First Z Lens with Z8: Advice Welcome

[Nobby]

Hi,

At this time I am very happy with my kit for wildlife with mammals as my main focus buying the Z8 and FTZ II [sold my D500] in June with no Z lenses at this time. Recent holidays have been 2022 to the conservancies in the Masai Mara, Kenya and in 2023 to Rwanda with the highlight of visiting the Gorillas in the mountains. I used the Z8 with 500 PF f/5.6 and D850 with 70-200 f/2.8 which has worked really well on both trips. I have a TC 1.4 II which can be used on either set up if required but not really a fan.

Alongside wildlife, holidays and family photos are supported with 24-70 f/2.8 and 16-35 f/4

Transitioning to Z lenses will take time with one lens at a time along with a trading in

• D850 - Retain, as a second Z8 is a push too far and am happy using the two bodies together
• 500 PF f/5.6 - Retain and use on either body
• 70-200 f/2.8 VR II - Trade up to Z 100-400 f/4-f/5.6
• 24-70 f/2.8 VR - Trade up to Z 24-120 f/4
• 16-35 f/4 - Trade up to Z 16-30 f/4

I don't plan to own any more than 2 bodies, four lenses and one TC to cover my needs and the above plus accessories all fits in one bag [Mindshift Backlight 26L]

1. The plan is to sell 24-70 f/2.8 [my hardly used lens] and 70-200 f.2.8 to part fund the Z100-400 f/4.5-5.6 in early 2024 ?
2. This will move my wildlife kit to the Z8 with Z 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 or TFZ II and 500 PF f/5.6 along with the D850 and the 500 PF f/5.6
3. One of my questions is should I be considering the Z 70-200 f.2.8 instead of the Z 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 ?
4. Will I miss out of the f/2.8 lenses but gain on the mirrorless lenses?
5. Any thing else I have not considered ?

Any views welcome on my thinking would be appreciated ?

At a later date I will then buy the Z24-120 f/4 and finally the Z 16-30 f/4

Nobby

 

[Nimi]

Hi,

At this time I am very happy with my kit for wildlife with mammals as my main focus buying the Z8 and FTZ II [selling my D500] in June with no Z lenses at this time. Recent holidays have been 2022 to the conservancies in the Masai Mara, Kenya and and 2023 to Rwanda with the highlight of visits seeing the Gorillas in the mountains. I used the Z8 with 500 PF f/5.6 and D850 with 70-200 f/2.8 which has worked really well on both trips. I have a TC 1.4 II which can be used on either set up if required but not really a fan.

Alongside wildlife, holidays and family photos are supported with 24-70 f/2.8 and 16-35 f/4

Transitioning to Z lenses will take time with one lenses at a time along with a trade in's

D850 - Retain as second Z8 is a push too far and am happy using the two bodies together
500 PF f/5.6 - Retain and use on either body
70-200 f/2.8 VR II - Trade up to Z 100-400 f/4-f/5.6
24-70 f/2.8 VR - Trade up to Z 24-120 f/4
16-35 f/4 - Trade up to Z 16-30 f/4

I don't plan to own any more than 2 bodies, four lenses and one TC to cover my needs and the above plus accessories all fits in one bag [Mindshift Backlight 26L]

1. The plan is to sell 24-70 f/2.8 [my hardly used lens] and 70-200 f.2.8 to part fund the Z100-400 f/4.5-5.6 in early 2024 ?
2. This will move my wildlife kit to the Z8 with Z 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 or TFZ II and 500 PF f/5.6 along with the D850 and the 500 PF f/5.6
3. One of my questions is should I be considering the Z 70-200 f.2.8 instead of the Z 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 ?
4. Will I miss out of the f/2.8 lenses but gain on the mirrorless lenses?
5. Any thing else I have not considered ?

Any views welcome on my thinking would be appreciated ?

At a later date I will then buy the Z24-120 f/4 and finally the Z 16-30 f/4

Nobby

From my experience (not wildlife), the IQ on your 2.8s exceed what you will get from the Z 4.0s. There are several threads on the topic; personally I don't love the 24-120s I bought for "flexibility" and to cover the focal range I find myself mounting the 24-70 or 70-200 2.8 (either F or Z). I wish Nikon follows Canon and introduce something like the 24-105/2.8.

 

[ajrmd]

Hi,

At this time I am very happy with my kit for wildlife with mammals as my main focus buying the Z8 and FTZ II [sold my D500] in June with no Z lenses at this time. Recent holidays have been 2022 to the conservancies in the Masai Mara, Kenya and in 2023 to Rwanda with the highlight of visiting the Gorillas in the mountains. I used the Z8 with 500 PF f/5.6 and D850 with 70-200 f/2.8 which has worked really well on both trips. I have a TC 1.4 II which can be used on either set up if required but not really a fan.

Alongside wildlife, holidays and family photos are supported with 24-70 f/2.8 and 16-35 f/4

Transitioning to Z lenses will take time with one lens at a time along with a trading in

D850 - Retain as second Z8 is a push too far and am happy using the two bodies together
500 PF f/5.6 - Retain and use on either body
70-200 f/2.8 VR II - Trade up to Z 100-400 f/4-f/5.6
24-70 f/2.8 VR - Trade up to Z 24-120 f/4
16-35 f/4 - Trade up to Z 16-30 f/4

I don't plan to own any more than 2 bodies, four lenses and one TC to cover my needs and the above plus accessories all fits in one bag [Mindshift Backlight 26L]

1. The plan is to sell 24-70 f/2.8 [my hardly used lens] and 70-200 f.2.8 to part fund the Z100-400 f/4.5-5.6 in early 2024 ?
2. This will move my wildlife kit to the Z8 with Z 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 or TFZ II and 500 PF f/5.6 along with the D850 and the 500 PF f/5.6
3. One of my questions is should I be considering the Z 70-200 f.2.8 instead of the Z 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 ?
4. Will I miss out of the f/2.8 lenses but gain on the mirrorless lenses?
5. Any thing else I have not considered ?

Any views welcome on my thinking would be appreciated ?

At a later date I will then buy the Z24-120 f/4 and finally the Z 16-30 f/4

Nobby

Very interesting post and it appears that you've given a fair amount of consideration and have mapped out a strategy which appears to work for your style. My best advice is to know the subjects (and circumstances) where you shoot, the FL's you use most often and consider why you don't use certain FL's. For example, you refer to your 24-70 as being a "hardly used lens", is this due to your style of shooting, situation, or a lack of familiarity with the FL's? Yes, for shooting mammals, it's not the most useful lens and I agree that when building a system, it is probably better to focus (no pun intended) on acquiring those lenses you'll use the most. When I first made the transition to Nikon (from Canon) I purchased the 800 followed by 400, 180-600,... as availability and finances permitted.

In particular, one thing to consider is in the process of moving to Z lenses you'll be obsolescing your D850 so it might be worthwhile to build your lens collection around that limitation, i.e. once you purchase a Z lens, it must be exclusively used on the Z bodies.

 

[BillW]

One point — as you get Z lenses, your D850 will become less useful as a second camera or as a backup since you cannot use a Z lens on a DSLR. I shot the D850 alongside a Z7 and then Z7II for a few years. It’s doable and the D850 is still a great camera
(and works great with a 500 mm PF). As I got more Z lenses, I decided I needed a second Z body. I’m now shooting a Z9 & Z8 for wildlife and a Z8 & Z7II for landscapes. Sold my D850 and D500 when I got the Z9 almost two years ago.

 

[BillW]

If you need 100 mm to 400 mm for wildlife, I think the Z 100-400 is a bit better than the Z 70-200 with a 2x TC (or the F 70-200 f2.8E FL with a 2xTC). But of course, you lose the ability to do f2.8. I have both at this point and what I take depends on the outing. In the Grand Canyon on a recent trip, I took the Z 70-200, as I was mostly doing landscapes, and threw in a 2x TC to use for occasional wildlife shots (ended up using the 2x TC for a bunch of lizard shots). In Barkley Sound on Vancouver Island, where marine mammals and birds were a focus, I took the Z 100-400 mm lens (and also the Z 800 mm PF).

The Z 100-400 pairs nicely with longer lenses to give you more flexibility. I’ve used it alongside the 500 mm PF (often with the 1.4x TCIII on the 500 mm PF) and more recently the Z 800 mm PF.

If you are looking for a zoom, you might also consider the Z 180-600. A bit heavier, but a very good value for the price and better than the F 200-500 mm. I got one in October and am getting used to it.

You might look on Brad Hill’s website for his recent comments on telephotos for the Z system. Brad is a Canadian wildlife photographer, who also does some great British Columbia photo trips (I’ve gone with him a couple of times) and equipment reviews focused on field use. You might also want to check Thom Hogan’s website. He has a lot of info on Z lenses and advice on Z telephoto options.

 

[BillW]

As to the shorter end zooms — I now have the Z 24-70 f2.8, Z 24-120 and the Z 14-24. I had the Z 24-70 f4 (came as a kit with a body) and the Z 14-30, both sold.

For landscape work on a tripod, I prefer the Z 24-70 f2.8 and the Z 14-24 f2.8. I think they are better optically. Also better when you want f2.8. But for handheld use and travel, I like the flexibility of the Z 24-120 (it also has the same filter size as the Z 100-400, which can be convenient). I sold my Z 14-30 when I got the Z 14-24, but sometimes wish I had kept it, for its small size and weight when traveling/hiking. I think you will find the Z 14-30 is better (and smaller) than your F 16-35 (which I used on my DSLRs). Can’t compare the Z 24-120 to the F mount 24-70s, which I never had due to their weight and size.

 

[Vincent_VdB]

Interesting question and my take on it:

- The 100-400 S lens goes with me to Africa on my safaris. It replaced the 70-200 f/2.8 E FL lens when I was still shooting DSLR as I was never impressed with the AF-S 80-400mm. I always do my safaris with a tele prime and that was before the 500mm f/4 E FL and now the 600mm f/4 S TC. The combo 70-200 with 500mm served me well but I was lacking the 200 to 500mm range and now am I so happy with the IQ that the 100-400mm lens gives me.
- I have the 180-600mm lens coming and will this baby comes along in April to Africa to find out how it holds up compared to the 100-400.
- I own the f/2.8 and f/4 version of the 24-70mm S lenses and recently added the 24-120mm f/4 S as well. I love that lens for the rendered images as well as the zoom range. It is lighter and more compact for travel but is beaten by the 24-70 f/2.8 version (the opposite would be very strange)
- Having owned the 14-24mm f/2.8 F mount but not really used it did I in my transition to the Z mount system not opted for the excellent Z mount equivalent but the, to me, excellent 14-30mm f/4. It is small, sharp, light and thus more than good enough for my purpose.

The main reason for transitioning to Z mount lenses is the serviceability and for some lenses the increased IQ and weight.
Hope this can help you.

 

[Nobby]

Hi,

Some great views, fully aware that as I move to Z lenses this reduces the use of the D850 but in a two body set up I can always pair with the 500 PF f/5.6 [love this lens]

@ajrmd I just don't use the 24-70 f/2.8 and when I need a short lens, out comes the 16-35 f/4 instead hence the reason to sell. But at some time in the future replace this with the 24-120 f/4 @Nimi or wait for a 24-105 f/2.8

@BillW My view is that the Z 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 will be a great pair with the 500 PF f/5/6 and the two bodies, but just trying to understand if I will miss the f/2.8 option [swings and roundabouts] and aiming not to just increase the number of lens and then find they don't get used. Moving to the 100-400 I will get the range without needing a TC as I can use the 500 PF. [TC's last resort] The 100-400 would have helped on our recent trips to get that little bit closer as I switch between bodies and then allows better options on cropping. And then it all about light available

I will also read up on Brad Hill website

@BillW thanks you for your views on the short lenses, this is not an issue as I will be fine with f/4 on the 24-120 / 14-30 and this will come after the above decision but this will be late 2024

@Vincent_VdB great to hear you views on the 100-400 alongside a 500 prime as that combination makes sense to me [and I don't plan to change this lens any time in the future] with slightly less weight that my 70-200 f/2.8 and 13 mm longer and I am hoping the IQ is further benefit ?

 

[Vincent_VdB]

@Nobby I am absolutely happy with the IQ I get from the 100-400 S lens. You can't have everything in life as I would have probable loved a non-extending version of it but then it would have been longer and I like the compactness, I know
On a few occasions when in Kruger did the 2.8 help me getting the shot in very difficult light but the excellent VR and inbody image stabilization in the Z body helps me still getting the shots I am after. This owl was shot in absolute darkness apart from the light of a flashlight on it.

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52244593741_3c26798824_b.jpg

 

[Nobby]

@Vincent_VdB I agree with you on the non-extending version as that is where I am on the 70-200 VRII but the range is half and this would have need to be longer for a fixed internal zoom. I have to confess that I did not realise that this extended until your comment and have just watch a u-tube video, at this point I have just read reviews and they didn't highlight this, do you find this an issue ?

Great phone in low light

 

[Vincent_VdB]

I love how compact the 100-400 is in the backpack and my "fear" of this type of lens that it will suck the dirt in the lens is at this point still unfounded as the inside is still clean.
So, at this moment I do not have an issue with it.

 

[Nobby]

thank you

 

[MrFotoFool]

I recently switched from D850 to Z8. With my trade-in (two D850s plus lenses) I was able to add some from my savings and get the Z 70-200 f2.8 plus Z8. Shortly after I got a used (mint condition) Z 2x teleconverter. What I often do at my local wetlands is use the bare lens for f2.8 when I arrive at dawn and it is still too dark to use a smaller aperture. Then after about half an hour I add the teleconverter to get to 400mm, since there is enough light to get by with f5.6. However I also use the 70-200 for landscape (sometimes at f2.8 to isolate a cactus from the background). A 70-200 f2.8 has been my favorite and most used lens for over a decade (almost two decades), but that does not mean it will be one you need. What you need to ask yourself is are there enough times where the light is so low that you will be missing shots by not having f2.8 ? You should also consider the Z 180-600 (which I have on order) which is reported to be as sharp as the Z 100-400 (and less expensive), in spite of not being an S line.

 

[wotan1]

I notice you are staging your choices around the 500mm pf lens. That is a wise choice because the 500 pf is a really excellent lens that still competes with Z mount lenses.

I have a friend with that lens. I have observed his performance with as well as the limitations.

It is hard to give clear advice because a lot depends on what kinds of focal lengths are most relevant to your work.

If you are shooting a lot of wildlife including birds the 500 if it has any deficiency it is in reach. It is good with a 1.4 tc but if you need anything longer than 700mm you need something else. Adding the 800mm f6.3 PF takes care of that issue, the 800 is a super sharp lens that will do everything the 500 pf can do but in the longer ranges.

For a zoom I agree that the choices are between the 70-200, 100-400 and 180=600. Your choice depends on where you are most likely going to need the focal length.

Certainly the 70-200 f2.8 is a uniquely capable lens in its focal length range. Its DXOMARK score is about the highest of any zoom lens made by any manufacturer. At the same time you would need a 2x tc to get out to 400. I have used mine in that range and it will work but other lenses would do better at 400mm.

The choice is then between the 180-600 or the 100-400. The 180-600 is very inexpensive and has good reports on its optics. At the same time it has recognized deficiencies in some areas and will not perform as well as your 500mm pf in the 500-600mm and longer ranges. I have not used either of those two lenses so my reaction is based on what I have read.

The 180-600 is a very heavy lens. The 100-400 should be easier to handle.

FINALLY I want to plug the superwide 14-24mm f2.8. That lens is uniquely sharp and allows wonderfully creative perspective. It is one of my favorite lenses.

 

[Patrick M]

I don’t do a lot of animals but the z180-600 is such great value….
I rented the z400 f4.5 and the z100-400 plus 1.4x for a couple of trips last year. I wasn’t greatly keen on either tbh. My preference is for zooms as I do find they offer greater opportunities and the quality is very high. The extending 100-400 was of great concern in a very wet arctic tour- though it proved worthy and survived! The 189-600 with its internal zoom and short throw was ideal in a recent expedition to the Chilean fjords.
My goal will be to use the 180-600 or rent a the 600 pf.
I suggest you rent any lens first to get a feel for them.

 

[Len Shepherd]

Right now the 100-400 is heavily discounted in the UK.

Some sites suggest the 180-600 is marginally better at 400mm than the 100-400 - though the 180- 600 is significantly larger and heavier.
Photographing a test chart (boring) my 180-600 is fractionally ahead at 200% viewing at 400mm.

A strength of the 100-400 for those doing insects is its significant 4i nch wide close up ability at 400mm.

 

[fcotterill]

I have 14-30 f4S and 24-120 f4S with 70-180 f2.8 as primary set of Z mount zooms. 800 PF and 400 f4.5S are my most used hiking telephotos (aka Commando Kit) for wildlife subjects, or the 500 PF on D6.

The lighter f2.8 triad of Z mount zooms (17 thru 180) are good value at their prices..... Exemplars of the recent trend in designing high quality, relatively affordable zoom lenses

2024: The Year of the Lens Revolution

The photography landscape is undergoing a significant transformation, particularly in the field of lens technology. As we approach 2024, two key trends have become increasingly evident: the emergence of revolutionary lens designs and the rise of high-quality, affordable lenses. This pivotal...

fstoppers.com

My F mount system remains a core investment, particularly 70-200 f2.8E, 180-400 TC, 500 PF, 800 f5.6E with D6 or on a Z9... (and often using a Z or F teleconverter). So the Hide/Vehicle system (aka Destination Kit) is significantly heavier.

I also have found Brad Hill's advice useful, his Nikon Talks and Blog, and it's also worth checking Thom Hogan's lists/reviews etc.
Here's an overview of Telephoto options for the Greater Nikon Ecosystem :

"Which Nikon telephoto(s)?" for Wildlife Genres: Updated

This question involves an interesting set of factors. The answer(s) depend on one's personal needs, and budget obviously, besides the diversity of subjects and respective conditions. Here's an attempt to sketch out the challenges, and outline where to find resources to help settling final...

bcgforums.com

 

[Nobby]

Great advice and thank you

The 180-600 f/6.3 is not where I want to go as my 500 PF hits the mark as a prime for IQ, weight and I can use on both bodies [Z8/D850] with the option of using the the TC 1.4 II if 700mm is a must at any point. I have tried this with the Z8 and the IQ has improved in this combination but I would rather crop than use a TC at the moment. On a reverse look on zooms I did own the 200-500 f/5.6 and only used this at the long end hence the move to the 500 PF as an upgrade. I believe this would be the same with the Z 180-600 f/6.3 with two lenses at the long end and not addressing what my kit needs to progress whilst increasing the weight. I am not a birder with mammals as my main focus and therefore the next lens needs to balance with the 500 PF on a two bodies set up. Trading in and adding funds opens the door for the Z 100-400 f/4.5/5.6 and moving to the Z 70-200 f/2.8 with a TC is what I already have in the F lenses. [but the IQ would improve]

I handhold my lenses to find the viewpoint and therefore weight is important. The 100-400 f.4.5/5.6 also opens the door on the short end with the 75mm-98mm minimum focus for getting close to macro whilst balancing as a second lens for wildlife with the 500 PF. I would love to consider the Z 600 6.3 / Z 800 6.3 but these are out of my reach [three kids and 8 grandkids] This feels like the right replacement as I trading in my 24-70 f2.8 / 70-200 f/2.8 VRII and take the first leap in to a mirrorless lenses. It also feels like a good complement to the short end as I use the 16-35 f/4 but just don't use 24-70 f/2.8 [will consider the shorter replacement option at the end of the year]

I would like the 100-400 f/4.5/5.6 not to extend, but so far I have not seen any reviews / comments on the forum starting this as a concern

@MrFotoFool take your point on when I may need a f/2.8 lens but something has to give and these times are limited [exotics not an option]
@wotan1 your are right the 500 PF is the main lens that I will retain, like your plug on the 14-24 f/2.8 and could always add this in the future as a F lens [cost is low on used £349]
@Patrick M nice to hear that the 100-400 extended zoom stood up to weather
@Len Shepherd beefing able to get closer to Marco helps with the Z 100-400
@fcotterill as always thank you for the links and reviews firming up the Z 100-400

 

[macwalter]

I purchased the z8 as soon as it came out with 100-400mm z lens and the z1.4tc. I took this to Brazil and found it to be quite capable even the tc worked reasonably well and I had no trouble photographing birds in flight with this combo in good light. Then I purchased the z400 f4.5 to have a lens with decent reach in lower light situations. I also took a chance and purchased the 2x ztc. This combo will work in good light remembering you are at f9 and as I handhold my technique has to be good. Fro me this worked pretty well at Bosque Del Apache where often the birds were far away. I find the 1.4tc works quite well and found myself using this combo most of the time. I have no doubt the 600of f6.3 would work a bit better but I didn’t have the money have this time. Also I really like having f4.5 for lower light settings. The 180-600mm is I’m sure a good lens but it is heavy to handhold for me. I’m 75 in goood shape but not super strong. I also sold my 70-200 f2.8 fl as I didn’t like the way it autofocused on the z8. It had a hard aspect like the processor in the z8 was too strong. I have ordered the z 70-200 f2.8 to replace it.
I think if you are just getting into the z system and can have just one lens and you want to photograph a wide variety of critters the 100-400mm Is a good start. It close focuses to 3ft and works with a 1.4tc at f8 for 560mm. It is fast and quite sharp. the 400f4.5 is a bit better in terms of sharpness and also can work with the 2x tc but it does not close focus for insects etc.
I hand hold and cannot afford the really big glass so I can’t say just how much better they are.