EMH2025 wrote:
I have noted same with Nikon Z7 and Z8 as I sometimes carry a few M lenses and a Voigtlander close adapter. I dont often use it close in but the adapter works better in my hands than the non adjustable adapter. For reasons I cannot explain I have noted the Z8 is sometimes a better platform than Z7. On the Z7 some lenses fall just short of infinity at hard stop, where it is better on Z8. Closer in it doesn't matter, and I have enjoyed using LLL, ms-optics, voigtlander and leica on the Zs. The Voigtlander noktons and the 21 are particularly nice and as you noted for the 28 apo. The colorskopers also work fine but the fall off is a bit severe for my taste. ...Show more →
There is the possibility that the flange-to-focus distance (register distance) is slightly off on one of those bodies. I had a Z7II body that didn't match my Z6II and Z8. It apparently came that way from the factory, since I hadn't banged it around at all.
RoamingScott wrote:
Wide E and M lenses to Z will exhibit some degradation in the corners, though not as bad as M to E.
If I were wanting to shoot an APO lens, I'd certainly not be adapting it...I'd want the maximum IQ available for my mount.
Yeah, I probably wouldn't adapt an APO lens if there were a native option available. I'm actually more curious about how some of the non-APO E-mount lenses work on Z.
mivadep wrote:
Yeah, I probably wouldn't adapt an APO lens if there were a native option available. I'm actually more curious about how some of the non-APO E-mount lenses work on Z.
I'm planning to compare the Voigtlander 40mm f/2 Septon in E mount, adapted to the Nikon Zf, against the native Z mount version.
The E mount version doesn't perform well on my Sony A7CR Kolari with the thin sensor, so I'm expecting some noticeable differences between the E and Z versions on the Zf.
Fred Miranda wrote:
You should give the Zf a try, Juha. I think it would really suit your style since you mainly shoot manual focus. The focus confirmation alone is a game changer, and the Nikon sensor tends to handle Leica M-mount lenses better. You can also adapt your existing Cosina E mount lenses to Z mount, so there is no need to replace them.
I've played with a Zf in some shops but didn't find it very appealing. Too big/heavy and lacking good ergonomics. I'm always drawn to smallest and lightest possible FF cameras even if they come with some other compromises, preferably in "rangefinder style" with EVF at the top left corner. EVF is a must though. If Nikon made a new smaller and lighter FF camera to compete with A7C series, and made the new focusing aids work even without electronics on the lenses/adapters, I would be more tempted to try it out
These days I'm still fully enjoying the manual focusing experience on my A7CII (even with the small EVF and without new types of focusing aids). I'm fully accustomed to using focus peaking and selective magnification. I usually shoot static subjects with no urgency to nail focus. I wouldn't necessarily like it if the manual focusing experience became more automated (e.g. with camera picking subjects and focus point placement like the current latest AF modes do) outside of portrait or action shooting which I don't really do much with manual focus. I usually use my A9 + AF lenses for action / event shooting.
The slightly thinner sensor stack is not a big draw for me anymore since I have a nice set of 20 native E-mount manual focus lenses (16 CV, 2 Otus ML, 2 Kistar) and my actively used M-mount lenses are mostly MS-Optics (that work well on Sony too) and a few CV lenses that adapt well and aren't available as native mirrorless versions. The native selection has become quite extensive now. I'd feel a bit compromised if I needed to use the E-mount lenses adapted on another system so there should be some very strong appeal points to make it happen
Juha Kannisto wrote:
I've played with a Zf in some shops but didn't find it very appealing. Too big/heavy and lacking good ergonomics. I'm always drawn to smallest and lightest possible FF cameras even if they come with some other compromises, preferably in "rangefinder style" with EVF at the top left corner. EVF is a must though. If Nikon made a new smaller and lighter FF camera to compete with A7C series, and made the new focusing aids work even without electronics on the lenses/adapters, I would be more tempted to try it out
These days I'm still fully enjoying the manual focusing experience on my A7CII (even with the small EVF and without new types of focusing aids). I'm fully accustomed to using focus peaking and selective magnification. I usually shoot static subjects with no urgency to nail focus. I wouldn't necessarily like it if the manual focusing experience became more automated (e.g. with camera picking subjects and focus point placement like the current latest AF modes do) outside of portrait or action shooting which I don't really do much with manual focus. I usually use my A9 + AF lenses for action / event shooting.
The slightly thinner sensor stack is not a big draw for me anymore since I have a nice set of 20 native E-mount manual focus lenses (16 CV, 2 Otus ML, 2 Kistar) and my actively used M-mount lenses are mostly MS-Optics (that work well on Sony too) and a few CV lenses that adapt well and aren't available as native mirrorless versions. The native selection has become quite extensive now. I'd feel a bit compromised if I needed to use the E-mount lenses adapted on another system so there should be some very strong appeal points to make it happen ...Show more →
I agree. It's bigger and heavier than the A7C series, which makes sense because there is really nothing else like the A7C in the full frame market when it comes to compact size.
The ZF's strengths are different. It has a very satisfying mechanical feel that reminds me of the film camera days, along with excellent build quality and a great EVF. But the feature that impressed me the most is the focus confirmation system. I think that is the feature you would appreciate the most.
Having said that, if compactness is your top priority, I think you are already in very good hands with your current setup.
May 07, 2026 at 12:42 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
RoamingScott wrote:
I’m more curious if there are any discernible differences between the two native lenses between the two mounts.
The wider Z mount was supposed to lead to theoretical gains.
I think the wider mount mostly allows for designs that are not possible on narrower mounts (i.e., with larger rear elements). I don't think it should really help if the lenses have basically the same design.
May 07, 2026 at 12:52 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
Fred Miranda wrote:
I'm planning to compare the Voigtlander 40mm f/2 Septon in E mount, adapted to the Nikon Zf, against the native Z mount version.
The E mount version doesn't perform well on my Sony A7CR Kolari with the thin sensor, so I'm expecting some noticeable differences between the E and Z versions on the Zf.
Interested to see your results, but I will go ahead and predict there won't be anything but small differences not very visible even at the pixel level between the E-mount version adapted and the Z mount version when both are used on the ZF.
It would at least be a more interesting conversation than the long settled science of sensor stack thickness!
Steve Spencer wrote:
I think the wider mount mostly allows for designs that are not possible on narrower mounts (i.e., with larger rear elements). I don't think it should really help if the lenses have basically the same design.
Steve Spencer wrote:
Interested to see your results, but I will go ahead and predict there won't be anything but small differences not very visible even at the pixel level between the E-mount version adapted and the Z mount version when both are used on the ZF.
There is a lot of anecdotal talk about this, but not many real side by side tests showing the actual differences, which is why I'm curious to see the results myself.
Ultimately, Nikon shooters will probably choose the Z-mount versions and Sony shooters the E-mount versions, but there are also people who own both Nikon and Sony bodies. For them, it would be interesting to see the real world difference when adapting the E-mount lenses to Nikon Z bodies. The differences may end up being small enough not to matter much in practical use.
I think the lens most likely to show a noticeable difference is the CV 21mm f/1.4, but I will probably start with the 40mm f/2 Septon since I may have the opportunity to get both versions.
May 07, 2026 at 08:07 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
Fred Miranda wrote:
There is a lot of anecdotal talk about this, but not many real side by side tests showing the actual differences, which is why I'm curious to see the results myself.
Ultimately, Nikon shooters will probably choose the Z-mount versions and Sony shooters the E-mount versions, but there are also people who own both Nikon and Sony bodies. For them, it would be interesting to see the real world difference when adapting the E-mount lenses to Nikon Z bodies. The differences may end up being small enough not to matter much in practical use.
I think the lens most likely to show a noticeable difference is the CV 21mm f/1.4, but I will probably start with the 40mm f/2 Septon since I may have the opportunity to get both versions....Show more →
For a number of years I had both the Nikon Z7 and the Sony A7r V and I used a number of Sony E-mount lenses on the Nikon Z7. I never did any careful side by side testing, however, so I am quite interested in what you find. I did have the CV 21 f/1.4 in Sony E mount and although it has a fast aperture and it is a wide angle it is a bit longer and I don't think has as short of an exit pupil as some wide angle lenses. I used it pretty extensively on the Nikon Z7 and my impression is that it performed really well across the frame from f/2. My experience with that lens in particular is part of my guess that you won't find too big of difference between performance on the Zf and Sony, but I could easily be wrong.
I have two sets of comparison photos: one pair shot at f/5.6 and f/8, and another shot at f/8 and f/16. Also some images wide open at different distances.
One of my favorite images from my NZ trip. Maybe not as spectacular as some other scenery over there, but I just really like the light and how it lights up the moss on the trees. The lack of CA helps I guess
Z-mount version of the 28mm APO, on the Z7. Full size on flickr if someone wants to pixel-peep (f/10 though, so probably not peak sharpness anymore).
@fredmiranda Fixed the shot from last August! Dropbox functionality seems to have gone down the tubes. Flickr is easier to share now, so I moved it there.
Ripolini wrote:
Your sample seems slightly off center (bottom right @ f/2 & f/2.8 is less sharp than bottom left). I hope I'm wrong.
Yeah, I think you are right. 🙈 Still ok for me though, I don't think this will noticed in real world shoots. Additionally I almost never shoot below f/5.6 for landscapes and for everything f/2-f/4 I don't mind the corners much.
rico_rico wrote:
Yeah, I think you are right. 🙈 Still ok for me though, I don't think this will noticed in real world shoots. Additionally I almost never shoot below f/5.6 for landscapes and for everything f/2-f/4 I don't mind the corners much.
While I agree with you that in most cases that defect could be considered negligible, what I personally find unacceptable is that a high-quality manual-focus lens should have mechanical defects (in assembly and/or tolerances).
Furthermore, as I mentioned earlier, a off-centre lens can introduce aberrations that wouldn’t be present if the lens were built to design specifications; the result: the lens doesn’t perform as intended.
I would send it back at the seller’s expense and request a repair or—better yet—a replacement.
Based on my experience with Voigtlander lenses (I’ve bought three, and two of them were off-center...) and from what I’m seeing here as well, it’s clear that Cosina’s quality control needs to be improved (to say the least).
May 26, 2026 at 06:26 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
rico_rico wrote:
Yeah, I think you are right. 🙈 Still ok for me though, I don't think this will noticed in real world shoots. Additionally I almost never shoot below f/5.6 for landscapes and for everything f/2-f/4 I don't mind the corners much.
I tend to agree with you as your stopped down shots look excellent to me, but I also think that a careful centering test to see the extent of the problem in this case is worth doing, at least for me. Almost every lens from every manufacturer is slightly off center if you look closely enough. It isn't that a lens is either decentered or not, it is whether it is decentered enough to matter. I suspect yours is not decentered enough to matter to you (and perhaps it is decentered enough to matter to Ripolini--it is fine to have different priorities and different standards), but you could say that more confidently if you did a centering test and it isn't hard to do.
One thing people don't often recognize is that there is a cost to pixel peeping and being super picky about your lens both in terms of time and money as you reject lenses that might function well for all or almost all your shooting. So, it is also reasonable not to bother testing. We all have different standards of how much testing we want to do and how much tolerance for less than perfection we have. Personally on many levels I agree with Voltaire that, "pefection is the enemy of the good." With lenses that means I often test them to see the extent they are less than perfect in centering but it also means that in most cases I settle for a lens that isn't quite perfect but good enough. That said, I don't test lenses unless I see evidence of a problem in my actual shooting. YMMV, however, and there are lots of reasonable ways to approach the inevitable copy variation in lenses. Personally, I try for a middling approach--not spending undue time testing all my lenses looking for perfection, but also knowing the extent of their slight imperfections when it might matter and making a reasoned decision of whether to keep the lens. Whatever approach you decide, however, I think is fine. Different standards and approaches is not only inevitable but I think such differences should be encouraged as we each work out what is most important to us.
