Newbie Lens Help Please

[VinnyVent84]

Hey all, hoping for some help deciding on a lens as a newbie. I recently got a Z6III and love it. Along with the body I purchased a 28-75mm f/2.8. I got that lens because I was very concerned on low light capability (part of the reason I went full frame as well); perhaps overly concerned because my background is in astrophotography. I've used it for a few days now and the lens is great BUT I find myself wishing I had a bit more reach (and some more wider angles too!) - for example at my son's play you can't stand too close so I was yearning for some more zoom.

Now my predicament - I'm stuck deciding on the f/2.8 Tamron vs the f/4 Nikon. Same situation for deciding between the 14-24 vs the 14-30mm Nikon. The two things bugging me the most is the Tamrons starting point of 35 seems a bit high but I'm getting that speed. However the Nikon has what I think is a more usable zoom range and is lighter (and cheaper). Secondly the 14-24 has the speed but comes a big weight and filter cost price.

Do you all think I'm making too big of a deal hyper focusing on the f/2.8 vs f/4? I fear my Astro background is jading me. My low light conditions wouldn't be super often but not exactly rare either. The type of low light conditions would be the occasional poorly lit restaurant; perhaps some late nights in the park with my son (but I live in NYC Bortle 8/9 so it's never truly "dark" out) or occasional trips where your site seeing and it's late evening or early night.

Putting the price tag aside what do you all think? The f/4 isn't that big of a deal to get what I believe for me is the more optimal zoom range or the speed is noticeable in the conditions I occasionally encounter and I should just deal with the higher price and higher starting zoom?

 

[ButlerKid]

"Putting price aside......." The Nikon 14-24 f2.8 is one of the best lenses there is for night skies and low light situations. However, I don't shoot night skies, so I'm sure others will be able to suggest their favorite lenses for astrophotography.

 

[Cameron T]

Tbh, these questions are always unanswerable by anyone but the person asking. You have to decide what you want more. Range, or max aperture. Both have advantages sometimes. Since we aren't you we can't answer which will give you more shots you're happy with.

 

[JAJohnson]

Hey all, hoping for some help deciding on a lens as a newbie. I recently got a Z6III and love it. Along with the body I purchased a 28-75mm f/2.8. I got that lens because I was very concerned on low light capability (part of the reason I went full frame as well); perhaps overly concerned because my background is in astrophotography. I've used it for a few days now and the lens is great BUT I find myself wishing I had a bit more reach (and some more wider angles too!) - for example at my son's play you can't stand too close so I was yearning for some more zoom.

Now my predicament - I'm stuck deciding on the f/2.8 Tamron vs the f/4 Nikon. Same situation for deciding between the 14-24 vs the 14-30mm Nikon. The two things bugging me the most is the Tamrons starting point of 35 seems a bit high but I'm getting that speed. However the Nikon has what I think is a more usable zoom range and is lighter (and cheaper). Secondly the 14-24 has the speed but comes a big weight and filter cost price.

Do you all think I'm making too big of a deal hyper focusing on the f/2.8 vs f/4? I fear my Astro background is jading me. My low light conditions wouldn't be super often but not exactly rare either. The type of low light conditions would be the occasional poorly lit restaurant; perhaps some late nights in the park with my son (but I live in NYC Bortle 8/9 so it's never truly "dark" out) or occasional trips where your site seeing and it's late evening or early night.

Putting the price tag aside what do you all think? The f/4 isn't that big of a deal to get what I believe for me is the more optimal zoom range or the speed is noticeable in the conditions I occasionally encounter and I should just deal with the higher price and higher starting zoom?

I’m somewhat confused. You mentioned you are yearning for more reach but the rest of your post appears related to wide angle. Can you clarify specifically which lenses you’re referring to with “f/2.8 vs f/4”?

 

[TurtleCat]

What kind of astro are you doing? Wide field landscapes with the night sky or deep sky? My answers would be very different between the two. Also are you on a stable tripod or on a tracking mount? The answer could influence the right choices as well. Generally speaking I think there isn’t a big deal in the one stop. The more important bit is whether coma is well corrected. You could have that 2.8 but it might need to be stopped down to 4 to even have decent star corners. The 4 may be perfect out of the gate or may need to be stopped down to 5.6 perhaps.

If your interest is simply darker city/urban life and street photography then I’d say go for a prime that’s even faster than 2.8

 

[VinnyVent84]

"Putting price aside......." The Nikon 14-24 f2.8 is one of the best lenses there is for night skies and low light situations. However, I don't shoot night skies, so I'm sure others will be able to suggest their favorite lenses for astrophotography.

Thanks for the response! It’s actually not for Astro. For Astro I have dedicated cooled Astro cameras.

My “low light” situations for the ZIII would be things like occasional restaurant / bars that aren’t usually well lit, occasional school auditorium plays that are not well lit, vacation photos taken in early evening / nights.

Not sure if those scenarios warrant the jump from the f4 to f2.8? Would results prove to be so noticeable for most or the opposite where only a pro or pixel peeper would see the difference on those lenses for those types of low light situations?

 

[TurtleCat]

I’d suggest looking at a couple of primes like a 20 f1.8 or 35 1.4/1.8 rather than a zoom for those if you’re thinking really low light. By all accounts the 14-24 is better quality than the 14-30 but you’re paying for it in weight and cost.

 

[VinnyVent84]

I’m somewhat confused. You mentioned you are yearning for more reach but the rest of your post appears related to wide angle. Can you clarify specifically which lenses you’re referring to with “f/2.8 vs f/4”?

Apologize for the confusion. My background is Astrophotography but that will not be what the ZIII is being used for.

Uses: about 25-30% of the time encountering “low light” situations like poorly lit bar, my son’s school plays in poor lit auditorium, late evening or early night visits to parks with my wife and son, evening / night vacation family photos.

I am looking to purchases two lenses and am undecided if I need the f2.8 or f4 versions for my use cases. The lenses are

Lens 1: Nikon 24-120 f4 or Tamron 35-150 f2.8

Lens 2: Nikon 14-24 f2.8 or Nikon 14-30 f4

 

[VinnyVent84]

What kind of astro are you doing? Wide field landscapes with the night sky or deep sky? My answers would be very different between the two. Also are you on a stable tripod or on a tracking mount? The answer could influence the right choices as well. Generally speaking I think there isn’t a big deal in the one stop. The more important bit is whether coma is well corrected. You could have that 2.8 but it might need to be stopped down to 4 to even have decent star corners. The 4 may be perfect out of the gate or may need to be stopped down to 5.6 perhaps.

If your interest is simply darker city/urban life and street photography then I’d say go for a prime that’s even faster than 2.8

Hey turtlecat - it’s not actually for Astro. I hopefully clarified my use and situation to JAJohnson above

 

[VinnyVent84]

Tbh, these questions are always unanswerable by anyone but the person asking. You have to decide what you want more. Range, or max aperture. Both have advantages sometimes. Since we aren't you we can't answer which will give you more shots you're happy with.

I know it’s hard for others to answer. I guess I’m just trying to get an understanding of what the definition of “low light” to see the benefit of a 2.8 over 4.

If a poorly lit bar or school auditorium would yield noticeably better results at f2.8 vs f4 I would buy it today.

However if someone tells me that true “low light” is something like a park with just moonlight at 9pm at night Is where you see the real benefit then I would say I can probably make do with the f4 - if that makes sense?

 

[JAJohnson]

Apologize for the confusion. My background is Astrophotography but that will not be what the ZIII is being used for.

Uses: about 25-30% of the time encountering “low light” situations like poorly lit bar, my son’s school plays in poor lit auditorium, late evening or early night visits to parks with my wife and son, evening / night vacation family photos.

I am looking to purchases two lenses and am undecided if I need the f2.8 or f4 versions for my use cases. The lenses are

Lens 1: Nikon 24-120 f4 or Tamron 35-150 f2.8

Lens 2: Nikon 14-24 f2.8 or Nikon 14-30 f4

Thank you! I have a much better understanding of your question.

Lens 1: 2.8 will always allow lower ISO for a given shutter speed, so that would mitigate against the Nikon 24-120 given your use cases. I don’t have personal experience with the Tamron 35-150 but it has gotten good reviews. The Nikon 24-120 is a fine choice as well, with the added flexibility of going to 24mm when needed.

Lens 2: I’ve owned both lenses you mentioned but I sold the Nikon 14-30 in favor of the Nikon 14-24. While it’s heavier and chunkier, I found I preferred image quality of the 14-24. A friend who has it loves it for her Astro images.

 

[VinnyVent84]

Thanks! Would you say my low light situations would result in a difference most would be able to discern if spending the extra to go 2.8 vs the 4? Or is it splitting hairs for my use cases?

 

[JAJohnson]

Thanks! Would you say my low light situations would result in a difference most would be able to discern if spending the extra to go 2.8 vs the 4? Or is it splitting hairs for my use cases?

I think you’re probably splitting hairs and none of the four lenses you mentioned is a bad choice. It comes down to personal preference and budget available.

 

[ButlerKid]

There are always trade offs. Are you willing to use higher ISO's when using an f4 lens over an f2.8 with the same shutter speed? Or would you need to use a slower shutter speed in order to not increase the ISO? To simplify, restaurants, gyms, dusk, etc always benefit (by allowing a faster shutter speed or lower ISO) from a lens that can gather more light.

When facing such decisions, I try to "buy once" and avoid the risk of regretting the decision in the future. While it costs me more initially, I end up with a product that will serve me well for many years with no regrets.

 

[Warren D]

What body are you coming from? That might help answer your question. If it's a D850 then the Z6iii's sensor will negate that extra stop you would lose with f4. If it's a D750/780 then it's a about equal but I'd still give the nod to the Z6. I think f4 is workable, it's only 1 stop slower and the Z series cameras seem to have about that much more over their f mount cousins. I have the Z14-30 and it's a sweet lens. I have several of the F mount 24-120's and they are my main go to lenses for most everything. They perform fine on the Z's. A thought to consider, the F mount 24-120 f4 has VR which when added to the IBIS gets very good stabilization. My main reason for hanging onto the F mount versions.

 

[MartyD]

Lens 1: Nikon 24-120 f4 or Tamron 35-150 f2.8

Lens 2: Nikon 14-24 f2.8 or Nikon 14-30 f4

You already have the 28-75 f2.8 so I don't see why the 24-120 or the 35-150 give you any real additional reach. I would consider the 70-200 f2.8, it is what I use to photography most of my grandkids events and performances.

I have the 14-30 f4 for wide angle that is considerably smaller and less expensive than the 14-24 primarily because I want to carry it for travel.

 

[Terry]

Apologize for the confusion. My background is Astrophotography but that will not be what the ZIII is being used for.

Uses: about 25-30% of the time encountering “low light” situations like poorly lit bar, my son’s school plays in poor lit auditorium, late evening or early night visits to parks with my wife and son, evening / night vacation family photos.

I am looking to purchases two lenses and am undecided if I need the f2.8 or f4 versions for my use cases. The lenses are

Lens 1: Nikon 24-120 f4 or Tamron 35-150 f2.8

Lens 2: Nikon 14-24 f2.8 or Nikon 14-30 f4

So my background is photojournalist on the streets of Dallas, deep nights. Think murders, crashes, fires etc. I use the 24-120 a bunch. I love that lens! I typically shoot at 4.5 and for street scenes it works fine.

I looked at the Tamron for that extra stop but the 35mm not so wide end killed it for me. I don't see 35 as wide and the difference between 120 and 150 wasn't concerning.

I also have the 14-24 f2.8. Once again a killer lens! When I can afford it I'll always buy fast glass so 2.8 was a winner. I don't think you can go wrong with these two lenses.

Terry

 

[ElenaH]

Lens 1: Nikon 24-120 f4 or Tamron 35-150 f2.8

Lens 2: Nikon 14-24 f2.8 or Nikon 14-30 f4

From what I've understood, what are your subjects are then I would take 35-150 because it starts from f2 on wide angle and 150mm is quite a big difference to 120mm ... I mean for night cities, restaurants, evens .. etc it would be better IMO
I have Nikon Z 24-120, use it for landscapes but for me the images look rather flat... too sharp, too much corrected.. I think you get get more from Tamron. But it is only my personal opinion. It is also about bokeh on the streets.. nut only low light stuff
If you will not shoot astro then I would take 15-30 because of small size and weight, you can take it into your purse.. ;-) or in the pocket and have any time with you. But for astro is better 14-24, of course.

 

[dabhand16]

You already have the 28-75 f2.8 so I don't see why the 24-120 or the 35-150 give you any real additional reach. I would consider the 70-200 f2.8, it is what I use to photography most of my grandkids events and performances.

Me too. For me a 70-200 f2.8 is a must have.

 

[VinnyVent84]

From what I've understood, what are your subjects are then I would take 35-150 because it starts from f2 on wide angle and 150mm is quite a big difference to 120mm ... I mean for night cities, restaurants, evens .. etc it would be better IMO
I have Nikon Z 24-120, use it for landscapes but for me the images look rather flat... too sharp, too much corrected.. I think you get get more from Tamron. But it is only my personal opinion. It is also about bokeh on the streets.. nut only low light stuff
If you will not shoot astro then I would take 15-30 because of small size and weight, you can take it into your purse.. ;-) or in the pocket and have any time with you. But for astro is better 14-24, of course.

I actually have a dedicated cooled monochrome camera for Astro so this would not be used for that. But the other stuff you mentioned yes it would be used for that.

The only two complaints I hear about the Tamron are it’s quite large and people really miss that step down to 24mm. If I get the 14-24 that covers it but requires me always carrying around that wider lense and swapping out.

 

[ElenaH]

I actually have a dedicated cooled monochrome camera for Astro so this would not be used for that. But the other stuff you mentioned yes it would be used for that.

The only two complaints I hear about the Tamron are it’s quite large and people really miss that step down to 24mm. If I get the 14-24 that covers it but requires me always carrying around that wider lense and swapping out.

yes, Tamron is big. If you get one lens with 2.8 you can take the other with 4. But actually Tamron starts at f2.
24-120 is also not small but light. For me it looks like it has not much of character. Tamron will have more, IMO.

 

[Nimi]

Another vote for the 14-24/2.8. Best zoom i own.

 

[Ken Miracle]

I have two of the lenses you mention and a Z6III and 2 Z9's.

My indoor low and wildly variable light use is a church with people. I use the Tamron z mount 35-150 f/2-2.8 is great and so is the Nikon Z24-120

 

[Roy]

Hey all, hoping for some help deciding on a lens as a newbie. I recently got a Z6III and love it. Along with the body I purchased a 28-75mm f/2.8. I got that lens because I was very concerned on low light capability (part of the reason I went full frame as well); perhaps overly concerned because my background is in astrophotography. I've used it for a few days now and the lens is great BUT I find myself wishing I had a bit more reach (and some more wider angles too!) - for example at my son's play you can't stand too close so I was yearning for some more zoom.

Now my predicament - I'm stuck deciding on the f/2.8 Tamron vs the f/4 Nikon. Same situation for deciding between the 14-24 vs the 14-30mm Nikon. The two things bugging me the most is the Tamrons starting point of 35 seems a bit high but I'm getting that speed. However the Nikon has what I think is a more usable zoom range and is lighter (and cheaper). Secondly the 14-24 has the speed but comes a big weight and filter cost price.

Do you all think I'm making too big of a deal hyper focusing on the f/2.8 vs f/4? I fear my Astro background is jading me. My low light conditions wouldn't be super often but not exactly rare either. The type of low light conditions would be the occasional poorly lit restaurant; perhaps some late nights in the park with my son (but I live in NYC Bortle 8/9 so it's never truly "dark" out) or occasional trips where your site seeing and it's late evening or early night.

Putting the price tag aside what do you all think? The f/4 isn't that big of a deal to get what I believe for me is the more optimal zoom range or the speed is noticeable in the conditions I occasionally encounter and I should just deal with the higher price and higher starting zoom?

For Astro the maximum amount of light can be critical.
The Nikkor 14-24 is a great lens (I have 2) but consider the 20mm f1.8 Nikkor and Viltrox 16mm.
for more reach the 70-200 Nikkor is a good choice..
If the distance was further away the 180-600 is great value.

 

[sinewsworn]

Hey all, hoping for some help deciding on a lens as a newbie. I recently got a Z6III and love it. Along with the body I purchased a 28-75mm f/2.8. I got that lens because I was very concerned on low light capability (part of the reason I went full frame as well); perhaps overly concerned because my background is in astrophotography. I've used it for a few days now and the lens is great BUT I find myself wishing I had a bit more reach (and some more wider angles too!) - for example at my son's play you can't stand too close so I was yearning for some more zoom.

Now my predicament - I'm stuck deciding on the f/2.8 Tamron vs the f/4 Nikon. Same situation for deciding between the 14-24 vs the 14-30mm Nikon. The two things bugging me the most is the Tamrons starting point of 35 seems a bit high but I'm getting that speed. However the Nikon has what I think is a more usable zoom range and is lighter (and cheaper). Secondly the 14-24 has the speed but comes a big weight and filter cost price.

Do you all think I'm making too big of a deal hyper focusing on the f/2.8 vs f/4? I fear my Astro background is jading me. My low light conditions wouldn't be super often but not exactly rare either. The type of low light conditions would be the occasional poorly lit restaurant; perhaps some late nights in the park with my son (but I live in NYC Bortle 8/9 so it's never truly "dark" out) or occasional trips where your site seeing and it's late evening or early night.

Putting the price tag aside what do you all think? The f/4 isn't that big of a deal to get what I believe for me is the more optimal zoom range or the speed is noticeable in the conditions I occasionally encounter and I should just deal with the higher price and higher starting zoom?

You mentioned your son’s play-needing more reach. Z70-200 f2.8.