Best Kit lenses for nature Photography (Wildlife and Landscape)

[Activert]

I am going full Mirrorless. I have a Z9 body camera. I Put an order on a Z 400mm F/2.8. From my F Mount lenses, I am only going to keep my 300mm F/2.8 . I want to cover a range of lenses from 20mm to at least 300mm. Here two options with S lenses that I am considering : The first one is getting: 20mm S F/1.8 ; 24-120mm S F/4 and 100-400mm S F/4.5-5.6 . The second option is getting: 14-24 mm S F/2.8; 24-70mm S F/2.8 and 70-200mm S F/2.8. What do you think it is the best option? If you tried any of these lenses, what are your thought about them? Do you have any suggestion? Thanks for sharing your thought with me, I will appreciate them a lot

 

[abc123brian]

For myself, I decided to go with the F/4 zooms because I don’t need the extra light gathering of F/2.8 for landscapes and would rather have the lighter, more compact lenses. I have the 14-30mm F/4 and 24-70mm F/4 with the 24-120mm F/4 ordered. They are really excellent overall. I have read the 24-120mm is slightly better than the 24-70mm F/4 but haven’t tried it yet. The F/2.8 versions are a little sharper according to information I have seen, but I am really impressed with the F/4 lenses. If you shoot nightscapes, you might prefer having the larger apertures. I assume that is what the 20mm F/1.8 is for? I have not tried that lens so cannot comment on it. My opinion is the F/4 options are the way to go unless you plan to use them for night sky work or also portrait, weddings, or other needs were you would benefit from the larger apertures.

 

[Activert]

For myself, I decided to go with the F/4 zooms because I don’t need the extra light gathering of F/2.8 for landscapes and would rather have the lighter, more compact lenses. I have the 14-30mm F/4 and 24-70mm F/4 with the 24-120mm F/4 ordered. They are really excellent overall. I have read the 24-120mm is slightly better than the 24-70mm F/4 but haven’t tried it yet. The F/2.8 versions are a little sharper according to information I have seen, but I am really impressed with the F/4 lenses. If you shoot nightscapes, you might prefer having the larger apertures. I assume that is what the 20mm F/1.8 is for? I have not tried that lens so cannot comment on it. My opinion is the F/4 options are the way to go unless you plan to use them for night sky work or also portrait, weddings, or other needs were you would benefit from the larger apertures.

Thanks a lot for your comment

 

[John Navitsky]

for nature and wildlife, the "24-120mm S F/4 and 100-400mm S F/4.5-5.6" combo is probably going to be your better bet. i have both of those, used with a z9. the 24-120 is a very handy range and the 100-400 is also super nice. you might consider the 14-30 instead of the 20mm for extra flexibility.

i have all the lens you mentioned, and you can't really go *wrong* with any of these lenses, but if i was going to just get a couple of lenses you'd be well covered with those f4s. when i'm grabbing just one lens, the 24-70 just doesn't cover quite as much as i'd like. the 24-120 fixes that nicely.

the only real counter-indication would be if you work in dark areas. in dark areas the 2.8 is really helpful. but a 70-200 isn't going to give you nearly the reach of the 100-400.

so, 14-30, 24-120, 100-400 would be a really nice three lens kit.

 

[fcotterill]

I also have 14-30 f4S and 24-120 f4S. Both are excellent lenses, compact and relatively light. I suspect Nikon is going to sell many of the medium zoom once distribution gains momentum, but all recent lenses are in short supply.
I very nearly committed to a 100-400 S but decided to wait for the 400 PF, especially if it's f4 or close to. I have the superb 70-200 f2.8E with TC14 that does very well. Absolutely no complaints about the FTZ II (nor FTZ I)

 

[John Navitsky]

fwiw, here’s those (other than the 14-30) side by side.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

 

[Activert]

for nature and wildlife, the "24-120mm S F/4 and 100-400mm S F/4.5-5.6" combo is probably going to be your better bet. i have both of those, used with a z9. the 24-120 is a very handy range and the 100-400 is also super nice. you might consider the 14-30 instead of the 20mm for extra flexibility.

i have all the lens you mentioned, and you can't really go *wrong* with any of these lenses, but if i was going to just get a couple of lenses you'd be well covered with those f4s. when i'm grabbing just one lens, the 24-70 just doesn't cover quite as much as i'd like. the 24-120 fixes that nicely.

the only real counter-indication would be if you work in dark areas. in dark areas the 2.8 is really helpful. but a 70-200 isn't going to give you nearly the reach of the 100-400.

so, 14-30, 24-120, 100-400 would be a really nice three lens kit.

Thanks a lot for your advice

 

[Activert]

I also have 14-30 f4S and 24-120 f4S. Both are excellent lenses, compact and relatively light. I suspect Nikon is going to sell many of the medium zoom once distribution gains momentum, but all recent lenses are in short supply.
I very nearly committed to a 100-400 S but decided to wait for the 400 PF, especially if it's f4 or close to. I have the superb 70-200 f2.8E with TC14 that does very well. Absolutely no complaints about the FTZ II (nor FTZ I)

Thank You!

 

[Activert]

fwiw, here’s those (other than the 14-30) side by side.
View attachment 34901

I like your collection. How do feel about 14-24? It must be good one

 

[fcotterill]

I like your collection. How do feel about 14-24? It must be good one

Yes, the 14-24 f2.8S is the better lenses for IQ, and significantly advanced from the 14-24 f2.8G. However, one needs to justify this for night skies etc. I also much prefer the lighter lens, which takes 82mm screwin filters. And f4S is half the price of the f2.8S, which also helped the decision. @Lance B is one member here who has experience of both these. Also see the reviews by Photography Life and Thom Hogan.

 

[John Navitsky]

I like your collection. How do feel about 14-24? It must be good one

to be honest, i haven't used it much yet. i have the intent to do some super wide angle dog sport stuff, but haven't had an opportunity yet. in general, wider than 24 tends to be a pretty niche thing, so this isn't really something i'll use that often.

but i decided to go all-in with the z9 and z-mount, so i sold all my f-mount glass other than one lens, my f-mount body and tried to cover everything i was likely to need.

 

[John Navitsky]

Yes, the 14-24 f2.8S is the better lenses for IQ, and significantly advanced from the 14-24 f2.8G. However, one needs to justify this for night skies etc. I also much prefer the lighter lens, which takes 82mm screwin filters. And f4S is half the price of the f2.8S, which also helped the decision. @Lance B is one member here who has experience of both these. Also see the reviews by Photography Life and Thom Hogan.

i think Hudson Henry and Ricci Talks on youtube have both compared the 14-24 and the 14-30. everything i've seen suggests they are both great lenses. in general i personally bias towards fast glass so i went for the 2.8, but it's probably more want than need

 

[randomwalk]

I have the 14-30 F4, 14-24 F2.8, 70-200 F2.8, 24-70 F4 and the 100-400. When I do long distance backpacking trips, I tend to bring the 14-30 and 24-70 and then either the 70-200 or the 100-400. If I am going somewhere "once in a lifetime" hiking or somewhere close to the car, I bring the 14-24 because it is a bit sharper in the corners. I'm not a pixel peeper but the 14-30 can be a little bit soft in the corners compared to the 14-24. But for the weight and size and price, the 14-30 really is amazing and it's much more convenient with filters.

The 24-70 is excellent. I hear the new 24-120 is even better, so I may upgrade if my 24-70 ever breaks or it takes a tumble down a mountain. But the 24-70 is so good, it's hard to justify upgrading.

The 70-200 is amazing and incredibly sharp. It probably won't go on as many hiking trips now that I have the 100-400. But I don't see myself ever selling it because it's so sharp and great for portraits and still amazing for landscapes. The 100-400 is just a little more versatile for doing wildlife and landscapes.

My two cents, is just determine what makes something the "best" for you. For me, it's usually weight and versatility cause I am usually 10-20+ miles away from the car. So I tend to bring the slower glass most of the time.

If you'd rather prioritize budget, faster glass, or sharpness (all of them are plenty sharp though), then pick based on those. Then from there, in my opinion, whatever lenses you pick are going to be awesome. All of the Z mount lenses that I have above are excellent and if I was stuck with any of them, I'd be more than happy.

 

[Activert]

I have the 14-30 F4, 14-24 F2.8, 70-200 F2.8, 24-70 F4 and the 100-400. When I do long distance backpacking trips, I tend to bring the 14-30 and 24-70 and then either the 70-200 or the 100-400. If I am going somewhere "once in a lifetime" hiking or somewhere close to the car, I bring the 14-24 because it is a bit sharper in the corners. I'm not a pixel peeper but the 14-30 can be a little bit soft in the corners compared to the 14-24. But for the weight and size and price, the 14-30 really is amazing and it's much more convenient with filters.

The 24-70 is excellent. I hear the new 24-120 is even better, so I may upgrade if my 24-70 ever breaks or it takes a tumble down a mountain. But the 24-70 is so good, it's hard to justify upgrading.

The 70-200 is amazing and incredibly sharp. It probably won't go on as many hiking trips now that I have the 100-400. But I don't see myself ever selling it because it's so sharp and great for portraits and still amazing for landscapes. The 100-400 is just a little more versatile for doing wildlife and landscapes.

My two cents, is just determine what makes something the "best" for you. For me, it's usually weight and versatility cause I am usually 10-20+ miles away from the car. So I tend to bring the slower glass most of the time.

If you'd rather prioritize budget, faster glass, or sharpness (all of them are plenty sharp though), then pick based on those. Then from there, in my opinion, whatever lenses you pick are going to be awesome. All of the Z mount lenses that I have above are excellent and if I was stuck with any of them, I'd be more than happy.

Thank you!

 

[Palmor]

When I had the Z6 my hiking kit (when wildlife wasn't a subject) was the 14-30, 24-70f4 and 70-300 AF-P. If wildlife was a subject I'd bring the D500 and 500PF along with the Z kit. For me that Z kit was the perfect balance of IQ and weight (this was pre 24-120 which I'd probably go for in place of the 24-70)

 

[Activert]

When I had the Z6 my hiking kit (when wildlife wasn't a subject) was the 14-30, 24-70f4 and 70-300 AF-P. If wildlife was a subject I'd bring the D500 and 500PF along with the Z kit. For me that Z kit was the perfect balance of IQ and weight (this was pre 24-120 which I'd probably go for in place of the 24-70)

Thank you!

 

[Calson]

For landscape photography I see no disadvantages to using my existing lenses with the FTZ adapter (14-24mm f/2.8, 18-35mm f/3.5G, 19mm PC-E, 45mm PC-E, 85mm PC-E, and 70-200mm f/2.8). No need for fast lens changes with landscapes and no loss of IQ with the F mount lenses. I read a review where the S 14-24mm f/2.8 produces less flare when shooting into the sun but this is provides little if any value for my images.

 

[Activert]

For landscape photography I see no disadvantages to using my existing lenses with the FTZ adapter (14-24mm f/2.8, 18-35mm f/3.5G, 19mm PC-E, 45mm PC-E, 85mm PC-E, and 70-200mm f/2.8). No need for fast lens changes with landscapes and no loss of IQ with the F mount lenses. I read a review where the S 14-24mm f/2.8 produces less flare when shooting into the sun but this is provides little if any value for my images.

Thank you Calson!

 

[Jack S.]

I bought my Z6II as a kit version with the F4 24-70 and used that for over a year without any problem, or need, for another lens. The FTZ adapter, also included in the kit, allowed me to use all my other F mount glass without any issues whatsoever. The next Z lens I bought, was the 70-200 as I didn't have that range covered in my bag and in January, I added a Z20 F1.8 for aurora and astro work. Living in the North of Scotland, natural light can be a rare thing, so I do tend to shell out on F2.8 glass. Having said that, the Z mount F4 glass is so good it's always worth considering if there are constraints on the budget. All of my Z lenses are superb, so I would have no qualms about buying any of them again.

 

[Activert]

I bought my Z6II as a kit version with the F4 24-70 and used that for over a year without any problem, or need, for another lens. The FTZ adapter, also included in the kit, allowed me to use all my other F mount glass without any issues whatsoever. The next Z lens I bought, was the 70-200 as I didn't have that range covered in my bag and in January, I added a Z20 F1.8 for aurora and astro work. Living in the North of Scotland, natural light can be a rare thing, so I do tend to shell out on F2.8 glass. Having said that, the Z mount F4 glass is so good it's always worth considering if there are constraints on the budget. All of my Z lenses are superb, so I would have no qualms about buying any of them again.

Thank you so much for your suggestion. I am thinking about adding the Z 20mm f/1.8 for astro photography

 

[Jack S.]

Thank you so much for your suggestion. I am thinking about adding the Z 20mm f/1.8 for astro photography

That's a worthy addition that you won't regret...

 

[nikonkelly]

I am going full Mirrorless. I have a Z9 body camera. I Put an order on a Z 400mm F/2.8. From my F Mount lenses, I am only going to keep my 300mm F/2.8 . I want to cover a range of lenses from 20mm to at least 300mm. Here two options with S lenses that I am considering : The first one is getting: 20mm S F/1.8 ; 24-120mm S F/4 and 100-400mm S F/4.5-5.6 . The second option is getting: 14-24 mm S F/2.8; 24-70mm S F/2.8 and 70-200mm S F/2.8. What do you think it is the best option? If you tried any of these lenses, what are your thought about them? Do you have any suggestion? Thanks for sharing your thought with me, I will appreciate them a lot

I bought the 24-70 z mount and the 20mm f1.8 z mount and have adapted all of my other glass for my z7. I love my 20mm.

 

[Chad Huff]

I haven't switched to Z yet but I've had such great results from, the 24-120 F mount that it will be my first Z lens purchase for sure. After that, probably a 16-35 or similar. I'll keep my 500PF and 300 2.8 for long lenses when I switch and perhaps add something longer like a older 600 F4 or (depending on price) an Z mount PF lens of equal or longer focal length. The 24-120 is just an incredibly versatile lens which is very sharp and affordable.

A 70-200 would be nice to, but I don't know enough about how my Tamron G2 version of that lens will preform on an adapted Z mount to know if I will keep it or not.

 

[Activert]

I bought the 24-70 z mount and the 20mm f1.8 z mount and have adapted all of my other glass for my z7. I love my 20mm.

Thank you for your reply! it is very helpful

 

[Activert]

I haven't switched to Z yet but I've had such great results from, the 24-120 F mount that it will be my first Z lens purchase for sure. After that, probably a 16-35 or similar. I'll keep my 500PF and 300 2.8 for long lenses when I switch and perhaps add something longer like a older 600 F4 or (depending on price) an Z mount PF lens of equal or longer focal length. The 24-120 is just an incredibly versatile lens which is very sharp and affordable.

A 70-200 would be nice to, but I don't know enough about how my Tamron G2 version of that lens will preform on an adapted Z mount to know if I will keep it or not.

Thank you for the feedback! I truly appreciate it!