[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."
