What the heck? This proves that no one can say or do anything anymore without people getting all bend out of shape for the littlest insignificant things in this world anymore.

People get a grip of yourself and your perceived sensibilities. The posted picture has nothing derogatory, the title had nothing to fan the flames. It seems that all of the sudden if you say anything about the Nazis concentration camps is fodder for hurt sensitivities real or imagined. Humans have been doing this since the first big settlements appeared on earth after settling down due to the discovery of agriculture.

This picture/title besides some exposure flaws has nothing to get all riled up. Chill.

Thanks. Very interesting and helpful. I will re-read and study further.

Dude on the first photo looks like he means business. That machete is ready to come out anytime from the scabbard .

That would be interesting.

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.

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.

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

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.

Still, what so far I see is Z lenses being sometimes much bigger than F mount lenses, case in point the 59mm samples I gave, to compare one from another. I'm actually looking and reading the specs, and some of these Z lenses are really bigger than anything previous.

I wrote 1:4 G, not f1.4 for the 24-120.

You're probably right. This 10mm closer if so, plays a big deal most likely.

Moreover, that's just an example but looking a other Z lenses they're bigger than their F mound counterpart.

Nikon doesn't have a F mount 50mm f1.2 autofocus (that I know of). But if you compare the Z against the manual F mount f1.2 it is a cannon of a lens next to it. 150mm vs 54.2mm. That's huge. I can't see autofocus and/or stabilization making that huge difference for a 50mm lens. Never, ever in my life saw a 50mm f1.2 lens that big.

Funny, but even with the FTZ adapter my 24-120mm is just about the same size as the Z 50mm f1.2.

in anticipation of eventually Nikon releasing a Chrome Zf model I've been looking at Nikon Z lenses. I though that mirrorless were suppose to be smaller but looking at them even a 50mm is bigger than a medium zoom lens I have for my F mount. not to mention how ugly they look (subjective). What gives? Anybody knows why even a "prime" lens is so big? a
Z 50mm f1.2 is 150mm (5.9")
AF-S NIKKOR 50mm f/1.4G Lens is 54.2mm (2.13") almost 100mm less than the Z.
NIKKOR 50mm f/1.2 Lens 48.3mm (1.9") Manual. Understandable no autofocus mechanism. Still 150mm for the Z mount that's more or less a small zoom in F mount. It's actually bigger than my AF-S 24-120mm f1:4G lens.