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.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.
The width is the problem, so unfortunately nounfortunately 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!
Out of interest, what makes the Lumix lenses more amazing than the Nikon Z lenses.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..
If you are looking to adapt anyway, why not just adapt the e-mount versions then?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.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 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)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..
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.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
It may well be. I just saw the original Panasonic press release making these claimsNot 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.
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..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.
You raise lots of questions here.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.
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.I don't believe bulk and image quality are mutually exclusive. you can get fantastically sharp but relatively small/light lenses these days.
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 !!
They do indeed make some very good and very interesting lenses.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.
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.I don't believe bulk and image quality are mutually exclusive. you can get fantastically sharp but relatively small/light lenses these days.