Lance B
Offline
Upload & Sell: On
|
 Re: Why was the larger Z mount necessary, exactly? | |
1bwana1 wrote:
Lance B wrote:
AcuteShadows wrote:
Lance B wrote:
I don't see how the term "the Z mount *CAN* allow lenses to be made smaller and lighter" morphed into "the Z mount means *ALL* lenses will be made smaller and lighter". It is about flexibility and less constraint which allows Nikon the freedom to design lenses that can encompass more benefits with way less drawbacks. Also, better IQ just doesn't mean central sharpness, we are talking negligible CA, lower distortion, better edge to edge sharpness just to name a few benefits that the Z mount allows designers to address. Both Canon and Nikon adopted a wider mount and shorter flange distance for that reason.
The 14-30 f4 would never have been able to be made if F mount in the size and weight that it is. The 14-24 f2.8S is smaller, way lighter and has better IQ than the F mount version. The 24-70 f2.8S is much smaller, lighter and much better IQ than the F mount version. The 24-120 f4 smaller, lighter and way better optically. 24-70 f4, small, light and an optically very good lens - but no F mount counterpart. The point is, it was made to marry with the small, light Z6 and Z7 at time of release to show the advantages of the Z mount in making it possible to have small light cameras. The 400 f4.5 arguably would never have been made in F mount - ridiculously light, small and superb IQ.
As for the 14-30 f/4 S, it is correct that this lens would not be possible with the flange distance of the F mount. However, it does not need the diameter of the Z mount.
https://www.cameralabs.com/nikon-z-14-30mm-f4-s-review/
Maybe, maybe not, but that doesn't preclude the other lenses that *do* need the diameter. Nikon also seems to be on a desire to have f1.2 lenses and they certainly require the diameter. Having said that, the 85 f1.8S seems to also benefit from the diameter. This pretty much proves that the diameter and the shallow depth means that it frees up their design options.
50 f1.8S
85 f1.2S
50 f1.2S
85 f1.8S
58 f0.95
Lenses in those focal lengths and apertures absolutely don't require the size and flange distance of the Z mount. This is evidenced by excellent examples of the same FL and apertures from other much smaller mounts. They exist in both AF and MF.
Or did you mean that they could not have been manufactured in F mount?
You cannot compare *every* aspect of lens design and say they are equal, nor every lens for every situation. *One or two* lenses from a particular manufacturer may be close, but then can they do it for all focal lengths and every wide open aperture, every situation etc? CA, distortion, size, weight, colour, price, required lens elements, all aberrations, bokeh, flare, the list goes on. This is the aspect people are missing and seem to do deliberately. There is *NO* doubt that having a wider mount and shallow mount depth allows freedom. This is indisputable.
|
