Death of the F mount

they didn't lose any sales because of that

How could anyone know that?

 

And yet it seems to be the right move as they didn't lose any sales because of that

 

The trouble with that logic is that they may have sold MORE if they hadn't deliberately crippled the upgrade pathway.....:(

 

Asking punters their buying intentions one way or another is about as reliable as trusting exit polls in elections.....:D

How could anyone know that?

 

 

 

The trouble with that logic is that they may have sold MORE if they hadn't deliberately crippled the upgrade pathway.....:(

 

Asking punters their buying intentions one way or another is about as reliable as trusting exit polls in elections.....:D

But so far I I saw Apple has been gaining ground against the Windows counterpart which allows you to customize. Nobody really knows but their business doing well when they do that.

Really? Like Apple soldering memory sticks in computer, so you can't upgrade upgrade it, or removing headset jack from phone, using different power cable. Or make cellphones with non removable/replaceable battery.

And right now Nikon just saying go to Z system, and dump everything you had before, including memory cards, that 's priceless.:)

Yes, really.

Just as real as the incomparability of Appleand Nikon. Apples and Nikons.

Nikon is moving with the market. The days that they were able to move the market (if they ever could) have gone.

But so far I I saw Apple has been gaining ground against the Windows counterpart which allows you to customize. Nobody really knows but their business doing well when they do that.

"On a global scale, iOS has never managed close to half the popularity of Windows.", WIKI

Guys, you know Rome wasn't built overnight

Indeed, it took 100's of years!

 

But isn't that what the RoadMap is for?

 

"You can't have it now, but we're planning on building XXmm f2 really 'soon'"... promise!

 

... and there's nothing cooking in the range mentioned....:(

I've been buying Nikon lenses for over 30 years and (for me at least) it's quite a rarity for my current kit to be all the latest and greatest.

 

Despite what people may report, FTZ adapted lenses are absolutely fine and work faultlessly for me on a daily basis.

 

There will probably be F mount lenses in my kit bag for years to come as I slowly replace my gear, but Z is obviously the future and like Shun I won't be purchasing any more of the F lenses.

I guess the 120-300mm 2.8 E was truly epic....:cool:

 

Maybe, they're going to re-mount it to Z to cover the longer primes range??

The older and (more rugged) the Nikkor primes are, the better I like them. Helps with long term durability and reliability for me.

I guess the 120-300mm 2.8 E was truly epic....:cool:

 

Maybe, they're going to re-mount it to Z to cover the longer primes range??

Potentially, again potentially, that 120-300mm/f2.8 FL could be the end of the line for F-mount Nikkors lenses. Something all collectors such as Mike, Ilkka, Bebu, etc. should own one. :rolleyes:

 

For me, my last F-mount lens is probably the 500mm/f5.6 PF, the second to the last F-mount Nikkor lens ever announced. That is a lens I use frequently.

Sorry, the 120-300 is too expensive for me and I would prefer the elevated price to be used to make the lens lighter weight. I let the photographers in Tokyo find out what that lens can do. Edited June 22, 2021 by ilkka_nissila

Ha! Never been called a collector before...:D.... especially by someone who openly admits to 40+ F mount lenses...;)

 

And as Ilkka said, it's just too expensive, and as I suspect they haven't sold many, they aren't really going to be bargains on the 2nd hand market either.

 

Regarding the FTZ, AFAIR, Canon made a series of adapters for their old/new interface with handy things like a filter slot. I've never heard much more. Anyone here used them?

I suppose the filter slot in the (Canon) adapter is convenient for video shooters, as they need some way of using an ND filter for bright daylight. Interestingly the 120-300/2.8 Nikkor doesn't have a rear filter slot so those who want to use a filter are out of luck with that lens (I rarely do). Edited June 22, 2021 by ilkka_nissila

I suppose the filter slot in the (Canon) adapter is convenient for video shooters, as they need some way of using an ND filter for bright daylight. Interestingly the 120-300/2.8 Nikkor doesn't have a rear filter slot so those who want to use a filter are out of luck with that lens (I rarely do).

It uses 112mm filters.

It uses 112mm filters.

Yes it does.

 

A quick look at the 'elemental' cross-section and you can see there's no obvious space for one. It's a lot more 'busy' than a 300mm 2.8! Glass wise it's 25/19 (Wow) v 11/8

 

It uses 112mm filters.

 

Right, so it is shared with the 14-24/2.8 Z, that's something. But with rear-slot filters you can pre-mount them on the holders and just slip them in and out as needed. Quite a process to take off the hood and screw on a 112 mm filter. If you want to use a polarizing filter on the 120-300, you'd likely need to work without the hood or take off the hood, adjust the filter and put the hood back on when adjustment is complete. With lenses that support rear slot filters, there is a special holder for a polarizer where the rotational position of the filter is adjusted via gears from the holder surface.

 

The equally expensive 180-400mm does have a rear filter slot.

One of mirrorless's main advantage is wide-angle lenses.

I keep hearing this, but the reality doesn't seem to support it.

 

There are no, zilch, zero high-quality and compact wide-angle lenses currently made for any mirrorless system. They are all just as big, or bigger, than anything made for an SLR system.

 

For example: Nikon's Z mount wide-angles actually get longer with decreasing focal length.

• 20mm f/1.8 - 108.5mm long
  
• 24mm f/1.8 - 96.5mm long
  
• 35mm f/1.8 - 86 mm long
  
• 14-24mm f/2.8 zoom - 124.5mm with hood retracted.
  

That, and their cost increase over F-mount equivalents, doesn't seem to support Nikon's lens designers having an easier time of it to me.

 

By comparison my old Ai-S 28mm f/2 lens is positively diminutive at only 65mm long.

 

The image quality of the Z-mount lenses may be better - and you would expect that at the price - but that can be put down to evolution of design, not to a shorter lens-register. And certainly not to a simpler construction being facilitated.

Digital sensors being sensitive to the angle of incidence of light coming from a lens, the retrofocus design necessitated my mirror houses is also the preferred design for mirrorless cameras. No difference or advantage there.

 

The steps forward made in lens quality is entirely due to increased and cheap computer power. That reduced the time needed between specification and finalization of the design too.

The cost of lenses depends mainly on how far you want to take this.

Digital sensors being sensitive to the angle of incidence of light coming from a lens...

Would that be due to the microlens array that you vehemently denied was responsible in another thread?

I keep hearing this, but the reality doesn't seem to support it.

 

There are no, zilch, zero high-quality and compact wide-angle lenses currently made for any mirrorless system. They are all just as big, or bigger, than anything made for an SLR system.

 

If you look at the Nikon Z 14-24mm f/2.8 S, it's 1/3 lighter than the F-mount 14-24/2.8 and yet the new lens has higher MTF and supports both rear and front filters (neither of which was supported at least officially for the F-mount version). I think this is a remarkable achievement from Nikon and illustrates the benefits of Z mount's short flange distance.

 

With the S-line primes, Nikon decided to make them better, not smaller. But they are about to introduce some compact primes as well. Sharpness improvement is clear but there is also substantial reduction in chromatic aberrations across the lineup. This is, according to Nikon, due to them not have to bend the light as much as in other systems (in particular F-mount, but likely to a lesser extent also relative to other mirrorless mounts).

Edited June 23, 2021 by ilkka_nissila

And right now Nikon just saying go to Z system, and dump everything you had before, including memory cards, that 's priceless.:)

 

When I was ready to upgrade from my DSLR I chose Z system. But I didn't get the memo about dumping everything I had before. I'm still using my F mount lenses on my Z mount camera. Please don't tell Nikon.

I keep hearing this, but the reality doesn't seem to support it.

 

There are no, zilch, zero high-quality and compact wide-angle lenses currently made for any mirrorless system. They are all just as big, or bigger, than anything made for an SLR system.

 

For example: Nikon's Z mount wide-angles actually get longer with decreasing focal length.

• 20mm f/1.8 - 108.5mm long
  
• 24mm f/1.8 - 96.5mm long
  
• 35mm f/1.8 - 86 mm long
  
• 14-24mm f/2.8 zoom - 124.5mm with hood retracted.
  

That, and their cost increase over F-mount equivalents, doesn't seem to support Nikon's lens designers having an easier time of it to me.

 

By comparison my old Ai-S 28mm f/2 lens is positively diminutive at only 65mm long.

 

The image quality of the Z-mount lenses may be better - and you would expect that at the price - but that can be put down to evolution of design, not to a shorter lens-register. And certainly not to a simpler construction being facilitated.

I am talking about the quality of wide-angle lenses, not their sizes. The Z mirrorless wide lenses are clearly superior to the F-mount wides in general. An easy example is the 14-30mm/f4 S that can accept regular 82mm filters. All F-mount 14mm wides have a bulging front element. A few days ago I compared the Nikon 35mm/f1.8 S (Z mount) against the much praised Sigma 35mm/f1.4 Art in the F mount. The Z 35mm is even better and is of course much lighter than those heavy Sigma Art lenses.

 

Compare the F mount and Z mount 14-24mm/f2.8 Nikkor lenses. The Z one is one full pound lighter and can accept 112mm screw-on filters. Of course quality is better. The Z lens is not necessarily more expensive either. The F-mount 14-24 is cheap now since the F mount is now out of favor so that a lot of them are on fire sale and are getting discontinued.

 

The Nikon S line mirrorless lenses are intended to provide high quality, not small size. They are certainly not cheap. There are two up-coming 40mm and 28mm Z lenses that are small, and they will probably be cheap too, but I expect quality will have some compromises.

When I was ready to upgrade from my DSLR I chose Z system. But I didn't get the memo about dumping everything I had before. I'm still using my F mount lenses on my Z mount camera. Please don't tell Nikon.

That is Nikon's intention all along. That is why they are supplying the FTZ adapters at a reasonable cost. I just bought a 2nd one for $99 along with a Z6 ii body.

I haven't noticed F-mount lenses on fire sale, where can I find those? The 14-24 G is $1746.95 at B&H. When it was a new model (2007) the price was $1,799.95. That's not much of a fire sale, even accounting for inflation. I remember the 300/2.8 that I recently got for 6000€ was earlier priced at below 5000€, so there hasn't been much change there either. Edited June 23, 2021 by ilkka_nissila

I haven't noticed F-mount lenses on fire sale, where can I find those? The 14-24 G is $1746.95 at B&H. When it was a new model (2007) the price was $1,799.95. That's not much of a fire sale, even accounting for inflation. I remember the 300/2.8 that I recently got for 6000€ was earlier priced at below 5000€, so there hasn't been much change there either.

Ilkka, the 14-24/2.8 F mount was well over $2000 a few years ago. Prices had gone way above the 2007 introduction price, but they have come back down now.

 

Another example is the 16-35mm/f4 AF-S VR. It was introduced in February 2010 for $1259.95

Nikon’s Two New FX Wideangle Lenses Preview Currently it is under $800 at B&H.

 

Even the fairly recent 70-200mm/f2.8 E FL AF-S VR has been close to $1000 below the introduction price.

I believed that the "Apple ][+ was forever"

 

Now I know that the future was actually with 3.5" floppies.:)

 

And for a while it was.

 

Manure occureth.