Why are Nikon Z mount lenses so large?

jknights

jknights

Suspended / Banned
Messages
527
Name
Jonathan (JK)
Edit My Images
No
I cannot easily explain to myself why Nikon Z mount lenses are so much larger than their F mount equivalents.
This is not so obvious with lenses of focal length over 300mm but in the 20mm to 300mm focal length range the Z mount lenses are physically nearly twice as large (in some cases).

Yes I know the flange distance of the Z mount mirrorless cameras is very reduced compared to a DSLRs but surely a rear element design change would negate the need for a longer/larger lens.

Personally speaking I would have thought that to produce smaller lighter lenses would have been one of the design goals!

Any body have any ideas why the Z mount lenses are so large?
 
Some are smaller 24-70 f4, 14-30 f4 and the new 24-70 f2.8. But the primes are generally large and the f1.2 are big, but optically spectacular. The 1.4 lens are little smaller and designed with more compromises. Personally I have found moving to Z mount to be a significant upgrade and can live with larger lens.
 
jknights said:
I cannot easily explain to myself why Nikon Z mount lenses are so much larger than their F mount equivalents.
This is not so obvious with lenses of focal length over 300mm but in the 20mm to 300mm focal length range the Z mount lenses are physically nearly twice as large (in some cases).

Yes I know the flange distance of the Z mount mirrorless cameras is very reduced compared to a DSLRs but surely a rear element design change would negate the need for a longer/larger lens.

Personally speaking I would have thought that to produce smaller lighter lenses would have been one of the design goals!

Any body have any ideas why the Z mount lenses are so large?
Click to expand...
I've heard a Nikon person explain that part of the reason is that they have taken the opportunity of the new flange distance to improve their lenses "optical" performance while minimising the need for "digital" corrections. It's easy to make small lenses if you hand over the lens corrections to digital manipulation. They are also meant to be more mechanically robust with better focusing motors than the F-mount lenses.

You only need to look at the 26mm lens to see that Nikon "can" make small lenses when they choose to, but they have adopted this " no (minimal) optical compromise" approach.

My Nikon Z collection, at the moment, is the 24-200, 28-400, 26mm f2.8 and 40mm f2.8, and I reckon, compared to my old F mount lenses, all perform extremely well for their spec and cost, while also being small and light for what they are.

BUT not all directly comparable Z lenses are big and heavy compared to F lenses. The general purpose z lenses I'm interested in buying are all lighter (assuming the spec sheets I've just looked up are correct).

35mm f1.4 Z 415g. 35mm f1.4 F 600g.

24 -120mm z 630g. 24-120 F 710g

24-70 f2.8 z 675g. 24-70 f2.8 900g

And the replacement for my current 300mm f4 PF plus 1.4TC (ie z 400mm f4.5) is also smaller and lighter than my current set up (I will save over 300g in weight, but that includes the FTZ)
 
Hmmmm I suppose there larger to let in more light JK , but having been using Olympus for several years , which I still retain . I can state although there is a significant weight difference between the two systems it doesn’t really show in actual use probably due more to balance C of G than anything . I can hand hold my Olympus gear with a long telephoto lens and get acceptable shots but I can also hand hold the Z8 plus 180-600 lens and get equally acceptable shots . I do think a monopod / tripod might be needed for longer sessions but not needed so far .
 
I would be more than happy with larger corrected lens vs what for example Canon is doing with most of their wider lenses. The latter are absolutely no go.

The only important size measure is whether the lens can fit in the single size camera bag partition. Ideally with hood in the right order, but I can live with having to reverse it. That's pretty much 95% of all lenses out there. Some starting with most 70-200mm require laying flat across something like 3-4 slots and that is where it becomes a little painful and you can only take 1 such lens, at the expense of a couple "standard" size ones.

I could see this becoming more of an issue if you film on gimbals a lot. The full size DJI RS x PRO can even accommodate a full 70-200mm so that's what you need then,
 
Thanks for these responses as they give indicators of possible design thoughts of Nikon.
I guess that whilst I have a smattering of older F lenses both AFS and AF one which I can use on my D850 or D810 I do prefer to use my Zf and Z8 except for the size of the Z lenses.

As has been pointed out frequently the Z lenses are lighter but maybe bulkier.
The 40mm f2.0 seems like a nice lens but unfortunately not a focal length that suits me but it does produce fine images.
I love the Viltrox 75mm f2.0 Z mount which is small and dense lens with good AF speed.
 
I think it’s because the F mount was so old, Canon changed the size of their mount when they switched from FD to EF. Having a larger mount gives more flexibility and less compromises in designing the optics of a lens AFAIK
 
I think the z mount lenses probably create a bigger image circle. Which needs wider lenses. This is to let the focussing system work better towards the edge of the picture. Phase detection works better in the middle and contrast detect is going to struggle with softness at the edges. Vignetting makes it worse at the edges to. So the camera works better with a lens that is bright and sharp at the corners.

Glass has got cheaper so they can put in more, making the lenses longer. Coatings have got better so they can put in a couple of dozen lenses without the air-glass interfaces turning the picture to mush. Computer modelling mean they can design lenses that complicated to.

Also, the lenses all have motors in them, which makes them bigger.

I think that if you put an early lens on a Z mount camera, it won't focus well towards the edge of the image circle. That is one reason why Z Nikon cameras don't work with screw drive lenses or let you use a DX lens as full frame.
 
Hmmm my Z 14-30 and 24-120 are smaller than my F 16-35/4 and 24-120/4 counterparts....so not all....
 
jknights said:
I cannot easily explain to myself why Nikon Z mount lenses are so much larger than their F mount equivalents.
This is not so obvious with lenses of focal length over 300mm but in the 20mm to 300mm focal length range the Z mount lenses are physically nearly twice as large (in some cases).

Yes I know the flange distance of the Z mount mirrorless cameras is very reduced compared to a DSLRs but surely a rear element design change would negate the need for a longer/larger lens.

Personally speaking I would have thought that to produce smaller lighter lenses would have been one of the design goals!

Any body have any ideas why the Z mount lenses are so large?
Click to expand...
without the mirror, the hole in the front of the camera can be bigger thus a bigger rear diameter to the lenses than can let more light through. Thats why you're seeing more f1.2 lenses that were previously f1.4s and other things like the canon 100-300 f2.8.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top