Z8 - Next lens?

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).

D

Don_Logan

Member
Supporting Member
Marketplace
Member's gallery
Hello!

This is my first post. Hello all!

I wanted to get into photography (finally) Jan '24 after 8 to 10 years of thinking about it - lol. At that time, the Sony A series was all the rage as they were the only ones doing mirrorless with small body. I didnt want to take the dive into it for $$ reasons.......Fast forward to today....

I did some homework and landed on the Z8. I purchased it with the 4/ 24-120 S lens and then bought the 40/2 prime. A great deal came across for the 35/1.8S so I have that too.

My goals:

-Street photography
-Wildlife
-catch all.....a camera to do it all.
-minimal video.

I bought the Z8/Z9 guide from the owner of this site and am about 80% through it. I have also watched all of Hudon Henry's setup videos. So far, I have gone from knowing 0 about how to use the camera to I would say 40 to 50%. Still an "F", but I think I am slowly getting it. Again, I have 0 background in this, so it has been a steep learning curve to say the least.

-----------------------

Which brings me to my question.......

What would be a logical next logical choice? I was thinking about the NIKKOR Z 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR S as it would be great for the reach.

Thoughts?
 
Member's gallery
I recommend that folks determine a NEED first......not a "want something more".

My advice is to go out and shoot your new camera and lenses. As you photograph, you will/may start to realize that your current lenses are not suited to some of the subjects you want to photograph. THEN - think about how often you will encounter those kinds of subjects. AND - will you be photographing hand held or on tripod? That is important also.

If you frequently want to photograph those subjects, then decide at what distance those subjects will usually be from you. This will help you determine the focal length you need.

THEN, think about your budget. How much are you willing to spend?

When you can provide us with the information discussed above, then we can do a much better job of suggesting a lens.
 
Member's gallery
Good ideas.

I think I will give it another 2 or 3 months of shooting every weekend to see what I feel like I am lacking. I do think, though, that close to medium should be covered with the 24-120 and 35 prime(?) leaving a longer option the logical route.

----

Renting sounds like a great idea - I might end up doing that.

----

Is there any big difference in the 100-400 to 180-600 given the ladder is not an "S" line, but quite a bit cheaper?
 
Member's gallery
Don_Logan said:
Good ideas.

I think I will give it another 2 or 3 months of shooting every weekend to see what I feel like I am lacking. I do think, though, that close to medium should be covered with the 24-120 and 35 prime(?) leaving a longer option the logical route.

----

Renting sounds like a great idea - I might end up doing that.

----

Is there any big difference in the 100-400 to 180-600 given the ladder is not an "S" line, but quite a bit cheaper?
Click to expand...
There have been a number of threads covering both lenses. Yes, there are many differences.

Price is generally a good indication of differences in quality, features, weatherproofing, weight, etc. For instance, a 600mm prime is SUPERB. The 180-600 tries to be good at everything in that focal range....a jack of all trades but master of none.
 
Member's gallery
I agree with Karen's suggestions.

You are more or less set up from 24 through 120, although you might consider a macro lens if that is of interest to you.

I like the super wide lenses for landscape, they offer an interesting perspective. Something super wide might be of interest.

If you are going to get seriously into wildlife you are going to need longer lenses and that arena can get pretty pricey. They range from a low of $1700 for the 180-600mm to $14 grand and up for the big and heavy super primes.

Generally those of us who have ventured into wildlife have found 400 mm is often not long enough. Most of us want to be able to reach 600mm to 800mm and longer.

The suggestion of the 180-600 is a good one. That lens is relatively inexpensive compared to other choices and it gives you a wide range to shoot. You can learn and grow with that lens.

The other thing to consider is lens IQ or quality which often comes down to zoom versus prime. You are shooting with a 47 mp camera. You don't need that many pixels to produce a sharp image if you can reach your subject to fill the screen. For this purpose the zoom lenses should be just fine.

What happens however is that particularly when you go for birds they are often too far away to fill the frame. At that point having a high IQ prime lens makes it better.

I shoot a lot with the 800mm F6.3 pf lens, which is the longest lens in the Z repertoire. That lens has very high IQ. What this means is that when I am trying to reach a subject I can either switch my lens from FX to DX to get a longer reach, or else just crop the image significantly in post. Really good prime lenses allow you to do that, zooms are less effective with significant cropping. Note that is a very general statement.

Final suggestion is you can consider renting a lens and trying it out. There is a lot that goes into these choices and a lot depends on your interests, preferences and what and where you are shooting.
 
Member's gallery
The 100-400 will pick up where the 24=120 ends and has excellent IQ and can also produce good macro shots due to it's Minimum Focus Distance of at 100mm of 2.46 ft (0.75m).
 
Member's gallery
Don_Logan said:
Hello!

This is my first post. Hello all!

I wanted to get into photography (finally) Jan '24 after 8 to 10 years of thinking about it - lol. At that time, the Sony A series was all the rage as they were the only ones doing mirrorless with small body. I didnt want to take the dive into it for $$ reasons.......Fast forward to today....

I did some homework and landed on the Z8. I purchased it with the 4/ 24-120 S lens and then bought the 40/2 prime. A great deal came across for the 35/1.8S so I have that too.

My goals:

-Street photography
-Wildlife
-catch all.....a camera to do it all.
-minimal video.

I bought the Z8/Z9 guide from the owner of this site and am about 80% through it. I have also watched all of Hudon Henry's setup videos. So far, I have gone from knowing 0 about how to use the camera to I would say 40 to 50%. Still an "F", but I think I am slowly getting it. Again, I have 0 background in this, so it has been a steep learning curve to say the least.

-----------------------

Which brings me to my question.......

What would be a logical next logical choice? I was thinking about the NIKKOR Z 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR S as it would be great for the reach.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...
I’m with Butlerkid…see what you need first. You said wildlife though…so either the 100-400 or 180-600 is fine. The latter is better at pixelpeeping than the the former but in actual field use the 100-400 is perfectly fine and r web browser size output it’s darned near as good as my 600PF and 400/4.5…although im sure others disagree but while the primes are better at high magnifications in LR the downsampling for screen down samples the differences away. Either of those two primes are also good for wildlife but lack the flexibility of the zoomm Between the two zooms…one has more reach and is heavier and the other is an S lens, has shorter reach, and is lighter and more expensive.

Once you decide a need…then budget, carry ability, and reach become the deciding factors. My go to carry for wildlife is the 100-400 and 600PF but I also have the 400/4.5 and a 180-600 on order…so my future carry will depend on expected subjects and how far I have to walk with the 2 body/lens combo.
 
Member's gallery
Main difference between 100-400 and 180-600 is size. The second one is bigger and heavier, though still manageable. If, after shooting for a while, you find you often need a longer lens, then it might make sense to rent both and see if the extra reach to 600mm is beneficial (it is for me and that is the lens I use). Also ask yourself honestly if you would feel comfortable carrying a lens of that size (I am, but I am over six feet tall and it is on the far end of what I would want to carry - I had the Sony equivalent 200-600 and sold it because it was just a bit heavier and that was enough to make me not want to carry it).

As mentioned, there are other threads on this and some people claim the 180-600 is not as sharp because it is not a S line. In my experience this is not true - I am a semi-professional photographer with over three decades experience and I am a pixel peeper like others here and I can assure you the 180-600 is tack sharp even at 600mm. But others disagree so you should not take our word for it; just rent the two lenses and blow up the photos on your computer and decide for yourself.
 
Member's gallery
I agree with Karen. get out there and shoot! Then think about what subjects you want to interact with, and how you will do it, ie: are you a serious hiker? I use a d500 and started with a 150-600mm Tamron G2 zoom. I really like it but it is very heavy to hike with compared with my 500mm pf prime. My suggestion is to NOT invest in a new lens until you decide how you will use it. For instance, I take my Tamron when I am car birding but always take the lightweight prime when hiking any distance. Or my 300mm pf with a 1.4 TCiii.
No rush on this.
 
Member's gallery
I agree the best way forward is to get out and about and experiment. While you gather experiences with your camera, one needs real data to decide on 'Which long Telephoto?'; it might be useful to add a 70-180 f2.8, of the "Z Budget Trinity".

This light, sharp zoom pairs with a Teleconverter: so a working 98-252 or 140-360 f5.6 if needed. This will give you relatively affordable, and useful flexibility, which gets close to 400mm framing. It can handle close ups to landscapes, through portraits and accommodating wildlife subjects.

The 70-180 is reminiscent in some ways of the versatility of the budget 75-150 Nikon. Although sold as a kit zoom a few decades back, some Pros recognized its strengths in the correct contexts. Infamous outdoor photographer Galen Rowell was probably one of the best known fans of this zoom back in the day...

I carry mine when hiking with long lenses on a Z9. Although the 70-180 overlaps my excellent 24-120 f4S, I find the former more flexible, for close ups particularly.

NIKKOR Z 70-180mm f/2.8: “Light, compact and a great all-rounder”

The longest of the new affordable f/2.8 trinity lenses from NIKKOR is small but perfectly formed, says Nikon School’s Ricci Chera
www.nikon.co.uk
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
Thank you for all the replies!!!

Clearly I just need to get out there and "figure things out" a bit.

I think I would lean to the 100-400 first and then get the 600 prime down the road (not the $15k one)

----

Someone mentioned a Wide angle lens does have my interest as well. The 14-30 S seems to be the ticket?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top