Which screw AF lenses would you use if a Z screw AF adaptor was available?

Over the years, I have slowly replaced most of the AF screw drive lenses I had with more recent "S" internal focus lenses. Generally, the more recent lenses are better than the earlier equivalents. And, I definitely prefer the quieter, smoother focus action.

Thinking through this, I am down to one lens I would like to use on a Z, my 180/2.8 AF-D. I am sure that the 70-200/2.8 zooms are better, but I like the results that the 180 delivers. Actually, I don't think I have tried it at 45MP, might change my mind, but it looks good to me at 36MP

I thought I would continue to use my 105/2DC. But, the 105/1.4g I now have seems a good bit better. I have not had good success manually focusing the 105/2 DC at open apertures and close distances with the Z bodies, the manual focus action is too "quick" for precision. I have better luck with a MF 105/1.8 AIS that seems very good on a Z7.

I can't think of any screw drive AF lenses shorter than 105mm that I would choose over more recent lenses to carry. Maybe the 85/1.4 AFD? I don't own that lens or the 28/1.4 AFD that is supposed to be good. The 20/2.8 is good and 24/2.8AF I have is OK stopped down a little, but I would rather just use the 14-30S. For the micro lenses, I generally prefer older manual focus.

Just curious to see what others think here.

I've only got the 60mm AFD left, it's fine as a manual focus for what I use it for.

Everything else is either AFS or Z mount.

Only the ones that I have and have not replaced with an AF-S or Z lens.

Assuming I get the Z 24-120 + my F 70-200 AF-S, that only leaves my F 75-300 AF. And I have been planning to replace that lens for a few years anyway.

So nothing.

The other problem is, how FAST is the screw drive FTZ?

My F4 runs the screw drive MUCH faster than my D70 and D7200.

To use for sports, it would have to be as fast as the F4, not the D70.

Ironic, Ken Rockwell launches another rant today about the Nikon F mount and FTZ today. Sure, I would like to have the 180/2.8 and 105/2DC AF function on a Z body, but not that big of a deal. I sold my D810, but still have a D3s and recently got a super cheap deal on a D800 should I want to use those lenses. The D800 is a good one, it does not seem to need any AF fine tune thus far, and I like the color rendition it delivers. When they get cheap, I will probably get a D850.

Typical of modern online media, the KR piece is written to inflame, not so much report on facts. Guess it keeps traffic coming to his site.

I still have four AF/AF-D lenses: 24mm/f2.8 AF-D, 35-70mm/f2.8 (but it is all fogged up inside and not really useable any more), 105mm/f2.8 macro and 200mm/f4 macro.

I rarely use the 200mm any more. The only one I still use occasionally is the 105mm macro, but I also have the 105mm AF-S VR macro. I really have no need of any complex FTZ with two motors. What I really want is a simple FTZ with no moving parts for E lenses only.

I still have four AF/AF-D lenses: 24mm/f2.8 AF-D, 35-70mm/f2.8 (but it is all fogged up inside and not really useable any more), 105mm/f2.8 macro and 200mm/f4 macro.

 

I rarely use the 200mm any more. The only one I still use occasionally is the 105mm macro, but I also have the 105mm AF-S VR macro. I really have no need of any complex FTZ with two motors. What I really want is a simple FTZ with no moving parts for E lenses only.

Now I think a simplified FTZ that fully support only the E lenses makes a lot of sense. An FTZ that supports AF for screw drive lenses would very difficult to make and really I don't think so many people would need that.

Ironic, Ken Rockwell launches another rant today about the Nikon F mount and FTZ today. Sure, I would like to have the 180/2.8 and 105/2DC AF function on a Z body, but not that big of a deal. I sold my D810, but still have a D3s and recently got a super cheap deal on a D800 should I want to use those lenses. The D800 is a good one, it does not seem to need any AF fine tune thus far, and I like the color rendition it delivers. When they get cheap, I will probably get a D850.

 

Typical of modern online media, the KR piece is written to inflame, not so much report on facts. Guess it keeps traffic coming to his site.

re:

Nikon FTZ & FTZ II Lens Adapter Compatibility & Review

There are facts in the post. Just with personal comments as well. But that has always been his style of writing.

That is no different than some of the Youtube "experts." Some of which I cannot stand listening to, so I don't.

It is easier to ignore what someone writes, just skip over it, than to ignore what someone is verbally saying.

The screw drive AF is in a way like the F mount.

Nikon had to make a decision on what to bring forward with the Z cameras.

Nikon dropped the F mount in favor of the Z mount, much to the displeasure of many.

With the FTZ they limited it to electronic AF-S lenses.

• If there was to be a screw drive FTZ, it would have been the first model, where it would have the most appeal.
   
  
• Not having the screw drive AF was a bad hit, as it immediately removed a lot of lenses from migrating to the Z camera, and caused a LOT of complaining.
  

In part it could be engineering.

• In thinking about the issue, if the AF motor is in the FTZ, the camera lens interface would have to have the circuits to tell the AF motor which way and how much to turn, and also power that motor. Is that significantly different than what it takes to control and power the AF-S lenses, I don't know.
  
• Could they fit a screw drive AF motor and mechanism into the space of the FTZ? The protrusion at the bottom of the FTZ is for the aperture lever motor. It would need another protrusion for the AF motor. And it has to be in a specific place to power the AF screw. So the FTZ gets BIGGER.
   
  
• Could the camera power TWO motors in the FTZ?
   
  
• Mirrorless cameras already are power sucking devices. Based on usage, the AF motor would drain the battery even faster.
  

It could be marketing.

• Nikon wants to sell new Z lenses, for revenue. Using older AF lenses does not give Nikon any new lens revenue.
   
  
• But Nikon NEEDED the AF-S lenses, because there wasn't much Z lenses.
   
  
  • But if you can use an AF-S lens on the Z camera, would you buy a Z lens? This affects revenue.
    

  [*]Bringing the AF lenses onto the Z cameras, mean they sell even less Z lenses.

re: The manual aperture ring follower.

Like a 2nd motor, an aperture follower would take up space in the FTZ. So the FTZ gets bigger.

And the camera/lens interface has to have a link (another circuit) to communicate the manual aperture to the camera.

My guess, is the FTZ was a compromise design.

If and when I migrate to a Z camera, I will be in exactly that position, where all my screw drive AF lenses will not autofocus on the Z camera.

KRs comment about the lack of an AS mount is puzzling.

One reason for the FTZ2 is to make it smaller. Putting an AS mount on the adapter will make it big again.

And add the mechanical AF motor and aperture ring follower and it get BIGGER.

BTW, Canon did something that Nikon did not do.

Many years ago, Canon switched from the breach lock FD mount to the bayonet EF mount.

This was a BIG disruption in the Canon landscape.

But unlike Nikon Canon went all electronic, whereas Nikon went with a mechanical AF, the aperture ring used a follower and the aperture was controlled by a lever.

Even the later AF-S G lenses without an aperture ring had an aperture ring lever.

So Canon had no need for a motor in the EF/R adapter, everything was already electronic.

While the mechanical AF and aperture was OK, going forward it was an albatros around Nikon's neck.

How to go from mechanical to electronic, without significant compromises?

The mechanical AF was already dropped in the Nikon D3xxx and D5xxx cameras.

So this is nothing new. The writing was on the wall.

The Fringer EF/NZ adapter is comparatively easy and compact, compared to the FTZ, because it is all electronic. And it is $50 more than the FTZ.

Let's see Fringer make a FTZ adapter with mechanical AF, and how much will that cost?

Maybe someday someone will make a Nikon screw AF to Z, but probably not. I am not sure I would buy one if it were bigger and more expensive than the older FTZ. The D800 I just bought cost less than an FTZ, LOL.

It would be nice if Nikon made one just to prove a point, but I am pretty sure Nikon would not recoup R&D costs.

The aftermarket mounts that move the entire lens for AF are an interesting option for smaller/lighter lenses such as LTM or M mount. I doubt one would be rigid enough to support my 180/2.8. My Nikkor 300/2.8 screw AF lens would probably break one in half, it might even rip the Z mount off of a body. I do have some good LTM and M lenses. I don't really need AF with those but it is a little tempting.

The Canon EF and Sony E to Z are interesting twists on things. Lots of Canon lenses out there that I don't need. But the EF-Z coupled with Z9 might tempt some Canon users.

I have had a lot of fun with various lenses on various mirrorless bodies. It is nice to have an "unrestricted" lens mount camera body.

I guess Nikon has gone from the least adaptable F mount to the most adaptable Z mount.

This is mostly due to going from a v.deep flange mount distance of 46.5mm for the F to a very short 16mm for the Z.

Nothing much but Nikon fit lenses worked on a Nikon body, whereas everything (for 35mm) pretty much fits on a Z.

Let's turn this on its head and ask - "Which screwdriver AF Nikon DSLR body would you keep to use with your old AF lenses?"

Because wishing for a never-to-be-made screwdriver AF-to-Z adaptor is a bit of a pointless exercise. And even if it was made, it would be expensive and make the Z body easily as bulky and weighty as a DSLR.

But +1 to the AF 180mm f/2.8 as a definite keeper lens.

whereas everything (for 35mm) pretty much fits on a Z.

There are a good many MF-to-Nikon F adaptors available as well, so you're not even limited to 35mm mount lenses.

My old Mamiya 645 lenses work extremely well on my Sony a7r4, FWIW.

"Which screwdriver AF Nikon DSLR body would you keep to use with your old AF lenses?"

I guess the uni-bodies have the most powerful AF motors. I'm surprised no-one has made a table of the current drawn when AF is activated. All things being equal (!), those that draw the most go the strongest.

I would guess the D7000 has the lowest and the D6 the highest. Not sure where the D8** would fit.

I keep my D3S for a remotely activated machine-gun..... it has to live in a blimp 'cos it scares the horses...:p It's driving an old AF 35 > 135mm 3.5/4.5.

Realistically, a D850 will likely be my long term DSLR keeper, when they get cheap enough. The D810 I had served well and was a nice general purpose upgrade to the D800 I had previously, but I never quite liked the SOOC results from the D810, so I don't miss it. Though it feels slow now, my current D800 delivers good looking results. And I still have a D3s & D3x(was a cheap deal used, great camera below ISO 800) pair. I have been using the D3x a good bit when in daylight.

The D810 raw files were fine. I did piddle with picture controls, but just could not find a combo that I liked. I shoot raw+JPG, but I just don't enjoy post processing. I am generally happy with SOOC Z6, D3x(daylight) and now D800 images.

Are wee obsessing too much about compatibility with F mount AF lenses? Modern AF is great, but before AF existed we were able to make photos with manual focus. If I used one of my AF/AF-D lenses a lot on my Z camera I would replace it with a Z mount version.

Yes, before AF existed we could use manual focus, but we also had a split image rangefinder on the camera. You may substitute the "little green ball" focus confirmation in the viewfinder for the split image, but it is a second best solution, IMHO.

Are wee obsessing too much about compatibility with F mount AF lenses? Modern AF is great, but before AF existed we were able to make photos with manual focus. If I used one of my AF/AF-D lenses a lot on my Z camera I would replace it with a Z mount version.

It's not that it can't be done, but it voids the purpose of getting the latest and greatest body over anything that came out in the last 5 years or so, and many of us already have. The only reason for me to upgrade from the D850 is for better AF performance, particularly with moving subjects, so if I have to focus manually, buying a new body is useless.