Mac Loc: Pittsburgh, Philadelphia now Hernando Co. Fl.

I bought a Nikon Z5 with a Nikkor 24-70mm f/4 S lens. I was surprised at how large the lens is and by how far it extends for 70mm. I’ll probably be using my old F Mount lenses instead of buying new Z Mount lenses because of the size.

User ID

Same here. Acoarst an FTZ adds depth to body, but thaz about 30mm on just one item. With big Z lenses you add a similar bulk to your outfit multiplied by however many lenses you tote.

Not being greatly dependent on robotic lenses, I’ve also adapted my Z6 to Leica mount and gathered a nice trio of mini lenses, much smaller than Ai primes: 15, 35, and 90mm, possibly the absolutely smallest examples available for those three FLs (for FF).
.

selena18

The thing that surprised me a few individuals reviewing this lens and calling it "expensive." I suppose if you were putting this lens on a US$500 camera body that the US$1000 for the lens would appear expensive. But you're putting this lens on high-end, expensive, sophisticated camera bodies that you'd probably expect excellent image quality from. This lens is comparatively inexpensive therein sense. On a Z7 you get optical performance bent near the corners that are actually quite excellent, and delivering everything that the sensor is capable of. Ignore those reviews that decision this lens expensive.

CO

That lens weighs only 500 grams. I've used one a Z6. It didn't seem overly large. The f/2.8 version of that lens is much heavier. I haven't seen where the Z-mount lenses are any larger or heavier than their F-mount counterparts.

Mac Loc: Pittsburgh, Philadelphia now Hernando Co. Fl.

I’m glad you said that, because I never thought of it. I have some M Mount lenses for my M10, that is a great idea. Thanks.

Mac Loc: Pittsburgh, Philadelphia now Hernando Co. Fl.

The F Mount AF-S Nikkor 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5G extends far less at 85mm than the Z 24-70mm f/4 S does at 70mm. Even with the FTZ the overall length of the 24-85mm F Mount is only about a half inch longer from the body than the 24-70mm Z Mount but gives 15mm more FL. The 24-85mm F Mount weighs 85 grams less. (I have the non-VR version).

Both the Z 35mm f/1.8 S and the Z 50mm f/1.8 S prime lenses are about the same size and weight as the retracted Z 24-70mm f/4 S. The F Mount primes of those two FLs are much smaller and lighter.

BebuLamar

How far is the rear element of the lens to the lens mount?

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

Lens weight, and the impact of the weight of a lens, is a very subjective and even personal thing. While I am always interested in k owing whether a large number of folks consider a particular lens to be "heavy," I would never base a purchase decision solely on even a large group response. My mother weighed about 100 pounds and had arthritis. She wouldn't even consider using a small point-and-shoot camera. Said it was too heavy and uncomfortable to hold. It was really that she just didn't want to mess with it, but her nature was such that she would never have said that, because photographs (taken by others) were always really important to her. My wife has really good arm and hand strength, but she complains that my D500 is too heavy to hold even to review images in the rear display. The truth is that any person in reasonable health should easily be able to handle and manipulate a camera weighing even as much as 6-10 pounds (3-5 kg).

Mac Loc: Pittsburgh, Philadelphia now Hernando Co. Fl.

Is that the reason the Z Mount lenses are so large? Even if it is, that doesn’t change my mind about using my smaller and lighter F Mount lenses. Or getting a MTZ adapter for my Leica M Mount lenses as User ID suggested.

BebuLamar

No. The diameter of the Z mount has nothing to do with the length. Of course it does make the lens fatter. I ask about the distance between the rear element to the lens mount because I guess (I guess OK) that if they use similar optical formula then the rear element would be about the same distance from the sensor. But because the Z mount is shallower then the distance from the rear element to the mount would be greater than that of the F mount lens. Of course this only apply to long lens.

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

Lens size is related primarily to the weight of the materials of construction (metal vs. plastic), the speed and coverage of the lens, and the number and design of elements required to form an accurate, corrected image on the sensor. All these things are governed by the laws of physics, not the design or technology of the camera. All full frame 24-70mm f/2.8 zoom lenses with similar performance and similar optical design are going to be pretty much the same size and weight. Moving image stabilization from the lens to the camera will reduce the weight of the lens slightly, but increase the weight of the camera. Lenses for cameras with shorter flange distances (like the new mirrorless cameras) will have to be a corresponding bit longer, potentially adding weight and increasing the rotational moment resulting from the weight x the length.

There is no free lunch in lens design. Materials changes can reduce weight, usually either at the cost of reduced performance or increased price. Designs can be simplified by eliminating elements, usually at the cost of reduced performance or reduced capability.

Mac Loc: Pittsburgh, Philadelphia now Hernando Co. Fl.

The 24-85 extended to 85 is 3/4 of an inch.
The 24-70 extended to 70 is 1 inch.

BebuLamar

Thanks Mac but what you found proved me wrong. I thought if the rear element of the F mount lens is 3/4 of an inch from the lens mount then the rear element of the Z mount lens would be 3/4 inch plus 30mm or so which is I would say about 2 inches. But of course it isn't so.

CO

You're comparing a variable max. aperture zoom lens with a constant max. aperture zoom lens.

This is why the Z-mount 35mm and 50mm lenses are heavier than their F-mount counterparts:

The Nikon Z 35mm f/1.8 S is bigger, heaver and more expensive than any Nikon 35mm f/1.8 or f/2 lens ever, but that's because this new lens has higher performance with a far more complex optical design than any other Nikon 35mm f/1.8 lens.

The Nikon Z 50mm f/1.8 S is bigger, heaver and more expensive than any Nikon 50mm f/1.8 lens ever, but that's because it's also the most complex and highest-performance 50mm lens ever from Nikon. It's almost optically perfect, having Nikon's most complex 50mm optical design of all time. It offers all the optical insanity of the $4,000 ZEISS OTUS and adds autofocus, at a much lower size, weight and price than the ZEISS. This 50mm is in the same optical class as the OTUS, Tokina Opera or Sigma ART; it's not fair to compare it to Nikon's other 50mm lenses which are much smaller, less expensive and simpler designs. This 50mm is designed for the glorious new tomorrow of future ultra-high resolution cameras, not Nikon's line of 35mm SLRs dating from the 1950s.

Mac Loc: Pittsburgh, Philadelphia now Hernando Co. Fl.

My goodness. It seemed like I was reading advertising copy. “The glorious new tomorrow”, very poetic.
Seriously though, I appreciate the information and explanations. I can’t say I’ll never buy anymore Z lenses, but I don’t expect that I will. I’ll just make do with what I have.