Death of the F mount

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

If I remember correctly, the 70-200 was about $2900 when introduce. It is now about $2350 at BH. That is a $550 difference not $1,000. That is about what I would expect as the lens became more and more available and as the hype (the people who absolutely had to have the latest and greatest) dissipated and as third party lenses became available. Even at its "reduced" price the Nikon is still twice as expensive as the Tamron, and although it may be slightly "better", it is nowhere near twice as good.

And that brings up another point about the Z-mount. There are no native third party lenses available. If the reason to switch to the Nikon Z line is realize the advantages of the design chances, then you must abandon the F-mount lenses and purchase the Z-mount equivalents, With no Third Party lenses available, that is an expensive proposition.

If I remember correctly, the 70-200 was about $2900 when introduce. It is now about $2350 at BH. That is a $550 difference not $1,000.

The 70-200 FL is now $2350, because it is not on sale at the moment, I was just reading this thread from December 2020, about 6 months ago when the holiday sale was in progress, and it was $1900 at that time: 70-200 fl vs S

Nikon announced the 70-200/2.8 FL in October 2016, at an initial price of $2799.95: Nikon Announces 70-200mm/f2.8 E FL AF-S VR and 19mm/f4 PC-E Lenses

But it was on deep discount to $1900 several times in 2020. In a mere 4 years, it dropped by $900. That was why I said close to $1000, but not exactly at $1000.

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

No. And your memory is rather confused.

The microlenses do affect the sensitivity to incident light at different angles. However, this doesn't prevent effective utilization of short flange distances and large mount diameters in optical design. The microlenses just need to be taken into account in the design of lenses.

The first version of the VR 70-200/2.8 was a whopping 3000 EUR when it first came to market in Finland. Luckily I was able to purchase it for a rebated price of around $1500 when I was living in the US in 2005. It wasn't discontinued until 2009 when the v. II came out. Prices can vary across markets and over time and sometimes even items in very high demand are discounted (likely to generate even more demand). It seems the cost of manufacture of these lenses isn't all that high (to reflect the 3000 EUR price, or even higher for the FL version). They just price the product high if the market situation allows it. Sometimes quite a lot of money can be saved by waiting out on a new lens to see where the price ends up. For example, lenses like the 300 PF and 105/1.4 experienced rapid price drops a few months after first availability. This doesn't always happen, though.

Maybe Nikon should just weld an FTZ to some fast long Tele's to satisfy the perceived (by some) need for native long Z mount lenses. If the long lenses are the same size/weight and focus at the same speed/accuracy as an F mount + FTZ, not much reason for Nikon to spend R&D money to make.

When (if) a native Z tele is developed that is clearly improved over F+FTZ, I would become interested. But I will probably would just get something like a used 500PF when someone else changes mount. I doubt that I will ever replace my 300/2.8AFS version 1 (+FTZ) with a 2.8 native Z.

Since I still have F mount cameras, a Z mount lens has to have clear advantages over the F equivalent for me to purchase. I did buy a 14-30/4S and like it, I don't think there is an F mount equivalent. Otherwise, F mount lenses still have an advantage for dual system use.

Since I still have F mount cameras, a Z mount lens has to have clear advantages over the F equivalent for me to purchase. I did buy a 14-30/4S and like it, I don't think there is an F mount equivalent. Otherwise, F mount lenses still have an advantage for dual system use.

The Z mount advantage is more than clear. My new 24-200mm super zoom is quite good from 24mm all the way to 200mm. It is a slow f6.3 at 200mm so that Nikon can keep the size, and cost, down. It is a versatile travel lens that simply does not exist in the F mount. I have the 28-300mm AF-S VR and find that lens disappointing. It is totally unsharp at 300mm.

The two Z 24-70mm are also better than the various F-mount 24-70mm/f2.8 also, not to mention smaller. When you have to leave some 46.5mm behind the mount for mirror clearance, you are compromising those wide angles designs. That is something we have known for decades and that was why those Leica M rangefinder lenses were better than lenses for SLRs.

I did buy a 14-30/4S and like it, I don't think there is an F mount equivalent. Otherwise, F mount lenses still have an advantage for dual system use.

You'd think this would make Nikon do some innovative lens work and make more things that are Z only and very high IQ.

Something rad. like a 400mm f4 macro, or the hinted at 600mm 5.6/6.3 PF.

The Z mount advantage is more than clear. [...]

You mean, i think, that the Z mount lenses are better than their F mount counterparts? I.e. that the advantage of using Z mount cameras is that the new Z mount lenses are better?

Nikon claims that the Z mount itself - being wider - offers an advantage. A Z mount advantage.

A wider mount has very little, if any, effect on the possibility to design good lenses. So this suggested particular Z mount advantage is far from being clear.

My new 24-200mm super zoom is quite good from 24mm all the way to 200mm. It is a slow f6.3 at 200mm so that Nikon can keep the size, and cost, down. It is a versatile travel lens that simply does not exist in the F mount.

http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/afg28200.jpg

Smaller and lighter than the Z 24-200mm!

http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/afg28200.jpg

Smaller and lighter than the Z 24-200mm!

How good is that lens at 24mm? :D It is quite misleading that a lot of F-mount lenses are smaller. There is 46.5mm between the mount and the sensor/film on Nikon SLRs, but there is only 16mm from mount to sensor for Z lenses. In a lot of cases the Z lenses need to be longer so that its front elements can be far enough from the sensor. For a fairer comparison, you need to add the length of the FTZ adapter to those F-mount lenses, and all of a sudden they are not that small any more.

Nikon is going to have at least two "compact" Z lenses, 40mm/f2 and 28mm/f2.8, but I think most likely their optical quality will be somewhat compromised.

Nikon seems to be very 'happy' to cover, multiple times, the focal lengths between 14mm > 85mm with zooms and primes and then it goes real thin.

105mm macro aside, they just aren't delivering, or planning to deliver, beyond that.

Where's the 100-400mm or the 200-600mm?

The roadmap used to have dates....but not any more.

I know the World in still in the middle of a pandemic, but the PR department staff are asleep at the wheel. No info, is not good news.

Nikon seems to be very 'happy' to cover, multiple times, the focal lengths between 14mm > 85mm with zooms and primes and then it goes real thin.

 

105mm macro aside, they just aren't delivering, or planning to deliver, beyond that.

 

Where's the 100-400mm or the 200-600mm?

 

The roadmap used to have dates....but not any more.

 

I know the World in still in the middle of a pandemic, but the PR department staff are asleep at the wheel. No info, is not good news.

I would be hoping that covid has not gone through the lens development team.

Nikon seems to be very 'happy' to cover, multiple times, the focal lengths between 14mm > 85mm with zooms and primes and then it goes real thin.

 

105mm macro aside, they just aren't delivering, or planning to deliver, beyond that.

 

Where's the 100-400mm or the 200-600mm?

 

The roadmap used to have dates....but not any more.

 

I know the World in still in the middle of a pandemic, but the PR department staff are asleep at the wheel. No info, is not good news.

Mike, I hope you are aware that back in March 2021, Nikon's CFO commented that by the end of the 2022 fiscal year, there will be 30 different Z-mount Nikkor lenses: Nikon expects profitability and plans to release more Z mount lenses by 2022

Nikon's 2022 fiscal year ends on March 31, 2022. Also, it depends on whether you count the two teleconverters as part of the 30 lenses. Of course Nikon reserves the right to adjust their roadmap, but it looks like all lenses on the most recent roadmap will be available by the end of March next year, plus perhaps some others, since there are fewer than 30 on the roadmap.

And yes, there is a global semiconductor shortage. Part of that is related to Covid, and partly related to that semiconductor factory fire in Japan. I suggest you take a look at this recent article by Thom Hogan. Expect a lot of shortage in the next year, from everybody, not just Nikon: A Bit of Buying Advice | Cameras and Photography Explained | Thom Hogan

In other words, I take the comment that there will be 30 Z-mount lenses by March 2022 with a small grain of salt.

Dispatch from the Land of the Living Dead. I sit at my desk surrounded by Nikon DSLRs of various ages. All with F mount lenses, in use daily, producing entirely satisfactory results. Behind me in a cabinet, a bunch of Nikon Film SLRs with F mount lenses, and a small army of F mount lenses from pre AI to current. If I want mirrorless, under the desk in a case, sits a camera that will take either Leica lenses, or with an adapter, any of the older Nikon F Mount lenses. All unaffected by Death, instead, alive and well!

Z? zzzzzz!

Mike, I hope you are aware that back in March 2021, Nikon's CFO commented that by the end of the 2022 fiscal year, there will be 30 different Z-mount Nikkor lenses:

yes, I am!

2022 fiscal year, there will be 30 different Z-mount Nikkor lenses

When is that as a calendar date, and how many have we got so far?

When is that as a calendar date, and how many have we got so far?

Nikon fiscal year is 31 Mar 2022

OK, so 15 more lenses in, err, 9 months...

Right..:D

If we consider the 28 SE, 16-50 SE as separate lenses then those added to the current roadmap bring the total to 29. So one more lens that is not mentioned in the roadmap to be unnounced to get to 30.

However, still if it was referring financial year and not calendar year 2022 then there should be a big launch rush quite soon to get the roadmapped but not launched lenses to the market. I think end of calendar year 2022 is more likely.

. . . Which has questioned me; how long can people hold onto their dSLRs for the next 10 or 15yrs? And should Nikon and Canon stop or limit financing R/D with their SLRs.

As long as it keeps working.

I kept my D70 for about 14 years, until it died on me. My other D70 still works, but it is rarely used.

As long as there is enough $ to be made off the dSLR market it makes sense to support it.

But it was hard enough with FX and DX dSLRs, multiply it by two with FX and DX mirrorless, and the development effort goes up.

So at a certain point they have to fully transition to mirrorless, and stop development on dSLR gear.

In between there will be a gradual transition, which I think is happening now, with less F gear in development, and more Z gear in development.

But the Z system has to be complete enough to switch to, before they can pull the plug on the F systems. Example, there are currently only TWO DX Z lenses vs. over a dozen DX F lenses. So the DX Z lens landscape has to be fleshed out, before they can really pull the plug on the DX dSLRs. Same with the cameras. There really is only the Z50 DX camera, Nikon needs the Z equivalent of the D3xxx entry level camera, to sell in the big box/warehouse stores.

Systems transitions are difficult.

how long can people hold onto their dSLRs for the next 10 or 15yrs?

How long CAN they hold on? Until the camera stops working, due to breakdown, unavailability of battery, or unavailability of media. How long will they hold on is a more interesting question. For the real professionals, the people who make their living by photography, until the DSLR no longer takes the images they need, or until another system takes the images more economically and allows higher profits after the cost of upgrade.

For the dilettante, until they feel peer pressure, and they must have the latest and greatest.

How long CAN they hold on? Until the camera stops working, due to breakdown, unavailability of battery, or unavailability of media. How long will they hold on is a more interesting question. For the real professionals, the people who make their living by photography, until the DSLR no longer takes the images they need, or until another system takes the images more economically and allows higher profits after the cost of upgrade.

 

For the dilettante, until they feel peer pressure, and they must have the latest and greatest.

It would be interesting to ask in 2030 or 2035 if they are still only using Nikon dSLRs.

But the Z system has to be complete enough to switch to, before they can pull the plug on the F systems. Example, there are currently only TWO DX Z lenses vs. over a dozen DX F lenses.

There are a number of duplication in those F DX lenses thou like the super wide zooms and the 18-55mm's, and the 55-200mm and the 70-300mm. Z DX have already the mid zoom lens right and a Z DX tele zoom.