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

[nikon7777]

You have better reach with the 70-200 and 400. They will both work fine with the 1.4 tc you can crop or do dx with the 70-200 to get between 200 and 400.

The 400 is super sharp and between tc's and cropping.dx you can handle up to 800. If you don't use a tc you can get the benefit of the wider apertures. Very often using these lenses in tandem you don't need to use the tc.

I use the 135 plena with plant and flower photography. as well.

If you got the 500 pf I would stick with the 300. They work well together. As a bonus get the Plena and have it handle the shorter ranges. You can crop quite a lot with that beast.

You will not see the plena discounted for a very long time the lens is too popular. I did find an interest free two year deal with Nikon direct so I am paying 100 a month for two years. I am giving up my Peloton bike for it so it is not affecting my cash flow.

Thanks for your advice.

135 Plena is very amazing, no doubt. For portraits and close photography, with super nice bokeh, I would keep in my wish list. If I can use this for travel purpose, I can try from lensrental. It is $100 for 5 days, manageable. In Yellowstone, I can shoot Bison as they are close, as well geysers. For Costa Rica animals, it may run short. Light is low in dens forest and 135mm can be fast enough for that kind of situations.

 

[nikon7777]

You will not see the plena discounted for a very long time the lens is too popular. I did find an interest free two year deal with Nikon direct so I am paying 100 a month for two years. I am giving up my Peloton bike for it so it is not affecting my cash flow.

It remind me of Olympus 75mm, I used to keep years back. Nice bokeh

 

[fulltimewanderer]

Thanks for your advice.

135 Plena is very amazing, no doubt. For portraits and close photography, with super nice bokeh, I would keep in my wish list. If I can use this for travel purpose, I can try from lensrental. It is $100 for 5 days, manageable. In Yellowstone, I can shoot Bison as they are close, as well geysers. For Costa Rica animals, it may run short. Light is low in dens forest and 135mm can be fast enough for that kind of situations.

Regarding shooting geysers, highly recommend using a filter, preferably an inexpensive one. In the event of getting spray / water from the geyser on the front element could cause serious damage to an expensive lens if not completely cleaned very quickly.

 

[nikon7777]

Regarding shooting geysers, highly recommend using a filter, preferably an inexpensive one. In the event of getting spray / water from the geyser on the front element could cause serious damage to an expensive lens if not completely cleaned very quickly.

Thanks for the tip.

 

[O]

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

Your weakest link in this system is the 25 mp Z6, if its the original Z6 model, Not so much the glass.

So sell the Z6.

If you got a Z7 II or waited for the III or got especially a Z8 even used, it would change greatly the way you would evaluate or ever do things again,
it would even breathe new life into the glass you have as well as open the door to far better options in selecting different tools going forward.

A 45mp sensor in a Z7II, III or better a Z8 would add enormous versatile reach, image quality, crop ability changing many lens options, ie: 24mm would do 90-100 mm, also when you switch to DX to gain the perception of additional reach, on a 45mp sensor you still have a 20 mp file, not so on a 24 mp sensor, a 24mp sensor makes things far more dependable on physical lens reach.

The 24-70 is for reasons well known to you the most used lens, why ? and is a F2.8 going to do more for you than the F4, and on a 45mp sensor is it going to be usable around 80 250mm ?

The 50mm 1.8 s is stunning and underrated as a tool not used enough, two steps back and your into 35mm territory, two steps forward and your into 85mm territory, as far as landscape goes its stunning especially to stitch stack whatever you want, its sharp corner to corner, great natural color, also the potential and versatility you may not have seen yet fully, a 45mp sensor may show you exactly how good it really is.

Just throwing a spanner in the works to approach the think tank differently.

Rent a Z8 or a Z7II first, then build your glass collection on that experience, it will be different.


Only an opinion

 

[nikon7777]

Your weakest link in this system is the 25 mp Z6, if its the original Z6 model, Not so much the glass.

So sell the Z6.

If you got a Z7 II or waited for the III or got especially a Z8 even used, it would change greatly the way you would evaluate or ever do things again,
it would even breathe new life into the glass you have as well as open the door to far better options in selecting different tools going forward.

A 45mp sensor in a Z7II, III or better a Z8 would add enormous versatile reach, image quality, crop ability changing many lens options, ie: 24mm would do 90-100 mm, also when you switch to DX to gain the perception of additional reach, on a 45mp sensor you still have a 20 mp file, not so on a 24 mp sensor, a 24mp sensor makes things far more dependable on physical lens reach.

The 24-70 is for reasons well known to you the most used lens, why ? and is a F2.8 going to do more for you than the F4, and on a 45mp sensor is it going to be usable around 80 250mm ?

The 50mm 1.8 s is stunning and underrated as tool not used enough, two steps back and your into 35mm territory, two steps forward and your into 85mm territory, as far as landscape goes its stunning especially to stitch stack whatever you want, its sharp corner to corner, great natural color, also the potential and versatility you may not have seen yet fully, a 45mp sensor may show you exactly how good it is.

Just throwing a spanner in the works to approach the think tank differently.

Rent a Z8 or a Z7II first, then build your glass collection on that experience, it will be different.


Only an opinion

Thanks for putting new prospective here.

I thought about this as well and made up mind few times to upgrade. I started with M4/3 (Panasonic and then Olympus) and when Nikon released mirrorless (Z6), I changed my systems and got it. Focus was, to get into full-frame and still stay light. Weight kept on adding with every new version. Z6 at 675 g and Z7-ii at 705 g are still manageable, but I feel Z8 and Z9 may be troublesome for me, on full day outing.

Z7-iii is still undecided it looks like. It "may" inherit stacked sensor (maybe 60mp). And don't know when it will come, at what price. Whenever it will come, we may see many Z7-ii in market for sale. Or I can wait till Thanksgiving and mostly I should see some discount on Z7-ii.

Considering that I should upgrade Z6, which lenses you would let go from my list? I guess keeping 24-70 f/4 and 50 f/1.8 ?

 

[beano]

Not sure if anyone has mentioned this already, as I haven’t read all the replies.

I would simply sell it all and grab a 24-120 f4 and 100-400 4.5-5.6 and grab a 1.4TC in case a longer F/L is required for the 100-400. This will be a light and easy kit to travel with, and cover from 24-560mm with exceptional quality, with fast enough AF to cover your interests.

Unless of course you still see a need for your 50 1.8 for low-light indoors shooting. But I would replace that with a 20 1.8, if you need faster and wider for architecture /landscapes. Either that, or the above two zoom-teles with the 14-30 f4.

Just imho of course.

 

[nikon7777]

Not sure if anyone has mentioned this already, as I haven’t read all the replies.

I would simply sell it all and grab a 24-120 f4 and 100-400 4.5-5.6 and grab a 1.4TC in case a longer F/L is required for the 100-400. This will be a light and easy kit to travel with, and cover from 24-560mm with exceptional quality, with fast enough AF to cover your interests.

Unless of course you still see a need for your 50 1.8 for low-light indoors shooting. But I would replace that with a 20 1.8, if you need faster and wider for architecture /landscapes. Either that, or the above two zoom-teles with the 14-30 f4.

Just imho of course.

Picking up 24-120 f4 is good, in fact great suggestion and already considering it since EricBowles suggested. It will cover lot of range and let go my 50mm and 85mm.

I was checking and debating more on the tele side, if it should be 100-400 4.5-5.6 or 400mm f/4.5 with TC. My focus is on sharpness and bokeh. In general primes are step ahead, as I have been reading (yet to rent and check them).
Not considering 180-600mm for its weight and if I take 24-120, then 70-200 also will be less used, so not considering this too.

Thirdly regarding wide-angle, I don't do architecture, cities or street, but Landscapes yes. What would you choose in 14-30 f4 and 20 1.8 ? I have not done astro, but possibly if that is in my hand, I would do.

Lastly, as suggested by "O" in #30, I would replace my Z6 with upgraded one (to Z7ii or ZF or ???), if that would work better without increasing more weight (like Z8/9)

 

[O]

Not sure if anyone has mentioned this already, as I haven’t read all the replies.

I would simply sell it all and grab a 24-120 f4 and 100-400 4.5-5.6 and grab a 1.4TC in case a longer F/L is required for the 100-400. This will be a light and easy kit to travel with, and cover from 24-560mm with exceptional quality, with fast enough AF to cover your interests.

Unless of course you still see a need for your 50 1.8 for low-light indoors shooting. But I would replace that with a 20 1.8, if you need faster and wider for architecture /landscapes. Either that, or the above two zoom-teles with the 14-30 f4.

Just imho of course.

I think the suggestion by Beano makes a lot of sense, sell it all, and get the 24-120, 100-400, plus a TC 1.4 and keep the 50 1.8 s for low light if you need it.

If you feel the 24-70 you have is ok and don't need the extra 30mm then 24-70, 100-400, a TC the 50 1.8s to which i am bias to LOL. I use my 50mm for almost everything.

As Beano rightly points out light small with very good outcomes.

I think its more often important about getting the shots you want and composition at least you have a large coverage in 2 main lenses alone.

Only an opinion

 

[nikon7777]

I think the suggestion by Beano makes a lot of sense, sell it all, and get the 24-120, 100-400, plus a TC 1.4 and keep the 50 1.8 s for low light if you need it.

If you feel the 24-70 you have is ok and don't need the extra 30mm then 24-70, 100-400, a TC the 50 1.8s to which i am bias to LOL. I use my 50mm for almost everything.

As Beano rightly points out light small with very good outcomes.

I think its more often important about getting the shots you want and composition at least you have a large coverage in 2 main lenses alone.

Only an opinion

@O , Agreeing with your and @beano opinions.
In case if you missed, please see post #33 and advice - https://bcgforums.com/threads/which...ing-my-gears-nikon-z.37892/page-2#post-422249

 

[mjais]

For landscapes, I can recommend the 4/24-120. Light, flexible and optically very good. Only the lens hood is a bit flimsy.

The 100-400 is great, it also works for flowers and larger insects because of the short minimum focusing distance (I think it's slightly less than 1 metre).
It would also be great for larger birds and mammals and the zoom range makes it very flexible.

The 6.3/600 PF is the most fun wildlife lens I know because of the weight and size. When 600mm and f6.3 are enough, this is hard to beat. Drawbacks are the higher price and the not so great minimum focusing distance, but it's similar in that regard to other primes like the 4/600TC.

 

[wotan1]

The one point I want to make has to do with what a really sharp lens does for you while working on a 47mp camera.

A lot of people say there is no "practical" difference between a super sharp versus a more average lens. In once sense they are correct, but in another sense they are not.

Of course you can see the difference if you compare the shots side by side under magnification. But the reality is unless you are going to print a wall mural size print your printer does not have the resolution to print that fine. Put it on a computer screen and you have even less resolution to play with.

But there is a real world difference. A really sharp lens working with a 47 mp sensor means you can crop quite significantly and still get great quality. It also means the sharper lens does better with a teleconverter.

Using either the 400mm 4.5 or the 800mm f6.3 I have been able to take shot then bring them up in post and crop sometimes as high as 60-70 percent and still have a keeper.

My favorite birding lens is the 800mm pf. I have put that on AF wide field, bird ID and shot at 20 fps. The autofocus tracks the bird and often I can't even see what I have until I get into post. I have often been surprised to find a number of keepers. You can't do that with a lens that is not as sharp.

It means your super sharp lenses on a high mp camera are simply going to have greater reach. That is why I say a 400mm f4.5 can be used to cover focal lengths up to 800mm.

The other nice thing about cropping is that you keep your wider aperture. If you crop the 400 to 600 equivalent you still can shoot at f2.8.

 

[nikon7777]

The one point I want to make has to do with what a really sharp lens does for you while working on a 47mp camera.

A lot of people say there is no "practical" difference between a super sharp versus a more average lens. In once sense they are correct, but in another sense they are not.

Of course you can see the difference if you compare the shots side by side under magnification. But the reality is unless you are going to print a wall mural size print your printer does not have the resolution to print that fine. Put it on a computer screen and you have even less resolution to play with.

But there is a real world difference. A really sharp lens working with a 47 mp sensor means you can crop quite significantly and still get great quality. It also means the sharper lens does better with a teleconverter.

Using either the 400mm 4.5 or the 800mm f6.3 I have been able to take shot then bring them up in post and crop sometimes as high as 60-70 percent and still have a keeper.

My favorite birding lens is the 800mm pf. I have put that on AF wide field, bird ID and shot at 20 fps. The autofocus tracks the bird and often I can't even see what I have until I get into post. I have often been surprised to find a number of keepers. You can't do that with a lens that is not as sharp.

It means your super sharp lenses on a high mp camera are simply going to have greater reach. That is why I say a 400mm f4.5 can be used to cover focal lengths up to 800mm.

The other nice thing about cropping is that you keep your wider aperture. If you crop the 400 to 600 equivalent you still can shoot at f2.8.

I guess, now I understood what O and @wotan1 explained.

I am not going to print my images for wall, but for sure I want them (a) sharp, (b) with nice bokeh and (c) able to crop if reach is greater. I am almost clear about my short/wide range and probably should pick 24-120mm.

On longer range, 100-400mm is very nice, but I am liking 400mm 4.5 very much with additional benefit of cropping and still very nice.
600mm or 800mm f6.3 can be my later lenses when I will be able to justify their specialty and price.

Now, to camera question. When you quote "I have put that on AF wide field, bird ID and shot at 20 fps. The autofocus tracks the bird and often I can't even see what I have until I get into post. I have often been surprised to find a number of keepers", I will not be very hopeful with Nikon Z6. I knew I will be upgrading it at some point. If I go with this route, without gaining much weight, I have option of Z6-ii, Z6-iii, Z7, Z7-iii, ZF and will exclude Z8/Z9 due to weight. Autofocus will be better on these, as compare to my Z6. If I want to utilize bigger Sensor Resolution, then my options are Z7 and Z7-ii (or wait till Z-iii release and see, what features it would give us). New ZF is also nice but again, it is 24MP.
Is my understanding correct so far ?

 

[Len Shepherd]

Of course you can see the difference if you compare the shots side by side under magnification. But the reality is unless you are going to print a wall mural size print your printer does not have the resolution to print that fine. Put it on a computer screen and you have even less resolution to play with.

This is debatable.
If you are NOT a pixel peeping photographer and view from no closer than "the comfortable viewing distance" - as none photographers normally do - there is no difference as the human eye does not have enough resolving power to detect differences.
For none pixel peepers (which the OP might still be) a comfortable viewing distance is enough to see the corners of the print without swivelling your eyes.

From45 MP if you view a 36 inch wide print from about 15 inches with good technique and a first class lens differences in resolution, colour gamut and contrast are likely to be detectable.

But there is a real world difference. A really sharp lens working with a 47 mp sensor means you can crop quite significantly and still get great quality. It also means the sharper lens does better with a teleconverter.

I agree on both these points.

Perhaps going back several steps, the OP has not been particularly specific about budget, size, weight or end usage of the photos.
Knowing this would help provide more focussed guidance.

 

[Dionigi Colombo]

For a better Af Z6iii or Z8, which you discarded because of weight but the z6iii I think is 150g lighter so very little.
As for the sharpness of modern lenses, in my personal opinion, the differences are small (for example between the 100-400 and the 400 f/4.5) and in practical use imperceptible. If a photo is 'beautiful', nobody cares if the corners are a little softer.
One should buy the lenses one needs based on usage and budget not on the pure quality of the lens.

 

[nikon7777]

From45 MP if you view a 36 inch wide print from about 15 inches with good technique and a first class lens differences in resolution, colour gamut and contrast are likely to be detectable.

I agree on both these points.

Perhaps going back several steps, the OP has not been particularly specific about budget, size, weight or end usage of the photos.
Knowing this would help provide more focussed guidance.

@Len Shepherd I keep images for my personal use, not to print or sell. Whenever I go on travel, it is mostly full day walk+drive so I prefer to keep the kit light (aka reasonable). That was one reason, I did not want to go with 180-600 mm (over 2 kg). For camera as well, I want to stay low. Z6 and Z7 versions are close, while Z8/Z9 are 910g and 1340g respectivily. Otherwise I wish someday, I can see Z9 autofocus in some light-weighted camera
I would prefer better autofocus than I have on Z6 + ability to crop the image if subject is far.

@Dionigi Colombo , Z6iii is good, as well as ZF as I read and view videos. But I was thinking, if 47 mp sensor would give me better IQ, even after cropping and that could be a good benefit ?

 

[Dionigi Colombo]

I have the Z6iii and I find it very good, the ZF for my use is not very ergonomic but above all it has a slow RO which makes it not very usable with electronic shutter and moving subjects.
24 vs 45 mpx depends a lot on what you use it for and what kind of photography you do. Both have merits and drawbacks
On long telephotos I generally prefer the 24, especially now that the Af of the Z6iii is good (I still use the D6 which has 21 and in particular conditions is still the best Af)
With these sensors the Af in low light works better, also you can use slower shutter speeds and consequently lower iso.
45 mpx on ambient animal photos because they are often printed quite large (60*90cm and more), otherwise they would not render
For landscapes and macros, but using low isos otherwise part of the advantage is lost.
I generally don't do thick crops but only small framing adjustments and I shoot a few birds where sometimes a lot of mpx helps

 

[hef19898]

A couple of things to consider so:

- the original Z6 is a perfectly fine camera, propably the best value body of the whole Z system at the moment

- upgrade glass before a body

- 24 vs 45+ MP is only relevant if you plan to crop, and crop extremely heavy aroind 100%, regularly

- your geat isn't taking pictures, you are, even the best gear can result in mediocre to bad to boring images (technically perfect so, sharp corner to corner without any optical defect)

=> Conclussion: If you are happy with your Z6, keep it; if you have a lense ypu barely use, and don't miss using it, consider selling; add lenses you "miss", a wide angle if you found yourself missing something below 24mm, a telephoto zoom if you found yourself switching lenses all the time at the long end, a long prime if you found yourself wanting for reach at low-ish light, a Macro lens if you want to do that, a dedicated portrait lens if you want to do that

Lens IQ is totally overrated, but a great marketing point to sell a tob of expensive gear. 45 MP are overrated as well, you can print up to one meter wide with only 6 MP without issue if you take proper viewing distance into account. Don't forget, only some photographers do pixel-peeping, normal people don't care. And 24 MP put a lot less strain on post processing, storage space, speed, you name it.

For the price of a used (!) Z7 you almost get something like a 70-200 or 100-400 Z. For the price of a new Z7ii you get one of the above lenses and either a 20mm or 14-30 Z. I let ypu decide what gives you better value and has a stronger impact on your photography.

By the way, if you have to constantly crop a lot, you are not close enough or try too take images that are not really possible in that situation.

 

[Dionigi Colombo]

I completely agree with @hef19898

 

[Len Shepherd]

@Len Shepherd I keep images for my personal use, not to print or sell.

On this basis you do not "need"45 MP - though it is useful to have for those in a similar situation keeping weight down by not carrying longer heavier lenses and sometimes needing to crop.

Whenever I go on travel, it is mostly full day walk+drive so I prefer to keep the kit light (aka reasonable). That was one reason, I did not want to go with 180-600 mm (over 2 kg).

The 100-400 plus the 1.4 TC provides 540mm at the same wide open aperture as the 180-600 at 600mm - with a lot less size and weight and only a slight reduction in image quality

For camera as well, I want to stay low. Z6 and Z7 versions are close, while Z8/Z9 are 910g and 1340g respectivily. Otherwise I wish someday, I can see Z9 autofocus in some light-weighted camera
I would prefer better autofocus than I have on Z6 + ability to crop the image if subject is far.

Z 6 III has very close to Z8/9 AF - but is not particularly good for image cropping.

 

[nikon7777]

Z 6 III has very close to Z8/9 AF - but is not particularly good for image cropping.

Thanks for explanation, it makes very much sense.

If and when I will replace the body, I can see all three are close in weight and price.
Z7-ii is $2200, at 705 grams
Z6-iii is $2450, at 750 grams
Zf is $2000, is at 630 grams

From autofocus prospective, does Z6-iii exceeds other two options?
Where ZF sits in comparison, except ergonomic and handholding problem? I know Z6-iii will have 20 FPS rather than ZF's 14.
In earlier post RO is slow on ZF. I didn't understood that part. Probably Video ? (I don't do it)

If I will change it, it would be towards this year end or next year. Maybe, we will see Z7-iii, it that changes some equation.

 

[Dionigi Colombo]

In earlier post RO is slow on ZF. I didn't understood that part. Probably Video ? (I don't do it)

No it's about photos, not videos
RO is important when using the electronic shutter, the one in the Zf should be 1/20 so it is very slow. If you photograph moving subjects, even not too fast, they will be distorted

 

[nikon7777]

No it's about photos, not videos
RO is important when using the electronic shutter, the one in the Zf should be 1/20 so it is very slow. If you photograph moving subjects, even not too fast, they will be distorted

Got it.
Then Zf is out of my options. I would check between Z6-iii, Z7-ii and/or upcoming Z7-iii

 

[Dionigi Colombo]

The Z7ii is even slower than the Zf.
As I said, this only affects it if you use the electronic shutter (to be fair, it also affects the autofocus to some extent).
The Z7iii needs to be seen if they will make it, if so it will definitely have more than 45mpx

 

[nikon7777]

The Z7ii is even slower than the Zf.
As I said, this only affects it if you use the electronic shutter (to be fair, it also affects the autofocus to some extent).
The Z7iii needs to be seen if they will make it, if so it will definitely have more than 45mpx

I don’t use much of electronic shutter, but I need good autofocus. That left me one option of Z6-iii, I guess.