imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

The one thing that I can tell you for sure is that I have seen the Imatest resolution test numbers for the Nikon S mirrrorless lenses as shown in the British camera magazines - and they are ALL the highest numbers I have seen - very, very IMPRESSIVE !
.

zug55 Loc: Naivasha, Kenya, and Austin, Texas

It certainly is conceivable that Zeiss could come out with native lenses for the Z-mount. They developed the outstanding Batis line for the Sony E-mount (I own and love the 18, 25, and 135mm). Since the flange focal distance for the Nikon Z-mount is only 16mm Zeiss could adapt the Batis design since the E-mount has a flange focal distance of 18mm. (18, 25, and 40mm Batis lenses use a Distagon design, 85 and 135mm use a Sonnar design.) However, to my knowledge, Zeiss has not announced any plans to make that move.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

skyking20

Believe it or not you have to be careful what names you use to avoid lawsuits. When I worked in software development we used to name each build in a software development stream. This was in-house only. Once we were using a certain brand of cartoon characters in a alphabetical order. Somehow that company found out and sent us (a major medical equipment company) a cease and desist order or face a lawsuit. I don't think the birds have a law firm on retainer. Yet I would watch out for PETA!

adm

It is interesting that as a former Leica user, you like Zeiss lenses. I always understood that the two brands have very different looks, with Zeiss offering warmer color and Leica offering cooler color. Personally, I have aways found Nikkor lenses to be more than adequate for anything I ever wanted to use them for and they are fairly priced. Their color rendition is dead neutral to me, not especially warm or cool.

lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

Yes, that thought pops into my mind a lot on UHH.

If you have a 45 to 50 MP (FF 24x36mm sensor) camera you might see the limits of various lenses. In most cases lenses in general far exceed the resolution of digital cameras, today that is typically 24MP. And in 11x14" prints I can't really see any difference between my 14, 16, and 24 MP cameras.

wmurnahan Loc: Bloomington IN

Zeiss lenses were one of the reasons I went with Sony. If Panasonic/Leica had a full frame I might of gone that route, I do have a almost 20 year old Panasonic/leica point and shoot that is tack sharp. Leica is the premier lens maker, but Zeiss is a close second in my experience.

wmurnahan Loc: Bloomington IN

We have a 1" sensor camera, crop sensor and a full frame. You can't see the difference in a 13x19 print between the three.

dick ranez

Brand loyalties die hard. All Zeiss lenses for the Nikon are manual and all will require an adapter. If you want an native auto Zeiss lens, you should have bought a Sony (or a Fuji). Otherwise, just be patient. Nikon will have to flesh out the Z line of lenses eventually although they haven't been as open about the plan as Canon.

Philip Brindle

I really like the Zeiss Classic line. They are not weather sealed like what you get Zeiss Milvus glass, but great lenses and the build quality is second to none...

Nicholas DeSciose

The Nikon 24-70 mm F4 being used on the Z7 is an extraordinary Lens. You must be doing something wrong.

E.L.. Shapiro Loc: Ottawa, Ontario Canada

I do not have any experience with current Zeiss lenses that are made and designed for current DSLRs and mirrorless cameras. I am well entrenched in the Canon system and I am satisfied with their lenses.

For many years, however, since 1970, I was a Hasselblad user for my medium format film work. The Zeiss glass was never disappointing, optically or mechanically, and stood up well in full-time professional service. I was routinely producing 30x40 inch prints and larger from 2 1/4 negatives and transparencies made with this system with absolutely no loss of quality. If the current Zeiss lenses, for presently manufactured equipment, are within the same tolerances as my old Blad gear, I would highly recommend them.

I am reluctant to recommend anything that I have no experience with or have first-hand information from other photograhers who actually use the equipment in question. I do not necessarily go by hearsay and I do not like to simply regurgitate online reports, reviews or Googled data that oftentimes is not completely authentic.

I am also familiar with earlier Leica (film) gear. I used the old M system extensively for many years, however, I do not remember any Zeiss (brand)) lenses. The Sumicron and the Noctilux glass that I used was made in Germany by Ernst Leitz or surprisingly, some of it was produced right here in Canada at Midland, Ontario. These lenses were extredordenly sharp and mechanically excellent as well.

What many folks do not realize or remember is that many of the finest lenses that were made during the film era were able to resolve detail that far exceeded the capabilities of the film- especially the high-speed emulsions. The precision or lack thereof in processing also affected sharpness. As film emulsion quality improved, over the years, some of us came to realize the full potential of our cameras and lenses. Nowadays, in digital imaging, in most modern cameras, we are starting off with much more intrinsic sharpness even at high ISO settings. When I look back at some images I made with my old Nikon D-300 and a kit lens at ISO 200, they were as good or as or better than some of the images I made with my M-3 and Panatomic-X film, which was very carefully processed, in terms of sharpness, resolution, and dynamic range. Lately, I think folks are too preoccupied with lens reports. I usually buy my lenses from a local dealer so I can test them out to make certain they are doing what I need them to do. Oftentimes they outperform the so-called reviews by all the "gurus" who like to promote certain brands that they are endorsing$ Oh- sorry, I use the wrong punctuation symbol.

skyking20

Again lots of great info here. I have been looking at lots of articles/videos over the past few days. I also found the list of the upcoming Z series lenses. I think I am going to be patient and wait for them. Also, I am going to figure out how to get the best out of my current 24-70 F4! I can't eliminate the idea of operator error!
I do agree that the Leica lenses are on the cool side (I like a slightly warmer look). I realized that back in the early 1970s. My girlfriends dad loaned me a Leica III F range finder that was made in 1943 in Nazi Germany. It had an F2 lens that appeared to have be coated post manufacture. The image quality was amazing. To this day I have a 20x30 print I made from a glass mounted slide.

BebuLamar

By the way what was wrong with the 24-70mm f/4 Nikkor S? I read reviews (I don't own one) and thought it's very sharp.

wmurnahan Loc: Bloomington IN

When I first got into photography, I was in a camera club that had a monthly 3 slide competition, there was one gentleman that shot with a Leica. I could always tell his shots from not only there sharpness but more from how sharp it got the reds because that was the one thing that Leica did that other manufactures didn't, they focused all three light spectrums onto a single point. All other manufactures got two to focus but the red always focused in front of the focal plane, there by the reason there is always a infrared focus mark on the rear top of the camera.