Lens redundancy?

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).

bkashner

bkashner

Member
Supporting Member
Marketplace
Member's gallery
Since retiring I recently moved to mirrorless universe. I bought a Nikon Z6ii. Never owning a prime, I allocated my lens budget to a 24mm/1.8 S, a 50mm/1.5 S. Because I planned on the 200-600mm when it arrives, I added the 105mm/2.8 S to round out my lens kit. However..... thinking I had my mind made up on the 200-600, I've had time to do MORE research and am having second thoughts regarding its weight and not using the 600mm end as much as I thought I might. The Nikkor 100-400mm is looking very attractive at this point. My dilemma is I would have two lenses at 100mm range, albeit the 105mm S is a 2.8 which I never thought I could own. While an African safari is not in my future, I do shoot whatever wildlife wanders in from the surrounding woods, birds, macro stuff, bugs, flowers, etc. in addition to landscapes and seascapes. If the opportunity presents itself, I enjoy photographing people. I really enjoy shooting architecture and assorted buildings.

My question is, is the 105mm /2.8 S redundant along side the Z 100-400? The $2700 for the 100-400 taps me out. I plan to squirrel away $550 at some point and get the TC 1.4 giving me 140-560 with the 100-400. The trade in value for the 105 is $495 at both NIkon and B&H so I'm taking about a $550 hit on a trade in. Any insights would be greatly appreciated. Thank you!
 
Member's gallery
typically if you bring a prime like the 105 with you, you have a specific shooting situation in mind that you can control (eg portraiture or macro). the 100-400 on the other hand is a great lens that can adapt to the situation. while they overlap you probably are going to prefer one vs the other depending on what you plan to do. otoh, the 100-400 shoots at 105 just fine and it’s actually quite good at capturing close, small subjects
 
Member's gallery
The 105 F/2.8 S is a MACRO lens while the 100-400 can only get to 0.38. Weight wise the 100-400 is 50.6 oz w/ tripod collar while the 105 (which does not have a collar) weighs in at 22.3 oz, less than 1/2 the weight of the zoom.
 
Member's gallery
I use the z70-200 a lot, and I've the 2x TC for the occasions I need longer. That's until the 200-600. I do a lot of woodlands and stuff and felt the 100-400 just wasn't as sharp as the 70-200. my style is more animals generally, more often landscapes and towns. Rarely BIF though birds on feeders I get with the 70-200
 
Member's gallery
The 100-400 is a great lens and takes the 1.4 converter well. I have the 105 macro but when travelling I find I am using the 100-400 as a get by macro. I wouldn't get rid of my 105 as I still prefer it for dedicated macro work. A second hand 500pf may also be a consideration.
 
Member's gallery
The following applies to me and my style of shooting and the subjects I enjoy shooting. Yours may be different but the process may be applicable to you .

I'm still on the Nikon F Mount system (D500) and have a bag full of lenses I've used over the years. A couple years back I did an interesting experiment and looked through my photo library at the lenses I actually used. 200-500 was number 24-70 F2.8 was number 2 and 105mm F2.8 Macro was number 3. Number 4 (by quite a wide margin) was 100-400 Sigma. I have about a half dozen other lenses that I find rarely get used.

If I were to build a new kit with mirrorless, I would first focus on those lenses I use the most. Mine are stated above. Then, as time and funding allowed I may start adding in the other more speciality and rarely used lenses. On the other hand, the 3 or so most frequently used ones may meet 99% of my needs and I could live happily without the expense and weight of the speciality lenses.

What I suggest is look over your library of work, think about what types of photo subjects you enjoy and build a kit around that.

Jeff
 
Member's gallery
Whether the lens is redundant or not is going to vary depending on what and how you shoot. Someone who shoots a lot of macro or even portraits would likely take the 105mm over the 100-400mm every time while someone who shoots wildlife would likely take the 100-400mm every time. While there is overlap in focal length, the lenses serve different purposes. I own both lenses myself and rarely use the 105mm but I don’t want to sell it either. It is a really nice lens but I don’t shoot a lot of macro or portraits right now and that lens is excellent for that. The 100-400mm is more versatile being a zoom and has close focusing abilities, but it’s not a substitute for a real macro or portrait lens.
 
Member's gallery
bkashner said:
{snip}.....

My question is, is the 105mm /2.8 S redundant along side the Z 100-400? The $2700 for the 100-400 taps me out. I plan to squirrel away $550 at some point and get the TC 1.4 giving me 140-560 with the 100-400. The trade in value for the 105 is $495 at both NIkon and B&H so I'm taking about a $550 hit on a trade in. Any insights would be greatly appreciated. Thank you!
Click to expand...
I'm a devout subscriber to redundancy, particularly with real life experience of breakages and long delays in repairing cameras and lenses.

I have only used the 100-400 S which is as good as is widely acknowledged. Versatile including for tight close ups of larger arthropods and flowers etc. However, i've many years of experience using several of the older Micro-Nikkors as primary workhorses, and it's clear this zoom is no replacement. After all, the 105 magnifies to 1:1 and it is by all accounts a significant upgrade on the latest F-mount G version....but as I keep saying - publicly - let's hope Nikon update the unique 70-180 Micro-Nikkor

photographylife.com

Nikon Z MC 105mm f/2.8 VR S Macro Review

photographylife.com photographylife.com
 
Member's gallery
Maljo said:
Lenses fail. Redundancy is good.
Click to expand...
I don't think it will apply for today's Nikon lenses but once I had a problem and was happy to have a redundant lens.
In 2012 we bought a new Sigma 120-300/2.8 just before the Africa trip. It was my third trip and due to the fact that I didn't see cheetah in the first two trips I was happy to find out that three cheetah brothers were in the concession we were heading in. And what happened? Well... the Sigma took photos of cheetah, was working exactly 2 first days and then got broken! One glass-element had fried from the glue and was running in the lens tube... because of the African temperature I would say. The new lens didn't work anymore. And I was in the bush! Good thing I had some redundant lens with me! The lens was repaired after my return to Europe. So, I was carrying new not-working lens the whole trip with me.
I made 16 Africa-trips since and every time I take a redundant lens with me! And redundant bodies... just for case.

By the way 100-400 is a very versatile lens! Excellent for wildlife, landscapes and people. Excellent for taking a video. Recently I bought 105 MC because I always wanted it. And I am going to use it primarily for macro work. However, many photographers are using macro lens for portraits. But a macro lens can be too sharp for a portrait. People don't like to see every point of the skin on photo and some skin-softener must be applied in post.
Actually, I don't see 105 MC to be redundant to 100-400mm. Even 200-600 is not really redundant because it has extra 200mm ... Perhaps 70-300mm can be considered as a redundant.
 
Member's gallery
Member's gallery
The 100-400 is fantastic! However, if wildlife and birds are of interest I’d suggest the upcoming 200-600 maybe worth the wait. Talk to anyone with the Sigma, Tamron, or Nikon long zooms (such as the 150-600 or 200-500) and most will tell you they mostly use those lenses at the long end.
 
Member's gallery
I do believe redundancy is okay - and may be a good thing. But I see the 105 MC and 100-400 as being very different lenses with different purposes.

The 105 MC is first and foremost a macro lens with the capability of high magnification. It's also a very good portrait lens. If you want to shoot macro or near macro, 105mm is the first step and most generic focal length. Optical performance is outstanding - even compared to other macro lenses which are all very good.

The 100-400 is an all purpose zoom used for sports, wildlife, and possibly even portraits or landscapes. The close focus distance makes it a great choice for close up wildlife like dragonflies, butterflies, and lizards. If you need macro or near macro, this lens won't provide enough magnification and the working distance is too long for tight quarters. The lens will work with a teleconverter which can be a plus.

I would not get rid of the 105 MC unless you have decided you don't want it for macro or portraits. It's best in class and your only macro option.

If you need something longer, the 100-400 is available now, the 200-500 would be a good option, or the upcoming 200-600 would be a terrific choice. The best choice depends on your interests and budget. If you want to photograph large mammals and insects, the 100-400 is the choice. For birds, I'd probably want something longer like the 200-500 or 200-600.
 
Member's gallery
I am blown away by the responses to my little dilemma! Thank you all very much for your comments and insights. I did not expect all this. It certainly helps. I feel much better keeping the 105. I very much enjoy getting eye ball to eye ball with bugs and bees. They make for some very interesting images. I am definitely leaning towards the 100-400. The reviews are extremely positive and I feel I would have too much of a gap between 105 and 200 with the 200-600. Having said that I would like to hear what the actual responses are to the impending Nikon Z 200-600. Seems I saw somewhere that February may be the arrival date. Thank you all very much!
 
Member's gallery
bkashner said:
I am blown away by the responses to my little dilemma! Thank you all very much for your comments and insights. I did not expect all this. It certainly helps. I feel much better keeping the 105. I very much enjoy getting eye ball to eye ball with bugs and bees. They make for some very interesting images. I am definitely leaning towards the 100-400. The reviews are extremely positive and I feel I would have too much of a gap between 105 and 200 with the 200-600. Having said that I would like to hear what the actual responses are to the impending Nikon Z 200-600. Seems I saw somewhere that February may be the arrival date. Thank you all very much!
Click to expand...
I have the Z100-400 (love the lens , waiting for the 1.4TC) and have a Z105mm on hold for me to pickup in 2 weeks Now lets see what the Z200-600 has to offer, maybe this year..
 
Member's gallery
Mark Garfinkel said:
I have the Z100-400 (love the lens , waiting for the 1.4TC) and have a Z105mm on hold for me to pickup in 2 weeks Now lets see what the Z200-600 has to offer, maybe this year..
Click to expand...
Hi Mark. Sounds like we have similar camera gear goals. I am about ready to pull the trigger on 100-400 and save a little while to get the 1.4. Same thoughts re the Z200-600, I would like to see what it has to offer. I just need to fish or cut bait!
 
Member's gallery
I guess my question to you would be...how much do you actually use the 105 as a true macro lens (1:1) and how much do you use it at f/2.8 (for portraiture, for example)? If you aren't using it as a true macro and the f/2.8 aperture isn't critical for you at the 105 focal length, the 100-400 is a much more versatile lens.
 
Member's gallery
bkashner said:
Hi Mark. Sounds like we have similar camera gear goals. I am about ready to pull the trigger on 100-400 and save a little while to get the 1.4. Same thoughts re the Z200-600, I would like to see what it has to offer. I just need to fish or cut bait!
Click to expand...
I'm waiting to see what the 200-600 has weight wise and IQ wise and TC acceptability wise myself. While I truly love the 100-400…another 200mm would be very nice and the TC makes it an 840 which if it's light enough compared to the 100-400 might be attractive…but who really knows at this point. Looking at the roadmap it's obviously a few inches longer…maybe 13-15 instead of 9 when collapsed but no idea on weight or whether it makes sense yet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top