Didn’t notice much difference between 24-70 g v 24-70 z except for the far corners. The vignetting is better on f mount as well as the colors are more intense and brighter. So much so that I kept my f mount 24-70 2.8G. The image from z mounts are a bit too contrasted for my taste and I usually have to dial down the contrast slider.
For me camera or objectiv is not the thing witch doing good picture. Only your artistic personality can do really art pictures. Human eye see different than cameras. I know fotografer, witch use one fix objective and old camera and his pictures are still perfect. Fotografy is art, and if you are not artist your fotos never be good.
Who determines what is art, how it will be art that through a physical and mechanical process reproduces reality. I think that when it is assumed that photography is art it is exaggerated. I think that photography can be used as an artistic expression is more prudent. Furthermore, what is considered "art" depends on recognition and that is often a very capricious matter. It is also true that a good tool is not necessarily going to produce better photos because it always requires the human who decides, but it also depends on the type of photography. If you are taking a photo of the Normandy landings, surely neither the sharpness nor the bokeh is important, but in other circumstances that may be very different.
Having sold all my Canon kit after 15yrs and finally going mirrorless with Nikon Z bodies, I love the vast choice. Z lenses for work, hands down. But for personal work I picked up, by chance, a Voigtlander 50mm f1.5 Aspherical lens. The beauty of the mirrorless bodies is being able to use focus peaking and IBIS with a small, manual focus, old school lens and seeing the micro contrast and rendering of these beautiful lenses. It’s reignited my love for photography after so many decades. A Z6/7 with a small, manual lens is also compact and light. Great for personal work.
I jumped from my old d3200, which I Love, straight into Z6II with 50mm 1.8s. All I can say is it's Fantastic. The 50mm 1.8s is a superior lens, specially for the price. I have an F to Z adapter coming so I can try out my F mounts on the Z6ii. Great video, I really enjoy your input and how you present it.
I fully jumped on the Z-bandwagon. I really liked the 105/1.4, but the 85/1.2 has even more/better characteristics for my kind of pictures - definitely not clinical. Sold my last F-mount lens (58/1.4+FTZ) to get a bit of down-payment on my ordered 135/1.8. I hope to both get my Z8 back from its inspection and then the 135/1.8 soon. I'm a bit strange, but before the 105, my main used focal-lengths were the (f-mount) 85/1.4 and 135/2.0 (before the high-megapixel-cams). And I plan to use the same 85+135 combo with the Z-system. Not sure if I'm not totally weird, but I really look forward to the 135's rendering for my images. For anything wider than the 85, I plan to just use my smartphone.
Very enjoyable conversation. Glad I came across it. For the time being I’m staying with my D750. In fact several of my prime lenses are old Nikkor D lenses because I sometimes shoot film. I’m no film snob, I just like the process of film. And I like the convenience of digital.
The 24-70 2.8 S lens is one of my favorites ever. Nostalgia is one of the worst and most expensive aspects of photography and videography. A lot of us would be well off to just move on.
The Z Mount Objektives are superb and the “S” versions are amazingly good. F mount was good (some of them superb as well) but the Z objectives are a different world.
Mine is simple: all Z mounts below 50mm (well, 85 1.8 Z also counts), all F mounts above 50mm, that way my F mount crop could take full advantage of the telephoto sides, and Z mount for better wider sides
For me it started almost three years ago, I tried the Z50 1.8S and half a year later I had the whole 20/35/50/85 family. I have a lot, a huge amount of RAW on disks, I often go back to them and there is no way to go back to the F bayonet. The image with Z combined with S lenses is do "ready". In the Z6II, AWB and ADL work, the colors even at high ISO are often so good that they make you lazy... Size Z body and glasses, the silent operation of AF and VR during video and photography gives such freedom and fun that I will only think about changing it when medium format will achieve this accessibility for the average person. I think that in 10-15 years the next step that will provide so much fun will be medium format!
If “better” equals soft edges, peak resolution over 2 stops darker than maximum, busy background details and huge focus breathing, then yes, F lenses are always better 😂
I've kept my D810 as a second body and so kept a lot of F-mount lenses to go with it. Now that I've got the Z9 which I've used with adapted f-mount lenses up until last month, I'm seeing the benefits of the new lenses in terms of sharpness and what troubles me most in the old f-mount lenses, almost zero ca. I however do love using f-mount as a walkaround (not for work). I particularly like to use the D810 with the old manual focus lenses as the size remains relatively small without using the adapters for Z bodies. We've talked about this before when I said that I'd hoped the Df got an update into a DF2. Sadly that will never happen but if I may be allowed to dream, I'd be happy with a stills only camera, f-mount but with an evf. That's because having an evf would be like having the old Live View but up to your eye which would drain the battery less. It would be great to use with the old manual lenses having the ability to go one hundred percent zoom with a touch of a button for critical focus. As to the old 105G... I'm still waiting for a decent 105mm 1.4 or 1.2 Z mount. I think that that would be the ideal portrait lens being a bit longer than 85 but not as long as the 135 so you can still communicate with the subject. Maybe it's the one coming next?
I won’t get rid of my 105/1.4, the 58/1.4 and the 28/1.4. but I bought the 24-70S, the 50/1.8S, the 85/1.8S and the 40 and 28 pancakes. I am doing people photography.
I wonder, when you compare F lenses with Z lenses, you are actually also comparing what DSLR (F mount) and Z bodies do. And since there is no way to test a Z lens on a DSLR body, my question is how much of what we see is a product of the lens and how much is a product of what the machine or software precesses, corrects, compensates or whatever you want to call it do. Because I have a theory that it is cheaper to make a mediocre lens and "correct" it by software than to make a very good optic that needs fewer software corrections.
Kept my F mount 14-24 and 70-200 FL E lens (amazing) Also kept my f mount 50mm F 1.4 AF-S which I really like at F 1.4 (yeah I know right, just me). Kept my 50mm f 1.4 Pre Ai Nikkor lens and my 105mm F 2.5 AiS lens which I also love Kept my 35mm F2 AF-D lens which I love Kept my Zeiss Milvus 35mm F 1.4 F mount lens For Z mount I bought the 50mm f 1.8 S and the 105 mm F 2.5 Macro and the 40mm F2 . lens and the 24 - 120 F4 zoom. Love them all But.....I'm not a pro and don't need fast accurate AF. That, I think would change the ball-game altogether to all mirrorless.
I have replaced many of my f mount lenses with Z mount but am holding on to some F mount glass. I love my Sigma Art 35mm and 24mm 1.4 Art lenses on my Z7, And I still get a lot of use out of my 70-200 f4 f which doesn’t have an equivalent yet on Z mount
This comes down to what the images look like. I never found F mount shorter lenses to be great. They were workable but not wonderful. I have found myself enjoying the Z mount lenses so much more. The 85 1.8S is a much nicer lens to use. You are overthinking this. The reaction of people looking at the prints of the portraits I have made for them is consistent. They are not looking at spec sheets but they can see the results. From my point of view it’s the package. The Z9 and Z6ii let me work better. I am directing my thoughts to the art of capturing the right moment and not having to think about the technical options. The results are better portraits, more shots to choose something they really like and happier subjects.
Yeah I agree, the new tech allows for creative thinking rather than technical issues. But sometimes its good to have a more hands on approach in certain scenarios
I don’t have any F mount lenses that are not budget. I can’t part with them because then I won’t have the focal ranges that I want. I don’t have a problem with the clinical look of the Z mount lenses to me it’s next level. As crazy as this is going to sound, I gave my daughter, my D750 with an old 51.4 D lens and I’m getting myself a ZF and the 135 Plena! 😂
I have a nikon D610. As an amateur at best, the prices to move to Z are far to big for me. I have a 24-70 2.8 E, a 20mm 1.8 G. I am not sure my next camera will be a D750 or a move to an occasion Z camera. (I fancy the ZF, but 2500 euro....)... I am tempted to buy a 28mm 1.4E occasion as the reviews are so great and the 24-70 is to bulky to carry around . .. will this be loosing money or a good investment??? (I dont have a 1.4 in my collection...)
The 28 will feel better on a dslr as it won’t have the ftz adapter. It’s a tough choice with lenses and bodies. Zf is great but very different from what you’re used to
I prefer not to use a lens wider than 35mm for events because there’s less distortion. I’d rather move back a few feet. That’s why I’m really looking forward to the new 35mm f/1.2 for the Z-mount. Perhaps Sigma will come out with a 35mm f/1.4. I’ve sold or traded all of my F-mount lenses and now have 11 Z-mount lenses (which admittedly I have to pare down).
Yeah that’s one of the reasons a 35 is too long as often I find I can’t move back as my back is already against the wall. But yeah I get the point of wider distortion
I was a crop user with my D7500 and swapped to a Z5 because all the F crop lenses were antiques. Technology from 15 years ago it seemed. That said, with my Z5, both my 50 1.8 z and 28 2.8 Z, both brand new, sound like coffee grinders - not sure where all this silent stuff comes from as they aren’t for me.
I’m all in with Z mount cameras, I’m awaiting my Zf in a week’s time, but all my lenses are f mount with the exception of the Voigtlander 65mm macro. The f mount f1.4’s are wonderful. I have the 35, 58 and 85 and they make beautiful images. Moving from Nikon’s premiere f1.4 lenses to the equivalent premiere f1.2 lenses would cost many many thousands of dollars. I could never afford that. The Z ca,eras make all of these lenses better with equivalent focus speed but much more accurate focus. I also have the 500pf and a number of AIS manual focus lenses. All of which function better on z cameras than f. The adapter is a bit of a palaver but if the alternative is spending thousands, I will live with the inconvenience. I’m an amateurs, not a pro and I see why differently folks make different choices.
I'll admit that I loved my old Sigma 85mm f1.4 DG HSM Art lens on my D850 and Z7ii, Once I bought the Nikon Z 105mm f2.8 VR S Macro lens, I found I could do lovely portraits with it if I stepped back a couple of feet, and probably sold the Sigma 85mm about the time I acquired my Z9. Are the Nikon Z lenses too sharp? Not in my world. I currently have 5 of them with the sixth on order (the Nikon Z 180-600mm f5.6-6.3) and I love them compared to my many old FX lenses. I shot 10,000 frames in the past two days with my Z9 and Nikon Z 70-200mm f2/8 VR S lens on the Z9 (as the Z8 is off at Nikon for the eyelet service advisory). My first impression tonight as I began culling images from the past two days is how much I love the Z9 and that lens.
I generally prefer my Z-mount glass... but I keep my FTZ adapter attached to my Sigma 135mm f/1.8 Art lens. I love the image it gives so much that I would probably keep it even if someone were to offer to give me the Plena 135mm. OK, maybe that's a little bit of hyperbole... but the Sigma is a darned-good lens.
I still use mainly f mount on z8. Whilst they are legacy from my DSLR, I have just bought the 35mm 1.4g. I was thinking about either the 1.8s or the 40mm f2 as well. As I love the 58 1.4 so much on mirrorless I went with the 35mm 1.4g. Mint condition £400. Whilst I bought for the overall rendering, it has vastly superseeded my expectations for sharpness at 1.4 If I wanted to use the lens for video, then I would go native due to the AF noise of F mount.
I think I’ve sat on my F mount lenses too long, and now they’re hardly worth selling, so I have them, but currently not using most of them. I find Z mount lenses to be more consistent performance overall so you don’t need as many lenses. The zooms are much closer in sharpness to the primes versus the F mount, so I only use primes when I want a brighter aperture, not because I think of them as sharper.
All Z lenses all the time. I just sold my last F-mount lens. Sold my 200-500 f5.6 now that I have received my 180 to 600 Z lens. The big mistake was getting my Z 6 with the 24-70 f4... I went on to replace all my F-mount lenses. I really love the Z glass.
Good video and good discussion but I love the 85 1.8 S lens. I agree it has a bit more clinical look but it's such a wonderful lens. If you like the look of a better fall off try the Voigtlander 50mm F2 Apo and compare that to the Nikon 50 F1.8 S lens. You will see the difference in what you're discussing. Thanks for all the videos. I'm going Z mount lenses and never going back.
Also, if you find my video from Worth Avenue, I used the Voigtlander for the images in the video except for one. One was with the Nikon 50mm S 1.8 lens. If you watch, see if you can find the image with the Nikon lens. @@russandloz
I don't want to give the wrong idea that I am rich or something, because I am really not, but I do hold on to all my F glass and continue to invest in more F lenses simultaneously with my Z glass. First off, I have quite a few F and Nikon 1 bodies with which I use my F glass0 Moreover, I mostly buy F 3rd party glass even of the Z option is natively available because I always think about the other two Nikon systems I use in addition to Z. I still have two grab-and-go shoulder bags with a D800E and a D7200 and some F glass handy. Still, I mostly use my Z7II and Z fc over my DSLRs these days, but I still shoot the latter frequently enough to have them handy close to my apartment doo for a quick grab whenever I feel like using them. That's in addition to having a severe GAS case as well😅
The Z zooms are amazing and the way to go in my mind. In general, I find Z lenses provide the clean modern look and the F-lenses provide more artistic look. I have no interest in selling my 28-58-105 primes in f-mount even though I sold my dslr cameras off. The sigma 135 f-mount is a very cheap find on the used market these days which is insane. I have no interest in Plena given the cheaper, fantastic sigma 135. These f-mount lenses work great on the Z cameras. This is an amazing time to pick up great f-mount lenses which are, in some cases, very close in image quality to the z-mount versions. The ftz isn't great and investing in glass that's not modern is not great financially if not getting a big discount, but the difference in cost right now between pro f-mount glass and prosumer z-mount lenses is really significant. Regardless, there's great options out there for most people now.
Yes. Very much my point of view. Though my current dilemma is a wildlife lens. I have the 200-500 which is like a new lens on my z8. But it’s very heavy and awkward to use. Looking at the 180-600 which is a good price or the 500pf which has been shown to produce a better image. Then there is the 400 4.5 🙈
@@russandloz Just my $0.02 here, but I have the 500pf, recently sold the 200-500 and have now just picked up a used 400mm f2.8 FL for a third of the new price (and loving it by the way!). I was looking into the 400mm 4.5 to sell the 500 pf but ultimately decided there's little advantage and I'd prefer f5.6 vs f6.3 (400mm f4.5 with a teleconverter for >400mm). Then came along a used 400mm f2.8 which I can use a teleconverter with for a 560mm f4 if I wish. It's big, it's heavy, but man it's beautiful and I like sports photography so 400mm is great for that. My suggestions to others are: 180-600 over the 200-500 for sure if they can afford it or the 200-500 if the best bang for the buck is desired. The 200-500 is still excellent. If people are mostly into birds and want a lower cost, lightweight option, a used 500pf is still excellent but I'd weigh the pros and cons vs the 180-600mm at this point. I'm not buying the 180-600 because I like the smaller 500pf option and it works fantastically with the ftz. If I were starting out right now with little experience and wanted just one lens it would absolutely be the 180-600mm (short throw, internal zoom, 600mm, native mount). Like I said, Nikon is giving us lots of choices here and the used market is starting to provide heavy discounts if one is not against the ftz. The 100-400mm is also an excellent lens for sports (but not the best option for birding).
@@richardwanbon3087 Good points there Richard. The 180-600 I would say is for everyone for versatility. Then a prime by your side when you can use it. But would you rather have a 400 4.5 or a 500pf for that?
@@russandloz That's the dilemma for many. I haven't shot with the 400mm f4.5 before so someone else's opinion may be more valuable here but the very large majority of people I've seen using this lens have the TC1.4 attached all of the time for 560mm f6.3.....mainly for birding. I contemplated the 400mm f4.5 for a light prime with sports but f4.5 doesn't offer that much advantage over the 100-400mm which has the zoom. For birding, neither f4.5 nor 400mm offer a sweet spot in most cases, but the results I've seen are beautiful. I don't think you buy the 400mm f4.5 over the 500mm PF for sharpness or size benefits and the focus speed difference is negligible. You buy the 400mm f4.5 because you don't like the ftz and you have nicer bokeh when not using the TC.....but then you're at 400mm. I'm seeing a lot of chatter suggesting many will leave their 400mm f4.5 + TC for the new 600mm PF, but I'd argue the aperture is not ideal and it's too expensive for most. So personally, I'm just going to enjoy my 500mm PF for longer. It's great, it's 500mm, it's f5.6 which is slightly better than f6.3 for birds in the bushes, and the prices are coming down in the used market. My one knock on the 500pf is the bokeh can be a bit unsettling in some cases.....but that's nit-picking when you have a f5.6 lens. In most cases it's fantastic. If I were to sell the 500pf at this point, it would be for the 180-600, but I'd prefer the lighter weight and performance of the 500pf. No perfect answer here....comes down to choices as always......would make another great video for you two to discuss :)
The most important piece of equipment is 4” behind the view finder. This video appears to be a sales pitch for Nikon to get Z Mount lens sales off the floor. With modern post processing software you don’t need all that glass. Sharpness is all it’s cracked up to be. Give me a D700 with a 50mm f1.8 and day for colour rendition and image quality.
As I (Russ) still use lots of F mount as said in the video. It’s not a z sales pitch. But I do get that camera TH-camrs often get too enthralled with new gear. But yes sharpness isn’t the end all which is why I still cherish f mount 😊
@@russandloz I sold my 85mm 1.8 f lens with the intention of getting the z85 1.8 as it was a bit bit tatty but now I’m wondering if I should wait a while and go for the 1.2. Mmm decisions
Having used Zeiss lens and Leica lens since the 1980’S I find the new lens lacking any character the Sigma and Sony lens are just to sharp and to prove it is the software to reduce the sharpness in portrait’s
In my humble opinion … the z lenses look more clinical, because they are a) cooler in color temperature (easy to fix) b) less contrasty in out of focus areas - like shadows are lifted c) bokeh with less faults, that’s looking closer to a (boring) PS gaussian blur For me it’s not about the absolute sharpness. P.S.: I believe these attributes were chosen, because they are appealing for film making - it’s modern / trendy
Really wishful thinking but I wonder how long you can keep up the delusion. If you owned both versions which would be the one you would use. In my case the Z range has so much better. It is not just sharpness. It’s clarity no chromatic aberration, better colour and depth.
Please, ask the professionals about the lenses! And, it seems these days that there has never been a good photograph shot with any lens until now! And yes, I am a pro and I shoot with Nikon since the beginning but don't ask me with which gear because I could get ashamed 😂 Or, just watch some great photographers and learn from their work! All this stuff about what's better is a pure nonsense and very far from the art of photography, get serious!
What happened around 6:30 into the video? The autofocus of your camera totally screwed up your take... If you have to switch to a new take anyway (as witnessed by the difference in your position) then reshoot that segment where your autofocus messed up too.
My most shot lens is my Nikkor 28mm F1.8G; and there's nothing equivalent in the Z world.. frustrates me to no ends.. I might have to end up with a viltrox...
Where I live, I can find the F-mount lenses 2-3 times cheaper than the Z-mount ones. To me, as an amateur, photographer, the image quality difference is not worth the price.
I still prefer the f mount look, issue is using them together with z lenses are tricky to look the same when making a collection, Or even these videos, one camera looks different to the other
The F-mount line-up was so extensive that it could have the "get the job done" lenses as well as the "create some art" options, with examples like * 35mm f/1.4G -- 28mm f/1.4E * 85mm f/1.4G -- 105mm f/1.4E * 70-200mm f/2.8E -- 200mm f/2G The Z-mount lens line-up is only 5 years old, and the new 135mm f/1.8 S Plena might join the 58mm f/0.95 S Noct as the most 'artistic' lenses. Through the rest of the decade, more will likely join them. [Knowing that the question of using the 105mm f/1.4E gets asked, I used it on Tuesday.]
@@russandloz Haha! Of course, f/1.8 is meaningless without the context of the focal length. This "Plena" lens might play optical games with characteristics both across the frame and with parts of the image in front of or behind the focus plane.
@@russandloz I've yet to see enough to really judge. The other aspect is that some photographers really prefer particular focal lengths over others which are close to the same, like 85mm vs 105mm vs 135mm. The 135mm f/1.8 is also for them, especially since they drool over the Sony, Canon, and Sigma options. And even the old Nikon 135mm f/2 DC. For Nikon, this may simply be a case of "We had to do it to match everyone else."
You cannot discuss F vs Z lenses without full disclosure about the cameras you were using in either cases. Below 30MP (photosite density at full frame sensor) Nikon uses an OLPF, above they don't. That filter does a lot. It's in the 24MP F mount DSLRs, not in a D500, not in a D850. It's in a Z 6(ii), not in a Z 7(ii)/8/9. A Z 6(ii) with OLPF produces warmer tinted images than the higher res ones - it's too yellow in Adobe Camera Raw. But that may be an illusion because "Adobe Standard" profile for this camera may deviate "Adobe Standard" are some 1,000 camera-specific profiles that dictate how raw processing is done for each: towards Adobe's neutral and rather flat reference. Having shot pro Nikon primes since I bought my first Nikon (F2) in 1975, my ongoing rant was (1) chromatic aberration (CA) and (2) tint differences between lenses. The Z system solves both. My problem with the OLPF cameras is that there is a very thin gap between the rear of the OLPF and the front of the sensor. In stronger backlight this can turn into total reflection and bam your shots are magenta - not possible to take out, except converting to B&W. Nikon first Eliminated the OLPF from the D800E version of the D800 some 10 years ago. Leading up to the Z system, in the rumour mill, I commented in several places that for me the lenses not necessarily had to become sharper but the CA had to disappear. Being sharper in my case is a matter of 45.4 instead of 24 in the first place. The difference between 45.4 (MP is an area unit) and 24 is much less than we think (max 40% more, linearly, and that's almost negligible to the human eye). But the removal of the OLPF makes it a lot sharper. But there's a corollary and serious but. Without the OLPF, raw processing is more difficult and only recently with their addition in Camera Raw of "AI Denoise" as time consuming option, the noise we got from ACR (=LrC, =Ps) in shots without OLPF has become what it should be. IMO Adobe still need to improve detail loss or detail recovery from raw (suppression of digital artefacts that do not look like Moiré). This simply means that what we see in LrC that we think of as a raw image is far from. It has been totally cooked - well done is an understatement, even when we altered nothing. It also means that camera and lens comparisons are difficult, more so than with film, if we want valid and relevant conclusions. For me, the F mount is history. The Z mount "S" lenses are better. If you think they are too cool or neutral, spend 5 minutes to create your own profile. And, as reference, process your images in Nikon NX Studio too. Or if you need JPEGs next to your raw shots, generate them in camera. Note that the camera firmware offers different profiles (Picture Controls) for raw processing - you can actually make your own in camera or in NX Studio, save them to memory card and load them into your compatible camera. In camera is a lot faster than raw to JPEG conversions in LrC. Too sharp? Not for me. And that again depends - on your computer display's resolution, your eyes, your printer, the drivers, and the app you use to generate an image that has less MP. Beautiful rendition of the background? You remember the wedding shoot where the bride was disappointed that the beautiful and expensive dress did not make her look like a supermodel in your photos. What do you tell her? But look how nice the background blur is and how good the bokeh balls are? She will kill you. It's a tool. We need to move on. When I started seriously with "digital" (sensors actually are analogue and colour-blind) I shot as if I was shooting portraits on 120 film with a Hasselblad. At a big shoot an assistant of the spray and pray generation asked to work with me, because of that slow and precise and managed way of working. I still don't spray and pray, but on the top of my list is improved eye-AF in lower light with lower contrast. It enables another interaction with the sitter than in my past. Birds, trains and planes are not my thing and improvement of that - meh. My wish will resonate with wedding, event, and portrait photographers.
85 1.4 is the one , everybody tests the 85 1.8 with the 1.2 , because the 1.4 kills the 1.2 , and is £500 used. Z mounts arent smaller they have a built in 1 inch extention tube ! Making them bigger. The 85 1.8 is a crap lens slow . Has aberition problems ,
Didn’t notice much difference between 24-70 g v 24-70 z except for the far corners. The vignetting is better on f mount as well as the colors are more intense and brighter. So much so that I kept my f mount 24-70 2.8G. The image from z mounts are a bit too contrasted for my taste and I usually have to dial down the contrast slider.
Fair enough. I found the ergonomics better on the z and faster focussing and sharper from my tests
For me camera or objectiv is not the thing witch doing good picture. Only your artistic personality can do really art pictures. Human eye see different than cameras. I know fotografer, witch use one fix objective and old camera and his pictures are still perfect. Fotografy is art, and if you are not artist your fotos never be good.
Who determines what is art, how it will be art that through a physical and mechanical process reproduces reality. I think that when it is assumed that photography is art it is exaggerated. I think that photography can be used as an artistic expression is more prudent. Furthermore, what is considered "art" depends on recognition and that is often a very capricious matter.
It is also true that a good tool is not necessarily going to produce better photos because it always requires the human who decides, but it also depends on the type of photography. If you are taking a photo of the Normandy landings, surely neither the sharpness nor the bokeh is important, but in other circumstances that may be very different.
@@mistergiovanni7183 Yes I agree.
Having sold all my Canon kit after 15yrs and finally going mirrorless with Nikon Z bodies, I love the vast choice. Z lenses for work, hands down. But for personal work I picked up, by chance, a Voigtlander 50mm f1.5 Aspherical lens. The beauty of the mirrorless bodies is being able to use focus peaking and IBIS with a small, manual focus, old school lens and seeing the micro contrast and rendering of these beautiful lenses. It’s reignited my love for photography after so many decades. A Z6/7 with a small, manual lens is also compact and light. Great for personal work.
Totally agree
zf is waving to u😂
I jumped from my old d3200, which I Love, straight into Z6II with 50mm 1.8s. All I can say is it's Fantastic. The 50mm 1.8s is a superior lens, specially for the price.
I have an F to Z adapter coming so I can try out my F mounts on the Z6ii.
Great video, I really enjoy your input and how you present it.
Thanks. Did you get a good price?
@@russandloza fair deal I would say, just under $2300 USD for the body, lens, 256g sd card and a cheesy carry case. From B&H.
I fully jumped on the Z-bandwagon. I really liked the 105/1.4, but the 85/1.2 has even more/better characteristics for my kind of pictures - definitely not clinical. Sold my last F-mount lens (58/1.4+FTZ) to get a bit of down-payment on my ordered 135/1.8. I hope to both get my Z8 back from its inspection and then the 135/1.8 soon. I'm a bit strange, but before the 105, my main used focal-lengths were the (f-mount) 85/1.4 and 135/2.0 (before the high-megapixel-cams). And I plan to use the same 85+135 combo with the Z-system. Not sure if I'm not totally weird, but I really look forward to the 135's rendering for my images. For anything wider than the 85, I plan to just use my smartphone.
Very enjoyable conversation. Glad I came across it. For the time being I’m staying with my D750. In fact several of my prime lenses are old Nikkor D lenses because I sometimes shoot film. I’m no film snob, I just like the process of film. And I like the convenience of digital.
The 24-70 2.8 S lens is one of my favorites ever. Nostalgia is one of the worst and most expensive aspects of photography and videography. A lot of us would be well off to just move on.
Yes the whole trinity is amazing
G A S is one of the worst and most expensive aspects of photography and videography.
The Z Mount Objektives are superb and the “S” versions are amazingly good. F mount was good (some of them superb as well) but the Z objectives are a different world.
Yes very much so
sadly yes. sadly because the availability sucks. every lens I want isn't in stock or hasn't been officially released yet.
I put my voigtlander 40mm f2.8 on my z7ii. Lots of character. Micro-contrast good. Colors really pop out.
Sometimes you need character over clinical sharpness.
For people photography certainly!
Rarely, I’d suggest!
Wut
The new S lenses for Z mount are superb.
Mine is simple: all Z mounts below 50mm (well, 85 1.8 Z also counts), all F mounts above 50mm, that way my F mount crop could take full advantage of the telephoto sides, and Z mount for better wider sides
Nikon 105 f2.5 ais and 50mm 1.8 e series work fine just use manual focus
For me it started almost three years ago, I tried the Z50 1.8S and half a year later I had the whole 20/35/50/85 family. I have a lot, a huge amount of RAW on disks, I often go back to them and there is no way to go back to the F bayonet. The image with Z combined with S lenses is do "ready". In the Z6II, AWB and ADL work, the colors even at high ISO are often so good that they make you lazy... Size Z body and glasses, the silent operation of AF and VR during video and photography gives such freedom and fun that I will only think about changing it when medium format will achieve this accessibility for the average person. I think that in 10-15 years the next step that will provide so much fun will be medium format!
Good points, will medium format provide even better colours and image quality that we’ll need?
If “better” equals soft edges, peak resolution over 2 stops darker than maximum, busy background details and huge focus breathing, then yes, F lenses are always better 😂
I've kept my D810 as a second body and so kept a lot of F-mount lenses to go with it. Now that I've got the Z9 which I've used with adapted f-mount lenses up until last month, I'm seeing the benefits of the new lenses in terms of sharpness and what troubles me most in the old f-mount lenses, almost zero ca. I however do love using f-mount as a walkaround (not for work). I particularly like to use the D810 with the old manual focus lenses as the size remains relatively small without using the adapters for Z bodies. We've talked about this before when I said that I'd hoped the Df got an update into a DF2. Sadly that will never happen but if I may be allowed to dream, I'd be happy with a stills only camera, f-mount but with an evf. That's because having an evf would be like having the old Live View but up to your eye which would drain the battery less. It would be great to use with the old manual lenses having the ability to go one hundred percent zoom with a touch of a button for critical focus.
As to the old 105G... I'm still waiting for a decent 105mm 1.4 or 1.2 Z mount. I think that that would be the ideal portrait lens being a bit longer than 85 but not as long as the 135 so you can still communicate with the subject. Maybe it's the one coming next?
Yes, no more road map but Nikon have released a lot over the last year, hopefully they'll continue
Loved the briefly overlayed comment “We have no money for new clothes“ 😂
It was a funny coincidence the thumb of the other video we were wearing the same clothes lol
I won’t get rid of my 105/1.4, the 58/1.4 and the 28/1.4. but I bought the 24-70S, the 50/1.8S, the 85/1.8S and the 40 and 28 pancakes. I am doing people photography.
I wonder, when you compare F lenses with Z lenses, you are actually also comparing what DSLR (F mount) and Z bodies do. And since there is no way to test a Z lens on a DSLR body, my question is how much of what we see is a product of the lens and how much is a product of what the machine or software precesses, corrects, compensates or whatever you want to call it do. Because I have a theory that it is cheaper to make a mediocre lens and "correct" it by software than to make a very good optic that needs fewer software corrections.
Kept my F mount 14-24 and 70-200 FL E lens (amazing)
Also kept my f mount 50mm F 1.4 AF-S which I really like at F 1.4 (yeah I know right, just me).
Kept my 50mm f 1.4 Pre Ai Nikkor lens and my 105mm F 2.5 AiS lens which I also love
Kept my 35mm F2 AF-D lens which I love
Kept my Zeiss Milvus 35mm F 1.4 F mount lens
For Z mount I bought the 50mm f 1.8 S and the 105 mm F 2.5 Macro and the 40mm F2 . lens and the 24 - 120 F4 zoom. Love them all
But.....I'm not a pro and don't need fast accurate AF. That, I think would change the ball-game altogether to all mirrorless.
I have replaced many of my f mount lenses with Z mount but am holding on to some F mount glass. I love my Sigma Art 35mm and 24mm 1.4 Art lenses on my Z7, And I still get a lot of use out of my 70-200 f4 f which doesn’t have an equivalent yet on Z mount
Maybe worth looking at the Nikon 70-180 2.8? Good price and quality
This comes down to what the images look like. I never found F mount shorter lenses to be great. They were workable but not wonderful. I have found myself enjoying the Z mount lenses so much more. The 85 1.8S is a much nicer lens to use.
You are overthinking this. The reaction of people looking at the prints of the portraits I have made for them is consistent. They are not looking at spec sheets but they can see the results.
From my point of view it’s the package. The Z9 and Z6ii let me work better. I am directing my thoughts to the art of capturing the right moment and not having to think about the technical options. The results are better portraits, more shots to choose something they really like and happier subjects.
Yeah I agree, the new tech allows for creative thinking rather than technical issues. But sometimes its good to have a more hands on approach in certain scenarios
I don’t have any F mount lenses that are not budget. I can’t part with them because then I won’t have the focal ranges that I want. I don’t have a problem with the clinical look of the Z mount lenses to me it’s next level. As crazy as this is going to sound, I gave my daughter, my D750 with an old 51.4 D lens and I’m getting myself a ZF and the 135 Plena! 😂
Best F mount lens I’ve used was the Tamron f/1.4. Wish I still had it sometimes
I’m sometimes like that with old lenses. But then it might not be as I remember it
I have a nikon D610. As an amateur at best, the prices to move to Z are far to big for me.
I have a 24-70 2.8 E, a 20mm 1.8 G. I am not sure my next camera will be a D750 or a move to an occasion Z camera. (I fancy the ZF, but 2500 euro....)...
I am tempted to buy a 28mm 1.4E occasion as the reviews are so great and the 24-70 is to bulky to carry around . .. will this be loosing money or a good investment??? (I dont have a 1.4 in my collection...)
The 28 will feel better on a dslr as it won’t have the ftz adapter. It’s a tough choice with lenses and bodies. Zf is great but very different from what you’re used to
I prefer not to use a lens wider than 35mm for events because there’s less distortion. I’d rather move back a few feet. That’s why I’m really looking forward to the new 35mm f/1.2 for the Z-mount. Perhaps Sigma will come out with a 35mm f/1.4.
I’ve sold or traded all of my F-mount lenses and now have 11 Z-mount lenses (which admittedly I have to pare down).
Yeah that’s one of the reasons a 35 is too long as often I find I can’t move back as my back is already against the wall. But yeah I get the point of wider distortion
I was a crop user with my D7500 and swapped to a Z5 because all the F crop lenses were antiques. Technology from 15 years ago it seemed. That said, with my Z5, both my 50 1.8 z and 28 2.8 Z, both brand new, sound like coffee grinders - not sure where all this silent stuff comes from as they aren’t for me.
@@Johnlancaster they do a bit. But better than f mount lol
I’m all in with Z mount cameras, I’m awaiting my Zf in a week’s time, but all my lenses are f mount with the exception of the Voigtlander 65mm macro. The f mount f1.4’s are wonderful. I have the 35, 58 and 85 and they make beautiful images. Moving from Nikon’s premiere f1.4 lenses to the equivalent premiere f1.2 lenses would cost many many thousands of dollars. I could never afford that. The Z ca,eras make all of these lenses better with equivalent focus speed but much more accurate focus. I also have the 500pf and a number of AIS manual focus lenses. All of which function better on z cameras than f. The adapter is a bit of a palaver but if the alternative is spending thousands, I will live with the inconvenience. I’m an amateurs, not a pro and I see why differently folks make different choices.
Yes very true. A lot of the 1.4’s have nee been replaced yet. The 500pf is still equally as good as the 400 4.5 from what I’ve seen
I'll admit that I loved my old Sigma 85mm f1.4 DG HSM Art lens on my D850 and Z7ii, Once I bought the Nikon Z 105mm f2.8 VR S Macro lens, I found I could do lovely portraits with it if I stepped back a couple of feet, and probably sold the Sigma 85mm about the time I acquired my Z9. Are the Nikon Z lenses too sharp? Not in my world. I currently have 5 of them with the sixth on order (the Nikon Z 180-600mm f5.6-6.3) and I love them compared to my many old FX lenses. I shot 10,000 frames in the past two days with my Z9 and Nikon Z 70-200mm f2/8 VR S lens on the Z9 (as the Z8 is off at Nikon for the eyelet service advisory). My first impression tonight as I began culling images from the past two days is how much I love the Z9 and that lens.
Do you think TTArtisan 100mm f2.8 2x macro tilt shift is better?
Personally the TTArtisan 100mm f2/8 2x macro is not a lens I'm familiar with. But then, you're inquiry was routed to me, not to Russ and Loz.@@NetvoTV
I generally prefer my Z-mount glass... but I keep my FTZ adapter attached to my Sigma 135mm f/1.8 Art lens. I love the image it gives so much that I would probably keep it even if someone were to offer to give me the Plena 135mm. OK, maybe that's a little bit of hyperbole... but the Sigma is a darned-good lens.
Yeah I think it’s the case that if there is a z mount version we’d transfer, but cost is a big factor and trading in gets less and less.
I still use mainly f mount on z8. Whilst they are legacy from my DSLR, I have just bought the 35mm 1.4g. I was thinking about either the 1.8s or the 40mm f2 as well. As I love the 58 1.4 so much on mirrorless I went with the 35mm 1.4g. Mint condition £400.
Whilst I bought for the overall rendering, it has vastly superseeded my expectations for sharpness at 1.4
If I wanted to use the lens for video, then I would go native due to the AF noise of F mount.
Yes there are f mount bargains to be had. The 500pf looks tempting
I think I’ve sat on my F mount lenses too long, and now they’re hardly worth selling, so I have them, but currently not using most of them. I find Z mount lenses to be more consistent performance overall so you don’t need as many lenses. The zooms are much closer in sharpness to the primes versus the F mount, so I only use primes when I want a brighter aperture, not because I think of them as sharper.
Yeah it’s true they don’t hold their value anymore. Bit neither do z mount to trade in. It means so buying deals to have on the used market
All Z lenses all the time. I just sold my last F-mount lens. Sold my 200-500 f5.6 now that I have received my 180 to 600 Z lens. The big mistake was getting my Z 6 with the 24-70 f4... I went on to replace all my F-mount lenses. I really love the Z glass.
Good video and good discussion but I love the 85 1.8 S lens. I agree it has a bit more clinical look but it's such a wonderful lens. If you like the look of a better fall off try the Voigtlander 50mm F2 Apo and compare that to the Nikon 50 F1.8 S lens. You will see the difference in what you're discussing. Thanks for all the videos. I'm going Z mount lenses and never going back.
Is the voigtlander auto focus?
Nope sorry, its only manual focus, but some of us old timers once only used manual focus. LOL @@russandloz
Also, if you find my video from Worth Avenue, I used the Voigtlander for the images in the video except for one. One was with the Nikon 50mm S 1.8 lens. If you watch, see if you can find the image with the Nikon lens. @@russandloz
I don't want to give the wrong idea that I am rich or something, because I am really not, but I do hold on to all my F glass and continue to invest in more F lenses simultaneously with my Z glass. First off, I have quite a few F and Nikon 1 bodies with which I use my F glass0 Moreover, I mostly buy F 3rd party glass even of the Z option is natively available because I always think about the other two Nikon systems I use in addition to Z. I still have two grab-and-go shoulder bags with a D800E and a D7200 and some F glass handy. Still, I mostly use my Z7II and Z fc over my DSLRs these days, but I still shoot the latter frequently enough to have them handy close to my apartment doo for a quick grab whenever I feel like using them. That's in addition to having a severe GAS case as well😅
Yes we all have a level of GAS. But don’t you find changing systems a bit dysfunctional?
@@russandloz nope. I actually love it and it entices and motivates me to go out and shoot.
The Z zooms are amazing and the way to go in my mind. In general, I find Z lenses provide the clean modern look and the F-lenses provide more artistic look. I have no interest in selling my 28-58-105 primes in f-mount even though I sold my dslr cameras off. The sigma 135 f-mount is a very cheap find on the used market these days which is insane. I have no interest in Plena given the cheaper, fantastic sigma 135. These f-mount lenses work great on the Z cameras. This is an amazing time to pick up great f-mount lenses which are, in some cases, very close in image quality to the z-mount versions. The ftz isn't great and investing in glass that's not modern is not great financially if not getting a big discount, but the difference in cost right now between pro f-mount glass and prosumer z-mount lenses is really significant. Regardless, there's great options out there for most people now.
Yes. Very much my point of view. Though my current dilemma is a wildlife lens. I have the 200-500 which is like a new lens on my z8. But it’s very heavy and awkward to use. Looking at the 180-600 which is a good price or the 500pf which has been shown to produce a better image. Then there is the 400 4.5 🙈
@@russandloz Just my $0.02 here, but I have the 500pf, recently sold the 200-500 and have now just picked up a used 400mm f2.8 FL for a third of the new price (and loving it by the way!). I was looking into the 400mm 4.5 to sell the 500 pf but ultimately decided there's little advantage and I'd prefer f5.6 vs f6.3 (400mm f4.5 with a teleconverter for >400mm). Then came along a used 400mm f2.8 which I can use a teleconverter with for a 560mm f4 if I wish. It's big, it's heavy, but man it's beautiful and I like sports photography so 400mm is great for that. My suggestions to others are: 180-600 over the 200-500 for sure if they can afford it or the 200-500 if the best bang for the buck is desired. The 200-500 is still excellent. If people are mostly into birds and want a lower cost, lightweight option, a used 500pf is still excellent but I'd weigh the pros and cons vs the 180-600mm at this point. I'm not buying the 180-600 because I like the smaller 500pf option and it works fantastically with the ftz. If I were starting out right now with little experience and wanted just one lens it would absolutely be the 180-600mm (short throw, internal zoom, 600mm, native mount). Like I said, Nikon is giving us lots of choices here and the used market is starting to provide heavy discounts if one is not against the ftz. The 100-400mm is also an excellent lens for sports (but not the best option for birding).
@@richardwanbon3087 Good points there Richard. The 180-600 I would say is for everyone for versatility. Then a prime by your side when you can use it. But would you rather have a 400 4.5 or a 500pf for that?
@@russandloz That's the dilemma for many. I haven't shot with the 400mm f4.5 before so someone else's opinion may be more valuable here but the very large majority of people I've seen using this lens have the TC1.4 attached all of the time for 560mm f6.3.....mainly for birding. I contemplated the 400mm f4.5 for a light prime with sports but f4.5 doesn't offer that much advantage over the 100-400mm which has the zoom. For birding, neither f4.5 nor 400mm offer a sweet spot in most cases, but the results I've seen are beautiful. I don't think you buy the 400mm f4.5 over the 500mm PF for sharpness or size benefits and the focus speed difference is negligible. You buy the 400mm f4.5 because you don't like the ftz and you have nicer bokeh when not using the TC.....but then you're at 400mm. I'm seeing a lot of chatter suggesting many will leave their 400mm f4.5 + TC for the new 600mm PF, but I'd argue the aperture is not ideal and it's too expensive for most. So personally, I'm just going to enjoy my 500mm PF for longer. It's great, it's 500mm, it's f5.6 which is slightly better than f6.3 for birds in the bushes, and the prices are coming down in the used market. My one knock on the 500pf is the bokeh can be a bit unsettling in some cases.....but that's nit-picking when you have a f5.6 lens. In most cases it's fantastic. If I were to sell the 500pf at this point, it would be for the 180-600, but I'd prefer the lighter weight and performance of the 500pf. No perfect answer here....comes down to choices as always......would make another great video for you two to discuss :)
Z9 & Z8 are showing quicker with FTZ and F glass than a D850 and F Glass, think only the Z8 and Z9 though.
The most important piece of equipment is 4” behind the view finder. This video appears to be a sales pitch for Nikon to get Z Mount lens sales off the floor. With modern post processing software you don’t need all that glass. Sharpness is all it’s cracked up to be. Give me a D700 with a 50mm f1.8 and day for colour rendition and image quality.
As I (Russ) still use lots of F mount as said in the video. It’s not a z sales pitch. But I do get that camera TH-camrs often get too enthralled with new gear. But yes sharpness isn’t the end all which is why I still cherish f mount 😊
I’m actually feeling dizzy, nice hot cuppa tea is needed. 😵💫
Dizzy? But yeah tea is always the answer
@@russandloz I sold my 85mm 1.8 f lens with the intention of getting the z85 1.8 as it was a bit bit tatty but now I’m wondering if I should wait a while and go for the 1.2. Mmm decisions
@@lolingsaraee different beast really. 1.2 is much much larger and less portable
Having used Zeiss lens and Leica lens since the 1980’S I find the new lens lacking any character the Sigma and Sony lens are just to sharp and to prove it is the software to reduce the sharpness in portrait’s
In my humble opinion … the z lenses look more clinical, because they are
a) cooler in color temperature (easy to fix)
b) less contrasty in out of focus areas - like shadows are lifted
c) bokeh with less faults, that’s looking closer to a (boring) PS gaussian blur
For me it’s not about the absolute sharpness.
P.S.: I believe these attributes were chosen, because they are appealing for film making - it’s modern / trendy
Yes you could well be right about the modern look. But editing can’t always put back what the lens can’t provide. Convincingly at least
I agree, which is why I purchased the 105mm f/1.4 after selling all F-mount and having moved to Z mount
Really wishful thinking but I wonder how long you can keep up the delusion. If you owned both versions which would be the one you would use.
In my case the Z range has so much better. It is not just sharpness. It’s clarity no chromatic aberration, better colour and depth.
Really enjoyed your videos ! 😂❤
Thanks 😊
Thank you !
Was that a remote control lawn mower behind you?
It's a prototype gps lawn mower
@@russandloz looks cool! I thought it was an animal at first- had to double take! 😂
Ftz itself is heavy as a lens.
Please, ask the professionals about the lenses! And, it seems these days that there has never been a good photograph shot with any lens until now! And yes, I am a pro and I shoot with Nikon since the beginning but don't ask me with which gear because I could get ashamed 😂 Or, just watch some great photographers and learn from their work! All this stuff about what's better is a pure nonsense and very far from the art of photography, get serious!
Can Russ take pics with both F and Z lenses of similar apertures and show the differences in the images? I'd be really interested in seeing this.
Yeah we’ve done this a few times over the videos on our channel. Last time was the 58 1.4 vs 50 1.2 and 50 1.8.
@@russandloz Thanks. Will check them
What happened around 6:30 into the video? The autofocus of your camera totally screwed up your take... If you have to switch to a new take anyway (as witnessed by the difference in your position) then reshoot that segment where your autofocus messed up too.
I left it in to demonstrate the z6ii autofocus issues with eye detect. Which is unreliable throughout.
My most shot lens is my Nikkor 28mm F1.8G; and there's nothing equivalent in the Z world.. frustrates me to no ends.. I might have to end up with a viltrox...
I’m in the same boat. Though viltrox are good
in till nikon makes lens like Sigma Sport 120-300mm F/2.8 for Z mount body's. my F mount lens is better
Where I live, I can find the F-mount lenses 2-3 times cheaper than the Z-mount ones. To me, as an amateur, photographer, the image quality difference is not worth the price.
I still prefer the f mount look, issue is using them together with z lenses are tricky to look the same when making a collection, Or even these videos, one camera looks different to the other
For me its just Z all the way. Better image quality, build quality, you can always lower the sharpness in post if you really think it is too good :)
Yes. Overall the newer system wins. I just need a z6iii and a 28 1.4 z
@@russandloz yes absolutely the z6 III !
Build quality? You could beat an S lens into pieces with a good D lens and then put it on camera and shoot with it.
@@johncooper9746 is that as new lenses are plastic?
@@russandloz yes . maybe heavy but I feel the metal D series with the d3/700 was the pinnacle of Nikon build quality ... ymmv
Just to add, not sure you mentioned it, but generally the Z mount lenses exhibit less focus breathing.
For me, it’s Z mount all the way.
📷😎🤙
Yes that too. We don’t do much video work though
The F-mount line-up was so extensive that it could have the "get the job done" lenses as well as the "create some art" options, with examples like
* 35mm f/1.4G -- 28mm f/1.4E
* 85mm f/1.4G -- 105mm f/1.4E
* 70-200mm f/2.8E -- 200mm f/2G
The Z-mount lens line-up is only 5 years old, and the new 135mm f/1.8 S Plena might join the 58mm f/0.95 S Noct as the most 'artistic' lenses. Through the rest of the decade, more will likely join them.
[Knowing that the question of using the 105mm f/1.4E gets asked, I used it on Tuesday.]
Good points but I don’t get the interest in the 135. It’s only a 1.8! Lol
@@russandloz Haha! Of course, f/1.8 is meaningless without the context of the focal length. This "Plena" lens might play optical games with characteristics both across the frame and with parts of the image in front of or behind the focus plane.
@@UnconventionalReasoning Yeah I’m yet to see something special about it
@@russandloz I've yet to see enough to really judge. The other aspect is that some photographers really prefer particular focal lengths over others which are close to the same, like 85mm vs 105mm vs 135mm. The 135mm f/1.8 is also for them, especially since they drool over the Sony, Canon, and Sigma options. And even the old Nikon 135mm f/2 DC. For Nikon, this may simply be a case of "We had to do it to match everyone else."
Overcorrected high element count lenses render like zooms. They output flat, sterile looking images.
You cannot discuss F vs Z lenses without full disclosure about the cameras you were using in either cases. Below 30MP (photosite density at full frame sensor) Nikon uses an OLPF, above they don't. That filter does a lot. It's in the 24MP F mount DSLRs, not in a D500, not in a D850. It's in a Z 6(ii), not in a Z 7(ii)/8/9.
A Z 6(ii) with OLPF produces warmer tinted images than the higher res ones - it's too yellow in Adobe Camera Raw.
But that may be an illusion because "Adobe Standard" profile for this camera may deviate "Adobe Standard" are some 1,000 camera-specific profiles that dictate how raw processing is done for each: towards Adobe's neutral and rather flat reference.
Having shot pro Nikon primes since I bought my first Nikon (F2) in 1975, my ongoing rant was (1) chromatic aberration (CA) and (2) tint differences between lenses. The Z system solves both. My problem with the OLPF cameras is that there is a very thin gap between the rear of the OLPF and the front of the sensor. In stronger backlight this can turn into total reflection and bam your shots are magenta - not possible to take out, except converting to B&W. Nikon first Eliminated the OLPF from the D800E version of the D800 some 10 years ago.
Leading up to the Z system, in the rumour mill, I commented in several places that for me the lenses not necessarily had to become sharper but the CA had to disappear.
Being sharper in my case is a matter of 45.4 instead of 24 in the first place. The difference between 45.4 (MP is an area unit) and 24 is much less than we think (max 40% more, linearly, and that's almost negligible to the human eye). But the removal of the OLPF makes it a lot sharper.
But there's a corollary and serious but. Without the OLPF, raw processing is more difficult and only recently with their addition in Camera Raw of "AI Denoise" as time consuming option, the noise we got from ACR (=LrC, =Ps) in shots without OLPF has become what it should be. IMO Adobe still need to improve detail loss or detail recovery from raw (suppression of digital artefacts that do not look like Moiré).
This simply means that what we see in LrC that we think of as a raw image is far from. It has been totally cooked - well done is an understatement, even when we altered nothing.
It also means that camera and lens comparisons are difficult, more so than with film, if we want valid and relevant conclusions.
For me, the F mount is history. The Z mount "S" lenses are better. If you think they are too cool or neutral, spend 5 minutes to create your own profile. And, as reference, process your images in Nikon NX Studio too. Or if you need JPEGs next to your raw shots, generate them in camera. Note that the camera firmware offers different profiles (Picture Controls) for raw processing - you can actually make your own in camera or in NX Studio, save them to memory card and load them into your compatible camera. In camera is a lot faster than raw to JPEG conversions in LrC.
Too sharp? Not for me. And that again depends - on your computer display's resolution, your eyes, your printer, the drivers, and the app you use to generate an image that has less MP.
Beautiful rendition of the background? You remember the wedding shoot where the bride was disappointed that the beautiful and expensive dress did not make her look like a supermodel in your photos. What do you tell her? But look how nice the background blur is and how good the bokeh balls are? She will kill you.
It's a tool. We need to move on.
When I started seriously with "digital" (sensors actually are analogue and colour-blind) I shot as if I was shooting portraits on 120 film with a Hasselblad. At a big shoot an assistant of the spray and pray generation asked to work with me, because of that slow and precise and managed way of working. I still don't spray and pray, but on the top of my list is improved eye-AF in lower light with lower contrast. It enables another interaction with the sitter than in my past. Birds, trains and planes are not my thing and improvement of that - meh. My wish will resonate with wedding, event, and portrait photographers.
85 1.4 is the one , everybody tests the 85 1.8 with the 1.2 , because the 1.4 kills the 1.2 , and is £500 used. Z mounts arent smaller they have a built in 1 inch extention tube ! Making them bigger. The 85 1.8 is a crap lens slow . Has aberition problems ,
I do like the f mount colour renditions, but the ftz is annoying after a while?
Answer: no. No contest.
For f mount? 🤣
plastic vs metal, let the time decide. I am old so I won't be able to see the result.
Both materials will outlast us all!
@@russandloz True. Same as my 1997 Toyota Land Cruiser has steel bumper vs current year cars with plastic bumper.
Z Lenses are NEXT Level better than Equivalent F Mount lenses which were great >> Its the Z Mount advantage at work to Nikon Users favour
I had to sell my D850 and all my 5 x F Mount lenses to FUND the Z system
Yes they can be. Even though they have a wide range of lenses now there is still a big range to replace.
@@Mr09260 Yes same. Z system are more expensive than f mount used to be
“Then” wtf???? It’s “than”
Good spot !!
Looks like you really hate typos, but thanks for pointing it out 😊
@@russandloz I really hate typos !!!!!
You guys are really weird ...
Thanks 😊🥸
Indeed !
They're just natural😉
Z
Who's able to afford those Z lenses not me way over priced
They can be, used market is much better
Z mount AF is garbage 🗑️
I’ve never used any other brand but new Nikon seem great to me
yes
For what reason? 😊