- Messages
- 442
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I think that lens will appeal to a lot of people for events. For me is not quite wide enough and not quite long enough for the landscapes I more commonly shoot.
-
Important: the Server Hamster is in need of a bit of TLC so the site will be off line for a while on Friday morning, the 17th
Nikon Z* mirrorless
- Thread starter Scots_quine
- Start date
- Messages
- 36
- Name
- Martin
- Edit My Images
- No
ZF ordered, there is so much to like in this camera that I just couldn't resist. The key points for me are the improved VR, flippy screen which is just so useful when doing low angle shots in portrait orientation, improved AF over my Z7 and lastly the price which is a real bargain compared to the Z8. Oh yes nearly forgot, love the looks.
- Messages
- 1,452
- Name
- Steven
- Edit My Images
- No
If the loss of the 45mp sensor isn't a concern, then it's a good option if looking for a camera right now.
I myself went from a 45mp sensor back to the 24mp and other than low light, couldn't wait to change again to the 45mp.
But comparing it to a Z8 isn't realistic, there not in the same ball park. The Z8 is a bargain, even more so if bought from import/grey online stores.
- Messages
- 36
- Name
- Martin
- Edit My Images
- No
Sorry I should perhaps have been a bit clearer. I would pick the ZF over the Z8 simply because it gives me a lot of what I want but at a vastly reduced price, for what I want the Z8 is way too expensive at £4k, the ZF ticks a lot of the boxes that I am looking for in my next camera, the Z8 or Z9 would be perfectly acceptable alternatives and believe me I have toyed with flexing the plastic on a number of occasions but I simply cannot justify the expense of buying a top line camera.
The ZF will pair nicely with my Z7 which I can use for my landscape work and the ZF can take on general duties which doesn't require 45mp. So I will still have the availability of a 45mp camera as and when it is needed, for my general photography the 24mp ZF will work just fine.
- Messages
- 385
- Name
- Scott
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I've always been a big fan of superzooms and used to use the 18-200 DX on my D7100 infrared camera. I got the 24-200 specifically for my Z5 full spectrum camera only to find it hotspots really badly in infrared. So I've ended up using it on my Z7, and use the 24-70 F4 on my Z5 as it works brilliantly in infrared. I've got the 14-30 F4 and the 100-400 (which both work well in infrared) as well, so covered for pretty much any focal length I could want but I really want a superzoom that works on both cameras. Been failing miserably to date - I did test the 24-120, but that hotspots too
Not holding out too much hope on the Tamron, but you never know!Was also pleasantly surprised by the quality of the 24-200 in comparison with the 24-120 and 24-70 F4s! Was considering replacing the 24-200 but now I think I'll keep it!
- Messages
- 442
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I tried out a second hand copy of the 24-200 but unfortunately had to return it to the shop. The AF was far too unreliable - virtually never miss a shot with the 24-70 for instance. The edge performance at the wide end was pretty dreadful. I suspect it was a bad copy as some people seem to have had more luck.
- Messages
- 3,140
- Name
- Andy
- Edit My Images
- No
I bought the 24-200 recently as a one lens solution for travel. Very happy with it so far. I can cope with the slightly reduced image quality compared to the 24-70 and 24-120 that I also own, simply because of the focal length and (relatively) compact design. I’m not going to be making A2 exhibition quality images with it - I’ll use the other lenses for that.
- Messages
- 2,470
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Sounds like Viltrox are about to launch a FF 20mm/2.8 prime for z mount. That’s perfect timing.
- Messages
- 145
- Edit My Images
- No
I've never used a 'superzoom' that I've found adequate for my needs. I think such lenses are great if you just want to 'record' stuff, without worrying too much about image quality, but if I use my 'proper' camera, I want IQ to be as good as possible. I've found superzooms to be mediocre at the wide end, and poor at the long end. I do have the older F-mount 24-120 f4, which is just about ok; it's a great all-purpose lens if I don't want to carry too much, but it's not as good optically as the Z-mount 24-70 f4 (which is quite astonishing tbh). I'm considering the Z-mount 24-120; if it's anywhere near the 24-70, then I'd really like one. I've recently bought the Z 105 macro lens; haven't had a chance to really test its capabilities yet, but it's looking good so far. Very very sharp. I like it also as a portrait lens; I know some prefer normal lenses for portraiture, because the macros tend to be too sharp, Bit I often like to get up really close, so the macro capabilities are essential there. I loved my old 105 AF-D lens, so I'm looking forward to using the z-mount version.
- Messages
- 9,299
- Edit My Images
- No
In my case, image quality comes a poor second to capturing what I'm seeing. "Different folks, different strokes" as my American in-laws are known to say.
I like the superzoom lenses because they're one less thing to worry about, when the picture presents itself...
Canon 5d / Sigma 28~300mm...
Nikon D600 / Tamron 28~300mm...
Sony A65 / Tamron 16 ~ 300mm (effectively 24~450mm) ...
Last edited:
- Messages
- 145
- Edit My Images
- No
That's fine. We all have different needs and requirements. But whenever I've tried a superzoom, I've always been disappointed with the results. So I end up not wanting to shoot pics with it as I know the results will be disappointing (to me). If you're less fussy, then that's great.
For me, image quality is part of the whole thing. I want to shoot the best pictures I can, at the best quality. I've got loads of pictures taken over the years, on all sorts ofc ameras and lenses. I have a fair few from my early days, where I always think 'it would be better had I used a better quality lens'. If I equip myself with the best kit I can afford, then I have far less excuses. Better equipment makes me a better photographer. YMMV.
- Messages
- 651
- Name
- John
- Edit My Images
- No
I'm a huge fan of superzoom lenses and one of the reasons I'm considering a Z8 is so that I can use the 28-300mm again, I've bought both the 24-240mm and the 28-200mm in FE mount but not been happy with either for differing reasons. The 28-300mm really freed up my D700/D750 as it meant I could easily carry the camera about for general shooting in a fairly compact package, there's no way I'm carrying a 24-70mm/70-200mm with me all the time and changing lenses so it's not really a case of the superzoom lens vs a better lens, it's the superzoom lens vs a smaller format camera so the FF camera still wins out on the better sensor and technologies. Then the times when I don't need flexibility and IQ is the top priority I can stick a better lens on,
- Messages
- 9,299
- Edit My Images
- No
Not less fussy, just different priorities.
- Messages
- 145
- Edit My Images
- No
Well, by your own admission you're less fussy about image quality. It's the same as having 'different priorities'. Mine are for the best image quality I can get, as well as other considerations. Ergo; I'm 'more fussy'. Fussier?
My 'worst' lens (Z-mount) is the 14-30 f4. It's still a great lens, but the optical quality obviously isn't anywhere near the other lenses, and you wouldn't expect it to be, as such a lens will have inherent flaws anyway. The edge sharpness is not amazing, not too bad when stopped down, but it's noticeably better at the 'long' end. This is to be expected with such a lens anyway, so I'm not 'disappointed'. But it's a fantastic lens for certain situations; I was recently taking some pics of a brass band in a narrow street, really packed in, loads of people. Evening, so poor light. In that sort of situation, the atmosphere is what matters, and things like edge sharpness and distortion aren't major issues. High ISO so some degradation in image quality anyway. But if I'm doing portraits in good light, I want as good IQ as I can get, and that means short-range zooms or primes. My 50mm f1.8 Z mount lens is incredible in that regard. I wouldn't be using a zoom in that sort of situation much anyway really. Yes, It means Ineed to carry more kit around, but if that's what I've set myself to do, then that's fine. For travelling etc, I'd rather not take a picture than be disappointed by poor IQ in the final result. So, if I'm limited to just a 24-70 as I sometimes choose, then that's fine. I'll just work within those parameters, knowing that the lens I do have is still capable of taking great shots. Then the only limiting factor is my own ability.
sk66
Advertiser
- Messages
- 8,709
- Name
- Steven
- Edit My Images
- Yes
It's becoming apparent from your various posts that you are more of "a technician;" much as I am...
I'm not sure why you would expect a 14-30 zoom to be of lower quality than a 24-70 zoom (other than being a wide angle)... it covers less range and is even less of a "super zoom". I personally find a lack of focal length choices more often limiting of image quality; because it limits/dictates the perspective (or requires excessive cropping). Of course that is often a tradeoff of a more opinion based aesthetic IQ factor against a more technical IQ factor; but almost everything is a tradeoff w/ photography.
- Messages
- 145
- Edit My Images
- No
Because there are inherent problems with such extreme wide angle lenses. Optical fidelity is something that can generally only be found in a fairly narrow range of lenses, from 35 to 85mm or so. Outside of those focal lengths, you are going to have problems in terms of designing the optics etc. So you get more distortion, vignetting, less sharpness etc. Which is ok as long as it doesn't get too extreme, usually. Superzooms tend to be optically compromised to levels way beyond prime lenses/shorter range zooms, so are invariably going to be inferior in some way. That's not to say they're unusable, but I find them a little too compromised for my own use. The ones I've tried have all been a bit too sub-par for my liking.
- Messages
- 145
- Edit My Images
- No
That's an interesting observation. I am interested in the technical aspects of photography, as I feel being so enables me to understand the processes better, and better able to replicate good results. Which is why things like optical quality are important to me. If I look back on some of my early photographs, I can see that there are flaws caused by the optics in the cheaper lenses I was using back then. They don't diminish from the impact if the images too much, but I always feel they could be improved yet, by better quality lenses. I admit that the pursuit of perfection can be a path fraught with angst and disappointment. So I can totally see why not worrying too much about such things can be somewhat liberating; when I use my iPhone to take pics, I'm not so bothered about optical fidelity, because I use it in a different way than when I use my other cameras. I'm just taking a 'snap' rather than a photograph. I know; that approach is riddled with contention. But hey, we all have out own best practice that suits us. so if I pull out my iPhone for a snap, it's different to when I use my Z6 for example, to do some 'serious' work. With the latter approach, I engage a lot more with the process, and I like to think achieve better results because I'm doing so. For those times when all I have with my is my iPhone, and the situation demands better equipment, I can be a bit frustrated and disappointed, but that's life.
sk66
Advertiser
- Messages
- 8,709
- Name
- Steven
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I did mention "other than being a wide angle"...
Technically, it is easier to get higher resolution from longer focal lengths because that limits the system to more paraxial rays (which require less bending/focusing). The problem tends to be the distances for which they are used... longer distances being more demanding.
Yes, I am quite technically proficient in most aspects of photography, given an assignment/goal I can generally achieve it fairly easily/quickly (if feasible)... I just generally lack true creativity; I am a technician/photographer more than I am an artist.
In all my years with photography (40+) I have seen many more powerful/moving/meaningful images with technical flaws than I have seen technically perfect images that moved me or said anything; it's a fact I keep having to remind myself of every so often... (but that doesn't somehow qualify crappy snapshots as better images).
- Messages
- 9,299
- Edit My Images
- No
- Messages
- 286
- Name
- Jonathan (JK)
- Edit My Images
- No
Swap you my Z9 for the Z8 and Zf! I think not, as bad deal for you.Well I must have been eating too many beans as the GAS got the better of me
Honestly this looks from what I can see to be exactly what I was after. It will pair perfectly with the 28/2.8SE that I love using as a carry around.
I will be interested to hear how you get on with it, but will be very tempted if I get my hands on one.
- Messages
- 286
- Name
- Jonathan (JK)
- Edit My Images
- No
Interesting as many tests I have seen show the f4 version to be superior to the 14-24mm f2.8 in both Z and F mount. I have the 14-30mm f4 Z but haven't used it extensively compared to my 14-24mm f2.8 F mount which is superb. However the 14-30 wins as the filters are normal 82mm filters compared to the exotica I have to pay for the 14-24mm f2.8 adapter and filter sets!
- Messages
- 839
- Name
- Danny
- Edit My Images
- No
Interesting again as I have never seen anyone rate the Z14-30 over the Z14-24 as when the numbers get involved it's easier to see.
For example from Photography Life website
The whole filters thing with the Z14-24mm has always amused me as I just use my existing 100mm kit, just have to buy the right adapter for your holder just like you would do a filter ring for any other lens
Attachments
Last edited:
- Messages
- 145
- Edit My Images
- No
I see 'art' as the marriage of ideas and craft. For me, great art is the result of exceptional individual talent, and a mastery of craft, which includes technical processes. It's having that control which allows the idea to be realised to its most optimum form. That isn't to say that technical flaws (perhaps beyond the artist's control) should necessarily preclude a piece of work from being considered art, and indeed exploitation of flaws can sometimes enhance the artwork. Certainly, when I view photography from many decades ago, I view it in the context of the technology used not being as good as it is now, so a lack of sharpness, or distortion etc, is of no significance. Many iconic images of war have been blurred, out of focus, poorly exposed etc, but we accept that because the situation is far from ideal for taking 'perfect' images. But for my own work, I want to know that if I'm making the effort, the equipment won't let me down. We all have our own preferences and choices.
I'd just like to say that although the 14-30 is my 'worst' lens, that's in direct comparison to my other lenses. The 14-30 is by no means a bad lens; on the contrary, it's an excellent lens. It's optical flaws are not significant enough to prevent me from enjoying using it. In fact, stopped down to f8, it's actually far better than I'd expected; significantly better than a previous 3rd part UWA zoom I'd used. I've never owned or used a 14-24mm lens, so I have no comparison. But it is a lot more expensive, and much larger and heavier. None of the reviews I read/watched suggested it was 'worth' the extra outlay for my own requirements. So we make compromises based on our own requirements and budget. I've used the 14-30 professionally, and had great results from it.
I use filters as protection for lens front elements, because a £40 or whatever filter is cheaper and easier to replace/repair than a £1000+ lens. I had an 82mm thin filter that I'd used on my previous UWA zoom, so I just whacked that straight on. My filters do tend to get scratched and battered over time, that's just the nature of how I work, so the ability to use a protective filter was a big selling point for me for the 14-30.
- Messages
- 145
- Edit My Images
- No
New 135mm f1.8 'Plena' lens being announced tomorrow apparently.
nikonrumors.com
Very interesting to me personally, but I fear it will be very very expensive. Loved my old E-Series 135 f2.8 lens. I already have the 105mm macro which can easily serve asa portrait lens, so a 135mm would be a bit of a 'luxury' item. I was going to buy the 85mm f1.8, but then the f1.2 version came out, so I don't quite know what to do (s/h prices for the f1.2 way too high for my liking really). But it is good Nikon are releasing these superb lenses. The Z-mount has been a bit of a game changer for me, in that regard.
Confirmed: massive Nikon Nikkor 135mm f/1.8 Plena lens without defocus control coming this week - Nikon Rumors
I can now confirm that on September 27th Nikon will announce a new Nikon Nikkor 135mm f/1.8 Plena lens without defocus control. Here is what to expect: 16 elements in 14 groups (massive lens!) No defocus control like on the old 135mm and 105mm DC lenses Filter size: 82mm The new Plena lens will...
nikonrumors.com
Very interesting to me personally, but I fear it will be very very expensive. Loved my old E-Series 135 f2.8 lens. I already have the 105mm macro which can easily serve asa portrait lens, so a 135mm would be a bit of a 'luxury' item. I was going to buy the 85mm f1.8, but then the f1.2 version came out, so I don't quite know what to do (s/h prices for the f1.2 way too high for my liking really). But it is good Nikon are releasing these superb lenses. The Z-mount has been a bit of a game changer for me, in that regard.
- Messages
- 1,452
- Name
- Steven
- Edit My Images
- No
I owned the Sigma 135mm f1.8 ART for f-mount and although it was a fantastic lens, that produced stellar images, it very rarely got used.New 135mm f1.8 'Plena' lens being announced tomorrow apparently.
Confirmed: massive Nikon Nikkor 135mm f/1.8 Plena lens without defocus control coming this week - Nikon Rumors
I can now confirm that on September 27th Nikon will announce a new Nikon Nikkor 135mm f/1.8 Plena lens without defocus control. Here is what to expect: 16 elements in 14 groups (massive lens!) No defocus control like on the old 135mm and 105mm DC lenses Filter size: 82mm The new Plena lens will...
Very interesting to me personally, but I fear it will be very very expensive. Loved my old E-Series 135 f2.8 lens. I already have the 105mm macro which can easily serve asa portrait lens, so a 135mm would be a bit of a 'luxury' item. I was going to buy the 85mm f1.8, but then the f1.2 version came out, so I don't quite know what to do (s/h prices for the f1.2 way too high for my liking really). But it is good Nikon are releasing these superb lenses. The Z-mount has been a bit of a game changer for me, in that regard.
135mm for me was too long for my photography, making the distance between myself and model hard to communicate properly.
105mm or 85mm being far more useful IMO, not to mention the build up to this release makes it look like it's going to be very expensive.
E-Infin have the 85mm f1.2 for £2099
A second hand 105mm f1.4E is a very good option.
- Messages
- 286
- Name
- Jonathan (JK)
- Edit My Images
- No
Definitely agree with all these statements.
I tend to use my UWA at f8-f11 so I seldom use wide open.
- Messages
- 651
- Name
- John
- Edit My Images
- No
That sounds a nasty accident and hope you're ok as even minor knocks to the knees can be quite painful.
- Messages
- 1,208
- Name
- Chris Tarling
- Edit My Images
- No
Thanks John.
Still a bit sore, limp not quite gone.
I'm waiting on my insurer's assessment of the damage to the Z9.
- Messages
- 286
- Name
- Jonathan (JK)
- Edit My Images
- No
Hope that you are fully recovered soon and the Z9 gets repaired quickly.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 1,208
- Name
- Chris Tarling
- Edit My Images
- No
I'm slightly in shock....
Further to my earlier post about having a fall whilst covering an event.
My Z9 was received by my insurer's 'tech partner' late-ish yesterday afternoon.
Just received a phone call from the guy who is looking after it to say that it is not an economical repair!
It's actually down to the availability of the parts they need, more than a balance of costs. It's repairable but they simply can't get the bits to repair it.
So tomorrow I am due to receive a shiny new replacement via WEX.
I'm shocked that such an innocuous fall wrote it off!
Be careful out there guys.
Further to my earlier post about having a fall whilst covering an event.
My Z9 was received by my insurer's 'tech partner' late-ish yesterday afternoon.
Just received a phone call from the guy who is looking after it to say that it is not an economical repair!
It's actually down to the availability of the parts they need, more than a balance of costs. It's repairable but they simply can't get the bits to repair it.
So tomorrow I am due to receive a shiny new replacement via WEX.
I'm shocked that such an innocuous fall wrote it off!
Be careful out there guys.
- Messages
- 145
- Edit My Images
- No
That'll buff out...
I'd really like a go with one. The f1.8 version just doesn't appeal to me somehow, and I'll be honest; it's because of its design more than anything else. Perhaps it's because I'm used to F-mount versions, but to me it's too long and thin looking. I accept this is stupid, as it's aesthetics have no bearing on its performance, but still. Personally, I prefer a longer lens for portraits mainly, because you're not so in people's faces as you are with an 85, for full face shots. A 135 is better for more candid shots too. But I'd still like to try the f1.2 85.
- Messages
- 1,031
- Name
- Gerard
- Edit My Images
- No
Do you get the keep the damaged one? If so, that shouldn't be too difficult to repair.
Also who is your insurer?
- Messages
- 1,452
- Name
- Steven
- Edit My Images
- No
Sad to think that they'll write it off with what looks like fixable damage.
It's poor to think that Nikon can't supply the parts needed to repair it.
Other than the rear screen, cable and mechanism, is it fully working via the EVF?
- Messages
- 3,360
- Name
- Simon
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Does the camera still work apart from the back screen. I'd be seeing if I could buy it back if it did
- Messages
- 1,208
- Name
- Chris Tarling
- Edit My Images
- No
Camera functioned correctly apart from the broken rear screen - my accident occurred at lunchtime and I continued to use the camera for the rest of the day. Very fortunate that there was no lens or mount damage.
I don't get to keep the damaged one, and given the non-availability of the parts I see no point in trying to get it back.
My business insurance is with Hiscox - first time I have had to claim and I am very impressed!
I don't get to keep the damaged one, and given the non-availability of the parts I see no point in trying to get it back.
My business insurance is with Hiscox - first time I have had to claim and I am very impressed!
- Messages
- 3,360
- Name
- Simon
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Got to hear about Hiscox, pity you can't get the camera back.