The Nikon “S” Series of Lenses and Nikon F-Mount Lenses

[Michael Erlewine]

The Nikon “S” Series of Lenses and Nikon FD Lenses

When I first bought my Nikon Z7, my entrance into the mirrorless realm, I told myself that I had all the lenses I needed and would not need to buy any of the new mirrorless lenses. I had the adapter and would just use that. It would save a lot of money, or so I thought.

The last thing I expected was that Nikon would start making much, much better lenses, although a thought or two would have set me straight. Of course, that wider flange makes all the difference, but nevertheless I thought Nikon will be Nikon and manage to make average lenses these years as they had been doing for some time.

Well, the long story short is that my Nikon Z7 came with a kit lens, the Z 24-70mm S f/4 lens, which I would on occasion use, but mostly I used my old standard lenses with the adapter.

Well, by chance I went to the performance of one of my good friends, a blues player. In fact, I had done my best to teach this fellow how to sing and play blues, and he learned. He moved to New Orleans and became one of the city’s top players. Anyway, I went to a show of his here in Michigan and I had my Z7 and that kit 24-70mm f/4 lens on it. I took some photos of my friend.

When I saw the results, I was a bit startled on how sharp and lifelike they were, and all this with a lowly kit lens. The last thing I imagined is that I would fall in love with these new Nikon “S” series lenses, but I sure did.

From then on, I tried more of the new Nikon mirrorless lenses, but I soon found out that for my purposes, only the “S” series were good enough for the photography that I liked to do. When the 105 MC “S” Macro came along, I was astounded at how good it was for my type of photography. Who needs my coveted Voigtlander 125mm APO-Lanthar f/2.5 when we have the Z 105mm “S” Macro, and at a 'lowish' price considered what the lens delivered. I hated to buy more lenses, but the lenses were so good that I had to.

And this was not just my imagination going on a binge, but DXOMark confirmed my experience. Here are some of the Nikon “S” lenses. The first number is the DXO total, the second in brackets the degree of sharpness.

DXO MARK RESULTS

Z 85mm “S” 49 [41 sharp]
Z 70-200 ”S” f/2.8 38 [38]
Z 50mm “S” 1.8 44 [37]
Z 58mm “S” 0.95 55 [35]
Z 24-70 “S” f/2.8 36 [26]
Z 24-70 “S” f/4 29 [19]

Some of my very best F-mount lenses came out like this:

Zeiss Otus 55mm 50 [33]
Zeiss 135mm 48 [41]   
Zeiss Otus 85mm 47 [41]

And so, I was not just dreaming. Nikon was actually kicking ass with these new "S" series lenses. The non-“S” mirrorless lenses, which I tried, were OK, just nothing to get too excited about. As of now I have all of the above listed Nikon Z “S” lenses, plus the 100-400mm S and the Z 24-120mm f/4 S:

I would like to buy more, but I have to sell some of my F-mount lenses to do that. I wonder if my experience is going to be echoed by others? Of course, I can mount my F-mount lenses on my Z9 using one of a couple of adapters, yet I am getting what I want out of the natural Z “S” lenses by themselves. And no need for an adapter.

I also took at a turn back into all of the small Nikon lenses I have such as the many versions of the 55mm Micro-Nikkors of which I have a bunch. And yes, these older lenses were ‘sharp” enough for me, but they were not well enough free of aberrations and the like, which most of the new Z “S” lenses actually were. I don’t see my spending a lot of time with lenses that are not close to APO quality in the future.

And then I got into looking at all my lenses, a wide variety, and came to a somewhat similar conclusion. Why mess with the adapters when I had lenses that were natural to the Z mirrorless cameras. And so, it went with me.

The result is that I am going to sell off a lot of my older lenses and invest in the new “S” mirrorless lenses unless they begin to disappoint me, yet so far they are great.

And, thinking that perhaps I am not the Lone Ranger here, the only one who comes to this tipping point. We may well be at a major inflection point. We shall see.

I am pretty conservative when it comes to the quality of lenses, so if I have come this far, so might others. So, I ask those of you who are experimenting with the new “S” lenses, what are you finding out? I just finished testing my “S” series lenses against lenses like the Zeiss Otus 28mm and 55mm. I can see that I don’t need the Otus 55mm, yet have questions about selling off the Otus 28mm. It is a very, very good lens, IMO, and the new Nikons don’t quite off the ‘3-D’ quality of the Otus 28mm lens, at least in my opinion.

So, if you have time, please let me know what you are finding out if you are testing out both sets of lenses.

Here is that first shot I took of my friend with the Z “S” series kit lens, the 24-70mm f/4 lens.                                                   

[Roland Vink]

It is interesting to know the Nikon Z "S" lenses have surpassed your expectations and are delivering to the high standard that you have always sought. I can't comment on them in particular because I don't own any.

Just a comment about your use of the term "FD" lenses, I assume these refer to Nikon F lenses for Digital cameras. This was initially confusing, when talking about FD lenses I would normally think of the Canon FD mount which was used during the 1970s and 80s, later replaced by the Canon EOS mount in 1987

[Michael Erlewine]

It is interesting to know the Nikon Z "S" lenses have surpassed your expectations and are delivering to the high standard that you have always sought. I can't comment on them in particular because I don't own any.

Just a comment about your use of the term "FD" lenses, I assume these refer to Nikon F lenses for Digital cameras. This was initially confusing, when talking about FD lenses I would normally think of the Canon FD mount which was used during the 1970s and 80s, later replaced by the Canon EOS mount in 1987

Sorry Roland, I will try to be more clear.

[Snoogly]

I love the S lenses too, but I loath the bland black tube design and silly screen. Just make it possible to keep the screen on already! Make it e-paper so it uses less battery power.

Modern lenses seem to be totall computer designed, even the aesthetics. Were Nikkor lenses before AF designed only by a slide rule, or was there some human interventions into aesthetics and tactile feel? I am sure there was.

But from AF onwards the lenses became gross and clumsy (though many D lenses retained their character). The S lenses are depressing :-(

[Erik Lund]

Some of the new Nikon Z mount lenses are relaying heavily on in camera corrections which can be troublesome in post processing for instance 24-70 f/4
 
Sharpness is not everything and sometimes some of us like character and diversity,,,


Different tool for different job


Generally they are very impressive in sharpness and contrast but clearly that has given much larger lenses, so clearly mirror less is not small nor cheap.


The Z family is following a very strict design look very different from the old F mount Nikkors that where designed by small teams so there the design follows the team much more.
 
Over the years I have thinned out my inventory only keeping what I use regularly.


Did you try the 28mm f/1.4 AFS E quite impressive and very like the Z lenses performance but looking like lens


Btw not huge fan of the focusing system of the Z family,,,

[Michael Erlewine]

Did you try the 28mm f/1.4 AFS E quite impressive and very like the Z lenses performance but looking like lens

I am not getting any more F-mount lenses if I can help it. I have scores of them. I am looking that the Nikon Z "S" 14-24mm f/2.8 lens as being one I might like to have, but expensive and have to sell some lenses to do that.

[SHEN_HUI]

2 Z lens I own remind me of that great F mount lens such as 28 1.4E is Z 50 1.2 S& Z 400 4.5 VR S.

Some of the new Nikon Z mount lenses are relaying heavily on in camera corrections which can be troublesome in post processing for instance 24-70 f/4
 
Sharpness is not everything and sometimes some of us like character and diversity,,,


Different tool for different job


Generally they are very impressive in sharpness and contrast but clearly that has given much larger lenses, so clearly mirror less is not small nor cheap.


The Z family is following a very strict design look very different from the old F mount Nikkors that where designed by small teams so there the design follows the team much more.
 
Over the years I have thinned out my inventory only keeping what I use regularly.


Did you try the 28mm f/1.4 AFS E quite impressive and very like the Z lenses performance but looking like lens


Btw not huge fan of the focusing system of the Z family,,,

[ColinM]

Michael, I've seen some of your outstanding results with both the previous Nikon F mount lenses
and now also with the "S" series lenses.

I'd be interested in your thoughts on Eric's observation here:

Btw not huge fan of the focusing system of the Z family,,,

I appreciate that you may not need your A/F to cope with fast moving and/or distant subjects, as a sports of wildlife photographer might.
I'm guessing the ease of M/F usability might be of interest, especially where the new design is "by wire" instead of direct mechanical connection.

I'm also curious on your views on the "character" of the "S" lenses.
Given your choice of well corrected lenses in the past, I'm guessing this aspect might be lower down your wish list than sharpness, MTF results etc

[Michael Erlewine]

Michael, I've seen some of your outstanding results with both the previous Nikon F mount lenses
and now also with the "S" series lenses.

I'd be interested in your thoughts on Eric's observation here:
I appreciate that you may not need your A/F to cope with fast moving and/or distant subjects, as a sports of wildlife photographer might.
I'm guessing the ease of M/F usability might be of interest, especially where the new design is "by wire" instead of direct mechanical connection.

I'm also curious on your views on the "character" of the "S" lenses.
Given your choice of well corrected lenses in the past, I'm guessing this aspect might be lower down your wish list than sharpness, MTF results etc

There are lots of things to comment in that post. The "S" lenses are sharp enough and well corrected enough for my work. And the color is OK. As for 'special character', I'm not sure how special the character is, but neither have I felt anything was missing so far..

I have gone back, for instance, and used other fine lenses in the F-format, like The Zeiss Otus 55 and 28mm, the Leica Elmarit R 100mm, the CRT Nikkor, and others. Also, the Z NOCT f/0.95 lens which is stellar.

Some of these lenses in the F-format require rails to do right, and more work. They are worth the effort. Looking at my own work. certainly I had a honeymoon with the new Z "S" lenses. I still love them, but I am sobering up a bit and realize that the extra effort  with the APO F-format lenses is worth it.

Whatever it takes to get good quality images is my motto at this point. As mentioned, I cannot question the "S" lenses as to sharpness and correction (APO factor) for the most part, so the only thing to look for, as you pointed out, is the style and character of the "S" lenses. Working on that. Yet, as mentioned, even though I have not 'characterized" each "S" lens yet, the fact that I have not worried about it says something in itself. I have not missed character. In fact, I am working on composition and so on.

Perhaps some readers here with "S" lenses have some 'character' comments about each of them. I am all ears.

[BruceSD]

.
To me, most premium modern lenses have more than adequate "sharpness and correction".  The deciding factor seems to have finally settled on "character", a subjective characteristic that you know when you see it but can't be measured - or can it?

I used to also think that "bokeh " was subjective and could not be measured.  Then I found a website (  http://www.lenscore.org/  ) that used a scientific approach to measure bokeh.   At first I didn't accept their lens bokeh ratings; then over time as I developed extensive hands on experience with many of the exact same lenses that they rated, I slowly developed a confidence in their quantitative approach to rating lens bokeh.  I felt that their objective bokeh ratings were extremely consistent with my own objective ratings.  So, maybe it is possible to rate the un-rateable?

Here's how LensScore.org rates lens bokeh  - 

"How to rate bokeh? Certainly a fair question, and one that is frequently asked. Most photographers have a favorite lens when it comes to bokeh, and most of those lenses are fast, medium to long primes. However, some will argue that the smooth bokeh of modern lenses is bland and boring compared to the busy bokeh of a Helios 40-2 for example, and they have a point. Stunning pictures are taken with the Helios, with weird, beautiful bokeh. These images are not great despite the flawed bokeh, but because of it. Thus, it is all a matter of taste.

Or is it? When we discussed the different aspects of a lens we would like to measure, consensus was easily reached regarding measurement of bokeh: physics. A perfect lens does not introduce any kind of aberrations in out-of-focus areas, both in front of and behind the focal plane. No geometrical distortion, no color shift, no chromatic aberrations, no accentuation or attenuation of edges; just pure, mathematically perfect blurring. But that's exactly the kind of bland bokeh mentioned above, isn't it? Yes it is, but as it happens, the vast majority of people - not just photographers - find this kind of bokeh by far the most aesthetically pleasing. It's also the most versatile, as it will never ruin a shot, it will always look good, no matter what kind of picture is taken. Unfortunately, it is also hard to achieve. The lenses coming closest to mathematically perfect bokeh are also top performers in the other categories, and they're usually on the expensive side.

So what about the Helios and all those other lenses with interesting bokeh? In capable hands, they are creative tools able of producing beautiful images impossible to take with a mathematically perfect lens, but they are not good general purpose tools. In most situations, their optically flawed bokeh will lessen the quality of a shot. It is safe to say that for all but a few special applications, clean and smooth bokeh is preferable, and that's why the LenScore™ bokeh score is based on how close a lens' out-of-focus rendering is to mathematical perfection.".

Who knows, maybe someday someone will come up with a valid quantitative measure of "character" too? 

[Ilkka Nissilä]

Some of the new Nikon Z mount lenses are relaying heavily on in camera corrections which can be troublesome in post processing for instance 24-70 f/4

These lenses were designed to be compact and yet high quality, which necessitated some compromises (especially in distortion and vignetting). The 24-70/2.8 Z has less compromise, in fact it's my favorite Nikon lens already; very practical, more compact than the F-mount lens, mechanically feels sound, and just about as perfect optically as I could imagine (for a zoom that goes from wide angle to short tele). I have barely touched the f/1.8's since I got the zoom, whereas on F-mount the wide-to-tele zooms always had significant compromises.
 

Sharpness is not everything and sometimes some of us like character and diversity,,,

I agree but this diversity comes over time as different designers and generations of lenses are made to different styles. 

Generally they are very impressive in sharpness and contrast but clearly that has given much larger lenses, so clearly mirror less is not small nor cheap.

Well, the 24-70/4 and 14-30/4, the 24-70/2.8 and 14-24/2.8 are smaller and lighter than their F-mount equivalents yet optically superior.

The 28/2.8, 40/2, and 50/2.8 MC are quite small as far as primes go. 

The Z family is following a very strict design look very different from the old F mount Nikkors that where designed by small teams so there the design follows the team much more.

I think they got tired of the decorations of the F-mount lenses, and the special letters which kept piling up and tried to reset that to a more plain appearance and simpler names for the lenses.
 

Btw not huge fan of the focusing system of the Z family,,,

Are you talking about lenses or cameras? The Z lenses focus quieter and with more precision and less hunting than the F-mount lenses, and the lens motor solution seems to help the AF algorithms used on mirrorless cameras - especially when comparing with early AF-S lenses. I think the full speed of the lenses can only be obtained at the moment with the Z9 which focuses very nicely indeed. The Z6 II I find to be acceptable for static subjects but gives a lot of grief on moving subjects. I don't there is any significant flaw in the AF system design as whole, it's just that mirrorless AF is more dependent on the processor than DSLR AF and only the Z9 has a decent processor (and fast sensor read time which also contributes to AF) that can focus on moving subjects acceptably. But they'll make more cameras like that over time, and I'd expect the Z9's processor (Expeed 7) to be standard across the next revisions of the lineup, especially Z6 III and Z7 III.

[longzoom]

The image and crop: Z7, 70-300P, FTZ, at 300mm, f5.6. Focus - spot-on, on a swift move.  2021-04-18 018 by longzoom, on Flickr2021-04-18 018-3 by 2022-09-29 002-1-2 by longzoom, on Flickrg[/img][/url]2022-09-29 002-1-3 by longzoom, on Flickros/longzoom/]longzoom[/url], on FlickrX.  LZ

[longzoom]

The same combo. Clearly technical image2022-09-29 002-1-3 by longzoom, on Flickr, crop. At 300mm, 6.7. Minimal distance. Bokeh, color.zoom[/url], on2022-09-29 002-1-2 by longzoom, on Flickr

[Dogman]

BruceSD, that's an interesting take on bokeh and character.  I bookmarked and I intend to look at that website more closely. While I like sharp lenses, it seems to me too much emphasis is placed on hyper-sharpness today as well as smooth bokeh.  What do you have when all lenses are capable of perfect subject sharpness and perfectly smooth OOF areas?  Boring perfection.  While emphasizing perfect technical features, many times we fail at content and end up with photos looking like a beautiful calendar that we've seen hundreds of times before.  I like unique.  I like eyes that see differently.

Most of the photos I see today remind me of catalog photos I remember from the 1950's in brochures and advertising.  Done with large format cameras and tiny ƒ-stops to show the minute details of merchandise--things for sale.  It was impressive marketing but not very interesting photography. 

Here's a recent example from one of my favorite lenses.  It's the Voigtlander Heliar Classic 75mm ƒ/1.8 on a Fuji X-Pro2.  I was piddling about in the back yard of a neighbor yesterday when I disturbed a dog in the adjoining back yard.  At first, I was about to depart the scene to lower the volume of the barker but then I decided to snap a few quick photos.  Nothing special in subject matter, I admit.  But when I downloaded the files, I was intrigued by the look.  The Heliar Classic is not a sharp lens by modern standards but it's sharp enough.  What it has that so many super sharp lenses lack is "soul".  This is a JPEG that had very little post processing performed.  It's far from perfect, far from an impactful subject or scene but--at least to my ancient eyes--it has a beautiful look to the texture and tones and a nice depth.  Sorta/kinda/not quite 3D.  At least, I love the "look" of this lens...just need to get out and use it more on more interesting subject matter.

[BruceSD]

.
Dogman, indeed, very nice "3D Depth" to your photo.   

To me, the character of an image is determined as much by it's "depth" as by it's "bokeh".