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).
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.
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.