Nikon Z7 real-world experience...

[BJL]

The 24-70 S is a far sharper lens than the 24-120 ... The Canon 24-105 R, which is closer in quality, is around 700 grams to get to 105mm on a similar mount to the Nikon Z mount ...

It does seem that for now, 5X wide-tele zooms are more of a design challenge, at least for keeping up with high MP sensors as in the Z7; the 4X standard zoom is more of a "solved problem".

Personally, I'd rather see a 70-200 f4 PF or 70-300 f4.5-5.6 PF than another mid-aperture standard zoom.

We'll probably see a wide-to-tele zoom sooner or later.Given that we have the 24-70, a 24-105 is probably too similar ...

Different priorities I suppose; for some of us, the 24-70/2.8 in the Z system lens roadmap for 2019 is less usefully different from the 24-70/4 than a 4x mid-speed zoom like 24-105/4 would be.

I'd like to see three really good, modestly sized f4 lenses that cover a huge range between them, with none being a compromised superzoom ...

I agree that it would be nice to see a high quality mid-speed pair like along-side the "classic" 24-70, 70-200 f/2.8 pair at those focal lengths in the roadmap for 2019—but for us fans of lighter longer lens kits, maybe 24-105/4 and then 100-300, f/4-?? would serve better than 24-70, 70-200 constant f/4.

Nobody's ever made a really good 24-200 ...

Olympus has a FOV equivalent in its 12-100/4 that is reportedly of good optical quality. But of course (a) it only has to deal with 20MP sensors, for now, and (b) scaling up that design by 2X in all directions to get a 24-200/4 covering 35mm format would increase weight about eight-fold!

[BJL]

The latest Canon 24-70/F4 is 600 gms and the new Nikkor 24-70/F4 S is only 500 gms. As I understand, the new mount of the Z7, with its closer distance to the sensor, allows for the manufacture of smaller and lighter lenses. Is this correct?

As far I know, that is indeed an advantage of a shallower (and wider) lens mount—in cases where the [minimum] focal length is "short enough", because only then do optimal (lighter) lens designs benefit from having rear elements closer to the focal plane than the mirror box allows. I am fairly sure 24mm is "short enough". In fact, though I used to think that the threshold was focal length less than about SLR mount depth, I have seen some fast lens designs that have rear elements far closer to the focal plane than the focal length: one Nikon patent for a 58/0.95 has rear elements within less than 20mm of the focal plane.

[hogloff]

As far I know, that is indeed an advantage of a shallower (and wider) lens mount—in cases where the [minimum] focal length is "short enough", because only then do optimal (lighter) lens designs benefit from having rear elements closer to the focal plane than the mirror box allows. I am fairly sure 24mm is "short enough". In fact, though I used to think that the threshold was focal length less than about SLR mount depth, I have seen some fast lens designs that have rear elements far closer to the focal plane than the focal length: one Nikon patent for a 58/0.95 has rear elements within less than 20mm of the focal plane.

Yes, and the Sony is even lighter coming in at around 425gm.

[BernardLanguillier]

Yes, and the Sony is even lighter coming in at around 425gm.

Yes, but that lens is a pretty average performer.

But still, there was indeed a time when lens weight and bulk was a top design priority at Sony. That was probably the time when most people were going to mirrorless due to the differences relative to DSLRs, the main one being compactness.

Sony then went for G Master and told the market “size isn’t important, look we can do very good lenses too”.

Nikon’s design priorities have been more on doing both reasonnably compact but still very high quality. This is probably easier to do with the Z mount.

Once you have acknowledged this difference, which is one aspect among many, you can make informed system choices. My guess is that many will still prioritize good eye AF over “better lenses”.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Ray]

I guess the bottom line is, we all have our priorities according to our circumstances and shooting style, and there are always trade-offs, or a balancing act we make when assessing the significance of the advantages and disadvantages of a particular system, or sensor, or lens.

For me, one priority is not having to frequently change lenses, which is why I generally prefer good quality zooms to even better quality primes, but the difference in quality should not be so great that it would cause disappointment when I view the flaws or lack of detail as I process the images on my desktop computer.

[shalimarphoto]

Thanks for posting this - very helpful!

[hogloff]

Yes, but that lens is a pretty average performer.

But still, there was indeed a time when lens weight and bulk was a top design priority at Sony. That was probably the time when most people were going to mirrorless due to the differences relative to DSLRs, the main one being compactness.

Sony then went for G Master and told the market “size isn’t important, look we can do very good lenses too”.

Nikon’s design priorities have been more on doing both reasonnably compact but still very high quality. This is probably easier to do with the Z mount.

Once you have acknowledged this difference, which is one aspect among many, you can make informed system choices. My guess is that many will still prioritize good eye AF over “better lenses”.

Cheers,
Bernard

Yes, Sony released their professional G mount lenses and they are excellent for their purposes...but Sony has also released some great non G mount lenses like the 12-24, 24 1.4, 85 1.8 which are all small, light and produce excellent results.

I think the jury is still out on exactly what real impact the bigger Nikon mount will have on lenses going forward. So far I don't see anything really special with the lenses for the Nikon mount.

[Dan Wells]

I agree with Hogloff on the 24-70 f2.8 - unless it's a really spectacular lens, I'd rather see something else, like a nice f4 tele to go with the 14-30 and 24-70. If it's something we've never seen in a zoom before, I see why...

I agree completely that the Sony 24-70 f4 is nothing like the Nikkor. It's a decent kit lens, nothing more (and no, I'm not talking about the even smaller and lighter Sony 28-70). I haven't had access to a Sony body or lenses recently enough to have shot the 24-105, which seems to get a lot of respect, or the G-Master, which is often cited as the best 24-70mm lens around.

Most zooms over 3x are optically compromised (sometimes you can get away with 4x on longer lenses).

I have noodled around with a friend's Olympus 12-100 on an E-M1 mk II. It's a sharp lens (surprisingly so for an 8x zoom).  The design is made easier by a small sensor at 20 MP. It's surprisingly big and heavy for a Micro 4/3 lens, especially one that is neither extremely fast nor a long telephoto -  it would be a monster if simply scaled up to full-frame. Its real notable feature is the dual IS on the E-M1 mk II - reviewers who say they can get sharp shots at 1/2 second or even 1 second are not exaggerating. I was getting in the 1/4-1/2 second range with one night of practice. 

An interesting observation on Micro 4/3 lenses is that there are tiny ones, and there are great ones, but most of the tiny ones are nothing special, and most of the great ones, at least the zooms, are not especially small. The excellent 12-40mm f2.8 is significantly larger than the comparable (but APS-C) Fujinon 18-55 f2.8-4, and only slightly smaller and lighter than the full-frame Nikkor Z 24-70 f4 . Once you account for sensor size effects on noise and depth of field, the Olympus is the slowest of the three lenses (by a stop at the short end against the Fujinon, and by a stop throughout the range against the Nikkor).

Here's an interesting camerasize comparison - A little too close for comfort for Olympus, given that the other camera in the picture shoots noiseless 46 MP files... Of course, that doesn't take into account the incredible speed of the E-M1 mk II, and Olympus might consider this comparison more fair.... It probably is - top-speed sports camera to top-speed sports camera.

[John Camp]

 

An interesting observation on Micro 4/3 lenses is that there are tiny ones, and there are great ones, but most of the tiny ones are nothing special, and most of the great ones, at least the zooms, are not especially small. The excellent 12-40mm f2.8 is significantly larger than the comparable (but APS-C) Fujinon 18-55 f2.8-4, and only slightly smaller and lighter than the full-frame Nikkor Z 24-70 f4 . Once you account for sensor size effects on noise and depth of field, the Olympus is the slowest of the three lenses (by a stop at the short end against the Fujinon, and by a stop throughout the range against the Nikkor).

Dan, The first camera-size comparison link in your post doesn't work.

I have both a Nikon D800E system and also a Panasonic GX8 and several lenses, and you can pull up all the comparisons you wish, but I'll tell you what -- a solid GX8 system is way, way smaller and lighter than a Nikon D8xx system, especially if you're carrying it around rather than looking at specs on paper. I have an excellent 12-35/f2.8 Panasonic and also the excellent Nikon f2.8 24-70, and I'll tell you what -- the GX8 with the lens mounted is lighter than either the D800E body or the Nikon lens. And when you're carrying a bag of these things around, the difference is terrific -- I mean, I think even the bag I use for the Nikon system is probably twice the weight of the Panasonic bag. I don't shoot landscape much anymore, but if I did, I'd use the D800E, of course. But for virtually anything else, it's the Panasonic. For on-line publication, or paper publication -- essentially for any publication other than large fine prints -- the Panasonic works better for me. The Nikon obviously has some other advantages (in addition to making large prints) but I've found in practice those advantages tend to disappear. I like doing street work, which tends to go a little dark, and FF is better in lower light situations given equivalent lenses, for the image when you get it. The problem is getting it. Unlike a lot of street guys, I like a slightly longer lens (60-85) and on a D800, you're already talking about a large box and intimidating lens in front of your face when taking pictures of strangers. The size advantages of the GX8 are powerfully significant with street shots. At least, for me.

[Dan Wells]

That's no D8xx - that's a Z7, which is MUCH smaller and lighter... It's certainly NOT as small as a GX8, or the smaller Micro 4/3 lenses - but the best Micro 4/3 lenses are only modestly smaller (although there are a few primes in Micro 4/3 that are both small and good).

The Z7 is the size of a big Micro 4/3 body (E-M1 mk II, GH5, only modestly larger than a G9), but not as small as the smaller bodies.

[John Camp]

That's no D8xx - that's a Z7, which is MUCH smaller and lighter... It's certainly NOT as small as a GX8, or the smaller Micro 4/3 lenses - but the best Micro 4/3 lenses are only modestly smaller (although there are a few primes in Micro 4/3 that are both small and good).

The Z7 is the size of a big Micro 4/3 body (E-M1 mk II, GH5, only modestly larger than a G9), but not as small as the smaller bodies.

Yeah, when I was thinking about this, I got a little too deep into my own situation, in which I carry a couple of older (and big) Nikon bodies. Here's the situation on that. If I get a Z, or even two, which I've been seriously considering, I'd effectively have one Z lens -- the zoom. I can't live with that, so I'd have to use all my F glass, and so I lose no weight there. For the body, I'd need the FTZ adapter which weighs almost five ounces itself (135 grams.) Add the FTZ adapter to the Z, and the combination weighs more than twice a GX8. I still wind up carrying around the big bag, with the big lenses, which is what I want to avoid. My problem is, I've got Z GAS, but the system doesn't seem practical to me right now. Nikon needs to get the new Z glass out there, and not one or two lenses at a time, and I don't care how good the FTZ is, because for my purposes, having to use the F glass with the FTZ defeats the whole purpose of having a smaller camera. The camera may be smaller, but the FTZ makes the lenses even heavier.

[hogloff]

Yeah, when I was thinking about this, I got a little too deep into my own situation, in which I carry a couple of older (and big) Nikon bodies. Here's the situation on that. If I get a Z, or even two, which I've been seriously considering, I'd effectively have one Z lens -- the zoom. I can't live with that, so I'd have to use all my F glass, and so I lose no weight there. For the body, I'd need the FTZ adapter which weighs almost five ounces itself (135 grams.) Add the FTZ adapter to the Z, and the combination weighs more than twice a GX8. I still wind up carrying around the big bag, with the big lenses, which is what I want to avoid. My problem is, I've got Z GAS, but the system doesn't seem practical to me right now. Nikon needs to get the new Z glass out there, and not one or two lenses at a time, and I don't care how good the FTZ is, because for my purposes, having to use the F glass with the FTZ defeats the whole purpose of having a smaller camera. The camera may be smaller, but the FTZ makes the lenses even heavier.

Exact same scenario I went through with the Sony system. I adapted my Canon mount glass for my landscape photography which was OK...in fact I still use many of those lenses today...but for my travel / street photography there was no way in hell I'd adapt big DSLR lenses...totally defeats the purpose. I was somewhat lucky in that I had more than 1 lens to choose from as Sony did a smart thing and opened up their mount to 3rd parties and they jumped onto the band wagon. I now have a nice compact light travel kit that does me well...but if the light lenses were not available when I needed them...I would not have looked at Sony.