How do the New Nikon Z lenses compare to the Sony G

[glenerrolrd]

Wow am I ever frustrated waiting for the Z9 and the new missing Z lenses . I am wondering if its really worth it ? Sony is nearing releasing a 2nd generation 70-200/2.8 . From what I can read the Nikkor Z 70-200 and the existing Sony G 70-200 are pretty much equals . I have a full arsenal of Nikkors in the traditional F mount and have been reluctant to just dump them . The newer Nikkors ..the 58/1.4 and the 105/1.4 have character beyond just the MTF charts But I am not anxious to use adapters . Sony has a terrific 50/1.2 G and the A1 looks pretty great . The grass looks pretty green over in the Sony yard . Holding out for now and a Nikon Fan Boy .

My uses will be almost all sports .....so I really just need the 70-200/2.8 and a 400/2.8 ..since the 400/2.8 can be successfully adapted (and Nikon is rumored to have a new adapter in the works)...I have been holding out for a Z9 and the 70-200/2.8 .

 

[tcdeveau]

I'm not sure about a direct comparison, but I went with the Nikon Z system for Nikon fanboy reasons. I also had a A7R and A7RII and hated the menu system with a passion. I think they've done some work with the menus and its better on the A1. I also just liked how the Nikon body felt in my hands. It felt like a Nikon.

Another thing to consider is the Sony G lenses are smaller. The 50 1.2GM is 0.7 lbs lighter and 1.6" shorter than the 50 1.2S (1.7 lbs, 4.3" long vs. 2.4 lbs, 5.9" long). The 50mm 1.2S also has an 82mm filter thread vs. the 77mm filter thread of the Sony. The 70-200mm GMII is 2.3 lbs, 7.87" long, the Nikon 3 lbs, 8.66" long. These are meaningful differences IMHO.

I have no complaints with the 50mm 1.2S other than its size. It is huge and does get tiresome carrying it for long periods of time. I'd probably be willing to give some up vignetting for a small reduction in size.

My only issue with the 70-200mm 2.8S is a nitpicky one. I liked the zoom/focus ring arrangement of the 70-200 2.8 VRII I had with the zoom ring being closer to the lens mount than the focus ring. This is swapped on the 70-200 2.8S but it looks like the Sony 70-200 2.8 GMII has the focus ring closer to the lens mount than the focus ring.

I'd see what happens with the Z9 launch I guess. If the Z9 does what it is supposed to and lives up to the hype then I think i'll be happy sticking with Nikon, but the Sony system is definitely compelling. I'm too invested in Nikon at this point to contemplate a system switch though.

Another thing to keep in mind is when you'd need the system. With the current state of things you may be waiting months for a Z9 and 400mm 2.8 after their announcement. I think I waited about a year for the 70-200 2.8S.

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

The Z9 is a full-size, built-like-a-fortress kind of camera body, presumably with all the latest bells and whistles. Sony makes fine cameras, but for demanding photography work, there's nothing like the big Nikons (and Canons). When it comes to image quality, features and lenses, the differences are close to negligible. In a couple of years, Nikon will have most of the lenses needed. In the meantime, the FTZ adapter appears to work fine.

 

[Jack]

@glenerrolrd -- Roger, my .02 is be patient.

The Z 70-200 is so excellent I suspect it's what pushed Sony to revise theirs. Moreover you don't lose anything visible even at 200% with the 1.4x; and while you'll maybe see just the slightest bit of degradation with the 2x in some images, it remains very, very good. The other Z zooms are all stellar as well, the 2.8's especially so.

58 & 105 f1.4's: Firstly, the Z af is so much more accurate that it gives an entirely new life to these two lenses and at *any* aperture including (and especially) wide open. Your hit rates go up to near 100% on eyeball focus. *Tip: AF is so accurate with both these lenses you can dial in a minus 1 or 2 on AF fine-tune so that now as you AF on a subjects eyeball, the exact PoF is now just a little short and their eye lashes and brows render sharper while their actual iris still remains inside the rear portion of the thin DoF

Adapters: The FTZ adapters are no disadvantage in my view, not overly cumbersome as one might suspect by only looking at them -- I don't even notice them in use compared to how they felt on my F bodies -- YMMV on this but I doubt it. I have dedicated an FTZ to each of the above lenses so either is ready to press into use instantly. For comparison sake, the 58 with the FTZ is not much longer overall than the Z 50/1.8S itself, though it is wider and a little bit more weight forward, but nothing excessive at all. Ditto the 105 -- they both feel as normal to me now as they did on my F bodies.

One more comment -- the 58 has been such a pleasure to use even wide open, I ended up selling my 50/1.8S because it wasn't ever making it into my bag any more.

 

[glenerrolrd]

Thats for the comments . I guess I will go shopping for a Z7 II to get started .

 

[tcdeveau]

Thats for the comments . I guess I will go shopping for a Z7 II to get started .

BTW I think I’m just a short drive from you and could meet up if you ever wanted to check out the Z system in person first. I’m still rocking a first gen Z6 for a body though.

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

@glenerrolrd -- Roger, my .02 is be patient.

The Z 70-200 is so excellent I suspect it's what pushed Sony to revise theirs. Moreover you don't lose anything visible even at 200% with the 1.4x; and while you'll maybe see just the slightest bit of degradation with the 2x in some images, it remains very, very good. The other Z zooms are all stellar as well, the 2.8's especially so.

58 & 105 f1.4's: Firstly, the Z af is so much more accurate that it gives an entirely new life to these two lenses and at *any* aperture including (and especially) wide open. Your hit rates go up to near 100% on eyeball focus. *Tip: AF is so accurate with both these lenses you can dial in a minus 1 or 2 on AF fine-tune so that now as you AF on a subjects eyeball, the exact PoF is now just a little short and their eye lashes and brows render sharper while their actual iris still remains inside the rear portion of the thin DoF

Adapters: The FTZ adapters are no disadvantage in my view, not overly cumbersome as one might suspect by only looking at them -- I don't even notice them in use compared to how they felt on my F bodies -- YMMV on this but I doubt it. I have dedicated an FTZ to each of the above lenses so either is ready to press into use instantly. For comparison sake, the 58 with the FTZ is not much longer overall than the Z 50/1.8S itself, though it is wider and a little bit more weight forward, but nothing excessive at all. Ditto the 105 -- they both feel as normal to me now as they did on my F bodies.

One more comment -- the 58 has been such a pleasure to use even wide open, I ended up selling my 50/1.8S because it wasn't ever making it into my bag any more.

Jack, you just brought me several inches closer to a Z-body. Very informative.

 

[Swissblad]

@glenerrolrd --

One more comment -- the 58 has been such a pleasure to use even wide open, I ended up selling my 50/1.8S because it wasn't ever making it into my bag any more.

High praise for the 58mm, Jack, as the Z mount 50mm f1.8 is rated as being stellar.

Thanks for nudging me closer to a Z purchase....

 

[ptomsu]

The Z 70-200 /2.8 is a stunning lens and for sure dances circles around the "old!" 70-200 Sony FE lens.

It is so good that even with the TC2.0 it is better over the whole range than the old 80-400 Gen 2 lens for F Mount - and that tells quite a bit.

I expect though that the new Z 100-400 (that we might have seen in the second Z9 teaser) is even better

 

[Jack]

High praise for the 58mm, Jack, as the Z mount 50mm f1.8 is rated as being stellar.

Oh, it is stellar. To be really clear so folks don't misunderstand, the 50/1.8S is better than the 58 at f1.8, at least in the corners. By f4 or so my 58 is pretty darn good corner to corner, though I understand there is some sample variation with them. But the 58 is plenty sharp plus being special enough in the way it renders I don't miss the 50/1.8S at all. I would say its rendering is definitely old school "Mandler-esque," which coming from me is high compliment

 

[msstudio]

Let me comment on the built quality of the 2.8 zooms, I shoot both brands ever since these lenses came out, professionally. Overall the Sony rendition is more on the cool, technical side and very sharp. They have been reliable and worked with whatever I threw at them (climate, environment, etc.) On the 24-70 the rubber ring is always loose, as if ts to big to fit it into the cavity, replaced that 3 times, always the same, colleagues have the same issue (makes me question the quality control and weather/dust sealing). The 70-200 was literally coming apart one day while cleaning, after 3 years of ownership, used but not abused. This never happened to me ever and cost me nearly $900 and 3 month to fix.
The Nikon rendition is to me much more 3D like, and combined with the Z7/Z7II the image quality creeps quickly up to MF quality (Hasselblad). I have both zooms since they came out, and for the last year, shot with them 11 month daily. They both perform and appear as new, zero issues, no loose rubber rings, mounting is solid, etc. So for the image quality alone I prefer Nikon glass, but the built quality is seriously pro league.
I can't comment on Sony prime lenses, or the new 70-200 f2.8, but Nikon is hitting it way above their price point and compare surprisingly well to my Hasselblad glass and image files.

So to me I can very honestly recommend the combination of the Z6/Z6II, Z7/Z7II and (hopefully) Z9 and any S lenses (2.8 24-70-200, and 1.8 35, 50, 85) I own so far over any Sony body and zoom lenses I've used. The only leg up for Sony (waiting for the Z9 here...), is the AF tracking and low light abilities which are for a different planet (as of October 2021), thats why I keep a double A9II kit with zooms around.

 

[trioderob]

for sports buy a D500
They are cheap ..... battery lasts forever ...... focus for fast sports or birds in flight is amazing ...... built like a tank . ,,,, no EVF lag ..... might be the last great DSLR for action ever made

 

[Thorkil]

I'm really happy I'm in Nikon-land.
Z7 is just fine for me (well if money wasn't an issue, I guess the AF in twilight on the future Z8 would be rather tempting).
But despite the money-issue (well, just won a lawsuit by 66%, and consider to celebrate it either with seeking more security for my pension, OR perhaps more instant attracting, preorder the 100-400S) - I tend wanting to celebrate with the preorder of the 100-400S. Its just 1,1 centimeter shorter than my FX combo 70-200/4+1.4TC+FTZ and only about 180-280 gram heavier.
And I think it might be a dreamlens for deershoting etc. even though the VR doesn't go syncron with my Z7 as it does with the Z9, where it's exiting soon to see test of what the synchronization between the VR and the IBIS actually can do on the Z9. And the 100-400S gathering more light with f5.6 instead of f7.1 (in my combo), and when Riccitalks consider it being as sharp as the 500PF and even in league with the 180-400, it might be another "come save my life - please" - Z-lens. So...(And then there will be the 14-24S.. too.....hhmmm, already headache I can feel )

 

[bernardl]

Another vote for Nikon S lenses.

After many years with Nikon I bought a few years ago a Sony a9II and a7rIV. I didn't keep the a7rIV more than a year since I preferred the Z7 in most ways, but I kept the a9II thanks to its excellent AF. What convinced me to sell it in the end was the combined improvement of AF on the Z6II and the Sony GM lenses. Even the 135mm f1.8 GM, considered by many as the best Sony lens until the 50mm f1.2 came out, left me unimpressed. It was for sure very sharp, but the images I got with it felt flat and lacking character.

The 50mm f1.2 GM is a master piece though. Very sharp and a nice look while being compact. The 50mm f1.2 S is every bit as good (I prefer it's bokeh slightly but it's very close), but it's much more bulky.

All in all, the Nikon S lenses are IMHO the best on the market. Sony is improving a lot recently. Canon is IMHO a bit behind both other brands.

Cheers,
Bernard

 

[aksclix]

I think most modern mirrorless lenses from all the brands are excellent and one can’t go wrong with any brand these days.. don’t quite think that canon is behind Z though.. if anything Nikon is just catching up with the introduction of a longer focal length option.. canon rf lacks some inexpensive f1.8 zooms but I like what they’ve done with the 100-500, 28-70, 16 f2.8, 100-400 etc..

I personally own the R5 and 100-500, 28-70 f2, 16 and they’re really sharp and great! I have Sony a1 and the 200-600.. they’re fantastic.. I have all the brands except the Olympus..

I was a Nikon shooter for over a decade (d4s, d600, d810) since I made the move to Sony 4 years ago but for the past 2 years I’ve embraced some gear from all the brands.. for loyalty sake, I got a Z50 and the 24-200.. the AF struggled a lot in low light and the new FW makes it slightly better. The IQ definitely is stellar on the 24-200. Out of the other brands offering 24-240 range zooms this one clearly has the best IQ. It balances reasonably ok on the z50 too.
Having owned a few glasses across all top brands including Leica, hasselblad, lumix, Sony, canon, Fuji gfx.. I can say that all modern glasses are incredibly good.. so are the sigma art and C lenses.. any comparison is truly nitpicking

 

[bernardl]

There are certainly some nice lenses in the RF line up, but you need to spend a lot to get to those.

The f1.8 S lenses in Nikon's line up are on par in terms of quality wide open, if not slightly better, compared to f1.2 lenses at f1.8 with Canon, but you pay half or 1/3 the price. So you have the option to buy an amazing 50mm f1.2 if you need f1.2, or even a 58mm f0.95, but the 50mm f1.8S or 50mm f2.8 macro already offer an Otus like level of image quality. It's much better value really.

The 3 f2.8 zooms are close, but the Nikon version is a bit better and I could personally not get over the fact that the RF 70-200mm f2.8 doesn't take TCs. What on earth were they thinking? Does the 100-500 accept tele converters?

 

[aksclix]

There are certainly some nice lenses in the RF line up, but you need to spend a lot to get to those.

The f1.8 S lenses in Nikon's line up are on par in terms of quality wide open, if not slightly better, compared to f1.2 lenses at f1.8 with Canon, but you pay half or 1/3 the price. So you have the option to buy an amazing 50mm f1.2 if you need f1.2, or even a 58mm f0.95, but the 50mm f1.8S or 50mm f2.8 macro already offer an Otus like level of image quality. It's much better value really.

The 3 f2.8 zooms are close, but the Nikon version is a bit better and I could personally not get over the fact that the RF 70-200mm f2.8 doesn't take TCs. What on earth were they thinking? Does the 100-500 accept tele converters?

Yes the top rf lenses are expensive but they’ve been selling well and some are constantly on back order. I think they wanted to preserve the form factor of the smaller lenses so the extenders aren’t compatible with the 70-200 lenses. It is compatible with the 100-500 and the new 100-400 too.. plus they’ve got their super budget 600 and 800 f11 lenses which are pretty good purchases for the cost.. the TCs are compatible with those lenses too.

 

[Jack]

I think--make that know--the OP can make the images he wants to make with any of the current Sony, Canon or Nikon mirrorless systems. I am also quite confident the differences in optical performance across them is going to be small and exist at the peripheries of the image circles. I further suspect that if choosing among the top tier bodies in each system, exposure, video and AF performance is going to be so similar the differences become mostly subjective.

Which brings me to my bigger consideration of ergonomics: Speaking for myself personally, I have used and owned Sony, Canon and Nikon as well as a host of other systems over the years, and the only system I could never "feel at home with" was the Sony mirrorless. Hence, if I were looking to switch, the only option I would consider would be Canon. That said, I still wish Nikon lenses mounted clockwise on, and further wish Nikon had chosen to reverse it to "normal" with the Z mount, but I've been using Nikon so long it's second nature anyway and so a very minor nit. But it would be one point in the Canon column for me if I were considering a switch. Which I am not...

 

[aksclix]

I think--make that know--the OP can make the images he wants to make with any of the current Sony, Canon or Nikon mirrorless systems. I am also quite confident the differences in optical performance across them is going to be small and exist at the peripheries of the image circles. I further suspect that if choosing among the top tier bodies in each system, exposure, video and AF performance is going to be so similar the differences become mostly subjective.

Which brings me to my bigger consideration of ergonomics: Speaking for myself personally, I have used and owned Sony, Canon and Nikon as well as a host of other systems over the years, and the only system I could never "feel at home with" was the Sony mirrorless. Hence, if I were looking to switch, the only option I would consider would be Canon. That said, I still wish Nikon lenses mounted clockwise on, and further wish Nikon had chosen to reverse it to "normal" with the Z mount, but I've been using Nikon so long it's second nature anyway and so a very minor nit. But it would be one point in the Canon column for me if I were considering a switch. Which I am not...

other brands are just catching up with the Sony's incredible AF.. although I haven't used a Nikon Z7, I do have a z50 and the AF even after the recent FW update isn't "great".. am sure the z9 is in a different league now and the AF on z cameras will only get better.. going by previews review of the z7, AF wasn't too impressive in that.. the AF on R5 with the 28-70 is lightning fast even in low light

for ergonomics, yes, Sony just made it a tad better with the a7rIV and a1 grips.. The new menu is alright still a lot to go thru.. I like the bare minimum menus in my SL2.. but the AF for action on the SL2 is below average mostly attributed to the CDAF vs PDAF.. am sure the Z7's ergo is definitely better because I like how the z50 feels in my hand and I have been a Nikon shooter over a decade.. I had and still have some of these (D70, D90, D7000, D5500, D600, D810, D4s).. Canon R5 ergo comes next but I wish it balanced a bit better with the 28-70 beast mounted on I do not want the battery grip but wish they offered a softer grip extension..

 

[Jan Brittenson]

The Z7 is mainly slow in lens racking, which affects its tracking ability for smallish subjects at relatively close distances. This, since at close distances more racking is needed to track. It's still very precise, and as long as the lens only needs minimal adjustment is very quick. So it's not a latency based on computational cost or sensor rate or anything like that. Lens racking if I were to guess is limited by body drive current, which in turn is limited both by the electronic drive circuitry and battery oomph. The Z9 uses EN-EL18s so has plenty of juice, and combined with beefy drive circuitry should be able to rack lenses like a fiend.