p.2 #1 · Why was the larger Z mount necessary, exactly?
VinnieJ wrote:
Even more impressive it looks like he is writing backwards on that glass.
IBM channel on youtube started using this method several years ago.
At first, many viewers were confused as to why all IBM content creators were left-handed.
Till everyone's tubelights lit up, realizing the video is horizontally flipped. https://www.youtube.com/@IBMTechnology/videos
p.2 #3 · Why was the larger Z mount necessary, exactly?
The large mount isn't "necessary", but it's objectively better.
I wrote this in another thread where someone asked why some Z lenses are so large (in response to a comment that Sony lenses do not need correction) but I'll edit it slightly to make it more applicable to your question:
Some lenses (for example many from Sony) require some fairly significant distortion and vignetting correction and one reason for this is the smaller mount diameter, it doesn't afford them as much freedom with lens design as larger mounts do. You might not be noticing it because Sony bakes correction data into their RAW files that is read by popular editing programs. For most practical usage this doesn't really matter, but it's there. Nikon had similar issues with the F mount compared to Canon's EF mount which was a full 10mm wider - Canon had some mainstream F1.2 lenses and Nikon was pretty well tapped at F1.4 aside from the very old 50/1.2. You can still make most of the same lenses, it's just harder to do (and do well), especially as the apertures get really large.
It's easier to make a lens requiring fewer optical corrections if you aren't as size-limited. A wide mount and a short flange distance is especially helpful with improving corner performance on UWAs and fast aperture lenses. At one point Nikon even came out and said that they would be prioritizing quality over size for the Z lenses. Some of the lenses have also been specifically designed to eliminate or heavily reduce focus breathing for video use, probably at the expense of size to at least some degree.
Canon stated in an interview that they went forward with the RF mount (54mm) rather than the EF-M mount (47mm) because they couldn't get the optical results they wanted. The Sony E mount is smaller than both at 46mm. The Nikon Z mount is 55mm (maybe just to one-up Canon ).
There are many other advantages to larger mounts as well, such as being able to adapt any other brand lens to it (provided an adapter exists), and IBIS has more travel to work more effectively so you get better stabilization. The Z mount is also large enough to house a medium format sensor if Nikon ever went down that road in the future, but I highly doubt that. Large mounts also allow larger lens elements to be placed closer to the sensor which can help improve balance, and allow for better AF motor placement - Nikon actually has a video from one of their optical engineers on exactly that, but I can't find it at the moment. In a nutshell, the engineers have more freedom and can make objectively better lenses. The less they have to bend the light to hit the sensor, the better.
Downsides of the large mount are of course that it somewhat limits the minimum size to which you can make both the camera body and lens, but for the most part it's highly advantageous and one reason why all the Z lenses perform so well, albeit sometimes with a larger physical size than a competitor's equivalent.
The closest thing you'll find to a lens that needs no software correction would be macro lenses and the exotic teles, but they will still vignette to some degree even if they require little to no distortion correction.
p.2 #4 · Why was the larger Z mount necessary, exactly?
The main advantage is probably the smaller flange distance. But if you want to make use of the smaller flange distance, you need a larger mount diameter in order to keep angles of incidence on the sensor within the same limits. This is most important for larger relative apertures (f/.95 and f/1.2) and may not be relevant for relative apertures smaller than f/2.
I assume a lens like the 58mm f/.95 S Noct would at that image quality would not be possible without the larger mpunt, while for the f/1.2 and f/1.8 lenses, it simply helps to keep cost, size, weight and copy variation down.
p.2 #6 · Why was the larger Z mount necessary, exactly?
HS-LD wrote:
Hard to sell everybody new lenses if all your old lenses still work on your lens mount.
Sony doesn't seem to be too limited by their small lens mount.
Though I'm sure all the 100's of thousands of people using the Noct would disagree.
Sony does not offer the quality of the f/1.8 S prime lenses at that price point. (It also does not offer an equivalent to the 58mm f/.95 Noct.)
Nikon Z mount lenses also have minimal color shift, presumably due to low variance in angles of incidence across the frame. I actually don't know about the amount of color shift for Sony lenses, but I would assume it is similar to Nikon F mount lenses, which are inferiour to the Z mount lenses in this regard. (Color shift renders the periphery of a image in a somewhat bluish/turquise tint, which can alter the mood of images, especially landscapes or city/architecture images.)
p.2 #7 · Why was the larger Z mount necessary, exactly?
HS-LD wrote:
Hard to sell everybody new lenses if all your old lenses still work on your lens mount.
Sony doesn't seem to be too limited by their small lens mount.
You must be blind!
I've used 17-55 2.8 to 24-70 2.8G to 24-70 2.8 VR and the S-Line 24-70 2.8 is smaller, lighter, but also very sharp from center all the way to extreme corner.
Had to sell my 50 1.4G is once I got my D850. Didn't touch a 50mm again until the S-Line 1.2 came out.
p.2 #8 · Why was the larger Z mount necessary, exactly?
AcuteShadows wrote:
Sony does not offer the quality of the f/1.8 S prime lenses at that price point. (It also does not offer an equivalent to the 58mm f/.95 Noct.)
Nikon Z mount lenses also have minimal color shift, presumably due to low variance in angles of incidence across the frame. I actually don't know about the amount of color shift for Sony lenses, but I would assume it is similar to Nikon F mount lenses, which are inferiour to the Z mount lenses in this regard. (Color shift renders the periphery of a image in a somewhat bluish/turquise tint, which can alter the mood of images, especially landscapes or city/architecture images.)...Show more →
Just because Sony don’t offer it doesn’t mean it can’t.
Let’s not get carried away, all the mirrorless mounts are far more flexible without the mirror clearance necessity.
The Z mount is the most flexible technically but it’s not by a huge margin, at least not for most lens designs on a practical basis. It’s also unrealised potential until a lens designer takes advantage of the that extra design space which is not necessarily required on many designs.
What we also need to consider is also the advantages are not necessarily passed down to the consumer. The designers could produce simpler designs that achieve a satisfactory though not world beating target performance but able to better tolerate mass production processes. They could then sell the lens relatively cheaper or at their expected price point but retains a higher margin for the manufacturer.
We just don’t know what’s going on in the back end. A more limited mount likely could produce many designs with similar or even better performance but it might cost the manufacturer (much?) more to do so. It really depends on what they want to achieve and what they’re willing to sacrifice.
p.2 #9 · Why was the larger Z mount necessary, exactly?
swifty168 wrote:
Just because Sony don’t offer it doesn’t mean it can’t.
Let’s not get carried away, all the mirrorless mounts are far more flexible without the mirror clearance necessity.
The Z mount is the most flexible technically but it’s not by a huge margin, at least not for most lens designs on a practical basis. It’s also unrealised potential until a lens designer takes advantage of the that extra design space which is not necessarily required on many designs.
What we also need to consider is also the advantages are not necessarily passed down to the consumer. The designers could produce simpler designs that achieve a satisfactory though not world beating target performance but able to better tolerate mass production processes. They could then sell the lens relatively cheaper or at their expected price point but retains a higher margin for the manufacturer.
We just don’t know what’s going on in the back end. A more limited mount likely could produce many designs with similar or even better performance but it might cost the manufacturer (much?) more to do so. It really depends on what they want to achieve and what they’re willing to sacrifice....Show more →
I'm not arguing it's a huge margin.
My point is that we don't see readily how the larger mount helps, because the new possibilities have been spread out over a large number of incremental gains:
- price
- weight (and size, though that's up to debate, because F mount lenses can now share a common FTZ adapter)
- less aberrations
- less distortion
- less color shift
- less focus breathing and focus shift
I don't know how exactly, say, the Nikkor 50mm f/1.2 S lens improves over a hypothetical F mount lens, but I was able to do casual photography at night using that lens as a poor man's zoom, i.e. with cropping, for focal lengths between 50mm and 100mm, and got better overall image quality than any F mount lens can do. (For telephoto lenses, the effect is probably limited, as the F mount Nikkor 105mm f/1.4 E has similar image quality, but cannot do normal angles of view.)
p.2 #10 · Why was the larger Z mount necessary, exactly?
AcuteShadows wrote:
I'm not arguing it's a huge margin.
My point is that we don't see readily how the larger mount helps, because the new possibilities have been spread out over a large number of incremental gains:
- price
- weight (and size, though that's up to debate, because F mount lenses can now share a common FTZ adapter)
- less aberrations
- less distortion
- less color shift
- less focus breathing and focus shift
I don't know how exactly, say, the Nikkor 50mm f/1.2 S lens improves over a hypothetical F mount lens, but I was able to do casual photography at night using that lens as a poor man's zoom, i.e. with cropping, for focal lengths between 50mm and 100mm, and got better overall image quality than any F mount lens can do. (For telephoto lenses, the effect is probably limited, as the F mount Nikkor 105mm f/1.4 E has similar image quality, but cannot do normal angles of view.)...Show more →
Interesting that you use the Nikon 50mm 1.2 S as your example in this discussion.It doesn't demonstrate superiority of the larger mount when compared to the Sony 50mm 1.2 GM with a smaller mount.
The Nikon is not optically superior to the Sony in sharpness, aberrations, or rendering.
The Nikon is huge by comparison being 150mm long, 1090gms, with an 82mm filter thread. The Sony is only 108mm long, 778gms, and only a 72mm filter thread.
Even at this much smaller size the Sony has a programable button, an aperture ring that offers click and no click options, and AF/MF switch. The ergonomics when using it are far superior.
The Nikon is not simpler to design/build having 17 elements in 15 groups as opposed to 14 elements in 10 groups.
The Nikon has only 9 aperture blades, the Sony has 11 making bokeh a bit smoother/rounder.
The Sony is much faster and more accurate in focusing.
The lenses have about the same price in the market, so not meaningfully less expensive.
There may be other lenses in the S line that show the advantages of the larger mount. But the 50mm 1.2S is not one of those. The Sony 50mm f/1.2 GM shows that the smaller E mount is capable of competing at the highest level. It is one of my top picks in a Sony lens.
I know how much you guys love this guy, but this video shows the differences well.
p.2 #11 · Why was the larger Z mount necessary, exactly?
I believe Nikon often said the mount will help them to design lenses, meaning the large mount was a way for nikon to decrease the design complexity and cost to make better lenses. So better lenses for us optically, more money to them.
p.2 #12 · Why was the larger Z mount necessary, exactly?
AcuteShadows wrote:
I'm not arguing it's a huge margin.
My point is that we don't see readily how the larger mount helps, because the new possibilities have been spread out over a large number of incremental gains:
- price
- weight (and size, though that's up to debate, because F mount lenses can now share a common FTZ adapter)
- less aberrations
- less distortion
- less color shift
- less focus breathing and focus shift
I don't know how exactly, say, the Nikkor 50mm f/1.2 S lens improves over a hypothetical F mount lens, but I was able to do casual photography at night using that lens as a poor man's zoom, i.e. with cropping, for focal lengths between 50mm and 100mm, and got better overall image quality than any F mount lens can do. (For telephoto lenses, the effect is probably limited, as the F mount Nikkor 105mm f/1.4 E has similar image quality, but cannot do normal angles of view.)...Show more →
It largely comes down to design goals and I agree it may not be readily apparent simply because we don’t know the exact design goals for a particular lens.
Against the F-mount I think it’s fairly clear the Z mount enjoys quite a large advantage. I’m not even sure f/1.2 AF lenses are even possible for commercial production for F-mount lenses.. But if we do relax the parameters to f/1.4, then a Sigma 40mm f/1.4 is a stellar lens so designer ingenuity cannot be understated.
But the Z-mount flexibility is purely one of geometry and not really arguable. Not saying you’re saying so but too many automatically assume a superior mount automatically results in a superior lens. That does a great disservice to the hard work and the ingenuity of lens designers, particularly those working with more limitations.
But given extra freedom for design, what designer wouldn’t want to take it. The hard work is utilising the extra degree of design freedom to your advantage.
For the original question of whether the switch to Z mount is necessary, nothing is really necessary but why wouldn’t you given the clear advantages. The entire S-line is evidence enough I think.
p.2 #13 · Why was the larger Z mount necessary, exactly?
1bwana1 wrote:
Interesting that you use the Nikon 50mm 1.2 S as your example in this discussion.It doesn't demonstrate superiority of the larger mount when compared to the Sony 50mm 1.2 GM with a smaller mount.
The Nikon is not optically superior to the Sony in sharpness, aberrations, or rendering.
The Nikon is huge by comparison being 150mm long, 1090gms, with an 82mm filter thread. The Sony is only 108mm long, 778gms, and only a 72mm filter thread.
The Nikon is not simpler to design/build having 17 elements in 15 groups as opposed to 14 elements in 10 groups.
The Nikon has only 9 aperture blades, the Sony has 11 making bokeh a bit smoother/rounder.
The Sony is much faster and more accurate in focusing.
The lenses have about the same price in the market, so not meaningfully less expensive.
There may be other lenses in the S line that show the advantages of the larger mount. But the 50mm 1.2S is not one of those....Show more →
Sony 50/1.2 is smaller with excellent IQ, that's pretty well established. Now I don't know enough about lens design but one
problem with Sony is the amount of focus breathing the lens has. Would the 50/1.2 GM have to be much bigger with more elements to correct that problem to the same level as Nikon? This I really have no idea. May be Nikon has to be bigger for a good reason. May be Sony will have to be even bigger than Nikon it they want to address this, I have no idea.
However, personally, I think Sony made the right compromise here for my usage. As you focus closer, the focal length becomes longer which for me, is actually useful and that gives Sony better magnification ratio. Now, if I shoot video
a lot, my view will be quite different. I also find it interesting that most other lens tend to focus breathe the other way, shorter focal length the closer you are which is a pain. So I really wonder if this focus breathing part is intentional, a compromise to keep the size down or what exactly is the main reason. Nikon is trying to place itself as a good choice for hybrid camera, Sony having a separate video division, does not have quite the same priority as Nikon. I almost tempted to get 50/1.2GM to use it with my Nikon body but the weight saving is not quite worth it for me at the moment as I am saving up for 35/1.2S
Too many lenses to buy, not enough time to use them all nor budget unfortunately
p.2 #14 · Why was the larger Z mount necessary, exactly?
suteetat wrote:
Sony 50/1.2 is smaller with excellent IQ, that's pretty well established. Now I don't know enough about lens design but one
problem with Sony is the amount of focus breathing the lens has. Would the 50/1.2 GM have to be much bigger with more elements to correct that problem to the same level as Nikon? This I really have no idea. May be Nikon has to be bigger for a good reason. May be Sony will have to be even bigger than Nikon it they want to address this, I have no idea.
However, personally, I think Sony made the right compromise here for my usage. As you focus closer, the focal length becomes longer which for me, is actually useful and that gives Sony better magnification ratio. Now, if I shoot video
a lot, my view will be quite different. I also find it interesting that most other lens tend to focus breathe the other way, shorter focal length the closer you are which is a pain. So I really wonder if this focus breathing part is intentional, a compromise to keep the size down or what exactly is the main reason. Nikon is trying to place itself as a good choice for hybrid camera, Sony having a separate video division, does not have quite the same priority as Nikon. I almost tempted to get 50/1.2GM to use it with my Nikon body but the weight saving is not quite worth it for me at the moment as I am saving up for 35/1.2S
Too many lenses to buy, not enough time to use them all nor budget unfortunately ...Show more →
Sony has taken a different direction with compensating for focus breathing in camera. They do it in camera so that they can optimize for size, and focus speed in the lenses by not having to move elements around in the lens. It really only matters in video anyway.
p.2 #15 · Why was the larger Z mount necessary, exactly?
Interestingly enough, one benefit to the larger mount is that it allows Sony E-Mount adapters, which allowed me to get the Sony 50/1.2GM for my fast 50 instead of the giant Nikkor. On the Megadap it acts basically like a native kens.
1bwana1 wrote:
Interesting that you use the Nikon 50mm 1.2 S as your example in this discussion.It doesn't demonstrate superiority of the larger mount when compared to the Sony 50mm 1.2 GM with a smaller mount.
The Nikon is not optically superior to the Sony in sharpness, aberrations, or rendering.
The Nikon is huge by comparison being 150mm long, 1090gms, with an 82mm filter thread. The Sony is only 108mm long, 778gms, and only a 72mm filter thread.
Even at this much smaller size the Sony has a programable button, an aperture ring that offers click and no click options, and AF/MF switch. The ergonomics when using it are far superior.
The Nikon is not simpler to design/build having 17 elements in 15 groups as opposed to 14 elements in 10 groups.
The Nikon has only 9 aperture blades, the Sony has 11 making bokeh a bit smoother/rounder.
The Sony is much faster and more accurate in focusing.
The lenses have about the same price in the market, so not meaningfully less expensive.
There may be other lenses in the S line that show the advantages of the larger mount. But the 50mm 1.2S is not one of those. The Sony 50mm f/1.2 GM shows that the smaller E mount is capable of competing at the highest level. It is one of my top picks in a Sony lens.
I know how much you guys love this guy, but this video shows the differences well.
p.2 #16 · Why was the larger Z mount necessary, exactly?
Jman13 wrote:
Interestingly enough, one benefit to the larger mount is that it allows Sony E-Mount adapters, which allowed me to get the Sony 50/1.2GM for my fast 50 instead of the giant Nikkor. On the Megadap it acts basically like a native kens.
Good choice on that one in my opinion. But what we were discussing was advantages in lens design. My only point was that with current technology designers and manufactures can achieve the super high optical results in all of the mounts available today. From Leica's super small M mount, to Nikons largest Z mount. It is often the AF and stabilization that is responsible for the size, not the optics.
The adaptability of the large Z mount is a clear advantage I agree.
p.2 #17 · Why was the larger Z mount necessary, exactly?
1bwana1 wrote:
Sony has taken a different direction with compensating for focus breathing in camera. They do it in camera so that they can optimize for size, and focus speed in the lenses by not having to move elements around in the lens. It really only matters in video anyway.
Does that mean they use a small crop to maintain the longest focal length that a particular lens breathes to? If so, this isn't exactly ideal but as with all aspects of engineering, it's just a matter of give and take.
And the comparison between Sony's and Nikon's approach to the 50mm f/1.2 is a great illustration IMO of give and take and looking at designer's different approaches and design goals.
I'd argue a lot people prefer Nikon's rendering, especially in the focus transition areas.
It's also not clear what are the differences in xtreme asphericals vs asphericals in each company's respective nomenclature so without intimate knowledge of each's manufacturing processes I think it's difficult to assess which lens is more difficult and/or costly to produce, other than using element count as a very basic guide.
But I'd say both are excellent lenses, as well as Canon's version.
All is to say, I quite agree that all the modern mirrorless mounts enjoy a huge design flexibility benefits that can produce excellent optics.
Other than perhaps the Noct, I'd hazard a guess that no other lens from any manufacturers are really pushing the limits of design capabilities especially given commercial production constraints that they need to adhere to.
Well perhaps Leica may be, but then again they are using an inferior (flexibility wise) mirrorless mount but their production process and selling prices are also very different.
p.2 #18 · Why was the larger Z mount necessary, exactly?
swifty168 wrote:
It largely comes down to design goals and I agree it may not be readily apparent simply because we don’t know the exact design goals for a particular lens.
Against the F-mount I think it’s fairly clear the Z mount enjoys quite a large advantage. I’m not even sure f/1.2 AF lenses are even possible for commercial production for F-mount lenses.. But if we do relax the parameters to f/1.4, then a Sigma 40mm f/1.4 is a stellar lens so designer ingenuity cannot be understated.
But the Z-mount flexibility is purely one of geometry and not really arguable. Not saying you’re saying so but too many automatically assume a superior mount automatically results in a superior lens. That does a great disservice to the hard work and the ingenuity of lens designers, particularly those working with more limitations.
But given extra freedom for design, what designer wouldn’t want to take it. The hard work is utilising the extra degree of design freedom to your advantage.
For the original question of whether the switch to Z mount is necessary, nothing is really necessary but why wouldn’t you given the clear advantages. The entire S-line is evidence enough I think....Show more →
The Nikon lens has less (almost zero) distortion, less focus breathing, and less vignetting (especially at smaller apertures). Yes, if Nikon would choose to build a smaller f/1.2 lens, I would in many cases use that. The Nikon has a filter diamter of 82mm, while the Sony has 72mm. Weight is roughly proportional to the square of the filter diameter (the Nikon is a bit longer and a bit heavier relative to the square of the filter thread diameter). Would the smaller diameter of the E mount defeat attempts at reducing vignetting to the level of the Nikkor Z 50mm f/1.2 S, even if it were bigger? We don't know. (At least I don't know.)
The starting point of this discussion was "Why was the larger Z mount necessary?". I would argue it wasn't strictly necessary. But for mirrorless, Nikon needed a new mount anyway - many lenses have rear elements close to the Z bayonet. At the same time, Nikon has made quite an effort to design the new mount system in a way that many F mount lenses work at least as well as on DSLRs, or even better. Having the mount a bit larger is just optimization. So don't expect miracles, even if some Nikon PR would want to make you believe that the Z mount is some miracle invention.
p.2 #19 · Why was the larger Z mount necessary, exactly?
AcuteShadows wrote:
The starting point of this discussion was "Why was the larger Z mount necessary?". I would argue it wasn't strictly necessary. But for mirrorless, Nikon needed a new mount anyway - many lenses have rear elements close to the Z bayonet. At the same time, Nikon has made quite an effort to design the new mount system in a way that many F mount lenses work at least as well as on DSLRs, or even better. Having the mount a bit larger is just optimization. So don't expect miracles, even if some Nikon PR would want to make you believe that the Z mount is some miracle invention....Show more →
So, at a core level we are in 100% agreement on the mount size issue. Thank you for an interesting, informative, and respectful discussion of the issue. That is always enjoyable, and embodies the FM spirt at its best.
p.2 #20 · Why was the larger Z mount necessary, exactly?
1bwana1 wrote:
So, at a core level we are in 100% agreement on the mount size issue. Thank you for an interesting, informative, and respectful discussion of the issue. That is always enjoyable, and embodies the FM spirt at its best.
Steve
Same here. Many aspects that go into how well a lens works for a particular task.
).