Debating a switch to Sony mirrorless from Nikon DSLR

[sinetwo]

My plan now stands at, keeping the D500, getting the 200-500 5.6, a tokina 105 2.8 macro, then possibly the 10-24 nikon 3.5-4.5 as I would go for the 24-70 but I think the focal range isn't as good on a DX?

If you're thinking of staying with Nikon mirrorless in the future (Z8) why not go for what's FTZ compatible?
* 300 2.8 + 1.4x TC (trust me, the IQ and AF is LEAPS better than the 200-500, I own both)
* 105 2.8mm nikkor is very cheap used now, and the IQ is insane. I've recently won an underwater competition with this
* If you're shooting landscapes, go for a cheap used manual wide angle lens, like a rokinon/samyang. I've got a 14mm manual and it's great, but I've also got the 14-24 which is expensive. I rarely, if ever, shoot it at 24, and usually keep it on 14mm on a crop whilst I am without a full frame.

 

[EricBowles]

I'll start by thanking everyone in here for their detailed and reasonable responses. The community has been polite and courteous with someone like myself who is relatively new and probably asking a repeated question.

Everyone had some very good points and although the Sony and the 200-600 were very tempting I think the short term and long term weigh ups for styaing with nikon is better.

My plan now stands at, keeping the D500, getting the 200-500 5.6, a tokina 105 2.8 macro, then possibly the 10-24 nikon 3.5-4.5 as I would go for the 24-70 but I think the focal range isn't as good on a DX?
Edit: I also will trade my afp 70-300 in for the original vr 70-200 2.8, for when I need a smaller zoom in lower light situations.

Then forgoing the D850 for now, possibly getting a cheap used Z6 for a small transition into full frame and mirrorless as a second, then just saving for the future for a Z8, the 24-70 Z lens and a 500pf.

That sounds like a good plan and a good use of your money.

The various Tokina, Tamron, and Sigma lenses are good alternatives for macro. Anything in the 90-105mm range works well. Quality is good with all of them.

The original 70-200 f/2.8 is great on a DX camera. The VRII model is preferred for full frame because of corner vignetting on the original. You can find used copies of both versions.

I'll never forget putting the 24-70 f/2.8 on my D300 - it seemed the field of view was a little too narrow for everything so I ended up having to pair it with a 12-24 or something similar all the time. The quality was great - just not wide enough on DX. For Full Frame, 24-70 coverage is very commonly used and does the job at the wider end.

There are some great deals on a used Z6 and Z 24-70 f/4 lens. It's probably about $1200 US for both. It's a great way to get a sense of what mirrorless is like and gives you options you don't have with the D500 (low light, astro, starting point for mirrorless, good video, etc.).

 

[Harry Woodford]

If you're thinking of staying with Nikon mirrorless in the future (Z8) why not go for what's FTZ compatible?
* 300 2.8 + 1.4x TC (trust me, the IQ and AF is LEAPS better than the 200-500, I own both)
* 105 2.8mm nikkor is very cheap used now, and the IQ is insane. I've recently won an underwater competition with this
* If you're shooting landscapes, go for a cheap used manual wide angle lens, like a rokinon/samyang. I've got a 14mm manual and it's great, but I've also got the 14-24 which is expensive. I rarely, if ever, shoot it at 24, and usually keep it on 14mm on a crop whilst I am without a full frame.

I think although tempted by the 300 prime looking around it'd take most of my current budget entirely away. Leaving no room for an improved landscape + macro lens, or any savings towards either a cheap second body Z6 or just saving towards the Z8.

Ultimately I want to get the 500pf as it seems to be one of the best and most popular lenses and exceedingly good when put on a Z body. Considering prices dropping as time goes on I'll probably upgrade to that before I upgrade to the Z8, as I've always been told glass before body.

 

[bronaldo]

I think although tempted by the 300 prime looking around it'd take most of my current budget entirely away. Leaving no room for an improved landscape + macro lens, or any savings towards either a cheap second body Z6 or just saving towards the Z8.

Ultimately I want to get the 500pf as it seems to be one of the best and most popular lenses and exceedingly good when put on a Z body. Considering prices dropping as time goes on I'll probably upgrade to that before I upgrade to the Z8, as I've always been told glass before body.

In place of a dedicated macro lens, it may be worth considering some inexpensive extension tubes.

 

[Harry Woodford]

That sounds like a good plan and a good use of your money.

The various Tokina, Tamron, and Sigma lenses are good alternatives for macro. Anything in the 90-105mm range works well. Quality is good with all of them.

The original 70-200 f/2.8 is great on a DX camera. The VRII model is preferred for full frame because of corner vignetting on the original. You can find used copies of both versions.

I'll never forget putting the 24-70 f/2.8 on my D300 - it seemed the field of view was a little too narrow for everything so I ended up having to pair it with a 12-24 or something similar all the time. The quality was great - just not wide enough on DX. For Full Frame, 24-70 coverage is very commonly used and does the job at the wider end.

There are some great deals on a used Z6 and Z 24-70 f/4 lens. It's probably about $1200 US for both. It's a great way to get a sense of what mirrorless is like and gives you options you don't have with the D500 (low light, astro, starting point for mirrorless, good video, etc.).

Thank you, yeah from research pretty much all the 90-105 2.8 lenses seem to be similar in performance.

Yeah I've always seen the 2.8 70-200 is always included in the holy trinity and an extremely high regarded lens. Times like today (hike through a woods/glen) I used my current small zoom as it has good enough range and is sharp, but would've loved being able to open at 2.8 or even 4 with a tc (much better than a 6.3).

I think that is possibly a good option too, saving a little a getting a good used Z6 with the 24-70 f4 and using that as my primary landscape/mixed camera with a ftz. It would give me both FF and small step into mirrorless. Food for thought, thank you.

 

[Harry Woodford]

In place of a dedicated macro lens, it may be worth considering some inexpensive extension tubes.

I'll be honest I've never understood extension tubes, would they work well if I got the 70-200 2.8?

 

[bronaldo]

I'll be honest I've never understood extension tubes, would they work well if I got the 70-200 2.8?

I'm pretty sure they work with any lens, assuming the mounts are compatible. If the minimum focus distance of the lens is very short, extension tubes could cause problems, but I doubt this will be an issue.

 

[Harry Woodford]

I'm pretty sure they work with any lens, assuming the mounts are compatible. If the minimum focus distance of the lens is very short, extension tubes could cause problems, but I doubt this will be an issue.

Hmm I believe most of my lenses currently or planned don't have the closest focus distance. I'll maybe stick with getting the tokina macro, it's ~£150-200 for a dedicated macro.

 

[EricBowles]

I'll be honest I've never understood extension tubes, would they work well if I got the 70-200 2.8?

Extension tubes are essentially a spacer between the lens and the camera that allows closer focusing. The impact of extension tubes depends on teh amount of extension compared to the focal length. A 20mm extension tube on a 50mm lens adds a lot of magnification because you can get much closer, but with a 200mm focal length has less impact and won't add much magnification. For a longer lens like the 70-200, a close up lens is more useful to increase magnification. It's like a filter and attaches to the front of a lens - so you would need a 77mm close up lens for the 70-200. Better quality close up lenses have more than one lens element bonded together. The Canon 250D and 500D are well made, as are the Marumi close up lenses at a cheaper price point. Since the size is similar to a filter, they are quite easy to have in your bag for occasional use.

I have a Canon 500D that I use on my 70-200 and my 300mm f/4. I have extension tubes when I need to reduce the minimum focus distance on a long lens, or for shorter lenses for close up work. 8mm of extension makes a big difference on a 20mm prime - you are almost touching the subject.

Keep in mind that with extension tubes or close up lenses, you cannot focus on distant subjects.

 

[Harry Woodford]

Extension tubes are essentially a spacer between the lens and the camera that allows closer focusing. The impact of extension tubes depends on teh amount of extension compared to the focal length. A 20mm extension tube on a 50mm lens adds a lot of magnification because you can get much closer, but with a 200mm focal length has less impact and won't add much magnification. For a longer lens like the 70-200, a close up lens is more useful to increase magnification. It's like a filter and attaches to the front of a lens - so you would need a 77mm close up lens for the 70-200. Better quality close up lenses have more than one lens element bonded together. The Canon 250D and 500D are well made, as are the Marumi close up lenses at a cheaper price point. Since the size is similar to a filter, they are quite easy to have in your bag for occasional use.

I have a Canon 500D that I use on my 70-200 and my 300mm f/4. I have extension tubes when I need to reduce the minimum focus distance on a long lens, or for shorter lenses for close up work. 8mm of extension makes a big difference on a 20mm prime - you are almost touching the subject.

Keep in mind that with extension tubes or close up lenses, you cannot focus on distant subjects.

I understand, and the close up lens are certainly interesting I've never even heard kf them. I would go as far as an assumption that, say a 70-200 2.8 with close up lens probably still wouldn't produce the same quality as a dedicated 100mm macro lens?

Edit, or in theory could you put a close up lens on a macro for even further magnification?

 

[EricBowles]

I understand, and the close up lens are certainly interesting I've never even heard kf them. I would go as far as an assumption that, say a 70-200 2.8 with close up lens probably still wouldn't produce the same quality as a dedicated 100mm macro lens?

Edit, or in theory could you put a close up lens on a macro for even further magnification?

It's not going to give you as much magnification as a macro lens, but can help for more magnification. And yes - you can add close up lenses and/or extension tubes to a macro lens.

In general, I use a close up lens for focal lengths longer than 105mm, and extension tubes for under 100mm. With 90-105mm macro lenses, you can use both and use them in combination. On some lenses, you can add a teleconverter to the mix.

Originally, Nikon had a 50mm macro lens that went to 1:2 magnification. It was regularly used with an extension tube to get to 1:1 magnification.

 

[arbitrage]

To add to above, many with experience of the high end telephotos still rate the 300 f2.8G among the best of Nikon's Exotic primes. Sharp, fast and exquisite bokeh. The current model was released with the TC2 III, which works well especially on DX. My own combo captured many keepers until I upgraded to a 400 f2.8E FL.

I agree Nikon is unmatched for telephoto options: both Z MILC and G and E type FMount. The choices are bewildering, actually - see this graphic. It's quite possible their engineers have more Z telephotos in the wings. This could include 70-300, 70-200 f4S, 180-400 TC etc or similar coverage.

Personally I believe a 600 f4.7S PF is quite likely but only sometime 2024 at the earliest. The design basically exists in the 800 f6.3S PF, so it appears to be largely a matter of tweaking the existing lens formula to a focal length of 600mm

A 600 f/4.7 S PF would be a lens almost too tempting not to jump back into Nikon land for me.

That would be so close to that Canon 600 f/4 DO lens they showed off but never produced. My dream lens (made even more dreamy if they added a built in TC).

At first I thought you had mistyped the 4.7 instead of 4.5 but I realized that scaling down the 800/6.3 front element would give us that 600 f/4.7 or a 570 f/4.5. I wonder if they could just make it a 600 f/4.5 which is a more standard aperture. I can't see them using f/4.7 or 570mm. I suppose all these lenses are rounded up or down anyways. Only the patents show what they really are.

I suppose price would either match the 800PF or be a bit less. That would be a screaming deal for a 600 f/4.5 (4.7). I'd much prefer having 600 and using a TC to get 800 instead of being restricted to 800. I shoot ~70% of my images at 600mm.

 

[bronaldo]

A 600 f/4.7 S PF would be a lens almost too tempting not to jump back into Nikon land for me.

That would be so close to that Canon 600 f/4 DO lens they showed off but never produced. My dream lens (made even more dreamy if they added a built in TC).

At first I thought you had mistyped the 4.7 instead of 4.5 but I realized that scaling down the 800/6.3 front element would give us that 600 f/4.7 or a 570 f/4.5. I wonder if they could just make it a 600 f/4.5 which is a more standard aperture. I can't see them using f/4.7 or 570mm. I suppose all these lenses are rounded up or down anyways. Only the patents show what they really are.

I suppose price would either match the 800PF or be a bit less. That would be a screaming deal for a 600 f/4.5 (4.7). I'd much prefer having 600 and using a TC to get 800 instead of being restricted to 800. I shoot ~70% of my images at 600mm.

I'd sell my Sony gear and switch to a Z8 + 600 f4.7 if it came to pass.

 

[fcotterill]

Agreed
Back of envelope calculations come out with a 600 f4.7 PF if it keeps the 127mm lens window of the 800 f6.3. A 600 f4.5 has a 134mm window, with a wider, heavier front end.
Perhaps Nikon might instead go with a 500 f4E PF - 125mm window. This model or a 600 f4.7 will weigh less than the 800 PF, the design of which has rather changed earlier perceptions on what was possible in the design space, using phase-fresnel elements.
Their challenge is to get out the optimal combination of speed, balance and weight, without compromising quality+ realistic production costs!

Previous discussions :

Nikon Patents New Lens

https://www.digitalcameraworld.com/news/nikon-designs-new-phase-fresnel-lenses-including-a-1000mm-f8 Please remove if posted elsewhere.

bcgforums.com

More Nikon PF Lenses?

I think the PF technology is incredible! However, none of the existing lenses using it are exactly what I want from it. So I thought it would be interesting to talk about other possibilities for the technology. For me, I wish they were slightly heavier. Not cause I want more weight but because I...

bcgforums.com

A 600 f/4.7 S PF would be a lens almost too tempting not to jump back into Nikon land for me.

That would be so close to that Canon 600 f/4 DO lens they showed off but never produced. My dream lens (made even more dreamy if they added a built in TC).

At first I thought you had mistyped the 4.7 instead of 4.5 but I realized that scaling down the 800/6.3 front element would give us that 600 f/4.7 or a 570 f/4.5. I wonder if they could just make it a 600 f/4.5 which is a more standard aperture. I can't see them using f/4.7 or 570mm. I suppose all these lenses are rounded up or down anyways. Only the patents show what they really are.

I suppose price would either match the 800PF or be a bit less. That would be a screaming deal for a 600 f/4.5 (4.7). I'd much prefer having 600 and using a TC to get 800 instead of being restricted to 800. I shoot ~70% of my images at 600mm.

 

[agrumpyoldsod]

Agreed
Back of envelope calculations come out with a 600 f4.7 PF if it keeps the 127mm lens window of the 800 f6.3. A 600 f4.5 has a 134mm window, with a wider, heavier front end.
Perhaps Nikon might instead go with a 500 f4E PF - 125mm window. This model or a 600 f4.7 will weigh less than the 800 PF, the design of which has rather changed earlier perceptions on what was possible in the design space, using phase-fresnel elements.
Their challenge is to get out the optimal combination of speed, balance and weight, without compromising quality+ realistic production costs!

Previous discussions :

Nikon Patents New Lens

https://www.digitalcameraworld.com/news/nikon-designs-new-phase-fresnel-lenses-including-a-1000mm-f8 Please remove if posted elsewhere.

bcgforums.com

More Nikon PF Lenses?

I think the PF technology is incredible! However, none of the existing lenses using it are exactly what I want from it. So I thought it would be interesting to talk about other possibilities for the technology. For me, I wish they were slightly heavier. Not cause I want more weight but because I...

bcgforums.com

My guess was 600 f/5.6. A 600PF is unlikely to use exactly the same front element at the 800 and it is HIGHLY unlikely that Nikon would issue a competing lens to its WONDERFUL 600/4TC -- plus add 6.3 and 4.5 and divide by 2 one gets roughly f/5.6 -- one could do the same with the price -- US$ 6,496.95 + US$ 3,246.95 divide by 2 == US$ 4871.95
Obviously an f/6 would be cheaper and an f/4.7 more expensive.

 

[John Navitsky]

i’d be interested in a lightweight high quality 600. i don’t really have use for a 800, and not enough need to make the 600 tc worth the cost. a 500 is too close to the 400 4.5 i have

 

[Doug Herr]

I'll be honest I've never understood extension tubes, would they work well if I got the 70-200 2.8?

Whether extension tubes work well or not depends on many factors. Many (most?) modern lenses use internal focus and are computed for a precise distance from the lens' rear flange to the sensor for optimal performance. Add an extension tube and the you'll certainly get a closer minimum focus distance but the optical quality will likely suffer vs. a dedicated macro lens that was designed for the close focus distance. The Sony 600mm GMaster is a good example: by itself a fabulous lens, with an extension tube you get lateral chromatic aberration toward the edges of the image area.

Zoom lenses are likely fussier about the flange-to-sensor distance plus with the extension tube the focus distance changes as the lens is zoomed. You're probably better off with a high-quality supplemental lens.

 

[DavidT]

Not mine and don’t know the seller but I know an a9 was a camera you are considering. I’d personally rather have an a9II but this seems like a fair deal. PS rumor has it a9III coming this year.

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

 

[ricardo00]

Not mine and don’t know the seller but I know an a9 was a camera you are considering. I’d personally rather have an a9II but this seems like a fair deal. PS rumor has it a9III coming this year.

I know you said you don't know the seller, but wonder why someone would sell a camera after "barely" any use. How could they possibly decide it wasn't worth keeping? I guess that is why I can't ever get myself to buy used stuff, I have trust issues.

 

[DavidT]

I know you said you don't know the seller, but wonder why someone would sell a camera after "barely" any use. How could they possibly decide it wasn't worth keeping? I guess that is why I can't ever get myself to buy used stuff, I have trust issues.

Idk. I’m selling a flash for Nikon I bought just before I switched to Sony. Could have been an extra or back up or someone who had intentions but never actually used it. Could be someone who needs the money so idk. I will say that shutter count on a dual sensor camera is pointless. My a1’s have upwards of 100k plus images shot on them but the mechanical shutter is likely below 100.

 

[abc123brian]

I know you said you don't know the seller, but wonder why someone would sell a camera after "barely" any use. How could they possibly decide it wasn't worth keeping? I guess that is why I can't ever get myself to buy used stuff, I have trust issues.

They could be referring only to the mechanical shutter. They could have used it significantly more in electronic shutter.

 

[fcotterill]

Firmware update are an interesting factor that influence introductions of important new features in Mirrorless ecosystems. Previously, a Firmware update for a DSLR was typically a fix, or merely additional software to support new lenses or perhaps other accessories.

Nikon, for example, began to change their strategy early 2019 with the Z6 and Z7, and since then new firmware has effectively changed the very abilities of the Z9. At least 3 upgrades have added more functions. Nikon already confirmed it plans the first firmware update for its new Z8; this has been announced (about 51:00) even before start of official sales.

Admittedly it's impossible to predict the future strategy of company X - if it will release firmware for its cameras? Although logic suggests software is relatively cost effective for manufacturers to add new features into their hardware.

 

[Don'sPhotoStream]

For wildlife and action shooting, the a9 with the 100-400 and/or 200-600 will keep you happy for quite a while. I eventually purchased an a1, but that a9 still gets plenty of use. It doesn’t have automatic focus stacking, though, that may be a factor for you. Also, you have to train yourself on the a9 not to accidentally change the exposure compensation when you are trying to change the shutter speed. It’s easy to do on the a9.

I still have a 300/2.8, and can say that the 300/2.8 works flawlessly with the TC 1.4 and TC 1.7. On the D500, it’s a great wildlife combination. That said, the D500/300/2.8 is not as versatile as the 100-400 or 200-600 on the Sony.

 

[Calson]

For me I got used to the benefits of using the much larger EN-EL18 battery and the grip on my D850 cameras to go to cameras that provide neither. But for people with smaller or weaker hands the opposite could be true.

Important to consider available lenses in making any switch. A benefit of the Sony cameras is the available 200-600 that can be bought today. A disadvantage is nothing like the 500mm PF or 800mm PF or 400mm TC or 600mm TC lenses. For macro Nikon provides the best solutions and in a close second place is Canon and Sony is not really in the running.

I also try to determine how many keepers and in what situations a given camera and lens can provide me. On trips to Costa Rica for example 20% of my shots have been macros of vipers and amphibians and butterflies. 75% have been wildlife shots and another 5% have been of birds in flight. Not important to me to get more usable images of the 5% that are birds in flight. Of course in a place like Florida the BIF could be a much greater percentage of shots taken.

 

[MikeInMI]

When you talked about lenses, you should keep in mind that with Sony, you have a ton of high quality lenses available from Tamron and Sigma at a very good price point. With Nikon, not so much (I think they have only allowed one or two third party autofocus lenses for the Z-mount).