Nikon Z* mirrorless

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).
 
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:
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.
 
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:
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.
 
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: :$
 
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)

420vs200-500.PNG


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

420vs200-500_56.PNG


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

600vs200-500_56.PNG
 
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:;)
 
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 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
 
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.
 
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 :)
 
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
 
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.
 
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)

420vs200-500.PNG


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

420vs200-500_56.PNG


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

600vs200-500_56.PNG
Thanks man, good test, the 300 prime even with TC’s clearly has an edge even though the 200-500 is very impressive. Would be lovely if you are able to do some infinity tests as I understand the 200-500 is better closer than further away (a bit like the 200-400/4).
 
I think I got the same as you I think card and extra battery.
I shall order a card reader from amazon
I got a xqd and sd card reader in one as i still got sd cards.
 
What an awful place to be during lockdown ;)
Haha, this is the same mountain but further down, last years 1st real good snow,about 50 cm deep. (D750) photo [emoji991] 2019-11-18_07-00-30.jpg
 
The XQD card thing is an utter pain I have to say; very expensive, not easily available (I can buy a cheap SD card in most corner shops etc; I have done on one occasion when I realised I'd left my SD cards at home :banghead: )hard to find in stock always, and there's like two card readers available. Annoying. I hope the new CF Express cards will be more popular and available, and cheaper. Over £100 for a 64GB card is madness; I can get an SD card in that capacity for £20 or less. I know they're faster blah blah, but they can't be much more expensive to produce. Yet another tech rip-off.
 
I keep hearing this complaints over XQD cards being bloody expensive, and I just don't agree (at least not compared to it's peers from the SDXC world). The thing you have to accept is that unlike SD cards where they come in a multitude of different write speeds (from goddamn awful super slow UHS-I up to very fast 300mb/sec UHS-II versions), XQD cards are all super fast as standard, with no economy "slow" speed versions, so you really need to be comparing the price of the fastest SDXC cards to the XQD to get a real idea of the cost difference.

As a for instance, using camera price buster website today:

Sony 32GB G series (400mb/sec) XQD - £95.00
Sony 64GB G series (400mb/sec) XQD - £139.95
Sony 120GB G Series (400mb/sec) XQD - £229.00

Sony 32GB Tough series (299mb/sec) SDXC - £70.95
Sony 64GB Tough series (299mb/sec) SDXC - £118.00
Sony 128GB Tough Series (299mb/sec) SDXC - £219.00

Sandisk 32GB Extreme Pro (300mb/sec) SDXC - £53.49
Sandisk 64GB Extreme Pro (300mb/sec) SDXC - £100.98
Sandisk 128GB Extreme Pro (300mb/sec) SDXC - £199.00

So aside from Sandisk's 32gb card being cheaper, I can't honestly call the differences between the other SDXC and XQD alternatives as "very expensive" ?
 
Last edited:
I keep hearing this complaint over XQD cards being bloody expensive, and I just don't agree (at least not compared to it's peers from the SDXC world). The thing you have to accept is that unlike SD cards where they come in a multitude of different write speeds (from goddamn awful super slow UHS-I up to very fast 300mb/sec UHS-II versions), XQD cards are all super fast as standard, with no economy "slow" speed versions, so you really need to be comparing the price of the fastest SDXC cards to the XQD to get a real idea of the cost difference.

As a for instance, using camera price buster website today:

Sony 32GB G series (400mb/sec) XQD - £95.00
Sony 64GB G series (400mb/sec) XQD - £139.95
Sony 120GB G Series (400mb/sec) XQD - £229.00

Sony 32GB Tough series (299mb/sec) SDXC - £70.95
Sony 64GB Tough series (299mb/sec) SDXC - £118.00
Sony 128GB Tough Series (299mb/sec) SDXC - £219.00

Sandisk 32GB Extreme Pro (300mb/sec) SDXC - £53.49
Sandisk 64GB Extreme Pro (300mb/sec) SDXC - £100.98
Sandisk 128GB Extreme Pro (300mb/sec) SDXC - £199.00

So aside from Sandisk's 32gb card being cheaper, I can't honestly call the differences between the other SDXC and XQD alternatives as "very expensive" ?
I agree with your argument and figures, but where it falls down a little is in cases like mine where I don't give a jot about write speeds as I never use motor drive, and at most shoot one shot every 5 minutes. But it is what it is - no use worrying about it. After all, it's not a daily expense (unlike film!).
 
Stephen,

I agree that it's a shame that there aren't some "economy" slower versions of the XQD units for those that don't need the speed, but the point of my post is that people tend to compare say a 64GB XQD (which will write at over 400mb/sec) at around £140.00 to a much slower SD card for a tenner that only writes at 25mb/sec (or slower). It's just not a fair comparison.

I do agree that SD gives you choice, but I'm pretty sure the whole basis for XQD and now the newer CF Express was most importantly speed. I've purchased about 4 XQD cards now (all Sony 120gb ones) as well as 4 Sony Tough 128GB SDXC for my Micro four thirds cameras (you need the speed for things like pro-capture etc), and overall, the difference in price for all 4 of each was less than £45.00 total (at the time I purchased them). It looks like the super fast Sony SDXC cards have comes down in price somewhat since.
 
Last edited:
I keep hearing this complaints over XQD cards being bloody expensive, and I just don't agree (at least not compared to it's peers from the SDXC world). The thing you have to accept is that unlike SD cards where they come in a multitude of different write speeds (from goddamn awful super slow UHS-I up to very fast 300mb/sec UHS-II versions), XQD cards are all super fast as standard, with no economy "slow" speed versions, so you really need to be comparing the price of the fastest SDXC cards to the XQD to get a real idea of the cost difference.

As a for instance, using camera price buster website today:

Sony 32GB G series (400mb/sec) XQD - £95.00
Sony 64GB G series (400mb/sec) XQD - £139.95
Sony 120GB G Series (400mb/sec) XQD - £229.00

Sony 32GB Tough series (299mb/sec) SDXC - £70.95
Sony 64GB Tough series (299mb/sec) SDXC - £118.00
Sony 128GB Tough Series (299mb/sec) SDXC - £219.00

Sandisk 32GB Extreme Pro (300mb/sec) SDXC - £53.49
Sandisk 64GB Extreme Pro (300mb/sec) SDXC - £100.98
Sandisk 128GB Extreme Pro (300mb/sec) SDXC - £199.00

So aside from Sandisk's 32gb card being cheaper, I can't honestly call the differences between the other SDXC and XQD alternatives as "very expensive" ?

I agree if people compare like for like then the prices are similar but suppose most of us have just bought sd cards with speeds of 150mb/s so the prices are alot less and more ready available in different brands.

I got mine from panamoz with the caners so it was only £105 for 64 gig. No doubt I'll end up buying a 2nd one next time of one appears
 
Back
Top