Nikkor Z-mount roadmap updated

[Birna Rørslett]

The AFS Micro-Nikkor 105mm f/2.8 VR still is the *only* Micro-Nikkor I have purchased then to get rid of after a few months. To say it was disappointing is an understatement.

I certainly would hope an S-Line Micro-Nikkor would do significantly better. For close-up work, AF is not a prerequisite at all and I would rather see a lens design optimised for manual focusing with a long, decisive and precise focus travel. Currently there is a LAOWA 100mm f/2.8 2X Ultra-Macro lens that comes in native Z mount and has very good near-APO image quality; however, it lacks any electronic communication to the camera so is not ideal.

[Roland Vink]

The latest Nikon Z lens roadmap shows two micro lenses: 50mm and 105mm. Like other Z lenses, I expect they will be significantly better than the F mount micros.

The 50mm will probably be f/2.8. My preference would be something a little faster such as f/2.5, but only going to 1:2 or maybe 2:3.  A 50mm lens with 1:1 magnification will have too short working distance to be practical, while 1:2 is close enough to be useful for general close-ups while without needing to get so close. A faster aperture would make it useful as a general purpose standard lens which can double as a (semi) macro lens. Faster standard lenses are only really needed in very dim conditions or where a very shallow DoF is required (Most of my shots are taken between f/4 - 11 so a max aperture of f/2.5 would be plenty for me. I admit that I often stop down more than I might need as I usually focus manually, it helps to cover any focus errors, but it is seldom that I want very shallow DoF anyway).

There is no indication of the maximum aperture of the 105mm macro but I guess it will be f/2.8. It's a shame there aren't more macro lenses in the 120-150mm range, they provide a longer working distance, where 90-105mm lenses are often still too short, while being more compact than the 180-200mm macro lenses.

[Airy]

My three favourite fifties are all 50/2 and one of them is a macro (Zeiss): indeed, it qualifies as an excellent allrounder. I never felt frustrated by not having wider apertures, even though I occasionally enjoy them. For handheld night shots, f/2.8-f/4 is my normal range (in conjunction with the Df and ISO up to 12800). f/2 provides some little extras, such as a slightly brighter viewfinder, shallower DoF of course, even smoother bokeh, and some built-in vignetting, so I already feel spoiled, but that's more for daytime shots. For macro alone, f/2 is of little interest.

I use f/2 less often on the Nikkor AI because optical quality is not stellar (fringing) and still do not feel frustrated.

The Leitz Summicron R is very good and consistent at f/2, somewhere between the other two, and I use that aperture very often. Same with my second-most loved one (50/1.2 AI).

Bottom line, I share Roland's view - a 50/2.8 macro is ok, but wider would really be appreciated to make it an allrounder. I do not care about AF, and even the focussing mechanism is not very important to me because I prefer to move the camera or, when possible, the subject, after having set the magnification ratio.

I'd be surprized to see yet another 50 AF macro, after Nikon has released its "Noct" 50/0.95 with manual focus... that would really reveal a compromise for allround usage, in which case the max aperture should also be wider than 2.8. Otherwise why care - just get a 50/3.5 macro.

[MILLIREHM]

The latest Nikon Z lens roadmap shows two micro lenses: 50mm and 105mm. Like other Z lenses, I expect they will be significantly better than the F mount micros.

isnt it still 60 mm? I hope that they will be better but not necessarily stellar - and i wonder how the Bokeh will turn out to be. Boring approach nevertheless. The longer macros have been discontinued for years now, and wide- angle close up is still not on the agenda.
For long years I have thought that AF is of no relevance for macro work but more recently i turned out to do more close up action where it comes handy. THis was one of the reasons why (besides the purely MF lenses) the AF 60 mm F/2,8 got a companion and i added the ambiguous 105 mm VR.
Building Micro Nikkors faster gives the idea to make them more all-around. Personally I experienced that i dont want to use a 105 mm Micro Nikkor (no matter whether MF or AF) for portrait photography

[F2F3F6]

I'm not yet a Z-user but following the news...Z5 could be my entry in that system.
Indeed, good macro lenses are a hole in the Z system, a hole that the Micro Nikon AFS 60, 105VR (and the DX Micro 40 and 85VR) don't fill !
And yes, wide-angle with near macro ability (like the Ais 2,8/28mm) are not current today.
Yes, a 2,5/ 125 Voigtländer Apo or a 65 Voigtländer for Sony could be a so-so solution, but why can't Nikon build a real macro-system like they did in the 70s-80s, with three Micro Nikkor (55 or 60, 105 and 200) or better four, with a good macro zoom like the Micro AFD 70-180 ? (Or like Olympus did at the same time with 20,35,50,80 and 135 lenses...)
I don't consider Laowa/Venus optics and other Chinese third party products.

Hope they get it right this time for their Z-system...a complete macro kit !

And I'd like to say that (for me) the "prism"finder of the Z system is not a real beauty, a shame for Nikon, whose "F" with (meterless, not photomic) prism is timeless !
Canon's R hybrids look more like a reflex from the Eos series, better in my eyes...and it's the same for the Panasonic S1 or S5 (L series). It seems that Nikon did a compromise between a real new design and a (false) SLR look !

[Birna Rørslett]

Just laid my hands on a Z5 (modified for full spectrum) today, and must say it's a very nice and competent camera system.

[MILLIREHM]

I'm not yet a Z-user but following the news...Z5 could be my entry in that system.
Indeed, good macro lenses are a hole in the Z system, a hole that the Micro Nikon AFS 60, 105VR (and the DX Micro 40 and 85VR) don't fill !
And yes, wide-angle with near macro ability (like the Ais 2,8/28mm) are not current today.
Yes, a 2,5/ 125 Voigtländer Apo or a 65 Voigtländer for Sony could be a so-so solution, but why can't Nikon build a real macro-system like they did in the 70s-80s, with three Micro Nikkor (55 or 60, 105 and 200) or better four, with a good macro zoom like the Micro AFD 70-180 ? (Or like Olympus did at the same time with 20,35,50,80 and 135 lenses...)
I don't consider Laowa/Venus optics and other Chinese third party products.

Good macro lenses are a hole in modern F -system as well. Nikon could doit if they want to but evidently they dont want to. In former day the micro/macro system was more versatile (even More when thinking about the Multiphot system) but in effect Nikon never did a lens in the optical quality range of the Voigtländer CV 125

Of course there are the Laowas now with new up to now unknown features - but it would not be wise for Nikon to seriously ignore to build up its house- made close-up capability which is crucial for a Camera system

And I'd like to say that (for me) the "prism"finder of the Z system is not a real beauty, a shame for Nikon, whose "F" with (meterless, not photomic) prism is timeless !
Canon's R hybrids look more like a reflex from the Eos series, better in my eyes...and it's the same for the Panasonic S1 or S5 (L series). It seems that Nikon did a compromise between a real new design and a (false) SLR look !

indeed the Z cameras would not win a design price - i would even say they are ugly but thats not what matters firsthand

[Roland Vink]

The roadmap has been updated with silhouettes of some new lenses:



There is little doubt the 400mm is f/2.8 and the 600mm is f/4 - the first super-telephotos for the Z mount. I had wondered if Nikon would go for smaller versions like the 500/5.6 PF but they are obviously going for the pro sports and wildlife market here.

The 200-600 looks relatively large, probably f/5-6.3 with 95mm filter size

The 100-400 looks like it has a 77mm filter - same as the 70-200/2.8, so the aperture is likely to be f/4.5-5.6.

The 105mm micro is surprisingly large, almost as long as the 50/1.2, filter size looks like 77mm or maybe 72mm. Given its large size I wonder if it is faster than f/2.8?

The S-line 85mm is surprisingly shorter than the 50/1.2, and quite fat which suggests the aperture will be f/1.2. The filter size looks like 82mm at least, maybe even 86mm

The 25-105 looks like about average size, probably constant f/4 aperture and 77mm filter size.

The DX 18-140 is surprisingly compact, probably 62mm filter,

The 50mm micro is not S-line, probably 62m filter.

The 28 and 40 probably have 52mm filter size, I expect the aperture will be f/2.8 for both. My preference would be 40mm f/2 but then it might compete with the 50/1.8 too much.

[MILLIREHM]

Thanks Roland for the update
my 2 cents:
the 50 mm f/1,2 is extremely long for a lens of this kind (i had it in my hands recently) so it does not wonder that the 85 mm ist shorter
the 200-600 mm is huger than I have expected it - does not save much space compared to the primes

The biggest surprise to me is the 105 mm Micro S-line.  With this dimensions it must be faster than f/2,8  it is big, probably will be heavy and expensive. I hope it will have truly outstandig quality as well and a convincing bokeh.

[Birna Rørslett]

The AFS 105/2.8 Micro-Nikkor for F is huge too -- so I'm not convinced the Z version will have markedly different specifications.

[MILLIREHM]

I am not sure either

Here is a "quick and dirty" picture showing the 105/2,8 VR Micro, the 105 mm f/1,4 both F-mount and the Z-Noct

[Toby]

They should have made the crazy f/0,7 instead of the crazy f/0,95 (which also will not bring big revenue but dragging attention - its more about who demonstrates to be the leader in designing outstanding lenses to dream of - that will remain a dream for the most). I hope they will get some income with the Z50 and the DX lenses.
For the revenues i consider it is also not optimal designing a roadmap (as it was original) with just S-Line lenses and just redo what can be found in the F-mount programm with maybe some more IQ. Giving some good close-up capability does not need to be more expensive than some F/1,2 or even f/1,8 primes.

It seems to me that you are perhaps unaware of the difficulties in designing ultrafast lenses. As you get faster than, let's say, f1.0@50mm the intracies of correcting both monochromatic and chromatic aberrations increase exponentially. The fabled Zeiss f0.7 is by no means a stellar performer, and even if Nikon had the design knowledge to make a f0.7 lens, it would be commercial suicide, as it would cost multiple tens of thousands of dollars. To design a 58mm f0.95 with the sharpness and absence of aberrations that they have is already an amazing feat of optical engineering, and at $8000 still within the means of professionals and dedicated amateurs. To increase that to f0.7 with much inferior performance and a price tag 5x that of the f0.95 for bragging rights in a niche market would not make much sense.

[MILLIREHM]

It seems to me that you are perhaps unaware of the difficulties in designing ultrafast lenses. As you get faster than, let's say, f1.0@50mm the intracies of correcting both monochromatic and chromatic aberrations increase exponentially. The fabled Zeiss f0.7 is by no means a stellar performer, and even if Nikon had the design knowledge to make a f0.7 lens, it would be commercial suicide, as it would cost multiple tens of thousands of dollars. To design a 58mm f0.95 with the sharpness and absence of aberrations that they have is already an amazing feat of optical engineering, and at $8000 still within the means of professionals and dedicated amateurs. To increase that to f0.7 with much inferior performance and a price tag 5x that of the f0.95 for bragging rights in a niche market would not make much sense.

yes I may be unaware of the full difficulties. I see that f/0,95 is not much more than f/1 but for marketing purposes it can show that it is below 1 (just like 1/300 X-synchronisation where Nikon used to follow Minolta in former days is by far not a full stop more than 1/250) and I picked up somewhere that the theoretical limit of a lens for the Z-mount would be around f/0,5. and that f/0,7 (which would mean full stop more than f/1) would be possible. yes maybe it is impossible to optimise quality and price at the same time though i am sure Nikon has the design knowledge. The current Z-Noct is a wonderful (and yet very heavy) lens but i would not consider it a commercial success on its own - it ist obviously dedicated to be some kind of guiding light for the Z-line

[Birna Rørslett]

Going to f/0.7 might have a relevance only for a DX or smaller format system, since the increase in spherical aberration introduced by the larger aperture would require a truly massive amount of optical corrections were the lens to cover any larger format. The Zeiss 0.7 lens was used on a cine camera, remember.

I do hope Nikon maxes out the performance of the future 105 Z Micro-Nikkor, and makes it an APO quality lens. The residual chromatic aberrations of the F-mount AFS 105/2.8 Micro are painfully obvious.

[MFloyd]

The AFS Micro-Nikkor 105mm f/2.8 VR still is the *only* Micro-Nikkor I have purchased then to get rid of after a few months. To say it was disappointing is an understatement.

...

Hello Birna, it’s not the first time that you express your dislike of the aforementioned lens. I have this lens for years now. I have no particular reason not to like this lens, except for the AF not working at close distances - but who cares -  I have not many shots with this lens; shared between portraits and some amateur macro-shooting. So, not an in depth vision of the qualities and lack of it from my side. So, your view might enlighten me.