Looking for advice

[Burt]

The Zfc camera did came with the Nikkor Z DX 16-50 / 3.5-6.3 VR lens, and now I would like to get a similar lens (16-50) for the Z7II.

Now here is where it gets confusing... I notice that the camera auto adjust when you use a DX lens, but my question is, why Nikon doesn't make a Z 15-50 lens.. I even bought the FTZ adapter, thinking that I would definitely have more luck with the old mount, but to my surprise there is nothing along those focals, even in the F Mount lenses...

Am I looking at this the wrong way? Why there is the option for the DX but not for the full size lens? Can anyone here share some wisdom on the subject so that I don't waste money and buy the correct lens...

 

[BF Hammer]

Remember the crop factor. 16-50mm on the small sensor gives the same view as 24-75mm on a full frame sensor. You have many options in that range. The Z24-120mm f/4 is a highly popular choice. Z24-70 f/4 is out there for less. There is a Z24-200mm with variable aperture also.

 

[Burt]

Remember the crop factor. 16-50mm on the small sensor gives the same view as 24-75mm on a full frame sensor. You have many options in that range. The Z24-120mm f/4 is a highly popular choice. Z24-70 f/4 is out there for less. There is a Z24-200mm with variable aperture also.

So if I understood you correctly, that's why there are no FX 16-50 Lenses.. That's great.

Next question.. Considering that I also have the FTZ, would it make sense to also look at the F Mount options or you don't think is worth it?

What I also like about the DX 16-50 is the short body length, making the whole setup very easy to carry around...

And thank you for taking the time to explain it to me.. I really appreciated...

 

[Burt]

I have narrowed down to 2 options:

1) Z 24-70 f/4 S
2) AF-S 24-120 f/4G ED VR

What would you recommend?

 

[BF Hammer]

You mentioned in an earlier post photographing wildlife. You will appreciate the extra reach of the 24-120mm. And it is at least as well regarded as the 24-70mm. I think budget is the main factor.

The FTZ adapter really comes in to play when transitioning from an F-mount camera. A person can replace kit at a more comfortable pace. I still adapt a 70-200mm f/2.8 and a Sigma 150-600mm f5.6-6.3. The Z mount versions are expensive and it will take me more time to replace those. There are good F-mount lenses to choose from, but don't look at stuff that is too old or you will lose autofocus ability. Nikon lenses did not have internal focus motors until the 2000s mostly.

 

[Clovishound]

I have the 24-70 F4. It is a very good lens. The only down side is that it is a little short on the long side. For around the same price, new, you can get the 24-120 that BF mentioned.

The 24-70 is an S series lens, which is Nikon's premium version. The 24-120 is not. Having said that, word on the street is the Z 24-120 is an excellent performer, and I doubt you would be disappointed, and the extra reach can be a real advantage for lots of folks. The 24-70 F4 can be had used for about half of new price. MPB currently has a Z 24-70 lens in like new condition for around $475 USD. The Z 24-120 goes used for just a little lower than new prices at $969 USD.

I would not recommend getting an F mount lens to use on your Z cameras, unless there is no affordable Z lens available, or you already have an F mount lens. The larger Z mount allows the engineers more flexibility designing their lenses. Add to that Nikon has not introduced a new design F mount lens in a while. Lens design has improved significantly over the last few decades in all regards, with the possible exception of durability. The AF-S 24-120 F4G you mentioned is nearly a decade older design than the Z 24-70 F4.

As an example, I bought my first Z camera about 4 years ago. I was beginning to get interested in wildlife photography around then, and wanted a long tele, but there were no affordable Z long teles available then. I purchased an FTZ and an F mount 200-500 F5.6. This lens has a well deserved reputation for being an excellent lens for the money. I have had good service from it for nearly 4 years. Late last year I decided to make the leap to the Z 180-600. Is it significantly sharper than the 200-500? No. It is marginally sharper, but the AF is noticeably faster, and has several other advantages. I have no regrets for upgrading.

 

[Burt]

I have the 24-70 F4. It is a very good lens. The only down side is that it is a little short on the long side. For around the same price, new, you can get the 24-120 that BF mentioned.

The 24-70 is an S series lens, which is Nikon's premium version. The 24-120 is not. Having said that, word on the street is the Z 24-120 is an excellent performer, and I doubt you would be disappointed, and the extra reach can be a real advantage for lots of folks. The 24-70 F4 can be had used for about half of new price. MPB currently has a Z 24-70 lens in like new condition for around $475 USD. The Z 24-120 goes used for just a little lower than new prices at $969 USD.

I would not recommend getting an F mount lens to use on your Z cameras, unless there is no affordable Z lens available, or you already have an F mount lens. The larger Z mount allows the engineers more flexibility designing their lenses. Add to that Nikon has not introduced a new design F mount lens in a while. Lens design has improved significantly over the last few decades in all regards, with the possible exception of durability. The AF-S 24-120 F4G you mentioned is nearly a decade older design than the Z 24-70 F4.

As an example, I bought my first Z camera about 4 years ago. I was beginning to get interested in wildlife photography around then, and wanted a long tele, but there were no affordable Z long teles available then. I purchased an FTZ and an F mount 200-500 F5.6. This lens has a well deserved reputation for being an excellent lens for the money. I have had good service from it for nearly 4 years. Late last year I decided to make the leap to the Z 180-600. Is it significantly sharper than the 200-500? No. It is marginally sharper, but the AF is noticeably faster, and has several other advantages. I have no regrets for upgrading.

Thank you for your reply... As far as I can see both the 24-70 and the 24-120 are S lenses, and the reason why I mention the AF 24-120 lens was only because I saw one new for sale at a reduced price of around $500 (that's AUD).
As mentioned above I will go for the Z24-120....

 

[Burt]

Not sure what has happen, but my previous post in reply to BF Hammer, is gone...

 

[Clovishound]

Thank you for your reply... As far as I can see both the 24-70 and the 24-120 are S lenses, and the reason why I mention the AF 24-120 lens was only because I saw one new for sale at a reduced price of around $500 (that's AUD).
As mentioned above I will go for the Z24-120....

You're right. For some reason I was always under the impression it wasn't an S line, and didn't take the time to verify.

 

[Burt]

You mentioned in an earlier post photographing wildlife. You will appreciate the extra reach of the 24-120mm. And it is at least as well regarded as the 24-70mm. I think budget is the main factor.

The FTZ adapter really comes in to play when transitioning from an F-mount camera. A person can replace kit at a more comfortable pace. I still adapt a 70-200mm f/2.8 and a Sigma 150-600mm f5.6-6.3. The Z mount versions are expensive and it will take me more time to replace those. There are good F-mount lenses to choose from, but don't look at stuff that is too old or you will lose autofocus ability. Nikon lenses did not have internal focus motors until the 2000s mostly.

I will try to repost what I wrote yesterday, that for some reason got deleted...

Thank you for helping me in making the right decision... I went ahead and bought the Z 24-120 lens... Your reply "You will appreciate the extra reach of the 24-120mm" was the tipping point for my decision as with the DX 16-50, while I always enjoyed the weight and length of the lens, as I do go for long walks holding the camera in my hands, several times it did happen that I wasn't able to get close enough to take the picture I wanted.. I then purchased the Z 28-400, but that turned up to be a bit too heavy to carry around by hand. Still a great lens, and I'm sure I will use it from time to time, especially for wildlife subjects, but not for long walks... I did find online a new AF 24-120 that was selling around the $500 but then with the FTZ adapter, it would be still too big in length to carry around...

Once again, thank you BF Hammer for explaining and helping me in the right direction. Much appreciated...