Nikon Z lens -are S lenses worth it ?

[O]

I had both the 24-70/2.8E and the 70-200/2.8E FL. I liked both optics and would have kept them when I went mirrorless but I decided to go with the 24-120 S and 100-400 S. So far I'm not regretting that decision. I maybe should have tried to keep them but I needed the $$ to help bankroll the mirrorless conversion. But you're right there's very little to complain about with the 70-200/2.8 E (and it pairs up damn well with the 1.4TC III).

My 70-200 FL is the most used lens i have period........just love it..........

I still have the 24-70 2.8 G, i was looking at the E, but found for the money which was WOW and the difference, i passed, the VR would be handy but i shoot at higher SS anyway if not i am on a ultra light mono pod or tripod with my G lens.

I hear good things about the E, great VR colour etc, sharper in the corners, the older G i have apparently had feed back as being a whisker sharper in the centre softer in the corners but as i usually crop a little as i like to shot wider than not.

So you went for the 24-120s in exchange for the 24-70 E is that the way i understand it. Whats the IQ difference ?

The range you cover is from 24-400 nice fit, lighter gear........just need a 60-80mp camera with 12 fps and weighs 500 GMS LOL, that's a done deal.

For myself the 50mm 1.8 S is exceptional, the 70-200FL we know is a absolute keeper, i have my eye out for a 500 PF and 100-400 subject to final testing of a sample, i love my 28-300 as the all round hack lens, i was looking at compromising on 100mm and replacing it with a 100-400 especially as it has a 4 to1 magnification ratio and usually shoot around 90-300mm on that lens.

Only an opinion

 

[Griffym]

Price, Priorities, Practices.
It is clearly worth every cent for the S line at the short end. I have the 24-70 F4S, (A brilliant performer at bargain price point if bought as a kit lens) the 50 F1.8 S (Impressive 50mm surprisingly good for a 1.8) the 85 F1.8S lens (my favourite lens, excellent sharpness, smooth bokeh, light, unassuming but produces consistently delightful results) The 105 F2.8 S (wonderful).

I don’t think I will replace all my other F series lenses. My needs, and budget priorities are different now. I still have a D800 and D500 I can use them on. If I sell the DSLRs then maybe I will reconsider. But…..

• 16-35 F4 ( I will rent a 14-24 F2S before thinking about this one). I need to actually see what a better ultra wide can do for my fairly rudimentary grasp of ultra wide lens use. Is the 16-35 at F8 at 18-20 mm good enough by comparison ?
• 105 F series macro ( already bought the Z version. No plans to sell the F series anyway.
• 70-200F2.8G - no plans to update
• 300 F2.8 VrII. - works great on the Z9. No Z equivalent yet.
• 500 F4G. No Z series equivalent..

 

[O]

"... The 14-24mm just blows the 16-35mm away in terms of sharpness, particularly at the wide end. While the 14-24mm also has considerable linear distortion, it's not quite as bad as the 16-35mm, and the other traits of the faster lens are generally better—or at least more predictable—too."

Nikon 16-35mm f/4G Lens Review | DSLRBodies | Thom Hogan

Review of the Nikon 16-35mm f/4G lens

www.dslrbodies.com

Actually, the 18-35 G is still one of the F-mount bargains for all FX ILCs, to quote Thom's recommended for FX. I bought a Used copy some years ago (passed the heavier inferior 16-35 G), and it's still a reliable light hiking lens, and perfect on camera traps:

"The 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5 and 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5. The smaller size and weight better complements the 24mp camera bodies, and the optical performance is tuned just about right for those cameras, too. These lenses are almost good enough to recommend to D8xx users, and are actually some of Nikon’s best lens bargains in FX."

My understanding is the 16-35 is defiantly sharper in the centre by around 20%, and yes the 14-24 is superior in the corners, being such a wide angle and a F2.8 it needs a more even design corner to corner, the 16-35 is physically narrower and F4 so its seems reasonable that it would appear sharper in the center, at least its been my experience in the field.

I have a 24-85 VR its awesome, i never knew the 18-35 was so sharp interesting, may have to keep and eye out and try one.

Only an opinion

 

[fcotterill]

A few years ago, I hunted down a pair of used UWide Zeiss Distagon primes - 15 f2.8AIP and 21 f2.8AIP for landscape photography, on the D850 primarily, and also Z7, and they are as effective on a Z9. These had become affordable when Zeiss released the Milvus models. But these superb optics are heavy and obviously lack AF. A Used 18-35 G filled this gap extremely well, after intensive research into whether the more expensive 16-35 G was a better choice.
3 reviews :
http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/821-nikkorafs18353545ff?start=2

Nikon 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5G Review - Page 4 of 6

photographylife.com

Nikon Nikkor AF-S 18-35 mm f/3.5-4.5G ED review - Summary - LensTip.com

Best digital cameras and lens reviews. If you are looking for the information about digital cameras and lenses you are in a right place. We have many professional tests of digital photography equipment.

www.lenstip.com

Obviously, the 14-30 f4S has become the compact Nikkor UWide of choice since, as Nikon's chief engineer has explained: "The Z-mount is actually a great contributor to the downsizing of the camera, of the mount itself, and in pursuing high-performance optical functions, as well as enabling the filter attachment."

This is unless one needs the f2.8S - discussed in earlier threads:

Wide angle zoom lens recommendations for Nikon

Seeking recommendations for a good wide angle zoom for Nikon cameras (Z9 and D850). I don’t anticipate a ton of low light situations with outdoor landscapes but I would like to have the option of doing street photography in the evenings or early mornings as well as some situations where there is...

bcgforums.com

 

[Geoff_G]

My understanding is the 16-35 is defiantly sharper in the centre by around 20%, and yes the 14-24 is superior in the corners, being such a wide angle and a F2.8 it needs a more even design corner to corner, the 16-35 is physically narrower and F4 so its seems reasonable that it would appear sharper in the center, at least its been my experience in the field.

I have a 24-85 VR its awesome, i never knew the 18-35 was so sharp interesting, may have to keep and eye out and try one.

Only an opinion

No - Look here.
I had the 14-24G for years and never bought into the 16-35 hype. Now I have the 14-24S and it's just bonkers good... The main thing the 16-35 has over the 14-24 is it accepts filters - the 14-24 requires an expensive aftermarket adapter and giant filters: Using a CPL on the 16-35 is way cheaper and easier (and a lot easier to pack) than the 14-24. For landscapes they're probably close (IQ wise) when both are stopped down to f/8 or so.

 

[Geoff_G]

My 70-200 FL is the most used lens i have period........just love it..........

I still have the 24-70 2.8 G, i was looking at the E, but found for the money which was WOW and the difference, i passed, the VR would be handy but i shoot at higher SS anyway if not i am on a ultra light mono pod or tripod with my G lens.

I hear good things about the E, great VR colour etc, sharper in the corners, the older G i have apparently had feed back as being a whisker sharper in the centre softer in the corners but as i usually crop a little as i like to shot wider than not.

So you went for the 24-120s in exchange for the 24-70 E is that the way i understand it. Whats the IQ difference ?

The range you cover is from 24-400 nice fit, lighter gear........just need a 60-80mp camera with 12 fps and weighs 500 GMS LOL, that's a done deal.

For myself the 50mm 1.8 S is exceptional, the 70-200FL we know is a absolute keeper, i have my eye out for a 500 PF and 100-400 subject to final testing of a sample, i love my 28-300 as the all round hack lens, i was looking at compromising on 100mm and replacing it with a 100-400 especially as it has a 4 to1 magnification ratio and usually shoot around 90-300mm on that lens.

Only an opinion

I loved the versatility of the 24-120. I've had 2 F mount versions, including the latest G variant. I sold it to get the 24-70/2.8E. I really liked that 24-70E but when the Z9 was announced along with the 24-120 and 100-400 lenses I preordered all three and haven't looked back. Now, I doubt the 24-120S has the same IQ as the 24-70S but it's much improved over the G version and I'm happy with the lens. The big diff is f/4 vs f/2.8 and I can live with that for the most part, but I have purchased (not yet received) the 50/1.8 and the 105/2.8 macro to scratch some of that itch.
I'm not alone in liking the 24-120....Brad Hill likes it too....

 

[O]

I loved the versatility of the 24-120. I've had 2 F mount versions, including the latest G variant. I sold it to get the 24-70G. I really liked that 24-70G but when the Z9 was announced along with the 24-120 and 100-400 lenses I preordered all three and haven't looked back. Now, I doubt the 24-120S has the same IQ as the 24-70S but it's much improved over the G version and I'm happy with the lens. The big diff is f/4 vs f/2.8 and I can live with that for the most part, but I have purchased (not yet received) the 50/1.8 and the 105/2.8 macro to scratch some of that itch.
I'm not alone in liking the 24-120....Brad Hill likes it too....

Thank you i would be interested in your feed back on the 105 macro.

 

[Griffym]

My understanding is the 16-35 is defiantly sharper in the centre by around 20%, and yes the 14-24 is superior in the corners, being such a wide angle and a F2.8 it needs a more even design corner to corner, the 16-35 is physically narrower and F4 so its seems reasonable that it would appear sharper in the center, at least its been my experience in the field.

I have a 24-85 VR its awesome, i never knew the 18-35 was so sharp interesting, may have to keep and eye out and try one.

Only an opinion

Err. See the Photography Life reviews of each lens. (You can only compare test done by the same testing lab.).
The 16-35F4 is a good lens alright ( I own one and plan to keep using it) BUT it is not even close to the Z 14-24. It is not sharper in the center. I wish it was.

That said it is a good lens in its own right. Both the Nikkor ultra wide lenses outperform it in just about every measure, if that matters. I look at the images I have taken with the 16-35 and I still think it is a good lens.

Nikon 16-35mm f/4 VR Review - Page 2 of 6

photographylife.com

compare to

Nikon NIKKOR Z 14-24mm f/2.8 S

Nikon makes some some seriously good ultra-wide lenses. The F-mount 14-24mm f/2.8 is often considered one of the best wide zooms ever, and the wide-angle Z lenses we've seen so far have also been fantastic. But how does the Nikon Z 14-24mm f/2.8 S compare?

photographylife.com

 

[O]

Err. See the Photography Life reviews of each lens. (You can only compare test done by the same testing lab.).
The 16-35F4 is a good lens alright ( I own one and plan to keep using it) BUT it is not even close to the Z 14-24. It is not sharper in the center. I wish it was.

That said it is a good lens in its own right. Both the Nikkor ultra wide lenses outperform it in just about every measure, if that matters. I look at the images I have taken with the 16-35 and I still think it is a good lens.

Nikon 16-35mm f/4 VR Review - Page 2 of 6

photographylife.com

compare to

Nikon NIKKOR Z 14-24mm f/2.8 S

Nikon makes some some seriously good ultra-wide lenses. The F-mount 14-24mm f/2.8 is often considered one of the best wide zooms ever, and the wide-angle Z lenses we've seen so far have also been fantastic. But how does the Nikon Z 14-24mm f/2.8 S compare?

photographylife.com

The S 14-24 has been primarily designed for use in Video, if your using the lens for landscape long exposure that is usually done at F11 there is nothing much in it between the S and the G.
If your doing Astro at F2.8 -F4 there seems to be a little more sharpness and less CA.

But it needs to operate on a mirror less camera, and that's cool.

My self i use my 14-24 G for landscape, sea scape, long exposure, and have zero issues adding filters or filter holders, Lee and Nissi have plenty of gear that suites it well including CP.

I also use my 14-24 G for street and paparazzi journalism photography, i can also shoot down to 6 inches on a flower or bee LOL with stunning results.

I find it super fast, sharp, accurate, i usually get in real fast tight right up close and get out, even shooting it from the waste by feel and its very creative.
I can hold the lens and camera at my ankle point up steeply at a subject, flower, bush, statue, building, person and nail the shot, love 14mm.

Is the S lens better, yes, by how much well that depends on you, and for $750 USD second hand that's backwards compatible or $2300 new for the S lens, the difference in performance while evident optically can really be narrowed down a little to how good you are in what your doing.

The greatest benefit of the S lens is I find the weight is noticeable, so much lighter, and that's good.

If i was full mirror less hands down its the lens, if i am buying filters for it add $1000 plus USD, if i have an occasional use for 14mm then its a very extravagant lens at $3300 USD + with filters.

In my case i have invested in Filters/Holder for the G version, i use it on my D850 mostly and on occasions the Z9.

Positives = lighter, optically has a slight advantage optically depending on what your doing with it.
Negative = Price, only usable on mirror less, need to reinvest in new filters but is all worth it if i have a high use level for it.

For the now occasional use the 14-24 G is more than good enough and performs very very well.

Nikon has done a great job in addressing the CA, adding a little sharpness and greatly reducing the weight. Pity about the price tag.


Only an opinion

 

[Anjin San]

My 70-200 FL is the most used lens i have period........just love it..........

it's all a matter of what you need for. what you want to do. I have that lens because it was the only Z tele available when I got my Z7II…and I wanted a Z lens to play with it. However…it's almost my least used lens because other than being a Z lens it really isn't that useful for birds and wildlife down here in SW FL. OTOH, the 100-400 and 400/4.5 with the TC are my most used lenses. I've actually considered several times selling my 70-200 so that it would go to somebody that would use it…and if I find that the 24-120 I got with my Z8 is as useful as I think it will be the 24-70/4 might also get sold…no reason to keep gear that I'm not going to use. The 70--200 is internal zoom and a fast lens…but the focal length range just doesn't' provide me much utility for what I do. It's an excellent lens…probably even better than the 100-400 in fact…but what it's really got is it's a fast lens…and that's great if what you need is a fast lens in that focal length range.

 

[Nimi]

The S 14-24 has been primarily designed for use in Video, if your using the lens for landscape long exposure that is usually done at F11 there is nothing much in it between the S and the G.
If your doing Astro at F2.8 -F4 there seems to be a little more sharpness and less CA.

But it needs to operate on a mirror less camera, and that's cool.

My self i use my 14-24 G for landscape, sea scape, long exposure, and have zero issues adding filters or filter holders, Lee and Nissi have plenty of gear that suites it well including CP.

I also use my 14-24 G for street and paparazzi journalism photography, i can also shoot down to 6 inches on a flower or bee LOL with stunning results.

I find it super fast, sharp, accurate, i usually get in real fast tight right up close and get out, even shooting it from the waste by feel and its very creative.
I can hold the lens and camera at my ankle point up steeply at a subject, flower, bush, statue, building, person and nail the shot, love 14mm.

Is the S lens better, yes, by how much well that depends on you, and for $750 USD second hand that's backwards compatible or $2300 new for the S lens, the difference in performance while evident optically can really be narrowed down a little to how good you are in what your doing.

The greatest benefit of the S lens is I find the weight is noticeable, so much lighter, and that's good.

If i was full mirror less hands down its the lens, if i am buying filters for it add $1000 plus USD, if i have an occasional use for 14mm then its a very extravagant lens at $3300 USD + with filters.

In my case i have invested in Filters/Holder for the G version, i use it on my D850 mostly and on occasions the Z9.

Positives = lighter, optically has a slight advantage optically depending on what your doing with it.
Negative = Price, only usable on mirror less, need to reinvest in new filters but is all worth it if i have a high use level for it.

For the now occasional use the 14-24 G is more than good enough and performs very very well.

Nikon has done a great job in addressing the CA, adding a little sharpness and greatly reducing the weight. Pity about the price tag.


Only an opinion

The Z 14-24 isn't made for video. It's the best wide angle zoom on the market, and like the rest of the Z 2.8 zooms has improved focus breathing, but pulling focus while zooming is still not on par with cine zooms, which are rare and btw 10x the price. The funky front also makes it difficult (near impossible) to fit a VND filter. With that said, it's the only game in town with this level of sharpness and at constant T3.0 it's very usable for vid. If you need something this wide just for vid, you'd be much better off with adapting primes.

 

[O]

The Z 14-24 isn't made for video. It's the best wide angle zoom on the market, and like the rest of the Z 2.8 zooms has improved focus breathing, but pulling focus while zooming is still not on par with cine zooms, which are rare and btw 10x the price. The funky front also makes it difficult (near impossible) to fit a VND filter. With that said, it's the only game in town with this level of sharpness and at constant T3.0 it's very usable for vid. If you need something this wide just for vid, you'd be much better off with adapting primes.

Thank you interesting

 

[O]

it's all a matter of what you need for. what you want to do. I have that lens because it was the only Z tele available when I got my Z7II…and I wanted a Z lens to play with it. However…it's almost my least used lens because other than being a Z lens it really isn't that useful for birds and wildlife down here in SW FL. OTOH, the 100-400 and 400/4.5 with the TC are my most used lenses. I've actually considered several times selling my 70-200 so that it would go to somebody that would use it…and if I find that the 24-120 I got with my Z8 is as useful as I think it will be the 24-70/4 might also get sold…no reason to keep gear that I'm not going to use. The 70--200 is internal zoom and a fast lens…but the focal length range just doesn't' provide me much utility for what I do. It's an excellent lens…probably even better than the 100-400 in fact…but what it's really got is it's a fast lens…and that's great if what you need is a fast lens in that focal length range.

Completely understand, makes a lot of sense.
My self i just love F2.8 or F4 glass as my preference always where i can.

Luckily I do almost everything i can on my 70-200 FL from nature to landscape, portraiture, city, sea scape, sports action, wild life here possible it covers anything from 50mm because i stand back a little to 300 when i add a 1.4TCIII and take a few steps forward, and its needle sharp at F2.8, it makes my D850 Z9 DF D3X just look out of this world LOL.

I like the 400 F4.5, but just at the moment leaning to the 500 PF as its for me its backwards compatible and getting much cheaper on the used market.

On the wish list is the 100-400 and 105 Macro, but i have lots of time no rush.

I would rather use less gear more often
than more gear less often.

I have the 70-200 FL that ticks the boxes for me, now i just want to build at the front and back end end of that lens with some optically equivalent glass so i have from 24mm to 500mm covered using where suitable the optional TC 1.4 III, i want a light sharpest of lenses to keep the system down to a minimum, a 200-600 may be the ticket subject to the size weight cost. I am aiming at minimalism, again i have time on my side. My 200-500 fits a lot of what i do, but hey.........!!!!!

The reason i still have the D850 is because its that good and i don't just do wild life, plus i don't want to keep buying new exotic expensive mirror less gear all the time.
may be later i will change my mind, i just sense there is so much change on the immediate to very near horizon.

Only an opinion

 

[Griffym]

The S 14-24 has been primarily designed for use in Video, if your using the lens for landscape long exposure that is usually done at F11 there is nothing much in it between the S and the G.
If your doing Astro at F2.8 -F4 there seems to be a little more sharpness and less CA.

But it needs to operate on a mirror less camera, and that's cool.

My self i use my 14-24 G for landscape, sea scape, long exposure, and have zero issues adding filters or filter holders, Lee and Nissi have plenty of gear that suites it well including CP.

I also use my 14-24 G for street and paparazzi journalism photography, i can also shoot down to 6 inches on a flower or bee LOL with stunning results.

I find it super fast, sharp, accurate, i usually get in real fast tight right up close and get out, even shooting it from the waste by feel and its very creative.
I can hold the lens and camera at my ankle point up steeply at a subject, flower, bush, statue, building, person and nail the shot, love 14mm.

Is the S lens better, yes, by how much well that depends on you, and for $750 USD second hand that's backwards compatible or $2300 new for the S lens, the difference in performance while evident optically can really be narrowed down a little to how good you are in what your doing.

The greatest benefit of the S lens is I find the weight is noticeable, so much lighter, and that's good.

If i was full mirror less hands down its the lens, if i am buying filters for it add $1000 plus USD, if i have an occasional use for 14mm then its a very extravagant lens at $3300 USD + with filters.

In my case i have invested in Filters/Holder for the G version, i use it on my D850 mostly and on occasions the Z9.

Positives = lighter, optically has a slight advantage optically depending on what your doing with it.
Negative = Price, only usable on mirror less, need to reinvest in new filters but is all worth it if i have a high use level for it.

For the now occasional use the 14-24 G is more than good enough and performs very very well.

Nikon has done a great job in addressing the CA, adding a little sharpness and greatly reducing the weight. Pity about the price tag.


Only an opinion

Thanks. I will look at the 14-24G but I am definitely planning to look at what the 14-24 S can do for me. I have read the tests but before I do anything rash I will rent one to see if it is something I will feel is something I can use effectively. I have no doubts about the lens being a high performing, I am not sure I have sufficient opportunity or skill to make it worth using.
If I look at my 16-35mm images they are usually closer to 20 mm I sometimes use 18mm and 17mm but not often.
I need to have more experience with 14, 15 etc.

 

[O]

Thanks. I will look at the 14-24G but I am definitely planning to look at what the 14-24 S can do for me. I have read the tests but before I do anything rash I will rent one to see if it is something I will feel is something I can use effectively. I have no doubts about the lens being a high performing, I am not sure I have sufficient opportunity or skill to make it worth using.
If I look at my 16-35mm images they are usually closer to 20 mm I sometimes use 18mm and 17mm but not often.
I need to have more experience with 14, 15 etc.

There is no question that the S version has an advantage, absolutely, and it comes at a price, but gee the 14-24 G was the king of heap and everyone raved and loved it, most still do.
If 90% of what you get comes from the person behind the eye piece than hey !
I mean there are some insane cheap prices for the 14-24 2.8 G. Its so much lens for so little money, its a good way to find out if 14mm is for you anyway.

In my opinion the 16-35 is a great lens and every one i have used confirms the MTF chart findings as it being super sharp in the middle, i mean for landscape you mostly shooting f8, F10, F11 anyway, you also need thin filters if you stack a couple other wise your out to 19mm to clear vignetting.

But never feel bad having a 16-35, my mates do breathtaking work with it and just love it, the 14-24 G advantage is mainly its F2.8 that suits lower light and Astro, but yes bigger heavier, bulbous, but unless you use it often hey !
As you say finding out if you even like 14mm is important.

Only an opinion

 

[fcotterill]

Apparently the "S" stands for Slim, not Superior.

大口径マウントの「NIKKOR Z」開発秘話（前編）　なぜ各社で径が違う？　デザインや沈胴機構にも新たな挑戦

大口径マウントの「NIKKOR Z」開発秘話（前編）

dc.watch.impress.co.jp

——What is the difference between S-Line and other lenses?

Nikaido : S-Line lenses have been refined not only in terms of optical performance, but also in terms of operability, comfort, and customizability. Furthermore, metal textures are used throughout to create a sense of precision. Large ternary class lenses are equipped with a display that replaces the distance window, and settings made with the control ring are instantly reflected. We have also added an L-Fn button so that you can respond to various situations without taking your eyes off the viewfinder. The S-Line is a condensation of all the elements necessary for an interchangeable lens, including the lens hood, which has a locking mechanism to prevent it from coming off easily.

Ishigami : The criteria for the S-Line is to first have optical performance, and to ensure that the exterior is excellent, we also take care of it according to its class. In addition to the emblem, the symbol of being an S-Line is the silver cut line that can be seen from the front.

 

[Calson]

With f-mount lenses the "pro" f/1.4 lens would be a good deal more expensive than the f/1.8 version of the same focal length. The more expensive lens had a different optical design and better weather sealing and it was more than the gain of 1/3 an f-stop. Product engineers have to make compromises to meet a certain price point for a lens as one sees with the 180-600mm lens that retails for only $1,700 as compared to the 100-400mm lens that retails for $2,500 or 47% more. The 100-400mm designers had a lot more headroom to work with on this lens.

Sometimes the pricier lens is a good deal sharper at its largest aperture but that gap closes at smaller apertures. Depending on the intended use the less expensive lens may function equally well.

 

[O]

Ho

Well. I’ve gone to the Z8. I am an experienced photographer. Not pro, mostly wildlife, landscape and some Astro. Fir my Ken pleasure. Some prints but I don’t sell.
Looking at the rather large price differential between “normal” Z lenses vs the S line, my question is - is there really that much of a difference. ? Especially compared to the F mount lenses…

Yes there is a difference between a normal Z lens and a S lens, each lens may differ on a case by case basis, It depends on how closely you look and where as to seeing the tangible benefits.
Ricci shows A B comparisons, but how that translate to your needs may differ.

Don't laugh but a guy that gets a lot right is someone i use if i want to sober up from a bought of GAS disease and that's Ken Rockwell, man he just says it as it is.
Steve is of the similar style in my view, notes the difference but in the real world !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Rent or borrow you most popular lens and do your own comparison, sharpness comes more from YOU.

Short answer is yes there is a difference between Z and S, what tangible gains are for you is what you need to see, if cost is an issue.
I found the difference between my 70-200 FL and the S version was so so negligible if at all there was no sense in changing.
My 50mm 1.8S however is amazingly different and better by a clear margin.
Tamerons 24-70 F2.8 current model is better than many of the Z lenses.go figure, the prices of Tameron are amazingly good value, i mean Nikon is using them reskinned in cases.

I would start with one main lens and measure the benefits.

Looking at the difference on the back of a camera screen is always impressive, check things out on your monitor, and then stand back about 2 meters looking at your monitor, sometimes paying a premium for only a 5% gain may not worth it.
There is a lot of good feed back in this forum and post.
The newer lenses are really overpriced which ever way you cut it, again the lower priced lenses in the Z range in cases are on par with Tamron lenses often far more affordable.

Only an opinion

 

[Griffym]

Opinions are fine. I have always been quite selective about my buying decisions. I have sold all my F-mount camera bodies and all but one lens and TC. I still have a nice 500 F4G and the TC 1.4. It is sharp enough and suff useful to have earned an enduring place in my collection.
The Z lenses I have collected are delightful and produce excellent results.
My decisions this time around are possibly a little wiser. They are certainly informed by looking back on the things I liked best about the F-mount lenses and how often I used each one. I have now prioritised different things. I look more at weight and compactness. I want to be able to take more gear so grams matter. I can pack my 180-600 and two additional light lenses and the bag still weighs less than it did with the 500 F4G and the Z9 in it. That counts.
That is my version of why I have chosen the lenses I have. I need to stick to the 7Kg rule for carry on luggage.

 

[Doug A.]

Here are my very limited anecdotal thoughts. I currently have two S-line lenses. The 20mm f1.8 and the 24-120mm. They are both excellent in every respect that matters to me. I recently rented the Nikon 70-180mm to try out. It is not an S-line lens, but is quite a bit cheaper, smaller, and lighter than the purportedly spectacular 70-200mm S. I could tell the difference in build quality of the 70-180mm to my 20mm and 24-120mm. The differences were subtle though. For example, the throw and play of the the zoom ring just felt "nicer" on the S-line lenses. The S-line lenses were slightly quieter in operation. Optically I was quite pleased with the 70-180mm. I don't shoot professionally, nor shoot in difficult weather conditions regularly, so having the utmost image and build quality is not paramount to me. If my budget allows, I will gravitate to an S-line lens. But as I get older, having a lens that is smaller and lighter becomes more and more important. I intend to purchase the 70-180mm (waiting for either a sale from Nikon or one to show up in their refurbished section).

 

[CoyoteCreationsNW]

I had a number of F mount, gold ring lenses and have not fully transitioned to mirrorless. In the shorter focal lengths, the S lenses are clearly superior, especially in edge to edge sharpness. At 50, 85 and 105 mm They are superior without question. My 70-200 mm 2.8 S is an excellent lens but the last f mount 70-200 was a pretty good lens also and the difference seems pretty small to me. I own the 400 TC 2.8. It is excellent. I have rented or borrowed some of the longer primes. As far as image quality, the Z mount lenses are very good but not necessarily a lot better than the older F mounts. The advantages are in focus speed, vibration reduction and weight. Strictly apersonal and budget decision on using adapted lenses or S versions.

 

[Griffym]

It was difficult to make the decision to move to mirrorless alone. I just hadn’t used the F mount DSLRs since I got the Z9. I even traded my 70-200 F2.8G, which I had not originally planned to do. I have not replaced it with anything. I am pretty sure I don’t need the Z version so the 70-180 looks attractive. I would like to see an F4 70-200 S would be like. I will see what the next year brings. How often will I actually find I need one? Maybe less is more.

 

[O]

I loved the versatility of the 24-120. I've had 2 F mount versions, including the latest G variant. I sold it to get the 24-70/2.8E. I really liked that 24-70E but when the Z9 was announced along with the 24-120 and 100-400 lenses I preordered all three and haven't looked back. Now, I doubt the 24-120S has the same IQ as the 24-70S but it's much improved over the G version and I'm happy with the lens. The big diff is f/4 vs f/2.8 and I can live with that for the most part, but I have purchased (not yet received) the 50/1.8 and the 105/2.8 macro to scratch some of that itch.
I'm not alone in liking the 24-120....Brad Hill likes it too....

Good feed back, thank you.

The 50mm 1.8 is the only mirror less lens i own, simply put its as good as they say, i find it totally brilliant 100%, and absolutely recommend it very highly.

The 105 macro i hear is excellent.

I still have the 70-200 FL F2.8 and its a speculator work horse.

I am attracted to your selection of the range 24-120 for travel and 100-400, but just cant warm to the 100-400 $3500 AUD GREY to $4500 OZ AUD Price tag especially for what it is.
Some club members say its good and very versatile but some samples are a little soft either at 400 or 200, like anything you have to get a good sample.

I am waiting for the Z7III if its 60mp, i do like the look and features of the ZF especially the VR performance and Excellent low light performance.

 

[RichF]

I am waiting for the Z7III if its 60mp, i do like the look and features of the ZF especially the VR performance and Excellent low light performance.

Why does 60 MP attract you? For me, printing 16x24 (or a bit larger), 45 MP is enough. Even if I crop a fair bit. Also not sure will get great low light performance combined with 60 MP. My experience is that low light and low MP go hand in hand

 

[O]

It was difficult to make the decision to move to mirrorless alone. I just hadn’t used the F mount DSLRs since I got the Z9. I even traded my 70-200 F2.8G, which I had not originally planned to do. I have not replaced it with anything. I am pretty sure I don’t need the Z version so the 70-180 looks attractive. I would like to see an F4 70-200 S would be like. I will see what the next year brings. How often will I actually find I need one? Maybe less is more.

Myself, Mirror less glass from Nikon in many cases is the main attraction. Do i need a hybrid video camera ?.

The Z8 Z9 are stunning camera options.

Do i need my Z9 anymore is the point i am at currently, based on application and frequency of use. A Z8 is a better option because of weight and size, even the ZF or hopefully the Z7III 60 mp is looking more like the future, i rent those special things in cameras or glass if and only when really needed, but my every day camera use meets the for mentioned better as traveling and doing different photography doesn't seem to warrant lugging a big heavy Ferrari LOL.
Yes i am looking towards change, light smaller and purposeful for what i want to do, absolutely nothing wrong with a Z9 so to speak. Its just when i fly out the door its often the last choice unless i am prepared, i would grab the D850 or if i had a Z8 or Z7III so to speak.