New Z mount Lenses

All I can say is: bring money...
Isn't that the truth! I am in the process of switching over to mirrorless, and it looks like I will be using adapted lenses for a while, and perhaps some native primes. The cost of the Z-mount f/2.8 zoom trinity is pretty astronomical compared to F-mount, coming in at around $7300 USD for the 14-24, 24-70, and 70-200. In F-mount this would be about $5k new, and sells used for under $3k, something which isn't an option for Z-mount.

I'm interested to see how the 50mm f/1.2 performs, but at that price I don't think I'll have much use for it. While it is priced about the same as Canon's RF mount, it's almost 2x the price of their EF mount, and more than 5x the price of the Nikon F-mount f/1.4. Price isn't everything, but I don't see myself needing a $2100 50mm lens any time soon.
Funny how some of the greatest images in history was taken with lenses smaller than 2 inch in diameter.
I think it might pay to wait and see how the Nikon z series teleconverters function with different lenses in the system. They currently have a 1.4 x and a 2.0 x, and if past performance is in any indication, these two teleconverters might perform splendidly. The 1.4x TC-E-II PERFORMED QUITE WELL WITH THE 70 TO 200 VR-G AND EXTREMELY WELL WITH THE 200 MM F/2 VRG... In effect turning the 200 prime into a 280 mm F 2.8 for around $300. I owned these two lenses and this teleconverter for about a decade and was quite pleased with the performance.
back in the 12 megapixel era the performance of this equipment was quite good.

If you can turn a very expensive prime or zoom into a lens with 40% or double the focal length for less than $400, then it is a good investment

Given that the Z-mount offers some lens performance increases ( the 50 1.8 is quite outstanding even wide open), as I said I think it bears waiting and investigating how these lenses perform with the two teleconverters.

In the past even though I owned the 300 mm f/2.8 AFS Mark II, the lightweight version with incredible close focus and roughly 7.25 lb overall total weight due to the magnesium barrel, I often found myself leaving it at home and taking the 200 mm f2 VR-G and the TC 1.4 E-II teleconverter... IN ACTUAL PRACTICE AT MANY SPORTS EVENTS A 280 MM F/2.8 IS MORE USEFUL THAN A 300 MM LENS. With today's high megapixel sensors, cropping in has never been easier or more practical.If you have a 24 to 46 megapixel sensor then your cropping capability is quite high
A 50 mm f/1.2 with a 1.4 x teleconverter added would be a 75 mm F 1.4.

With a 2x teleconverter added one would have a 100 mm f/2.

So in effect one prime lens would give you three different fixed focal length lenses of pretty good speed.
Nikon already has a 58mm F0.95 lens, so I really see no use in producing a 50 that is slightly slower. I have zero use for a 50mm lens anyway, so won't be ponying up that cash. As far as the 14-24 F2.8 is concerned, a similar issue. The 14-24 F4 is a magnificent lens and increasing the ISO one stop in the camera seems a no-brainer if needed. I can't and won't be buying this lens either and am perfectly happy with the F4 version.
The new 50 mm f/1.2 weighs over 1,000 G. The new Canon 50 mm f/1.2 for their r-series mirrorless weighs 941 G.

A 50 mm lens that measures almost 6 in Long seems patently ridiculous to me as far as actual use. I get that it might be a stellar optical performer, but come on man and it needs 112 mm screw and filters, unless of course you are willing to use slip in 40.5 mm rear mount gelatin filters.

In my best Austin Powers voice I would say "oh,come on baby, that's ridiculous."

It kind of sounds like Nikon engineers are having a field day with the z system in flexing their muscles, but have lost sight of the plot.
A 50 mm lens that measures almost 6 in Long seems patently ridiculous to me as far as actual use.
But what if I put a $600 Z-mount teleconverter on it... lol
Last edited:
Late to the MILC party, Nikon further erred by rolling out a Sony copycat system while ignoring other mirrorless platforms. I drifted to Fuji for their optical chops(stellar cine, LF and video lenses) and innovative designs that packed function into compact, well-crafted gear. Pandemic downdrafts aside, I wonder if the Z-mount system will ever find customers in the numbers Nikon anticipated.
With the injunction of various third party lens makers like laowa, I wonder if the trend is starting to move back to a simi-universal lens system that would trounce this.

Rokinon and Laowa both have come out with 1.0 or 0.5 ish 50mm and possible something wider that can be mounted to any camera.

IMO, this is akin to BMW coming out with a badder 'M' vehicle that costs $300,000 that goes 10 mph faster than everything else.
IMO. No real point.
No problem with line-ups at these prices: C$3,199 for the 14-24 and C$2,799 for the 50 drain pipe.
And I thought Fujifilms GF medium format lenses were expensive. Personally, I just got rid of my XT2 and their 4 lenses, 35 1.4, 50 f2, 18-55, and 55-200 to purchase the gf45 f2.8 and a x100V. I own the GFX50R, 45, 63, and 100-200. I now only have two digital, and 2 film cameras, 1 lens, and a Holga. Life is a lot simpler.

Most reactions

New Topics