Didn’t notice much difference between 24-70 g v 24-70 z except for the far corners. The vignetting is better on f mount as well as the colors are more intense and brighter. So much so that I kept my f mount 24-70 2.8G. The image from z mounts are a bit too contrasted for my taste and I usually have to dial down the contrast slider.

For me camera or objectiv is not the thing witch doing good picture. Only your artistic personality can do really art pictures. Human eye see different than cameras. I know fotografer, witch use one fix objective and old camera and his pictures are still perfect. Fotografy is art, and if you are not artist your fotos never be good.

Having sold all my Canon kit after 15yrs and finally going mirrorless with Nikon Z bodies, I love the vast choice. Z lenses for work, hands down. But for personal work I picked up, by chance, a Voigtlander 50mm f1.5 Aspherical lens. The beauty of the mirrorless bodies is being able to use focus peaking and IBIS with a small, manual focus, old school lens and seeing the micro contrast and rendering of these beautiful lenses. It’s reignited my love for photography after so many decades. A Z6/7 with a small, manual lens is also compact and light. Great for personal work.

Loved the briefly overlayed comment “We have no money for new clothes“ 😂

Very enjoyable conversation. Glad I came across it. For the time being I’m staying with my D750. In fact several of my prime lenses are old Nikkor D lenses because I sometimes shoot film. I’m no film snob, I just like the process of film. And I like the convenience of digital.

Sometimes you need character over clinical sharpness.

I fully jumped on the Z-bandwagon. I really liked the 105/1.4, but the 85/1.2 has even more/better characteristics for my kind of pictures - definitely not clinical. Sold my last F-mount lens (58/1.4+FTZ) to get a bit of down-payment on my ordered 135/1.8. I hope to both get my Z8 back from its inspection and then the 135/1.8 soon. I'm a bit strange, but before the 105, my main used focal-lengths were the (f-mount) 85/1.4 and 135/2.0 (before the high-megapixel-cams). And I plan to use the same 85+135 combo with the Z-system. Not sure if I'm not totally weird, but I really look forward to the 135's rendering for my images. For anything wider than the 85, I plan to just use my smartphone.

The 24-70 2.8 S lens is one of my favorites ever. Nostalgia is one of the worst and most expensive aspects of photography and videography. A lot of us would be well off to just move on.

I put my voigtlander 40mm f2.8 on my z7ii. Lots of character. Micro-contrast good. Colors really pop out.

I jumped from my old d3200, which I Love, straight into Z6II with 50mm 1.8s. All I can say is it's Fantastic. The 50mm 1.8s is a superior lens, specially for the price. I have an F to Z adapter coming so I can try out my F mounts on the Z6ii. Great video, I really enjoy your input and how you present it.

The Z Mount Objektives are superb and the “S” versions are amazingly good. F mount was good (some of them superb as well) but the Z objectives are a different world.

Best F mount lens I’ve used was the Tamron f/1.4. Wish I still had it sometimes

For me it started almost three years ago, I tried the Z50 1.8S and half a year later I had the whole 20/35/50/85 family. I have a lot, a huge amount of RAW on disks, I often go back to them and there is no way to go back to the F bayonet. The image with Z combined with S lenses is do "ready". In the Z6II, AWB and ADL work, the colors even at high ISO are often so good that they make you lazy... Size Z body and glasses, the silent operation of AF and VR during video and photography gives such freedom and fun that I will only think about changing it when medium format will achieve this accessibility for the average person. I think that in 10-15 years the next step that will provide so much fun will be medium format!

Really enjoyed your videos ! 😂❤

I won’t get rid of my 105/1.4, the 58/1.4 and the 28/1.4. but I bought the 24-70S, the 50/1.8S, the 85/1.8S and the 40 and 28 pancakes. I am doing people photography.

Nikon 105 f2.5 ais and 50mm 1.8 e series work fine just use manual focus

I've kept my D810 as a second body and so kept a lot of F-mount lenses to go with it. Now that I've got the Z9 which I've used with adapted f-mount lenses up until last month, I'm seeing the benefits of the new lenses in terms of sharpness and what troubles me most in the old f-mount lenses, almost zero ca. I however do love using f-mount as a walkaround (not for work). I particularly like to use the D810 with the old manual focus lenses as the size remains relatively small without using the adapters for Z bodies. We've talked about this before when I said that I'd hoped the Df got an update into a DF2. Sadly that will never happen but if I may be allowed to dream, I'd be happy with a stills only camera, f-mount but with an evf. That's because having an evf would be like having the old Live View but up to your eye which would drain the battery less. It would be great to use with the old manual lenses having the ability to go one hundred percent zoom with a touch of a button for critical focus. As to the old 105G... I'm still waiting for a decent 105mm 1.4 or 1.2 Z mount. I think that that would be the ideal portrait lens being a bit longer than 85 but not as long as the 135 so you can still communicate with the subject. Maybe it's the one coming next?

The new S lenses for Z mount are superb.

Mine is simple: all Z mounts below 50mm (well, 85 1.8 Z also counts), all F mounts above 50mm, that way my F mount crop could take full advantage of the telephoto sides, and Z mount for better wider sides

If “better” equals soft edges, peak resolution over 2 stops darker than maximum, busy background details and huge focus breathing, then yes, F lenses are always better 😂

I have replaced many of my f mount lenses with Z mount but am holding on to some F mount glass. I love my Sigma Art 35mm and 24mm 1.4 Art lenses on my Z7, And I still get a lot of use out of my 70-200 f4 f which doesn’t have an equivalent yet on Z mount

This comes down to what the images look like. I never found F mount shorter lenses to be great. They were workable but not wonderful. I have found myself enjoying the Z mount lenses so much more. The 85 1.8S is a much nicer lens to use. You are overthinking this. The reaction of people looking at the prints of the portraits I have made for them is consistent. They are not looking at spec sheets but they can see the results. From my point of view it’s the package. The Z9 and Z6ii let me work better. I am directing my thoughts to the art of capturing the right moment and not having to think about the technical options. The results are better portraits, more shots to choose something they really like and happier subjects.

I'll admit that I loved my old Sigma 85mm f1.4 DG HSM Art lens on my D850 and Z7ii, Once I bought the Nikon Z 105mm f2.8 VR S Macro lens, I found I could do lovely portraits with it if I stepped back a couple of feet, and probably sold the Sigma 85mm about the time I acquired my Z9. Are the Nikon Z lenses too sharp? Not in my world. I currently have 5 of them with the sixth on order (the Nikon Z 180-600mm f5.6-6.3) and I love them compared to my many old FX lenses. I shot 10,000 frames in the past two days with my Z9 and Nikon Z 70-200mm f2/8 VR S lens on the Z9 (as the Z8 is off at Nikon for the eyelet service advisory). My first impression tonight as I began culling images from the past two days is how much I love the Z9 and that lens.

Kept my F mount 14-24 and 70-200 FL E lens (amazing) Also kept my f mount 50mm F 1.4 AF-S which I really like at F 1.4 (yeah I know right, just me). Kept my 50mm f 1.4 Pre Ai Nikkor lens and my 105mm F 2.5 AiS lens which I also love Kept my 35mm F2 AF-D lens which I love Kept my Zeiss Milvus 35mm F 1.4 F mount lens For Z mount I bought the 50mm f 1.8 S and the 105 mm F 2.5 Macro and the 40mm F2 . lens and the 24 - 120 F4 zoom. Love them all But.....I'm not a pro and don't need fast accurate AF. That, I think would change the ball-game altogether to all mirrorless.

I don’t have any F mount lenses that are not budget. I can’t part with them because then I won’t have the focal ranges that I want. I don’t have a problem with the clinical look of the Z mount lenses to me it’s next level. As crazy as this is going to sound, I gave my daughter, my D750 with an old 51.4 D lens and I’m getting myself a ZF and the 135 Plena! 😂

I prefer not to use a lens wider than 35mm for events because there’s less distortion. I’d rather move back a few feet. That’s why I’m really looking forward to the new 35mm f/1.2 for the Z-mount. Perhaps Sigma will come out with a 35mm f/1.4. I’ve sold or traded all of my F-mount lenses and now have 11 Z-mount lenses (which admittedly I have to pare down).

I think I’ve sat on my F mount lenses too long, and now they’re hardly worth selling, so I have them, but currently not using most of them. I find Z mount lenses to be more consistent performance overall so you don’t need as many lenses. The zooms are much closer in sharpness to the primes versus the F mount, so I only use primes when I want a brighter aperture, not because I think of them as sharper.

I still use mainly f mount on z8. Whilst they are legacy from my DSLR, I have just bought the 35mm 1.4g. I was thinking about either the 1.8s or the 40mm f2 as well. As I love the 58 1.4 so much on mirrorless I went with the 35mm 1.4g. Mint condition £400. Whilst I bought for the overall rendering, it has vastly superseeded my expectations for sharpness at 1.4 If I wanted to use the lens for video, then I would go native due to the AF noise of F mount.

Can Russ take pics with both F and Z lenses of similar apertures and show the differences in the images? I'd be really interested in seeing this.

I’m actually feeling dizzy, nice hot cuppa tea is needed. 😵‍💫

I generally prefer my Z-mount glass... but I keep my FTZ adapter attached to my Sigma 135mm f/1.8 Art lens. I love the image it gives so much that I would probably keep it even if someone were to offer to give me the Plena 135mm. OK, maybe that's a little bit of hyperbole... but the Sigma is a darned-good lens.

I’m all in with Z mount cameras, I’m awaiting my Zf in a week’s time, but all my lenses are f mount with the exception of the Voigtlander 65mm macro. The f mount f1.4’s are wonderful. I have the 35, 58 and 85 and they make beautiful images. Moving from Nikon’s premiere f1.4 lenses to the equivalent premiere f1.2 lenses would cost many many thousands of dollars. I could never afford that. The Z ca,eras make all of these lenses better with equivalent focus speed but much more accurate focus. I also have the 500pf and a number of AIS manual focus lenses. All of which function better on z cameras than f. The adapter is a bit of a palaver but if the alternative is spending thousands, I will live with the inconvenience. I’m an amateurs, not a pro and I see why differently folks make different choices.

Good video and good discussion but I love the 85 1.8 S lens. I agree it has a bit more clinical look but it's such a wonderful lens. If you like the look of a better fall off try the Voigtlander 50mm F2 Apo and compare that to the Nikon 50 F1.8 S lens. You will see the difference in what you're discussing. Thanks for all the videos. I'm going Z mount lenses and never going back.

I don't want to give the wrong idea that I am rich or something, because I am really not, but I do hold on to all my F glass and continue to invest in more F lenses simultaneously with my Z glass. First off, I have quite a few F and Nikon 1 bodies with which I use my F glass0 Moreover, I mostly buy F 3rd party glass even of the Z option is natively available because I always think about the other two Nikon systems I use in addition to Z. I still have two grab-and-go shoulder bags with a D800E and a D7200 and some F glass handy. Still, I mostly use my Z7II and Z fc over my DSLRs these days, but I still shoot the latter frequently enough to have them handy close to my apartment doo for a quick grab whenever I feel like using them. That's in addition to having a severe GAS case as well😅

All Z lenses all the time. I just sold my last F-mount lens. Sold my 200-500 f5.6 now that I have received my 180 to 600 Z lens. The big mistake was getting my Z 6 with the 24-70 f4... I went on to replace all my F-mount lenses. I really love the Z glass.

I have a nikon D610. As an amateur at best, the prices to move to Z are far to big for me. I have a 24-70 2.8 E, a 20mm 1.8 G. I am not sure my next camera will be a D750 or a move to an occasion Z camera. (I fancy the ZF, but 2500 euro....)... I am tempted to buy a 28mm 1.4E occasion as the reviews are so great and the 24-70 is to bulky to carry around . .. will this be loosing money or a good investment??? (I dont have a 1.4 in my collection...)

Was that a remote control lawn mower behind you?

Z9 & Z8 are showing quicker with FTZ and F glass than a D850 and F Glass, think only the Z8 and Z9 though.

What happened around 6:30 into the video? The autofocus of your camera totally screwed up your take... If you have to switch to a new take anyway (as witnessed by the difference in your position) then reshoot that segment where your autofocus messed up too.

Ftz itself is heavy as a lens.

Having used Zeiss lens and Leica lens since the 1980’S I find the new lens lacking any character the Sigma and Sony lens are just to sharp and to prove it is the software to reduce the sharpness in portrait’s

The Z zooms are amazing and the way to go in my mind. In general, I find Z lenses provide the clean modern look and the F-lenses provide more artistic look. I have no interest in selling my 28-58-105 primes in f-mount even though I sold my dslr cameras off. The sigma 135 f-mount is a very cheap find on the used market these days which is insane. I have no interest in Plena given the cheaper, fantastic sigma 135. These f-mount lenses work great on the Z cameras. This is an amazing time to pick up great f-mount lenses which are, in some cases, very close in image quality to the z-mount versions. The ftz isn't great and investing in glass that's not modern is not great financially if not getting a big discount, but the difference in cost right now between pro f-mount glass and prosumer z-mount lenses is really significant. Regardless, there's great options out there for most people now.

In my humble opinion … the z lenses look more clinical, because they are a) cooler in color temperature (easy to fix) b) less contrasty in out of focus areas - like shadows are lifted c) bokeh with less faults, that’s looking closer to a (boring) PS gaussian blur For me it’s not about the absolute sharpness. P.S.: I believe these attributes were chosen, because they are appealing for film making - it’s modern / trendy

My most shot lens is my Nikkor 28mm F1.8G; and there's nothing equivalent in the Z world.. frustrates me to no ends.. I might have to end up with a viltrox...

I wonder, when you compare F lenses with Z lenses, you are actually also comparing what DSLR (F mount) and Z bodies do. And since there is no way to test a Z lens on a DSLR body, my question is how much of what we see is a product of the lens and how much is a product of what the machine or software precesses, corrects, compensates or whatever you want to call it do. Because I have a theory that it is cheaper to make a mediocre lens and "correct" it by software than to make a very good optic that needs fewer software corrections.

The most important piece of equipment is 4” behind the view finder. This video appears to be a sales pitch for Nikon to get Z Mount lens sales off the floor. With modern post processing software you don’t need all that glass. Sharpness is all it’s cracked up to be. Give me a D700 with a 50mm f1.8 and day for colour rendition and image quality.

in till nikon makes lens like Sigma Sport 120-300mm F/2.8 for Z mount body's. my F mount lens is better

For me its just Z all the way. Better image quality, build quality, you can always lower the sharpness in post if you really think it is too good :)

Where I live, I can find the F-mount lenses 2-3 times cheaper than the Z-mount ones. To me, as an amateur, photographer, the image quality difference is not worth the price.

Please, ask the professionals about the lenses! And, it seems these days that there has never been a good photograph shot with any lens until now! And yes, I am a pro and I shoot with Nikon since the beginning but don't ask me with which gear because I could get ashamed 😂 Or, just watch some great photographers and learn from their work! All this stuff about what's better is a pure nonsense and very far from the art of photography, get serious!

Just to add, not sure you mentioned it, but generally the Z mount lenses exhibit less focus breathing. For me, it’s Z mount all the way. 📷😎🤙

You cannot discuss F vs Z lenses without full disclosure about the cameras you were using in either cases. Below 30MP (photosite density at full frame sensor) Nikon uses an OLPF, above they don't. That filter does a lot. It's in the 24MP F mount DSLRs, not in a D500, not in a D850. It's in a Z 6(ii), not in a Z 7(ii)/8/9. A Z 6(ii) with OLPF produces warmer tinted images than the higher res ones - it's too yellow in Adobe Camera Raw. But that may be an illusion because "Adobe Standard" profile for this camera may deviate "Adobe Standard" are some 1,000 camera-specific profiles that dictate how raw processing is done for each: towards Adobe's neutral and rather flat reference. Having shot pro Nikon primes since I bought my first Nikon (F2) in 1975, my ongoing rant was (1) chromatic aberration (CA) and (2) tint differences between lenses. The Z system solves both. My problem with the OLPF cameras is that there is a very thin gap between the rear of the OLPF and the front of the sensor. In stronger backlight this can turn into total reflection and bam your shots are magenta - not possible to take out, except converting to B&W. Nikon first Eliminated the OLPF from the D800E version of the D800 some 10 years ago. Leading up to the Z system, in the rumour mill, I commented in several places that for me the lenses not necessarily had to become sharper but the CA had to disappear. Being sharper in my case is a matter of 45.4 instead of 24 in the first place. The difference between 45.4 (MP is an area unit) and 24 is much less than we think (max 40% more, linearly, and that's almost negligible to the human eye). But the removal of the OLPF makes it a lot sharper. But there's a corollary and serious but. Without the OLPF, raw processing is more difficult and only recently with their addition in Camera Raw of "AI Denoise" as time consuming option, the noise we got from ACR (=LrC, =Ps) in shots without OLPF has become what it should be. IMO Adobe still need to improve detail loss or detail recovery from raw (suppression of digital artefacts that do not look like Moiré). This simply means that what we see in LrC that we think of as a raw image is far from. It has been totally cooked - well done is an understatement, even when we altered nothing. It also means that camera and lens comparisons are difficult, more so than with film, if we want valid and relevant conclusions. For me, the F mount is history. The Z mount "S" lenses are better. If you think they are too cool or neutral, spend 5 minutes to create your own profile. And, as reference, process your images in Nikon NX Studio too. Or if you need JPEGs next to your raw shots, generate them in camera. Note that the camera firmware offers different profiles (Picture Controls) for raw processing - you can actually make your own in camera or in NX Studio, save them to memory card and load them into your compatible camera. In camera is a lot faster than raw to JPEG conversions in LrC. Too sharp? Not for me. And that again depends - on your computer display's resolution, your eyes, your printer, the drivers, and the app you use to generate an image that has less MP. Beautiful rendition of the background? You remember the wedding shoot where the bride was disappointed that the beautiful and expensive dress did not make her look like a supermodel in your photos. What do you tell her? But look how nice the background blur is and how good the bokeh balls are? She will kill you. It's a tool. We need to move on. When I started seriously with "digital" (sensors actually are analogue and colour-blind) I shot as if I was shooting portraits on 120 film with a Hasselblad. At a big shoot an assistant of the spray and pray generation asked to work with me, because of that slow and precise and managed way of working. I still don't spray and pray, but on the top of my list is improved eye-AF in lower light with lower contrast. It enables another interaction with the sitter than in my past. Birds, trains and planes are not my thing and improvement of that - meh. My wish will resonate with wedding, event, and portrait photographers.

Overcorrected high element count lenses render like zooms. They output flat, sterile looking images.

The F-mount line-up was so extensive that it could have the "get the job done" lenses as well as the "create some art" options, with examples like * 35mm f/1.4G -- 28mm f/1.4E * 85mm f/1.4G -- 105mm f/1.4E * 70-200mm f/2.8E -- 200mm f/2G The Z-mount lens line-up is only 5 years old, and the new 135mm f/1.8 S Plena might join the 58mm f/0.95 S Noct as the most 'artistic' lenses. Through the rest of the decade, more will likely join them. [Knowing that the question of using the 105mm f/1.4E gets asked, I used it on Tuesday.]

Answer: no. No contest.

plastic vs metal, let the time decide. I am old so I won't be able to see the result.

“Then” wtf???? It’s “than”

Z Lenses are NEXT Level better than Equivalent F Mount lenses which were great >> Its the Z Mount advantage at work to Nikon Users favour

85 1.4 is the one , everybody tests the 85 1.8 with the 1.2 , because the 1.4 kills the 1.2 , and is £500 used. Z mounts arent smaller they have a built in 1 inch extention tube ! Making them bigger. The 85 1.8 is a crap lens slow . Has aberition problems ,

You guys are really weird ...

Z

Who's able to afford those Z lenses not me way over priced

Z mount AF is garbage 🗑️

yes