Do you think Nikon should open up the Z mount to third party lens manufacturers?

Joined
Oct 9, 2005
Messages
22,568
Location
Moscow, Idaho
It may just be my opinion, but designing lenses so large and heavy in today's time when people are traveling and taking their camera with them more is a bit of a head-scratcher personally. I know that when I'm traveling and taking my camera gear with it, there's a "sweet spot" in terms of size and portability. Going beyond that tends to mean the gear stays at home more often, at which point I begin to question why I purchased it.

It's one thing for reviewers to get a lens and say "Wow, look at how sharp this lens is! INCREDIBLE!". It's another thing for them to live with that lens over the course of months or years, and shoot with it regularly.
Good points, Ian. Size was a minor consideration when I got my Z6--quality, the experience, and the fact that it bought new things to the table swayed me and pried my credit card out. When I travel with too much gear I lament my inability to pick the right gear, rather than lamenting what get left at home. I tend to favor zooms over primes, I've gotten over my love affair with fast glass (f/4 is fine) but what I would pick every time if it were available and affordable, would be an internal focusing zoom lens over one that extends many inches, or more! My 16-35 f/4 is the only one I have right now.


EDIT: I correct myself, my 70-200, f/4 is an internal focusing lens. Too much coffee? Too little wine? Old age (I just had a decade-ending birthday!)?
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jul 25, 2017
Messages
939
Location
Pittsburgh, PA
Real Name
Ian
I tend to favor zooms over primes, I've gotten over my love affair with fast glass (f/4 is fine) but what I would pick every time if it were available and affordable, would be an internal focusing zoom lens over one that extends many inches, or more! My 16-35 f/4 is the only one I have right now.
I've always found this train of though somewhat interesting. Lenses like 24-70 / 24-105 / 24-120 always extended, but people never seemed to put up much fuss. Canon's new 70-200 f/2.8 will be an extending lens as well (but holy cow, have you seen how compact it is!?)

Personally, as long as the lens doesn't trombone too ridiculously, I'd much rather take a lens that would stow to a smaller size to fit in a bag easier, over one that is a constant length, but takes much more room in my bag.

In fact, it was that reason along that lead me to purchase the 70-300 AF-P over the 70-200 f/4. While I would've been fine with the focal length covered by the 70-200, it's long enough that I can't stand it up in my camera backpack, it needs to be laid down, which means it takes up more space. The 70-300 AF-P on the other hand is short enough at 70mm that I can stand it up in my bag, meaning it takes up less space (meaning more space for packing things like food, or having space to stow a rain jacket).
 
Joined
Oct 9, 2005
Messages
22,568
Location
Moscow, Idaho
I've always found this train of though somewhat interesting. Lenses like 24-70 / 24-105 / 24-120 always extended, but people never seemed to put up much fuss. Canon's new 70-200 f/2.8 will be an extending lens as well (but holy cow, have you seen how compact it is!?)

Personally, as long as the lens doesn't trombone too ridiculously, I'd much rather take a lens that would stow to a smaller size to fit in a bag easier, over one that is a constant length, but takes much more room in my bag.

In fact, it was that reason along that lead me to purchase the 70-300 AF-P over the 70-200 f/4. While I would've been fine with the focal length covered by the 70-200, it's long enough that I can't stand it up in my camera backpack, it needs to be laid down, which means it takes up more space. The 70-300 AF-P on the other hand is short enough at 70mm that I can stand it up in my bag, meaning it takes up less space (meaning more space for packing things like food, or having space to stow a rain jacket).
I hear you!
I guess I'm a finicky old coot, and overly sensitive to the "Boy look at that lens extend; it must be very powerful!" (No, just a 24-70) Or, my best ever, "That is one big lens; how many megapixels is it?"
 
Joined
Jul 8, 2019
Messages
228
Location
SF Bay Area, California, USA
What I think and feel is not relevant.

Nikon wants the Nikon lens market to themselves, so they don't open the mount to others.
Licensing means they would loose more lens sales to the 3rd party company. Will they get back enough in royalties to compensate for loss of sales?​
As for the other camera makers.
  • I think Canon and Fuji are closed.
  • Sony opened their mount (but I think by license, not totally open), cuz they needed to quickly build a lens system from zero, in order to compete. Now that they have a decent/good landscape, I wonder if they will close it.
  • Micro 4/3 is an open mount, I think.
So others have to reverse engineer the Z mount and lens/camera communication.
This was MUCH easier in the film days when there was only mechanical linkage between the lens and camera.​
With digital, there is data communication between the lens and camera, so reverse engineering becomes more difficult. Not impossible, but more difficult.​
 
Joined
Jul 22, 2008
Messages
5,246
Location
Denver, Colorado
I was actually looking into if other manf. had made lenses for the S mount yet, as I just got my Z6 a couple days ago. However it looks like I'll be saving up for the Nikon primes as there is basically nothing offered. I still have my F-Mount lenses and don't seem to have any problems with the FTZ adapter.

Like ijm5012 said,
Canon's RF 50mm 1.2 L is a great lens. It's also massively expensive at $2,100 USD, and weighs nearly 1kg. Personally, I wouldn't want to be lugging something like that around with me, whereas the Nikon 50/1.8 S comes in at $600 and just over 400g. Sure, you give up a stop of light, but given how excellent the sensors are in the Z6 & Z7, I'll gladly give up a bit of speed and bump up that ISO if it means shaving kg's of weight out of my bag (when you factor in that you'll likely be traveling with multiple lenses).
I too wouldn't mind losing that extra stop or two of light in order to buy a whole line-up of lenses vs 1 lens. Plus, The difference of the 1.8 - 1.2 depth of field isn't going to be that noticeable to my clients, and the number of times you will actually NEED the f/1.2 (in my opinion) are so few and far between that it doesn't justify the cost.
 
Joined
Oct 9, 2005
Messages
22,568
Location
Moscow, Idaho
I was actually looking into if other manf. had made lenses for the S mount yet, as I just got my Z6 a couple days ago. However it looks like I'll be saving up for the Nikon primes as there is basically nothing offered. I still have my F-Mount lenses and don't seem to have any problems with the FTZ adapter.

Like ijm5012 said,


I too wouldn't mind losing that extra stop or two of light in order to buy a whole line-up of lenses vs 1 lens. Plus, The difference of the 1.8 - 1.2 depth of field isn't going to be that noticeable to my clients, and the number of times you will actually NEED the f/1.2 (in my opinion) are so few and far between that it doesn't justify the cost.
Scott, you are back---long time no see.
 
Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Nikon Cafe is a fan site and not associated with Nikon Corporation.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Copyright © 2005-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom