Nikon Zf as a platform for adapted/native manual focus lenses
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.63 #1 · Nikon Zf as a platform for adapted/native manual focus lenses
Fred Miranda wrote:
---------------------------------------------
There are a lot of variables at play. Maximum aperture, exit pupil distance, and overall optical design all matter, especially how the lens sends light toward the sensor at the edges. That is why it's best to test each lens for compatibility with thicker sensor stacks. We can make educated guesses, but you can't be certain without real testing.
Absolutely, and thank you for your careful tests which I for one greatly value.
p.63 #2 · Nikon Zf as a platform for adapted/native manual focus lenses
Steve Spencer wrote:
Absolutely, and thank you for your careful tests which I for one greatly value.
You're welcome! Although these infinity tests show image quality falling off away from the center, which doesn't look great, I think the main issue, similar to Sony, is that a thicker sensor stack introduces or amplifies outward field curvature, altering the lens's native field shape.
However, I think it's important to note that this does not really hurt resolution/contrast at the point of focus, even off-center. What it does instead is introduce an unnatural FC that affects center to edge sharpness, especially wide open and when the subject spans across the frame. It can also change the rendering, with areas near the corners appearing more in focus than they should be.
p.63 #3 · Nikon Zf as a platform for adapted/native manual focus lenses
Fred Miranda wrote:
I was testing with the Megadap, plus a 'dumb' M-to-E adapter, paired with a Leica M lens.
On my Z6, the (smart) Viltrox E-Z supports trap focus with a smart lens (Sigma 45C). With a dumb adapter M-to-E, or no lens, the E-Z does not support trap focus—it fires immediately as if body has gone into MF mode. So, Megadep may interact differently with the host body than the Viltrox adapter. Alternatively, the Zf and Z6 have different trap-focus behavior with non-native lens interfaces.
p.63 #4 · Nikon Zf as a platform for adapted/native manual focus lenses
rico wrote:
On my Z6, the (smart) Viltrox E-Z supports trap focus with a smart lens (Sigma 45C). With a dumb adapter M-to-E, or no lens, the E-Z does not support trap focus—it fires immediately as if body has gone into MF mode. So, Megadep may interact differently with the host body than the Viltrox adapter. Alternatively, the Zf and Z6 have different trap-focus behavior with non-native lens interfaces.
Yep, it looks like these adapters differ quite a bit in how they handle their internal algorithms.
The main reason I went with the more expensive Megadap was its support for accurate IBIS when using a non CPU lens or adapter plus lens combo. It does this by letting you set the "Focus Ring Rotation Range" in degrees and map it to an equivalent FL. With the Megadap, specifically the Pro+ version, I can set something like 210 degrees, and the camera understands it's a 35mm lens and adjusts IBIS accordingly.
p.63 #5 · Nikon Zf as a platform for adapted/native manual focus lenses
Are Sony lenses also weaker on Z bodies the way M‑mount lenses are, or is that mostly an issue specific to adapting M‑mount glass to mirrorless? I have both the A7RIV and the Zf right now with the Megadap and a bunch of Sony lenses, but I don’t have the technical skills to test lenses the way the experts here do.
p.63 #6 · Nikon Zf as a platform for adapted/native manual focus lenses
ramesesthe2nd wrote:
Are Sony lenses also weaker on Z bodies the way M‑mount lenses are, or is that mostly an issue specific to adapting M‑mount glass to mirrorless? I have both the A7RIV and the Zf right now with the Megadap and a bunch of Sony lenses, but I don’t have the technical skills to test lenses the way the experts here do.
Sony lenses are weaker on 2 fronts when used on Z: the same weaker edges because of the sensor stack thickness differences, and no embedded lens corrections.
p.63 #7 · Nikon Zf as a platform for adapted/native manual focus lenses
ramesesthe2nd wrote:
Are Sony lenses also weaker on Z bodies the way M‑mount lenses are, or is that mostly an issue specific to adapting M‑mount glass to mirrorless? I have both the A7RIV and the Zf right now with the Megadap and a bunch of Sony lenses, but I don’t have the technical skills to test lenses the way the experts here do.
From what I've seen so far, E-mount lenses adapted to the Zf perform very similarly to how they do on a Sony sensor. The sensor stack thickness differs slightly, so the results aren't a perfect match, but the gap appears small.
I'm planning a side by side test using the new Voigtlander 40mm f/2 Septon, comparing the adapted E-mount version on the Zf to the native Z version, which should make any differences much clearer.
The key takeaway is that adapting E-mount lenses to the Nikon sensor introduces some image quality loss, but it's relatively minor. That's very different from M-mount lenses, which are designed for a much thinner sensor stack. When adapted to a Nikon body, the impact on performance is far more noticeable.
p.63 #8 · Nikon Zf as a platform for adapted/native manual focus lenses
ramesesthe2nd wrote:
Are Sony lenses also weaker on Z bodies the way M‑mount lenses are, ...
I'll say no, but it may depend on the specific lens. For example, the Sony 100 STF GM is a blisteringly sharp lens and carries that performance to the Z6. Similarly, the FE-mount Sigma 45C is equally sharp (and blurry) on both platforms. Meanwhile, the Canon FL-F 300/5.6 is a classic film telephoto but suffers some TCA in the corners on the Sony versus the perfection exhibited on Nikon Z. Besides the sensor cover thickness, I suspect a microlens design difference, hence the term "sensor toppings" to encompass all aspects of sensor construction.
In that thread, I started comparing Leica M lenses, which are designed for a thin sensor stack, on both Sony and Nikon bodies to evaluate image quality degradation. Since both systems use thicker stacks, some loss is expected.
With the Voigtlander 40mm f/1.2 Nokton, the Nikon showed slightly better results than the Sony (extreme corners), but the differences were fairly small. That said, the 40/1.2 isn't a strong performer wide open even on a Leica M, so it's not the best lens to show these differences.
This time, I tested a lens that is oustanding from center to corners on the Leica M, the Voigtlander 28mm f/2 APO-Lanthar. When adapted to Sony, there is clear degradation, including increased field curvature and astigmatism.
So how does it perform on Nikon?
To my eyes, the Nikon sensor handles it noticeably better. As expected, center performance are very similar between systems and even mid-field is similar, but the corners on Nikon are much closer to what I see on the Leica M.
At this point, I'd say the Nikon sensor is the better platform for adapting M lenses.
p.63 #10 · Nikon Zf as a platform for adapted/native manual focus lenses
My experience adapting lenses from F to E and then E to Z is that the faster and wider a lens is, the more likely you are to run into issues towards the edges when focusing at infinity. So seeing the 28mm APO preform better on Nikon than Sony is defnitly a good indication.
A lens like the CV 21mm f1.4 M would probably be a great test if someone has one to adapt to Z. I found the E version made any adapter issues easily visible when adapting it to my Z8. (The ETZ21 Pro+ solved the adapter tolerance issues, but before it came out, some of the adapters were a bit too thin and the issue was easily visible on the CV 21mm f1.4 E)
p.63 #11 · Nikon Zf as a platform for adapted/native manual focus lenses
Fred Miranda wrote:
To my eyes, the Nikon sensor handles it noticeably better. As expected, center performance are very similar between systems and even mid-field is similar, but the corners on Nikon are much closer to what I see on the Leica M.
At this point, I'd say the Nikon sensor is the better platform for adapting M lenses.
I concur with Fred's finding. My original testing involved the 28 Elmarit-M ASPH v1 which performed atrociously off-axis on the old A7ii with heavy shading, blurriness, and a strong blue cast. Last night, I tested the A1 versus Z6. The Sony with new-gen sensor is an entirely different experience: no vignetting or shading, no color shift even in the corners, some plausible blurring at the far edge when wide open, some astigmatism at f/5.6 that is gone by f/11. This is a result I can work with at any aperture, so Sony has been working hard with their microlens pitch (and perhaps the post-capture processing). Meanwhile, the Z6 has similar results but the corner sharpness is better wide open, and the f/5.6 astigmatism is less pronounced. This Elmarit is notorious for its steep marginal rays as tested by Jim Kasson on his blog.
p.63 #12 · Nikon Zf as a platform for adapted/native manual focus lenses
rico wrote:
I concur with Fred's finding. My original testing involved the 28 Elmarit-M ASPH v1 which performed atrociously off-axis on the old A7ii with heavy shading, blurriness, and a strong blue cast. Last night, I tested the A1 versus Z6. The Sony with new-gen sensor is an entirely different experience: no vignetting or shading, no color shift even in the corners, some plausible blurring at the far edge when wide open, some astigmatism at f/5.6 that is gone by f/11. This is a result I can work with at any aperture, so Sony has been working hard with their microlens pitch (and perhaps the post-capture processing). Meanwhile, the Z6 has similar results but the corner sharpness is better wide open, and the f/5.6 astigmatism is less pronounced. This Elmarit is notorious for its steep marginal rays as tested by Jim Kasson on his blog....Show more →
The A1 and Z6 are also BSI sensors, which I believe helps with light gathering.
"Emitting light from the back side of the silicon substrate has made it possible to increase the amount of light entering each pixel without being obstructed by metal wiring or transistors, allowing it to reduce the degradation of sensitivity caused by different optical angles."
p.63 #14 · Nikon Zf as a platform for adapted/native manual focus lenses
On the Zf, is there a way to save custom user settings, like a group of settings with names such as Landscapes, Portraits, etc.? I know this is possible on the Z6 and Nikon's higher end bodies, but as far as I can tell the Zf does not support it. I also realize it lacks the U1/U2/U3 custom dial modes, but is there some alternative way to achieve this, perhaps through the menu?
My current workaround is using My Menu and placing the settings I change most often there.
p.63 #16 · Nikon Zf as a platform for adapted/native manual focus lenses
On my Zf, a file named "NCSET013.BIN" is created in the sd-card when I save the settings. Saving the settings again overwrites the file.
If you have several sd-cards, you could dedicate each one to the genres you shoot, and save the corresponds settings to the card. When you switch from shooting landscapes to portraits, you can insert the "portraits" card and load the settings.
Not elegant, but if you really need the functionality, it might work for you.
p.63 #17 · Nikon Zf as a platform for adapted/native manual focus lenses
matoqui wrote:
On my Zf, a file named "NCSET013.BIN" is created in the sd-card when I save the settings. Saving the settings again overwrites the file.
If you have several sd-cards, you could dedicate each one to the genres you shoot, and save the corresponds settings to the card. When you switch from shooting landscapes to portraits, you can insert the "portraits" card and load the settings.
Not elegant, but if you really need the functionality, it might work for you.
Unfortunately, this appears to be the only way right now. My current solution is to use my 2 Zf's with different set ups. One is dedicated to B&W and manual focus and the second for all else. I have 2 marked sd-cards with those saved settings and can use either card to update settings in either camera. I usually just change a few setting via the i-menu as needed and reload the base settings when done, rinse and repeat.
I do hope that Nikon will include an update for a more useful solution to the MY MENU. Actually, if U1, U2, and U3 custom modes could be added to the i menu via an update, I would think I had croaked and gone to a very special place! No dials, function buttons or retro esthetics harmed in the making!
p.63 #18 · Nikon Zf as a platform for adapted/native manual focus lenses
rico wrote:
I concur with Fred's finding. My original testing involved the 28 Elmarit-M ASPH v1 which performed atrociously off-axis on the old A7ii with heavy shading, blurriness, and a strong blue cast. Last night, I tested the A1 versus Z6. The Sony with new-gen sensor is an entirely different experience: no vignetting or shading, no color shift even in the corners, some plausible blurring at the far edge when wide open, some astigmatism at f/5.6 that is gone by f/11. This is a result I can work with at any aperture, so Sony has been working hard with their microlens pitch (and perhaps the post-capture processing). Meanwhile, the Z6 has similar results but the corner sharpness is better wide open, and the f/5.6 astigmatism is less pronounced. This Elmarit is notorious for its steep marginal rays as tested by Jim Kasson on his blog....Show more →
Not into Nikon, but will M lenses perform OK on the Z5II?
p.63 #20 · Nikon Zf as a platform for adapted/native manual focus lenses
stgrove wrote:
Not into Nikon, but will M lenses perform OK on the Z5II?
Given my experience with the 28 Elmarit ASPH on Z6, the Z5ii (same BSI sensor) will perform nicely with most lenses. Perhaps not with really weird wide-angles and those with deep rear elements. Even my troublesome A7ii was fine at 50mm and longer.
