Suggestions on a mid-range Z zoom?

billpics

New member
Like many, I feel the pinch in not having a mid-range Z zoom that extends to 300mm, one that is somewhat affordable and as lightweight as possible. For many years I schlepped around a D500, 2 primes, and the 70-300mm AF-P DX VR which was good enough when extra reach was needed.

In comparison to my D500 kit, I am surprised at how heavy my new Z kit is: Z5, 50mm 1.8 S, and a Z 24-70 f/4. This feels a bit heavier than my D500 kit… and I still don’t have the needed reach. At 70+ years of age, I would rather not invest in a substantial telephoto zoom to weigh me down as I walk the streets looking for interesting shots. But, I do need a solution.

1. At this point in time, the Z 70-180mm 2.8 is on sale at Nikon, but it’s a lot a money for a limited amount of reach. I’d rather have 300mm.

2. The Z 28-400mm fits the bill with the compromise of it duplicating the range of my Z 24-70mm f/4, and the lens being slow. On-sale now for $999.

3. FTZ adapter and latest 70-300mm AF-P VR? An $800 solution?

4. Tamron Z 70-300mm f/4.5-6.3. $600 new. NO VR!!!

Just when I when I plop down $1,100, Nikon will finally release an affordable Z 70-300mm solution, or something similar.

I suspect this topic has been beaten to death, but I do seek input for the 2025 era. Again, I am an active street-walker and over 70 years of age, so weight will be a concern as is price to some extent. Thank you.

* I grabbed the attached pic last night with the Z 24-70mm f/4, and felt really creepy sneaking around strangers to get a good shot. I was physically closer than I preferred.

Sunset Shot.jpg
 
Last edited:

Woodyg3

Senior Member
Contributor
FTZ adapter opens up the possibility of all kinds of F glass if there isn't a Z lens that meets your desires.
 

billpics

New member
Thank you, that may be the way to go. The most recent AF-P 70-300mm FX VR receives positive views, but it is a challenge to find on the used market. There are plenty of the older AF-S versions. So, latest lens and FTZ is still around $750 or higher. ???
 

Clovishound

Senior Member
Lack of VR wouldn't be a deal killer for me. The Z5 has In Body Image Stabilization.

My preference would be native mount glass, but as you know, Nikon doesn't make any Z 70-300 lenses. My daughter has the AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED. I tried it out on my Z5 when I first got it, and thought it worked well with the Z5. I ended up with the 200-500 F5.6 as I wanted more reach for wildlife. I still have a gap between 70 and 200, but with the shooting I do, I don't miss it that much.
 

BF Hammer

Senior Member
I think this is where the FTZ becomes a worthwhile investment. It brings in a lot of F lenses into play to fill a gap like this. You just want to verify you are buying a lens with its own AF motor instead of the older kind that use the screw-drive on the mount.

I won't advise on a 70-300mm lens, I have never had one I really liked. I currently use a telephoto combination of Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8 and Sigma 150-600mm f/5.6-6.3 F-mounts on my Z5. It's a hefty kit, but I do like what the lenses give me. My goal is to build a more pro-grade Z lens kit from the beginning instead of the haphazard way I built my F mount kit. The FTZ is the secret to allowing me to do this gradually as I can afford new glass.
 

Clovishound

Senior Member
I would like to replace my 200-500 F mount with a Z mount long tele some day. I really like the Nikon Z lenses, but the 200-500 is a very good lens for the money, and I just cannot justify spending the money on a replacement right now. The Z lens is better in several areas, but just not enough to balance the cost when I already have the F lens. Now, if my daughter really wanted my 200-500, I could probably justify giving that to her and then getting the 180-600 Z for myself. No such luck. She thinks it too big and heavy.
 

Blue439

New member
Well, long lenses are big and heavy and slow, unless they're even heavier and bigger and cost one and a half lungs...

Getting on in age has its problems as well. Ten years ago, I lugged around a30-liter Kiboko full of primes with a humongous 200-400mm ƒ/4 on top and no complaints. Nowadays, I am more mindful about weight but still, giving oneself some exercise is also good and worth the effort if it is not overly uncomfortable. Personally, having seen what Z glass does for us, I will never return to F glass unless I have no choice. For long reach, I use the Z 100-400mm which is not a very fast lens but has outstanding image quality and (I think) reasonable weight plus a very compact form factor.

If you want to go extended range zoom and not too heavy, you will mechanically end up with inferior build quality and inferior optical quality. Compromises must be made.

It's like what I call “The Infernal Triangle of Logistics”: there is FAST, INEXPENSIVE and GOOD QUALITY. You can pick any two but you cannot have all three. If it is FAST and GOOD quality, it will not be INEXPENSIVE. And so on...
 
Top