Nikon is slowly discontinuing more Nikkor reflex F-mount lenses
nikonrumors.com
nikonrumors.com
Mirrorless is clearly the way of future, though, and hopefully they will eventually release a mirrorless-native version (with, I'm sure, even more incredible performance).
16-35mm f/4G and 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6G are pretty common among amateur photographers and standard kits. Not a great lenses but very usefuel to a lot of people.
Nikon is having a lot of financial trouble for that I think it halted the production of those lenses, and it's correctly moving to the mirrorless systems, like every other brand.
So I'm very surprised that Nikon's discontinuing it - the 14-24 meets a completely different need, and the 18-35 isn't nearly as versatile despite being sharper, due to the lack of VR and the missing 2mm.
I suppose on the mirrorless side the 14-30 f4 isn't a bad replacement, but for DSLR users it's a significant gap.
But I am a bit surprised they discontinued that 200mm, as they don’t have native Z mount super-telephoto lenses yet. Maybe there was a weird supply chain issue, and they basically had to cancel it now ahead of new Z big-gun lenses.
(I’ll be curious to see if these big wide-aperture telephoto lenses get appreciably better with the new mount. The lack of a mirror really, really improves shorter focal lengths, as you don’t have to deal with complex retrofocal designs as much, but these bazookas don’t have that design limitation as the exit pupil is way out in front.)
Long lenses, I can use any FX lens, without any problems. The only thing that I would really miss if DX lenses disappear is a super-wide lens, because no FX lens is going to be super-wide on my DX camera body.
I should say “most will not miss these DX lenses as Nikon moves to Z-mount APS-C cameras, which have the potential for both better optical quality and smaller size.”
To whit: https://www.zsystemuser.com/z-mount-lenses/nikkor-lenses/nik... — it’s the cheap pack-in kit lens, but the optics are off the charts relative to its size and price.
Also am curious to whether there's an improvement in telephotos with mirrorless. The big selling point for rangefinders over the years has been the image quality bonus with compact lenses.
Mirrorless does allow a shallower flange distance, which allows you to create more compact/lighter lenses, but this is more beneficial with already small lens types (e.g. primes/compact zooms) rather than telephoto lenses.
That being said mirrorless lenses likely will be better, but not due to mirrorless Vs. DSLR distinction but because the mirrorless version will be their most up-to-date optical technology.
I think the biggest differentiator here won't be IQ, it will be the electronic viewfinder (w/focus peaking, zebra stripes, histograms, preview of art modes, more accurate preview of the photo, etc).
But I totally agree with you, the advances in optical technology and the EVFs make a much bigger difference.
The main reason for the improvements in quality - closer (and for some - larger as well) mount allows more freedom for lens designs, leading to previously impossible approaches. Another change - with photographer never seeing a direct image from lens (only a processed one via EVF or back LCD) - the abberations that can be easily corrected in post can remain less corrected by lens design, allowing better correction of other parameters within the same constraints.
The advantage was most likely down to little compromise on design and cost, but it was there. Current mirrorless lenses appear to going the Leica way of both incredible optical performance and cost, no longer constrained by the mount.
I mean, you've as much as said this, I just thought to add some anecdata. A key driver of these improvements have of course been the ever-increasing resolving power of the sensors needing ever-better lenses. The Zeiss 45mm is my favourite lens ever, but I would not pretend it has the resolving power of a lens made in the last four years. There is of course, more to a lens than resolution, as the Zeiss 50mm C-Sonnar which I cannot part with proves...
I am very impressed with modern mirrorless cameras and lenses, but it is unlikely I will personally be able to dive in, on the grounds of cost.
What is nice, so, is that the Z6 and 7 are getting cheap enough to become an option compared to mid to high end FX systems. Especially if you would start from scratch anyway. And the option of using used, but solid, F mount lenses on a mirror less camera has some charm so.
As old inventory runs out on some of these older designs, they finally and officially mark them discontinued.
Nikon really needs to focus on their mirrorless lineup, especially since the Z mount is lacking a number of essential pro lenses, like anything over 200mm, macros, and other specialist lenses. Plus, their other new lenses (including the 'trinity' of pro zooms) are still in very short supply.
We saw it with Kodak and film->digital and now we may be seeing the same kind of death with DSLR->mirrorless in a big name like Nikon or Canon. Meanwhile, Sony got into it early and is eating everyone's lunch.
My camera is from shortly after 2010, incidentally, and I don't see a need to upgrade. At the same time, mounts are chaos. I have many thousands of dollars of lenses, and I'm not ready to make that kind of investment again, especially with the kind of uncertainty we have in the market.
Nikon and Canon likely got in too late, but the flip side is their mounts are better designs than E-mount. Coming in years later, they learned from Sony's mistakes. If they don't die, Sony might be squeezed out, or might make yet another mount.
Sony's support for A-mount all these years was less than acceptable.
What I would buy into is a mount-agnostic camera which adapted to A-mount, F-mount, K-mount, and EF-mount lenses with everything working (autofocus, video, etc.), and conversely, lenses which adopted to multiple mounts. Sigma almost did that, but mount conversions cost about as much as new lenses. There ought to be a swapable part.
Mostly same boat. I had (well, still have) a Nikon D70 from 2004. Just last year I benched it in favour of a Nikon D300s from 2009.
I've bought newer lenses because lenses have appreciably improved over the years, but in general I really don't think the camera tech has moved that far for most people's application.
I love Nikon, but I've spent... maybe $500 with them directly over my lifetime (35mm prime + 50mm prime bought new). With the F-mount remaining more-or-less compatible for over 60 years, there's a huge used market for their lenses and the older camera bodies are still workhorses a decade later.
It's sad, but the fact that they haven't been trying to wring every last cent out of the market with different lens mounts, planned obsolescence in the bodies, etc may in fact be a significant factor in their downfall.
Canon is stuck with 2 mounts, the EF-M and the RF, with the RF being the more future proof one. But there is no way to adapt the EF-M to the RF. And there is no way to adapt any other MILC mount to RF.
Meanwhile, the Nikon Z-mount is as close as you can get to a universal mount. You can adapt almost everything E-mount, everything Laica, everything DSLR. And there are videos on YouTube doing just this. Its a combination of the largest diameter with the shortest flange distance.
I forsee Canon getting stuck in indecision.
One major limitation of E-mount is diameter. E-mount is 46.1mm to Canon's 54mm and Nikon's 55mm. I think a lot of the other limitations can be fixed, but that one is a bit tough for Sony. That means they will run into issues with vert fast/wide aperture lenses.
Nikon goes down to f/0.95 on their 58mm.
Nikon seems like the clear winner here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_EOS_R5
Technological replacement happens when new tech has important advantages over the old, without needing to outperform it in every single way.
But for sports and wildlife, you do need to get the highest-end bodies for a pleasant AF experience that can match the high-end DSLRs like the D850, D500 (which IMO were basically 'magic' in giving keepers once you understood the system).
The bigger advantage with mirrorless, as the image processing pipeline catches up, is the ML algorithms that can run on the entire image giving more control over focus tracking in weird situations, where the more optical AF systems in DSLRs don't have as much data to build from.
It's crazy how good AF got over the years on DSLRs, and it's also amazing how quickly all three (Sony, Nikon, and Canon) have put together competent AF pipelines in their mirrorless bodies. Sony leads here a little, but just barely, and mostly because they were all-in on high-end mirrorless before Nikon or Canon really got serious.
(and, it's worth noting that Nikon dSLRs still outsell Nikon mirrorless cameras)
Hm? What now? That can’t be…
https://nikonrumors.com/2020/11/24/recap-of-recent-nikon-pre...
Huh.
Its also not completely correct to say that these are lenses for SLR cameras - they're F mount. Thats it.
Some are lenses with the aps-c sized image circle, some are lenses for a full frame image circle.
A glance at them suggests that most of these of the lenses designed for the amateur market. A 28-300, 16-80, and 18-300. Next, there's the "serious amateur" with the 16-35mm f/4 and the 85mm f/3.5 micro. And lastly, there's a high end specialist tool with a 200mm f/2 (which is nearly $6k).
To me, this is just another update / realignment of a lens line. The general trend over the decades has indeed been a contraction. If you browse through https://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkor... you will see numerous special lenses that have no modern analog and a reiteration / refinement of other designs - just look at the number of redesigns of the 85mm lens - http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkore...
This doesn't happen as frequently as car companies update their models... but it still happens.
My crystal ball says that the SLR and the F mount is moving more and more to a design that is only used by the professional and the serious amateur (and the mirrorless bodies are slowly encroaching in on that but are hampered at getting into the professional area by the sensor size). As such, it really doesn't make sense to be designing or maintaining lenses targeted for the amateur / DX lineup.
Down voting seems are more and more random nowadays.
For a good one - http://www.rokkorfiles.com/500mm.htm (and another review of it - https://casualphotophile.com/2021/04/21/minolta-rf-500mm-f-8... )
One of the things with the reflex lenses is that they don't have chromatic aberration that one sees in the more traditional lenses because all of the wavelengths of light are reflected the same and there are minimal traditional lens elements in there.
The 500mm... I've used it and it was meh. The problem was that it was a cheap one that was in the sub $200 range.
On the other hand, being able to do handheld 500mm with a well designed lens in the proper situations - you get http://www.rokkorfiles.com/500mm.htm
The key to use them in situations where they're warranted and most people don't.
No mirror means easier and smaller packaging due to not having to make space for the mirrorbox and prism.
There is no mirror! You know, the fragile, fast-moving, complicated part that upsets the camera at the very moment it needs to stay still.
1. There's supposedly a space/weight saving by not having to have a mirror and pentaprism to give you a viewfinder. Unfortunately, this space/weight saving seems to mostly have been negated by the tendency to make the lenses bigger and heavier.
2. The viewfinder is electronic, not real. This may take some getting used to. It may also be less practical in some situations and more practical in others. Consider when there's loads of light around (you're wearing sunglasses and the electronic viewfinder is too dim) or when it's really dark (the DSLR viewfinder is too dark). I'm told that the electronic viewfinders these days are really good, but I'm sure it's a matter of preference.
3. There's no mirror that flips up, which can reduce camera shake. You can even get most of the mirrorless cameras to use a fully-electronic shutter, so taking a picture can shake-less and silent.
4. The lens mount is closer to the sensor, which can make it easier to make some lenses (mostly ultra-wide angle lenses).
5. The focusing system is usually way better. DSLRs depend on a translucent part of the mirror to direct some light onto a focusing sensor. Mirrorless cameras have a load of split pixels scattered across the main sensor, that allow them to do phase-shift focusing. But because they're using the main sensor, they can do things like work out where people's faces (or even eyes) are, and focus on that.
6. The battery usually doesn't last as long as with a DSLR. For example, I went out one night and took 1758 photos on a single battery on my DSLR. You'd need more than one battery on a mirrorless camera to do that.
I might be wrong, but I thought most DSLRs use phase detection, while mirrorless cameras use contrast detection. Phase detection tends to be much faster, but contrast detection is more accurate.
Shooting portraits with a z6 and a 60 year old 90mm leica lens on a megadap autofocus adapter (it just moves the whole lens in and own) yields some really cool images.
For existing customers (like you), the disadvantage is that they may have to throw their kit away and start over, for some advantage in weight and in body technology, but need to pay a lot of money too.
The Z5 is better for baby pictures.
The d5600 is still better for hiking and travel pictures.
The Z5 is better under low-light and dynamic subject conditions. Particularly because the digital viewfinder is clearer in the dark, the eye/face autofocus and low light autofocus performance is much better (much fewer missed shots), the Z5 has sensor-shift stabilization, and there is no mirror slap affecting lower shutter speeds. For landscapes where there is lots of light, a lightweight and battery conservative d5600 still does the job excellently.
Wow, that's really disappointing to hear. I shoot Nikon DSLR bodies w/ mostly Nikon and Zeiss lenses, and for target shooting I use Nikon rifle scopes. Their optics have always been top notch for the price point.
I'm really concerned that Nikon may not be able to sustain business operations after the next decade. Their financials haven't been looking so hot. At least for my photography hobby I know there's a robust secondary market, but for things like rifle scopes that's not so much a thing.
I do have an old 500mm f/8 Nikkor Reflex lens though and I absolutely love it for some use cases. I just wish they made f/5.6 version ...
Here's an image of Markarian's chain rising over Mt. Lassen taken with that 500mm reflex lens
Great picture by the way.
The last film camera was like that, the last f6 was made decades ago, but it just showed up as being discontinued lately.
[0] https://www.bythom.com/newsviews/dslr-lens-discontinuation.h...