[surfar]

Youtu.be

Youtu.be

[biz-engineer]

They are nice lenses, but are they enough nicer than F mount versions to warrant purchasing them? I don't know.

Canon , on the other hand have decided to make cheap primes (RF 35 STM, RF 50 STM and RF 85 STM) that are optically the same as EF primes, and more premium glass that is very expensive. The Nikon Z primes from 24mm to 85mm are nearly as good as the Zeiss Batis, but cost an average of $800 each. Very good. So in terms of price/quality, first come the Canon RF low cost primes, then the Nikons (comparable to Zeiss, and better than "old" DSLR lenses), then the super expensive Canon premium RF glass (f1.2). It looks like Ricoh have the same approach for the full frame lenses as Canon for the RF lenses: affordable (reuse old optical formulas) and premium (expensive). I like the Nikon approach better because I don't need f1.4 or f1.2, and I do value small size for prime lenses.

[beholder3]

Canon , on the other hand have decided to make cheap primes (RF 35 STM, RF 50 STM and RF 85 STM) that are optically the same as EF primes, and more premium glass that is very expensive. The Nikon Z primes from 24mm to 85mm are nearly as good as the Zeiss Batis, but cost an average of $800 each. Very good.

You are mixing different things. The RF 35 and 85 are on the same level as the Z ones, improved against old DSLR versions and substantially more expensive than those.
The RF 50 is no better than the EF and also no more expensive.

I guess the biggest difference in approach is:
Canon relies on their huge native lens base for EF which works as native lenses on RF. Their new RF lenses (mainly) add to the breadth of the offering, especially considering that many EF versions are already so good there is little to improve on optically.


Nikon on the other hand has focused on replicating F lenses in Z with the added value mainly being in tiny changes in MTF charts for the same healthy surcharge to prices that Sony and Canon also do.
As far as I could read the F lenses on adapter also do not active as native lenses but have (case by case) some (small) limitations and worse performance than on DSLR("decreased autofocus reliability").

[Rondec]

Canon , on the other hand have decided to make cheap primes (RF 35 STM, RF 50 STM and RF 85 STM) that are optically the same as EF primes, and more premium glass that is very expensive. The Nikon Z primes from 24mm to 85mm are nearly as good as the Zeiss Batis, but cost an average of $800 each. Very good. So in terms of price/quality, first come the Canon RF low cost primes, then the Nikons (comparable to Zeiss, and better than "old" DSLR lenses), then the super expensive Canon premium RF glass (f1.2). It looks like Ricoh have the same approach for the full frame lenses as Canon for the RF lenses: affordable (reuse old optical formulas) and premium (expensive). I like the Nikon approach better because I don't need f1.4 or f1.2, and I do value small size for prime lenses.

Maybe so. I haven't investigated enough to see what the difference is in sharpness. It just seemed that Nikon folks were pretty satisfied with their F mount lenses already. So if you owned a D750 or D850 and felt pretty satisfied with the performance and had a decent lens line up, I'm not sure what what specific things would make you drop a bunch of money on a new mount and move on.

I'm not saying the Z mount lenses aren't better or that if you had all the money in the world that you would just drop it on a Z mount system. I guess I'm just trying to analyze why it has taken longer for Nikon to get off the ground with this mount than Canon. I think it really comes down to the fact that Nikonians are pretty satisfied with their F mount gear and they don't see enough benefit from the Z mount to jump in yet. To me it really is the disease of "Good Enough."

[beholder3]

To me it really is the disease of "Good Enough."

I think from a photographer perspective this is very good.

And yes, for years there has been minimal progress in the camera industry while a very high level has already been achieved. New mounts and swapping viewfinders for tiny screens didn't and don't provide enough benefits to justify 4-digit investments for the vast majority.

[Unregistered User 8]

Hi folks. This thread has been reported by some members, another moderator has had to post in thread to settle things down, and some of the posts are borderline brand bashing Nikon. Too many negatives to warrant keeping it going now.