Who has moved to the Nikon ZF?

[Benjamin Marks]

I have been using the Z 28 S-mount pancake lens and like it fine. A lot of ones and zeros have been spilled about its performance in the corners. I stopped worrying about it after the first couple of shots. I understand it as a lens that was designed as a compact, light travel lens as it's primary design objective. With that in mind, it is a success. My AiS and other 28 mm SLR lenses all perform pretty well on the Z8.

 

[tcmx3]

because of flange distance I gotta really recommend RF lenses. the Zf has a pretty thin sensor cover too.

if you don't want to shell out for a 28 summicron, the voigtlander 28mm nokton probably kicks butt on the Zf (I've heard only good things about it and went for the cron purely because of the handling)

 

[Benjamin Marks]

My experience has been that adapted SLR lenses do better than adapted RF lenses at the 28mm focal length. Both exhibit fall off at the corners, but some RF designs are worse than others (e.g. the Contax G-Biogon). Also, a 28/2.8Pentax K-A or its Konica counterpart can be had for a song compared to any RF lens in that focal length I know of.

 

[Archiver]

Sold all my SL gear and am strictly now M11 and ZF! Best move! The focus assist on the ZF is on a different level. Its a game changer with manual focus glass. So in love with that camera that I eve setup nikon-zf.com

How do you find M lens performance on the Zf compared with the SL? I'm very curious as I'd like a mirrorless body for adapting M glass, as well as legacy SLR lenses. My Panasonic S5 is fine with SLR lenses but not entirely optimal with M mount.

 

[tcmx3]

I'm not sure it's quite fair to extrapolate the performance of current lenses designed for digital sensors with very recent designs which tend to be more retrofocal layouts.

IME the 28mm f2.8 AI-S, one of the best SLR 28mms, was not worth the hassle of giving up the positives of the plastic fantastic 28mm SE Z lens. The 28 summicron v2 (11672) on the other hand, isn't much bigger on a Z camera than an M, and is just stunning. I appreciate it is expensive but again the voigtlander 28mm nokton is supposed to be as good or maybe even slightly better (if you get a really good copy) as that and is not a huge amount of money. I would probably not buy a 28mm summicron unless you also want to buy an M10R or M11, but a second hand VM 28mm f2.0 version 2 at 5-600 dollars for someone who really really wants to do manual focus on the Zf seems reasonable.

Add in the cost of a good adapter on a cheap 28mm, and like, you're close enough anyway? Plus then you have a lens that used to be small that's now as big as some of the better native Z lenses. I dunno the Zf is a 2K USD full frame camera body so if you're not upgrading vs the 28SE I don't personally see much point. But this is just IMO.

 

[Gatorguy]

I tried. I really did. One Zf, three lenses (thank God two were the inexpensive Viltrox 20 and 40), and a Speedlight later, I just could not make friends with the controls and menu.

 

[splitimageview]

I'm not sure it's quite fair to extrapolate the performance of current lenses designed for digital sensors with very recent designs which tend to be more retrofocal layouts.

IME the 28mm f2.8 AI-S, one of the best SLR 28mms, was not worth the hassle of giving up the positives of the plastic fantastic 28mm SE Z lens. The 28 summicron v2 (11672) on the other hand, isn't much bigger on a Z camera than an M, and is just stunning. I appreciate it is expensive but again the voigtlander 28mm nokton is supposed to be as good or maybe even slightly better (if you get a really good copy) as that and is not a huge amount of money. I would probably not buy a 28mm summicron unless you also want to buy an M10R or M11, but a second hand VM 28mm f2.0 version 2 at 5-600 dollars for someone who really really wants to do manual focus on the Zf seems reasonable.

Add in the cost of a good adapter on a cheap 28mm, and like, you're close enough anyway? Plus then you have a lens that used to be small that's now as big as some of the better native Z lenses. I dunno the Zf is a 2K USD full frame camera body so if you're not upgrading vs the 28SE I don't personally see much point. But this is just IMO.

I'd like to see some comparisons between the 28 Summicron and other 28s.

Having adapted many 30-40 year old Contax Zeiss lenses to Z, I'm quite pleased with their performance but do not expect them to compete with modern Z glass in resolution, contrast or rendering.

 

[Benjamin Marks]

I'd like to see some comparisons between the 28 Summicron and other 28s.

I have a bunch of 28's and the Z-28/S mount. Nikon 2.8 AiS, Nikon AF-D, Konica, Pentax, Summicron-M, Biogon ZM , others I am sure I am forgetting. What do you want to see? Some uncorrected jpgs out of the camera? Neutral test scene? General backyard greenery? Grey barn? Deck planking?

[Edit: and this thread has a number of 28mm shots, at post 35 and following]:
Nikon Z8 w/Adapted Lenses (Leica M+R, Pentax, Konica etc.)

 

[ktmrider]

I just returned to the USA from a two week walk in northern Scotland. If you recall, I posted about not being able to insert a SD card in a brand new Zf. And the camera store was already closed and I had a flight in a few hours from Alaska to Missouri so I had to leave the camera in Anchorage.

Well, it turns out my limited knowledge of digital cameras was more than adequate. My partner took the Zf down to the camera store when she returned to Alaska from Baja. The brand new Zf was defective and Stewarts Photo in Anchorage swapped it for another new body. And if you are ever in Anchorage as a tourist, Stewarts on 4th Street downtown is a great traditional photo shop.

Unfortunately, the Zf is still in Alaska and I will not be back until early July. I must suffer with my new MP and a GR3. And for those curious I used the Ricoh GR3 for the vast majority of my photos in Scotland. I am 71 and walking 13-16 miles daily was a challenge (should have walked more in preparation of the trip). Being able to put the GR3 in a pants pocket was wonderful. The Leica saw some use but not when I was walking as it was simply too heavy. And I have done long walks in Scotland before and carried either a M9 or M4. I was only 61 when I carried the M9 so must be age.

My travel kit for my M cameras is a 35 and a 90, both small and relatively light with an aperture of f2.8. I purchased my Zf with the 40 which is damm close to 35 so looking for a second lens for the Zf. Have thought about a mid range zoom (28-70f2.8 or 24-120f4), a prime in the 85-105 range or getting an adopter for my 90f2.8 Elmarit M. Would love to hear suggestions!

 

[Benjamin Marks]

28 Comparison - Start at Post #79


Duplicate post -- -please delete

 

[Benjamin Marks]

I'd like to see some comparisons between the 28 Summicron and other 28s.

I have posted pix of various 28's on this thread here:

28 Comparison - Start at Post #79

The RF lenses do worse than the SLR designs on vignetting. This may or may not matter depending on how you are using the lens and what your subject is.

@tcmx3, I don't know how to test for difficult-to-correct aberrations -- maybe you will be able to make some conclusions about the test pix.

 

[tcmx3]

I have posted pix of various 28's on this thread here:

28 Comparison - Start at Post #79

The RF lenses do worse than the SLR designs on vignetting. This may or may not matter depending on how you are using the lens and what your subject is.

@tcmx3, I don't know how to test for difficult-to-correct aberrations -- maybe you will be able to make some conclusions about the test pix.

I don't consider vignetting, at least as long as its limited to EV, to be an issue. Especially on the Zf's sensor. But then I have never, and will never, shoot JPEG.

What I do care about is size, haptics, some degree of sharpness, and weight. If you look at the Zf with FTZ and even the 28mm/2.8 ai-s, the camera is now awkward which is counter to the point of the Zf IMO, and therefore makes little sense to me in comparison to using the 28 SE lens which while far from perfect, keeps the camera compact. It is the very definition of "good enough" optically to make adaptation of lenses not seem like a net positive to me. It's not so much that the Summicron/Ultron curb stomp everything, it's that they actually offer a real alternative to what you get if you put a native Z lens on the camera IMO.

This is just my personal feeling about the point of the Zf and what makes it compelling. If I don't care about keeping it small/compact (of which the Zf is a real marvel, having the BSI 24mp sensor, incredible IBIS, the best Nikon processor and its benefits and the flippy screen all jammed into a body barely bigger than an F3), why wouldn't I just buy something like a Z7/8/9? They have real advantages to the Zf minus size/styling. Especially the Z9, which while quite pricey has a far superior EVF and base 64 ISO (which really is nice to have tbh).

This is all just my opinion. Maybe I overvalue portability in such cameras. But my goal is to get the best tradeoff between size and performance and I think the Zf is one of the first real alternatives to Leica in that respect that also comes with a decent looking camera, lenses with nice rendering, and some modern nice-to-haves. Of course all of this is my opinion and reflects only what I value in a camera.

 

[tcmx3]

I'm sure this won't matter to everyone but to me personally the difference is just too great with SLR lenses. Obviously I'm not suggesting the Nikon lens isn't a great one, it is. As you can see, I own it myself (and it's glued to my F3). But on the Zf? Not when I can use the Summicron (or Ultron, if I had one)

 

[splitimageview]

The 28 Z Nikkor is an outlier in size and cost compared to other Z glass, which tend to be over large and pricey. It is pretty much a no brainer if one doesn't already own a 28 in a different mount.

In my case I adapt lenses because I can have a literal arsenal of glass for less than the cost of one or two native Z lenses.

I have many vintage RF lenses that can adapt to Z bodies but the ergonomics are reversed with those particular lenses…they are quite small and fiddly to operate when adapted.

 

[Benjamin Marks]

In the Nikon Z line, the 26, 28, and 40 are all of a piece in terms of size and price. You could add a 24-70/f4 zoom to any of these and have a pretty compact travel kit.

 

[Benjamin Marks]

This is just my personal feeling about the point of the Zf and what makes it compelling. If I don't care about keeping it small/compact (of which the Zf is a real marvel, having the BSI 24mp sensor, incredible IBIS, the best Nikon processor and its benefits and the flippy screen all jammed into a body barely bigger than an F3), why wouldn't I just buy something like a Z7/8/9? They have real advantages to the Zf minus size/styling. Especially the Z9, which while quite pricey has a far superior EVF and base 64 ISO (which really is nice to have tbh).

For reasonably compact with an M-mount lens the Techart adapter comes to mind. Since you don't really have to handle the lens directly, it's not too bad. Oh the whole, though, I'd say I am less sensitive on the size issue. The quality of the output of the new Z S-mount glass would pretty much overcome any objection I'd have on size. Then again, I am using them on the Z8, which balances them well. The larger lenses is just the current style. Gotta keep up with the Zeisses across the way.

 

[JohnGellings]

After using the Zf for over a month now, I must admit that it’s an extremely well made camera that does everything really well. I’ve learned to like z mount lenses too. I actually think the weight and size are great. It feels solid and substantial in a way my Fujis never did. It’s priced well too. I was hesitant to move on from Fuji X, but I’m glad I did.

 

[Dogman]

After a few months of using my Voigtlander VM lenses, I bought some Zeiss ZM lenses and started using them with the Fujis. When I became comfortable using focus peaking with the EVF, I then felt the need (GAS) for something full frame to use those lenses. Today I ordered one of B&H's almost new 9+ Nikon Z5 bodies and a TTArtisan M to Z adapter. Specifically, I did not want a video-specific camera and I wanted something as stripped down as possible. Z5 seems reasonable.

 

[mdarnton]

I've been waiting for an affordable full frame camera to hang my M lenses on for quite a while. A couple of months ago I got a Z5 and could not be happier. My M4s are getting like, no use these days. I don't like focus peaking at all--It's not really accurate enough and clutters the finder horribly--so I've set the F2 button to 200% and the AF-ON to 100% and that's very fast. There's no interference with AF lenses because I don't have a single Z lens nor do I intend to buy one. Bonus, I get to use all my Nikon F lenses, but the only ones I'm using are the macros and the long ones.

My 50/1.1 Nokton has a whole new life now that I can actually focus it accurately! Having a bright viewfinder makes my SLRs look bleak, so they're not getting any use, either. Also, for the first time I know how to focus my Lensbaby SF lenses correctly, now that I can see in detail what's happening with them.

It's 100% win, IMO. Mirrorless with a good eye-level finder is incredible!

I suppose that after the newness wears off I'll start using the M4s again, because I'm basically an RF guy but I think most of my Nikon SLR stuff is toast.

 

[JohnGellings]

I'm still loving the Zf. I see no need for another FF camera. I have the GR3x for APSC (Pocket) and the GFX-50R for medium format. I feel this covers everything.