Nikon Z-Mount Lens Roadmap

I am sure most of you have seen this roadmap when Nikon announced the Z system on 23 August, 2018.

 

The first three lenses were delivered in 2018 as planned. Now we are in 2019, some new lenses should gradually appear. Somehow the 58mm/f0.95 Noct seems to be a priority to generate publicity. I would imagine Nikon will need both the 70-200mm/f2.8 and 24-70mm/f2.8 before/when they launch the first true professional Z body with a larger battery and dual memory cards, for news, weddings, parties/events. I would expect those to be announced about a year from the initial August 2018 announcement.

 

Not sure Nikon will strictly adhere to this roadmap in 2019, and there are a lot of blank slots from 2020 and beyond. I think until we see at least a 400mm/f2.8 and maybe a 600mm/f4 in the Z mount, Nikon is not ready to end the D3, D4, D5 line of DSLRs yet.

 

Rumors have it that the 14-30 will be the next one to be announced; the 58/0.95 already has, except for a delivery date (and a price which I am sure will be in Leica territory).

 

I think until we see at least a 400mm/f2.8 and maybe a 600mm/f4 in the Z mount, Nikon is not ready to end the D3, D4, D5 line of DSLRs yet.

Don't the existing ones work well with the FTZ? Assuming the "first true Z body" dispenses with the current AF-C weaknesses.

 

Nikon could fill in the three additional blanks for 2020 - one of which should be a 70-200/4 IMHO (Sony offered one almost right from the start). How many years have we had to wait for Nikon to release an F-mount 70-200/4? It's also disconcerting that there is nothing longer than 200mm available - shouldn't there at least be a 70-300 or even a 80-400?

 

Nikon certainly follows a different roadmap than Sony did in their 2nd year. 16-35/4 vs 14-30/4 are the only similarities - but Sony did offer a macro.

 

 

8 slots for 2021 - makes you wonder what Nikon is giving up in other areas to be able to produce 8 new lenses. No more F-mount ones?

Edited January 6, 2019 by Dieter Schaefer

It's interesting that the selling feature of the Z mount was the ability to more easily make fast lenses.... and all they are making (mostly) are slow lenses!

It's interesting that the selling feature of the Z mount was the ability to more easily make fast lenses.... and all they are making (mostly) are slow lenses!

To me, the main advantage of the Z mount is better wide-angle lenses that don't have to be retrofocus since the mirror is gone, and Nikon's roadmap is loaded with wide angles. Today, fast lenses are not nearly as necessary as it was 20, 30 years ago when the fastest color film that was usable was ISO 400. I am actually quite happy with the 24-70mm/f4 S at night and wonder whether f2.8 I'll ever get the f2.8 version, which I expect to be over $2000.

 

The FTZ is a stop-gap, which is a must given the 60-year history of Nikon F-mount lenses. As far as I know adapted lenses still don't AF as well as native lenses, but I don't have enough lenses in the Z mount to compare carefully. Given that Canon has just released new 400mm/f2.8 and 600mm/f4 lenses that are very light (relatively, around 6 pounds each) in the FE mount, I think sports photography will continued to be dominated by DSLRs in the next several years.

I think Nikon has all the aperture messed up. I would like to see the f/2 instead of f/1.8, f/1.0 instead of 0.95, and f/1.4 instead of f/1.2.

The Nikon 58/0.95 won't be in Noctilux price class. Leica M lenses tend to be expensive partly because of their relative compactness and quality. The 58/0.95 will be a huge and heavy lens so there is no way Nikon could sell it at Leica Noctilux prices. I would guess 5000-7000 for the new Noct-Nikkor.

 

I believe adapted lenses have some limitations in AF performance. When I tried 70-200/4 Nikkor with Z7 the focus made quite loud noise and seemed to constantly jitter. This is not quite the way it works on DSLRs. Z mount Nikkors on the other hand are much quieter, almost silent.

 

I don't think Nikon are intending the Z series to the typical telephoto user market, at least not initially. Their intention is to develop Z and F systems for different markets, according to the strengths of each technology.

 

They stopped development of 1 series and most Coolpixes and brought optical designers from multiple different divisions (imaging, industrial etc.) into one. Lens development cycle is faster today because of more advanced software and measurement / testing hardware. So there is no reason they wouldn't be able to launch eight lenses in one year if they choose to do so.

 

I am sure they continue F mount lens development but bringing out a competitive Z mount lineup is their priority right now.

It's interesting that the selling feature of the Z mount was the ability to more easily make fast lenses.... and all they are making (mostly) are slow lenses!

 

I don't think that is the main advantage; fast lenses are kind of exotics, for specialty uses. Nikon emphasized that the Z mount allows them to make better quality lenses more easily and that is the main advantage of the mount.

 

Probably the biggest advantage (selling point) of mirrorless (not just Z but all of them) is a more compact system. So Nikon make a lineup of f/1.8 primes and f/4 zooms at first, to make a system where the small cameras and lenses feel ergonomically a good fit together. I personally this is extremely smart from Nikon and shows an understanding of the market.

 

The lenses on the roadmap seem to make the Z system a good fit for travel, portraits, landscape, maybe weddings etc.

 

The 50/1.2 and 58/0.95 are the first fast primes; I am sure they will add more. The classical 2.8 zooms are also in the roadmap, so it's not like there aren't any fast lenses coming.

 

If they only offered ultra fast lenses, the system would not sell. Most people want compact, high quality kit, and ultra large apertures are a special effect which fits only a minority of applications. They can't sell an entire system only based on exotics, they have to have the majority of lenses practical and of wide interest to photographers.

Edited January 6, 2019 by ilkka_nissila

I suppose there are 2 fundamentally different 'needs' for fast lenses.

 

1) Throwing the background OOF.

 

2) Letting in more light to allow a lower ISO and/or faster shutter speed at max aperture.

 

ISO 800 rather than 1600 or maybe f2.8 rather than f4 isn't much but if it doesn't really matter why are Nikon planning an f2.8 as opposed to an f4 version of the 70-200mm?

 

I guess the use of F mount lenses via the FTZ is the factor here.

 

Pros will be wooed by the 2.8 S version direct to the Z bodies...?

Edited January 6, 2019 by mike_halliwell

Of course f/2.8 vs. f/4 is important for many applications. Only two out of the 12 of the lenses on the roadmap are f/4, the other 10 are 1-4 stops faster.

 

I don't think most people who want to move to mirrorless as their only system will put up with adapter use for long. Mixed DSLR/mirrorless users may find the adapter a practical solution though, as it brings some cross-system compatibility. I personally don't think if I get a Z camera that I would use it much with adapted lenses, unless it is as a backup camera. I would want the full benefits of native lenses, including better and quieter AF.

 

As for why Nikon put a 70-200/2.8 rather than f/4 on the roadmap, longer focal lengths tend to require faster shutter speeds and are more frequently used to photograph moving subjects (and movement blur shows more easily in close ups than in wide views), so the need for larger aperture is pressing. Yes, I get it a 70-200/2.8 isn't necessarily going to be the best match for a small camera body. But it's a necessary part of many professionals' toolkit so they make it anyway.

Edited January 6, 2019 by ilkka_nissila

The Nikon 58/0.95 won't be in Noctilux price class. Leica M lenses tend to be expensive partly because of their relative compactness and quality. The 58/0.95 will be a huge and heavy lens so there is no way Nikon could sell it at Leica Noctilux prices. I would guess 5000-7000 for the new Noct-Nikkor.

I expect that the 58mm/f0.95 Noct would be at least $5000, possibly $6000 or even a little higher. I am glad Ilkka clarifies it. Clearly even $7000 is still not in the Leica Noctilux price range, which is 5 digits in terms of US$:

LeicaNoctilux-M 50mm f/0.95 ASPH. Lens (Black)

 

There is certainly a (small) market for those 85mm/f1.2, 105mm/f1.4 portrait lenses. There is already a 105mm/f1.4 in the F mount. I would imagine those lenses will be available in the Z mount a couple more years down the road.

 

Essentially the lenses need to match the bodies and vice versa. Nikon is not going to reveal too much or people will know their body roadmap as well. There will be consumer, $1500 or below bodies. In fact the Z6 could drop to $1500 later on in 2019. Those 70-300mm/f5.6 and non-S consumer lenses will appear along with consumer bodies. There will also be DX bodies, but I sure hope that Nikon keeps those in the Z mount rather than having a separate, incompatible mount for DX mirrorless.

The Nikon 58/0.95 won't be in Noctilux price class. Leica M lenses tend to be expensive partly because of their relative compactness and quality. The 58/0.95 will be a huge and heavy lens so there is no way Nikon could sell it at Leica Noctilux prices. I would guess 5000-7000 for the new Noct-Nikkor.

That's what I had in mind - not necessarily the price of the Noctilux :confused:

The Z mount design should allow for smaller/lighter, less expensive, better lenses at least in the wide to normal lengths. I hope we see this actually happen, otherwise it would be tempting to continue to buy regular F mount lenses so they could be used with F mount SLRs or Z cameras.

 

Is the 35/1.8s significantly better than the 35/1.8g lens? It is not less expensive, and not much shorter (defined as sensor to front of lens).

 

The 14-30/4 S does look interesting to me, if it winds up being small, good, and reasonably priced.

I would guess 5000-7000 for the new Noct-Nikkor

Photonet sweapstake?

 

$6599 my bid

To me, the main advantage of the Z mount is better wide-angle lenses that don't have to be retrofocus since the mirror is gone, and Nikon's roadmap is loaded with wide angles.

 

- It remains to be seen whether Nikon can crack the issue of having a microlensed sensor and not using a retrofocus wideangle design. Not Leica, Sony nor Fuji seem to have achieved that yet.

 

There may be some mileage in having a large rear element as a 'field flattener' or to allow a more telecentric exit bundle, but such a design isn't going to be small and neat, nor inexpensive. And who's to say if the IQ would show any improvement over current retrofocus wideangles?

 

'loaded with wide angles'?

One 20mm, one 24mm and a 35mm, all at f/1.8, isn't what I'd call loaded. They sound like pretty tame and standard fare compared to other companies' offerings, which are already on sale and well up to the job.

 

I don't see Nikon breaking any barriers here, except maybe in charging Leica/Zeiss level prices.

 

F/0.95 has already been done, and hardly anyone bought it, let alone seriously used it or managed to get anything properly in focus with it.

Edited January 6, 2019 by rodeo_joe|1

There may be some mileage in having a large rear element as a 'field flattener' or to allow a more telecentric exit bundle, but such a design isn't going to be small and neat, nor inexpensive. And who's to say if the IQ would show any improvement over current retrofocus wideangles?

 

The 35/1.8 S does have better (Nikon-specified) MTF than its F mount equivalent (AF-S (FX) 35/1.8G). Tests I have read so far confirm that the S is better than the F mount version, which itself is only a few years old.

 

As for how they compare with competitors' offerings, that too will have to be determined. Sony do not make a 35/1.8, they have a 35/1.4 and 35/2.8. I personally think the f/1.8 is a great practical compromise between size & weight, cost, and usefulness in various photographic situations, including low light. The 35/1.8 feels really nicely balanced and light weight in combination with the Z7.

 

One 20mm, one 24mm and a 35mm, all at f/1.8, isn't what I'd call loaded. They sound like pretty tame and standard fare compared to other companies' offerings, which are already on sale and well up to the job.

 

The majority of the Nikon lenses on the roadmap are wide angle to short tele (in fact only two teles out of 12), which makes sense if the goal is to take advantage of the short flange back distance. How they will perform, will be evaluated once available. I'm quite optimistic about the quality and performance based on the 35/1.8 so far.

 

I don't see Nikon breaking any barriers here, except maybe in charging Leica/Zeiss level prices.

 

I realize that on the Internet, fiction is the new fact, but, Nikon aren't charging Leica prices. Nikon Z 35/1.8 S costs $847. Sony FE 35/2.8 costs $798 (given the small aperture, in my opinion a 35/2.8 should cost $300-$400). Zeiss Loxia 35/2 is $1299. Leica 35/2 (M Summicron) is $3295. In my opinion, the Nikon is the most price competitive of these, given the maximum aperture, features and the image quality.

 

I don't think the purpose of the Z system is to only have some world record lenses but be a balanced and practical photographic tool. The lineup seems focused on the strengths of full frame mirrorless (lower weight, high quality short to intermediate focal length lenses) and practical (size, weight, ergonomics, and price within the reach of many).

 

High quality with reduced weight but not exorbitant pricing are commendable goals.

 

F/0.95 has already been done, and hardly anyone bought it, let alone seriously used it or managed to get anything properly in focus with it.

 

I am sure this will continue; only a few people will buy the new Noct-Nikkor. However, the other lenses on the roadmap seem very practical.

Edited January 7, 2019 by ilkka_nissila

Is the 35/1.8s significantly better than the 35/1.8g lens? It is not less expensive, and not much shorter (defined as sensor to front of lens).

 

Here is one test:

 

Nikon Z7 Review - Nikon FTZ Adapter and Z Lenses (Page 4 of 10)

 

The results of this test suggest similar image quality wide open but much higher MTF at f/2.8 for the new S series lens. However, this is just one test at one distance; results may be different at e.g. long distances or at really close focus, and whether the corner results are better when focused at the particular area of the frame evaluated (field curvature). I think we will just have to see how it performs in practice. My first impression of the 35/1.8 S was very favourable. I particularly like the quietness (almost silence) of the autofocus and the focus seemed so precise (on subjects that don't move quickly).

Edited January 7, 2019 by ilkka_nissila

I know it's kinda apples and oranges, but why has Nikon decided to start making sharp lenses for it's Z cameras? They've only ever made one FX 35mm 1.8 starting in 2014... I tried one and it's downright soft until you get to 2.8!

And don't mention the 1.4. Dreamy soft wide-open is the best that can be said and way overpriced.

 

If you want a sharp 35mm 1.8 Nikon now, you gotta go Z Mount.

I don't believe the shorter flange mount has made it so much easier to make a sharp lens of such a mainstream focal length.

High-resolution 35mm is kind of a new thing, since about 2012 (D800/E) it has become a thing that instead of making prints and looking at the images from a distance, people now want to zoom in and look at lots of detail as an end in itself, so it has changed the requirements of lenses as well.

 

Nikon make a lot of high-resolution lenses, e.g., on the telephoto end of the spectrum, but their moderate wide and normal lenses have been not optimized for absolutely the highest MTF possible, they have been compact, lightweight, and modest or moderate in cost (especially 50/1.8), and within these requirements it's hard to make a high-resolution lens. Sigma gave up on compactness and moderate weight completely and were able to make affordable high-resolution lenses, but if they were required to cut 70% of the weight off from the 50/1.4 Art, the performance would suffer. What does the user want? Low cost, low weight, small size, high quality, high resolution? You cannot have everything.

 

I prefer primes that are classical in size and weight for the focal length and maximum aperture, rather than huge and heavy lenses, no matter how high the resolution would be. I have one huge and heavy lens and while the results are fabulous, I don't use it often, because it is such a pain to carry and use it. If all my lenses were doubled in weight, I would probably quit photography. If there is to be progress in resolution, which is fine by me, I don't want it to be at a cost in increased weight of the lenses in question. I will not buy such products no matter how cheap and sharp they are. However, while Leica makes even smaller and lighter, but high quality lenses, I'm not going buy a 12000€ normal or short telephoto lens, no matter how fine its rendering. I really like what Nikon are doing: make lenses better while not increasing weight substantially. If possible, increase image quality and reduce weight a bit.

 

The Z mount makes it possible, apparently, to make a higher performance but still compact lenses, while staying in the reasonable price class (certainly compared to Leica but also Sony and Zeiss). I am not saying they wouldn't be possible to make in other mounts, perhaps they could be, but again it seems likely that it's easier for the designers and manufacturer to achieve a given level of performance with Z mount than F mount lenses. And the easier it is, the lower the cost will be.

 

As for whether the goal of a high resolution lens is desirable over other qualities, that just depends on the application and the subjective preferences of the user. I read that Haruo Sato thinks that the 35/1.4 AF-S actually is on the too sharp side and prefers the 58/1.4 (presumably because out of focus transitions can be made smoother if some resolution is given up). It is subjective, what is the optimal lens, and of course, users can choose the lenses they use based on their own criteria. Some users have a distinct preference for the Sigma 35/1.4 Art, for example.

 

I don't believe the shorter flange mount has made it so much easier to make a sharp lens of such a mainstream focal length.

 

It's not just the shorter flange distance or the diameter of the mount, which both help, but it's also about changing user preferences. If Nikon wanted to make a sharper 50mm or 35mm lens they could do that by sacrificing some other criteria, such as out of focus transitions, lens size, weight, or cost, but the designers had their own long-developed ideas of what is the ideal lens and made the lenses according to those ideas. High resolution wasn't what 35mm was used in the past, so criteria for what is a good lens was different. While there are still some users who actually print photographs, publish images in books and magazines, etc. there are some who just digest detail by zooming in on a monitor, and that's almost the only purpose of the photography, to look at those details. Nikon probably didn't think this would happen, they figured people would use photographs as before and lens design was based on tradition.

 

I think these older designs have some charms of their own that are difficult to measure or quantify. Quite many people actually have noticed that there is more to a pleasing image than high resolution, but then the are those who seem to think sharpness is the only thing that defines a good lens.

 

The market decides ultimately what sells, and that guides manufacturers who want to be commercially successful. Fortunately there are today a lot of manufacturers of high-quality lenses, so the users have a lot of choice. With recent lenses (launched in the past 2-3 years) Nikon have moved their designs distinctly towards higher resolution, although there is some increase in cost, for example, the 19 PC is much more expensive than the 24 PC. The Z mount lenses so far are intermediate in cost yet high resolution, which should be good for a lot of photographers.

Edited January 7, 2019 by ilkka_nissila

The Z mount design should allow for smaller/lighter, less expensive, better lenses at least in the wide to normal lengths. I hope we see this actually happen, otherwise it would be tempting to continue to buy regular F mount lenses so they could be used with F mount SLRs or Z cameras.

F/1.4 (or faster) lenses with performance commensurate to a 45 MP sensor are going to be big and heavy, similar to Sony's GM prime lenses. That's not necessarily a bad thing, unless you feel small and light are the the most useful attributes for mirrorless cameras. Heavy zoom lenses are probably essential for working pros, but not necessarily the best for travel.

 

There is plenty of room for slower, smaller lenses. Leica, for one, built its reputation at f/2 (or slower). Expect to may more for lenses with better optics and build quality than "kit" lenses, again commensurate with high resolution sensors. Don't expect them to be as small light as traditional Leica lenses, because there's a lot of glass in front of the sensor, which requires more back focus distance for telecentricity, and optical compensation as well.

 

Nikon virtually abandoned manual focus lenses years ago, and prime lenses have acceded to a variety of zooms. Yet the Z cameras (like Sony) are ideally suited to manual focus, with the potential for Leica quality, but with accurate framing and super-precise focusing. It would behoove Nikon to collaborate with Zeiss, which excels in this area (not so good with zooms, pretty good with auto-focus).

 

A side benefit would be sets of lenses with consistent color and rendering. In the quest for ultimate image quality, consistency has largely gone by the board with both Nikon and Sony, along with weight and size considerations. Imagine, if you will, Loxia Z lenses (hopefully with a place to grasp when attaching or removing them). I'd settle for an adapter, preferably with data pass-through.

 

For what it's worth, Zeiss Loxia lenses are about the same diameter and length as Nikon AIS lenses, and share the same 52 mm filter size.

When you eliminate an artificial obstacle in the form of a large mirrorbox between the rear of the lens and the sensor, lens designers should get a lot more freedom to produce lenses with fewer compromises (not so much for telephotos). The 35mm/f1.8 S is supposed to be very good; I have one but haven't had a chance to thoroughly test it yet.

 

Incidentally, among the 12 lenses on the roadmap above:

• There are only two telephotos: 85mm/f1.8 and 70-200mm/f2.8
  
• Somehow there are three "standard," 50-58mm lenses: 50mm/f1.8, 50mm/f1.2, and 58mm/f09.5 Noct
  
• There are two mid-zooms, both 24-70mm so that the wide part is greater than the long part, unlike e.g. the 24-120mm/f4 in the F mount. A 24-105mm mid zoom would be more equal between wide and tele, as 24-50 is a little more than 2x, so is 50-105.
  
• I count 5 wide-angle lenses: 20, 24, and 35mm all f1.8S and two wide zooms: 14-30mm/f4 and 14-24mm/f2.8. Most wide zooms for SLRs start from 16, 17 or 18mm and end at 35mm. Zooms starting from 14mm on the wide end are on the extreme side.
  

To me, Nikon is clearly trying to showcase of the potential of wide lenses in the Z system, as well as some fast lenses such as the Noct. Personally I have never been a fan of the 50mm focal length for FX such that 3 in that range is too many for my taste. And obviously the tele side is thin; apparently Nikon is counting on the adapter to cover that for now.

I think Nikon and Canon have pretty much nailed the secrets of long lens design and practice. However both fall down in the normal to wide end of the scale. What mirrorless now offers (and Leical enjoyed for decades) is corner to corner sharpness, wide open, improving only slightly when stopped down. One has only to use legacy SLR lenses on a mirrorless camera to appreciate how little they have to offer. Times are changing, and for the better.

I can easily see why Nikon have neglected long telephoto lenses for the Z mount. Why? Because the Z mount offers no real advantage in the design of a long lens.

 

Most current prime telephotos have a huge distance between their rear element and even the F-mount. So what really would be the point of just extending that empty tube, when it could just as readily be replaced with an adapter?

 

It's not as if the saving of a few grams in a few kilos is going to make-or-break sales figures.

 

The difference, of course, might be in AF performance, but Nikon are hardly going to admit that the Z bodies have inferior AF ability and need completely re-designed lenses to bring the AF up to speed. Even if re-designing the lenses could help, which seems unproven at the moment.

 

I know Nikon seem fond of shooting themselves in the foot, but even they wouldn't be corporately stupid enough to do that. Would they? Nor to put unnecessary R&D into 'new' telephoto lenses that were no more than re-packaged old ones, and that therefore performed no differently.

 

They also don't want to be seen to be abandoning the DSLR market, by, for example, bringing out new PF lenses only in Z mount.

 

Their best course of action, IMO, is to continue to offer the ZF adapter as a 'free' accessory with every Z body. Even if that means a hidden extra cost to the customer.

 

"What mirrorless now offers (and Leica enjoyed for decades)"

 

- Leica only got away with it on crappy old 35mm film. As soon as those 'amazing' lenses were put in front of a digital sensor it all fell apart.

Edited January 8, 2019 by rodeo_joe|1

I guess they could make a simpler (cheaper!) non-tripod mount FTZ for long teles/lenses that have a foot already.

 

Essentially a pass-through connection extension tube.

 

Oh, then there's the aperture 'pusher' motor and mechanics... :(

 

Bit too soon for E lenses only...!!

- Leica only got away with it on crappy old 35mm film. As soon as those 'amazing' lenses were put in front of a digital sensor it all fell apart.

Oh the truth, it burns, it burns!:D

If E lenses were commonplace, such an adapter with no bulge might make sense. But for some lenses, having a tripod mount in the adapter may make sense. And G lenses are by far the most common type of F mount Nikkor in use, so they cannot be ignored, especially given that most E Nikkors are premium optics outside of the reach of many.

 

Leica lenses do okay. For example on lenscores's 200 MP sensor, the 50mm f/2 Apo Summicron seems to be the second highest resolution lens (first column, "resolving power") they ever tested, after the 85mm f/1.4 Zeiss Otus. It's pretty small, also, but very, very expensive.

Edited January 8, 2019 by ilkka_nissila