Which "F" mount lenses offer performance versus purchasing a similar Z lens?

[dabhand16]

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​

Very nice comparison there. Yep - the Nikon is better, but considering the price difference I thought that the Sigma performed well. Today in the UK the lowest cost (according to Camera Price Buster UK) the Nikon costs £1699 against the Sigma's £838. That is under half of the cost of the Nikon!!

I've got a Sigma 150-600 Sport that I've been pleased with. When I bought it around 5 years ago I checked out several 150-600 lenses and the Sigma Sport came out best, so when I saw a great price for the kit that included the 1.4x TC for under the cost of the lens alone I could not resist. Luckily, my Wife was away at the time..... Today that lens without the TC costs £1279. I'll have to see if I can find a comparison to the Nikon 180-600, but TBH for my photography I won't be swapping anytime soon.

 

[Dionigi Colombo]

These tests although interested, on optical quality in my opinion say little. At the distance of a few meters all lenses are "good," tests should be done at the distance at which they are normally used. Already at 20m the differences could be remarkable

 

[MotoPixel]

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.

Yes, while it may be convenient to zoom out a bit to help locate and track an erratic bird or other subject, the time it takes to zoom can also result in a missed opportunity. I owned a 200-500 for many years and until getting a 500pf, it was just about welded to a D500. Once I got the 500pf and used it extensively for several months, my skill at finding/tracking a subject improved to the point that I rarely used the 200-500. As the saying goes, practice, practice, practice!

When I finally received my Z9, I sold the D500 and 200-500 as a package and picked up the 100-400 to complement a 24-120 that I ordered along with the Z9. While the 500pf complements the 100-400 very nicely, similar size and weight, I often find myself looking for more reach, so the 600pf, for me, is the logical and practical choice.

I thought about the 180-600 and though it's a huge improvement in usability over the 200-500 and perfectly fine in terms of IQ for my needs, the truth is, it's still a big, fairly heavy lens. That alone is not such a big deal, but when you start thinking about traveling and carrying a few lenses, especially long ones, it all adds up...in both size and weight. With 3 lenses and a TC, I've got 24-1260 covered if you include DX modes. Toss in a small prime or two or the 70-200 f2.8 if you need a little more speed in a short tele zoom. And by the way, I'm a very healthy 74 and though not obsessive about it, I do stay in shape. Weight alone is not yet a huge factor for me, but I REALLY do appreciate the benefits that Nikon's PF series of lenses has brought us. As many have said, game-changing, though in certain situations, they do have some drawbacks...as does any optic.

Now the 500pf will go on the block in the next couple of days...as soon as I take some photos of it for my ad. Tuesday I pulled the trigger on the 600pf and received it on Wednesday morning...and it's incredible...smaller and lighter than I anticipated. Yeah, Nikon nailed it!

 

[LL4D500]

Yes, while it may be convenient to zoom out a bit to help locate and track an erratic bird or other subject, the time it takes to zoom can also result in a missed opportunity. I owned a 200-500 for many years and until getting a 500pf, it was just about welded to a D500. Once I got the 500pf and used it extensively for several months, my skill at finding/tracking a subject improved to the point that I rarely used the 200-500. As the saying goes, practice, practice, practice!

When I finally received my Z9, I sold the D500 and 200-500 as a package and picked up the 100-400 to complement a 24-120 that I ordered along with the Z9. While the 500pf complements the 100-400 very nicely, similar size and weight, I often find myself looking for more reach, so the 600pf, for me, is the logical and practical choice.

I thought about the 180-600 and though it's a huge improvement in usability over the 200-500 and perfectly fine in terms of IQ for my needs, the truth is, it's still a big, fairly heavy lens. That alone is not such a big deal, but when you start thinking about traveling and carrying a few lenses, especially long ones, it all adds up...in both size and weight. With 3 lenses and a TC, I've got 24-1260 covered if you include DX modes. Toss in a small prime or two or the 70-200 f2.8 if you need a little more speed in a short tele zoom. And by the way, I'm a very healthy 74 and though not obsessive about it, I do stay in shape. Weight alone is not yet a huge factor for me, but I REALLY do appreciate the benefits that Nikon's PF series of lenses has brought us. As many have said, game-changing, though in certain situations, they do have some drawbacks...as does any optic.

Now the 500pf will go on the block in the next couple of days...as soon as I take some photos of it for my ad. Tuesday I pulled the trigger on the 600pf and received it on Wednesday morning...and it's incredible...smaller and lighter than I anticipated. Yeah, Nikon nailed it!

I work out 6 days a week (daily 2 miles, weekly water aerobics class, 10 machines 2x/week, plus balance ball (2x) and foot vibration - so I’m trying , but have had 2 total knees. a total hip, two back fusions, 3 rotator cuffs and a have neuropathy in my feet, so things do get challenging!

 

[cr_wildlife]

I have used the 500mm PF and the 600mm f/4 FL with the FTZ2 without any issues.

 

[Woodpecker]

Currently shopping for a 500/4E for all of those reasons you observe.

Makes sense IMHO .

Actually I have one here in perfect condition. It was the successor of my 500 f4G in my friend's camera bag, before he changed to Z and now got the Z super tele dream (a.k.a Z 400 2.8 TC). Unfortunately I have to trade it in again for monetary reasons. I simply need the money for something else and can't afford the luxury of getting a lighter and less front heavy 500mm any more. So my old 500 f4 G will get a decent service at Nikon for relatively small money and stay in my backpack.

But I am sure there are enough of them around, that you can get a cood one directly in your home country. Despite the advertisement only national selling at ebay is free of charge, while international selling has become even more expensive than before, so it doesn't make sense anymore to trade internatioanlly as a private person.

Good luck and "may the light be with you"

 

[Johan Schmidt]

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.

Try using C1 or C2 focus area where you've made it 1x1 or 1x3 etc - small so you can isolate the player to focus on with the benefit of subject detection for eye in that mode

 

[dabhand16]

Try using C1 or C2 focus area where you've made it 1x1 or 1x3 etc - small so you can isolate the player to focus on with the benefit of subject detection for eye in that mode

Not easy when shooting field sports. I shoot rugby for the local team and with my Fuji ZT-4 I use either a large single point or a medium dynamic mode. With my Nikons I get more keepers with dynamic mode.

I think using a 1x1 or 1x3 would be like trying to pick one bird from a flock in flight.

 

[Johan Schmidt]

Not easy when shooting field sports. I shoot rugby for the local team and with my Fuji ZT-4 I use either a large single point or a medium dynamic mode. With my Nikons I get more keepers with dynamic mode.

I think using a 1x1 or 1x3 would be like trying to pick one bird from a flock in flight.

Try making the C1 or C2 size the same as the medium dynamic mode/s, then you cover the same area to isolate a player, but with the extra benefit of eye recognition

 

[dabhand16]

Try making the C1 or C2 size the same as the medium dynamic mode/s, then you cover the same area to isolate a player, but with the extra benefit of eye recognition

C1 and C2 not available on my cameras. TBH few of my pictures feature one player. One time would be a spot kick, but then I want a lot in focus literally from head to foot and often the player will be looking down.

 

[MotoPixel]

I work out 6 days a week (daily 2 miles, weekly water aerobics class, 10 machines 2x/week, plus balance ball (2x) and foot vibration - so I’m trying , but have had 2 total knees. a total hip, two back fusions, 3 rotator cuffs and a have neuropathy in my feet, so things do get challenging!

Wow whether genetics or putting high-mileage on your body when younger, it's inspiring to me when those who go through the sort of challenges that you've faced don't just throw in the towel and give up. Talk about indomitable human spirit! I went through a period in my mid-50's when I started seeing friends and business associates facing some of the things that you have and worse...got me to wondering how I'd cope if it were me. That period passed and I wake up every day incredibly grateful and live it to the best of my ability.

Cheers!

 

[Chris K]

How has nobody mentioned the 105/1.4, yet?

My remaining F lenses are the 58/1.4, 105/1.4, and 500PF.

The 58/1.4 is beautiful, but has a bit of corner smearing at f/1.4, so I wouldn't call it "as good" as the 50/1.8 (although I much prefer its rendering for portraits).

The 500PF is well-known, so I won't pile onto that one.

The 105/1.4 is one of the best portrait lenses available on any system. I know Nikon has set some new plateaus with the 85/1.2 and 135/1.8, but if they had released the 105/1.4 as a Z lens, people wouldn't blink an eye. It's so good that it even sees no degradation on my GFX100S, where the camera uses corners that are far outside the FX frame.

 

[MMoretti]

I’ll add my Voigtlander 125/2.5 APO 1:1 macro to this list. I never mount it on my D850, only my Z8. Over twenty years old now (started production in 2001), it’s my favorite lens in my ‘classic’ collection (though it’s a puny collection overall!). Even with the FTZ, it balances nicely, and the long (530º), well-damped throw is sweet when dialing in the focus. CA is well-corrected and pretty much gone by f4.

Not so sure about infinity, it‘s seemed a bit soft lately, but could be my vision or just not steady enough; I’ll try to get out soon and concentrate more on that in some testing. (Tried it on some giraffes last year in Namibia with mixed results, maybe because I was too excited...)

Construction is known to be a bit wonky/fragile internally; I had some screws come loose inside (like sand had gotten in somehow), but after sending it out for repair, it’s such a joy to shoot with again.

I don‘t really do much macro, so I’m mainly shooting streets, architecture, landscapes and my kids with it. Very highly recommended and the price has come down significantly since it peaked 10 years ago or so.

Alternatively, I’d own the Zeiss 135/2 APO... slightly sharper, they say, but maybe a bit more sterile for me. I won’t hide my interest in a Plena 135 one day, though.

 

[MMoretti]

And another thing… I’m thinking about adapting my older F-mount (and VM) glass to a GFX at some point, at least for landscape, though could be fun on larger (i.e., slower) mammals. Just learning about this practice; don’t have a body yet. A lightly used 100s can be had now for half its original tag, and there are quite a few available now that the 100 II is out. But, then, there’s that pixel-**** now on the Z’s… although the GFX has it too…

 

[Nimi]

How has nobody mentioned the 105/1.4, yet?

My remaining F lenses are the 58/1.4, 105/1.4, and 500PF.

The 58/1.4 is beautiful, but has a bit of corner smearing at f/1.4, so I wouldn't call it "as good" as the 50/1.8 (although I much prefer its rendering for portraits).

The 500PF is well-known, so I won't pile onto that one.

The 105/1.4 is one of the best portrait lenses available on any system. I know Nikon has set some new plateaus with the 85/1.2 and 135/1.8, but if they had released the 105/1.4 as a Z lens, people wouldn't blink an eye. It's so good that it even sees no degradation on my GFX100S, where the camera uses corners that are far outside the FX frame.

I'd love a faster z105 to join the 50/85/135 (soon 35).

 

[ARClark]

This is a spinoff topic from "Are You Sentimental About Your Gear?" Backcountry members like myself have an extensive collection of F-mount lenses. Considering the cost of buying a new Z-mount vs the performance of a similar F series. My thanks in advance for saving me and others bucks, if possible.

As primarily a bird and wildlife shooter these days with a Z9, Z8 and D850, I have several F mount lenses I've kept and still use on my Z bodies along with a couple new Z lenses. My longer F mount lenses include the 105 f/2.8 micro, 300 PF, 500 PF, 200-500 and 500E FL (and TCs).

I did buy the Z 180-600 to replace my 200-500, but wasn't sufficiently impressed with it and returned it while keeping my 200-500. Note the 200-500 with TCs performs significantly better on the Z bodies. I've even shot birds in flight with the 200-500 and 2x TC on the Z9 although IQ of that lens/TC combination is not good. I did end up getting the Z 100-400 mostly as a walkabout lens for gardens and meadows, where I put an emphasis on closeups of flowers and insects, while still being able to shoot nearby birds.

I also have a Z 800 f/6.3 PF which I like a lot and use it most of the time instead of the 500E FL and TCs for small/distant bird photography. It's much lighter and offers similar IQ to the 500E and 1.4x TC and better IQ than the 500E and 1.7x TC. In addition, IQ of the 800 PF and 1.4x TC at 1120mm and f/9, is still very good to excellent. However, the 500E f/4 is still better for low light, focuses a bit faster and produces outstanding IQ. I think all of the NIkon E series F mount exotic primes hold up well with their Z replacements for IQ, although they're heavier, and the newer 400 and 600 have built-in TCs and enhanced functionality with Z bodies. But if weight is not an issue, the F mount exotic primes offer a lot of performance for a much lower price.

The 500 PF is still unmatched by a Z lens, but many like the Z 600 PF or the 400 f/4.5 and a TC.

Bottom line is that F mounts lenses with adapters on the Z8 and Z9 perform just as well as they did on F mount bodies, if not better, especially with TCs. I think the competition between F and Z mount lenses for IQ is close with telephotos with the Zs being lighter and offering greater functionality with the Z bodies. If I was still shooting landscapes and using wide angle to normal primes and zooms more regularly, I could see taking a close look at updating some of my wider F lenses.

 

[GrandNagus50]

I guess one of my vices, or to put a better spin on it, "hobbies" has been collecting "bird lenses." This obsession likely stems from ghe trauma (ha) of my younger days when I lusted after Big Quality Glass but could afford only a Tamron 500mm mirror lens (decent optics, almost impossible to get good results with birds, especially in the film era). In my sunset years, I am financially better grounded and have ended up with a bunch of telephoto lenses. Occasionally I sell some (I sold both versions of the 80-400mm for example), but it's a struggle.

That said, I do own a few very good F mount bird lenses, including the terrific but heavy 600mm f4 G, the wonderful 500mm pf, the Nikon 200-500mm, a Sigma Sport 150-600mm, and a Tamron 150-600mm G2. I actually sent the Sigma in to MPB for sale at one point, but they lowballed me, telling me there was "haze," which I knew to be bs. I asked for the lens back, I still have it, and it gives very sharp results on those occasions when I bring it out. The problem is that it's a very heavy, good only for on-tripod use. I still might sell it again at some point.

I have had a weak spot for my Tamron G2, as I love the ergonomics, including the push-pull locking mechanism, the relatively light weight, and the Arca-type lens foot. It gives really good results (IMO) to 500mm and even beyond, as in most instances, even at 600mm wide open the results are decently sharp, with the "unsharpness" only discernible when compared with a photo of the same bird/situation taken with a better lens. I still think it's a very good piece of kit that was quite reasonably priced. I am "sentimental" about this lens, just a bit.

I never liked the ergonomics of the 200-500mm zoom and don't use it anymore, but its resale value is horrible, so I will be sending it to my son in Nebraska, who currently uses the Tamron 150-600mm G1, a lens that was a "game-changer" when first released but now is definitely long of tooth, and more important, not compatible with Z mount cameras (my son recently got his first).

I did buy a Sony 200-600 while waiting endlessly for the Nikon equivalent, and I have used it with the Megadap adapter, no problems at all. It's a terrific lens, no doubt about it. But I did also eventually buy the new 180-600, which has impressed me totally. At first I thought it was not quite up to the level of the Sony, but after a lot of use I think they are pretty much the same in (high) quality. I probably will sell the Sony at some point, but for the moment my impulse to collect/hoard bird lenses is inhibiting this.

And yes, the 105 f1.4 is a wonderful lens that works great on Z cameras. I got one when Nikon dropped the price on refurbished copies for a short time. I use it a LOT.

 

[Chris K]

I'd love a faster z105 to join the 50/85/135 (soon 35).

A 105/1.2 would be quite a statement, and consistent with Nikon’s “Z mount lets us to crazy stuff!” messaging.

I think even a re-release would be nice. It’s a bit of a goofy-looking lens, with its tiny mount and enormous body, and it would be a good one to add a control ring to. I’m definitely happy to stick with my “cheap” F-mount version, however!

And another thing… I’m thinking about adapting my older F-mount (and VM) glass to a GFX at some point, at least for landscape, though could be fun on larger (i.e., slower) mammals. Just learning about this practice; don’t have a body yet. A lightly used 100s can be had now for half its original tag, and there are quite a few available now that the 100 II is out. But, then, there’s that pixel-**** now on the Z’s… although the GFX has it too…

GFX is lots of fun to adapt lenses to! I have only one native GFX lens (32-64). All my other lenses are EF, F, or MD (Minolta manual focus). With a Fringer adapter, adapted lenses work just like native, and the 105/1.4 is a particularly good one.

Just be prepared to AF to feel a bit worse than the Z6. I like Fuji, but I’ll be the first to admit their AF doesn’t measure up to the Z8/9/f, and this is true for the GFX cameras in particular.