Nikon Z6 and Z7 mirrorless

Stephen L

I asked a Stupid Question Once...
Messages
4,517
Name
Stephen
Edit My Images
Yes
How d'you rate the 14-30? I'd like a superwide lens; I bought a Tokina 11-20mm lens for my D3300, which actually worked from 16mm on FX, with no vignetting. But I seemed to use it at the wide end mostly; LR Exif data shows the vast majority of pics shot with it, were at the wide end. So I'm not sure how much I'd actually benefit from a zoom; maybe I just need a UWA prime...
I love it. I don’t peek into the corners, and there’s distortion fully-wide, but it’s so versatile. I think I tend to shoot 17mm to 20mm, so maybe a 20mm fixed might do it, but Settle, where I live, is full of tight little closes. It’s the first lens I actually bought after I got the Z6 kit, and it’s the only one I’ve kept (apart from the 24-70).
 
Messages
6,678
Name
Graham
Edit My Images
Yes
I'm in the process all being well of swapping over to the z6 and was thinking if the IQ with a 200-500 and 1.4 tc would be any better than with a d500 or d750. I know it's a prime your using it on but still not alot wrong with that
I got a 1.4 tc although not a Nikon one (and it shows) It`s not very compatible with the 200-500 but manual focus is ok, not the best quality with the TC and at 500 + mm but hey.
If I remember correctly the 1st shot is without the TC
I`m sure with a Nikon TC the quality will be loads better,
https://www.flickr.com/photos/183726323@N06/
 
Last edited:
Messages
1,986
Edit My Images
Yes
I got a 1.4 tc although not a Nikon one (and it shows) It`s not very compatible with the 200-500 but manual focus is ok, not the best quality with the TC and at 500 + mm but hey.
If I remember correctly the 1st shot is without the TC
I`m sure with a Nikon TC the quality will be loads better,
https://www.flickr.com/photos/183726323@N06/
Yes it does but it's over distance and the shutter speed is only at 1/250 so that may not help I guess. It's just a thought I'll see if a bargain comes up.
 
Messages
1,679
Name
Peter
Edit My Images
Yes
No I'm happy with the 14-30. It's very good, as some of your recent images show.
Probably good for astro.
I'm saving my pennies for what's promised down the line - 24-200, 105 macro and the 2 small primes.
That lot will blow the budget for a good while.
 
Last edited:
Messages
597
Edit My Images
No
Problem is, you can spend a fortune on lenses, and then seldom use them. My 70-200 doesn't get much use, only when I do a gig or summat, and that isn't very often really, a few times a year. It's not a lens I want to cart around with me. So anything I buy, needs to be something I'd actually use. The 24-70 is excellent in this regard, and a 24-120 would be perfect really. Wider? I'm not sure how much I'd use it tbh. I rarely feel I need anything wider than 24mm tbh. I'd still like to have a play with one though.
 

Stephen L

I asked a Stupid Question Once...
Messages
4,517
Name
Stephen
Edit My Images
Yes
Problem is, you can spend a fortune on lenses, and then seldom use them. My 70-200 doesn't get much use, only when I do a gig or summat, and that isn't very often really, a few times a year. It's not a lens I want to cart around with me. So anything I buy, needs to be something I'd actually use. The 24-70 is excellent in this regard, and a 24-120 would be perfect really. Wider? I'm not sure how much I'd use it tbh. I rarely feel I need anything wider than 24mm tbh. I'd still like to have a play with one though.
This is oh so true. I do use the 14-30 a lot, and the 24-70. Less so the 85mm and the 50mm, good though they are. As you say, a 24-120 would be ideal, especially if it were a constant f4. If and when I do need longer, I use my 100mm Zuiko (beautiful lens) and my Pentax 135mm. Both manual, but I find it easier to manually focus a manual tele than a wide. As regards budgets - well, it'll be some while before I have one of those. :oops: :$
 
Messages
174
Edit My Images
Yes
Messages
174
Edit My Images
Yes
Also did a little testing and compared the 300/2.8 with TCs to the 200-500mm.
Please, let me know what you think of the results.

First the 300/2.8 with 1.4xTC at F4 (left) vs 200-500mm at 410mm and F5.6 (right)



Now the same, just the 300 with TC at F5.6



Now the 300 with the 2x TC at F5.6 against the 200-500mm at 500mm and F5.6

 
Messages
16,745
Edit My Images
No
We need the resident lab coat to compare these @snerkler

Just out of interest have you tried the 1.4 on the 200-500 on the z6?
:LOL:

I’m only on the phone at the mo so can’t really judge (not that my eye’s any better than anyone else’s anyway :p). I’ll try not to mention the different ISO’s, framing and WB :exit:;)
 
Messages
174
Edit My Images
Yes
I was on a tripod, shutter speeds vary because I tried to keep ISO as balanced as possible...WB is a fault of mine, but it reflects how I shoot....auto WB, Manual with auto ISO.
I felt it was the closest to real life expectancy I could get.

I also feel the 300 with TCs is better, but the other one is a zoom :) which is also very handy at times
 
Messages
16,745
Edit My Images
No
I was on a tripod, shutter speeds vary because I tried to keep ISO as balanced as possible...WB is a fault of mine, but it reflects how I shoot....auto WB, Manual with auto ISO.
I felt it was the closest to real life expectancy I could get.

I also feel the 300 with TCs is better, but the other one is a zoom :) which is also very handy at times
I was only pulling your leg :p
 
Messages
16,745
Edit My Images
No
Had a chance to look at those charts on the computer now, I would say the 300mm is sharper in the first two, in the last there are certain parts of the chart that's sharper in the 200-500mm and vice versa and it's splitting hairs overall imo. Obviously the last one is hardest to compare due to the different framing (y). My eyes also see cooler images as sharper than warmer ones for some reason too o_O

The last one surprises me tbh, either the 300mm with 2xTC is really really good, or the 200-500mm isn't quite as good as it should be.
 
Messages
174
Edit My Images
Yes
I'd agree with you there @snerkler
The 300mm with the 2x TC surprised me as well. I had a Sigma 120-300 f2.8 Sport and the 2x TC was not really usable there. Everything further than 10 meters out was mush at 100%.

Tbh, I didn't expect this from a 20 year old lens...I'm actually contemplating selling the 200-500 now. Although the convenience of a zoom is not to be forgotten neither :)
 
Messages
2,477
Name
Gil
Edit My Images
Yes
I'd agree with you there @snerkler
The 300mm with the 2x TC surprised me as well. I had a Sigma 120-300 f2.8 Sport and the 2x TC was not really usable there. Everything further than 10 meters out was mush at 100%.

Tbh, I didn't expect this from a 20 year old lens...I'm actually contemplating selling the 200-500 now. Although the convenience of a zoom is not to be forgotten neither :)
That's a pretty amazing result for such an old lens. How much did it cost? I was thinking about the 300mm PF f4 at some point, I wonder how this lens compares with that
 
Messages
174
Edit My Images
Yes
That's a pretty amazing result for such an old lens. How much did it cost? I was thinking about the 300mm PF f4 at some point, I wonder how this lens compares with that
The lens was 1299 GBP used from Wex on a clearance price. I see they have another one in stock for a higher price though:
https://www.wexphotovideo.com/nikon-300mm-f2-8-af-s-ii-if-ed-non-vr-used-1724544/

It's the AF-S II version, which is the lightest of all 300/2.8 Nikon made at 2.5kg with the hood and collar.
 
Messages
1,986
Edit My Images
Yes
Top