What 4\6 lenses would be in your collection for your Z9? What F mount lenses would you keep or add?

[Calson]

I have kept my three tilt shift PC-E lenses in 19mm, 45mm, and 85mm.

 

[JustinGriggs]

My ideal Z9 lens stable would be:
-Z 20mm F1.8 for astro
-Z 24-120mm F4 for landscapes (would replace my Z 24-70 f4)
-70-200mm for landscapes/portraits (Currently have the F-mount E version, probably keep it)
-Z 200-600 for casual wildlife and videography
-600mm F4 (Currently have old F-mount G version, would love the TC but $$$$)

Additionally for portrait work, I'd probably add either the 35 1.2 or 85 1.2

 

[Len Cohen]

I am not sure why this question is relevant. Personally, I dont have the funds to switch to mirrorless lenses. I have the Z9 and a 500PF;500F$;300f2.8;70-200;105 and a wide angle. I find no fall off in qualityat all. Is it size and weight that motivates the desire to change? What is the obsession to change?

 

[Steve]

No F-mount for me anymore, other than the 500PF that I'm keeping around for testing purposes (for now). The truth is, the way I have my Z9 setup it's far less frustrating to shoot when all the lenses have (more or less) the same controls.

Right now, I have the 14-30, 24-70 2.8, 70-200 2.8, 100-400, 400 4.5, 600 f/4 and the 800 PF. I may add the 400 2.8 TC eventually when I have the funds. I don't use 400mm nearly as often as 600mm, but that 2.8 lens is gold when you're at the right range

 

[BillW]

So many great lenses to choose from
But as a wildlife photographer my most used lens is the 100-400 because of its great versatility especially for mammals and large birds
In Homer Alaska that was the perfect lens for eagles in flight since the eagles were large and often flew in close where 400mm was too much but could easily zoom lens out

Maybe a bit OT. I’m going to Homer next month to photograph eagles and sea otters. Will use a Z9 (and a Z7II for backup). For telephotos, I have the 300 and 500 mm PF lenses, the Z 100-400 and the Z 800 mm PF. I was thinking of taking the Z 100-400 and the 500 mm PF, with an F and Z mount 1.4x TC. Do you think the 800 mm PF would be useful? If 100-400 is enough focal length and a zoom is very valuable, maybe the Z 70-200 with a Z 2x TC would be better to bring a long, as a back up, than the 500 mm PF?

 

[LL4D500]

Maybe a bit OT. I’m going to Homer next month to photograph eagles and sea otters. Will use a Z9 (and a Z7II for backup). For telephotos, I have the 300 and 500 mm PF lenses, the Z 100-400 and the Z 800 mm PF. I was thinking of taking the Z 100-400 and the 500 mm PF, with an F and Z mount 1.4x TC. Do you think the 800 mm PF would be useful? If 100-400 is enough focal length and a zoom is very valuable, maybe the Z 70-200 with a Z 2x TC would be better to bring a long, as a back up, than the 500 mm PF?

Curious question for you. I have two D500. (Yes, I know I should have bought the 850), but I have 16-80, 70-200 2.8, 80-400 (newest) and a 500 PF. In Costa Rica and at Salt River (horses) found my 500pf to be too long on D500 (750) and thinking about getting 300pf, but wonder if I would gain significantly from my 80-400 set at 300? Maybe I’d be better off putting money toward an 850 vrs the 300pf?Appreciate your thoughts.

 

[abc123brian]

I am not sure why this question is relevant. Personally, I dont have the funds to switch to mirrorless lenses. I have the Z9 and a 500PF;500F$;300f2.8;70-200;105 and a wide angle. I find no fall off in qualityat all. Is it size and weight that motivates the desire to change? What is the obsession to change?

There are a few reasons that many want to change to Z mount lenses. As Steve mentioned below, Z lenses have different controls on them than F mount lenses and having consistent controls across lenses. F mount lenses require the use of the ftz adapter which as another potential failure point. If you only have f mount lenses, you may want a second ftz for a spare in the rare event of a failure. If you're using mixed lenses with TCs, you would need both F and Z mount TCs. For shorter focal lengths, the Z lenses are optically better from what I read in tests. I didn’t own any other than the 70-300mm AF-P and there is no direct comparison in Z mount so I can’t verify the claim. Also, the ftz pushes the weight farther away from the body which is more noticeable with shorter lenses. Those are the reasons one would want to switch, but the F mount lenses work as well on Z cameras as they do on F mount cameras so there is no need to switch.

 

[MJR]

F Mount keepers: 500 PF , 300 PF, 60 2.8 Micro and a 105 2.5 manual focus . Also both AFS TC 1.4 and 2.0 (for the PF's)

Current Z Mount lenses: Z 100-400, Z 105 MC, Z 85 1.8, Z40 2.0, Z28 2.8, Z24-120, Z24-70 F4, Z14-30 F4.,
Z TC 1.4, plus 3 FTZ adapters.

 

[Calson]

The S 100-400mm is a significant improvement over the very old 80-400mm f-mount. The 800mm PF is a full 5 lbs lighter than the 800mm f/5.6 f-mount which makes a world of difference in being able to use it hand held. The old 24-120mm lens was very soft but the new S version provides much better image quality.

It became clear that 100% of the new lenses from Nikon going forward would be S-mount ones.

 

[BillW]

Curious question for you. I have two D500. (Yes, I know I should have bought the 850), but I have 16-80, 70-200 2.8, 80-400 (newest) and a 500 PF. In Costa Rica and at Salt River (horses) found my 500pf to be too long on D500 (750) and thinking about getting 300pf, but wonder if I would gain significantly from my 80-400 set at 300? Maybe I’d be better off putting money toward an 850 vrs the 300pf?Appreciate your thoughts.

The D500 is a great camera, especially for wildlife. And a good value.

I have the 300 mm PF, which I have used on a D500, D850, Df, Z6II and Z7II. It’s a very nice lens. Lightweight, with excellent image quality (with a few issues with backlit images due to the PF lens element). Its size makes it easy to travel with. Overall, I used it mostly on my D500. It makes a very nice wildlife lens on a D500 and you can get more reach by adding the 1.4x TCIII, which still works well on the D500, as the combination is 420 mm, f5.6 (equivalent in field of view to a 630 mm f5.6 lens on full frame).

The newer version of the 80-400 lens is also a nice and quite useful lens. I also mostly used my copy on a D500. It focuses fast and probably is at its strongest optically between 80 and 300. By using the D500, you are using the best part of the lens and avoiding the FX corners and edges. It’s also pretty good for travel, given its size and weight, but it is clearly bigger and heavier than the 300 mm PF.

Which is better? Depends on what you shoot and how often you need the flexibility of a zoom. At 300 mm, I expect the 300 mm PF is optically better than the 80-400 mm and also a bit faster (don’t remember what the aperture of the 80-400 mm is at 300 mm, but I believe it is slower than f4 and may be at or near f5.6). But it is not a zoom. I find I use zooms that cover the 300 mm range (the 80-400 mm and 200-500 mm before I went to mirrorless and now the Z 100-400 mm with my mirrorless bodies) more often than I use my 300 mm PF.

If I had to pick one or the other, I’d pick a zoom (now the Z 100-400 mm for me). But it can be useful to have a zoom and the 300 mm PF. When I went to Costa Rica a few years ago, I took the D500 and 200-500 mm zoom, with the 300 mm PF on a Df. I wanted longer reach for birds and monkeys and used the 300 mm PF for closer subjects (often with a portrait like element) or where I needed f4 for a bit more light. I used the zoom more, but was glad to have the 300 mm PF along. I did a hiking trip in Iceland with my wife, also a few years ago. I took the 300 mm PF, 1.4x TCIII and a D500 to photograph birds while we were out hiking and a D810 for other shooting. I did not bring a long zoom on that trip (to save weight and space and because it was not a photo trip in my wife’s view) and appreciated the ability to have good reach in a small and light package. Also with birds, it is not often that I need a shorter lens.

Is the D850 a better choice than the 300 mm PF? Again it depends. It’s a great camera and quite vesatile. I liked mine a lot but sold it this month, completing a move to mirrorless. If you are not moving to mirrorless in the near future, it is a nice choice if you want a versatile full frame camera. It’s a good wildlife camera and pairs well with a D500 (similar AF controls). Some would argue that the D850 is like having both a full frame camera and a D500 if you do a DX crop in camera or in post (slower frame rate than the D500 though). The D850 would not work so well with your 16-80 mm lens, as it is a DX lens, so you might need some changes to your lens kit at the shorter end. (The 300 mm PF works nicely with mirrorless bodies on the FTZ adapter. That’s why I’ve kept mine for now.)

Assuming I was not planning to switch to mirrorless — If I did mostly wildlife, I’d probably get a 300 mm PF before a D850 and happily use it on my D500s. If I did significant landscape work, I might add the D850 instead, but that might also mean getting some FX lenses in the shorter focal lengths. If I was contemplating a move to mirrorless, I’d probably consider a Z7II before a D850, although it is possible that Nikon will announce something more interesting in the near future.

Sorry for the overly long answer. Good luck with your choice.

 

[Charlie Lasswell]

I've started building my Z kit, but without NPS its a slow process (which has it's advantages).

14-30mm - landscape and travel - my thought was that its so small and light I could take it with me whenever I was out shooting wildlife; hasn't happened yet.
24-120mm - general purpose.
800mm - wildlife - arrives Monday, to replace 600mm f4e which has gained a lot of weight these last couple of years.
100-400mm - probably my next lens. I've gone the last 4 years with nothing between 105mm and 500mm so I'm not sure how much I would use it. May just keep the 500pf or switch to the 400mm f4.5.

 

[Roy]

What 4\6 lenses would be in your collection for your Z9? What F mount lenses would you keep or add? With approximately . 87 F mount lenses still offered and so far 33 Z mount lenses as listed as current stock on Nikon's website. List your collect or recommendations as General, Wildlife, Landscape, Macro or Astro.

It depends on your use - on this site I assume primarily wildlife.
I'm only a product photographer - so I use the 24-70 105 macro Z lenses and the AFS 85mm tilt shift most of all.
for astro I like the 20mm f1.8 and 50mm f1.2 Z lenses.
for landscape the 14-24mm f2.8 and 70-200mm.
but the 24-70 is my main workhorse...

 

[Anjin San]

14-30, 24-70 but might swap it for the 24-120, 70-200, 100-400 (most used by far) and both TCs of which the 1.4 gets used a lot and the 2 occasionally. Still have the 500PF but it’s probably doing to get sold. Might buy the 800 if I decide I need a non TC 800 length but weight means it won’t get carried on hikes too often and the loss of flexibility due to no zoom makes it a maybe at best for me. The 400/2.8 and 600 are way more money and weight than I’m interested in…but if I was going to get one it would be the 400 as it’s a more usable length for me. The 400/4.5 duplicates a focal length for me and for screen output I’m not sure it’s worth it because you really can’t see the difference on the blog posts between the 100-400 and 500PF and I don’t think that would change with the 400…and it’s not as flexible.

also have the 24-200 for a vacation/walk around lens when I don’t think the 24-70 is enough reach.

 

[LL4D500]

The D500 is a great camera, especially for wildlife. And a good value.

I have the 300 mm PF, which I have used on a D500, D850, Df, Z6II and Z7II. It’s a very nice lens. Lightweight, with excellent image quality (with a few issues with backlit images due to the PF lens element). Its size makes it easy to travel with. Overall, I used it mostly on my D500. It makes a very nice wildlife lens on a D500 and you can get more reach by adding the 1.4x TCIII, which still works well on the D500, as the combination is 420 mm, f5.6 (equivalent in field of view to a 630 mm f5.6 lens on full frame).

The newer version of the 80-400 lens is also a nice and quite useful lens. I also mostly used my copy on a D500. It focuses fast and probably is at its strongest optically between 80 and 300. By using the D500, you are using the best part of the lens and avoiding the FX corners and edges. It’s also pretty good for travel, given its size and weight, but it is clearly bigger and heavier than the 300 mm PF.

Which is better? Depends on what you shoot and how often you need the flexibility of a zoom. At 300 mm, I expect the 300 mm PF is optically better than the 80-400 mm and also a bit faster (don’t remember what the aperture of the 80-400 mm is at 300 mm, but I believe it is slower than f4 and may be at or near f5.6). But it is not a zoom. I find I use zooms that cover the 300 mm range (the 80-400 mm and 200-500 mm before I went to mirrorless and now the Z 100-400 mm with my mirrorless bodies) more often than I use my 300 mm PF.

If I had to pick one or the other, I’d pick a zoom (now the Z 100-400 mm for me). But it can be useful to have a zoom and the 300 mm PF. When I went to Costa Rica a few years ago, I took the D500 and 200-500 mm zoom, with the 300 mm PF on a Df. I wanted longer reach for birds and monkeys and used the 300 mm PF for closer subjects (often with a portrait like element) or where I needed f4 for a bit more light. I used the zoom more, but was glad to have the 300 mm PF along. I did a hiking trip in Iceland with my wife, also a few years ago. I took the 300 mm PF, 1.4x TCIII and a D500 to photograph birds while we were out hiking and a D810 for other shooting. I did not bring a long zoom on that trip (to save weight and space and because it was not a photo trip in my wife’s view) and appreciated the ability to have good reach in a small and light package. Also with birds, it is not often that I need a shorter lens.

Is the D850 a better choice than the 300 mm PF? Again it depends. It’s a great camera and quite vesatile. I liked mine a lot but sold it this month, completing a move to mirrorless. If you are not moving to mirrorless in the near future, it is a nice choice if you want a versatile full frame camera. It’s a good wildlife camera and pairs well with a D500 (similar AF controls). Some would argue that the D850 is like having both a full frame camera and a D500 if you do a DX crop in camera or in post (slower frame rate than the D500 though). The D850 would not work so well with your 16-80 mm lens, as it is a DX lens, so you might need some changes to your lens kit at the shorter end. (The 300 mm PF works nicely with mirrorless bodies on the FTZ adapter. That’s why I’ve kept mine for now.)

Assuming I was not planning to switch to mirrorless — If I did mostly wildlife, I’d probably get a 300 mm PF before a D850 and happily use it on my D500s. If I did significant landscape work, I might add the D850 instead, but that might also mean getting some FX lenses in the shorter focal lengths. If I was contemplating a move to mirrorless, I’d probably consider a Z7II before a D850, although it is possible that Nikon will announce something more interesting in the near future.

Sorry for the overly long answer. Good luck with your choice.

Thank you for your comments - you addressed my question/concerns perfectly! Couldn’t have gotten a more complete response. Thanks again!

 

[Nimi]

There are a few reasons that many want to change to Z mount lenses. As Steve mentioned below, Z lenses have different controls on them than F mount lenses and having consistent controls across lenses. F mount lenses require the use of the ftz adapter which as another potential failure point. If you only have f mount lenses, you may want a second ftz for a spare in the rare event of a failure. If you're using mixed lenses with TCs, you would need both F and Z mount TCs. For shorter focal lengths, the Z lenses are optically better from what I read in tests. I didn’t own any other than the 70-300mm AF-P and there is no direct comparison in Z mount so I can’t verify the claim. Also, the ftz pushes the weight farther away from the body which is more noticeable with shorter lenses. Those are the reasons one would want to switch, but the F mount lenses work as well on Z cameras as they do on F mount cameras so there is no need to switch.

Also, if you shoot vids, the Z lenses are near parfocal and have little to no breathing. Except the 85 and 105.

 

[Len Cohen]

Thanks. Good explanation. In the same way that I dont read analyses about "which wine I should drink" I am no longer hung up about minute lab analyses about lenses. My short lenses, all F mount work spectacularly with the FTZ adapter. If I ever buy any further lenses they will undoubtedly be Z lenses but since I have a full array of F mount lenses that is a long way from happening. I think it is excellent advice to get anothe ftz adapter, though. thanks

 

[Whiskeyman]

My F-mount lenses are all better than I am, so I'm keeping them until I can't carry them anymore.

 

[Tibor Hrnko]

F mount:

• I still have Sigma Sport 500/F4 and it works great with Z9 even with 1.4 TC. I will switch it for Z mount equivalent if there is one which is better or lighter.
• I have Sigma Art 14-24/F2.8 for landscapes. I have no urge or need to replace this one.

Z mount:

• Z 100-400 S for close/r range subjects
• Z 800PF for excellent weather conditions and astro-photography (along with iOptron GEM-28 mount)
• 500 or 600 mm/F4 prime is on my future buying list but the current S primes are too expensive for me.
• I am renting 24 - 120/F4 for trips where middle focal ranges are useful.

 

[EricBowles]

I'm quite well settled in the Z system with the following:
14-30 f/4, 24-70 f/2.8 and 24-70 f/4, 70-200 f/2.8, 50mm f/1.8, 50mm MC, 105 MC, 400 f/4.5 and 800 PF.

I've still got the following F-mount lenses that I use. All but the 1.7 and 2.0 TC have been used within the last year.

• 14-24 f/2.8 (my filter kit is worth almost as much as the lens and would need to be updated if I get the Z-mount)
• 16mm f/2.8 fisheye - good lens with no Z equivalent
• 19mm PC - superb lens with no substitute
• 20mm f/1.8 AFS - for occasional astro
• 35mm f/1.4 Sigma Art - very sharp and the Nikon Z is not enough of an improvement
• 85mm f/1.8 AFS - nice portrait lens with occasional use
• 70-200 f/2.8 G - my wife's favorite lens as a second shooter several times per year
• 300 f/4 AFS - close focus distance for dragonflies and butterflies
• 600 f/4 G - can't bring myself to get rid of it at current market prices - has a place between the 400 and 800 Z lenses
• TC: 1.4 II, 1.4 III, 1.7 II and 2.0 III - need to sell all but the 1.4 TC's - the 1.4 II works with my 300mm f/4
• 6-7 1975-1995 lenses for sentimental reasons and occasional use

I also have the following F-mount lenses that are going to be sold.

• 105 f/2.8 VR macro
• 200-400 f/4 VR - original version - works better now with TC on Z bodies
• 50mm f/1.4 and f/1.8 D

 

[ccirelli]

Basically the lenses I have, starting with the Z S line:

• 20 1.8
• 50 1.8
• 85 1.8
• MC 105 2.8
• 24-120 4
• 70-200 2.8

The only F lens I have that I use on the FTZ is:

• 200-500 5.6

That's my lineup, it wouldn't change on the Z9 but there are 2 dream lenses I'd love to have someday:

• 400 4.5
• 800 6.3

I use a Z6II now and i'll be adding an Expeed7 body in 2023 (likely the Z9, regardless of what Z8 turns out to be - but we'll see). The 200-500 will eventually be replaced by the upcoming 200-600, but honestly I'm in no rush because that 200-500 is sooo good. Same with the 85 1.8 - the upcoming 85 1.2 looks amazing, but I'm not sure I'll feel the need to spend the extra money on the 1.2 version.

I do still have my D200 (retired, but still works as good as the day I bought it!), a D7200 with the 18-200 VRII (an excellent lens) and another 200-500 5.6 (this is the kit my wife uses, and yes I said "another" 200-500 because I never got to use hers Just got my own copy on a super sale at B&H over the holidays, couldn't pass it up!)

 

[ccirelli]

I am not sure why this question is relevant. Personally, I dont have the funds to switch to mirrorless lenses. I have the Z9 and a 500PF;500F$;300f2.8;70-200;105 and a wide angle. I find no fall off in qualityat all. Is it size and weight that motivates the desire to change? What is the obsession to change?

I'll answer, politely, since you asked.

• It's relevant because a ton of people are switching, it's the direction the industry is moving in, and it's a topic that many people find interesting and helpful.
• There is a clear and significant increase in image quality, at least comparing F and Z lenses (I'm not as familiar with other brands). Now that's not to say non-mirrorless lenses are "bad" (the 500 PF is insanely good), but I am saying yes, mirrorless lenses are that much better in almost all cases (the larger Z mount alone is a huge advantage). And, perhaps that gap is less with the longer / exotic primes(?). On the wide and mid-range side, the quality jump is huge.
• The obsession (more of a desire / informed decision) for me was simply that mirrorless systems help me achieve my photographic goals more efficiently than DSLR's (or film lol) ever did.

* This is coming from someone that just bought an F mount lens last month (my last one, but it still counts ).

 

[Mark Garfinkel]

I'm quite well settled in the Z system with the following:
14-30 f/4, 24-70 f/2.8 and 24-70 f/4, 70-200 f/2.8, 50mm f/1.8, 50mm MC, 105 MC, 400 f/4.5 and 800 PF.

I've still got the following F-mount lenses that I use. All but the 1.7 and 2.0 TC have been used within the last year.

• 14-24 f/2.8 (my filter kit is worth almost as much as the lens and would need to be updated if I get the Z-mount)
• 16mm f/2.8 fisheye - good lens with no Z equivalent
• 19mm PC - superb lens with no substitute
• 20mm f/1.8 AFS - for occasional astro
• 35mm f/1.4 Sigma Art - very sharp and the Nikon Z is not enough of an improvement
• 85mm f/1.8 AFS - nice portrait lens with occasional use
• 70-200 f/2.8 G - my wife's favorite lens as a second shooter several times per year
• 300 f/4 AFS - close focus distance for dragonflies and butterflies
• 600 f/4 G - can't bring myself to get rid of it at current market prices - has a place between the 400 and 800 Z lenses
• TC: 1.4 II, 1.4 III, 1.7 II and 2.0 III - need to sell all but the 1.4 TC's - the 1.4 II works with my 300mm f/4
• 6-7 1975-1995 lenses for sentimental reasons and occasional use

I also have the following F-mount lenses that are going to be sold.

• 105 f/2.8 VR macro
• 200-400 f/4 VR - original version - works better now with TC on Z bodies
• 50mm f/1.4 and f/1.8 D

I agree with you on this one, "200-400 f/4 VR - original version - works better now with TC on Z bodies".