Why Z lenses are so big? (Page 3): That's besides the point. The post was not about performance or heftiness or Wheaties. Just about a realization I noted while looking at the Z...

Robert1 Loc: Davie, FL

Real Nikon Lover wrote:

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.

That's besides the point. The post was not about performance or heftiness or Wheaties. Just about a realization I noted while looking at the Z lenses, specially the 50mm f 1.2 when I was under the impression that mirroless were supposed to be smaller or so I thought.

I haven't checked other brands for FF mirroless lenses, but I gather that they might be just as big as Nikon's Z.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Robert1 wrote:

I haven't checked other brands for FF mirroless lenses, but I gather that they might be just as big as Nikon's Z.

Yes, the OEM brands are because they are all competing with each other.... the third party niche lenses do not have this constraint...

jbk224 Loc: Long Island, NY

Robert1 wrote:

That's besides the point. The post was not about performance or heftiness or Wheaties. Just about a realization I noted while looking at the Z lenses, specially the 50mm f 1.2 when I was under the impression that mirroless were supposed to be smaller or so I thought.

I haven't checked other brands for FF mirroless lenses, but I gather that they might be just as big as Nikon's Z.

I guess this is the crux of the matter. What you thought was not represented by Nikon. So to make this a generalization is wrong.
Z lenses are promoted as better performing lenses than their FF ED VR counterparts. And not only does scientific testing confirm this; but also anecdotal reviews. (Don't get in to some Z's don't have VR so you can't compare to the FF VR lens--it's about the SYSTEM).
Look at the 24-70 f/2.8 ED VR vs Z 24-70 f/2.8 S vs Z 24-70 f/4.0 S. The f/2.8s compare favorably for the Z. The Z performance is superior. I only added the f/4 because of the reviews comparing from f/4-f/8 to these other two lenses.

redtooth

Just put the lens on the body and go take some pictures . Stop being so picky .

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Now that Nikon has gone to a proper LARGE mount, they want to PROVE that they can make the BEST lenses - BEST lenses, necessarily, have no compromises as to size/weight/cost !

Robert1 Loc: Davie, FL

redtooth wrote:

Just put the lens on the body and go take some pictures . Stop being so picky .

Before you open your big mouth, read first what the OP was about. I don't even have a FF mirroless. I was looking at the Z lenses in anticipation of the eventuality that Nikon releases a chrome Zf; which I would be interested.

FTn

This is just speculation. I have no inside information but if you look carefully at the sensor it appears that Nikon has left room for a sensor that is larger than 24x36mm. Could the S series lenses be larger to cover the larger sensor? If larger sensors become the latest thing Nikon is in a good position. If not no big loss.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

FTn wrote:

This is just speculation. I have no inside information but if you look carefully at the sensor it appears that Nikon has left room for a sensor that is larger than 24x36mm. Could the S series lenses be larger to cover the larger sensor? If larger sensors become the latest thing Nikon is in a good position. If not no big loss.

Yes, it is very feasible that their mount could accommodate a (slightly) larger sensor ....

jbk224 Loc: Long Island, NY

Robert1 wrote:

Before you open your big mouth, read first what the OP was about. I don't even have a FF mirroless. I was looking at the Z lenses in anticipation of the eventuality that Nikon releases a chrome Zf; which I would be interested.

Play nice!

Robert1 Loc: Davie, FL

FTn wrote:

This is just speculation. I have no inside information but if you look carefully at the sensor it appears that Nikon has left room for a sensor that is larger than 24x36mm. Could the S series lenses be larger to cover the larger sensor? If larger sensors become the latest thing Nikon is in a good position. If not no big loss.

That would be interesting.

jbk224 Loc: Long Island, NY

Robert1 wrote:

Before you open your big mouth, read first what the OP was about. I don't even have a FF mirroless. I was looking at the Z lenses in anticipation of the eventuality that Nikon releases a chrome Zf; which I would be interested.

Now...
Think about what you want--
- lighter and smaller system package?
- new system?
- or just smaller lenses than your the DSLR FF lenses?
Don't answer.
The ZF is a superb camera in a relatively small profile.
The Z lenses, in general, are better than their DSLR comparisons; even at smaller apertures compared to the wider DSLR lenses.
All that really matters here is what lenses you want/need for your style of photography.
If size matters, then go with a different system.

BurghByrd Loc: Pittsburgh

Robert1 wrote:

Not need to be condescending. My question was beca... (show quote)

Nikon did in fact produce a line or smaller compact lenses for the Z mount, they are 26mm, 28mm and 40mm. According to Nikion they are designed to be compact, lightweight and affordable but to meet those objectives they are not weather sealed, have a non-metalic mounting ring and render lower image sharpness compared to the S line prime lenses.

Without knowing the details, I'm not an optics designer, I believe that the edge to edge quality produced by the S line lenses (and comparable lenses from other companies) requires more glass and space to manipulate the light which along with internal focusing designs and the apparatus results in a larger lens. One can see the same affects on lenses designed for medium format camera bodies such as the Fuji GFX or Hasselblad lines; they are huge!

Real Nikon Lover Loc: Simi Valley, CA

Robert1 wrote:

That's besides the point. The post was not about performance or heftiness or Wheaties. Just about a realization I noted while looking at the Z lenses, specially the 50mm f 1.2 when I was under the impression that mirroless were supposed to be smaller or so I thought.

I haven't checked other brands for FF mirroless lenses, but I gather that they might be just as big as Nikon's Z.

They are. If not even bigger. Perhaps switching to OM systems may be more in line for you if you are looking for smaller form factor. My brother dropped his Canon full frame gear for OM systems and couldn't be happier. BTW... the Wheaties line was a joke. Merry Christmas.

Retina Loc: Near Charleston,SC

Robert1 wrote:

Not need to be condescending. My question was beca... (show quote)

I missed the comments about the anticipation of smaller and lighter lenses. I do recall the excitement about the shorter potential distance from the back of the lens and the sensor which is a major constraint in lens design. I don't mind a weighty lens to help reduce vibration, though lightness and compactness do help on some situations.

MountainDave

Canon's RF 50 1.2L is quite a bit bigger/heavier than the EF version too. So far, the 4 L primes from 50-135 are bigger to varying degrees. The 135 did add stabilization and 1/3 stop but is about 8 oz heavier. Canon has shaved weight off the L series zooms to varying degrees. Overall, the RF lenses tend to be thicker with larger front elements. Is this true for Nikon? The mirrorless cameras are lighter, sometimes much lighter than comparable DSLRs.