Nikon Z* mirrorless

I got my Z9, been using it a bit but;

I need a new ultrawide, my tokian is DX only and I completely forgot about this lol. I'm ordering the 400mm f4.5 soon so a lot of my lens budget is being eaten up by that.

I'm stuck between the Z 17-28mm and 14-30mm. I can't justify the 14-24 right now, if I wasn't getting the 400mm I'd 100% get that.

The main two pros for the 14-30mm are that its a bit wider, and more lightweight + a bit smaller. Space is limited when I'm flying to places so smaller is good.

But it's only f4 vs f2.8 on the 17-28. For astro f2.8 would be nice but I don't do astro much - I also have a 28mm prime I could use for that anyway.

One thing that annoys me about the 17-28, is that it's a rebranded Tamron and the Sony version is only £519 from einfinity, the nikon one is £949. Joke is, the megadap + sony version is cheaper lol

I'm going from a Tokina 11-16mm so either of these is sure to be an upgrade, the Tokina is my 2nd most used lens after my telephoto so I don't wanna make a mistake and be sad.

Anyone got any thoughts?
 
Last edited:
I also ordered a 2nd battery as I did have it go almost flat me.

150GB isn't enough space for wildlife so I'll need new cards soon as well. Having to chimp delete photos in the field is far from ideal..
 
Alisonfd said:
I also ordered a 2nd battery as I did have it go almost flat me.

150GB isn't enough space for wildlife so I'll need new cards soon as well. Having to chimp delete photos in the field is far from ideal..
Click to expand...
Jeeze, I'm using 128GB cards and haven't come anywhere near filling one...
 
Nikon 14-30 Z lens is very good according to the MTF test is just as good if not better than the 14-24 f2.8 F or Z.
 
Alisonfd said:
I got my Z9, been using it a bit but;

I need a new ultrawide, my tokian is DX only and I completely forgot about this lol. I'm ordering the 400mm f4.5 soon so a lot of my lens budget is being eaten up by that.

I'm stuck between the Z 17-28mm and 14-30mm. I can't justify the 14-24 right now, if I wasn't getting the 400mm I'd 100% get that.

The main two pros for the 14-30mm are that its a bit wider, and more lightweight + a bit smaller. Space is limited when I'm flying to places so smaller is good.

But it's only f4 vs f2.8 on the 17-28. For astro f2.8 would be nice but I don't do astro much - I also have a 28mm prime I could use for that anyway.

One thing that annoys me about the 17-28, is that it's a rebranded Tamron and the Sony version is only £519 from einfinity, the nikon one is £949. Joke is, the megadap + sony version is cheaper lol

I'm going from a Tokina 11-16mm so either of these is sure to be an upgrade, the Tokina is my 2nd most used lens after my telephoto so I don't wanna make a mistake and be sad.

Anyone got any thoughts?
Click to expand...
I’ve got the 14-30 and although I don’t use it as much as my 24-70 (now replaced with 24-120), I’ve found it to be a stellar performer.

Its small, lightweight and takes filter more easily than the 14-24.
 
I saw that Sigma have finally been allowed to enter the Z mount arena recently, with 3 prime lenses, is there any chance of a sigma or tamron 100-400 z mount in the near future? I refuse to pay the price of the Nikon version.
 
IanC said:
I saw that Sigma have finally been allowed to enter the Z mount arena recently, with 3 prime lenses, is there any chance of a sigma or tamron 100-400 z mount in the near future? I refuse to pay the price of the Nikon version.
Click to expand...
It‘s unlikely. I read somewhere (can’t remember where) that Nikon only licence 3rd party manufacturers to make lenses they don’t /don’t intend to make. As Nikon already have a 100-400 then probably not.
 
Peter123 said:
It‘s unlikely. I read somewhere (can’t remember where) that Nikon only licence 3rd party manufacturers to make lenses they don’t /don’t intend to make. As Nikon already have a 100-400 then probably not.
Click to expand...
Was this for Z mount? It’s not the case for F mount, Sigma do the 1.4 art range that duplicate the Nikon focal lengths as well as the 70-200 2.8.
 
Yes. My understanding is that Nikon licence the Z mount tech.
But hey, I'm just some bloke on the internet so don't take this as gospel.
 
Alisonfd said:
I also ordered a 2nd battery as I did have it go almost flat me.

150GB isn't enough space for wildlife so I'll need new cards soon as well. Having to chimp delete photos in the field is far from ideal..
Click to expand...
150GB isn't enough? That's 2500 compressed raw files and that's not enough between switching cards?
 
Peter123 said:
It‘s unlikely. I read somewhere (can’t remember where) that Nikon only licence 3rd party manufacturers to make lenses they don’t /don’t intend to make. As Nikon already have a 100-400 then probably not.
Click to expand...
This is such a shame, it convinces me to move to one of their competitors of anything
 
SFTPhotography said:
And an FTZ adapter would be the way forward for the short to medium term.
Click to expand...
Not ideal either though when you have a combo of z and f mount lenses. I was thinking of getting a z7ii but don't want to tie myself into a system which isn't supporting 3rd party lenses properly
 
IanC said:
I saw that Sigma have finally been allowed to enter the Z mount arena recently, with 3 prime lenses, is there any chance of a sigma or tamron 100-400 z mount in the near future? I refuse to pay the price of the Nikon version.
Click to expand...
This might be of interest, although the key word I think is 'potential' rather than possible or probable. 50-400 for Sony E-mount.

nikonrumors.com

List of Tamron mirrorless lenses that could potentially be announced for Nikon Z-mount - Nikon Rumors

After the news that Tamorn is already making lenses for Nikon Z-mount, here is a list of existing Tamron mirrorless lenses for Sony E-mount that could potentially be announced for Nikon Z-mount in the future: Tamron 35-150mm f/2-2.8 Di III VXD Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 Di III VXD Tamron 28-200mm...
nikonrumors.com nikonrumors.com

I have used the Tamron 100-400 Nikon F mount with the FTZ adaptor and I think it performs reasonably well. Sample image:

DSC_1538-01.jpg
 
SFTPhotography said:
I hope it isn't. The chat surrounding this camera has been going for 3 years. We need 61mp and we needed it 3 years ago.
Click to expand...
The chat might have been, but it’s all been wishful thinking. We have no idea what Nikon will announce, and neither do any of those making up the rumours. Those images make no sense as you wouldn’t put 6k video as the top video on a 61mp sensor as the only reason to have 6k is it happens to use the entire sensor on a 24mp sensor.
 
jknights said:
Nikon 14-30 Z lens is very good according to the MTF test is just as good if not better than the 14-24 f2.8 F or Z.
Click to expand...

wibbly said:
I’ve got the 14-30 and although I don’t use it as much as my 24-70 (now replaced with 24-120), I’ve found it to be a stellar performer.

Its small, lightweight and takes filter more easily than the 14-24.
Click to expand...

Thanks, both. I'm thinking lighter weight is probably best as I struggle to carry my gear already x-x


PeteStewardson said:
150GB isn't enough? That's 2500 compressed raw files and that's not enough between switching cards?
Click to expand...
I can't switch cards as I haven't got any others. I have 2 x 150GB cards, the 2nd is supposed to be the backup. It's not enough. I have filled that every single time I've been out except for today. Today I only took 309 photos which is nothing but I also saw nothing :p
 
I'm sure it must be in here somewhere but there are too many places to look for the answer to my question, which is...

What is the technical reason that Nikon binned decades of lens development to come out with a completely new camera and lens mount, which, with a simple adapter (but expensive), can still be used with F mount lenses?
 
ShinySideUp said:
I'm sure it must be in here somewhere but there are too many places to look for the answer to my question, which is...

What is the technical reason that Nikon binned decades of lens development to come out with a completely new camera and lens mount, which, with a simple adapter (but expensive), can still be used with F mount lenses?
Click to expand...
All mirrorless cameras have a shorter flang to sensor distance. Means you can have much smaller bodies, like the Zfc, with the same mount. There are all sorts of optical reasons to have the shorter distance too.
 
PeteStewardson said:
All mirrorless cameras have a shorter flang to sensor distance. Means you can have much smaller bodies, like the Zfc, with the same mount. There are all sorts of optical reasons to have the shorter distance too.
Click to expand...
Looked that up, yes, I can see how that would help. Ta.
 
I still think there is a huge market for a mirrorless camera that takes F mount lenses with a built in motor to power AF lenses.
Z mount is good for new starters or those who can afford the change but I hate using the FTZ adapter as it has no built in motor for some of my favoured AF lenses.
 
Alternatively Nikon or other could make an FTZ iii that provides an AF motor (for AF and AFD lenses) in the adapter.
I would definite want one. I would pay twice the price of the FTZ ii to have such an adapter.
 
wilt said:
Nikon wants you to spend money on new gear. The FTZ adapter was only used to bridge the gap while they released Z lenses in numbers.
I highly doubt there will be any new R&D/releases for F-mount lenses/cameras or adapters.
Click to expand...

It's probably why they've held the price of the D850 at around £2700 so that people are comparing that with mirrorless bodies and thinking what's the point of a D850 when the prices are so high and the genre's future is in doubt; it's a shame as I would be in the market for a D850 but I am thinking exactly that. Nikon's problem, at least in my case, is that I don't actually need a new camera so can hold back for a long time, thus reducing their potential for a sale of any kind. I don't feel there is enough advantage from mirrorless to persuade me to move over completely and the thought of adding an adapter with its associated weight and size to my existing lenses is not encouraging me in any way, especially as the FTZ is expensive for what amounts to a metal tube.. Perhaps if they gave the adapter away with a new mirrorless camera it might make a difference but for now, there is a whole world of potential that is going unfulfilled. Add to that, the longer Nikon wait for us fence-sitters, the more likely we will eventually bin the whole lot and go for Sony instead. I don't envy Nikon with their dilemma.
 
The problem with screwdrive lenses is they would need a motor like the d850’s to drive them. Then they’d have to rewrite the AF process to slow down the drive to them as the higher frequency the Z cameras use would probably destroy the af in the lens fast. Battery life would likely be crap too.

I’m sure Nikon tried to do it and discovered the user experience wasn’t going to be good.
 
ShinySideUp said:
It's probably why they've held the price of the D850 at around £2700 so that people are comparing that with mirrorless bodies and thinking what's the point of a D850 when the prices are so high and the genre's future is in doubt; it's a shame as I would be in the market for a D850 but I am thinking exactly that. Nikon's problem, at least in my case, is that I don't actually need a new camera so can hold back for a long time, thus reducing their potential for a sale of any kind. I don't feel there is enough advantage from mirrorless to persuade me to move over completely and the thought of adding an adapter with its associated weight and size to my existing lenses is not encouraging me in any way, especially as the FTZ is expensive for what amounts to a metal tube.. Perhaps if they gave the adapter away with a new mirrorless camera it might make a difference but for now, there is a whole world of potential that is going unfulfilled. Add to that, the longer Nikon wait for us fence-sitters, the more likely we will eventually bin the whole lot and go for Sony instead. I don't envy Nikon with their dilemma.
Click to expand...
If you are happy with your lenses then the pinnacle of DSLR is the D850. But it's the age old question "What will a new camera allow me to do, that the old one didn't?" I had the D850 and it's simply epic. I only changed due to weight, but mirrorless hasn't opened any doors or blew me away.
 
Last edited:
wilt said:
If you are happy with your lenses then the pinnacle of DSLR is the D850. But it's the age old question "What will a new came allow me to do, that the old one didn't?" I had the D850 and it's simply epic. I only changed due to weight, but mirrorless hasn't opened any doors or blew me away.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, the trade-in value of my D810 would be so low as to be almost negligible as a contribution to a D850 so it looks like the D850 is going to pass me by.
 
juggler said:
Just wondering.. why do you need 61mp?
Click to expand...

Bigger files are better than smaller files. If the lens can do it (and some of these super sharp primes can) then the detail can be outstanding.

I also think 8k will soon be a visual standard we will wind up with. Having a bit more room (9k) gives plenty room for cropping to allow for any compositional errors.
 
SFTPhotography said:
Bigger files are better than smaller files.
Click to expand...
I disagree. I'd love a Z9 but I'm put off by the number of pixels, the storage requirements, the fact that I'll need a much faster PC - and that my retouching is more likely to hit the 4GB psd/psb limit.

SFTPhotography said:
If the lens can do it (and some of these super sharp primes can) then the detail can be outstanding.
Click to expand...
How are you viewing the images to see that level of detail? That's like viewing a 3 ft (diagonal) print from 2 feet away.
 
juggler said:
I disagree. I'd love a Z9 but I'm put off by the number of pixels, the storage requirements, the fact that I'll need a much faster PC - and that my retouching is more likely to hit the 4GB psd/psb limit.


How are you viewing the images to see that level of detail? That's like viewing a 3 ft (diagonal) print from 2 feet away.
Click to expand...

2 feet away, I want to put my face right in it and see every detail. And 3ft diagonal is only the size of a 36in TV. Tiny. Minuscule really.


Storage is cheap. Sadly processing power isn't.
 
juggler said:
I don't want to watch a 36" TV from less than 2 feet away.. but each to their own!!
Click to expand...

I wouldn't entertain anything less than 50inch, even from 5ft away. Really, my aim, despite my relatively modest dwelling is 85inch 8k - TV with being able to hook my images up to it and being able to put my nose in it, see every fine detail, then walk back. I do that when viewing pictures/art work, I get up right and close, then take in from afar.

8k is fast becoming a visual standard. I'd get ready for it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top