Nikon Z* mirrorless

snerkler said:
The Z6 is about on par (give or take) with the A7RIV above 800 ISO too. We're really spoilt with these cameras, especially when you consider the noise handling and relative lack of colour shift with the high ISOs.
Click to expand...

Yes it's exciting times, especially considering the possibilities with lens designs for the Z. IQ from my Z6 and 50mm Z is the best I have ever achieved with any 35mm/FX cam. Stunning sharpness.
 
AZ6 said:
Yes it's exciting times, especially considering the possibilities with lens designs for the Z. IQ from my Z6 and 50mm Z is the best I have ever achieved with any 35mm/FX cam. Stunning sharpness.
Click to expand...
It's a cracking lens, it's sharp yet managed to retain nice rendering. This is my issue with the Sony Zeiss 55mm f1.8, it's mega sharp (sharper than the 50mm Z) but it doesn't render particularly nicely to my eyes. I really like the Sony 85mm f1.8 though, another extremely sharp lens but with nice rendering.
 
I think that with most modern lenses, at least at the higher end of the market, we are talking micro-differences in sharpness. Rendering, though, is down to the individual manufacturer, and often the individual model, and varies according to taste.
 
Not that I watch many of his videos, but the "angry Photography" (the very bizarre Theoria Apophasis), recently published a video on YouTube (see below) called " Story of modern lenses & who ruined Great Prime Lenses", where he goes onto say that more and more modern lenses are being made critically, bitingly sharp (to appease the pixel peeping brigade) but proposes than in doing so, many lenses (especially for Portraiture) have lost their rendering and feeling and are now just too clinical. Basically he's saying that Sharpness of a lens isn't the be and end all and there are much more important things like how it renders, bokeh, colours, vignetting, micro contrast etc.

Got to say whilst the guy is very OTT in both looks, speech and mannerisms it actually makes a lot of sense (certainly coming from a portrait photographers perspective).

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WygZyc-muP8
 
Yes; I read a lot about the individual 'character' of particular lenses, and how that can be highly sought after, to the point that certain really quite poor older MF lenses can fetch silly money relative to their actual optical quality. I'm quite fussy about 'accuracy' with lenses though; I want sharpness, accurate colour rendition, and clean separation from in focus areas and the backgrounds; none of this 'swirly bokeh' nonsense. I can add any romanticised effects in post, if I so choose (I don't). The Z 50mm fulfills my requirements, and really is a fantastic piece of optical engineering. I'm really looking forward to other Z primes, such as a 135mm hopefully, and hope to get an 85mm at some stage, as my nice old D version doesn't AF with the Z (boo Nikon!). Whemn I compared the Z 50 to my other 50s, I was blown away.

It's a Game Changer™. ;)
 
Sootchucker said:
Not that I watch many of his videos, but the "angry Photography" (the very bizarre Theoria Apophasis), recently published a video on YouTube (see below) called " Story of modern lenses & who ruined Great Prime Lenses", where he goes onto say that more and more modern lenses are being made critically, bitingly sharp (to appease the pixel peeping brigade) but proposes than in doing so, many lenses (especially for Portraiture) have lost their rendering and feeling and are now just too clinical. Basically he's saying that Sharpness of a lens isn't the be and end all and there are much more important things like how it renders, bokeh, colours, vignetting, micro contrast etc.

Got to say whilst the guy is very OTT in both looks, speech and mannerisms it actually makes a lot of sense (certainly coming from a portrait photographers perspective).

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WygZyc-muP8
Click to expand...
He's brilliant for the entertainment factor :ROFLMAO:

I've been saying that for a while now, so I finally agree with something he's said :LOL:
 
AZ6 said:
Yes; I read a lot about the individual 'character' of particular lenses, and how that can be highly sought after, to the point that certain really quite poor older MF lenses can fetch silly money relative to their actual optical quality. I'm quite fussy about 'accuracy' with lenses though; I want sharpness, accurate colour rendition, and clean separation from in focus areas and the backgrounds; none of this 'swirly bokeh' nonsense. I can add any romanticised effects in post, if I so choose (I don't). The Z 50mm fulfills my requirements, and really is a fantastic piece of optical engineering. I'm really looking forward to other Z primes, such as a 135mm hopefully, and hope to get an 85mm at some stage, as my nice old D version doesn't AF with the Z (boo Nikon!). Whemn I compared the Z 50 to my other 50s, I was blown away.

It's a Game Changer™. ;)
Click to expand...

Good luck with that. I suspect it'll look horrible. The original may also look horrible to you but maybe the software generated look will look horrible in a more horrible way.

One advantage with the older lenses could be longevity. I have a few old pre ai Nikon lenses mainly for the build quality and handling but also I see a charm in their simplicity and the fact that they've lasted for decades and will possibly last for decades more. A much more modern second had AF lens may well be optically better and may even be cheaper but it may not give the same user experience or last as long.

The best option is maybe to have both nice modern lenses and also the characterful built like a tank old ones for when that's what you fancy. for whatever reason.
 
Sootchucker said:
Basically he's saying that Sharpness of a lens isn't the be and end all and there are much more important things like how it renders, bokeh, colours, vignetting, micro contrast etc.
Click to expand...

Ah, Ken Wheeler. Lol! :LOL:
 
Sootchucker said:
Not that I watch many of his videos, but the "angry Photography" (the very bizarre Theoria Apophasis), recently published a video on YouTube (see below) called " Story of modern lenses & who ruined Great Prime Lenses", where he goes onto say that more and more modern lenses are being made critically, bitingly sharp (to appease the pixel peeping brigade) but proposes than in doing so, many lenses (especially for Portraiture) have lost their rendering and feeling and are now just too clinical. Basically he's saying that Sharpness of a lens isn't the be and end all and there are much more important things like how it renders, bokeh, colours, vignetting, micro contrast etc.
Click to expand...

Yes to all that.

Part of the appeal of older lenses for me is the look they give. Wide open they can be a bit of a mess by todays standards but stopped down a bit at used at half to full body portrait length some old (and new) lenses can give a really nice look. In some cases that is no doubt exactly what the designer intended.

I suppose we can at least partly blame high resolution sensors and computers for the current trend for lenses that are excellent across the frame and into the corners pretty much from wide open but often at the cost of size, weight and cost.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
Good luck with that. I suspect it'll look horrible.
Click to expand...

Any more 'horrible' than hideous distracting 'swirly bokeh', or heavily distorted images?

I view talk about 'character' of certain flawed lenses, in the same way I view the opinions of vinyl acolytes. (Sits back and watches the float...)
 
AZ6 said:
Any more 'horrible' than hideous distracting 'swirly bokeh', or heavily distorted images?

I view talk about 'character' of certain flawed lenses, in the same way I view the opinions of vinyl acolytes. (Sits back and watches the float...)
Click to expand...

As I said above. Just choose how horrible a look you want as I suspect the computer based horrible will be much more horrible.
 
woof woof said:
As I said above. Just choose how horrible a look you want as I suspect the computer based horrible will be much more horrible.
Click to expand...

So; choose a crap lens, and have permanent horribleness, or use a decent lens, and have the choice whether or not to add any horribleness?

I know what I choose...
 
I am far more interested in lens rendering than sharpness for portraits although I’m even more interested in the few lenses that can achieve both! Hello Sigma 40 1.4!!!

I think lenses that go all out on sharpness like the Sigma 85 1.4 deliver almost cardboard cutout portraits where it looks like you’ve photoshopped a person into a background, such is how stark the oof transition.
 
AZ6 said:
So; choose a crap lens, and have permanent horribleness, or use a decent lens, and have the choice whether or not to add any horribleness?

I know what I choose...
Click to expand...

About a year ago I bought one of these "crap lenses with permanent horribleness", the Nikon 50mm f1.2 AIS. Swirly bokeh in countless variations which I invite you to replicate in software. The lens cost around £275 if I remember correctly. A month later, the 50mm f1.8S was selling for barely £300 equivalent in Europe. I naturally considered the question of whether the S has been on sale at that price (never so far repeated to my knowledge) whether I wouldn't have been better buying that instead. Good question. It's an excellent lens in most respects but a tad dull. It's barely if at all sharper stopped down and when pixel peeping while wide open -- which of course is f1.8 here--it has an edge over the old MF lens at f1.8.

Forums are full of people saying the f1.2 AIS is the one lens they would never part with. We'll see if the S f1.8 gathers so much love. Of course we can wait for the S version of the f1.2 and it will certainly be near to flawless but then 4x the weight and 6x the price no doubt will somewhat limit the market.

Of course this is in no way supposed to be an S lens bashing post -- I'd never have bought the Z6 if that were the case and I will certainly in due course be buying more than the two I have so far. But part of the joy of this camera is being able to use older lenses, esp. manual focus, with different rendering characteristics.
 
lunar22 said:
About a year ago I bought one of these "crap lenses with permanent horribleness", the Nikon 50mm f1.2 AIS. Swirly bokeh in countless variations which I invite you to replicate in software. The lens cost around £275 if I remember correctly. A month later, the 50mm f1.8S was selling for barely £300 equivalent in Europe. I naturally considered the question of whether the S has been on sale at that price (never so far repeated to my knowledge) whether I wouldn't have been better buying that instead. Good question. It's an excellent lens in most respects but a tad dull. It's barely if at all sharper stopped down and when pixel peeping while wide open -- which of course is f1.8 here--it has an edge over the old MF lens at f1.8.

Forums are full of people saying the f1.2 AIS is the one lens they would never part with. We'll see if the S f1.8 gathers so much love. Of course we can wait for the S version of the f1.2 and it will certainly be near to flawless but then 4x the weight and 6x the price no doubt will somewhat limit the market.

Of course this is in no way supposed to be an S lens bashing post -- I'd never have bought the Z6 if that were the case and I will certainly in due course be buying more than the two I have so far. But part of the joy of this camera is being able to use older lenses, esp. manual focus, with different rendering characteristics.
Click to expand...

First off, I wouldn't exactly call the Nikkor 50mm f1.2 AIs a 'crap' lens; it's a high quality relatively expensive lens. From what I've seen about it on the internet etc, the results look very nice. No; what I'm talking about, are these Lensbaby/Lomography type things, and people going nuts for old Zenit etc lenses. Lenses that have substantial inherent weaknesses and flaws. The F1.2 Nikkor isn't one of them. I've even considered buying one myself.

This thing about 'swirly bokeh*' etc; it's all just down to subjective opinion. And nothing more. I have no issue with whatever people choose to use. It's a bit like Jimi Hendrix using feedback to his gain; if you can master those flaws and use them in a way the pics don't look awful, that's great. All power to you. Personally, I can't stand a lot of pics done using such lenses, with 'bokeh' so 'swirly' it makes me feel nauseous. Make sense?

*It was just a popular term used by hipstery types who bang on about the merits of crap cameras and lenses; you know the type....

As for the 'rendering' of a particular lens; again, this is down to the inherent particular flaws in the lens, if you apply a purely scientific metric to optical quality. Of course, no lens can be 'perfect', and al will have some inherent 'character', but to me, ascribing some kind of magical quality to such things is just pretentious nonsense. They're FLAWS. So, treat them as such. In some cases, flaws that can help deliver an pleasing result. But again, subjectiveness...

No. Give me a lens that delivers as 'neutral' or 'Scientific' results as possible please. Because then, it's a much better all round tool.
 
oh well, if you're talking about things like lensbaby/lomography and the like, there is really no debate. I agree entirely! I might not share your opinion that "swirly bokeh" is an inherent flaw -- after all any soft of selective focus is not what the eye sees and bokeh is surely just a matter of taste -- but in wanting good lenses, we don't differ. For the record, I have never bought a genuinely crap lens of any description and the few really crap copies that came my way were normally returned to the seller (usually a retailer rather than an individual).
 
lunar22 said:
oh well, if you're talking about things like lensbaby/lomography and the like, there is really no debate. I agree entirely! I might not share your opinion that "swirly bokeh" is an inherent flaw -- after all any soft of selective focus is not what the eye sees and bokeh is surely just a matter of taste -- but in wanting good lenses, we don't differ. For the record, I have never bought a genuinely crap lens of any description and the few really crap copies that came my way were normally returned to the seller (usually a retailer rather than an individual).
Click to expand...

No that's what I'm on about. I have no problem with people experimenting with all sorts of different lenses; it's fun. But it's one of those things with photography, like HDR; done subtly, it can look great. Done badly, it's absolutely horrible. With the right subject and careful treatment, pics done using an old 'crappy' lens can look great. But it's when people try to elevate otherwise mediocre images, to some undeserved status, just cos they've used a crap old/pretentious hipster overpriced gimmicky lens; that's what I find irritating. I'd rather see some decent photoshop work. I do find it amusing that the whole 'Lomography' fad is named after a very cheap, not particularly good old Zenit compact cam. I have one (it no longer works sadly, or I could get a fair few quid for it). It wasn't really very good. But it was cheap. But the Olympus Mju2 I replaced it with, was much, much better as a photographic tool.
 
I've nothing against some decent Photoshop work --- except that the salons seem to be full of it. Most effect-orientated HDR I detest -- HDR in the sense of correcting the limited dynamic range of cameras is fine although you don't have to do it.

Anyway, I fear we're beginning to stray off-topic for this thread. :oops: :$
 
lunar22 said:
I've nothing against some decent Photoshop work --- except that the salons seem to be full of it. Most effect-orientated HDR I detest -- HDR in the sense of correcting the limited dynamic range of cameras is fine although you don't have to do it.

Anyway, I fear we're beginning to stray off-topic for this thread. :oops: :$
Click to expand...

No it's fine to discuss various lenses within the context of their use on the Z cams. In fact, this is good, cos people can get info and learn from the experience of others, as to what lenses work well etc. so far, I've only used my existing Nikkors (AF-S, AF_D and AI/S) as well as my two Z lenses, and I'm very pleased to report they all work well (apart from the lack of mechanical AF support on the FTZ; boo Nikon!). I'm considering the possibility of things such as Leica lenses (to see what all the fuss is about), but also, y'know, I might want to use some crap old lenses on it too! How wonderful, to have such choice!
 
Would it be fair to say that the Z lenses are much preferred to the older F lenses? For example is there a big difference in results with the 85mm z lens as opposed to the f1.8 and f1.4 g lenses when mounted with the FTZ adaptor. Are the photos rendered very similarly with the main difference being AF performance / Eye AF performance? If you were to invest one Z lens prime with the rest of your lenses being f mount which would you get for most noticeable advantage over f mount glass on FTZ?
 
Last edited:
gilbouk said:
Would it be fair to say that the Z lenses are much preferred to the older F lenses? For example is there a big difference in results with the 85mm z lens as opposed to the f1.8 and f1.4 g lenses when mounted with the FTZ adaptor. Are the photos rendered very similarly with the main difference being AF performance / Eye AF performance? If you were to invest one Z lens prime with the rest of your lenses being f mount which would you get for most noticeable advantage over f mount glass on FTZ?
Click to expand...
I continued to use my f mount 85mm f1.8 as I really like the rendering, and the Z mount was/is a bit pricey. The 50mm z is noticeably better than the f mount imo, has similar rendering but noticeably sharper wide open.
 
snerkler said:
I continued to use my f mount 85mm f1.8 as I really like the rendering, and the Z mount was/is a bit pricey. The 50mm z is noticeably better than the f mount imo, has similar rendering but noticeably sharper wide open.
Click to expand...
What made you move from the Z7 to your Sony system. Had you moved before the new firmware 3.0? I've had a look at the AF capabilities of the A9, but I'm a Nikon fanboy.
 
gilbouk said:
What made you move from the Z7 to your Sony system. Had you moved before the new firmware 3.0? I've had a look at the AF capabilities of the A9, but I'm a Nikon fanboy.
Click to expand...
Consolidation of two kits really. I had the Nikon and then Olympus for motorsports, wildlife and travel to keep the weight down. Having the A7RIV means I can do a 2x crop (same as m4/3) whilst maintaining a 15mp image, so the 100-400mm ends up giving me enough reach. I can the use the ‘pancake’ 35mm for a small lightweight travel setup, or if I need a zoom the A7RIV and 24-70mm f4 is a bit lighter than the comparative Nikon, and I have the lightweight but excellent 28-70mm if I want to go even lighter.

I didn’t want to leave Nikon really and at times I can’t believe I did it but Sony offers me what I need at the moment, and I have to say I’ve been very impressed.
 
gilbouk said:
Would it be fair to say that the Z lenses are much preferred to the older F lenses? For example is there a big difference in results with the 85mm z lens as opposed to the f1.8 and f1.4 g lenses when mounted with the FTZ adaptor. Are the photos rendered very similarly with the main difference being AF performance / Eye AF performance? If you were to invest one Z lens prime with the rest of your lenses being f mount which would you get for most noticeable advantage over f mount glass on FTZ?
Click to expand...

The main difference in AF with F and Z lenses is initial focus. If you use a fast AF F mount lens on a DSLR like D850 or D500...it takes cca 0.3 seconds to acquire focus....on the Z cameras it's almost twice as long. The native Z lenses are quicker...but still not as quick as the fastest F mount lens. I think this is the main culprit of people having issues with Z AF. The tracking portion of the AF is good on the Z (not the best, but really solid), the initial focus lacks speed and assertiveness compared to their DSLR lineup.
 
snerkler said:
I continued to use my f mount 85mm f1.8 as I really like the rendering,
Click to expand...

Would you justify the price difference between an 85mm f/1.8g and the 85mm f/1.4g. I've used the 85mm f/1.4g and although not the sharpest gave some beautiful results even when shooting towards the sun.
 
I’ve never used the 85mm 1.4, but have the 1.8g on my Z6 and it’s a great combo. So good that while I was originally set on buying the 85mm S, I just can’t see that the difference will be enough to justify the price tag.

I’m not good enough to be able to shoot at f1.4 and get anything in focus, and the 1.8 g lenses often get better reviews than their 1.4 counterparts, particularly around focus speed.
 
Can't speak for the 85, but I have compared (details about this test a good few pages back in this thread) the Z mount 50mm with the AF-S f1.4, the AF-D f1.8, and an old Ai f1.8. The Z lens was noticeably the best. The 1.4 version was the weakest. It's not as sharp as the others, even at f1.8. As for 'rendering'; I didn't feel it to be any 'better' than the others, and not worth keeping, so I sold it. I do like my 85mm f1.8 D lens, but it can't AF with the Z6 (boo Nikon!), so I think I will be buying the Z lens at some point. All reviews suggest it's a similar step up in IQ, like the 50mm is. 'Expensive', but I'm happy to pay for quality. I find manual focussing on the Z 50mm very good; I like the damping and throw of the MF ring. It feels much more a quality lens than the AF F mount lenses.
 
gilbouk said:
Would you justify the price difference between an 85mm f/1.8g and the 85mm f/1.4g. I've used the 85mm f/1.4g and although not the sharpest gave some beautiful results even when shooting towards the sun.
Click to expand...
I've not used the f1.4 a great deal but it is a really nice lens imo, however this is very subjective. In terms of sharpness I'd say I couldn't tell a great deal of difference wide open, although if you believe DXO then the f1.4 is sharper. The rendering of the f1.4 was nicer to my eyes though, has a nicer drop off and creamier bokeh. In terms of the final image I would choose the f1.4 (money aside). From memory the f1.8 focusses faster, but then it doesn't have as much glass to move around.

Would I justify the difference? Yes IF I had the money and didn't mind the weight advantage. There's no doubt in my mind that the f1.8 is better value for money though.
 
I'm about to pick up a z6, currently using a D750. Do I keep the 24-120 f4 that I have that has vr and a longer focal length and usd it with an adapter or get the 24-70 f4 S that us smaller and lighter and won't need the adapter. I'm going to have to get an adapter in any case for other lenses. Any opinions welcome.
 
I had the 750 and 24-120 and exchanged for z7 and 24-70 F4.
I have no regrets. IMO the 24-70 produces better results and is easier to handle.
The FTZ adapter works very well with G lenses but extends the lens, making the heavier 24-120 front heavy on the lightweight Z.
Don't forget you get 5 axis IBIS with Z lenses and only 3 with G's.
Whether you will miss the 70-120 focal length depends on what you mainly shoot.
 
Also, you can probably get a decent deal if you buy the Z6 and 24-70 together as a kit.
 
phil_b said:
I'm about to pick up a z6, currently using a D750. Do I keep the 24-120 f4 that I have that has vr and a longer focal length and usd it with an adapter or get the 24-70 f4 S that us smaller and lighter and won't need the adapter. I'm going to have to get an adapter in any case for other lenses. Any opinions welcome.
Click to expand...

I have the D600 with the 24-120. I bought the Z6 and 24-70 last year. I've kept all of it. I also have the adapter, and have used the 24-120 on the Z6, when I've needed a more versatile lens than the 24-70. The Z lens does have better IQ, but the 24-120 is still an excellent lens. Unless budget is an issue, I'd just get a Z6 with zoom and FTZ kit, as that's the best value for money. And just keep the F zoom as well. But you won't go wrong with just buying a Z6 and FTZ kit. The F lens works perfectly.
 
Has anyone used the new Tamron 150-600 G2 on the Z6/Z7 via the FTZ adaptor ?

If so, how's the image quality, Stabilisation and general handling please ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top