When I decided to replace my D750 with it's 24-120 EDIF VR Nikkor G I chose to go with the Z7 II for it's resolution bump and lighter more compact body. Age does take it's toll and I'm not a 20 something running around with meterless Nikkormat FS loaded with Tri-X and a 45mm f2.8 GN Nikkor. BTW learned how to estimate exposure by eye with that camera and still have that ability today. Naturally the first two lenses I purchased for the Z7 II was the 24-120 S and the 40mm. As I found with that old Nikkormat a 40-45mm lens is the perfect combination of small size in a focal length that can almost be viewed as universal. One real plus for modern digital is that it provides a lot more "headroom" for cropping than Tri-X did so with a bit of tweaking in editing the 40mm can act as a stand-in for a 80 or 100mm lens. I'll also note that those who complain about Noise on the Z7 should really spend time in a Darkroom printing with Tri-X. Summing up the 28 and 40mm Z lenses are real bargains, especially when Nikon knocks the price down by 70 dollars when they are on sale. BTW I have the 26mm f2.8 being delivered today and chose that over the 28 simply because that should allow my Z7 II to be used as Pocket Camera like I used to do with that Nikkormat all those years ago.
When one finds a good spot; it’ll take all day taking great photos and realized you haven’t moved very far. You did some great work on this. The trees and the rocks, love the long exposure too. What nd filter do you find yourself using the most?
So it depends but I think the filter I use more than any is the 6 stop. The 10 comes out when there are lots of waves and I want to just get rid of the movement entirely. I use the 3 for waterfalls so that I can still have moment but sometimes the 6 for that too if the day is bright enough.
On my D850, I used the 50mm 1.8G, which was not in the recommended F lens list, still performed good for landscape in like f8. Cheap light lenses. Would be surprised if a newer lens designed to the Z system would not perform well in landscape. Usually lenses failing in astrophotography... Well the 50mm really bad performer in that manner.
Exactly my argument all the time. People want to believe that quality is reliant on money and that is true to some extent but there are always unicorns in the wilderness. LOL Thanks for watching!
Nice video. I just found your channel and I am thrilled, as I went to college in Maine and miss it terribly. Regarding the lenses, one issue with any RUclips review that relies on showing real-world images as the basis of the evaluation, is it is impossible for the consumer of the viewer to distinguish sharpness and acutance after RUclips video compression is applied. It would be nice to know what images look like without automatic lens corrections. I am not against digital lens corrections per se, but one of the advantages of most prime lenses should be less need for digital correction, which reduces acutance. Most inexpensive lenses require lots of digital distortion and vignetting corrections, so I suspect that is the case here. Other than that, I enjoyed the trip down memory lane and have subscribed. Thank you.
Agreed. You'd be surprised at how little they require though compared to say a zoom lens. The primes, sure they have some issues. I've looked at uncorrected files but it's far better than I expected. Thanks for watching!
When I decided to replace my D750 with it's 24-120 EDIF VR Nikkor G I chose to go with the Z7 II for it's resolution bump and lighter more compact body. Age does take it's toll and I'm not a 20 something running around with meterless Nikkormat FS loaded with Tri-X and a 45mm f2.8 GN Nikkor. BTW learned how to estimate exposure by eye with that camera and still have that ability today. Naturally the first two lenses I purchased for the Z7 II was the 24-120 S and the 40mm. As I found with that old Nikkormat a 40-45mm lens is the perfect combination of small size in a focal length that can almost be viewed as universal. One real plus for modern digital is that it provides a lot more "headroom" for cropping than Tri-X did so with a bit of tweaking in editing the 40mm can act as a stand-in for a 80 or 100mm lens. I'll also note that those who complain about Noise on the Z7 should really spend time in a Darkroom printing with Tri-X. Summing up the 28 and 40mm Z lenses are real bargains, especially when Nikon knocks the price down by 70 dollars when they are on sale. BTW I have the 26mm f2.8 being delivered today and chose that over the 28 simply because that should allow my Z7 II to be used as Pocket Camera like I used to do with that Nikkormat all those years ago.
Excellent!
I don't see why these two lenses are "budget" prime lenses??? I got them for the Zf camera. They work great! No worries. Have fun...
Exactly. You couldn't have said it better. Thanks for watching!
When one finds a good spot; it’ll take all day taking great photos and realized you haven’t moved very far.
You did some great work on this.
The trees and the rocks, love the long exposure too.
What nd filter do you find yourself using the most?
So it depends but I think the filter I use more than any is the 6 stop. The 10 comes out when there are lots of waves and I want to just get rid of the movement entirely. I use the 3 for waterfalls so that I can still have moment but sometimes the 6 for that too if the day is bright enough.
On my D850, I used the 50mm 1.8G, which was not in the recommended F lens list, still performed good for landscape in like f8. Cheap light lenses. Would be surprised if a newer lens designed to the Z system would not perform well in landscape. Usually lenses failing in astrophotography... Well the 50mm really bad performer in that manner.
Exactly my argument all the time. People want to believe that quality is reliant on money and that is true to some extent but there are always unicorns in the wilderness. LOL Thanks for watching!
I love my 40 mm on my Zfc. Just got the Zf. Can’t wait to put it on Zf and try it out.
OH man, you are gonna love it! Thanks for watching!
Nice video. I just found your channel and I am thrilled, as I went to college in Maine and miss it terribly. Regarding the lenses, one issue with any RUclips review that relies on showing real-world images as the basis of the evaluation, is it is impossible for the consumer of the viewer to distinguish sharpness and acutance after RUclips video compression is applied. It would be nice to know what images look like without automatic lens corrections. I am not against digital lens corrections per se, but one of the advantages of most prime lenses should be less need for digital correction, which reduces acutance. Most inexpensive lenses require lots of digital distortion and vignetting corrections, so I suspect that is the case here. Other than that, I enjoyed the trip down memory lane and have subscribed. Thank you.
Agreed. You'd be surprised at how little they require though compared to say a zoom lens. The primes, sure they have some issues. I've looked at uncorrected files but it's far better than I expected. Thanks for watching!
Nice video as always
Thank you! I appreciate ou watching.
You just work magic, don't you?
Oh June, you are always too kind. I so appreciate your compliments.