Which Z of you Z lens have proven to have the major advantage?. Thanks.
Which "F" mount lenses offer performance versus purchasing a similar Z lens?
- Thread starter Doug
- Start date
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).
Gerald Ratcliff
Member
I am considering buying a second hand Z8. As I am a pensioner there would be no money left for a lens as well. I have a Sigma 150-600 F5-6.3 DG OS HSM. Would that work ok on a Z8, with a suitable adapter? Would the Z8 eye tracking work? That is the reason for my interest in a Z8!!
Thanks
Thanks
fulltimewanderer
Active member
I’ve been more than happy with my current list of lenses (see previous post).That I will be even happier shooting them with my Z9.
I have a Sigma 150-600 Sport and it works fine on my Z6ii with and without a 1.4x TC.
Hi Doug, I'm in the same team with you, having collected a significant number of F mount glass over the years, and very satisfied with my choices. This said, I bought a Z6 when it came to market and used it mostly for video, discovering its qualities as a stills camera during a few trips in 2023. In fact, I was so impressed with it that I bought a Z8 later this same year to have access to additional features. My only Z mount lens is a 24-200 mm nikkor, which I did not expect to really like, but the price point was a determining factor for me at the time of purchase. Again, I was very impressed with the lens, and while on the lower end of Nikkor's proposal, it performed superbly. So... would I switch my key F mount lens for Z mount ? Probably not as I enjoy very good results with them, and the FTZ adapter in a minor inconvenient that (for the moment), saves me a bundle ! My humble suggestion is that you may consider switching your most frequently used lens to a Z mount, and eventually, when your F mount lenses are due for retirement, go on gradually. There is no doubt as to the optical and technical qualities of the Z system, but I find Nikon has found a reasonable solution with the FTZ adapter. As for me, and the type of photography I do (portrait, nature, landscape), I'm totally happy with my F's, and when I travel, the simplicity of my Z 24-200 does the work, and I prefer not to flash expensive gear when traveling ! Unless it is a photography trip that warrants dedicated lens. Hope this helps !!!
A 200mm-400mm f4 F mount works well on my Z9 using the FTZ II. It's my primary long telephoto. Nikon makes nothing like it in Z mount and it's available used at a pretty good price. I love the zoom because it give me more freedom in framing shots. It even works very well with a TC-14E III telecoverter.
Ph1tom
New member
I am still straddling the line between dslrs and mirrorless. I have some Z lenses in both fx and dx, and they’re excellent, but I can’t afford to replace some of my f mount glass, so I use the ftz. I love my 70-200E, and af-p 70-300 and continue to use on both platforms. I am replacing the 200-500 with the new 180-600 when it becomes available.
Paul Grecian
Member
I still have this lens but haven't used it much lately. Do you feel the Z9 just focuses it better or the extra pixels make the difference? I've always felt that close-up even with teleconverters, this lens was really good.
Z9 with face recognition works great with this lens. Previously used it with a D6 and images were plenty sharp too. Face and eye recognition is still new to me and I find it amazing, now use it most of the time. Exception is when shooting football game action, too many faces at one time! Yeah, with the 1.4 teleconverter I lose a stop, but AF is still wicked fast and I'm blessed to photograph in well-lit venues. And with modern full-frame sensors, noise is not the issue it was.
CJC2
Member
The Z lenses, because of the larger rear flange, allow better lens designs. I found that my F mount lenses were just as good using the FTZ adapter, but that Z lenses would be better. The F 1.2 lenses are a good example of what can be done in the Z system, as is the F .95 NOCT (which I have NO desire to own). I couldn't be happier with my 400 F2.8 TC, a real benefit to me as primairly a sports shooter. Very happy I switched. (I sold the last 3 of my F mount lenses on Thursday). IMHO. Best of luck.
This video seems to provide a comprehensive comparison that may help. Let us know your thoughts Gerald. Cheers.
Nikon 180-600 Z vs Sigma 150-600 C [And Sharpness Testing] on a Z9
rick_reno
Member
I had a good bit of F mount glass. I “tested” them side by side with their Z replacements. I kept my 70-200E 2.8 and my 300 2.8 because Nikon hasn’t made a replacement for the 300.
Gerald Ratcliff
Member
Thanks for that, Doug. My lens seems to work fine so I will stick with it until I win the lottery!!
Dionigi Colombo
Well-known member
Good evening, I have several F lenses, some I have replaced with Z's while others I have put alongside them because I still use SLRs
On telephoto lenses the differences in quality are almost invisible, while on wide angle and short zooms the Z's are definitely better
On telephoto lenses the differences in quality are almost invisible, while on wide angle and short zooms the Z's are definitely better
O
Well-known member
Its well known that the Z mount lenses have an edge over DSLR lenses in most cases, even more so on a Z body, where and by how much really seems to be the point to consider.
In DSLR glass i find the 200 F2, 300 F2.8, are still in a league of their own, the 105 1.4 is excellent, and especially the 70-200 FL compared to the Z version is such a close match it doesn't warrant up grading to the Z for optical reasons, at least in my applications.
The 200 F4 macro is exceptional as is the 16mm F2.8 fish eye you need to be creative to drive well.
Nikon has brought out a great collection of Z lenses.
Nikon making lenses seems to be their strength, the greatest benefits being the larger lens mount diameter increasing edge to edge performance as well as enabeling greater light gathering ability, example, i assumes this makes F6.3 seem more like F5.6 kind of thing if you get what i mean and allowes in cases also for things to be shortend.
While element formulae combinations are endless the key target of late has been on size and weight, this appeal is why many people have transitioned to the new generation of glass, add to that a 5% 10% optical gain and its considered a benefit, mind you video recording has been a major consideration as well. Smaller lighter with any product mostly reduces cost in materials, production, distribution and given the new higher prices replaces much of the margin lost of late.
The bottom line is the new glass is better in so many ways but not all cases.
Complimenting that new glass with the right body is also just as important.
Two things i find many people often struggle with, if they hang on to long before changing, the svage depreciation of the existing gear and simply the expense of the new gear often seen as excessive, well thats the word from many club members.
For years the perception has been compared to OEM lenses third party lenses are basiclly cheap and nasty and made in China kind of thing, yet here are some majors now actaully outsorcing manufacturing the very same third party maker as well as them selves producing things in China.
I do think in certain cases the Tamron range of lenses are very much on par to what Nikon is delivering and much more a consideration thatn ever before especially at the significant price difference gains, i mean i can get TWO Tamron 24-70 F2.8 lenses for the cost of one Nikon 24-70 F2.8 Z, the differnce between the two is largly but not totally........... margin
Only an opinion
In DSLR glass i find the 200 F2, 300 F2.8, are still in a league of their own, the 105 1.4 is excellent, and especially the 70-200 FL compared to the Z version is such a close match it doesn't warrant up grading to the Z for optical reasons, at least in my applications.
The 200 F4 macro is exceptional as is the 16mm F2.8 fish eye you need to be creative to drive well.
Nikon has brought out a great collection of Z lenses.
Nikon making lenses seems to be their strength, the greatest benefits being the larger lens mount diameter increasing edge to edge performance as well as enabeling greater light gathering ability, example, i assumes this makes F6.3 seem more like F5.6 kind of thing if you get what i mean and allowes in cases also for things to be shortend.
While element formulae combinations are endless the key target of late has been on size and weight, this appeal is why many people have transitioned to the new generation of glass, add to that a 5% 10% optical gain and its considered a benefit, mind you video recording has been a major consideration as well. Smaller lighter with any product mostly reduces cost in materials, production, distribution and given the new higher prices replaces much of the margin lost of late.
The bottom line is the new glass is better in so many ways but not all cases.
Complimenting that new glass with the right body is also just as important.
Two things i find many people often struggle with, if they hang on to long before changing, the svage depreciation of the existing gear and simply the expense of the new gear often seen as excessive, well thats the word from many club members.
For years the perception has been compared to OEM lenses third party lenses are basiclly cheap and nasty and made in China kind of thing, yet here are some majors now actaully outsorcing manufacturing the very same third party maker as well as them selves producing things in China.
I do think in certain cases the Tamron range of lenses are very much on par to what Nikon is delivering and much more a consideration thatn ever before especially at the significant price difference gains, i mean i can get TWO Tamron 24-70 F2.8 lenses for the cost of one Nikon 24-70 F2.8 Z, the differnce between the two is largly but not totally........... margin
Only an opinion
jfporfao
New member
I've found that adapting my F-mount lenses to my Z-mount camera has worked pretty darn well.
From my own lenses, the Z24 f1.8S, Z35 f1.8S, Z85 f1.8S, Z50 f1.8S, Z24-70 f2.8S, Z14-24 f2.8S, Z105 f2.8 micro, Z100-400 f4.5-5.6 and I believe the Z24-120 f4 is a far better option than the 24-124 f4 in F mount - I never had the F mount but will be buying the Z mount version. Others would include the lenses that couldn't or wouldn't have been made in F mount due to the wide mount and/or short flange distance meaning that the maybe much smaller, lighter and have better CA edge to edge sharpness etc. Lens like the 14-30 f4, the f1.2S lenses and possibly the 135 f1.8 Plena, 400 f4.5 (I don't own that lens but have used it). The 135 f1.8S Plena being the best lens I have ever used - I know you can't compare different focal lengths etc, but as a lens it is just astounding, IMO, and I did own the lovely 105 f1.4E.
macwalter
Active member
Wow that’s some glass you guys have. I recently sold a lot of dslr gear to get more z glass and currently have the z70-200 f2.8, the z400 f4.5 and the z100-400. I still have a d850 and a 28-300 all purpose along with the 300 pf f4 and the 500pf. Both of these pf lenses work great on the z8 but I have to say with the FTZ adapter they stick out further and it is a bit annoying to me. But they are both super sharp and I have to say the 500pf is my sharpest long prime and works great with the 1.4tc and even the 1.7tc isn’t too bad In a pinch. I sold my 70-200 f2.8fl as I didn’t like the way it AF on the z8. The lens seemed to slam into focus and I worried it may cause a problem down the road. The z version is just as sharp and much smoother. I absolutely hate the 80-400 on any high resolution camera and I wasted so much money trying to get it to stop chattering almost as if the newer bodies AF was too strong for the lens. It worked great on my old d7100. Also I have both z TCs and found with the 400 f4.5 I could get good results with the 1.4 and even with extra care the 2x tc in spite of its poorer resolution. I think the strong AF capabilities of the z8 allow you to get better results for moving subjects and I was able to get some pretty decent shots with this combo. That being said I think the 500pf is sharper as it is sharpest wide open where the 400 f4.5 is not and I think this contributes to the less than stellar TC performance.
Hi Dionigi, I am looking at purchasing a wider zoom for my Z8. Which wide Zlens below 28mm have worked well for you?
I wasn't asked, but strongly consider the 14-24 2.8
I concur. I have the Tamron Z35-150mm F2-2.8, which is of good quality and the Nikon 100-400, which satisfies the majority of my needs for day-to-day and on trips. I am not getting much use out of the Z24-70 F2.8 as the combo of the Tamron zoom and Nikon 100-400 zoom cover a complete range not available using only Nikon. A wide zoom below 28mm for landscape is on my agenda as soon finish evaluating which way to go.
Curious - have friends (+me) who have 500pf and others have 180-600. Often times (at same location) I’ll hear people with 500 or 600 saying they have trouble getting bird in viewfinder (especially in flight), whereas those with 180-600 will zoom out to “locate” bird and then zoom in! Thoughts. I’m 75, have some balance/steady issues and find 1&0-600 too heavy, unless on monopod or tripod, thus I use 80-400 o backup D500 and get 600 and have a lens 2#’s lighter.
Johan Schmidt
Active member
To me it seems to be much quicker and more accurate in focussing and at the 400 end it seems sharper. I often uses it alone for day time sports instead of a 400 2.8 and a second body with a shorter zoom
Dionigi Colombo
Well-known member
Hi Dough
I have used both 20z and 24z, both very good lenses the 24 is a hair better but in practical use it is hard to see differences.
I have compared the 24z with my 25 Zeiss Milvus f/1.4 and I guarantee it holds up very well even with this one.
It depends on what focal length you need, either way you will not be disappointed and the overall quality is definitely superior to the F
For zooms, I own both the 14-30 f/4 and the 14-24 f/2.8z
The first I use mostly for trap photos, the overall quality is good but does not reach that of its bright brother.
If you don't need an f/2.8 the 14-30 is a smart choice, even for your wallet
it does its job excellently and very rarely makes you regret the 14-24 f/2.8
Last edited:
Dionigi Colombo
Well-known member
Hi Nimi
I owned the old 14-24 f/2.8, replaced it as soon as the Z equivalent came out, and I'm really happy with it
Sharpness and vignetting are definitely better, it suffers less from flare because of the flat lens and you can mount "normal" filters
It is perhaps the lens in the f/2.8 triad (14-24, 24-70 and 70-200) where the improvement over the old ones is most noticeable