Death of the F mount

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by kevin_beretta, May 12, 2021.

  1. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    Guys, you know Rome wasn't built overnight. Nikon's timing (and Canon's also) to migrate to mirrorless is unfortunate due to Covid. A lot of things are slowed down and the market is seriously affected. One of mirrorless's main advantage is wide-angle lenses. It makes perfect sense to build up that advantage first and let people adapt F-mount teles during the transition. In two years we already have 14-24mm/f2.8, 14-30mm/f4, plus 20mm, 24mm, 35mm, 50mm and 85mm f1.8 lenses. It is not a great situation for Nikon, but so far they manage ok under difficult circumstances. Canon is doing pretty well to with some very fine R5 and R6 bodies. If anything, Nikon is lacking behind in terms of Z bodies.

    And nothing is really wrong with the F mount. I have perhaps 40 F-mount lenses and they continue to work, although I seriously doubt that I'll buy another F-mount lens, ever.
    Last edited: Jun 21, 2021
    robert_davies|2 likes this.
  2. 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.
    mike_halliwell likes this.
  3. 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.
  4. "On a global scale, iOS has never managed close to half the popularity of Windows.", WIKI
  5. 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....:(
  6. 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.
    Greg Fight likes this.
  7. 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??
  8. ]


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

    ShunCheung Administrator

    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.
  10. 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.
    Last edited: Jun 22, 2021
  11. 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?
  12. 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).
    Last edited: Jun 22, 2021
  13. It uses 112mm filters.
  14. 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

    FPapp likes this.
  15. 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.
  16. 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.
    FPapp likes this.
  17. 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.
  18. Would that be due to the microlens array that you vehemently denied was responsible in another thread?
  19. 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).
    Last edited: Jun 23, 2021
  20. 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.
    robert_davies|2 and bgelfand like this.

Share This Page