Z series glass vs. F mount glass - min. aperture: I see many Z series lenses with variable apertures max out at f6.3 where the same lens in f mount maxes out at f5.6. Example F 18-140...

DaveyDitzer Loc: Western PA

I see many Z series lenses with variable apertures max out at f6.3 where the same lens in f mount maxes out at f5.6. Example F 18-140 vs. a Z 18-140. Is there any technical reason for this besides saving a little weight and maybe some cost?

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Smaller, lighter, more cost effective, .......improved ISO and AF performance is what allows this to happen ....
Oh, BTW sharper too ...
.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

imagemeister wrote:

Smaller, lighter, more cost effective, .......improved ISO and AF performance is what allows this to happen ....
Oh, BTW sharper too ...
.

All of the above. ^^^

ELNikkor

It is half a stop, your sensor DR can handle that easily. I also prefer the "comfort" of exact stops of f4, or f5.6, but the compromises made by having an in-between, such as f6.3 wide open, are slight, considering the already- mentioned benefits they offer.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

ELNikkor wrote:

It is half a stop, your sensor DR can handle that easily. I also prefer the "comfort" of exact stops of f4, or f5.6, but the compromises made by having an in-between, such as f6.3 wide open, are slight, considering the already- mentioned benefits they offer.

f6.3 is 1/3 stop over 5.6 .......8-)

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

DaveyDitzer wrote:

I see many Z series lenses with variable apertures max out at f6.3 where the same lens in f mount maxes out at f5.6. Example F 18-140 vs. a Z 18-140. Is there any technical reason for this besides saving a little weight and maybe some cost?

The difference in maximum aperture doesn't bother me. Lenses in this FL fange that don't open past f/5.6 or f/6.3 are clearly being offered as either novelty lenses for use on toy cameras or as specialty lenses to enable photographers with special needs who wouldn't be able to do photography with a lens designed for more general service. I am glad that the manufacturer makes that choice available...there may be a day and time when I require such a lens. If that happens, I'll find a way to make o e work.

In the meantime, I will continue to select and use lenses that are more appropriate and more capable. Dealing with the compromises will come later, if necessary, and I'll be thankful for the availability of a lens that lets me keep going.

cjc2 Loc: Hellertown PA

I just ordered a used copy of the new Z version 24-200 which I believe is an F4 to F6.3. While it will not be my most used lens by far, it will be a light weight alternative for ENG (Electronic News Gathering) and it will cover me for many assignments with only lens/camera. We shall see. Best of luck.

Canisdirus

Lenses don't exist in a vacuum. The mirrorless bodies are a tech marriage that is leagues ahead of the DSLR marriage.

Mirrorless is on Oprah...
DSLR is on Jerry Springer...

mikeroetex Loc: Lafayette, LA

larryepage wrote:

The difference in maximum aperture doesn't bother ... (show quote)

So you think a 500mm f5.6 prime lens, sharp a a tack on a D850 turns the D850 into a toy camera?

mikeroetex Loc: Lafayette, LA

cjc2 wrote:

I just ordered a used copy of the new Z version 24-200 which I believe is an F4 to F6.3. While it will not be my most used lens by far, it will be a light weight alternative for ENG (Electronic News Gathering) and it will cover me for many assignments with only lens/camera. We shall see. Best of luck.

I had that lens for a year and just sold it. I was so excited when I got it and it went great on a Z6 as a walk around. I just found it on the shelf too often, as I preferred using my 24-70 and 70-200 f4 in F mount with FTZ.

The 24-200 gets to f5.6 quickly, at about 50mm and f6.3 from 105mm, as I recall. While my camera handled the higher ISO easily, you may find the DOF limits annoying in an ENG environment.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

imagemeister wrote:

Smaller, lighter, more cost effective, .......improved ISO and AF performance is what allows this to happen ....
Oh, BTW sharper too ...
.

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

mikeroetex wrote:

So you think a 500mm f5.6 prime lens, sharp a a tack on a D850 turns the D850 into a toy camera?

No. But I believe that a short zoom (24-140 or the like) with a max aperture of f/5.6 or f/6.3 is a pretty marginal lens for use on a camera like that when the pretty decent 24-120mm f/4 is available as a much more versatile choice.

cjc2 Loc: Hellertown PA

mikeroetex wrote:

I had that lens for a year and just sold it. I was so excited when I got it and it went great on a Z6 as a walk around. I just found it on the shelf too often, as I preferred using my 24-70 and 70-200 f4 in F mount with FTZ.

The 24-200 gets to f5.6 quickly, at about 50mm and f6.3 from 105mm, as I recall. While my camera handled the higher ISO easily, you may find the DOF limits annoying in an ENG environment.

I get all that, but on a sunny day, outside, I expect it will get used. I must say, I really do like the 24-120 which is what I use now, but sometimes, I wish I had the ability to go to 200 with it. I also use the Z6 for that work. For any sports work, I will stick with the Z9 and the 400/2.8TC with the 70-200/2.8. As I said, we shall see. I was able to get a good used one at a very good price, which will be for sale quickly if I'm totally un-impressed. Best of luck.

cjc2 Loc: Hellertown PA

As a general note for all: IMHO, the 500 F5.6 PF is an incredible lens which I have used in both DSLRs as well as mirrorless versions. It definitely is a good choice for some outside sports, although the new 400/2.8 TC is MUCH better! Best of luck.

mikeroetex Loc: Lafayette, LA

larryepage wrote:

No. But I believe that a short zoom (24-140 or the like) with a max aperture of f/5.6 or f/6.3 is a pretty marginal lens for use on a camera like that when the pretty decent 24-120mm f/4 is available as a much more versatile choice.

I agree with you partially, as I like my 24-120 lens too. But the 18-140 Z is DX and equivalent to a 24-200 Z FX, a much wider, flexible range than 24-120. And it is much lighter and smaller than a 24-120 F mount and slightly smaller than 24-120 Z mount.

I had that lens (the 24-200) and did not find it to be a novelty on my Z7 or Z6, but rather a very good all-purpose travel lens.