Nikkor Z-mount roadmap updated

[Akira]

Cant remember where i had it from in original
Found this

https://www.nikoneye.com/nikon-has-patented-a-new-80mm-f-2-0-with-sapphire-crystal-element/

At this time the 120-300 with SR glass was already released

Thank you, Wolfgang.  I may remember seeing the original Japanese post.  The patented design turned out to be very different from that of Z 85/1.8.  The design with SR element could have been too expensive.

[Wally]

I wonder what makes you think that Nikon has any more design knowledge than any other modern lens maker? These days with CAD, anybody with the requisite knowledge can plug specs into a program and model lenses virtually.

Well, just having all these fancy and powerful tools nowadays doesn't make you a high performing company. That's probably difficult to grasp for people outside of technology and engineering. The real challenges go way beyond feeding a program with data. The way you provide solutions with superior performance is what I'd call icing on the cake of a top player.

[chambeshi]

Thank you, Wolfgang.  I may remember seeing the original Japanese post.  The patented design turned out to be very different from that of Z 85/1.8.  The design with SR element could have been too expensive.

Sapphire is the mineral corundum Al203; contingent on the trace metal cations (eg Ti, Cr etc), their crystals take different colours. So the pure compound can be a gem or transparent optical element with RI > 1.6. Its high hardness rating would be useful in optical elements.

Aluminium oxynitride is a similar material that can also make special industrial glass, notably armoured and also specialized optics, with high refractive index (RI = 1.79). So in theory AlON could be the key to thinner, lighter optical elements. Zeiss was rumoured to have a pancake using a AlON element

https://www.diyphotography.net/rumours-suggest-zeiss-to-launch-worlds-first-lenses-with-transparent-aluminum-alon-elements/

While such materials can be commissioned for special projects, there are challenges to mass produce in high quality using refractory methods etc. Apparently Nikon's well known ED glass uses lanthanum oxide which confers high RI. see https://www.nicovandijk.net/glass.htm

Outside of Nikon, we can only guess at the compositions of their proprietary Hikari glass

[Nasos Kosmas]

thank you for the info!

[MFloyd]

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.

Birna, maybe you missed my question.

[Birna Rørslett]

Well, I could not stand the CA and focus breathing issues. Both were detrimental for my kind of close-up work. If you are fine with the lens, why not? I can only evaluate it against my own requirements.

The Voigtländer 125/2.5 APO-Lanthar supplanting the AFS 105 after I had the latter for 3 months had none of the aforementioned problems thus for me was a superior alternative. I (or rather, my friend Erik) managed to CPU-modify it so it is compatible with all my Nikon bodies.

Obviously, for the Z cameras, I will opt for a native Z Micro-Nikkor if its performance is up to my needs. If not, there is the 125 APO.

[MFloyd]

Thanks for the explanation. Said that, my requirements are far off of yours. I’m a very occasional macro-shooter. It’s also one of my lenses which counts the less clicks. 

[richardHaw]

Well, I could not stand the CA and focus breathing issues. Both were detrimental for my kind of close-up work. If you are fine with the lens, why not? I can only evaluate it against my own requirements.

The Voigtländer 125/2.5 APO-Lanthar supplanting the AFS 105 after I had the latter for 3 months had none of the aforementioned problems thus for me was a superior alternative. I (or rather, my friend Erik) managed to CPU-modify it so it is compatible with all my Nikon bodies.

Obviously, for the Z cameras, I will opt for a native Z Micro-Nikkor if its performance is up to my needs. If not, there is the 125 APO.

sorry, i got confused. which lens are we talking about here

[MFloyd]

sorry, i got confused. which lens are we talking about here

If I may answer: the AF-S VR Micro-Nikkor 105mm f/2.8G IF-ED

[MILLIREHM]

If the upcoming 105 mm Z MIcro is in the league of the CV125 I will buy it - otherwise i have already got the more than satisfying CV 125mm. Until this future decision the 105 mm VR is sufficient for the niche where i need AF.

[richardHaw]

thanks. the 105VR is worse than the 105D which is sharper even by f/16. the 105VR caps at f/11 according to my tests

i shot bugs a lot and the 105VR just doesnt have the resolving power of the older lens at smaller apertures.

the 105ais is not something that I like much at all, the best one is definitely the 105/4 that was based on the bellows lens as far as my results could confirm.

[Erik Lund]

I bought the Micro-Nikkor 105mm f/2.8G IF-ED when it was released, returned it almost immediately - a lot of Focus breathing, loss of focal length when up close. lots of CA and slow auto focus.
A CPU Chipped APO Lanthar 125mm f/2.5 replaced it along with a CPU Chipped Micro Nikkor 105mm f/4 AI-s that I still use and really like a lot.Yes, I'm also looking forward to a 105mm Micro Nikkor for Z mount

[Michael Erlewine]

If the upcoming 105 mm Z MIcro is in the league of the CV125 I will buy it - otherwise i have already got the more than satisfying CV 125mm. Until this future decision the 105 mm VR is sufficient for the niche where i need AF.

I've had a number of CV-125s, in both Nikon and Pentax format and still prize and use them. I will have to try the new Nikon micro when it turns up. However, the new Z 70-200mm APO 2.8 is amazing and wicked, wicked sharp and will do close-ups of the kind I need, if not macro.

[Nikfuson]

I've had a number of CV-125s, in both Nikon and Pentax format and still prize and use them. I will have to try the new Nikon micro when it turns up. However, the new Z 70-200mm APO 2.8 is amazing and wicked, wicked sharp and will do close-ups of the kind I need, if not macro.

I can attest to the optical performance of the 70-200/2.8S...simply top class.
I think there is a liiiitle LoCA but will check and post test image.

[Roland Vink]

I bought the Micro-Nikkor 105mm f/2.8G IF-ED when it was released, returned it almost immediately - a lot of Focus breathing, loss of focal length when up close. lots of CA and slow auto focus.

Is this worse than the older AF 105/2.8 micro?

The AF micro focuses to 0.314m which is the same as the AFS VR version. This suggests they have a similar amount of focal length shortening at close range, even though they focus using entirely different methods (extension+CRC vs IF). I estimate the focal length of the AF micro reduces to less than 80mm at 1:1.

The AF micro has no ED elements so it also shows CA, not sure how it compares with the AFS version?

The focus speed of the AF micro is not fast, but that is common for macro lenses which have such a large focus range. Especially since it focuses by extension with CRC - there are at least two groups of elements moving, some move a long way, so the AF motor has to work hard to focus the lens. Surely the AFS micro with IF focusing is quicker? I find the focus speed of the AF micro to be adequate, especially with the focus limiter turned on.

I think the focus speed is also helped by keeping the manual focus throw short - only 180° from infinity to 1:1. The AFS micro has focus throw of 270° - 1.5x greater, which should make focusing at far distances easier. For comparison, the AIS 105/4 micro has a focus throw of 300° to 1:2, which means it would require 600° to get to 1:1 - more than twice the AFS version!

The AF micro has harsh background bokeh and only 7 straight-edge aperture blades, so the overall rendition is harder and more angular. I understand the AFS 105 micro has smoother background rendition, and also 9 rounded aperture blades so bokeh balls are rounder.

The AF micro is at least lighter and more compact, although it does increase in length when focused close. It also has a manual aperture ring so can be used with manual adaptors like the PK-13 or PN-11 (with good results!)
Besides this, the AFS 105 VR micro does seem to be better than the AF version in some respects, so I am not sure why there are so many negative opinions about it?  (disclaimer -  I have the AF 105/2.8 D micro, and have never used the AFS VR version)