robert_bouknight1

I have been thinking about getting one. Had planned to get a 105/1.4AFS since my105/2DC does not AF on the Z system, unfortunately. But the new 105MC is tempting. Of course, the 1.4AFS has the potential for more shallow DOF/background blur. But, in actual practice, I usually stop the 105/2DC a little to have enough DOF to get most of a person's nose and both eyes in focus. I have a 105/2.8AFS micro but I just don't seem to use that lens for whatever reasons. It is probably better than the 105/1.8AIS I have been using with the Z system lately. The 105/1.8 is easier to focus manually than the 105/2DC, and has a more circular iris than the venerable 105/2.5. Also, I have a 105/2.5 rangefinder Nikkor that works well on a Z6, have not tried on a Z7 yet. I will probably rent the 105MC and 1.4AFS and do a big 105 shootout before feeding my 105 Nikon lens addiction again.

I might have been interested if it was FX std sensor size. The problem for me would not be sensor performance, but angle of view of the retro lenses I would use. My Z6 does pretty well as a retro lens camera, anyway. No problem for me to spin the front wheel for shutter speeds instead of a top mount shutter speed dial. I hope the camera is a success for Nikon, but I would have preferred more R&D put into Z lenses and improved future bodies. PS: I do think it looks closer to an FM than the Df did. FM was my first Nikon and serious camera, bought new right after they came out.

I would add to the notes so far that the D810 is more like the D700 than the D750 body is. I have owned both an 810 and 700, but not a 750. Did own a D600 a while, the 24mp sensor was good but I did prefer the D700/800 controls setup. If you are keeping the 700 as a 2nd body backup (I would), the D810 might be the better choice since it is a more similar body and controls. For weight/size reduction, the Z system probably is the long term solution. I have generally switched to the Z mirrorless as my primary system.

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.

Back in the nicad D1 days, some of the off brands were good, maybe better than Nikon. Now, I could be wrong but I think Nikon puts chips in the batteries, some 3rd party batteries might not work with some of the cameras.

If it is priced reasonably, I will probably go for the 28 compact, Though I would prefer a little wider and faster, I can live with the compromises. When I had a Sony A7(XXX), the 28/2 was the only FE lens I had, and I used it often with good results. Wonder how one of those would do adapted to the Z, LOL, I don't have it any more. Probably not nearly as good as the native 28/2.8Z, I am sure Sony used a good bit of software correction for the 28/2. The 40/2 as a carry one lens only, maybe. But I would rather go out with a 28 and short tele combo. Actually, I have become so used to the wide end of my 14-30 that I would not want to do much serious shooting without it handy.

I would like to see some "retro" lenses, in Z mount, but smaller! Am looking forward to the compact prime, probably the 28 for me. A little wider would be better. A small/light fixed focal length short tele Z would be nice, that would replace the tiny Canon 100/3.5 LTM that I use now. I would prefer faster, but f/3.5 would be OK if over 100mm and small/light. AF would be good if the lens could be kept small. As for longer fast aperture lenses, I am still more likely to buy (actually just keep the lenses I have) in F mount unless there is a compelling reason to buy in Z mount.

When I researched travelling (very) light, I wound up buying the AF-P 70-300 4.5-5.6E ED VR even though I had a 70-200/4VR. The lens is on sale by Nikon now. It is not equal to the latest 2.8 zoom, but I was satisfied with the performance to size & weight ratio. I am generally not a fan of mid range zooms, but the 24-85VR latest is a good bit smaller/lighter than the 24-120. Instead, I would pack a 20mmish prime and 35 or 40 or 50mm small but fast prime to go with the zoom. I have had a couple of the 28-105's mentioned earlier. They can be good, but both of mine failed for various reasons. Am spoiled now, I can pack a Z body with 14-30, tiny Voigtlander 40/1.4 (Leica mount), and the 70-300. To shed further bulk weight, I can swap in a tiny LTM Canon 100/3.5 and leave the 70-300 behind. Too bad I have not found a small good 20mm to go with the 40 & 100. Sorry about the font size. Got it crossed up and can't seem to adjust to the standard.

Coincidence? The ByThom post for today addresses the OP of this thread with significant detail. DSLR Lens Discontinuation Continues byThom.com/Newsviews Today's post

I guess this is not any different than when Nikon stopped rangefinder lens and camera production, or film cameras.

The Z mount design optical advantages for WA lens design are significant, I doubt I would ever buy a new F mount wide in the future. I have several F mount WA's now to support that system in the unlikely event that I need a wide on a SLR. I have not shot much action/sports with my Z, prefer DSLR's for this purpose. As long as SLR's are preferable or viable for sports, there should be a (shrinking?) market for new F mount lenses. But I would not expect Nikon to announce any new F mount lenses. It will be interesting to see how capable the Z9 proves to be. I am sure that Nikon marketing dept is working hard to develop longer Z lenses that have advantages over the current (and past) F mount lenses. Certainly these lenses could be lighter than the F battleship lenses + FTZ. Can native Z mount lenses focus faster/more accurately than adapted F mount tele lenses? If not now, eventually this will be the case. I expect that Nikon will stop F lens production probably on a case by case basis when lenses don't sell in profitable volumes.

+1 on the 180 IF-ED. One of the two screw drive lenses I would like to use with AF with on a Z, The other is 105/2/DC. I will check OAL since I have both (somewhere), but I do think the RIFR and later AI/AIS 200/4's are revised formulas. The later lenses seem shorter, but could be an optical illusion.

Nice. I have found that many of the older Nikkor lenses do well on modern digital bodies. The ability to focus accurately and/or quickly with mirrorless makes these classics a lot more fun with a Z ML body.

Has anyone tried the Sigma AF tele's on the Z system? My only experience was with a Sigma Art 35/1.4 and D800 a while back. No complaints at all about the lens optics but I could not get reliable AF accuracy consistently, even with AF fine tune. My choice for this lens slot, I think, would be a Nikon 105/1.4E, but I have not pulled the trigger on one yet.

After shooting slides many years, I tend to dial in -1/x exposure compensation almost always without worrying about it too much. I think I would rather have a bit of noise in the shadows than blown highlights. I think this is contrary to "exposure to the right" but I don't care. My experience is that some lenses just seem to need exposure compensation to match others, especially non Nikon lenses. It is easier to deal with a body that is consistently off a little than occasionally used lenses that need compensation. Guess I should add a label on those lenses to remind me. I check the iris action on these lenses, seems OK, who knows.

One advantage to focusing on off centered desired focus points at taking aperture with mirrorless such as Z cameras is that both the effects of curvature of field and focus shift stopping down are accounted for. Realistically, those errors are not a big deal most of the time but still possible.

Just one more concept for consideration. A Z5+FTZ at $1097, keep the D810 (for now), see if mirrorless works for you. Currently, I have a Z6&7, bought the Z6 new from B&H and don't regret. I probably would have added a Z5 had the deal not come along on the Z7. Or, had it been available, I might have bought two Z5's. I am just used to carrying two similar bodies when I am concentrating on photography. When I had the D810, I had concluded that the next incremental improvement in my photo quality would be improving the focus accuracy, both for AF and manual focus. Not MP increases. I will take a 24MP file that is perfectly focused any day over a 45MP file that is close. At the risk of getting myself labelled as "not state of art", I find it hard to see much real difference in the Z6 and larger Z7 files when shooting the same subject with the same decent lens. But I do believe that the Z system delivers more focus accuracy in the real world vs DSLR, and the vibration reduction on sensor is a significant benefit not currently available in DSLR's. I did fine tune lenses for the D810, for the record. I am aware that the D850 has a better AF system than the D810, but I doubt it would help with manual focus. Live view might be better with the D850 vs D810, but I never found it useful for moving subject and photog (portraiture). I still have a several DSLR setups for fast action sports. Shooting basketball was a big thing for me for a lot of years, but not so much any more. BBall drove me to full frame for ISO capability. The D3s and D810 both served well for BBall, I probably have a preference for the D810 Bball files. Come to think of it, I never tried the D500 for BBall, It might have been OK in the major college court that was well lit for broadcast. The D500 would not have worked for the local HS gym, even the D3s struggled in that dismal lighting that required ISO well above 6400. ---- Sorry for the long paragraph not really related to the OP questions, except that I think the Z6 would do well at Mardi Gras especially at night.

Samuel, thanks for the post on the Megadap, please do an in depth posting when you can. I am down to two AF-D lenses that I would like to be able to use on the Z with AF, an 105/2DC and 180/2.8. I agree that manual focus on those AF lenses is not great, but the 180 is not too bad. Clearly original manual focus lenses are better - for manual focus. I guess I could replace the DC with a 105/1.4, and use a 70-200 instead of the 180.

I can't remember if I have tried a non-AI lens on my FTZ, probably not. For most manual focus lenses, I actually prefer cheap aftermarket F to Z adaptors, they are a bit less bulky. No problem with pre-ai lenses on those. Using the zoom magnification feature in the Z, I get a much higher percentage of in focus photos with the Z than I did with my D810 and manual lenses. I bought a Z6 to build a small/light system around for a trip that would involve much walking while carrying everything. After the trip, I found that I was picking up the Z6 more often than my D810 for general photography, so I sold the D810. I think I get a higher percentage of portraits with preferred eye in focus with the Z6, and it works better with my Nikon and other system manual focus lenses that I still use regularly, including a 55/3.5. I have not found viewfinder lag to be an issue except when shooting sports at 5FPS. Maybe there are some settings I have not optimized for this situation. There have been a few occasions where a built in fill flash would be handy, but the Z6 is very good at high ISO, I think better than the D810. For shooting sports, I still have a D3s, D3x, and D500. Probably a D850 could replace all of those, but I am not shooting sports much any more. When COVID is over and events are on again, I would use a Z7/14-30S & Z6/short tele or zoom. Fell into a deal on the Z7, so now I have two Z bodies. For my hobby, I really don't miss the DSLRs. Prior to digital, I had moved (backward?) from Nikon F (manual focus) to rangefinder cameras. I feel like I am back to the small/light/compact precise focusing systems I had back then with AF added in as a bonus.

I have had good success with a Voigtlander 40/1.4 on a Z6, this is my minimalist/compact rig. A little bigger than a LTM body, but not bad. For smaller/lighter lenses, the cheap Ebay adaptors have been OK for me. I also have a close focus adaptor, the one I have is a little less elegant than it could be, but it does allow for closer focusing. I have been surprised by some of the results. Some lenses that ought to be good disappoint. Others do very well. Since I now have two, can let the secret out without fear that a run on the Canon 100/3.5 LTM will drive the price up. The black aluminum version is tiny, light, performs well, definitely wins the tiny tele contest. The Nikon LTM 105/2.5 is better (actually very good IMO), but is much heavier. My older Elmarit 90's are not as good. The early version Voigtlander 25mm snapshot Skopar I have had a while seems not nearly as good as the Z 14-30S at 25mm. The Voigtlander 21/1.8 seems pretty good, though.

Another recommendation here for the 14-30 S (Z lens), refirb or used should be within your budget. Great combo with the Z6, enough zoom range to reduce number of lenses needed in a kit. Small and light enough for all day carry.

Just to add, the 70-200/4AFS VR I have is very good. If I wanted uniform image quality across the frame for, say, nature, this would be the choice in my lens inventory. I just don't shoot nature.

I have the first version 70-200/2.8VR, the 70-200/4VR, and the latest 70-300/4-5.6GVRAFSwhatever. The f/4 is technically the best lens of the 3 by a noticeable amount, but now I use it the least. Many don't think the first version 70-200/2.8VR is good enough for FX, but I like the "flaws" it has for portraiture. It is good enough for low light sports, also. While putting together a light, minimalist kit for a trip that would involve much walking while carrying everything, I found that the 70-300 offered a bit more reach, small size and weight vs the f/4. Optically, it is decent, plenty good enough at 24MP FX, and something of a bargain, IMO. I have not tried it on 45MP yet. Occasionally, I look at and think about replacing my Version 1 2.8 with the latest version III. Optically, I am sure it is great. But I think I would rather have a 105/1.4. I did try my friend's version II 70-200/2.8, it seems like a slightly faster but the same thing as the f4 I have, just bigger, heavier, and more expensive.

Where there actually any floating elements in the later (or earlier) versions of 55/3.5 Nikkors? The earliest version did have compensating aperture to correct for underexposure at close focus with the non-TTL metering heads (I think, my understanding of this, I have one). If the 55/3.5 does not have floating elements but is simply optimized for close range focus, then having it set for infinity in the rig would have no effect, and the micro theoretically should be a little better than a normal 50 in this application. Maybe the 2.8 version had floating element compensation. I don't do much close up photography, but do use a bellows with enlarging lens on those rare occasions. I do use a 55/3.5 frequently for macro applications, though, with good results. Somewhere, I do have a PB-4, can't remember if I have the copy attachment. Have a bunch of slides and negatives from back in the day, maybe some year I will get a chance to sort through. Darn day job!

There is a Techart Sony E lens to Nik Z that retains AF and AE. Interesting that it has about the same number of 5 star and 1 star reviews. The 1 star reviews seem mostly fitment issues.