Which lens I can sell/buy for longer FL ? (adjusting my gears) Nikon Z

[nikon7777]

Hello all,

My first post. I am looking for some help to come out of confusion. I have Z6, 24-70 and 3 primes and trying to decide what can I sell/keep/buy. I checked my previous pictures and saw which lens I have been using most.

24-70mm f/4 S - Mostly used
50mm f/1.8 S - Used mostly indoor, at my kid's occasion or some indoor family pics where light is not very nice
85mm f/1.8 S - Mostly used when I visited zoo, otherwise hardly used.
300mm f/4E PF ED VR - Kid's game, local functions when I want to isolate something, big animals. Felt like, too tight to use it frequently and too short for wildlife. But I am in love with its sharpness and color rendering, so let had heart to sell it.

If I want to fund money from my lenses, I can sell my two lenses (probably 300mm and one of other prime or may be all 3) and buy another.

If I have to buy, then my options are -

180-600mm f/5.6-6.3 VR - I heard all good things about this. With versatility of shooting from 180 to all the way to 600, it gives very good range for animals and close birds. Only drawback I read is, weight of over 2 kg which can be trouble in full day walk.
600mm f/6.3 VR S - Price is only drawback for me at this stage.
400mm f/4.5 VR S - At 1245g, good FL and reasonable price it looks well fit.
100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR S - This is candidate to develop more confusion.

My interests - I am not dedicated wildlife photographer, but occasional visit. Mostly my images are landscapes. I thought of buying 14-30mm for wide, but can't decide on that yet if it would worth or not. I never tried that lens. One though back of mind is, if I should sell 24-70mm as well and get 14-30mm. But then I will miss lot of good range post 30mm.
Also, some of my images would be late evening too. That was the reason I bought those 3 primes as they can perform better than zoom.

I will be visiting Yellowstone and Grand Teton soon. Next year will be Costa Rica. Please share your thoughts, which could help me to narrow down.

Thanks

 

[fulltimewanderer]

Might want to consider renting a lens or maybe 2 lenses. Contact Lensrental, Borrowlens. West Yellowstone Camera or Bozeman Camera and Repair are other local options.

 

[MrFotoFool]

100-400 is good for landscape as well as wildlife. 180-600 is for wildlife photographers, and since you say you rarely do that, I don't think it's a good fit for you (as much as I would love to sell you the one I just listed). I will throw one other consideration in the mix. What I use for telephoto zoom (instead of 100-400) is 70-200 f2.8 with either 1.4x teleconverter or 2x teleconverter (both of which I own and work great with this lens). With the 2x attached I get similar range and same aperture as 100-400 lens, but I have the option of removing it when the light gets low and having a fast f2.8 aperture.

 

[wotan1]

It all depends on what you intend to do.

If your focus is mostly on general travel and landscape then you probably would do better with a 14-24 range. Your choices would be 14-24 f2.8, 14-30 f4 or 20mm prime. The best lens of those three is the 14-24 but the 14-30mm will work. The 20mm prime is an ecxellent lens which gives you quality at a good fixed focal length.

You might then want to expand your horizons in the medium telephoto lens which means the 70-200mm f2.8 is a nice choice.

Getting fully into wildlife can be an expensive journey. The 180-600 is an inexpensive way to get started.

You can also go for the 24-120mm zoom it is reportedly pretty good.

If you really get serious about longer range work my personal recommendation would be to start with the 400mm f4.5 and eventually add the 800mm f6.3 pf. You will also want a teleconverter. Or if you already have the 180-600 you could add a 600 prime. Ultimately you are going to need to get out to 800mm if you are going to be serious about birds.

 

[wotan1]

I agree for these upcoming trips you may want to rent a lens or two and see what you end up doing. Your trips are typically wildlife destinations. You would also benefit from reviewing some of the Steve Perry guides.

I don't know what you have in the way of a tripod but tripods are good for landscapes. If you make a go at wildlife you will need a gimbal as well as a tripod.

 

[nikon7777]

Thanks @MrFotoFool and @wotan1

I didn't think earlier about 70-200mm f/2.8 option. I read a bit about this option and this combination doesn't look bad :

Connect 1.4x TC to 70-200mm f/2.8 and turn the lens into a 100-280mm f/4 (losing almost nothing and comes close to my 300mm PF)
Connect 2.0x TC to 70-200mm f/2.8 and turn the lens into a 140-400mm f/5.6 (feeling soft when reaching tele end, and it won't match 100-400mm here, and definitely not 400mm f/4.5 VR S)

Is this correct, what I mentioned above? Considering this option, I hope I will not miss my 300mm PF if I let it go
I will be going Yellowstone after 20 days and Costa Rica next year March. If I am able to decide by then, then I would buy and won't waste money on rent.

For wide landscapes, should I consider 14-30 f4 as replacement of 24-70mm ? Guess I will miss lot of FL from 30mm to my 50mm if I am keeping that prime with me, or till 85mm if I am keeping that with me.

 

[Len Shepherd]

You do not say which of your lenses are F mount - though the 300 has to be as there is no 300mm Z mount.

If size and weight might be issues the 100–400 is as big and heavy as a 70–200 F2.8 and the 180–600 is distinctly bigger still.

Without more information, I suggest the 100–400 could easily be a good replacement your 85 mm and 300 mm primes

 

[nikon7777]

You do not say which of your lenses are F mount - though the 300 has to be as there is no 300mm Z mount.

If size and weight might be issues the 100–400 is as big and heavy as a 70–200 F2.8 and the 180–600 is distinctly bigger still.

Without more information, I suggest the 100–400 could easily be a good replacement your 85 mm and 300 mm primes

I updated my original post with correct naming of lenses. 300mm is "300mm f/4E PF ED VR"
I agree 100-400 looks well placed. But after other comments, I am debating on 70-200 S vs 100-400 S + Z TCs

 

[Kjellis]

If you shoot landscapes and occationally wildlife I would buy the 100-400 for its versatilety, and it would replace your 85mm and 300mm as I see it. I have the 100-400 and I love it.

I have the 14-30 also. Its a great lens, but I don’t think it could replace the 24-70, at least not for my use.

 

[wotan1]

It helps to have a vision of what you would ultimately want before you go making any changes. I sense that is what you are working through now.

My personal vision is that I strongly favor lenses with higher IQ. This means that when it comes to longer telephoto lenses I prefer to buy primes rather than zooms.

When I first started building my Z kit I started with the 70-200mm f2.8. I did that because the70-200 was a highly recommended lens and one of the best telephoto lenses in that range on the Z system.

After I owned it for a while I decided I needed to add something longer to reach subjects farther out. The 180-600 was not available and I had to choose between the 100-400 and the 400mm f4.5. I chose the 400mm f4/5 because it was much sharper than the 100-400. In retrospect I am very happy I made that choice. The 400 is a very sweet lens and a joy to use.

Without getting into all the details I later discovered that the best lens to work with the 400mm to get even longer reach is the 800mm PF.

Now the difference is that with zoom lenses you adjust the field of view using the zoom to get the framing the way you want it. By contrast with the prime you get the shot even if a bit of reach is involved and then you crop to bring out the image you want. Or you switch to DX which amounts in the end to the same thing. in other words you do your composing more in post rather than while shooting. You can do just fine that way if you are using a 47mp camera and your lens is really good.

Now buying quality is not cheap. the higher quality lenses tend to be the more expensive lenses. I don't have permission from my wife (aka She Who Must Be Obeyed) to buy what I really want which is one of the super expensive primes so I am setting my sights a bit lower.

So which lenses are better quality?

the "holy trinity" is a group of three f2.8 lenses that cover from 14mm up to 200mm. they include the 14-24, 24-70 and 70-200. They are regarded as the best zoom lenses in their class and they are the equal of most primes in that range.

For telephoto lenses the mid price options are the 400mm f4.5, the 600mm pf and the 800mm pf.

The other approach you might take is to get lenses that are "sharp enough". You make the choice because you want something less expensive, easier and more convenient. The 24-120mm f4 is a really convenient lens because it covers a wide range in a single lens but still produces "sharp enough" images. You can add the 180-600 zoom and cover most of your shooting range. Add the 24-30mm f4 to the mix and you have a complete set. Or get the 20mm f1.8 because you want one crazy good lens for architectural landscape and astrophotography.

I obviously don't think that way. My preferences at this stage are the holy trinity, the 135mm Plena, the 400 f4.5 and 800mm pf. My goal is to eventually add one of the super primes one day.

the other thing to keep in mind is the maximum aperture of the lens. As a general rule a lens with a wider maximum aperture will do a better job of rendering pleasing non-distracting backgrounds. That is why everyone who has one of the super primes are crazy about them. Of course the wider aperture lenses are heavier and more expensive.

Final note if you want to do macro work the 105mm macro lens is a key lens for your kit.