MJPerini

Re size of Z lenses
Lens designers have many constraints they have to deal with.
It is instructive to look at the Zeiss Otus.
Zeiss openly said the they removed all constraints but quality from their designers.
They got a superb lens that was gigantic , heavy and very expensive.
Nikon’s venerable F mount ( designed for completely manual cameras with no AF)
Every time features were added ( like AF ) Nikon’s engineers did a brilliant job of “ fitting it into a mount that was designed with only mechanical communication wit the body.
It was a huge constraint on lens design but Nikon engineers always figured it out.
They were thrilled with the new freedom the much larger mount gave them , but their charge from Nikon was the the new lenses has to be Better than previous ones ( which were already very good). Size is another constraint. If you want the best possible FF lens that is sharp to the corners , well corrected for aberration, and Fast , - bigger makes that easier.
By all accounts, Nikon’s Z lenses are very good. So while they may be bigger than old F designs, they are generally not bigger than other modern premium lenses for FF cameras.
So basically it was an engineering / marketing choice. I would say it was probably the right one, as the cameras are well received and the company is more profitable.

Bill_de Loc: US

A review:

https://www.slrlounge.com/nikon-nikkor-z-50mm-f-1-2-s-review/

---

chasgroh Loc: Buena Park, CA

The ones *I* own, they're about the same. The 70-200 f2.8, the 105 f2.8 are almost exactly the same (actually the 105 is less long and a bit thicker)..the 24-70 f4 nor 14-30 f4 I have no comparison, but they are fairly light and manageable. The newer 40 f2 is thinner than my olde 50's (which I've kept). But, really, it's the optics...right? <shrug> I'd imagine the Z mount
requires some new engineering, eh?

lmTrying Loc: WV Northern Panhandle

👍👍👍👍👍

lmTrying Loc: WV Northern Panhandle

🙄 Those who do not understand the science and mechanics are never going to comprehend what they cannot see. I applaud you for your simple, to the point, concise, answers to the OP's "simple" question.

Robert1 Loc: Davie, FL

Not need to be condescending. My question was because before the advent of mirrorless as the main system a lot people used to say that mirroless was going to bring better smaller, lighter cameras and lenses. Now that mirroless is here by looking at them that's not the case in a lot of instances.

Obviously, Nikon could choose to bring smaller, lighter lenses, but obviously they went the better, little compromise route. And if that's what it takes to make the best lenses ever... well, that's that. Big it is. Still I was hoping for smaller when I started to seriously look at the Nikon Z line.

User ID

Same here. Got four native Z lenses, all pleasantly compact. Acoarst, UHH is the headquarters of bogus comparisons and proudly ignorant chronic complainers.

MrBob Loc: lookout Mtn. NE Alabama

You are ALL bucking the trend which is towards small, NOT big ! Technology and AI will doom you... I bet you have a bunch of old buggy whips stored up also when you were going to corner the market... Learn your Phonecam so you can help the next gen. of photo enthusiasts...

Robert1 Loc: Davie, FL

Thanks for the link. I read the review. Seems out of this world according to the reviewer.

btbg

My z lenses are either the same weight or slightly lighter than my equivalent f lenses despite being a larger diameter where they attach to the camera.

You can purchase smaller and lighter mirrorless cameras and lenses if you want but I chose to make tje switch to mirrorless only once Nikon produced the Z9 which is almost as heavy as the D4 and D5.

Some of us want the bigger bodies. As to lenses all f1.2 lenses I have ever seen are relatively large compared to slower lenses. If you want kigjt go with f4 kit lenses. If you want fast then you are going to get the weight.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

If lots of people are clueless, do you need to pay attention to them?

Nikon could make less expensive, less impressive prime and zoom lenses, especially less fixed-aperture 'fast' lenses. That's kind of the DX line. But, trying to overcome basic physics is kind of a fool's errand.

Tote1940 Loc: Dallas

This is a guess. To mantain compatibility with F lenses distance to sensor must be long.
Determined by depth of mirror box.
FTZ adapter is just an spacer to mantain this distance plus electrical contacts for fancy lenses
Z lenses have build in spacer when optics are just adapted from F lenses, pancake lenses designed from scratch and made in huge quantities justify cost of brand new design while others are adapted. Just a guess.
My dream would be more compact Z DX lenses, with higher quality sensors and processors most of us can do well with DX format allowing smaller bodies and lenses
But will keep D800E…

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

Well all Z lenses will be larger at the mount. The Z mount has a much larger flange than the F mount.

Real Nikon Lover Loc: Simi Valley, CA

They also seem to provide better AF, stabilization and higher keeper rates from what I have noticed and what other professionals have noted. Time to eat your Wheaties.

rkaminer Loc: New York, NY

The Z mount was designed with backwards compatibility to the DSLR lenses. It was an amazing engineering accomplishment to add a converter that did not change the lens’ characteristics. Nikon is the only company that maintained the same lens mount for almost 70 years, and was still able to add all kinds of state of the art features to a mount designed in the 1960’s. The Z lens mount was a major departure from that policy and the Z adaptor bridged that gap, thus maintaining backwards compatibility; I can still use my 35-105 Zoom from my Nikon FTN manual focus I purchased in 1969. Kudos to the Nikon engineers.