Advice Needed: Nikon Z6 III – FTZ II Adapter or New Z Lenses?

If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).

TheLRC

TheLRC

Thommy Andersen
Supporting Member
Marketplace
Member's gallery
I’m considering buying the new Nikon Z6 III and could really use your advice and insights. I currently own several F-mount lenses and am debating whether to:

  1. Use them with the Nikon FTZ II Mount Adapter,
  2. Or sell/trade some of my older lenses and invest in new Z-mount lenses.
I’m curious to hear from those who’ve made a similar transition:

  • How does the performance compare using the FTZ II adapter with older lenses versus native Z lenses?
  • Are there any significant autofocus or stabilization differences to be aware of?
  • For someone planning to use this camera for both photography and video, would it be worth prioritizing Z lenses?
I’d appreciate any pros, cons, or personal experiences with either approach! Thanks in advance.
 
Member's gallery
There are lots of similar posts on here and the general consensus is that Z lenses are better than the F mount, but the F mounts work well with the FTZ and generally will give better results on a Z camera than a dSLR.

It all comes down to what are you going to shoot?

When I got my Z6ii the first outing with it was with my AF-S 24-70 f2.8 G and the results were great. However, I found the handling was not so good with the weight of that lens being moved forward on the FTZ and the camera being smaller than my D850. Now I know that if I persevered with it, it would not have been an issue, but I did want some Z lenses and this was the excuse.

At the time here in the UK the Z 24-120 f4 was not in stock anywhere, nor were there any used ones about! however, there were lots of the Z24-70 f4S lenses both new and used available. I guess that the 24-120s had all been bought by the people with the 24-70 kit lens and traded them in thus flooding the used market.

Back then the Z 24-70 f4 S was £1050 new, but the market rate for an excellent used one was £420 and I picked up a mint used one, boxed and with 12 months warranty for £420. I don't know how they sell new ones at more than double the cost.

Do I miss the f2.8? Well, yes, a bit. I'd had that AF-S lens for 10 years or more. But the handling was now a joy and I was tempted to trade my AF-S 14-24 F2.8 for the Z 15-30, but the AF-S 14-24 f2.8 dose not feel so bad as the AF-S 24-70, so I've kept it.

I'm not a wildlife shooter so my lens choices are more general. I was well impressed with the build quality and results I got with a Viltrox 56mm f1.4 that I got used from a fellow forum member on another site for my Fuji XT-4. So much so that I got an AF Viltrox 85mm f1.8 for my Z6ii before I'd even got the camera!! Trusted reviewers had concluded that it was 95% as good as the Nikon 85mm f1.8 S and I got a new one for just £294 delivered!!

All of my other F mount lenses work well (for my use) so I doubt that I'll be swapping any to Z mount. Now I use vintage manual focus lenses most of the time although I do have a Z mount 14mm f2.8 manual focus Samyang lens that weighs about 40% less than the Nikon 14-24 f2.8.
 
Member's gallery
TheLRC said:
I’m considering buying the new Nikon Z6 III and could really use your advice and insights. I currently own several F-mount lenses and am debating whether to:

  1. Use them with the Nikon FTZ II Mount Adapter,
  2. Or sell/trade some of my older lenses and invest in new Z-mount lenses.
I’m curious to hear from those who’ve made a similar transition:

  • How does the performance compare using the FTZ II adapter with older lenses versus native Z lenses?
  • Are there any significant autofocus or stabilization differences to be aware of?
  • For someone planning to use this camera for both photography and video, would it be worth prioritizing Z lenses?
I’d appreciate any pros, cons, or personal experiences with either approach! Thanks in advance.
Click to expand...
My use-case is strictly commercial photography (consumer product, fashion, and editorial) with a few sports events per year (int'l surfing league). Except for surfing, 90% of my shots are taken between 28 and 200mm and 80% between 35 and 85. I transitioned from a pair of D5s to a pair of Z9s as soon as the Z9 became available. I also shoot video using the Z9 as well as a Sony cine camera and own a couple dedicated cine lenses.

I moved entirely to Z lenses only to buy back some Fs. I also sold off some Zs. Point being, for me there is a happy combination of Zs and Fs. Specifically for what I shoot, except for the Z85/1.2, I prefer shooting my Fs with people. I have three FTZ and FTZII adapters. I also have some beloved AI-S lenses but they are not sharp enough for the Z9 sensors, so I only use them for film.

With that, here are the lenses that go on the Nikons

Z:
14-24/2.8
24-70/2.8
70-200/2.8
50/1.2
85/1.2
105/2.8
135/1.8

F:
24/1.4G ED
28/1.4E ED
35/1.4G
58/1.4G
500/5.6 PF

Contemplating:
105/1.4E ED

3rd Party:
Voigtlander 15/4.5 Z mount
Viltrox Epic 35 T2.0 PL mount

Hoping for:
Z 300/2.8
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
Why don't you pick your three favorite lens and try them out and decide for yourself? They will likely be good, and the possibility will remain that the Z are better, but only you can decide what works for you?

I love my Z6iii and it's my main travel camera. I don't print. If there is a use case for the Z9, I will pick that up. If going on a trip that might include a wildlife focus, I will bring the Z9 for sure. I still find separate Bird detection to be better but the Z6iii will do well too.

If you list your lens, people might have a specific perspective on that. Many people here started with F mounts and phased them out over time.
 
Member's gallery
FWIW, I shoot primarily F mount lenses with my Z8 and Z9. The F mount glass all works fantastically via the adapter and delivers as good or better results than the same lenses did on my DSLRs.

There are a few Z mount lenses I’d really like to own and over time will likely transition to more native Z glass as budget allows. But I’m very happy with F mount lenses on Nikon’s mirrorless bodies.
 
Member's gallery
When I went to Z mount a year and a half ago, I sold all my F gear (two bodies and four lenses). I only had enough to get one Z lens initially with my Z8 body, but I started building up from there. No regrets. DSLR gear (including F mount lenses) is losing value by the day and the longer you wait to selll it, the less you will get. If you are making the transition then make the transition completely I say.
 
Member's gallery
TheLRC said:
I’d appreciate any pros, cons, or personal experiences with either approach!
Click to expand...
As others have noted…the Zs are ‘better’ optically but in reality for all practical purposes (display or output, not pixel peeping)…you likely won’t really see much of a difference…and the Fs perform better on the Z bodies than on the F bodies generally. If you’ve got the higher end better F mounts I would try that first. The Zs will generally also be a little lighter but it doesn’t sound like that’s much of a factor for you though. I would try the Fs nd see if they perform adequately…and maybe rent 9r borrow the equivalent Z lenses for a side by side test…then you can determine whether there’s a better final image or not and how much the sale and repurchase will cost you in net $$…and go from there.

OTOH…also as noted the F sale prices are continuing to decline so making the complete move also has merit…but the choice for you really isn’t an IQ choice but an other factors choice…I would be willing to bet that most people…even the experts…can’t tell the difference in final images in a blind test…and final images are what counts for the user/viewer/client, not the peeping images. In my tests of various telephoto combos as I used F, Z, and the Z TCs…the final output images were sometimes different…but it was just a little different, not better or worse.

Perhaps after the testing then get a new Z lens to fill a lens length/aperture you need…or make a complete transition, the latter will cost more but those other factors could be the decider for you
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
When I got my first Z body (a Z7) I regularly used the F mount 70-200 mm FL E f2.8 and 500 mm PF lenses on it with the FTZ (sometimes with a TC). They worked very well, certainly as good as they did on my D850 and D500. The only exception was that Z7 was generally not as good at acquiring focus and tracking fast action, like BIF, as my DSLRs, but I think that was the body, not the lenses and FTZ. Both lenses worked great on my Z9, with significantly improved autofocus for action. I don’t have a Z6III, but have read it includes many of the AF improvements from the Z9/Z8.

I found the 500 mm PF and a 1.4x TCIII worked better on the Z7 (and later Z bodies) than it did on my DSLRs. Z bodies are better able to focus at smaller apertures than DSLRs. There is also less need, usually no need, to focus tune lenses or lens plus TC combinations.

That said, over time I have moved to all mirrorless bodies and lenses with one exception — I still have the F mount 19 mm PCE lens, as there is no Z mount equivalent (at least from Nikon).
 
Member's gallery
I think the consensus is that the F mount lenses perform as well or even better on the Z bodies than they did on the F-mount bodies. I also think that most would agree that the newer Z series lenses may perform better in some areas than the equivalent F mount lenses. When I started getting into the Z series I had not acquired that many lenses and most of my F mount lenses I had purchased used and were not the latest F mount models so I gradually sold what I had and moved to all Z lenses. I think it all boils down to how much you are willing to spend.
 
Member's gallery
I have a Z6iii and have been slowly building up my Z lens collection, especially since I have been able to buy some gently used lenses at really good prices. But I have also kept my DSLR bodies so I have not sold off my F-mount lenses. I think this is one of the first questions you need to decide - do you want keep using any DSLR bodies? If not, then upgrade as you, and your budget (or house exchequer) see fit. The funny thing about the Z vs. F questions is that when the Z-mount lenses cam out, they were almost universally praised for being better, sharper, and often called more clinical. Now Nikon has provided us with version of the 35 and 50 that are based on older designs and they have a following for their "character". I do not believe either design is better, as we all have different needs, so between the two designs and use of the FTZ adapter, you should be able to dial in what works best for you. And having said all of that, despite my griping about it not being a small lens, I really do love the Z version of the 24-120.

Good luck,

--Ken
 
Member's gallery
Between myself and wife as we made our move to mirrorless we had 11 F mount lenses, way to many to replace with Z mount. All of our F mounts are “G’s” and all have met or exceeded our expectations when used with the FTZ 2. This past summer when I went totally mirrorless I did purchase 2 Z lenses, 100-400 sense I sold my 80-400 G, and a 180-600. I chose the 180-600 to have a hand hand hold able lens since my 600F4 G is a tripod only lens. So I would say that you will be completely satisfied using your existing F mounts and as your budget allows you can slowly make the Z mount. However if you’re budget allows for the jump to replace your F mounts with the Z mount, Then as said previously you will probably get a little bit more selling them now than later. For us I fore see not making a complete switch to mirrorless. Have Fun and Enjoy your time behind the camera.
 
Member's gallery
dabhand16 said:
There are lots of similar posts on here and the general consensus is that Z lenses are better than the F mount, but the F mounts work well with the FTZ and generally will give better results on a Z camera than a dSLR.

It all comes down to what are you going to shoot?

When I got my Z6ii the first outing with it was with my AF-S 24-70 f2.8 G and the results were great. However, I found the handling was not so good with the weight of that lens being moved forward on the FTZ and the camera being smaller than my D850. Now I know that if I persevered with it, it would not have been an issue, but I did want some Z lenses and this was the excuse.

At the time here in the UK the Z 24-120 f4 was not in stock anywhere, nor were there any used ones about! however, there were lots of the Z24-70 f4S lenses both new and used available. I guess that the 24-120s had all been bought by the people with the 24-70 kit lens and traded them in thus flooding the used market.

Back then the Z 24-70 f4 S was £1050 new, but the market rate for an excellent used one was £420 and I picked up a mint used one, boxed and with 12 months warranty for £420. I don't know how they sell new ones at more than double the cost.

Do I miss the f2.8? Well, yes, a bit. I'd had that AF-S lens for 10 years or more. But the handling was now a joy and I was tempted to trade my AF-S 14-24 F2.8 for the Z 15-30, but the AF-S 14-24 f2.8 dose not feel so bad as the AF-S 24-70, so I've kept it.

I'm not a wildlife shooter so my lens choices are more general. I was well impressed with the build quality and results I got with a Viltrox 56mm f1.4 that I got used from a fellow forum member on another site for my Fuji XT-4. So much so that I got an AF Viltrox 85mm f1.8 for my Z6ii before I'd even got the camera!! Trusted reviewers had concluded that it was 95% as good as the Nikon 85mm f1.8 S and I got a new one for just £294 delivered!!

All of my other F mount lenses work well (for my use) so I doubt that I'll be swapping any to Z mount. Now I use vintage manual focus lenses most of the time although I do have a Z mount 14mm f2.8 manual focus Samyang lens that weighs about 40% less than the Nikon 14-24 f2.8.
Click to expand...
Thanks - I'm leaning to a kit that includes Nikon Z6 III + 24-120mm f/4 S to get a modern midrange zoom.
 
Member's gallery
fulltimewanderer said:
This past summer when I went totally mirrorless I did purchase 2 Z lenses, 100-400 sense I sold my 80-400 G, and a 180-600. I chose the 180-600 to have a hand hand hold able lens since my 600F4 G is a tripod only lens.
Click to expand...
I also have the 80-400G—did it not perform well for you, or was there another reason you decided to go for the Z 100-400?
 
Member's gallery
Hooligans Imagery said:
If you list your lens, people might have a specific perspective on that. Many people here started with F mounts and phased them out over time.
Click to expand...
These are the F mount lenses I have:

Nikon AF-S 80-400/4,5-5,6G ED VR
Nikon Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED AF-S
Nikon Nikkor AF-S 14-24/2,8 G ED
Sigma EX 150/2,8 DG HSM Macro
Nikon Nikkor AF-S 50mm f/1.4G
 
Member's gallery
TheLRC said:
I also have the 80-400G—did it not perform well for you, or was there another reason you decided to go for the Z 100-400?
Click to expand...

The mk1 80-400 was slow to focus and might have had other issues too. Can't remember now. I used one on a D2x body for a shoot and it was OK for what I was shooting but the mk 2 version was supposed to be better all round.
 
Member's gallery
TheLRC said:
I also have the 80-400G—did it not perform well for you, or was there another reason you decided to go for the Z 100-400?
Click to expand...
It’s actually funny that you ask. The wife and I had planned on going through Yellowstone and then up to Bozeman. So we both had cameras with us, but guess who didn’t have their 80-400 with them, you got it. Bozeman Camera was having an amazing event; Nikon rep was there and a company that was buying used camera equipment. 100-400 was discounted plus additional discount for trading in a lens, so it was a deal I couldn’t afford to pass up. So as I said guess who didn’t have their 100-400 only option I actually traded my wife’s 80-400, with deals that Nikon was offering and the difference between the trade that Bozeman Camera offered and what I sold it for I saved around $800.00. I definitely like the 100-400 over the 80-400G. Sharper, feels better and communicates with the Z9. I also had the original 80-400 and the 80-400G left that in the dark and dusty.
 
Member's gallery
TheLRC said:
I’m considering buying the new Nikon Z6 III and could really use your advice and insights. I currently own several F-mount lenses and am debating whether to:

  1. Use them with the Nikon FTZ II Mount Adapter,
  2. Or sell/trade some of my older lenses and invest in new Z-mount lenses.
I’m curious to hear from those who’ve made a similar transition:

  • How does the performance compare using the FTZ II adapter with older lenses versus native Z lenses?
  • Are there any significant autofocus or stabilization differences to be aware of?
  • For someone planning to use this camera for both photography and video, would it be worth prioritizing Z lenses?
I’d appreciate any pros, cons, or personal experiences with either approach! Thanks in advance.
Click to expand...
As a general guideline:
  • Identify any weak lenses in your current lineup. Look at older lenses designs that benefit from updating. Consider these lenses as the first to be upgraded. I found my Z 24-70 f/4 (and Z 24-120 f/4) was better than my pro level 24-70 AFS G f/2.8 - especially midframe to the corners.
  • How do you use your wide and ultrawide lenses? The Z lenses are usually much better in the midframe to corners. If you create panoramas or do a lot of landscape photography, look to upgrade. For portraits or similar center framed images, older lenses are more likely to be fine. I use Z lenses for all panos.
  • Consider how your kit fits together and covers various scenarios. Get rid of overlapping lenses and duplicate coverage. Try to be a little light on the F-mount side. A Z 24-120 f/4 + Z 100-400 makes an excellent two lens kit that can cover wildlife. I sold three F-mount long lenses and replaced them with a pair of Z lenses. I sold my 500mm PF in favor of the Z 400mm f/4.5 with just a $700 net cost at the time.
  • Consider lenses for a travel kit. There are some very small and light Z lenses that are high in quality. The Z 24-70 f/4 is a real bargain lens, and the Z 14-30 f/4 is an excellent companion lens. The Z 26mm f/2.8 is about the size of a 1.4 TC - it fits in your pocket.
 
Member's gallery
EricBowles said:
As a general guideline:
  • Identify any weak lenses in your current lineup. Look at older lenses designs that benefit from updating. Consider these lenses as the first to be upgraded. I found my Z 24-70 f/4 (and Z 24-120 f/4) was better than my pro level 24-70 AFS G f/2.8 - especially midframe to the corners.
  • How do you use your wide and ultrawide lenses? The Z lenses are usually much better in the midframe to corners. If you create panoramas or do a lot of landscape photography, look to upgrade. For portraits or similar center framed images, older lenses are more likely to be fine. I use Z lenses for all panos.
  • Consider how your kit fits together and covers various scenarios. Get rid of overlapping lenses and duplicate coverage. Try to be a little light on the F-mount side. A Z 24-120 f/4 + Z 100-400 makes an excellent two lens kit that can cover wildlife. I sold three F-mount long lenses and replaced them with a pair of Z lenses. I sold my 500mm PF in favor of the Z 400mm f/4.5 with just a $700 net cost at the time.
  • Consider lenses for a travel kit. There are some very small and light Z lenses that are high in quality. The Z 24-70 f/4 is a real bargain lens, and the Z 14-30 f/4 is an excellent companion lens. The Z 26mm f/2.8 is about the size of a 1.4 TC - it fits in your pocket.
Click to expand...
Why did you prefer the z400 over the 500pf?
 
Member's gallery
Topper1946 said:
Why did you prefer the z400 over the 500pf?
Click to expand...
The number one reason is the improved specular highlights in backgrounds. PF lenses can produce amoeba-like bokeh while the 400mm f/4.5 bokeh is excellent. It's not quite like the 400mm f/2.8, but good compared to most alternatives.

In addition, the 400mm f/4.5 lets me use the Z 1.4 TC thereby simplifying my kit.

The 2/3 stop aperture advantage is another positive - especially with lower light levels.

In my case - I have the 800mm PF when I need extra reach or for photographing small birds. Normally I have a clear preference for one lens or the other based on subject matter and intended use. I chose not to get the 600mm PF because I have the 400mm and 800mm options well covered with the option of a TC. Similarly I chose to sell the 200-500 and did not add the 180-600 because of the clear choice and optical performance using the 400/800 pair.

At the time the 400mm f/4.5 was released, the cost difference between selling the 500mm PF and getting the 400mm f/4.5 was relatively small. It was a chance to get good value on selling the 500mm PF.

Both the 400mm f/4.5 and the 500mm PF are relatively small, compact, and light with good sharpness. They are both good lenses.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top