The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

  • Recently, there has been an increased activity from spammers, which may result in you receiving unwanted private messages. We are working hard to limit this activity.

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

glenerrolrd

Workshop Member
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

Well-known member
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.
 
Last edited:

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
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

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
@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.
 

tcdeveau

Well-known member
Thats for the comments . I guess I will go shopping for a Z7 II to get started . :ROFLMAO:
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

Subscriber Member
@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

Well-known member
@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

Workshop Member
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

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
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 ;)
 
Top