p.43 #2 · Nikon Zf as a platform for adapted/native manual focus lenses
taxidrivr wrote:
completely agreed on Nikon dropping the ball there…
I’ve had the camera for almost a couple weeks, nearing the tail end of the return period and frankly am not as impressed or finding the use for the cost of admission. something about this feels/seems rather half baked than fully thought out.
I can't believe Nikon introduced the ZFc/ZF line and didn't bother to create an F to Z adapter with a freaking aperture follower. No one wants to adjust aperture on their manual chipped lenses with the control wheels!!
In general, I totally agree. The ZFc/ZF cameras are largely form over function at the expense of all the things that make Fuji cameras and film cameras actually fun to use. Lucky for Nikon, the ZF blows the even the 40mp Fuji's IQ and DR away at nearly half the megapixels.
p.43 #3 · Nikon Zf as a platform for adapted/native manual focus lenses
admittedly I was hopeful and now tucking my tail between my legs/walking back a bit from this venture. I had a hunch this would happen but a moment of impulsive GAS got the best of me.
for my purposes/use case, I'll probably get back into a Fuji and accept the crop (the horror!) they really fleshed their system out well and at this point, their native and third party lens selection is vast and more affordable.
I'll keep a careful eye on how Z mount/Zf's catch on for Nikon should it progress/develop any further. by that time prices should soften a bit more too. the only net positive of my brief foray into Nikon digital was a D700 I'll hang onto for older glass.
p.43 #4 · Nikon Zf as a platform for adapted/native manual focus lenses
taxidrivr wrote:
admittedly I was hopeful and now tucking my tail between my legs/walking back a bit from this venture. I had a hunch this would happen but a moment of impulsive GAS got the best of me.
for my purposes/use case, I'll probably get back into a Fuji and accept the crop (the horror!) they really fleshed their system out well and at this point, their native and third party lens selection is vast and more affordable.
I'll keep a careful eye on how Z mount/Zf's catch on for Nikon should it progress/develop any further. by that time prices should soften a bit more too. the only net positive of my brief foray into Nikon digital was a D700 I'll hang onto for older glass. ...Show more →
You could also consider the S5II/S5IIX. Even better color than the Zf, plus it has a joystick. L-mount has ton of glass, including some of the best/new Sigma lenses only available for L and E.
p.43 #5 · Nikon Zf as a platform for adapted/native manual focus lenses
I like Panasonic's colors/IQ (own and love my LX100ii), I'll have to see where prices are for those two. Saw the earlier S5/S1's can be had for quite a price.
p.43 #11 · Nikon Zf as a platform for adapted/native manual focus lenses
(moved to more appropriate thread)
I am wondering at what focal length (or short entrance pupil) an E lens is most likely to suffer on the Megadap etz21 adapter (and neewer/funmount etz).
I only have 1 E lens, the Sigma 50i DG DN f/2, which is working well for me on Megadap.
Setting this lens to manual and to infinity (what camera thinks is infinity), it goes past infinity and out of focus. Of course, I can pull back to bring infinity and everything into focus but this also indicates to me that the adapter is on the thin side.
Conversely, I have seen some report of the TTartisan M-Z being slightly too thick for some lenses and preventing some manual lenses from reaching infinity (for some it's perfect).
I have seen reports of the 14mm GM and 20mm GM (and CV-E 21mm f/1.4) not working well into the edges on Megadap, with Jman13 reporting that the Fotodiox Pro Fusion being the correct / most accurate thickness for the 21mm f/1.4.
I'm asking for user experience with adapting within the 24mm to 35mm range using the megadap (or neewer) adapters as more people have access / experience with these.
Sigma 24mm f/3.5 and 35mm f/1.2 seemed to work okay for me in the store but they did not have 24mm f/1.4 or f/2 to test.
The Laowa 35mm f/0.95 seems like a great candidate for the neewer adapter (to program the focal length) over the native Z-mount also.
p.43 #12 · Nikon Zf as a platform for adapted/native manual focus lenses
Paul Z wrote: (moved to more appropriate thread)
I am wondering at what focal length (or short entrance pupil) an E lens is most likely to suffer on the Megadap etz21 adapter (and neewer/funmount etz).
I only have 1 E lens, the Sigma 50i DG DN f/2, which is working well for me on Megadap.
Setting this lens to manual and to infinity (what camera thinks is infinity), it goes past infinity and out of focus. Of course, I can pull back to bring infinity and everything into focus but this also indicates to me that the adapter is on the thin side.
Conversely, I have seen some report of the TTartisan M-Z being slightly too thick for some lenses and preventing some manual lenses from reaching infinity (for some it's perfect).
I have seen reports of the 14mm GM and 20mm GM (and CV-E 21mm f/1.4) not working well into the edges on Megadap, with Jman13 reporting that the Fotodiox Pro Fusion being the correct / most accurate thickness for the 21mm f/1.4.
I'm asking for user experience with adapting within the 24mm to 35mm range using the megadap (or neewer) adapters as more people have access / experience with these.
Sigma 24mm f/3.5 and 35mm f/1.2 seemed to work okay for me in the store but they did not have 24mm f/1.4 or f/2 to test.
The Laowa 35mm f/0.95 seems like a great candidate for the neewer adapter (to program the focal length) over the native Z-mount also. ...Show more →
For what it's worth, there are also certainly issues with variation in the Nikon Z mount itself. Back in the day, LensRentals Blog did some work on that, if I recall, and there was definite variation from camera body to camera body for basically all mounts they check.
p.43 #14 · Nikon Zf as a platform for adapted/native manual focus lenses
Paul Z wrote: (moved to more appropriate thread)
I am wondering at what focal length (or short entrance pupil) an E lens is most likely to suffer on the Megadap etz21 adapter (and neewer/funmount etz).
I only have 1 E lens, the Sigma 50i DG DN f/2, which is working well for me on Megadap.
Setting this lens to manual and to infinity (what camera thinks is infinity), it goes past infinity and out of focus. Of course, I can pull back to bring infinity and everything into focus but this also indicates to me that the adapter is on the thin side.
Conversely, I have seen some report of the TTartisan M-Z being slightly too thick for some lenses and preventing some manual lenses from reaching infinity (for some it's perfect).
I have seen reports of the 14mm GM and 20mm GM (and CV-E 21mm f/1.4) not working well into the edges on Megadap, with Jman13 reporting that the Fotodiox Pro Fusion being the correct / most accurate thickness for the 21mm f/1.4.
I'm asking for user experience with adapting within the 24mm to 35mm range using the megadap (or neewer) adapters as more people have access / experience with these.
Sigma 24mm f/3.5 and 35mm f/1.2 seemed to work okay for me in the store but they did not have 24mm f/1.4 or f/2 to test.
The Laowa 35mm f/0.95 seems like a great candidate for the neewer adapter (to program the focal length) over the native Z-mount also. ...Show more →
You mentioned you tried 24mm 3.5 Sigma - how was it? Do jpgs come out with huge distortion, was it noticible or not?
I'm planning to use Megadap with some 24mm lens, like Batis 25mm or one of SIgmas - 24/2 or 24/3.5
p.43 #15 · Nikon Zf as a platform for adapted/native manual focus lenses
phinix wrote:
You mentioned you tried 24mm 3.5 Sigma - how was it? Do jpgs come out with huge distortion, was it noticible or not?
I'm planning to use Megadap with some 24mm lens, like Batis 25mm or one of SIgmas - 24/2 or 24/3.5
Yes, distortion is quite noticeable in the viewfinder and in jpgs 24/3.5 (pincushion). If I still have a sample on the camera I will try the basic retouch menu to see how it can be corrected in camera.
The Sigma 24mm f/1.4 is not as compact but is the one with minimal distortion (based on reviews). Sony 24mm f/1.4 or Batis 25mm also minimal (different distortion profiles). All somewhat of a similar size.
I haven't heard any feedback or using these with the megadap, though.
I may just eventually end up with the Nikon 24mm S as it could better serve for video use (native and corrected for breathing).
p.43 #16 · Nikon Zf as a platform for adapted/native manual focus lenses
I recently (re)discovered that the IBIS in the Zf is much less effective with my Z mount Voigtlander 50mm APO compared to adapted Nikon AF-D lenses.
If I remember correctly this is likely because the CV lenses don’t communicate focus distance information and the IBIS might only work on 3 axes instead of 5. Anyone had the same experience and/or know a resource to read up on the issue?
Nov 09, 2024 at 02:34 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.43 #17 · Nikon Zf as a platform for adapted/native manual focus lenses
fjablo wrote:
I recently (re)discovered that the IBIS in the Zf is much less effective with my Z mount Voigtlander 50mm APO compared to adapted Nikon AF-D lenses.
If I remember correctly this is likely because the CV lenses don’t communicate focus distance information and the IBIS might only work on 3 axes instead of 5. Anyone had the same experience and/or know a resource to read up on the issue?
It is true that the CV lenses "only," have 3-axis IBIS--you can see that at the CV website--but in my experience 5-axis vs. 3-axis IBIS is only a small difference in most shooting scenarios. It is a pain to test IBIS, but you might want to test to make sure that the IBIS is much less effective and not just a small but noticeably amount less effective as would be expected.
p.43 #19 · Nikon Zf as a platform for adapted/native manual focus lenses
Steve Spencer wrote:
It is true that the CV lenses "only," have 3-axis IBIS--you can see that at the CV website--but in my experience 5-axis vs. 3-axis IBIS is only a small difference in most shooting scenarios. It is a pain to test IBIS, but you might want to test to make sure that the IBIS is much less effective and not just a small but noticeably amount less effective as would be expected.
Maybe it’s less so the 3 vs 5 axis but rather the missing distance info that makes IBIS less effective with CV lenses.
I can hand-hold the adapted AF-D 35mm to 1sec, but was struggling to get sharp images at 1/4 with the CV 50 APO..
Should double-check with the 50mm 1.8G at some point
So it could be seen as preferable to adapt Voigtlander e-mount lenses at longer focal lengths (75mm, 110mm) then use native z-mount. But if the distance information from an adapted lens is incorrect, then it's possible the stabilization would be negativily affected
