Nikon Z system size comparison

[Akira]

Just found an illustrative size comparison chart of the current Nikon Z cameras and lenses on Nikon Rumors.

Hope you enjoy it!

https://nikonrumors.com/2023/02/11/all-current-nikkor-z-lenses-compared-by-size-and-lens-design.aspx/

[Fons Baerken]

Complex designs

[Akira]

Complex designs

I've always wondered where the promise of compact and lightweight lenses for mirrorless cameras has gone?   

[Luc]

I've always wondered where the promise of compact and lightweight lenses for mirrorless cameras has gone?   

In my opinion that promise is foremost a fabrication (wishfull thinking) made up by customers, not by manufacturers like Nikon. At the start of mirrorless Olympus and Panasonic succeeded in fullfilling this with the compact MicroFourThirds system. And quite a few Z cameras and lenses are smaller and lighter than their F counterparts.

[Hugh_3170]

The Nikon Z lens mount with its short 16mm register distance and very large throat diameter was always going to be an enticement for lens designers at Nikon to break loose as it were.

[Luc]

The Nikon Z lens mount with its short 16mm register distance and very large throat diameter was always going to be an enticement for lens designers at Nikon to break loose as it were.

True, like with the f0.95 and f1.2 lenses. Keep in mind future developments like higher megapixel sensors require better and sometimes larger future proof optics. Personally I'm very pleased with lower-end lenses like the 24-70mm f4, 24-50mm f4-6.3 and 24-200mm f4-6.3. These lenses perform better and are cheaper than their F counterparts.

[Ian Watson]

I've always wondered where the promise of compact and lightweight lenses for mirrorless cameras has gone?   

I have found that my Z6 with the 35mm or 85mm f/1.8 handles better than the D750 with any of the assorted lenses that I use occasionally at work.

[Akira]

If I remember correctly, the "promise" was first broken by Olympus itself by releasing that humongous 25/1.2 lens who had initially made the point of the compactness of the m4/3 system over the systems with larger sensors.   And then they dished out other f1.2 lenses.   

And then, all the camera manufacturers rushed into the performance battle and sacrificed the sizes for the lens performances.   

As a result, Z6 body with Z 50/1.8 lens was (even slightly) heavier than D750 with the humble AF-S 50/1.8.  The overall performance of the Z system would be better, but practically the system is not any smaller.

[Erik Lund]

Just found an illustrative size comparison chart of the current Nikon Z cameras and lenses on Nikon Rumors.

A piece of art! Wonderful  I enjoy technical drawings like this!
Thanks for sharing!
 

[Erik Lund]

I've always wondered where the promise of compact and lightweight lenses for mirrorless cameras has gone?   

I'm pretty sure Nikon never said it
I was 'some people' reviewers and the like, looking into their foggy crystal ball 

[Ilkka Nissilä]

There are different sizes of lenses and camera bodies in the Z system.

For example one can choose a 40/2 instead of a 50/1.8.

The 24-70/2.8 and 14-24/2.8 are significantly smaller and lighter than their F-mount equivalents yet produce better image quality. The 400/4.5 is surprisingly lightweight for the focal length and aperture.

It's just that small size is not the only parameter of interest. To some it is critical, to some others the smallest possible size is not ideal or particularly important.

[Birna Rørslett]

I recently got the 400/4.5 and it was indeed a surprise. The combination of high optical quality, (apparently - so far no surprises) high build quality, and very low weight make for an unbeatable combination. I can easily operate the lens hand held at slow shutter speeds unthinkable for such long focal lengths in the past.

On the other hand, the standard f/1.8 lenses such as 24, 35, 50, and 85 are rather beefy and handling them is not as easy as using their F mount equivalents, unless one aims to rely solely on AF.

For the Z/DX, third-party offerings from makers such as Viltrox, Laowa, and Voigtländer are pretty small and most handle great due to better user interface than the sleek Nikkors.

[Wally]

While the general public compact size "expectation" doesn't apply for the majority of Z lenses, smaller weight does (again with exceptions like the 50mm/1.8 and 20mm/1.8 being heavier than the F versions).
For me the weight is more important than size. Shaving off around 100g per prime lens and 300 to 600g per camera body is a huge advantage. Not even considering the much better image quality and less post processing time.
Hence my approach to replace average AF-S performers with their new Z version and being able to use them without hesitation at f/1.8. At the same time I am keeping stellar optics like the 28/1.4E, 105/1.4E and 200/2.0G II with a much higher keeper rate.

[MILLIREHM]

Have enjoyed this chart on nikonrumors as well. Now the lens designs of the Z line became more transparent.
What did surprise me is that I had believed the 400/4,5 to include a PF lens element (like the 800) whereas in fact it does not.

[Roland Vink]

On thing which is often overlooked is the very short flange to focal plane distance of the Z-mount (just 16mm) compared to the F-mount (46.5mm). The new mount is is 30.5mm shorter. That means any lens where the flange distance is not a major factor in the design (focal length from about 50mm and above), the Z-mount lens barrel is about 30mm longer than the equivalent F-mount lens. Just compare the F-mount lenses with FTZ adapter to the equivalent Z-mount lens, in many cases the overall size is quite similar. Z-mount cameras are a little smaller - they certainly have less depth at the front due to the shorter flange register, but they also have more bulk behind the sensor so the slight reduction is size does not go far to compensate for the larger lenses. So instead of having a bulky F-mount camera and a set of relatively compact F-mount lenses in your bag, you now have a slightly less bulky Z-mount camera and a set of relatively large lenses.

The short flange register does have advantages for wide-angle primes and zooms. As Ilkka said, the 24-70/2.8 and 14-24/2.8 are significantly smaller and lighter than their F-mount equivalents. In theory the wide primes could be much more compact than the F-mount lenses but Nikon have designed relatively large lenses to improve illumination and performance to the periphery of the image.

It's only with the non-S 26mm, 28mm and 40mm lenses that the promise of compact mirrorless primes is realized. It is slightly disappointing that these lenses seem to be optimized mostly for the DX sensor. Performance drops away towards the edge of the FX image, although that is at full aperture, maybe they do better stopped down. I wouldn't mind a minor increase in size if these compact lenses had similar performance as their S-line siblings (it would also be nice to see more compact lenses such as a 20/3.5, maybe a 60/2 and 100/2.8 - an updated AF version of the series-E 100/2.8 would be great!)