Walkaround lens for Z9?

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).

MikeJ

MikeJ

Well-known member
Member's gallery
I recently took the mirrorless plunge, picked up a mint used Z9 (coming from a D500). This is my first full-frame, so I have a mix of FX and DX glass from 11mm all the way up to 600mm. I’m looking for a walkaround, general purpose lens to take the place of my DX 18-200mm VRII. Something that I can use when I’m just out and about with photography maybe not my main focus (pun not intended but fully accepted). I also bought the FTZ II and know I can use that lens on the Z9.

So my options are:
  1. Use the 18-200mm knowing I’ll be shooting in DX mode all the time ($0 cost to me).
  2. Keep using the D500/18-200mm as my walkaround kit ($0).
  3. Pick up a used F-mount 24-120mm AF-S (I’ve seen on Fleabay around $300-400).
  4. Pick up an F-mount 28-300mm AF-S, which looks like the FX version of the DX 18-200mm. Unfortunately discontinued, so not sure what the cost to me would be, but could also be used on the D500.
  5. Dig a little deeper (after getting the Z9) and pony up for the Z-mount 24-200mm ($800).
  6. Any other options I’ve missed?
What are people’s thoughts? If #5 is the best option, I might have to go with #1 or #2 for a while till I can justify another large-ish purchase! I am planning on keeping the D500 as a backup anyway, so #2 is feasible, unless weight constraints come in to play, such as flying.

Also side note – seems odd the long end of the Z 24-200 is f6.3, when the long end on the DX 18-200 is f5.6, especially since looking at pictures of each the Z looks larger.
 
Member's gallery
+1 for the Z 24-120mm. As for the DX 18-200mm, no, it feels like sacrilege to me to use that lens on a camera as capable as a Z9. It would be like putting a little 1600 CC 4-cylinder engine in a Ferrari. I used the 18-200mm lens for a long time, both version one, and later version 2. But today there are many much better lenses that you could mount on a Z9 to bring the best out of that camera.
 
Member's gallery
Thanks Carol, yes I'm planning on holding onto my D500, at least for the time being. It's been such a workhorse for me for the last 4-5 years, not sure I could part with it if nothing more than sentimental reasons. It's been in my hands for countless outings in my kayak to a local state park, on a life-changing eyeglass mission to Jalapa, Nicaragua, and an amazing trip to Galapagos Islands.

I was also looking at the F mount 24-120, as well as the 28-300. Of course both of those depend on how long I keep the D500!
 
Member's gallery
Went out me and wife on a Sunday to a local trail with the Z8 and the smallest lens, I wanted a low profile camera. the Z30’s DX 16-50
The size was great. But the shots are noisy even at ISO 360. No details around the eye. Bad.

Isn’t there any better solution?
I need better image quality. The 24-70/2.8 is too big.
The 24-70/4 is probably smaller, and the 50/1.8 may also be an option, The 24-120 (which I don’t own) would be the biggest of the bunch.

What would you recommend?
🙏
 
Member's gallery
John Navitsky said:
my understanding is the z-mount version is substantially better
Click to expand...
Yes, the 24-120 S beats any and all F mount variants by a substantial amount IMO. I've had 2 F mount versions but wasn't thrilled with either. The 16-80 Dx lens was better.
But this new S lens is darn decent (it's my Z8 walk around lens) and even Brad Hill loves it....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top