Lumix S 100mm f/2.8 Macro on Nikon Z? (L mount to Z mount options?)

[phinix]

Is there a way to mount those amazing Lumix lens on Z?
Is there an adapter?
Like Lumix S 100mm f/2.8 Macro ?

 

[Snapsh0t]

The L-mount flange distance is 20mm and Nikon Z's is 16mm so there's 4mm for an adapter which might be physically possible.
But will you be able to control the lens once it's mounted? Does it have an aperture ring and physical manual focussing? If either of those two is not true then you're wating your time thinking about it.

 

[nandbytes]

unfortunately no one makes an adapter for this.

The L-mount flange distance is 20mm and Nikon Z's is 16mm so there's 4mm for an adapter which might be physically possible.
But will you be able to control the lens once it's mounted? Does it have an aperture ring and physical manual focussing? If either of those two is not true then you're wating your time thinking about it.

There is a e-mount to z-mount adapter despite e-mount being 18mm i.e. 2mm shorter than L-mount. it provides full controls and in some cases almost close to native-like AF performance.
So it should be possible to make a RF to Z and L to Z adapters too. Wouldn't that be amazing!

 

[LongLensPhotography]

unfortunately no one makes an adapter for this.


There is a e-mount to z-mount adapter despite e-mount being 18mm i.e. 2mm shorter than L-mount. it provides full controls and in some cases almost close to native-like AF performance.
So it should be possible to make a RF to Z and L to Z adapters too. Wouldn't that be amazing!

The width is the problem, so unfortunately no

 

[myotis]

Is there a way to mount those amazing Lumix lens on Z?
Is there an adapter?
Like Lumix S 100mm f/2.8 Macro ?

Out of interest, what makes the Lumix lenses more amazing than the Nikon Z lenses.

I can see that the lumix 100mm macro is attractively lighter and smaller (and cheaper) than the Nikon lens but at 1:1 the lumix lens only has 100mm between the front element and the subject while the Nikon has 134mm between the front element and the subject..

The shorter working distance of th Lumix lens would push me towards the Nikon. This is an important issue to check with internal focus macro, and zoom, lenses, because they achieve their close up magnifications by changing the focal length of the lens as it focuses closer. There is therefore, for the same magnification, considerable variation in working distances, confounded by the physical length of the lens. Information that is often hard to find.

It may not matter of course if you looking for a smaller/lighter/cheaper alternative to the Nikon, which conveniently focuses a bit closer than a non macro lens, but as you approach 1:1 even a small reduction in working distance becomes important..

The other consideration is that lens performance reviews at infinity or middle distances won't necessarily reflect performance at the closer distances. I've no idea if such reviews exist for the Lumix, but the Nikon Z 100mm macro is a proven performer for macro work.

Even though I'm wedded to Nikon, I did look at this Lumix lens when it was announced and think how nice it would be to have such a small and light 100mm macro , but, for the reasons above, it's not something I would buy as dedicated macro lens,


Of course there may well be multiple reasons why adapting the lumix lenses to a Nikon Z might suit your personal needs, and, I realise you only used the 100mm f2.8 macro as an example, but the working distances for any dedicated macro lens is worth thinking about..

 

[phinix]

Out of interest, what makes the Lumix lenses more amazing than the Nikon Z lenses.

I can see that the lumix 100mm macro is attractively lighter and smaller (and cheaper) than the Nikon lens but at 1:1 the lumix lens only has 100mm between the front element and the subject while the Nikon has 134mm between the front element and the subject..

The shorter working distance of th Lumix lens would push me towards the Nikon. This is an important issue to check with internal focus macro, and zoom, lenses, because they achieve their close up magnifications by changing the focal length of the lens as it focuses closer. There is therefore, for the same magnification, considerable variation in working distances, confounded by the physical length of the lens. Information that is often hard to find.

It may not matter of course if you looking for a smaller/lighter/cheaper alternative to the Nikon, which conveniently focuses a bit closer than a non macro lens, but as you approach 1:1 even a small reduction in working distance becomes important..

The other consideration is that lens performance reviews at infinity or middle distances won't necessarily reflect performance at the closer distances. I've no idea if such reviews exist for the Lumix, but the Nikon Z 100mm macro is a proven performer for macro work.

Even though I'm wedded to Nikon, I did look at this Lumix lens when it was announced and think how nice it would be to have such a small and light 100mm macro , but, for the reasons above, it's not something I would buy as dedicated macro lens,


Of course there may well be multiple reasons why adapting the lumix lenses to a Nikon Z might suit your personal needs, and, I realise you only used the 100mm f2.8 macro as an example, but the working distances for any dedicated macro lens is worth thinking about..

Yes, 100 macro was only for example of that lumix series.
I would like to use such small and light lens on Nikon. Z f1.8 series are huge and heavy.
While waiting for Sigma to start making primes for Z, I thought I would look at other brands.

 

[nandbytes]

Yes, 100 macro was only for example of that lumix series.
I would like to use such small and light lens on Nikon. Z f1.8 series are huge and heavy.
While waiting for Sigma to start making primes for Z, I thought I would look at other brands.

If you are looking to adapt anyway, why not just adapt the e-mount versions then?

Also you'll have the option of owning e-mount body in case you change your mind.

 

[myotis]

Yes, 100 macro was only for example of that lumix series.
I would like to use such small and light lens on Nikon. Z f1.8 series are huge and heavy.
While waiting for Sigma to start making primes for Z, I thought I would look at other brands.

Fair enough, I haven't paid all that much attention to these lenses, The long lenses are relatively light and small compared to the competition,, though it depends on the exact comparisons.

 

[LongLensPhotography]

Out of interest, what makes the Lumix lenses more amazing than the Nikon Z lenses.

I can see that the lumix 100mm macro is attractively lighter and smaller (and cheaper) than the Nikon lens but at 1:1 the lumix lens only has 100mm between the front element and the subject while the Nikon has 134mm between the front element and the subject..

The shorter working distance of th Lumix lens would push me towards the Nikon. This is an important issue to check with internal focus macro, and zoom, lenses, because they achieve their close up magnifications by changing the focal length of the lens as it focuses closer. There is therefore, for the same magnification, considerable variation in working distances, confounded by the physical length of the lens. Information that is often hard to find.

It may not matter of course if you looking for a smaller/lighter/cheaper alternative to the Nikon, which conveniently focuses a bit closer than a non macro lens, but as you approach 1:1 even a small reduction in working distance becomes important..

The other consideration is that lens performance reviews at infinity or middle distances won't necessarily reflect performance at the closer distances. I've no idea if such reviews exist for the Lumix, but the Nikon Z 100mm macro is a proven performer for macro work.

Even though I'm wedded to Nikon, I did look at this Lumix lens when it was announced and think how nice it would be to have such a small and light 100mm macro , but, for the reasons above, it's not something I would buy as dedicated macro lens,


Of course there may well be multiple reasons why adapting the lumix lenses to a Nikon Z might suit your personal needs, and, I realise you only used the 100mm f2.8 macro as an example, but the working distances for any dedicated macro lens is worth thinking about..

If you were looking for one good reason I believe Panasonic one was marketed as free from focus breathing. That's a huge one, while personally working distance is not as important (static subjects all the way)
My canon and sigma ones breathe a lot, and stacking is therefore nightmare, particularly with canon and I'm not talking of proper macro distances

 

[myotis]

If you were looking for one good reason I believe Panasonic one was marketed as free from focus breathing. That's a huge one, while personally working distance is not as important (static subjects all the way)
My canon and sigma ones breathe a lot, and stacking is therefore nightmare, particularly with canon and I'm not talking of proper macro distances

Not sure I follow, given the Lumix ends up with a working distance at 1:1 of 100mm, and the Nikon 134mm, this indicates more focus breathing with the Lumix. While I was looking at working distances, I came across that the Sigma 100mm (not sure which model) also had a working distance of about 134mm, which indicates it's still better than the Lumix.

Nikon claim, "Focus breathing is all but eliminated so you can shift focus without affecting the shot's angle of view." I've no idea what Panasonic claim, but the numbers don't support it being free from focus breathing, unless it's doing something clever at normal working distances and then changing focal length to get enough extension for 1:1;

From my experience working distance at around 1:1 is important regardless of subject, e.g it makes it much easier to light a subject, or avoid shading it with the camera/lens, it's not just about chasing dragonflies away by being too close.

 

[LongLensPhotography]

Not sure I follow, given the Lumix ends up with a working distance at 1:1 of 100mm, and the Nikon 134mm, this indicates more focus breathing with the Lumix. While I was looking at working distances, I came across that the Sigma 100mm (not sure which model) also had a working distance of about 134mm, which indicates it's still better than the Lumix.

Nikon claim, "Focus breathing is all but eliminated so you can shift focus without affecting the shot's angle of view." I've no idea what Panasonic claim, but the numbers don't support it being free from focus breathing, unless it's doing something clever at normal working distances and then changing focal length to get enough extension for 1:1;

From my experience working distance at around 1:1 is important regardless of subject, e.g it makes it much easier to light a subject, or avoid shading it with the camera/lens, it's not just about chasing dragonflies away by being too close.

It may well be. I just saw the original Panasonic press release making these claims

Notably the breathing can manifest differently at infinity - 1m and the macro range. My Sigma 70mm is atrocious at macro, but while not perfect significantly betters 100mm macro and crucially 70-200mm f/4 IS mk1 at landscape distances, in addition to being exceptionally sharp which is why I bought it. Not for macro at all. I have the 100mm canon for that.
It would be interested to know how the nikon macro behaves in real life. I am very much about buying well optically corrected glass these days and couldn't care about software based hacks

 

[myotis]

It may well be. I just saw the original Panasonic press release making these claims

Notably the breathing can manifest differently at infinity - 1m and the macro range. My Sigma 70mm is atrocious at macro, but while not perfect significantly betters 100mm macro and crucially 70-200mm f/4 IS mk1 at landscape distances, in addition to being exceptionally sharp which is why I bought it. Not for macro at all. I have the 100mm canon for that.
It would be interested to know how the nikon macro behaves in real life. I am very much about buying well optically corrected glass these days and couldn't care about software based hacks

The most recent "F" mount Nikon 105mm macro had terrible focus breathing. As I remember, at 1:1 the working distance for the 105mm was not much better than the 60mm micro-nikkor at 1:1. Some of the close focussing zooms are also terrible where to get 1:3 at "200mm" you end up with a working distance that suggests the focal length has been dropped to around 90mm. It's still better than not being able to focus close when you need to, but it's far from the tool you probably want..

As a generalisation making lenses smaller is good sign that the manufacturer is using software hacks, to recover optical performance.

It's one of the reasons I like the fact that the new Nikon Z lenses are, mostly, satisfyingly large, as are the Sigma art lenses, and Zeiss Milvus/Otis lenses.

Having said that, a well designed balance between optical quality and computational corrections still gives good results when size and weight are more important than absolute quality. But, like you, I would rather have a starting point of high quality optics that don't heavily rely on computational corrections.

 

[phinix]

The most recent "F" mount Nikon 105mm macro had terrible focus breathing. As I remember, at 1:1 the working distance for the 105mm was not much better than the 60mm micro-nikkor at 1:1. Some of the close focussing zooms are also terrible where to get 1:3 at "200mm" you end up with a working distance that suggests the focal length has been dropped to around 90mm. It's still better than not being able to focus close when you need to, but it's far from the tool you probably want..

As a generalisation making lenses smaller is good sign that the manufacturer is using software hacks, to recover optical performance.

It's one of the reasons I like the fact that the new Nikon Z lenses are, mostly, satisfyingly large, as are the Sigma art lenses, and Zeiss Milvus/Otis lenses.

Having said that, a well designed balance between optical quality and computational corrections still gives good results when size and weight are more important than absolute quality. But, like you, I would rather have a starting point of high quality optics that don't heavily rely on computational corrections.

You mentioned a valid point here, you prefer large lens.
I guess it is something that I will never feel or understand - I keep chasing small elns, ideally I would like to have everything in size of Leica VM lens, but this is simply not possible
Some things need huge lens - macro , wildlife, something even landscapes. When those specific areas need to meet optical requirements for get wanted IQ, then those lens must be bigger than those tiny VM. I keep forgetting that...
I was raised on Zenit TTL camera in 80-90s with just Helios 44-2 or some default 35mm lens. Then moved to APSC and then straight to m43, which spoiled me with size of lens.
So I understand you guys, pro photographers, who worked years on full DSLRs with 1kg lens etc and when you get 500g 24-70/4 Nikon zoom, you call it tiny and light

But yeah, my main query here was why Nikon cannot produce smaller lens for different audience, for those people who doesn't need perfect optics in huge lens, just compact kit in max size of that Panasonic 100mm - it was mentioned just as a size example. Or look at that new Panasonic Lumix S 28-200mm f4-7.1 Macro OIS Lens - 9cm long lens, 400g - compact zoom and as far as I know, smallest on market? If they can make such a huge zoom range in such a small barrel of lens, why not Nikon? I have Nikon's 24-70/4 zoom and I like it, but for me (again, very picky on size) something smaller and lighter would be better - 24-70mm yes, but around 300g lens, let it be variable f, like that Pana zoom. Nikon made this kit zoom 24-50, which is pretty good optically I think, but could they make 24-70 or even 24-120 but make it f4-7.1 or similar, which should shrink it to a size of that Pana zoom maybe, or even smaller.

I guess I would like to see more compact Nikon SE lens, so nice 20/2.8, maybe 24/2.8, then longer - 75mm or 90mm. Small and light, not as fast as their 1.8 series.

 

[myotis]

You mentioned a valid point here, you prefer large lens.
I guess it is something that I will never feel or understand - I keep chasing small elns, ideally I would like to have everything in size of Leica VM lens, but this is simply not possible
Some things need huge lens - macro , wildlife, something even landscapes. When those specific areas need to meet optical requirements for get wanted IQ, then those lens must be bigger than those tiny VM. I keep forgetting that...
I was raised on Zenit TTL camera in 80-90s with just Helios 44-2 or some default 35mm lens. Then moved to APSC and then straight to m43, which spoiled me with size of lens.
So I understand you guys, pro photographers, who worked years on full DSLRs with 1kg lens etc and when you get 500g 24-70/4 Nikon zoom, you call it tiny and light

But yeah, my main query here was why Nikon cannot produce smaller lens for different audience, for those people who doesn't need perfect optics in huge lens, just compact kit in max size of that Panasonic 100mm - it was mentioned just as a size example. Or look at that new Panasonic Lumix S 28-200mm f4-7.1 Macro OIS Lens - 9cm long lens, 400g - compact zoom and as far as I know, smallest on market? If they can make such a huge zoom range in such a small barrel of lens, why not Nikon? I have Nikon's 24-70/4 zoom and I like it, but for me (again, very picky on size) something smaller and lighter would be better - 24-70mm yes, but around 300g lens, let it be variable f, like that Pana zoom. Nikon made this kit zoom 24-50, which is pretty good optically I think, but could they make 24-70 or even 24-120 but make it f4-7.1 or similar, which should shrink it to a size of that Pana zoom maybe, or even smaller.

You raise lots of questions here.

Firstly, I, like others (I assume) use lots of different types of equipment. I had a complete Nikon One outfit, and I've had several Lumix/M43 cameras as well as some of their tiny lenses. I also have a Fuji x100s that I carry in a jacket pocket.. I've nearly always had some sort of lightweight/small alternative alongside my main Nikon (or my brief period with Canon) outfit.

Professionally, (a long time ago now) I used large format (5x4 and 7x5 monorails and field cameras), a whole range of medium format cameras, and occasionally 35mm cameras, which in those days e.g. Nikon FM, Olympus OM1 (the original film version) etc were a lot smaller than many DSLRs, even if my goto camera was a Nikon F3, In my experience, professionals are just as keen for small and light camera gear as amateurs (because they tend to carry a lot more kit around), but for most of the time this isn't the priority. Reliability, and image quality normally competing for top place in their priority list.

I don't actually prefer large lenses, large lenses are just something I'm willing to put up with. But, as I'm always going to have some sort of bag with me anyway, minimising bulk and weight isn't my top priority. Not yet anyway - but I'm always getting older.

As an amateur, I (budget allowing) match my camera and lens decisions to their expected use and purpose, and choose camera and lens manufacturer accordingly. The decisions are made around a "fit for purpose" criteria.

Nikon have stated several times since before they brought out their first (full frame) mirrorless that they were going to concentrate on the higher end of the market. They have also said in the past that one of the reasons they don't put much effort into APS lenses is that most of their customers aspire to FF, and tend to buy the bigger, heavier and more expensive FF versions of a lens rather than the smaller and lighter APS version.

I therefore suspect, that Nikon just don't see enough of their target market wanting to buy the types of lenses you want, for it to be worth their while making them. Hopefully, some third party manufacturers will fill the gap, After over 50 years of using Nikon, I doubt Nikon will ever prioritize weight and size, (but see further down).

As a Nikon user I'm happy with that because when I saw both the Lumix lenses you mention and after my first response of how nice it would be to have lenses this light and small I realised that even if they were available as Nikon lenses, there were existing Nikon lenses I would buy instead.

Nikon still make some great smallish "do it all" lenses e.g the 24 to 200 and the 28-400. and some nice pancake or semi pancake lenses e.g the 26mm f2.8, but more important to me is their high quality small/lightweight telephoto lenses, which is where I am much more concerned about weight.

Maybe, the 28-400 , while not matching the Lumix 28-200 for size and weight is a sign that Nikon may well be be looking at lenses that better match your wants. Its 750g and 135mm long with very good reviews: better than anyone expected from this sort of superzoom. Eventually, (might be some time) the Nikon 28-400 will replace the Olympus 12 -200 I just traded.

If I had a Zf, I would be looking at using Voigtlander lenses with it, but I like prime manual focus lenses.

I realise none of this actually helps you !!

 

[nandbytes]

I don't believe bulk and image quality are mutually exclusive. you can get fantastically sharp but relatively small/light lenses these days.

 

[myotis]

I don't believe bulk and image quality are mutually exclusive. you can get fantastically sharp but relatively small/light lenses these days.

Yes, but there is more to image quality than sharpness, and the distinction being made was on how much of the image quality was down to the lens and how much of it down to computational manipulation of the image by in body processing or processing on the computer.

The integration of lens design with digital manipulation of the image has allowed image quality from smaller and lighter lenses much higher than people would have thought possible in the film days.

But from the things I've read and from interviews with lens designers, the less constraint on weight and size, and the less reliance on computational manipulation of the image, the greater the potential of getting the highest image quality.

Nikon have specifically said they made a deliberate design decision to rely more on optical design and less on digital manipulation for their lenses, and this has resulted in the size of lenses we have ended up with. Some (many?) of which are close to the size and weight of their DSLR lenses in spite of being designed for mirrorless. Leica have made similar statements.

 

[woof woof]

If I had a Zf, I would be looking at using Voigtlander lenses with it, but I like prime manual focus lenses.

I realise none of this actually helps you !!

The Voigtlander 50mm f2 apo is probably technically the best lens I've ever used. I'd say that the Voigtlander 35, 40 and 50mm f1.2's are excellent too but they do have areas in which they are not SOTA. I also have the Sony mount Voigtlander 35mm f1.4 and although it has clear weaknesses in a few areas it is possibly my most used lens ever and it is a joy to use.

I'd happily recommend any of these as lenses to look closely at.

 

[myotis]

The Voigtlander 50mm f2 apo is probably technically the best lens I've ever used. I'd say that the Voigtlander 35, 40 and 50mm f1.2's are excellent too but they do have areas in which they are not SOTA. I also have the Sony mount Voigtlander 35mm f1.4 and although it has clear weaknesses in a few areas it is possibly my most used lens ever and it is a joy to use.

I'd happily recommend any of these as lenses to look closely at.

They do indeed make some very good and very interesting lenses.

 

[LongLensPhotography]

I don't believe bulk and image quality are mutually exclusive. you can get fantastically sharp but relatively small/light lenses these days.

I am certainly not going to disagree with that part (sigma 70mm ART, etc) but this then comes at the expense of things like fast aperture or fast and dependable focus motor (in that case both). In some cases it is a reasonable compromise, particularly if price is similarly small, and sometimes it is not, particularly if price is high or there are more other drawbacks like highly stretched image corners, 6 stop vignette, or maybe it doesn't even fill FF like a lot of what Canon now does.

 

[Adam-G]

I've just picked up the Lumix 100mm Macro and can confirm the image quality isn't affected by the size of the lens at all. It's easily as sharp as my former Sigma (70mm and 105mm) Macro lenses and the corners are way better. MTF charts are excellent to confirm this in a more controlled manner. The whole thing feels a bit like magic compared to what I've used before.

Apart from the size and weight, the biggest shock for me was that the Autofocus was as fast as my other non-Macro Lumix S series primes.

I watched an interview regarding how Lumix achieved this and it seems because they didn't need to continue a traditional element array or form factor, they just ripped up the rule book and went a different way with it from scratch. As well as a traditional macro stepping motor, it has magnetic dual phase magnetic AF motors too meaning. I believe this is because they achieve focus by moving two elements bi-directionally rather than the traditional stepping forward of a single element to attain focus found in traditional Macros.

I guess with not being restricted to recycling the traditional DSLR macro form factor they were able to make some big leaps.

Even outside the macro space, it means you've got a dual purpose lens in the bag as the AF makes it a high performing telephoto prime usable in other scenarios. I tested mine with a running dog and it nailed it which absolutely shocked me. My old Macros are still thinking about nailing focus on a shot I took 12 months ago I think.

I've got to say as well, when other manufacturers claim "controlled focus breathing" it doesn't mean it's too Lumix standards who are continually class leading in that field due to their cinema background. Focus breathing control is a huge desirable for video lenses and Lumix have never had to resort to a software solution (often a crop based algorithm) to fix this. It's just years of operating in the cinema space where a lens with acceptable focus breathing for photography is never acceptable for video.

I've attached a good deep dive into the lens from Photo Joseph below. He's a Lumix ambassador but even so, the tests he puts the lens through are thorough and comprehensive. His focus breathing examples are especially interesting.

That being said, I'd probably not look at adapting it for a couple of reasons.

1 - There is no stabilisation in this lens. Its performance around that will depend heavily on how good your camera body's IBIS is.
2 - I guarantee that other Macro manufacturers will start looking at this array and form factor and start implementing similar so it won't be out on its own for long. I think with a little patience you'll get a Z mount equivalent that will perform just as well if not better.