What is your most used lens from 2022?

@marcoloberto

Жыл бұрын

My only one (35 mm)

@nickscangas1058

Жыл бұрын

24-120!

@TheWillRogers

Жыл бұрын

It's pretty close between the Z 50-250mm DX and the Z 50mm 1.8 S prime.

@Reason-fg4ik

Жыл бұрын

Yep, I carry a 20mm f2.8, 24-120mm f4, and either my 70-200mm f2.8 or my 200-500mm f5.6. However, I will carry the 200-500mm more often than the 70-200mm. I don't carry my 24-70mm f2.8 because it's too heavy compared to the 24-120mm and I don't find I need the extra 1/2 stop of light. If I need an ultra wide pano I'll just take the extra images and stitch in post. Oh, the reason I'm shooting Nikon G series lenses is they work on both my F5 and D810 camera bodies. I'm old so I won't likely upgrade to the mirror-less type bodies. BTW, very nice video, I appreciate your work! Thank you!

@MichaelCantwell

Жыл бұрын

For seascapes, I take the Nikon 20mm and the 24-120. For walk around in the landscapes, I take the 24-120 and now the Tamron 70-300. I bought the Tamron instead of the Nikon 100-400 because of the cost factor. In 2022, I used the 24-120 for landscapes far and away the most. I'm with you, I stopped using the 24-200, though I still use that lens on occasion when traveling light. I'm taking a trip to Alaska later this year and I think the only 3 lenses in the bag will be the 20mm, the 24-120, and the Tamron 70-300. I'm considering taking the 50mm only because I'm taking my infrared camera too and the 50mm lens is the best I've used so far with the infrared camera. My main camera is the Nikon Z7II.

When you consider quality vs. weight, I think my current setup of the Z 14-30 F4, 24-120 F4 and 100-400 F4.5-6.3 is optimal for landscape shooting. Nikon is producing some amazing lenses these days.

@berndtsturznickel8548

Жыл бұрын

Have the same set up and I‘m more than happy with it.

I continue to learn more and more from watching your video each time Nigel. Over the past 12-18 months, I have returned to photography after taking 20 years off and find your videos a wealth of knowledge. Landscape photography is my passion and has improved since watching and following your channel. I find a great balance between fieldwork, editing, thought process, and equipment across your videos. Keep up the great work as I truly appreciate your casual but professional approach.

I picked up the 24-120, and it is always on my camera. Its so versatile and the quality is amazing. When I shot APS-C, my go to was the 16-80, which is nearly the same field of view, also a great lens. When I think of a Photo I like, I think of Subject, Composition, Exposure, Color, Focus, and then Quality/sharpness. I find, with the 24-120, I can get all of those. Thanks Nigel.

Just waiting to get my hands on the 24-120 to combine with my 14-30 and 70-200. Thanks for going through your thoughts on the lenses!

Is corner softness really that important, especially when most photos are cropped a little or vignettes are added in for effect ?

I always wondered why a big number of landscape photographers don't use 100-400 mm. It is such a versatile focal range. One of the reasons it is so difficult to go medium format. Btw the effort you put into making the pie chart towards the end of the video is amazing!

@NigelDanson

Жыл бұрын

Thanks - glad you liked it

I agree with you totally. Those two lenses are used constantly. I also still love the 14-30mm. I love the wide angle shots with it and the ease of using filters. My other favorite lens is the 500 PF with the ftz adaptor, for wildlife . Thanks for another super video.

Excellent info. Thanks so much.

For hiking, wild camping & long distance trips I am in love with the 24-200. With it's built in VR it is a great lens imo for those who don't use tripods often or who are out in conditions where lens changes are a massive pain (just some corner softness and CA would be my complaints). But I have been doing a bit more woodland photography and that 24-120 is a very tempting lens. Those 400mm shots are amazing however and a bit of an eye opener for sure.

@kaiworleyphotography

Жыл бұрын

The 24-120 is perfect for hiking etc, the constant f4 and noticeable increase in IQ and sharpness makes it a worthwhile upgrade from the 20-200!

@iwasapirateonce1639

Жыл бұрын

@@kaiworleyphotography I think it depends on the type of photography. I only shoot about >10% of my shots at F4-6.3. About 85% are F8-F11. I also handhold about 80% of the time and the 24-120 does not have in built VR which means it loses ~1+ stops of stabilization at the ~100mm range. For the ~5% of shots it would be a good upgrade for sure, but for me it does not make sense as a long distance hiking lens. For tripod work I would love a 24-120 and may get one in the future, especially for woodland photography I can see incredible value from it. Currently I just find the 24-200 too versatile to replace, often I will take 3 shot Panos at say 35-50mm where the lens is very sharp and combine them for pretty great levels of detail, and that even covers the wide end where the lens can be soft in the corners.

My photography consists of about 45 percent landscape (including intimate landscapes and abstracts), 50 percent nature macros, and 5 percent wildlife. My most-used lens is the Nikon 100-400 S followed closely by the 24-120 S (a lens I bought immediately after watching your first comprehensive video on this lens). In fact, they're the only lenses I carry. Both lenses focus so closely, I traded in my macro lens. You make wonderful videos Nigel...that's why we stick with you!

First time I got a DSLR on my hands at school like 2 years ago. D610 + the F-mount 24-120mm f/4. I fell in love with it😍. No wonder my first lens for my Z7 II was the Z-mount version. In my opinion the best lens for the system. Still would have loved to see the VR in that lens like it had in the F-mount version.

Great video Nigel… that 24-120mm has such a useful focal length range. It’s still on my list as is the 100-400mm. Weight is often the enemy and taking a bag with just two lenses is such an advantage if you intend to be going any distance.

Like Mads I use a 28-200 Tamron and even though I have GM and G glass I use that the most. It’s so versatile

Never had the brass to buy expensive lenses OR cameras. My old Nikon 18-70mm is a cracking piece of kit. Bought for £70, it will do for me. Had a Nikon D7000 with a cheap 35mm lens on. Took it on a trip in 2014 to India and Nepal. Extremely pleased with the quality of the images I managed to capture.

My 24-70 2.8 and 85 1.8 are my bread and butter lens for portraits. However, I’ve recently added the 24-200 for my landscape which I do on an enthusiast level and it helped lighten my load leaving the 24-70 & 70-200 out of my pack. I must say that I’ve started using a 40 year old 50 1.2 on my Z7 and the results for portraits is pretty cool. I have a 120-600 that I hardly ever use for wildlife, but now you’ve got me thinking I should try it for landscapes. Going off now to checkout your new website.

@jakev4016

Жыл бұрын

I shoot most portraits with the Nikkor Z 50mm 1.8 S but I also picked up a 40 y/o 50mm 1.2 AIS several months ago, it’s a lot of fun!! Hexagonal bokeh as well depending on your aperture which I’m personally a big fan of. The focus peaking on my Z6 is pretty helpful in being able to nail portraits wide open.

What a fascinating video. It really made me rethink my range of lenses. Thank you Nigel.

Thank you for validating my choices! I’ve also moved over to using the combo of 24-120 + 100-400. I was previously using the 24-200 and noticed that a cropped shot from the 24-120 appeared sharper than an uncropped shot from the 24-200. So if I ever need that extra length and don’t have my 100-400, I just crop after I get back to lightroom. I also recommend a 1.4x teleconverter for the 100-400. Fits easily into your bag in case a pretty bird decides to land nearby 😂

@frankpusch4616

Жыл бұрын

Interesting opinion. I have no experiene but expected it. Crop 2x to 240mm you mean? Thx

Interesting and helpful. It does make me want to go back and watch what you said when you first used each lens.

Thanks Nigel for the thoughtful insight. The “tools” need to match the use cases and as a Olympus fan of their 12-100 I couldn’t agree more to your analysis. Lens quality has gone up for zooms in the recent years and we benefit from a much broader and better selection. And sure, primes are great when needed - but that can be planned in advance. Keep it up and have a great 2023 - 500k will be well deserved.

I'm a hobbyist that has played with the Z series for a little over six months. It was nice to hear someone repeat (especially at your level) some of the things i noticed about these lenses. Also own the 14-30 f4 and was contemplating buying the 14-24 f2.8 for extra sharpness- but ultimately didn't. Hearing you say you split usage has me feeling better about that decision. Same with not liking the sharpness from the 24-200, but keeping it around if i ever needed something light and versatile.

Lovely to finally see all your favorite photos in good quality! :D

@NigelDanson

Жыл бұрын

It is about time isn’t it! 🙈

Nigel you can't immagine how useful this video was for me...thanks a lot, really!

Very very interesting! One of my kits is GF 20-35, GF35-70 and canon 100-400 all with either GF 50S or 100S. It’s a 35 equivalent of 16mm to 320mm. But the large sensor allows LOTS of cropping. Your analysis of not only lens but also focal length is very helpful. !!

thanks Nigel, very useful content.

Hi Nigel, it is March 2024 and I have been a Nikon guy since birth... of my 'serious amateur' photography. I have a cabinet of Nikon F lenses including fixed prime lens, but only one 'holy trinity' lens and have been shooting with a D750 on a limited budget. But it is now mirrorless time, and with my existing NIKKOR glass Nikon is the only option, as well as trusting Nikon quality and knowing Nikon menus, etc, already too. Lucky for me, 2024 seems to get the best year to get into Nikon mirrorless - the Z8 is out and awesome, and the Z6 III also looks to being awesome for the money. I have been seriously researching mirrorless cameras and lenses for the last 24 hours, and your video has actually confirmed the conclusion that I had also come too in theory (after researching prices and using KZread video reviews). The 'holy trinity' is still the 'holy trinity' and arguably Nikon's is still the best, but there is now a cheaper 'holy quattro lite' option for those on a budget - Nikon marketing's aim? My Nikon Z kit is planned to be: Nikon Z8 (because it's full-frame, speed, versatility and all-round awesomeness); MB-N12 grip (I can't live without a vertical grip and better battery life); FTZ II adaptor (for my F lenses, which gives me instant access to thousands of $ of high-quality lenses I already have at minor photo quality cost); NIKKOR Z 14-24 (lens 1 of 'holy trinity' - expensive and I need to research a cheaper 'holy quattro lite' option); NIKKOR Z 24-120mm (lens 2 of the 'holy quattro lite'; Nikkor 100-400mm (lens 3 of the 'holy quattro lite'); and NIKKOR Z 180-600mm (lens 4 of the 'holy quattro lite'). My purchase order is determined by my budget and finance, the lenses I already have in my cabinet, and the use I put them too: Z8 body, grip and adaptor first, with 24-120 lens (I have the NIKKOR F 70-200mm 2.8 ED VR - still very sharp); NIKKOR 14-24 f 2.8 (or a cheaper 'holy quattro lite' option); NIKKOR Z 180-600 (which surprised me when I just realised that as I was writing...); and then NIKKOR Z 100-400mm. After that... not sure anything else is needed. I have a NIKKOR 105mm 2.8 D Micro lens already for micro and portrait photos and I'm not sure if I could justify replacing it despite it's age. Getting fixed length lens to replace what I already have - also mostly old 'D' and 'G' lenses - will depend on budget, photo quality using the adaptor, and need. Anyway, thought I would share that you are not alone in your assessment of the paradigm shift in necessary glass. The other important issue is the cropping in camera to take photos in DX format - the crop takes the soft edges off the 'holy quattro lite' glass, makingt them the modern 'holy quattro'? Thanks again.

@andyuk1233

2 ай бұрын

Why have a Z8 and a vertical grip? Would a Z9 not be a better bet? I'm thinking about moving over to Nikon Z from Canon DSLR and deciding between Z8 and 9.

Interesting video, Nigel. This got me thinking so I ran a similar test to see what I've been using. 14-30 f4.5 (15%), 24-70 f2.8 (40%), 70-200 f2.8 (30%), and MC 105 f2.8 (15%). Interesting results. The MC 105 is a newer lens and I've been using it more lately for fun closeup and macro subjects.

My favorite lens is the 24-120 S. I was hesitant to get it as I had the F-mount version with my D810 and it just wasn't very sharp. I love the 24-120 S, though and recently took my favorite image ever on it - at 85mm. I also have the 24-200 for hiking and overlanding, plus the 14-24, and 100-400.

I am a beginner / hobbyist photographer. The difference, value, for me, of your videos is to listen to your thought process about what ever it is your talking about. You are very comfortable talking with the video camera running / recording. Very few cuts in the video. It’s like having a friend explain something to me. Extremely helpful. Thanks.

I like a lot your work and your videos 👍🏻 Keep up with the good work

It blew my mind as well when I got the 100-400mm lens. I'd been shooting lot's of landscapes but my sales on the Long Distance shots have been better than the wide angle ones. The compression also helps out a lot! Ironic seeing as I got the lens for birding in the first place!

Fabulous website. The galleries are stunning!!! I mean, i expected that as I follow your work...but looks really good on the site too! Top stuff!!!

I love my 70-300mm on my Fuji X-T3. I even use it with a 1.4x teleconverter quite a lot. It stays on my camera a vast majority of the time compared to the 16-80mm.

Excellent video Nigel! I'll need to run through my lenses and do something similar. Especially liked your "psychological" interpretation on why we tend to shoot at the extremes of Zoom lenses like the 24-70.

My most shot lens was the 14-24mm. It is a pain to put filters on but I chose it over the 14-30mm because sometimes I like to shoot the night sky as well and f/2.8 makes a difference there.

Excellent information!

The new 100-400 Z lens is superb! 500k subs is not that far away! 👏👍😀 To my mind, 24-120, 70-200f2.8 & 100-400 is the perfect 3 lens kit, the Z 70-200f2.8 wide open is amazing for subject isolation in so many shooting scenarios! 😀

@ArnaudLerondeau

Жыл бұрын

Totally agree with you here ! I couldn't ever get rid of my 70-200 2.8. Ever. But i totally understand new Nigel's standpoint !

I have been eyeing the 24-120 for quite a while now. However for portraits I do not feel I can control the depth of field as much as I need/want to. Interesting ideas and thoughts. Thanks a bunch. have a great Sunday. I just got the 100-400 waiting for the first fieldwork in February.

@MichaelCantwell

Жыл бұрын

I agree for portraits, the 85mm F1.8 is the go to lens for me. I've used the 24-120 at F4 for portraits when shooting kids in more of an action setting because of the zoom capabilities, but for straight portraits, the 85mm beats the 24-120. However, as an overall lens, I would take the 24-120 over maybe any other S lens.

Thanks again for the 2023 calendar. Mine arrived before January 1st. This is a wonderful video that will probably push me to buy the 24-120 S lens. My most used most of the time is the 24-200 but I don't seem to get fast focus even on the Z9. I'm pushing myself to get better focus.

Which is why I am starting my Canon R kit with the 24-105 F4 - the ideal "just 1 lens" solution for a day outdoors. Light pack, zero lens switching, love that. Longer tele is on the list of future considerations, along with a better set of eyes to be able to see those distant details in the first place.

A really insightful video Nigel and one that confirms that I have made the right recent lens choice. I shoot with Sony, but have a Sigma 16-28 f2.8, Sony G FE 24-105 f4 ad have recently swapped my little used Sony 70-200 f4, for a Sigma 100-400 f5-6.3.

I don't shoot landscape much, but my 200-500mm almost never leaves my Z5. Several times this year I have tried to force myself to shoot wider, but I usually end up putting the big lens back on to get a composition I see.

Hi Nigel, thank you for your review! I bought this lens for my Z6 for my trip to Norway this February to avoid lens changes in the sometimes rough weather up there. As a second lens I just brought along the 14-24mm f2.8 for the night photos (aurora), and thought I would not use the 24-200 a lot after that trip. But meanwhile it's on the body most oft the time except when I do night photography or portrait. It is so versatile with an amazing quality for the price, and as my wife with her Z50 wants to use ist more and more we are thinking of buying a second one. Thank you again, best regards and good light!

Interesting Nigel! I really like this review & the way you use the Lightroom metadata search feature. I use that all the time for the reasons you do here to see which lenses are better for certain situations.

Very interesting info about the lens you use 😊

Some cracking shots there Nigel

I’ve just switched my camera body and am re-evaluating my lenses so this is really thought provoking, thank you!

Nigel, you’re killing me! I want the 100-400 so bad, but just don’t want to spend the $$$ right now. Glad to hear it’s everything I think it is.

@NigelDanson

Жыл бұрын

Sorry!

This is exactly the reason I love my 70-300mm in a Fuji aps-c body (105-450 equivalent). Not for wildlife but for details on the landscape. Great job Nigel, hope you'll have a nice 2023. Peace

@arvidjohansson3120

Жыл бұрын

best part, it is only 580 grams!

Very interesting video. I’ve really missed my 24-120 on my old D750 when I spent a lot of $ on the Z7 with 24-70 2.8. Can’t wait to refill the exchequer and get my hands on the 100-400!

I love the longer focal length as it means you don't need to get as close to the subject. Hiking at my age is a chore.

Have to say excellent channel and thanks for sharing your knowledge + wisdom

I made very similar recommendations to some friends recently (not Nikon shooters, but the 3 lens ranges are close). You're analysis and choices made me feel confident in my recommendations to them.

Very helpful video

I picked up the 24-120 and Nikon 100-400 both last year. Great lenses.

Z 24-120 is my most used lens, quality, range, versatility…no question. It’s hardly off my camera. 😎📸

Very informative, thanks.

Great video and well timed - I’m thinking of jumping from F-mount to Z (late adopter!) and was temped by the 24-120 and 100-400 combination but was worried quality may not be as good as 24-70 and 70-200. But if they’re good enough for you they’ll certainly be good enough for me!

Thanks Nigel, Got the 24-120 when it came out, definitely a keeper!, I do a lot of pano and stitch, used to 6x17 thinking from the film days. Do you ever set out to shoot other than single 2x3 thinking? Love my calendar and thanks for the webinar on the 13th. Any thoughts on the 19PC?

Just got the 24-120 myself and (sadly perhaps) I find myself using the 24-70 2.8 a bit less since the 24-120 is very good (especially when shooting around f/8 and f/11). It's gotten to a point where I don't really even shoot with the 24-200 anymore either (And will likely sell it although I'm a bit hesitant because for travel it's a great walkaround lens), but I do agree that out at the longer end, it's not all that sharp. But it's is better than not having 200mm which is part of the reason I'm maybe thinking of just keeping it. For the money the 14-30 is a great value. I just try not to shoot all the way at 14mm on that lens, and prefer to stick to 16mm which for most of what I do, is fine, and helps a little with the sharpness in the corners (but the 14-30 and 24-200 do have high copy to coy variation so it's possible someone might get one that needs to be sent back and tweaked by Nikon). I too am considering my current kit as well. Have the 70-200 and love it, along with the 24-70 obviously (don't feel the need to buy the 14-24 yet due to cost) but am considering adding the 100-400 for some wildlife and landscape. Then I think I could have a lighter landscape kit, so the 14-30, 24-120 and the 100-400 and that would cover pretty much all FLs for both landscape and widlife in three lenses. That's the goal at least. Maybe if i do sell the 24-200 I can put that towards a 100-400. Oddly, I realized that I wasn't shooting much with the 70-200 as i had though, as it's probably the least used out of the lenses I have (I actually shot more with the 24-200 than I did with my 70-200). But the thought of seling the 70-200 has me also hesitating too. On one hand, I don't use it much and got a really good deal last year when it was on sale (so I could probably sell it and take a minimal loss, like $100-$200) but part of me says I'll regret selling it later -- the 24-200 probably not so much).

I like your thought for a Landscape shooter. For guys like me who shoot theatre and sports a 2x TC with the 70-200 2.8 would be a better compromise.

Thanks for your impressions, Nigel! I am thinking about finally jumping from F to Z, and probably the 24-120 will be the first lens on a Z5(to save the money on the camera and invest it in lenses rather). 24-120 covers most of the immediate needs as both a walkaround lens, wide/long and fast enough for other stuff like livestreaming or nature/landscape. And now you mention it, I will have to seriously think about the second one, which would be a longer tele zoom, as I love longer telephoto the most, and see how similar in size(and price) those two big ones are! The new combo makes so much sense for my use case and the budget! My most used lens in a while is an old manual 56mm 1.4 Revuenon M42, on my APS-C D7000, so 85mm. Second is another manual Revuenon, at 135mm 2.8(205mm eq) and occasionally I put a teleconverter on it to make it 270mm(400mm eq) and love the insane reach in a small package.

As a serious hobbyist I think I will be looking at the 24-120 for sure. I travel for a living as an entertainment tour driver here in the USA and I get many opportunities to see many wonderful locations. Sometimes I want the freedom and flexibility of one lens to just grab, go, and shoot. I also like the idea of the 100-400 which I will be renting this week for 10 days to see if it is something I would add to my bag. Thanks for your videos and I really appreciate your insight.

For lightweight and versatility, my top 3 top Z-lenses are ... 14-30mm, 24-120mm, and 100-400mm. I also agree with you that being able to use the Kase magnetic filters on each of these lenses is a considerable benefit. Other lenses are great "specialty" lenses that I add when needed to by bag. Also loved your pie chart.

Great video about this. I won't get rid of any of my 2.8 trinity (astro, nighttime, sharpness....). Other than the weight I really never liked the f/4 versions. I tried out the 100-400 this past fall and LOVE it. I've decided I'll pick that up before I upgrade my 70-200 F version. The F mount 200-500 I never liked the couple of times I tried it out but the 100-400 is amazing.

Same trinity plus the 1.4 TC and very happy.

Very interesting video. I like your pictures a lot, but not because of sharpness - it‘s all about the overall composition 😉

I use 2 distinct bags. The one bag is "objective based" meaning I know what I intend to shoot. It can vary by subject...usually includes some primes. Then I have a "travel" bag that includes the 14-30mm f/4, 24-120mm f/4 and the 100-400mm if there is a chance for wildlife. All the Z lenses are amazing.

I rarely comment on KZread videos but this is among the most thorough and insightful lens reviews I’ve ever seen. Thanks so much for taking the time to make this!

My 100-400 (Canon) has also quickly become one of my favourite lenses. It's so versatile.

Hi Nigel - great video and spectacular images. Your conclusions and uses of the various lenses make perfect sense for you as a landscape photographer where you rarely use wide apertures, and are often stopping down well past f/4 - probably using f/8/11, and even 16 on many occasions. As such, the two lenses you highlight - the 24-120 f/4 and the 100-400 4.5-5.6 are excellent choices to get you an extreme range with no significant draw back to your use case. As a portrait and event photographer, I need the faster apertures, so f/4 and slower lenses don't cut it that well. That said, I have the 24-120 f/4 S lens and think it is incredible, although I don't use it for professional applications due to the f/4, but as a walk around and travel lens it is literally incredible - so optically stunning. I can easily see how it would be an ideal landscape lens. I do want to say that I really liked several of your images - you are a skilled landscape photographer and I appreciate your work! -PD

Great stuff, Nigel. I realized I needed a new lens when I noticed that almost all of my shots were at one end or the other of my 24-70mm. Now I'm shooting a lot dolphins and whales from a sailboat using a 70-200, sometimes with a 2x converter, but now I really want more reach (sailboats are slow, dolphins are fast, so they aren't often right next to the boat) over sharpness. A "Bigma" might be my next acquisition.

I find that the more extreme long focal lengths start to look too flat and they generally work better for more abstract shots like textures or patterns than straight up landscapes. I've been having fun with primes recently as they really force you to try different things.

@freetibet1000

Жыл бұрын

I agree! When I feel I need to improve my vision I put on a prime rather than a zoom. That forces me to really understand the scene in front of me and what I want to do with it. If I’m on a longer hike and don’t know what I will encounter then a compact zoom may come very handy though.

@boristahmasian9604

Жыл бұрын

I agree too. I do not have native primes for my Sony. So, my solution was to bring only one zoom in each outing and force myself to find compositions or subjects that fit the range.

I was considering the 24-120 mm one to be my first modern lens and I think your video confirms it's a solid bet. Thank you so much for this, Nigel.

I was weighing up getting a 70-200 2.8 or a sigma 100-400 for sony E and now that I have the sigma 85mm for portraits, I'm leaning more towards the 100-400 for other applications. Seems like my intuition is right. We do have a 24-105 f4 for sony, which is a great lens but I find f4 too limiting for my shooting (I like shooting in cities at night, at sunsets and I rarely bring a tripod), so I returned it for the sigma 24-70 f2.8, but I sometimes definetely miss not being able to zoom to 105 without having to swap a lens. Informative video, thanks!

Living in Manhattan NY, I always end up grabbing my Sigma Art 135mm 1.8 over my arsenal.

Man, I've been watching Nigel's videos for long enough that Stay for a Minute by Windshield triggers nostalgia.

Thanks as always Nigel, and wow - real food for thought - you might have just solved my lens conundrum here! I never really used F2.8 on my F mount lenses that much, so didn't mind getting Z mount F4s when I changed from F mount to Z mount. However I shoot infrared on a converted camera as well, and when I upgraded to a full spectrum Z5, I got the 24-200 to go with it (I always tended to use a superzoom on my infrared bodies for convenience as I tend to walk about with 2 cameras and I'm lazy!). But the 24-200 hotspots massively in infrared so ended up living on my colour Z7. It's.... fine.... but it means I'm using my better lenses on my Z5 and compromised lens on the Z7 which doesn't make sense, and also means I'm missing anything beyond 70mm on my full spectrum camera! However I hadn't considered the 24-120..... Hmm..... wonder what it's like in Infrared.... I also just sold my F mount 70-300, and have my F mount 24-70 and 70-200 F2.8s for sale, so am lacking that long end flexibility and wondered what way to go. Maybe I don't go 70-200 and go 100-400.... hmm! Does it work on the teleconverters do you know??

I have changed my trinity of lenses as well. I am mainly using today 14-30, 24-120 & 100-400 as well.

Very good and informative video! I just bought a Z6ii and the 24-120mm and so far I am loving the combo. The lens is really excellent, no comparison to the old F-mount version. The 100-400 sounds like a perfect addition to that, but with the price being the same as my camera and lens combined there is no way I will buy that one anytime soon. That's why I will stick to my 70-300 AF-P mounted on the FTZ Adapter...

Thanks, exactly what I was looking for. I am looking at a Z8 with a 24-120 to evaluate over my current system. I think this rugged body and lens might just do the trick.

Can you make a video about how you go about finding new locations?

Thanks for the video. I've been slowly transitioning from F to Z lenses and I was nervous when I decided to get the 100-400 instead of the 70-200. I figured that eventually I'd pick up the 70-200 as well but now I'm not so sure I'll ever do it. For landscape photography the 100-400 gives me so many more options in terms of composition and I don't need the fast glass.

It took me a while to find this video, but now I'm really happy I did. As I'm moving into the Z-system I've felt that the 24-120 mm and the 100-400 mm would be a good pick for me. To have it broken down to why it is a good pick by an actual user was a really good help. Since switching away from Nikon isn't something I want to do you being an ambassador for the brand doesn't bother me at all😊

I switched to the Canon R and subsequently to the R5… updated all of my lenses.. I did not replace my 24-70 f2.8 as I have the superb 24-105 f4 which basically lives on my camera. I did get the 15-35 and 70-200 f2.8’s but I use them much less than their EF counterparts for exactly the reasons you outline. I did the same Lightroom analysis you performed :-)

@RussWeymouthPhotography

Жыл бұрын

Same here, Canon R5 and RF 24-105mm is a great combo, together with the RF 100-500mm are my two lenses of choice.

@jimbruton9482

Жыл бұрын

When I moved to mirrorless with the R5, I set a goal to eventually replace my preferred DLSR EF lenses to RF. I sold all my Ef lens and my "Trinity" is the RF 15-35 F2.8L, the RF 24-105 F4L (a really underrated lens), and the RF 100-500 F4.5-7.1L

Interesting to see this evolution.

Just came back from a cruise around Africa. The 70-200 stayed on the ship and used the 100-400 instead.

Recently bought the 24-120 for a trip to Japan last week, absolutely loved it. Such a fantastic lens. I only brought that and the 14-30, and i barely touched the ultra wide. The 24-120 is the perfect travel companion!

I loved my 24-200mm for the range it gave me and almost perfect IQ. Still have it but I got the 24-120mm when it came out and that is my new 'Most Carried' lens and very happy. Kept my 70-200 2.8 which gives me low light and fast options and the 2x TC when I need the 200+mm. People say that the TC is a bit soft but I found almost zero degradation on the 70-200, and I get the portrait options with the 2.8 lens that I wouldn't really get with the 100-400mm. If I find that I need more than 400 some day i'd consider the 100-400 as I've heard such great things about it.

The 24-120mm F4 lives on my camera. I sold my 14-30mm F4 because I found I ended up cropping anything wider than 24mm. I may well get a 20mm prime if I need a wider focal length. I am still hoping we get a 70-200mm F4 Z lens this year.

Nigel, great video and your experience mirrors my own. Those lenses make a great two or 3 lens kit...throw in one of the small 28's or 40 and you've got something for general purpose walkaround and lower light. I sometimes take off on one of my motorbikes and it's great to be able to have such capability in a manageable size...especially with the advent of the z8. The 24-120 was ordered at the same time as my Z9, my first ML body, but the Z9 didn't arrive until 4 months later. I knew going in that it would be my most used lens as, for general purpose use, the oft maligned F-mount 24-120 was always on my D850 unless I needed something specific for a case where it wasn't the appropriate lens. Although I had what I'd consider an excellent example of the F-mount model, the quality of the Z version is in another league, entirely! I sold my D850 and D500 a month after I received and became familiar with the Z9's capabilities and made the decision to get rid of a major portion of my F-mount glass, which was fairly extensive. My next Z purchase was the 14-30 followed by the 28 f2.8 and the 40 f2 and later by the 100-400...and I'm done for the time being...until maybe a 600pf shows up. I've decided to hold onto some key pieces of F-mount glass because given how well they work on my Z9 and now a Z8, as well, I can't see selling them to replace with Z glass for the small amount of use they get. F-mount lenses I'll keep for the foreseeable future include an Irix 11 f4, Nikon 14-24 f2.8, 20 f1.9, 70-200 f2.8 E FL, 50 f1.4, 85 f1.8, 105 f2.8 Micro, 300 f2.8 VR II and 500PF. Every one of them work better on my new bodies than they ever did on my DSLR's, although I have to qualify that and say that they're certainly not ideal for shooting video in an AF mode...AF and VR is noisy if you're using internal or, in some cases, even an on-camera external mic. I am incredibly glad that Nikon didn't make all the above glass unuseable with the change to Z-mount. Although I can understand why they did it, I will never forgive Canon for orphaning a very substantial kit of outstanding FD lenses when they went digital. Kinda wish I hadn't sold it all though, some of the ones I had are very much in demand for Cinema lens conversions. Cheers!

Nice Nigel but with budget and weight in consideration, I'd think standard zoom e.g. 24-105 f/4 and telezoom 70-200 or 100-400 f/5.6-ish should be sufficient ? When there's a requirement for more sharpness or bokeh, wouldn't it be more feasible to buy a couple of primes ? (I bought the 50mm 1.8 plastic fantastic and 24mm tilt-shift (2nd hand) for instance, both lenses are great fun and I managed to get them for reasonable amount of money). I wonder how you get through airport security and what selection of lenses you carry on hikes ?

I was contemplating a move to Z5 + 24-120 f/4 from DX and your confidence in that glass just might've convinced me! Wish me luck :)

Really helpful perspective there. I’m looking at my next lens purchase atm, and miss the really long reach I used to have with the Sony RX10iv up to 600mm. I’ve moved back to Nikon full frame and my longest reach is presently 200mm - it feels very limited, so the 400mm is likely my next move; but it’s just soo expensive.

Nice to have the choice, for a lot of us the cost of these lenses make the decision for us

@NigelDanson

Жыл бұрын

Totally Chris. I realise I am very lucky

@michael-4k4000

Жыл бұрын

14-30 for life!

Nigel, I'm a Canon User, but I stil found this helpful. A few days ago, before I watched your video, I bought the Canon 100-400mm lens to hopefully take the place of my 70-200 f2.8...we'll see how it goes. I definitely have to up the ISO when I want to shoot hand held. But, if it is as good a lens as yours, then it will make such a difference in the weight I carry around in my bag. Thanks for your video!

@NigelDanson

Жыл бұрын

Glad you enjoyed it. The 100-400 is amazing

Hudson Henry tested the old 14-24mm f/2.8 f mount with the new z mount and the 14-30mm. The 14-30mm sits right in the middle in terms of sharpness. I would have liked having the wider aperture but I went with the 14-30mm because of the cost and the thread size. I didn't want special filters just for that lens at some point that might change. I did have a situation last spring when I needed the f/2.8 for a milky way shot but I got decent results with the 14-30mm even though it's an f/4 lens. I have a 20mm f/1.8 that I use but I couldn't for everything in the frame at 20mm. I was on the side of a shopping hill near a bluff. I couldn't back up to make the 20mm work. I have never tried shooting a pano of the milky way. I may try the next time I'm in a situation like that again and just use the 20mm.

Nice overview as always Nigel. I feel much the same these days I am a canon user and the only 3 lenses I carry with me now are Rf100-500 F4.5-7.1L Rf24-105 f4L Ef16-35 2.8L iii (only when I know I need wide angle otherwise just the 1st two) Not sure I'll ever need to change this??? As you say, covers the full focal spectrum 99% of the time!👍

The Z 24-120 f4 is money!

Hi Nigel thanks for another interesting and thought provoking video. My 24-200 and 15-30 are the sharpest Nikon zoom lenses I have owned. Due to weight and budget these have all been f4 or below but decent quality at the time. The 24-200 is my most used Nikon lens, probably 85%. I am thinking about the new style Kase filters and it looks like you use the 85mm, do you get any vignetting on the 15mm end? Many thanks