

[Adam Palmer]

Very interesting article. Sony started with a pretty weak lineup for the a7 series. Sometimes I think they want to see how serious we are about the cameras before they commit to all the lenses.

[Jack]

I can't readily find a diagram of the Z 1.8/35, but from a look at the front element it's clearly not retrofocal. It's much more likely telephoto.

[Omer]

While smaller lenses are my preference, I don’t have the responsibility of keeping investors happy. Nikon is well aware of who is its main customer base, and it is not the likes of me or Mike Johnston.

In the last few years it has been clear from the kinds of lenses that have garnered a lot of attention that those folks who are willing to spend some serious money want BIG, high quality lenses. Sigma and ZEISS have been rather successful with such lenses. Do you really expect Nikon to ignore that cash route?

From what I’ve read, the new “S” lenses are meant to be sharp at maximum aperture. And no, the AF-S 35mm f1.8 G is not sharp wide open. Or at least not my copy.

PS. Calm down, they’re just lenses.

[Eolake]

I agree very much. One of the main points of mirrorless was not only smaller bodies, but smaller lenses. And yet, everybody is now making these huge lenses.
The outstanding Leica M lenses are small. Hmm.

[Eamon Hickey]

Ask and ye shall receive.

Here is the Z-mount S-Line 35mm f/1.8

Here is the Z-mount S-Line 50mm f/1.8

I'll let everyone evaluate for themselves the complexity of these designs, and their similarity or lack thereof to F-mount Nikkor designs.

(I emailed higher res versions to Mike directly.)

[John Camp]

I don't know anything about lenses, but since you (Mike) are a lens guru, it has occurred to me to wonder about the following, which perhaps you could elucidate: with this much larger lens mount, and a proper lens design, wouldn't it be possible to push those very same lenses out a bit...like the adapter does to make the F lenses usable on the Zs -- and have lenses that would work on a medium format camera? Assuming that Canon, Nikon and Sony are going to be battling it out over the FF territory, I suspect that if Nikon came out with a really solid lens line and, say, a MF 4/3 or square 100 mp sensor on a camera similar to the Z, at a reasonable price, they could dominate the MF market. What other MF maker (Fuji, maybe? I don't know) has a really extensive lens line for MF? If the lenses could be shared between FF and MF, the FF people would help pay the costs for the MF people. MF is one place Nikon could go in an increasingly cramped market.

If that's possible.

I think Nikon let the APS-C market go for the same reason I would have -- I can't see why it exists. With the small handy cameras and extensive lens lines of the 4/3 makers, which still provide excellent quality, and the falling prices of FF, why would anyone want an APS-C with a body and lens set that is essentially as bulky as FF, with quality that's not as good as FF, and hardly any better, but more expensive, than m4/3?

[Benjamin Marks]

Nikon Z lens to flange distance = 16mm.
Leica lens to flange distance = 27.8mm.

I hope those back-alley adapter surgeons are hard at work. The thing that is exciting about the advent of mirrorless at this level is the theoretical ability to use any lens on any camera. . . just a hope of course.

It has always been the case that the best lenses were not all of one line, but a classic here and a classic there. Why not put together a lens kit of the best of the best? An Olympus here, a Pentax there, a Hexanon, a Canon, a Leica and so on. I wonder whether there will be a revival of classic lenses as a result of this and the inevitable Canon answer.

Mike, if you want a non-retrofocus design, get a nice "king of bokeh" (see what I did there?) and slap it on the front of a Z7 -- there's your digital medium format camera right there.

[Brian Stewart]

I'm with you Mike. Show me the lenses! Once bitten, twice shy. Like you, when I eventually jumped into mirrorless I opted for Sony as a vote of confidence - they were the ones pushing the technology envelope. I bought an NEX-7 and waited for the lenses to arrive. I also got tired of waiting, and jumped to Fuji for the lenses. Have not been disappointed. I stayed.

Nikon will undoubtedly increase the number of Z lenses, but how fast and which ones, and will they match the ethos of mirrorless, i.e. compact? The initial signs are not good. Sure, I too have a lot of Nikkor glass gathering dust in that closet that you warned George about back in 2010, but let's be honest, ultimately you want native lenses. My Sony experience has made me wary as well.

BTW, do the Z6 and Z7 have an electronic shutter option? Anyone doing event or concert work needs this feature. It was part of the reason that my Nikon dSLRs have a thick covering of dust.

[Dave Levingston]

I was thinking about this new Nikon and something occurred to me.

Nikon Z7 with 24-70 costs $3997

My current Micro 4/3 system with 4 camera bodies and 7 lenses covering 35mm-e 18-600mm cost me $3985.

I know it's apples and oranges...but still...hmmmm.

[Arg]

I'm sure glad you added the update to this post. I watched the live launch event for the Z products, and it was screamingly obvious that your initial post completely missed what Nikon was trying to achieve here in terms of image quality and lenses and system priorities.

Now, thanks to Eamon, you are getting it. I'm pretty excited by it. Whether I buy in is a more complex matter, but it is great to see a clear set of priorities and emphasis on ground-up design for photo quality, photographer's experience, and general toughness, instead of checklists of features and bigger numbers than the next guy.

[Chuck Albertson]

I wouldn't be too hard on Nikon - three years after they introduced the SL, Leica have only rolled out three native primes for the camera (in addition to two zooms), and the last two are still as scarce as hens teeth. Mind you, the 90SL f/2 is worth the weight (pun intended).

[Patrick Dodds]

Is there going to be an adapter to take the new lenses the other way, back to the old F mount for use on older, even film, cameras? Is this even possible?

[Rfeg]

Mike, If you look at MTF the graph goes to ~22mm, which is half of 44mm. At that point the lens is not too bad. Sony famous “MF” sensor is 44x33mm._I_ think they really made the mount to support “MF” sensor and to have that option in the future, maybe they will not do it.l, but it is wise that they don’t close that door if market requires them to do it. There were some comments about it before launch, but I think they were comments, not rumors.
Note: like you I don’t know nothing.
Rfeg

[The diagonal of 24x36mm is a little less than 44mm. So the right side of the graph represent the extreme corner of the image on FF. --Mike]

[James]

My decision-procedure for cameras is (fortunately) pretty simple. First question: Is there a small, reasonable quality prime in the 35mm-eq ballpark? That knocks the Z6 and Z7 out straight away, at least for now. The new f/1.8 S is too big, as is the f/1.8G with the adapter; and the old f2 AF-D won't autofocus on this camera. ("Big" here is judged according to my standards, about which I'm infallible.)

I'd love a full frame setup with the gestalt of my Panasonic GX7 and Olympus 17mm 1.8 combo, and it looks like the Sony A7 series with the Sony Zeiss 35mm f/2.8 still comes closest at the moment. Which is a pity, because I expect these Nikons will handle better as cameras.

But the Z6 and Z7 look good to me, and I'm pleased to hear that others will be buying in. I'm a Nikon fan, and was a Nikon user before moving to micro 4/3s. When (if) the right lenses come along, these cameras will definitely be in the mix for me.

[Dave Stewart]

Thank you to Eamon and Mike, for the update. Also thanks to Timo Virojärvi for your comment, that had me comparing the new 35mm and 50mm lenses, with the rather large and heavy Tamron 45mm ƒ/1.8 VC that I have. Glad to see they're both smaller and lighter than the Tamron.

[Ronny Nilsen]

Interesting observations from both you and Thom!

I found this video about one card slot funny: Dual Slots Führer :-)

[John Robison]

Yes Nikon, go for the best (and big and heavy and high priced). Perhaps some aftermarket maker such as Tamron, will make some small, light and reasonably priced offerings that will make the most of your short flange distance.

[Ricardo]

Mike, I don't understand your 3-lens disappointment. It's what happens when a new system comes out. Nikon did put out a roadmap.

Given Nikon's push for this system and the competition, you bet they are going to put far more effort behind it than other things they have done (Nikon 1).

[Well, YOU might bet. But what I'm saying is that I will hope, but I won't trust. We've had some precedents that are not good signs, like Nikon 1, like the cancelled DL series, like the lack of APS-C primes, and from other manufacturers like Sony. I don't know what to bet on with Nikon here. :-) --Mike]

[Jacques]

Funny how the Nikon announcement generates comments from the following groups.

• Nikon fanboys, anything fron Nikon is a God sent gift.
• Canon fanboys, anything from Nikon is flawed.
• Internet camera experts and trolls that haven't seen the camera, have no intension buying one, rarely take pictures but still have an opinion.

Feel free to swap names when Canon will announce theirs. After a three years foray in mirrorless, one OM-D 10, two A6000, one A7, one A7M2, FE35, FE55, FE85, various adapters, I am shooting DSLR because of usability and ergonomics.

We should wait for the cameras and lenses to hit the shelves as well as few firmware updates before getting excited. I agree with Mike's concerns.

Jacques
Calgary, Alberta

[Marvin G. van Drunen]

There really should be an alert at the top of the article that there is an Update available. The update really changes the tenor of the article, from negative to positive.

[beuler]

The current fashion is to make ultra hi res, size is no object, lenses. Thanks Zeiss Otus!

[David Zivic]

Here is my Comment (Question) about the new mount. From what I see the NEW mount, it looks and functions the same. I have never had any issues of F falling off the camera or alignment. why fix it if it has been working? My suspicion is that it has to with the new generation of these lenses will need to be purchased for those who don't like adapters. And isn't there a shift to angle of view with adapters for those aficionados. BTW, I use a Novaflex adapter on my Sony to use my Nikon lenses.

[Rick in CO]

Welcome to what Leica shooters have experienced for years. "Buy a camera for the lenses", "high end optical quality", "high-end modern primes" and huge, heavy large aperture lenses. Not to mention that such quality, if Nikon has hit the target, comes with an expense that most will hesitate to pay. The initial offerings are not "kit" lenses, but more likely Nikon has constructed 'moderate' aperture primes with top quality character (we hope) that counts on the light-gathering capacity of the digital sensor to allow low-light capture. What the OOF character shows will be insightful (contrasty & clinical vs rounded with character). I am surprised at the size (the comparison to the Fuji GFX).

[Dave Van de Mark]

Your investigation into the nature of the Z-35 lens was a real service! It relieved me of some anxiety about the new lenses. It is annoying that so much early commentary was about the camera itself with much less specifically spent on the lenses. Eamon Hickey's comments were very helpful in that regard. I was about to switch from buying the 24-70 zoom and getting the 35 but the zoom is heavily discounted when purchased as a package with the body. Can't pass that up.

[Barry Reid]

Sometimes quality isn't everything outside of the preview comments section.

IMO the trend towards whoppingly large lenses is both ridiculous in the context of the camera size trend and in the long term it must be bad for the manufacturers. After all the majority of camera(phone)s in use are thinner than a typical SD card reader.

[Trevor Johnson]

It is a bargain, here are the numbers.

Nikon Z7 with 24-70mm lens and Mount Adapter, plus the 35mm and 50mm Z lenses = £5,547

'New' Leica M10-P (body only) = £6,500

[TC]

Not that I could justify going to Nikon as it is more expensive, bigger and heavier than the Sony I would be looking at, but the lack of a pancake (ca 35mm) lens, even in the roadmap for the next several years(!), pretty much takes this system out of the running for my purposes (mainly having the camera on me all day, every day). Perhaps someday 3rd-party manufacturers will fill the gap for Nikon, but the Sony Zeiss 35 f2.8 has done a great job for me for the past five years, with very little distortion and plenty sharp.