The only thing I slightly disagree with is the 14-30/4 S. I think that 3mm on the wide end is pretty significant (as opposed to 3mms on telephoto lenses) and a thousand bucks seems totally reasonable to me. Very thoughtful information on your part though, and nicely done 😎👍
I agree! I shoot real estate with this lens and it's excellent. The 14-24 2.8 is an excellent lens but it's over $1000.00 more than the 14-30. If I was shooting portraits or astro then the 14-24 may be the better choice.
Yeah for the performance of that 14-30 F4 it’s not over priced. It’s very close to the 14-24 in optical quality and it’s very portable. I picked it over the 17-28. F2.8 means heavy/larger and that’s not what I want for general use. If you’re really into Astro then the 2.8 is probably worth it. With how good ISO is on recent camera’s F4 isn’t a problem. For landscapes which is what the 14-30 I’m guessing is going to be used for a lot, 14 vs 17 is a big deal. Personally for Astro photography I would just get the 14-30 and the 20 1.8 for the same price as the 14-24.
@@kalimarus Well said. I've never had much use for wide aperture wide angle lenses, but I have no interest in astro photography. It seems the big selling point for the 17-28 is f2.8 at a reasonable price, but really how useful is f2.8 with those focal lengths? When I use a wide angle I'm always stopping down. Thanks
@@jeffrey3498 Same for me, I have the 14-30 and use it for landscapes/city and don’t miss 2.8 at all. I really appreciate that it’s 98% as sharp as the double the price 2.8 and way smaller. Plus filters are great on it. I have a 20 1.8 for night use. The 17-28 2.8 seems caught in the middle and kinda pointless to me. 14mm is noticeably better for landscapes than 17mm. Other than Astro F2.8 on a wide is not really useful and just makes a lens huge. I use the 24-200 plenty for travel which this guys seems to think is terrible but I disagree. That and the 14-30 are a really good combo for a lightweight travel it. Nobody is going to notice the slightly softer images when they get shared on iPhones 99% of the time these days. Nobody would notice in a wall print either.
The only one I really disagree with out of these is the 24-200. I get that super zooms are hated, usually by professionals where they just don’t make sense in a workflow. But for the rest of us they can make for a really compact travel kit and let’s be honest about optical quality here. NOBODY who isn’t a really picky pro photographer is going to know the difference in image quality if you use that lens or one twice as expensive if you do your part as a photographer. Regular people can barely tell the difference in a iphone vs mirrorless image when they’re printed out in large formats. It’s cheaper than the Sony and Canon 24-240’s, Canons isn’t weather sealed either. For its category of lens it’s actually at the top of the pile. Side by side with the 24-120 it’s not as sharp but I’d pick it every single time for travel for the extra reach. The reduction in optical just isn’t enough that my friends and family would ever notice which lens I used. I owned the F mount 24-120 F4 and found it a bit to short on the telephoto end. It’s a great wedding lens though. I’ll actually probably never pick this lens up being that I still own the F variant and would only use it for a wedding/portraits. But I’d rather use my S primes for that in the first place. It just goes to show how much value is tied to use case for lenses.
I'm pretty sure he just missed focus when he reviewed the lens and he never got over it. And some of the sample images were sharp but he would say otherwise. My only gripe with it is less snappier focus than the 24-120mm but at same apertures, it's on par in image quality.
@@rayrayg9 pffffft. I gave this lens its due. You might just have a tad of emotion that you overpaid for subprime quality and I’m pooping on that fact 😜
You can pry my 24-200 from my cold dead hands lol. I also had the f mount 24-120, might have got the z version if I hadn't already gotten the 24-70 f4. I end up missing the extra reach when carrying one lens though. The vr on the 24-200 is nice too and I got it on sale for $700.
Thanks for the input! 0:00 Introduction 0:54 14-24 f2.8 S 1:24 14-30 f4 S 1:52 17-28 f2.8 2:50 20 f1.8 S 3:47 24-50 f4.5-6.3 4:17 24-70 f4 S 5:05 28-75 f2.8 5:57 24-70 f2.8 S 6:56 70-200 f2.8 S and 70-180 f2.8 8:39 24-120 f4 S 10:00 24-200 f4-6.3 11:23 24 f1.8 S 11:44 26 f2.8 12:24 40 f2 / 28 f2.8 13:18 35 f1.8 S 14:10 50 f1.2 S 15:09 50 f1.8 S 16:47 58 f0.95 S 17:54 135 f1.8 S Plena 18:59 85 f1.2 S & 85 f1.8 S 20:49 400 f2.8 S 20:57 600 f4 S 21:15 400 f4.5 S 21:35 600 f6.3 S 22:09 180-600 f5.6-6.3 23:47 MC 50 f2.8 24:24 800 f6.3 S 24:35 MC 105 f2.8 S
14mm vs 17mm absolutely makes a difference when photographing interiors for real estate/architectural/commercial property photography. f4 is irrelevant for these applications because you’re on a tripod and stopping down to at least f8 anyway. BUT for a generalist, I’d agree with your overall point here
@@ZWadePhoto See another post saying the same thing. It may not matter for everyone, but the converse is also true. It matters to many. The AOV is difference between 14 and 17 mm lenses on an FF format is 10.5 deg diagonally which I feel is significant as other posts here say. However, it could mean nothing to a bird photographer. A few days back I was photographing a palace with my 14-30 and I could get the whole building in one exposure. My friend who was using a Tammy 15-30 could not. In any case it is your opinion, and you have every right to it. Have a good day friend.
Well I didn’t actually say it didn’t matter. I said I don’t think you’ll suffer. I’m quite privileged in being able to own the best of the best while much of the rest of my audience doesn’t and are less experienced. So putting things into this following perspective: What do I shoot and where does it fit in. There is importance in wider for some genres especially indoors, in many scenarios not THAT big of a deal. Most folks don’t care about angle of view. So when “I say I don’t think you’ll suffer” I still think that rings true. Based on only a few people getting their feelings hurt about 3mm and EVERY one else not giving a damn, I’d say I read my typical audience correctly and we have ideas of importance in common
There's only a few genres that I think it makes a HUGE difference in. For the level of photographers that I imagine were searching the topic of "Nikon Z Lenses best Value for money" I don't think those few mm will kill them. Thanks for watching.
Had a feeling the 24-120 f4 S was going to make the top category. The more I hear about it, the more love I hear. Whereas the 24-200 appears to remind people of the compromises that come with a wide zoom range, the 24-120 amazes with the lack of.
I just picked up a Z7II on sale a few days ago and paired it with a 28-75 in like new condition for just over $800. It’s a great price point to get into Nikon. I mainly shoot Sony because at the time I bought in the lens selection was unbeatable but Nikon has been coming out with some great glass since then.
I agree with 90 percent of where you placed all the lenses . I do have have the 50 mm 1.8 and it’s just a great overall 50mm so that’s a no brainer . I did get the 85 mm 1.8 and agree it’s not a wow lens it’s just good . Where I might disagree slightly is my 70-200 mm I always smile when I see what the photos look like from this lens , although I’ve never tried the Tamaron version to compare . I bought the 85 1.2 recently and though it’s ouch expensive it’s a jaw dropping lens and I can’t wait to try it also on some night time photo shoots . Thanks for the video Z ✌🏼
@@ZWadePhoto I asked the question in a plena group , if they had both which would be their go to and they jumped all over me 😂. According to them the plena stays on their camera full time . Don’t understand the logic but hey 🤣
@@michaelmalodrums9674 that’s ok. They just think they have something better because it’s considered an Exotic like the Noct with their yellow Name scribed in. If the 85 was called the 85mm f/1.2 Lentum Braccas they’d magically see the character within lol
Z wade, I agree with most of your lens rankings and thoughts on the MC 105mm being a versatile lens...One of my favorites on my camera shelf as of now. A friend of mine gave me the "85mm Matrix Pills" about two years ago and been hooked since. I have the 1.4 G and 1.8 S (won from an auction at a super low price); and was curious of the 85 1.2 S, so rented it. My jaw was on the ground after most of the shots from the 1.2...Awesome lens! My opinion ranking after using them on my Z8 (there will be people to think otherwise): #1, 85 1.2 S, #2, 1.4 G (despite the age and tech, the lens can still hold it's on a Z body with the FTZ adapters) and #3, 85 1.8 S. I still want to buy the 85 1.2; it's ridiculous on how this lens assaults the background and no charges are filed! Keep up the great videos!
I think k I’m going to do a video on the most fun lenses I love shot, totally subjective, but another subscriber and I were talking about the huge difference between “The value to my bag” vs “bang for buck” and that’s a WHOLE conversation
I agree with you assessment here; especially the shut up and buy category 😂. I have downsized my working kit to the Nikon Z 17-28 (super underrated), the Tamron Z 35-150 f2/2.8 (have you tried that one; I find it outstanding), the Z 50 1.8s (no brainer; clients freak when they see images from this lens…in a good way). I’m waiting for a 180-600 (hens teeth) and wrestling with what to do for a longer portrait lens. While the 85 1.2 is unreal (rented for a wedding recently), I’m wondering if the 105 2.8 will serve as another Swiss Army knife lens…while keeping the kit on the minimal side. GAS is real, and I’ve learned it’s not about how much gear you have but what you actually need and use…and, most importantly, like to use.
Hi! Do you use the 35-150 for portraits? would it not be as good as a 105 2.8 in your opinion? i am thinking of geting the tamron 35-150, but it's alot of money
Very entertaining to hear someone else articulate their decision making process when it comes to building a lens collection. I found / find myself in the same position as I have switched over from F mount in the past few years. Apart from the 105 MC which I owned and sold ( great optics , didn't like how it handled ) and the 180 -600 , ordered it but cancelled and bought the 400 4.5 and 1.4 tc instead , I am in complete agreement with your top tier as it applies to value and own them all. No arguing with the value proposition on the 180-600 but I found it a bit too large and heavy and I use the 400 4.5 to shoot deep sky astro ( a bit niche I admit ). Great videos. Thanks for making and keep it up!
If you can find the Nikon Z 180-600 you have to purchase it! I waited for four months and finally received it and it has not been off my Z8, it is outstanding!
I think you did a pretty good job overall. I looked and saw someone else mention the list is not complete with out the 100-400 f 4.5-5.6 S lens. I highly recommend it! I’m fortunately work for a world know wildlife and landscape photographer during the summer. He made the suggestion of what to buy. The above was 1. The rest I have are the 20mm 1.8 S for landscape but more importantly Astro photography. 24-120mm f4 S. I have gotten to try the 800mm is definitely for bird photography, and expense. I have for now chosen a cheaper route f mount 500mm f5.6 PF with FTZ (DX or 1.4 teleconverter) for now. Excellent glass! Going from D600 to mirrorless was a game changer!
oooo That 500 is something. And yea the image I had of the 1-400 didn't make it too the table so it was overlooked my mistake. Thanks for watching my friend!
24-200 is the best backpacking lens out there tho. For someone who carries 2 lenses, the 14-30 and 24-200 while doing week long alpine missions i dont see a better lens for the job. The 200 MM over the 24-200 gives me wildlife capabilities. What do you suggest?
@tylerlekki4948 it has nothing to do with the genre. I find it's performance and optical quality not to be worth the price they charge. It's weak at that price, in my opinion.
Thanks for the analysis. To follow it up, I did rent both 20mm f1.8 S and 50mm f1.2 S, friend of mine rented the 85mm f1.2 S since we're in the same boat that weekend. As much as the 50mm is more versatile, the 85mm f1.2 is just on another level for me to do. I'm just a hobbyist cosplay photographer, and learning that I may not buy this lens just because of its price hurts me rofl. It's so good that I hate it. Other than that, I think the 20mm f1.8 S is justified since it doesn't cover most genre, but I like having distortion as one of my creative angle to take my cosplay story, it felt different and sometimes for some characters it fits and works perfectly. Thank you for the content. I'm ended up keeping my Ertotica 105mm f1.4, and maybe save for the 20mm f1.8 S.
Thanks for the feed back! I'm a LITTLE more specific on script, but off scripts, and really in general I try not to be overly specific on price because my goal is to keep the videos as ever green as possible. In 5 or 10 years people will be like, WHAT THE HECK LENSES USED TO BE 15,000 DOLLARS? MY 50MM F/1.8 COST ME $27,000 That's dramatic inflation but still, thats why I don't often go with exacts. haha.
Pretty good reckoning, depending what use one needs. Funny enough my line up is 14-24 f2.8, an amazing lens and at very wide angles low distortion, high-resolution and amazing rendering are so important as there's so much information/data in those files. Then I have the 24-120, no brainer, 105 MC, incredible across the whole file and also just as good at infinity. Then the 50/1.8 and 85/1.8, I love mine so much, then the 180-600/6.3, great value for money indeed. You'll laugh, for a light weight extra reach lens for hiking I use the F-mount AF-P 70-300 f4.5-5.6 E VR on the FTZ adapter. There's still nothing light weight to compete with this lens, I hope they bring out some light, slow-ish but optically good Z mount lenses in the 200-300 range. I've bid on a 20mm f1.8 for landscape/astro, its a great lens but a little overpriced new. I would love the 50mm f1.2, 85/1.2 and a Plena but the costs and weight I feel aren't worth it for me, I'm getting on and weight (and price) conscious...
@@Damon_Mah I think know burnt out in all the Zoom and telephotos. I needs me some more primes! Like the 35 1.2 that I’m starting to wonder if they ever plan on doing lol
@@Damon_Mah Yes saw that, looks expensive for that grade of glass. I don't mind the f8 between 200-400mm as it's for telephoto landscape on a tripod but I don't think the quality or resolving power will be good enough. Will have to wait and see. The weight is ideal.
Nice video. I definitely agree with you on this list. The 24-120 has been the most versatile lens in my collection. Like you I did not get the 35mm 1.8 due to the price and the want for a 35mm 1.2. The 85mm 1.2 was a no brainer for me. I’ve actually used it on some bird photography with the z8 in my yard. It’s very capable and was a shut my fat mouth and buy lol.
Hahaha. It hurts me to not put a few of these in Shut your mouth and by. That’s the difference between value to the bag and value for the dollar. Maybe a video should do 🧐
Great video sir. I have the 24-200mm that you, ahem, don't care for. I am particularly fond of it for my landscape work. Perhaps the subject matter is forgiving enough not to notice what you don't care for in it. I've been debating the 24-120 S lens ..
Agree 24-120 is outstanding! even in low light! with LR noise reduction just great optics all around, love this lens! Agree with your assessments ZWade.
The only reason I picked up the 50mm MC was for digitizing. When you own the 50 f/1.8 and the 105 MC there's little reason to use it aside from that but it is a great little lens.
Do you use any third party lenses for the Z mount by the way? And by that I mean the good stuff. Voigtlander has nine lenses for the Z mount in their line up. I have my Voigtlanders for the F mount. They are AIs styled lenses like from the 70's and 80's but have CPU contacts. It is manual focus of course but because of the CPU you can AF fine tune them.
Great video! I really enjoyed watching it! Thank you! The only thing that I'd change is the 50mm f1.2 - it should be in "Got What You Paid For". I owned this lens, but sold it recently due to disability. I have enjoyed every single click I did with this nearly flawless lens. You know what, it even deserves the upper category in my opinion. Thank you once again for the attitude you have demonstrated!!! The most comprehensive overview I've seen about Z mount lenses! Bravo!
@@stanislavalkhazov7185 thanks for watching! The 50 1.2 is used more often than any other lens I own. It’s ranks higher in optics than it does here. This is more price weighted than my other comparisons. Cheers!
Trashing a fine landscape/hiking lens, the 24-200 provided you with a lot of comments. Including this one. You really have to zoom in to tell the difference from it, against the much more expensive lenses when you shoot them at slower apertures. It's not a fast lens, but it is priced as one. If you get it on sale as your kit lens, as I did, it's a pleasant surprise for its intended purpose. I use it every weekend when hiking. I got what I paid for. The best hiking lens I've owned. Been shooting since 1976.
I've taken the Noct hiking several times so has good value for me. I don't mind manual focus and gravitate towards the voightlander primes. Agree with almost all of your rankings. Not as much hate for the 24-200mm and maybe a little more for the 24-50mm. I will agree the 24-200mm hasn't seen my bag since the 24-120mm and at the price I wouldn't buy it again but in no hurry to sell.
The S lens 24-70 and 70-200 2.8 are NOT overpriced. Look at the price of those lenses historically, the price is the price, even with F-mount lenses. The tamaron/nikon 2.8s are great value though-
24-70 f/4 new is I think is after the 28-75 release and maybe even more now that the Tamron G2 is out for Z mount. I have really looked into it's performance yet. The 70-200, I thought it was high when I was working coming directly from the Tamron G2, I still think is, for the non working photographer more so than the career shooters. Thanks for watching my dude
Your video just cost me $1000! I just ordered the 105 2.8 MC. Thank you! By the way, I own the 24-120. I could not agree more; the lens is a bargain. The 180-600 is awesome with the internal focus. It is not the fastest focusing, but it does the job on the Z9. The fact that you can zoom in and out with your thumb makes it magic! You left out the 100-400, great lens, it replaces the 70-200 for me.
Ugliest name I’ve ever seen in my life. It’s not that you have to sit through folks, it’s Glinda Qualding not being able to do anything but sit. Like grandpa in Charlie and the Chocolate factory, only we don’t get a catchy music number, we get…Glinda Qualding…bitching about a video that could easily be turned off. lol loser 🤡🤡🤡🤡
Hi I got my wife a z5 kit with basic lens for christmas and added the 24-120s for versatility its great. we recently looked at the 180-600 but shes waiting for her tax return to buy it glad to see you think both are good value
You said 24-200mm is a bad lens, but I was aiming at it, because of some youtube reviews, mainly Landscape photographers rated this lens very highly, one review even compared it with Z70-200mm f/2.8 and there he says it stand shoulder to shoulder. But your review says otherwise. Got me in confusion, what to do. Now please take a look at 28-400mm as soon as possible I think it to will be similar to 24-200 in quality.
Maybe I can help answer. The video is what lens is a good or bad VALUE, not just overall good bad lens. For the $ there are just better lens choices out there in these alternate ranges. Typically super zoom lenses have many optical compromises which can outweigh the upsides. In the case of the 28-200 you're paying a high $ for a very slow lens. If you want to shoot at f/6.3-f8 range all the time, then it might work for you, but many photographers will demand more versatility in fstop range.
Good reply craig. Whatever youtuber said that the 70-200 and 28-200 stand shoulder to shoulder is on some illegal feel good products. Lol. I trash the 28-200 a lot because I do think its sucks, but it is a good choice for some people out there. As far as the 28-400 request, I take video requests from channel members, but just for transparency, I probably won't test that lens ever because I don't generally rent or buy lenses that don't fit in with my type of work JUST for the sake of making RUclips content. I did once upon a time, but that has to be financed from out of my own pocket because Nikon does not give me things to try, so I only rent before I actually consider something that I'd might buy.
I wouldn’t call the 24-200 a bad lens, but it’s not the 70-200 2.8. The 24-200 is one of the best of it’s type for travel. You’ll take the hit in optical quality but not as much as past super zooms. It’s a convenience lens that deliver’s results that the 99% of viewers will be fine with. Same deal for the 28-400 which I’ll probably buy eventually. I have the 24-200 and use it for business travel trips often when I want to just being the body and one lens in my carryon for weekends or whatever. It’s a great lens for that. For a professional it wouldn’t be on my list for paid work though. There are very few of the super zooms that are weather resistant, Canons RF is not and Sony’s is worse and costs more.
@@craigmckernan4056 Gonna quote it get it right, for clarity sakes, and for others: It is the 24-200 Sir! And It is not that bad of a lens. Yeah it is ‘slowish,’ but it covers a LOT of range. And anyone buying this are kidding themselves if they’re going to use it for other than its intended use, which is an all rounder, travel type lens, whatever! I have seen some surprising results with my Z7, and others not so good. But isn’t that the case with all Photography? There are going to be compromises in such a design and targeted price range. Take care Craig! Peace
Oracle, while I concur almost all the time with ZeeWade, I have to take exception here. Is the 24-200 a great lens? I would not say it is, but I would not say it is awful either. It was made to a ‘price point.’ I have achieved good results, mostly, on my Z7. I would have preferred a switch or two on the lens, and a much stiffer control ring. IT is really bad! I think it would be better on the 24 Mp Z cameras. Apart from the 50 and 85 F/1.8 lens, I’m not really crazy about any of the Z lens line up. I own those, as well as the 24-200, and the ‘sweet’ little 40 f/2.0, and 28 f/2.8 lens. I do not have much experience with other lens, other than the occasional rental. I am glad to see Nikon still ‘alive’ and striving to produce the lenses on their road map. Take care.
If you can't get good photos with the 24-200 then then perhaps it is you and not the lens. It is a fantastic lens fir the money and I have taken great shots with it. I also have six S line lenses.
I live 85mm as well. The I stand solid on that particular lens having really slow AF haha but, 85mm are always slow because they don’t need to be fast. The 85 1.2 having SUPER fast AF is the exception not the rule. Thanks for watching!
@@ZWadePhoto I am sure the autofocus is slow comparatively. All I know is it keeps up with my kids well enough. It isn’t like my 70-200 e though so yeah. I just find it a good artsy lens to work with and gives me room from my subjects. One of my all time favorite lenses is my zeiss 100 f2 makro
Something I would like to add when it comes to the 24-70/4. You are right when it comes to it being kinda overpriced if you look at the price for a new one. 1000 bucks when the 24-120/4 exists? It just makes no sense! However, the used marked is flooded with them. And they are all basically in brand new condition since most folks sell them right away to replace them with a 24-70/2.8. I got mine used at my favorite camera store for just 350 bucks. Pretty much never used. And they currently have *eight* more of them in stock in the same like new condition. People sleep on this lens because it is "just a kit lens" so they underestimate what it can do. And for 350 bucks I would put it in high value, maybe even shut your fat mouth an buy 😁 Though I get that many don't like buying used gear and if you want to have a level playing field, including used prices can make things a bit muddy. If I had to buy a new lens I would go with the 24-120.
@@ZWadePhoto For that price it's easily the lens with the best value that I own. I really didn't regret it. I wonder if the price will go down even further as stores try to get them off the shelves.
@@MattisProbably You’re probably seeing a lot of those as they were sold as ‘kits.’ A lot of people have dumped them on E Bay, etc and moved on to like the 24-120, or others? Solid lens when bought in a kit or used. Nikon USA always has them for sale as a ‘Refurb,’ and even then, too much IMO. Always wait for their occasional ‘Sale’ on their Refurbs. And check the lens out quickly and carefully. Nikon has sold some sketchy stuff at times. Missing lens caps, and failures to communicate with the camera body, on a supposedly ‘Factory checked and certified’ unit!?
@@georgedavall9449 My camera store of choice checks everything they sell and cleans all items as they come in. If something is missing they will tell you. Even got a 1 year warranty for the lens. Bought my Z7 II there as well.
@@georgedavall9449 My camera store of choice cleans and checks everything that comes in. If something is missing they will tell you about it. They give you a 1 year warranty as well. I bought my Z7 II there, too. It's a great local business I like to support and their deals are often way better than what I find online.
So far, I've bought four Z lenses for the Z8 I purchased last November... the 24-120/4 S, the 50/1.8 S, the 180-600/5.6-6.3, and the MC 105/2.8 S. Every one of them has blown me away so I'm not surprised that all four wound up in your "Shut Your Fat Mouth and Buy" category. I think your assessment is fairly spot on. The next two on my list are the Plena and the 14-24/2.8 S. Those six lenses will cover every imaginable purpose for me.
Useful comparison; generally agree with most of your analysis; in fact I own all of the "Shut Your Fat Mouth And Buy" collection. That being said, a few minor tweaks in my opinion: I would nudge up the 50 1.2 into the upper end of "Got What You Paid For" or even "High Value." Never in a million years would I think I could justify its cost, but after using it for 9 months I am convinced that it is my favorite lens of all time. I am constantly astonished by what this lens does for me, and for that I have to value it at a higher level. I'm glad I got this lens near the beginning of my Z-lens buildup because it made me rethink my entire lens strategy; I was always "best Holy Trinity zooms with prime fillers" - now I am "best primes with zooms as needed." Then there's the 14-30 f4. Higher distortion and vignetting than I would like, but boy is this thing useful to me. I do a lot of architectural, interiors, and sweeping landscapes and this lens kills it every time; yes, the 14-24 would definitely have better IQ but the price difference, bulk, and weight are not worth it to me, especially when the 14-30 meets all my needs. I would definitely put this in "Got What You Paid For." Final note on the 180-600. In my 44 years (ouch!) of using Nikons, I never had any real use for any focal length above 300mm. When announced, I considered the 180-600 as way underpriced and thought I could give it a shot. Wow, am I so glad I got this thing. It opened up a whole new world for me - soccer, equestrian, auto racing, some wildlife - I live half an hour from a 4,000 acre nature preserve consisting of forest, fields and wetlands; I have spent 8 hours at a time there just with the 180-600, the 105 macro, and the 50 1.2. - Pure joy! Really enjoy your stuff!
That’s John! The hardest part of this list was trying to separate value to my work versus value for dollar. That being said, the 50mm f1.2 is absolutely PRICELESS. I’ve never left home without it since I got it.
The 14-30 is probably my favorite lens for travel. The difference between 17 and 14mm is significant and also, going out to 30 keeps my from needing to swap out to the 24-120 when I need a little more reach. I'm definitely not a fan of the 24-200. For casual shooting, it's fine but if I'm shooting casually, I can just use the phone, which takes "good enough" pics. When I bring out the Nikon, I'm thinking of prints and high quality images and 24-200, to me, doesn't provide good enough quality to orint. The 70-200 is an almost a necessary lens for anyone who really wants take photography seriously. That lens is just killer, built like a tank and absolutely worth it. The 24-120 is awesome, it stays on my Z6 where the Z8, I'll swap the primes on and off. 100-400 is another lovely lens, I can never part with it. Plena is the dream lens but i dont shoot enough portraits to justify it. The 85 1.8 is "good enough" but obviously not in the speciality catagory like the 85 1.2 or Plena.
I really like your channel, you make photography approachable. I want to photo and video my kids as a hobby. It took me a while, but i got everything i want at a good price. Z6II - $900 50MM 1.8 - $380 24-70mm - $275 Im so excited to get started on photography!
Before I saw your video, I bought the 50mm 1.8s and just hoped I was buying the right lens. I was astounded by the "character" as you said. It's fantastic!
I went with the Tamaron 35-150 2.0-2.8 over the Nikkor 24-120 f4 kit. Your favorable comments on the nikkor has me wondering if I made the right decision 2 days ago. Haven't used it yet. The 2.0 for low light events like wedding receptions I thought would be better than 4.0. As for the 35 vs 24, I did get the 14-24 2.8 S and the 105 2.8 S MC too.
It depends on your use case. I’m sure you’d be happy either way, but as you mentioned, if you’re doing low light, I think you’re in the right territory
Great review. I own a couple of the lenses that you have in the top category. The one lens that ranks higher for me is the 20mm 1.8f since I do some night photography. This lens perfect for this use. It focuses exactly as required when turned on and shows no distortion or vignetting in the corners. Also it is waterproof so if, when, it gets covered in dew there are no issues.
Not going to criticize your choices one little bit. Fact is that when I decided to go for 46mp I chose the Z7 II and purchased it with the 24-120 f4 and the 40mm f2. BTW moved up from the D750 with a series 1 AF-S 24-120 EDIF VR G Nikkor. Note this lens matches the sharpness of the newer Z lens but weighs in at 1 lbs. 11oz. Chose the 40mm f2 because my very first new Nikkor I ever purchased was the 45mm f2.8 GN Nikkor. That lens went everywhere with me mounted to my Nikkormat FS, a perfect package to slip into a light coat pocket. So I know very well just how versatile a 40-45mm lens can be. Good news is the new 40mm has image quality so good that you can actually consider it as a 40-80mm Zoom. Crop away folks.
Yeah! I was wondering what you were gonna give the 24-120F4, which is my latest purchase and won't come off my Z72. Took it to Europe (Amazing travel lens) and the image quality, zoom or no zoom, was absolutely top notch! I couldn't agree more with your assessment.....very happy!😉😉 I also have the 40 f2! So I will be definitely getting the 50mm 1.8!
A really good analysis... I bought the 26 2.8 to couple with my Z6II as an easy carry around. Way better focus and color than I expected. A little bit limited but a good value- even though it doesn't look like much. Since then, I purchased a Z8 and a 180-600. Since you are focusing on lenses, I will save my review of the Z8 other than it should be in the "buy it" catagory. Back to the lens . After several shoots including a visit to the local zoo, I can say that 400-500 on my lens is the sweet spot. This lens does perform. Still getting used to the larger size. Not too happy about the mount but have ordered an arca swiss one so that I can mount this thing on a monopod or tripod. Slowly transitioning to Z lenses so I really appreciate your review.
I have to admit that I do not like the 105 at all. It may be because I find 105mm a weird focal length, but it is my least favorite macro. Yep, it is very sharp, yep it is light, but the transition to the bg can be strange (triple rendered bg elements) and please someone make a longer macro for me. 200mm or something like that.
I think for the most part the analysis is spot on. I own the 24-120 f4 and the 40mm f2 that are labelled as "shut up and buy it" and I really use both of them a lot. I also got the 85mm f1.8 that I don't really know what to do with it... Sure it is sharp and bright, but. Maybe night actions shots?
@@eliaskonstas5250 I doubt the 85 1.8 is fast enough focusing for night time action. 85s are always slower because they don’t really need to be super fast. The only known exception is the 1.2. For whatever reason Nikon made it fast haha
Wow! I have 3 Z lenses so far and they're all in the "Shut your fat mouth and buy" category. I have the 24-120, the 105 MC and the 40. I love them all! I agree with all of your ratings. Good job! And thank you for the entertaining video. 🙂
Kind of elitist yea? Lmao it has less to do with affordability and more to do with one compared to the other. If I haven’t shot it, have no need to shoot it (I hate sports and don’t shoot wildlife) then we can easily stack value up for regular folks in which case the 400 4.5 600 6.3 are much better value than 5 digit price tags, for regular people. Not career sports folk, yes or yes?
this review should be titled "I Ranked All Nikon Z Lenses by Value for Money from portrait/street photo prospective! " ... some of those "I will never know" lenses are great for the purpose they were made, yes they are expensive, but the quality (sharpness, color, bokeh..) of photos you can get with those lenses, you won't get with other lenses
I have two of the top tier 5, 50mm f1.8, and my favourite Nikon lens to date the 24-120mm f4. These are both fantastic lenses. I'm currently eyeing the 20mm f1.8 to have a wide lens for astro. The 180-600 definitely intrigues me.
@@JasonLorette the 180-600 is such a wide range at that price, and I know it’s not top tier optics, but I wonder if optical excellence doesn’t even matter lol it’s really useful for that price. I’ll test it soon, as long as it’s “good” optically I think it’s gotta be a no brainer
Thanks for this video ZWade - very helpful and comprehensive. I am trying to put together a wish list for the new Z6iii... any chance you have a pdf of this chart with lens descriptions? Thanks
I do not, but on my website www.zwadephoto.com/theopticexplorer I have scoring system and have given a score maximum of 30pts, to ever Z lens I’ve used. Eventually it will be 100% complete
@@ZWadePhoto - Thanks, I just pulled the trigger on the Z6iii with the 24-120 f4 and the mc 105...your video was the most helpful of all my research on lens choices.
This should be interesting, as my Nikon Z8 should be here this week, with an initial "filler" 24-70 f4 S lens as I use the F mount 24-70 f2.8 all the time on my D850 and D800. I'm looking at eventually getting something like a 180-600 and maybe something in the more wide angle range like the 14-24 f2.8 or the much cheaper 17-28 f2.8 lens, and then using the F to Z mount adapter for my other F mount lenses, many of which are Tamron lenses that I am extremely happy with.
@@lithgowlights859 unfortunately my Tamrons adapted very poorly in the early days of Z mirrorless, but I hope they have improved. Everything else you mentioned, you’ll love. Even the 24-70 f/4 is way too good to be considered a “kit” lens by Nikon. Enjoy 🙌
28-75 2.8 SOLD ASAP... 2470 f4 WAY WAY SHARPER... waaaaaay cleaner and higher resolution. 2470 f4 350e/ 2875 650e used. I had a chance to try 2470 2.8, and yes...its on the right spot. As a professional, we all should go with 2.8. About 40 f2, I found 50 1.8 G series SHARPER and cleaner and 50 1.8 WAY better than 40mm . I have 85 1.8 and ITS NOT SLOW. Love it. Id like 1.2, but I bought 1.8 for 500$....instant focusing on my 6II.
Hey could you please tell how much better the Z-mount lenses are compared to the older F-mount lenses? Especially the low aperture zooms. Would love to hear your thoughts.
In general, the Z lenses are technically better in every way except with unique artsy character. If you don’t care about that, they otherwise will be brighter, sharper, better clarity, etc etc.
I should mention that “HOW MUCH” better is going to be subjective on my end because I don’t care to read lens charts. Haha. I think everyone would agree that they are better in general with the exception of a few really great F mount lenses that haven’t been replaced in Z mount, Yet.
I currently have the z105 and z40 and I use the 105 the most and I don’t do macro. 😅 I really want the 180-600 for fun but I know I won’t use it much. I’m recently taking some pictures at church and trying to figure out another lens I need. Was thinking about the 70-180 for reach.. but the 25-75 looks good too.
That 400mm f/4.5 looks so intriguing for amateur/recreational sports shoots. Still pricey but 3 times less if not more than the 400 f/2.8 tc and it’s available for renting in my area too. Like 75 dollars per weekend. Mind you the background blur/bokeh won’t be as great as the f/2.8 but it’s definitely not 3 times as bad. Also like the 180-600mm. Nice video my friend.
I too disagree regarding the 24-200 6.3 lens. I bought that lens when I scored my Z8, it was a bundle deal. (I had been using the Z9 for a year.) I liked that lens! But, the ring around the front element that describes the lens fell out! I was at the Sturgis Motorcycle Rally, and realized that piece was gone. I sold it as is for a loss. I kept recalling how pleased I was with it, and just recently I got another. I'm pleased, compared it to my 24-120 S and seem identical. I'm very happy I convinced myself to re-buy. This was my first time to bump into your post, I'll hang in. Carry on.
I bought my 24-70 f4 s as a kit lens and basically got the lens for less than $500 so I’d say high value. Also, have the 50 f1.8 s, the 40 f2 se, and just recently purchased the mc 105mm f 2.8 s. I gotta say your video was spot on bc all of those lenses above have amazing image quality and are extremely high value. I like my 24-70mm it really is an amazing lens but I would not pay $900-$1000 for it.
Great video and I generally second your rankings. Certainly wouldn't jump any more than a category in one direction or another. I have to agree that the 180-600 and the 24-120 are two of the best value lenses in the Z line up and together they cover almost the entire range of focal lengths needed for landscape, wildlife and so much more. Curious - Where would you put the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 S?
@@r2325 I have a video already scheduled :) In a nutshell, at its price, I kind of expected it to be at least as good as the 70-200 and didn’t find it to be so. But it’s contrasting extremely good. I’d probably say it’s a 👌 liiiiitttle bit overpriced based on my experience.
@@BlueLeafKobo I address them In later videos that are scheduled. Full channel members probably already seen it. But I imagine the 28-400 regardless of optics, at its price, is probably a higher value. 35 1.4, I really need to see the optics. It depends how it is relative to the 40mm f/2 I’m testing both of those lenses soon
Thanks!! I like the way you narrate. However, 1430 and 2470 were so underrated here !! (I used both 2470and 24120 for a few years) If 24120 were on "shut your mouth..", 2470 should be on "high value" , whilst both lens optical performance are so close, sometimes you don't need the 71 to 120mm and in return you have a lighter bag. (I am an architect and shot a lot of buildings and streetscapes) 1430 should be in between ""high value" and "Got what you.." , its performance is so good and a 82mm cpl that is essential and would fit instead of a huge adapter plus a 95/100mm cpl.
Thank you. I am have my two outdoor lenses, now I am looking at getting lenses for indoor and outdoor use. For indoor I want a lens that will be great for when I take my kid to the zoo, aquarium, and museum. I also want a wide angel. Before I left Sony for Nikon I had aways wanted one, but it did not fit into the budget at the time. NIKKOR Z 14-24mm f/2.8 S is my must. Sale right now has me even happier. Now after the review I am wondering if I should get the NIKKOR Z MC 105mm f/2.8 VR S before getting the 40mm F/2. I want a lens that is not too bulky when I would have it around me for many hours.
A lazy Sunday evening. I can’t believe I’m watching this video for the 3rd time since it was published.. I’m looking forward to the next iteration with the 100-400 the 28-400 and the 35 1.4. I’ve got all the lenses in the shut your fat mouth category. Plus the 20 and the 26. What a lovely collection. The question now is :- 135 plena or 85 1.2 ….
Bizarrely RUclips flagged my comment as offensive and asked if I was sure I wanted to post it. …Algorithm showing it’s not as clever as it thinks it is. 😂
I’ll be doing a side by side of the 135 and 85 soon my dude. It’ll be a while before it launches public, members get it early, but it is coming. Gotta shoot and edit first
The 24-70 f4 is the most traded to be sold lens in the Z lineup. A lot of folks got them kitted with cameras and immediately traded them in. I see them all the time in excellent condition but would NEVER pay the $1000 Nikon charges for the lens on a stand-alone basis. If I were to substitute the 28-75 mm f2.8, I'd buy the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 G2 instead.
As a kit lens though, it is WAY better than most kit lenses of old or modern. It’s a great offering if you get it discounted in a kit. It would hold someone over for a good while of their journey
On your wide angles I think it just depends on whether you value the 2.8 aperture on the 17-28 or the extra focal length on the 14-30. Unless you're shooting astro or unconventional portraits you probably won't use that wider aperture. 3mm on the medium or telephoto end is nothing. But on the ultra wide end it can be significant. And while you could stitch the 17mm to get a wider FOV I'd rather just have the 14-30. Nice video!
There are other lists coming up where those are included, granted with other reasons for ranking. When there are substantially more lenses added I will redo this video. Unless a channel members asks for it before then because it is company policy to make any reasonable content requested. Thanks for watching Samuel!
Despite rave reviews, the one thing that gives me the willies about the 24-120mm is that I had the F-mount version, that was also well reviewed, and it was the worst Nikon lens I ever had. Nothing was in focus across the plane, so many good photos ruined. I sent it in to Nikon for warranty repair thinking it must have had something wrong, and it came back exactly the same. I couldn't take photos with it that didn't look screwed up. Stuff would be in focus on one side, but out of focus on the other side at the exact same distance I eventually got a cheap used 18-140 DX when they were being blown out for next to nothing, and it ended up being one of the best all around lenses ever, impressively sharp and I useful. I don't know, maybe I'll try a 24-120 again, but I'm really spooked for over a grand down the tubes.
As far as I’ve heard, the folks that have used the F mount and Z mount 24-120 say it’s way better than the F mount. I’m reviewing that lens soon. Maybe rent it first before you buy 🤙🤙🤙🤙
Great rating and entertaining presentation. I slightly disagree on the prime 600 f6,3 being just "got what you pay for", I think it is definitely "High value". While the 180-600 is great value and I got it.- honestly after I got the 600 f6.3, the 180-600 is not in my bag any more. On paper, they are both 600 f6.3 at the long end, but the weight difference and the way faster autofocus and of course the superior image quality of the prime are making this lens more than worth every cent. It is a baby f4 600 TC :-)
Honestly I like the 24-200, While it's definitely not the crispiest, I still shoot with it all the time because I shoot F8-11 where it does pretty well. The only thing I dislike about it is that I don't know where to go as a next step without making the lens totally useless in my bag.
My opinion is clear, so I'd say anything on the telephoto end of this range is a BIG upgrade in optical quality and overall performance. When you do get ready to upgrade, you might consider selling it and putting that cash into the upgrade. Thanks for watching.
@@ZWadePhoto When I switched to mirrorless I had 3 lenses on my mind... the 135 1.8, the 24-70 2.8 and the 14-30 f4. I originally bought the 24-200 as a placeholder till I could get the trio I wanted. the 24-200 definitely won't be in my bag forever but will be until I at least get the 135 and 24-70
Hi. Thank you for your work. Anyway I consider this list not to be complete since some very serious options are simply not mentioned (100-400. Tamron 35-150, all the Voigtländer MF lense etc). I don´t agree on the 14-30 since it is so damned good. Color rendition, sharpness etc. Night photography long exposure you can get nice "stars" etc. Also the extra 2 mm really matter.
2mm used to be a big deal when I shot real estate. But in general, I don't think most people will suffer. Also, 100-400 somehow didn't end up on my table, and the 35-150, I didn't even know that existed until earlier this very morning. I don't pay attention to new releases because I'm only missing one lens. 35 1.2 thanks for watching.
For some, the size and weight is more important than ultimate quality. E.g., the 24-70 f/4 is compact, relatively cheap, and excellent if we are in the above f/4 range. Thanks for the hint to the 17-28 which was not on my screen.
You covered a lot of the Tamrons but you left out the 35-150 f2.0-2.8 which I freaking love. To me that is a high value bordering on top tier if you do any event work.
Only included the Nikon branded lenses. While the “Tamrons” I mentioned are Tamrons, they aren’t exactly “Tamrons”. I’ll do another video in the future about labeled third party brands. Mostly because I am specifically waiting for Tamron primes because I’m a fan of
I agreed with your comments, not necessarily your value ranking. A normal thing. You might try assigning a number scale value to each of the factors you mentioned and then add up the numbers and see where things land. The whole point is A sharp image that captures the scene you are looking at.
I do not, but on my website I have given every Nikon made Z lens I’ve shot a score in various categories. I’m currently in the process of testing every Nikon Brand Z lens so as I do, that gets updated. www.zwadephoto.com/theopticexplorer
You forget something vital, the actual point of existence of the 24-200... It is not for professionals, it is for everyone else. It is also for professionals or generally anyone who does not want to carry 2 or 3 lenses around... or for those not willing to spend 1K dollars more on the 120S Besides, it is the BEST at serving that point of being a one and only lens. Sure, I wish it was a fixed F4.. or an internal zoom, or as sharp as the 120 S (remember, we never saw such sharp lenses that could cover this range, so this is actually the best at it) but the point is that it is an affordable all purpose lens for non pros. It is in fact not that far from the 120S quality all in all... And for that price it is actually very affordable. This lens belongs to the Got what you paid for / high value. WOW! people who are not professionals or pixel peepers use high end cameras too!!! big surprise!! Yep, exactly that´s why the 24-200 is a pretty good lens ;)
In some scenes sure. But not in general for what I do. I'm not big in real estate anymore or architecture. 14-24 was a necessity when I was in real estate though. Thanks for watching
@@livejames9374 I mean, yea kind of. VERY general perspective. I’ve been tuning my videos towards recent search trends and if people are asking about value for money I imagine they are newer probably shopping lower priced items. This video is more helpful there. And Like I said in the beginning “value for money is hard, so Let’s just have fun” Another commenter and I agreed earlier that a whole OTHER conversation could be had about “The value in your bag vs monetary value”
Hi! Nice video. I believe that you are wrong about the 24-200. I use it with the Z5 and I believe It's an amazing lens. Especially for people who can't afford the more expensive prime lenses. I would never dare to call it "bad". But of course each one of us may have different opinions.
The only thing I slightly disagree with is the 14-30/4 S. I think that 3mm on the wide end is pretty significant (as opposed to 3mms on telephoto lenses) and a thousand bucks seems totally reasonable to me. Very thoughtful information on your part though, and nicely done 😎👍
Thanks Jeffrey!
I agree! I shoot real estate with this lens and it's excellent. The 14-24 2.8 is an excellent lens but it's over $1000.00 more than the 14-30. If I was shooting portraits or astro then the 14-24 may be the better choice.
Yeah for the performance of that 14-30 F4 it’s not over priced. It’s very close to the 14-24 in optical quality and it’s very portable. I picked it over the 17-28. F2.8 means heavy/larger and that’s not what I want for general use. If you’re really into Astro then the 2.8 is probably worth it. With how good ISO is on recent camera’s F4 isn’t a problem. For landscapes which is what the 14-30 I’m guessing is going to be used for a lot, 14 vs 17 is a big deal. Personally for Astro photography I would just get the 14-30 and the 20 1.8 for the same price as the 14-24.
@@kalimarus Well said. I've never had much use for wide aperture wide angle lenses, but I have no interest in astro photography. It seems the big selling point for the 17-28 is f2.8 at a reasonable price, but really how useful is f2.8 with those focal lengths? When I use a wide angle I'm always stopping down. Thanks
@@jeffrey3498 Same for me, I have the 14-30 and use it for landscapes/city and don’t miss 2.8 at all. I really appreciate that it’s 98% as sharp as the double the price 2.8 and way smaller. Plus filters are great on it. I have a 20 1.8 for night use. The 17-28 2.8 seems caught in the middle and kinda pointless to me. 14mm is noticeably better for landscapes than 17mm. Other than Astro F2.8 on a wide is not really useful and just makes a lens huge. I use the 24-200 plenty for travel which this guys seems to think is terrible but I disagree. That and the 14-30 are a really good combo for a lightweight travel it. Nobody is going to notice the slightly softer images when they get shared on iPhones 99% of the time these days. Nobody would notice in a wall print either.
I would argue that the 40mm f/2.0 is THE BEST value in the entire system. Those colors, the character, the ease of use, wow. What value.
🙌🙌🙌🙌
Indeed !!!!!
No weather sealing for wetter countries unfortunately.
@@Visual_Ghoul that a bummer too because gaskets are dirt cheap lol
Have always been saying. No point of buying mirrorless if you need to carry around elephant snout of a lens.
The only one I really disagree with out of these is the 24-200. I get that super zooms are hated, usually by professionals where they just don’t make sense in a workflow. But for the rest of us they can make for a really compact travel kit and let’s be honest about optical quality here. NOBODY who isn’t a really picky pro photographer is going to know the difference in image quality if you use that lens or one twice as expensive if you do your part as a photographer. Regular people can barely tell the difference in a iphone vs mirrorless image when they’re printed out in large formats. It’s cheaper than the Sony and Canon 24-240’s, Canons isn’t weather sealed either. For its category of lens it’s actually at the top of the pile. Side by side with the 24-120 it’s not as sharp but I’d pick it every single time for travel for the extra reach. The reduction in optical just isn’t enough that my friends and family would ever notice which lens I used. I owned the F mount 24-120 F4 and found it a bit to short on the telephoto end. It’s a great wedding lens though. I’ll actually probably never pick this lens up being that I still own the F variant and would only use it for a wedding/portraits. But I’d rather use my S primes for that in the first place. It just goes to show how much value is tied to use case for lenses.
Thanks for watching Kalimarus
@@ZWadePhoto Thanks for taking the time to make the video Zwade
I'm pretty sure he just missed focus when he reviewed the lens and he never got over it. And some of the sample images were sharp but he would say otherwise. My only gripe with it is less snappier focus than the 24-120mm but at same apertures, it's on par in image quality.
@@rayrayg9 pffffft. I gave this lens its due. You might just have a tad of emotion that you overpaid for subprime quality and I’m pooping on that fact 😜
You can pry my 24-200 from my cold dead hands lol. I also had the f mount 24-120, might have got the z version if I hadn't already gotten the 24-70 f4. I end up missing the extra reach when carrying one lens though. The vr on the 24-200 is nice too and I got it on sale for $700.
Thanks for the input!
0:00 Introduction
0:54 14-24 f2.8 S
1:24 14-30 f4 S
1:52 17-28 f2.8
2:50 20 f1.8 S
3:47 24-50 f4.5-6.3
4:17 24-70 f4 S
5:05 28-75 f2.8
5:57 24-70 f2.8 S
6:56 70-200 f2.8 S and 70-180 f2.8
8:39 24-120 f4 S
10:00 24-200 f4-6.3
11:23 24 f1.8 S
11:44 26 f2.8
12:24 40 f2 / 28 f2.8
13:18 35 f1.8 S
14:10 50 f1.2 S
15:09 50 f1.8 S
16:47 58 f0.95 S
17:54 135 f1.8 S Plena
18:59 85 f1.2 S & 85 f1.8 S
20:49 400 f2.8 S
20:57 600 f4 S
21:15 400 f4.5 S
21:35 600 f6.3 S
22:09 180-600 f5.6-6.3
23:47 MC 50 f2.8
24:24 800 f6.3 S
24:35 MC 105 f2.8 S
Thanks for watching!
Thank you. I wanted to rewatch for a couple of lenses and this made it easier.
@@ZWadePhoto What about the 100-400mm and the new 28-400?
14mm vs 17mm absolutely makes a difference when photographing interiors for real estate/architectural/commercial property photography. f4 is irrelevant for these applications because you’re on a tripod and stopping down to at least f8 anyway. BUT for a generalist, I’d agree with your overall point here
Thanks for watching my dude
yes, it makes a huge difference. I did not see the rest of the video after it was mentioned that it does not make a difference.
@@ashokkandimalla5962 for you. Not everyone
@@ZWadePhoto See another post saying the same thing. It may not matter for everyone, but the converse is also true. It matters to many. The AOV is difference between 14 and 17 mm lenses on an FF format is 10.5 deg diagonally which I feel is significant as other posts here say. However, it could mean nothing to a bird photographer. A few days back I was photographing a palace with my 14-30 and I could get the whole building in one exposure. My friend who was using a Tammy 15-30 could not. In any case it is your opinion, and you have every right to it. Have a good day friend.
Well I didn’t actually say it didn’t matter. I said I don’t think you’ll suffer.
I’m quite privileged in being able to own the best of the best while much of the rest of my audience doesn’t and are less experienced. So putting things into this following perspective:
What do I shoot and where does it fit in.
There is importance in wider for some genres especially indoors, in many scenarios not THAT big of a deal.
Most folks don’t care about angle of view.
So when “I say I don’t think you’ll suffer” I still think that rings true.
Based on only a few people getting their feelings hurt about 3mm and EVERY one else not giving a damn, I’d say I read my typical audience correctly and we have ideas of importance in common
No big diff between 3 mil on the wide end between 14 and 17, you lost me there
There's only a few genres that I think it makes a HUGE difference in. For the level of photographers that I imagine were searching the topic of "Nikon Z Lenses best Value for money" I don't think those few mm will kill them. Thanks for watching.
@@ZWadePhoto Having been in this position before.... Yes it will. Much bigger difference than having a superzoom like a 24-120mm.
Had a feeling the 24-120 f4 S was going to make the top category. The more I hear about it, the more love I hear. Whereas the 24-200 appears to remind people of the compromises that come with a wide zoom range, the 24-120 amazes with the lack of.
Exactly. People fight me hard in the comments over the 24-200 and I just don't see it lol. Thanks for Watching!
I just picked up a Z7II on sale a few days ago and paired it with a 28-75 in like new condition for just over $800. It’s a great price point to get into Nikon. I mainly shoot Sony because at the time I bought in the lens selection was unbeatable but Nikon has been coming out with some great glass since then.
🙌🙌🙌🙌🙌
I agree with 90 percent of where you placed all the lenses . I do have have the 50 mm 1.8 and it’s just a great overall 50mm so that’s a no brainer . I did get the 85 mm 1.8 and agree it’s not a wow lens it’s just good . Where I might disagree slightly is my 70-200 mm I always smile when I see what the photos look like from this lens , although I’ve never tried the Tamaron version to compare . I bought the 85 1.2 recently and though it’s ouch expensive it’s a jaw dropping lens and I can’t wait to try it also on some night time photo shoots . Thanks for the video Z ✌🏼
You bet Michael. I think the 85 1.2 may be in the words of General Patton “The greatest photo implement ever devised” he accidentally said M1 Garand
@@ZWadePhoto I asked the question in a plena group , if they had both which would be their go to and they jumped all over me 😂. According to them the plena stays on their camera full time . Don’t understand the logic but hey 🤣
@@michaelmalodrums9674 that’s ok. They just think they have something better because it’s considered an Exotic like the Noct with their yellow Name scribed in.
If the 85 was called the 85mm f/1.2 Lentum Braccas they’d magically see the character within lol
@@ZWadePhoto haha Noctus habbilus
Z wade, I agree with most of your lens rankings and thoughts on the MC 105mm being a versatile lens...One of my favorites on my camera shelf as of now.
A friend of mine gave me the "85mm Matrix Pills" about two years ago and been hooked since. I have the 1.4 G and 1.8 S (won from an auction at a super low price); and was curious of the 85 1.2 S, so rented it. My jaw was on the ground after most of the shots from the 1.2...Awesome lens! My opinion ranking after using them on my Z8 (there will be people to think otherwise): #1, 85 1.2 S, #2, 1.4 G (despite the age and tech, the lens can still hold it's on a Z body with the FTZ adapters) and #3, 85 1.8 S. I still want to buy the 85 1.2; it's ridiculous on how this lens assaults the background and no charges are filed!
Keep up the great videos!
Fun video! I think it is important also to consider the excitement/enjoyment factor. I love the hell out of shooting with the 50 1.2 and 600 6.3.
I think k I’m going to do a video on the most fun lenses I love shot, totally subjective, but another subscriber and I were talking about the huge difference between “The value to my bag” vs “bang for buck” and that’s a WHOLE conversation
I agree with you assessment here; especially the shut up and buy category 😂. I have downsized my working kit to the Nikon Z 17-28 (super underrated), the Tamron Z 35-150 f2/2.8 (have you tried that one; I find it outstanding), the Z 50 1.8s (no brainer; clients freak when they see images from this lens…in a good way). I’m waiting for a 180-600 (hens teeth) and wrestling with what to do for a longer portrait lens. While the 85 1.2 is unreal (rented for a wedding recently), I’m wondering if the 105 2.8 will serve as another Swiss Army knife lens…while keeping the kit on the minimal side. GAS is real, and I’ve learned it’s not about how much gear you have but what you actually need and use…and, most importantly, like to use.
🙌🙌 preach
Hi! Do you use the 35-150 for portraits? would it not be as good as a 105 2.8 in your opinion? i am thinking of geting the tamron 35-150, but it's alot of money
@@mu9n I don.t. I need Tamron to ti send me one 😂
Very entertaining to hear someone else articulate their decision making process when it comes to building a lens collection. I found / find myself in the same position as I have switched over from F mount in the past few years. Apart from the 105 MC which I owned and sold ( great optics , didn't like how it handled ) and the 180 -600 , ordered it but cancelled and bought the 400 4.5 and 1.4 tc instead , I am in complete agreement with your top tier as it applies to value and own them all. No arguing with the value proposition on the 180-600 but I found it a bit too large and heavy and I use the 400 4.5 to shoot deep sky astro ( a bit niche I admit ). Great videos. Thanks for making and keep it up!
🙌🙌🙌🙌
If you can find the Nikon Z 180-600 you have to purchase it! I waited for four months and finally received it and it has not been off my Z8, it is outstanding!
I bet they are on EBAY for 6,000 bucks lol Nikon preferred customers always get theirs first even though they don’t want them, then gouge the market
@@ZWadePhoto, what’s even weirder I would have paid an even $2,000 for it without hesitation. Nikon is pretty smart what they are doing.
Come to Serbia there are plenty of them lol
Got mine really early
I think you did a pretty good job overall. I looked and saw someone else mention the list is not complete with out the 100-400 f 4.5-5.6 S lens. I highly recommend it!
I’m fortunately work for a world know wildlife and landscape photographer during the summer. He made the suggestion of what to buy. The above was 1. The rest I have are the 20mm 1.8 S for landscape but more importantly Astro photography. 24-120mm f4 S. I have gotten to try the 800mm is definitely for bird photography, and expense.
I have for now chosen a cheaper route f mount 500mm f5.6 PF with FTZ (DX or 1.4 teleconverter) for now. Excellent glass!
Going from D600 to mirrorless was a game changer!
oooo That 500 is something. And yea the image I had of the 1-400 didn't make it too the table so it was overlooked my mistake. Thanks for watching my friend!
24-200 is the best backpacking lens out there tho. For someone who carries 2 lenses, the 14-30 and 24-200 while doing week long alpine missions i dont see a better lens for the job. The 200 MM over the 24-200 gives me wildlife capabilities. What do you suggest?
I’m not saying it doesn’t have its uses. I’m saying that for what they traditionally retail for, it doesn’t perform at that level
@@ZWadePhoto You are not considering all types of photography. Only you doing what weddings? meh
@tylerlekki4948 it has nothing to do with the genre. I find it's performance and optical quality not to be worth the price they charge. It's weak at that price, in my opinion.
I agree with one of your choices; the Nikon Z 24-120mm f4 is a great lens. I have enjoyed a couple of your other videos.
Excellent! Glad you’re enjoy the show my friend!
👊🏼
Thanks for the analysis. To follow it up, I did rent both 20mm f1.8 S and 50mm f1.2 S, friend of mine rented the 85mm f1.2 S since we're in the same boat that weekend. As much as the 50mm is more versatile, the 85mm f1.2 is just on another level for me to do.
I'm just a hobbyist cosplay photographer, and learning that I may not buy this lens just because of its price hurts me rofl. It's so good that I hate it. Other than that, I think the 20mm f1.8 S is justified since it doesn't cover most genre, but I like having distortion as one of my creative angle to take my cosplay story, it felt different and sometimes for some characters it fits and works perfectly.
Thank you for the content. I'm ended up keeping my Ertotica 105mm f1.4, and maybe save for the 20mm f1.8 S.
🙌🙌 thanks for watching my friend
Liked the video. Just a tip, include the price more clearly next time. Some don't have all the prices in our head. But this was BRAVE!
Thanks for the feed back! I'm a LITTLE more specific on script, but off scripts, and really in general I try not to be overly specific on price because my goal is to keep the videos as ever green as possible. In 5 or 10 years people will be like, WHAT THE HECK LENSES USED TO BE 15,000 DOLLARS? MY 50MM F/1.8 COST ME $27,000
That's dramatic inflation but still, thats why I don't often go with exacts. haha.
Pretty good reckoning, depending what use one needs. Funny enough my line up is 14-24 f2.8, an amazing lens and at very wide angles low distortion, high-resolution and amazing rendering are so important as there's so much information/data in those files. Then I have the 24-120, no brainer, 105 MC, incredible across the whole file and also just as good at infinity. Then the 50/1.8 and 85/1.8, I love mine so much, then the 180-600/6.3, great value for money indeed. You'll laugh, for a light weight extra reach lens for hiking I use the F-mount AF-P 70-300 f4.5-5.6 E VR on the FTZ adapter. There's still nothing light weight to compete with this lens, I hope they bring out some light, slow-ish but optically good Z mount lenses in the 200-300 range. I've bid on a 20mm f1.8 for landscape/astro, its a great lens but a little overpriced new. I would love the 50mm f1.2, 85/1.2 and a Plena but the costs and weight I feel aren't worth it for me, I'm getting on and weight (and price) conscious...
Thanks for engaging with the content!
hopefully they'll make a 70-300 Z, but the 28-400 Z just came out at same size/weight and double the price
@@Damon_Mah I think know burnt out in all the Zoom and telephotos. I needs me some more primes! Like the 35 1.2 that I’m starting to wonder if they ever plan on doing lol
@@Damon_Mah Yes saw that, looks expensive for that grade of glass. I don't mind the f8 between 200-400mm as it's for telephoto landscape on a tripod but I don't think the quality or resolving power will be good enough. Will have to wait and see. The weight is ideal.
Nice video. I definitely agree with you on this list. The 24-120 has been the most versatile lens in my collection. Like you I did not get the 35mm 1.8 due to the price and the want for a 35mm 1.2. The 85mm 1.2 was a no brainer for me. I’ve actually used it on some bird photography with the z8 in my yard. It’s very capable and was a shut my fat mouth and buy lol.
Hahaha. It hurts me to not put a few of these in Shut your mouth and by. That’s the difference between value to the bag and value for the dollar.
Maybe a video should do 🧐
@@ZWadePhoto right
Great video sir. I have the 24-200mm that you, ahem, don't care for. I am particularly fond of it for my landscape work. Perhaps the subject matter is forgiving enough not to notice what you don't care for in it. I've been debating the 24-120 S lens ..
Right on tom! We don't have to agree, we just have to be able to take jokes and appreciate others perspectives! See you around the channel.
Curious what your thoughts will be on the new 28-400 that they just announced :). Great video
If Nikon would recognize all the free advertisement I give them and send me one I’d try it out. Haha
@Nikon Are you listening? :D
Agree with your analysis, especially about the 105mm f/2.8 MC. Love your new format too! How can one join your channel?
Thanks friend! You can go to the my main page and hit join!
@@ZWadePhoto Done! Thank you! I was expecting a Patreon-type link and completely missed the "Join" button 🤦😆
@@TillmanTech Hell Yea my friend! The perks are gonna be getting better and better! We are just getting started!
Agree 24-120 is outstanding! even in low light! with LR noise reduction just great optics all around, love this lens!
Agree with your assessments ZWade.
🙌🙌🙌🙌🙌🙌
Love the 24-120 bits strictly for outdoor. In home it suffers a lot with flash.
@@warthog123 are you limiting flash ISO to ISO 400 in ISO SETTINGS?
Sorry...I meant to say tge lens needs flash inside home.
@@jorsetti I set it to to auto till 6400.
The only reason I picked up the 50mm MC was for digitizing. When you own the 50 f/1.8 and the 105 MC there's little reason to use it aside from that but it is a great little lens.
Thats fact. The little film tray is a cool addition to the offering. Honestly they should just give it away in the box. haha.
@@ZWadePhoto I agree. That thing was also backordered for like a year right when I really needed it, of course.
Great vid. Don’t like the 70-200 ranking but I agree with you haha. Subbed!
I appreciate cordial disagreement! This is what a proper comment looks like everyone. Thanks for the sub my friend!
Do you use any third party lenses for the Z mount by the way? And by that I mean the good stuff. Voigtlander has nine lenses for the Z mount in their line up. I have my Voigtlanders for the F mount. They are AIs styled lenses like from the 70's and 80's but have CPU contacts. It is manual focus of course but because of the CPU you can AF fine tune them.
I REALLY want to try out the voigts. I'm a big fan of Voigtlander. But i haven't done much with the third parties yet.
Thanks man, very useful information. Haven't made the switch to Z mount yet, but when I do it's going to be big.
Glad I could help Joel!
Recently picked up the Plena and I love it
I’m shooting with it a lot right now. Really developing a deeper opinion on it
Great video! I really enjoyed watching it! Thank you!
The only thing that I'd change is the 50mm f1.2 - it should be in "Got What You Paid For". I owned this lens, but sold it recently due to disability. I have enjoyed every single click I did with this nearly flawless lens. You know what, it even deserves the upper category in my opinion.
Thank you once again for the attitude you have demonstrated!!! The most comprehensive overview I've seen about Z mount lenses!
Bravo!
@@stanislavalkhazov7185 thanks for watching!
The 50 1.2 is used more often than any other lens I own. It’s ranks higher in optics than it does here. This is more price weighted than my other comparisons.
Cheers!
Trashing a fine landscape/hiking lens, the 24-200 provided you with a lot of comments. Including this one. You really have to zoom in to tell the difference from it, against the much more expensive lenses when you shoot them at slower apertures. It's not a fast lens, but it is priced as one. If you get it on sale as your kit lens, as I did, it's a pleasant surprise for its intended purpose. I use it every weekend when hiking. I got what I paid for. The best hiking lens I've owned. Been shooting since 1976.
@@kennygo8300 it’s not worth the price on it. I’ll never change my mind until it becomes 400 bucks
I've taken the Noct hiking several times so has good value for me. I don't mind manual focus and gravitate towards the voightlander primes. Agree with almost all of your rankings. Not as much hate for the 24-200mm and maybe a little more for the 24-50mm. I will agree the 24-200mm hasn't seen my bag since the 24-120mm and at the price I wouldn't buy it again but in no hurry to sell.
I would terrified to take the noct hiking lol. Not because of performance but because the price and the fact that they didn’t make a ton of them haha
You take the Noct hiking?! My kind of photographer 👍
The S lens 24-70 and 70-200 2.8 are NOT overpriced. Look at the price of those lenses historically, the price is the price, even with F-mount lenses. The tamaron/nikon 2.8s are great value though-
24-70 f/4 new is I think is after the 28-75 release and maybe even more now that the Tamron G2 is out for Z mount. I have really looked into it's performance yet. The 70-200, I thought it was high when I was working coming directly from the Tamron G2, I still think is, for the non working photographer more so than the career shooters. Thanks for watching my dude
The only issue I have with my 24-70 F2.8 is that it doesn't have VR. Even with IBIS, you still need VR lenses for maximum sharpness.
Your video just cost me $1000! I just ordered the 105 2.8 MC. Thank you!
By the way, I own the 24-120. I could not agree more; the lens is a bargain. The 180-600 is awesome with the internal focus. It is not the fastest focusing, but it does the job on the Z9. The fact that you can zoom in and out with your thumb makes it magic! You left out the 100-400, great lens, it replaces the 70-200 for me.
You’re gonna live the 105!
For God's sake, post the chart rankings and explanations where one can READ it. Sitting through this is AGONY.
Ugliest name I’ve ever seen in my life. It’s not that you have to sit through folks, it’s Glinda Qualding not being able to do anything but sit. Like grandpa in Charlie and the Chocolate factory, only we don’t get a catchy music number, we get…Glinda Qualding…bitching about a video that could easily be turned off. lol loser 🤡🤡🤡🤡
Great video. Good to see what other Z-lens owners think.
Thanks my friend. Some of these other commenters need realize that too. It's what I think. Man i'm hurting peoples wittle hearts.
Hi I got my wife a z5 kit with basic lens for christmas and added the 24-120s for versatility its great. we recently looked at the 180-600 but shes waiting for her tax return to buy it glad to see you think both are good value
Very nice!
You said 24-200mm is a bad lens, but I was aiming at it, because of some youtube reviews, mainly Landscape photographers rated this lens very highly, one review even compared it with Z70-200mm f/2.8 and there he says it stand shoulder to shoulder. But your review says otherwise. Got me in confusion, what to do. Now please take a look at 28-400mm as soon as possible I think it to will be similar to 24-200 in quality.
Maybe I can help answer. The video is what lens is a good or bad VALUE, not just overall good bad lens. For the $ there are just better lens choices out there in these alternate ranges. Typically super zoom lenses have many optical compromises which can outweigh the upsides. In the case of the 28-200 you're paying a high $ for a very slow lens. If you want to shoot at f/6.3-f8 range all the time, then it might work for you, but many photographers will demand more versatility in fstop range.
Good reply craig. Whatever youtuber said that the 70-200 and 28-200 stand shoulder to shoulder is on some illegal feel good products. Lol. I trash the 28-200 a lot because I do think its sucks, but it is a good choice for some people out there.
As far as the 28-400 request, I take video requests from channel members, but just for transparency, I probably won't test that lens ever because I don't generally rent or buy lenses that don't fit in with my type of work JUST for the sake of making RUclips content. I did once upon a time, but that has to be financed from out of my own pocket because Nikon does not give me things to try, so I only rent before I actually consider something that I'd might buy.
I wouldn’t call the 24-200 a bad lens, but it’s not the 70-200 2.8. The 24-200 is one of the best of it’s type for travel. You’ll take the hit in optical quality but not as much as past super zooms. It’s a convenience lens that deliver’s results that the 99% of viewers will be fine with. Same deal for the 28-400 which I’ll probably buy eventually. I have the 24-200 and use it for business travel trips often when I want to just being the body and one lens in my carryon for weekends or whatever. It’s a great lens for that. For a professional it wouldn’t be on my list for paid work though. There are very few of the super zooms that are weather resistant, Canons RF is not and Sony’s is worse and costs more.
@@craigmckernan4056 Gonna quote it get it right, for clarity sakes, and for others: It is the 24-200 Sir! And It is not that bad of a lens. Yeah it is ‘slowish,’ but it covers a LOT of range. And anyone buying this are kidding themselves if they’re going to use it for other than its intended use, which is an all rounder, travel type lens, whatever!
I have seen some surprising results with my Z7, and others not so good. But isn’t that the case with all Photography? There are going to be compromises in such a design and targeted price range. Take care Craig! Peace
Oracle, while I concur almost all the time with ZeeWade, I have to take exception here. Is the 24-200 a great lens? I would not say it is, but I would not say it is awful either. It was made to a ‘price point.’ I have achieved good results, mostly, on my Z7. I would have preferred a switch or two on the lens, and a much stiffer control ring. IT is really bad! I think it would be better on the 24 Mp Z cameras.
Apart from the 50 and 85 F/1.8 lens, I’m not really crazy about any of the Z lens line up. I own those, as well as the 24-200, and the ‘sweet’ little 40 f/2.0, and 28 f/2.8 lens. I do not have much experience with other lens, other than the occasional rental. I am glad to see Nikon still ‘alive’ and striving to produce the lenses on their road map. Take care.
If you can't get good photos with the 24-200 then then perhaps it is you and not the lens.
It is a fantastic lens fir the money and I have taken great shots with it. I also have six S line lenses.
It is definitely not me,
It is NOT a good lens for the money. It IS OVER priced.
I have the 20-40 Tamron on my A7R5, I moved to Sony because I knew it covered my work. If it was available for Nikon id consider moving back.
@@markshirley01 right in my dude
I love my 85 1.8 as my walkaround in many cases. Never found it to be that slow. Something about the focal length I just love
I live 85mm as well. The I stand solid on that particular lens having really slow AF haha but, 85mm are always slow because they don’t need to be fast. The 85 1.2 having SUPER fast AF is the exception not the rule.
Thanks for watching!
@@ZWadePhoto I am sure the autofocus is slow comparatively. All I know is it keeps up with my kids well enough. It isn’t like my 70-200 e though so yeah. I just find it a good artsy lens to work with and gives me room from my subjects. One of my all time favorite lenses is my zeiss 100 f2 makro
Something I would like to add when it comes to the 24-70/4.
You are right when it comes to it being kinda overpriced if you look at the price for a new one. 1000 bucks when the 24-120/4 exists? It just makes no sense!
However, the used marked is flooded with them. And they are all basically in brand new condition since most folks sell them right away to replace them with a 24-70/2.8.
I got mine used at my favorite camera store for just 350 bucks. Pretty much never used. And they currently have *eight* more of them in stock in the same like new condition.
People sleep on this lens because it is "just a kit lens" so they underestimate what it can do. And for 350 bucks I would put it in high value, maybe even shut your fat mouth an buy 😁
Though I get that many don't like buying used gear and if you want to have a level playing field, including used prices can make things a bit muddy.
If I had to buy a new lens I would go with the 24-120.
Oh for $350, yea buy that sh*t now lol
@@ZWadePhoto For that price it's easily the lens with the best value that I own. I really didn't regret it.
I wonder if the price will go down even further as stores try to get them off the shelves.
@@MattisProbably You’re probably seeing a lot of those as they were sold as ‘kits.’ A lot of people have dumped them on E Bay, etc and moved on to like the 24-120, or others?
Solid lens when bought in a kit or used. Nikon USA always has them for sale as a ‘Refurb,’ and even then, too much IMO. Always wait for their occasional ‘Sale’ on their Refurbs. And check the lens out quickly and carefully. Nikon has sold some sketchy stuff at times. Missing lens caps, and failures to communicate with the camera body, on a supposedly ‘Factory checked and certified’ unit!?
@@georgedavall9449 My camera store of choice checks everything they sell and cleans all items as they come in. If something is missing they will tell you.
Even got a 1 year warranty for the lens. Bought my Z7 II there as well.
@@georgedavall9449 My camera store of choice cleans and checks everything that comes in. If something is missing they will tell you about it.
They give you a 1 year warranty as well.
I bought my Z7 II there, too. It's a great local business I like to support and their deals are often way better than what I find online.
So far, I've bought four Z lenses for the Z8 I purchased last November... the 24-120/4 S, the 50/1.8 S, the 180-600/5.6-6.3, and the MC 105/2.8 S. Every one of them has blown me away so I'm not surprised that all four wound up in your "Shut Your Fat Mouth and Buy" category. I think your assessment is fairly spot on. The next two on my list are the Plena and the 14-24/2.8 S. Those six lenses will cover every imaginable purpose for me.
@@JimCaputoMusic you’re covered after your future lenses if say haha thanks for watching!
Useful comparison; generally agree with most of your analysis; in fact I own all of the "Shut Your Fat Mouth And Buy" collection.
That being said, a few minor tweaks in my opinion:
I would nudge up the 50 1.2 into the upper end of "Got What You Paid For" or even "High Value." Never in a million years would I think I could justify its cost, but after using it for 9 months I am convinced that it is my favorite lens of all time. I am constantly astonished by what this lens does for me, and for that I have to value it at a higher level. I'm glad I got this lens near the beginning of my Z-lens buildup because it made me rethink my entire lens strategy; I was always "best Holy Trinity zooms with prime fillers" - now I am "best primes with zooms as needed."
Then there's the 14-30 f4. Higher distortion and vignetting than I would like, but boy is this thing useful to me. I do a lot of architectural, interiors, and sweeping landscapes and this lens kills it every time; yes, the 14-24 would definitely have better IQ but the price difference, bulk, and weight are not worth it to me, especially when the 14-30 meets all my needs. I would definitely put this in "Got What You Paid For."
Final note on the 180-600. In my 44 years (ouch!) of using Nikons, I never had any real use for any focal length above 300mm. When announced, I considered the 180-600 as way underpriced and thought I could give it a shot. Wow, am I so glad I got this thing. It opened up a whole new world for me - soccer, equestrian, auto racing, some wildlife - I live half an hour from a 4,000 acre nature preserve consisting of forest, fields and wetlands; I have spent 8 hours at a time there just with the 180-600, the 105 macro, and the 50 1.2. - Pure joy!
Really enjoy your stuff!
That’s John!
The hardest part of this list was trying to separate value to my work versus value for dollar.
That being said, the 50mm f1.2 is absolutely PRICELESS. I’ve never left home without it since I got it.
I totally agree with the prime comment too. Haha I was so happy to stop working and replacing my holy trinity with insane primes 🙌🙌
The 14-30 is probably my favorite lens for travel. The difference between 17 and 14mm is significant and also, going out to 30 keeps my from needing to swap out to the 24-120 when I need a little more reach.
I'm definitely not a fan of the 24-200. For casual shooting, it's fine but if I'm shooting casually, I can just use the phone, which takes "good enough" pics. When I bring out the Nikon, I'm thinking of prints and high quality images and 24-200, to me, doesn't provide good enough quality to orint.
The 70-200 is an almost a necessary lens for anyone who really wants take photography seriously. That lens is just killer, built like a tank and absolutely worth it.
The 24-120 is awesome, it stays on my Z6 where the Z8, I'll swap the primes on and off.
100-400 is another lovely lens, I can never part with it.
Plena is the dream lens but i dont shoot enough portraits to justify it. The 85 1.8 is "good enough" but obviously not in the speciality catagory like the 85 1.2 or Plena.
Thanks for watching!
I really like your channel, you make photography approachable.
I want to photo and video my kids as a hobby. It took me a while, but i got everything i want at a good price.
Z6II - $900
50MM 1.8 - $380
24-70mm - $275
Im so excited to get started on photography!
@@maluplayer1 whooooa reeeeeaaaaly good prices haha. And thanks for the compliment 🙌
Before I saw your video, I bought the 50mm 1.8s and just hoped I was buying the right lens. I was astounded by the "character" as you said. It's fantastic!
☝️☝️🙌🙌🙌🙌
Your video just made me place the order of the 50mmF1.8S, there is a holiday deals on B&H now.
@@KAIHTSAI i hope you used my link!
I went with the Tamaron 35-150 2.0-2.8 over the Nikkor 24-120 f4 kit. Your favorable comments on the nikkor has me wondering if I made the right decision 2 days ago. Haven't used it yet. The 2.0 for low light events like wedding receptions I thought would be better than 4.0. As for the 35 vs 24, I did get the 14-24 2.8 S and the 105 2.8 S MC too.
It depends on your use case. I’m sure you’d be happy either way, but as you mentioned, if you’re doing low light, I think you’re in the right territory
Great review.
I own a couple of the lenses that you have in the top category. The one lens that ranks higher for me is the 20mm 1.8f since I do some night photography. This lens perfect for this use. It focuses exactly as required when turned on and shows no distortion or vignetting in the corners. Also it is waterproof so if, when, it gets covered in dew there are no issues.
@@craigtaylor885 I love that lens
Not going to criticize your choices one little bit. Fact is that when I decided to go for 46mp I chose the Z7 II and purchased it with the 24-120 f4 and the 40mm f2. BTW moved up from the D750 with a series 1 AF-S 24-120 EDIF VR G Nikkor. Note this lens matches the sharpness of the newer Z lens but weighs in at 1 lbs. 11oz. Chose the 40mm f2 because my very first new Nikkor I ever purchased was the 45mm f2.8 GN Nikkor. That lens went everywhere with me mounted to my Nikkormat FS, a perfect package to slip into a light coat pocket. So I know very well just how versatile a 40-45mm lens can be. Good news is the new 40mm has image quality so good that you can actually consider it as a 40-80mm Zoom. Crop away folks.
@@Scooter-dm3qo hmmmm every tells me the old 24-120 isn’t nearly as good 🤔 I haven’t used either yet, but the 24-120 review is coming soon
Thank You The ZWADE!
Any time my friend!
Yeah! I was wondering what you were gonna give the 24-120F4, which is my latest purchase and won't come off my Z72. Took it to Europe (Amazing travel lens) and the image quality, zoom or no zoom, was absolutely top notch! I couldn't agree more with your assessment.....very happy!😉😉 I also have the 40 f2! So I will be definitely getting the 50mm 1.8!
I’ll be using the 24-120 soon so it will have a true score on my website 🙌🙌
The plena is my 85 1.2 lol a stunner that l will rent on every occasion i can justify it
I'm ready for spring weather so I can go out and really run some frames through it.
A really good analysis... I bought the 26 2.8 to couple with my Z6II as an easy carry around. Way better focus and color than I expected. A little bit limited but a good value- even though it doesn't look like much. Since then, I purchased a Z8 and a 180-600. Since you are focusing on lenses, I will save my review of the Z8 other than it should be in the "buy it" catagory. Back to the lens . After several shoots including a visit to the local zoo, I can say that 400-500 on my lens is the sweet spot. This lens does perform. Still getting used to the larger size. Not too happy about the mount but have ordered an arca swiss one so that I can mount this thing on a monopod or tripod. Slowly transitioning to Z lenses so I really appreciate your review.
Thank man! I appreciate you watching! I remember my F to Z transition. Miserable haha
I have to admit that I do not like the 105 at all. It may be because I find 105mm a weird focal length, but it is my least favorite macro.
Yep, it is very sharp, yep it is light, but the transition to the bg can be strange (triple rendered bg elements) and please someone make a longer macro for me. 200mm or something like that.
Thanks for watching Martin
I think for the most part the analysis is spot on. I own the 24-120 f4 and the 40mm f2 that are labelled as "shut up and buy it" and I really use both of them a lot. I also got the 85mm f1.8 that I don't really know what to do with it... Sure it is sharp and bright, but. Maybe night actions shots?
@@eliaskonstas5250 I doubt the 85 1.8 is fast enough focusing for night time action. 85s are always slower because they don’t really need to be super fast. The only known exception is the 1.2. For whatever reason Nikon made it fast haha
Wow! I have 3 Z lenses so far and they're all in the "Shut your fat mouth and buy" category. I have the 24-120, the 105 MC and the 40. I love them all! I agree with all of your ratings. Good job! And thank you for the entertaining video. 🙂
Glad I could entertain you today!
Outstanding!!! Thank you for your work!
And thank you for your support!
great video thank you!
Glad you enjoyed it! Thanks for watching
Just cause you cant afford it doesnt mean its not high value.
Kind of elitist yea? Lmao it has less to do with affordability and more to do with one compared to the other. If I haven’t shot it, have no need to shoot it (I hate sports and don’t shoot wildlife) then we can easily stack value up for regular folks in which case the 400 4.5 600 6.3 are much better value than 5 digit price tags, for regular people. Not career sports folk, yes or yes?
this review should be titled "I Ranked All Nikon Z Lenses by Value for Money from portrait/street photo prospective! " ... some of those "I will never know" lenses are great for the purpose they were made, yes they are expensive, but the quality (sharpness, color, bokeh..) of photos you can get with those lenses, you won't get with other lenses
@@michelebelotti2022 the problem with that though…too many letter and it gets cut off in the feed my guy!
I really love this vidéo. It makes me think about getting the 50 1.8. and the 180/600
@@CC3GROUNDZERO so whos money?
I have two of the top tier 5, 50mm f1.8, and my favourite Nikon lens to date the 24-120mm f4. These are both fantastic lenses.
I'm currently eyeing the 20mm f1.8 to have a wide lens for astro. The 180-600 definitely intrigues me.
@@JasonLorette the 180-600 is such a wide range at that price, and I know it’s not top tier optics, but I wonder if optical excellence doesn’t even matter lol it’s really useful for that price. I’ll test it soon, as long as it’s “good” optically I think it’s gotta be a no brainer
@@ZWadePhoto seriously when I saw that range I was flabbergasted honestly…I look forward to you test. 📸😎
Thanks for this video ZWade - very helpful and comprehensive. I am trying to put together a wish list for the new Z6iii... any chance you have a pdf of this chart with lens descriptions? Thanks
I do not, but on my website www.zwadephoto.com/theopticexplorer
I have scoring system and have given a score maximum of 30pts, to ever Z lens I’ve used. Eventually it will be 100% complete
@@ZWadePhoto - Thanks, I just pulled the trigger on the Z6iii with the 24-120 f4 and the mc 105...your video was the most helpful of all my research on lens choices.
@@sail02878 ooooooooh dude you’re gonna freak with the 105 MC. It has no business being 1000 bucks. You e got a real good kit now 🤙🤙🤙🤙🤙🤙
This should be interesting, as my Nikon Z8 should be here this week, with an initial "filler" 24-70 f4 S lens as I use the F mount 24-70 f2.8 all the time on my D850 and D800. I'm looking at eventually getting something like a 180-600 and maybe something in the more wide angle range like the 14-24 f2.8 or the much cheaper 17-28 f2.8 lens, and then using the F to Z mount adapter for my other F mount lenses, many of which are Tamron lenses that I am extremely happy with.
@@lithgowlights859 unfortunately my Tamrons adapted very poorly in the early days of Z mirrorless, but I hope they have improved. Everything else you mentioned, you’ll love. Even the 24-70 f/4 is way too good to be considered a “kit” lens by Nikon.
Enjoy 🙌
28-75 2.8 SOLD ASAP... 2470 f4 WAY WAY SHARPER... waaaaaay cleaner and higher resolution. 2470 f4 350e/ 2875 650e used.
I had a chance to try 2470 2.8, and yes...its on the right spot. As a professional, we all should go with 2.8.
About 40 f2, I found 50 1.8 G series SHARPER and cleaner and 50 1.8 WAY better than 40mm .
I have 85 1.8 and ITS NOT SLOW. Love it. Id like 1.2, but I bought 1.8 for 500$....instant focusing on my 6II.
Oh man, I hated the 50 G
And my 85 1.8 was slow as Christmas lol
Thanks for watching
Your work is outstanding!!!🎉
Thanks my friend!
Hey could you please tell how much better the Z-mount lenses are compared to the older F-mount lenses? Especially the low aperture zooms. Would love to hear your thoughts.
In general, the Z lenses are technically better in every way except with unique artsy character. If you don’t care about that, they otherwise will be brighter, sharper, better clarity, etc etc.
I should mention that “HOW MUCH” better is going to be subjective on my end because I don’t care to read lens charts. Haha. I think everyone would agree that they are better in general with the exception of a few really great F mount lenses that haven’t been replaced in Z mount, Yet.
I currently have the z105 and z40 and I use the 105 the most and I don’t do macro. 😅 I really want the 180-600 for fun but I know I won’t use it much. I’m recently taking some pictures at church and trying to figure out another lens I need. Was thinking about the 70-180 for reach.. but the 25-75 looks good too.
🤙🤙🤙🤙🤙 I dig the 105
ZWade Photo ZEE WADE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
‘Putting down my cherished 24-200! ‘. 😯🙄🤔😃😂✌
Hahaha. Oh hold on some one is calling 📞💩 💩 💩….oh it was just the 24-200 told him I wasn’t interested.
Buuuuurn hahahaha thanks for watching George 🤙🤙
That 400mm f/4.5 looks so intriguing for amateur/recreational sports shoots. Still pricey but 3 times less if not more than the 400 f/2.8 tc and it’s available for renting in my area too. Like 75 dollars per weekend.
Mind you the background blur/bokeh won’t be as great as the f/2.8 but it’s definitely not 3 times as bad. Also like the 180-600mm.
Nice video my friend.
Thanks for watching!
I too disagree regarding the 24-200 6.3 lens. I bought that lens when I scored my Z8, it was a bundle deal. (I had been using the Z9 for a year.) I liked that lens! But, the ring around the front element that describes the lens fell out! I was at the Sturgis Motorcycle Rally, and realized that piece was gone. I sold it as is for a loss. I kept recalling how pleased I was with it, and just recently I got another. I'm pleased, compared it to my 24-120 S and seem identical. I'm very happy I convinced myself to re-buy.
This was my first time to bump into your post, I'll hang in. Carry on.
Even though we disagree, I appreciate your civility on the matter and I appreciate you watching!
I bought my 24-70 f4 s as a kit lens and basically got the lens for less than $500 so I’d say high value. Also, have the 50 f1.8 s, the 40 f2 se, and just recently purchased the mc 105mm f 2.8 s. I gotta say your video was spot on bc all of those lenses above have amazing image quality and are extremely high value. I like my 24-70mm it really is an amazing lens but I would not pay $900-$1000 for it.
for sure. It's a total win if you get it as a kit lens because it's way better than the word "kit" would imply. Thanks for watching
I just purchased the Z8 and the 85 f1.2 as my only lens. Love makes you do crazy things 😅😂
Oh man what a good way to start haha
Great video and I generally second your rankings. Certainly wouldn't jump any more than a category in one direction or another. I have to agree that the 180-600 and the 24-120 are two of the best value lenses in the Z line up and together they cover almost the entire range of focal lengths needed for landscape, wildlife and so much more. Curious - Where would you put the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 S?
@@r2325 I have a video already scheduled :)
In a nutshell, at its price, I kind of expected it to be at least as good as the 70-200 and didn’t find it to be so. But it’s contrasting extremely good. I’d probably say it’s a 👌 liiiiitttle bit overpriced based on my experience.
I reckon you should keep this going. Where do you think you would put the 28-400 and 35 1.4?
@@BlueLeafKobo I address them In later videos that are scheduled. Full channel members probably already seen it.
But I imagine the 28-400 regardless of optics, at its price, is probably a higher value. 35 1.4, I really need to see the optics. It depends how it is relative to the 40mm f/2
I’m testing both of those lenses soon
Thanks!! I like the way you narrate. However, 1430 and 2470 were so underrated here !! (I used both 2470and 24120 for a few years) If 24120 were on "shut your mouth..", 2470 should be on "high value" , whilst both lens optical performance are so close, sometimes you don't need the 71 to 120mm and in return you have a lighter bag. (I am an architect and shot a lot of buildings and streetscapes) 1430 should be in between ""high value" and "Got what you.." , its performance is so good and a 82mm cpl that is essential and would fit instead of a huge adapter plus a 95/100mm cpl.
@@B-water thanks for watching b-water
Can you post the list somewhere or the chart ?
@JudithCarlisle-fe5tn if I get some time I'll try
Thank you. I am have my two outdoor lenses, now I am looking at getting lenses for indoor and outdoor use. For indoor I want a lens that will be great for when I take my kid to the zoo, aquarium, and museum. I also want a wide angel. Before I left Sony for Nikon I had aways wanted one, but it did not fit into the budget at the time.
NIKKOR Z 14-24mm f/2.8 S is my must. Sale right now has me even happier.
Now after the review I am wondering if I should get the NIKKOR Z MC 105mm f/2.8 VR S before getting the 40mm F/2. I want a lens that is not too bulky when I would have it around me for many hours.
@@veener79 the 105 is very fun lens. Versatile too
@@ZWadePhoto I don't have a Marco lens yet to replace my old Sigma ones that I had that was over 20 years old from when I ran a 35mm Minolta.
@@veener79 the 105 Z is amazing for portraits too
A lazy Sunday evening. I can’t believe I’m watching this video for the 3rd time since it was published.. I’m looking forward to the next iteration with the 100-400 the 28-400 and the 35 1.4. I’ve got all the lenses in the shut your fat mouth category. Plus the 20 and the 26. What a lovely collection. The question now is :- 135 plena or 85 1.2 ….
Bizarrely RUclips flagged my comment as offensive and asked if I was sure I wanted to post it. …Algorithm showing it’s not as clever as it thinks it is. 😂
Hahahahahaha it can’t watch my video and see that it’s a Category in the tier list. Bummer haha
I’ll be doing a side by side of the 135 and 85 soon my dude. It’ll be a while before it launches public, members get it early, but it is coming. Gotta shoot and edit first
The 24-70 f4 is the most traded to be sold lens in the Z lineup. A lot of folks got them kitted with cameras and immediately traded them in. I see them all the time in excellent condition but would NEVER pay the $1000 Nikon charges for the lens on a stand-alone basis.
If I were to substitute the 28-75 mm f2.8, I'd buy the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 G2 instead.
As a kit lens though, it is WAY better than most kit lenses of old or modern. It’s a great offering if you get it discounted in a kit. It would hold someone over for a good while of their journey
Really interesting video...but what about the Z 100-400/4.5-5-6 S?
I had the picture and everything, it somehow didn’t make it into the tier maker and didn’t catch it until after upload.
On your wide angles I think it just depends on whether you value the 2.8 aperture on the 17-28 or the extra focal length on the 14-30. Unless you're shooting astro or unconventional portraits you probably won't use that wider aperture. 3mm on the medium or telephoto end is nothing. But on the ultra wide end it can be significant. And while you could stitch the 17mm to get a wider FOV I'd rather just have the 14-30. Nice video!
Sure. I caught a lot of heat for my remarks here, but it is ALL about use case. For most beginners I think the differences are modest on both sides :)
Can we get an updated list with the 28-400mm, 35mm f1.4, and the DX lenses?
There are other lists coming up where those are included, granted with other reasons for ranking. When there are substantially more lenses added I will redo this video.
Unless a channel members asks for it before then because it is company policy to make any reasonable content requested.
Thanks for watching Samuel!
Is there a link to your chart that I can resize to see the actual lens? I agree with many of your suggestions.
@@Keith80027 no charts my friend.
I have a section on my website where lenses get a numerical score and that’s about it
Despite rave reviews, the one thing that gives me the willies about the 24-120mm is that I had the F-mount version, that was also well reviewed, and it was the worst Nikon lens I ever had. Nothing was in focus across the plane, so many good photos ruined. I sent it in to Nikon for warranty repair thinking it must have had something wrong, and it came back exactly the same. I couldn't take photos with it that didn't look screwed up. Stuff would be in focus on one side, but out of focus on the other side at the exact same distance I eventually got a cheap used 18-140 DX when they were being blown out for next to nothing, and it ended up being one of the best all around lenses ever, impressively sharp and I useful. I don't know, maybe I'll try a 24-120 again, but I'm really spooked for over a grand down the tubes.
As far as I’ve heard, the folks that have used the F mount and Z mount 24-120 say it’s way better than the F mount. I’m reviewing that lens soon. Maybe rent it first before you buy 🤙🤙🤙🤙
Great rating and entertaining presentation. I slightly disagree on the prime 600 f6,3 being just "got what you pay for", I think it is definitely "High value". While the 180-600 is great value and I got it.- honestly after I got the 600 f6.3, the 180-600 is not in my bag any more. On paper, they are both 600 f6.3 at the long end, but the weight difference and the way faster autofocus and of course the superior image quality of the prime are making this lens more than worth every cent. It is a baby f4 600 TC :-)
It was doomed to be got what you paid for, because it doesn’t do much else 🤷♂️. Rules is rules haha thanks for watching my friend
Honestly I like the 24-200, While it's definitely not the crispiest, I still shoot with it all the time because I shoot F8-11 where it does pretty well. The only thing I dislike about it is that I don't know where to go as a next step without making the lens totally useless in my bag.
My opinion is clear, so I'd say anything on the telephoto end of this range is a BIG upgrade in optical quality and overall performance. When you do get ready to upgrade, you might consider selling it and putting that cash into the upgrade. Thanks for watching.
@@ZWadePhoto When I switched to mirrorless I had 3 lenses on my mind... the 135 1.8, the 24-70 2.8 and the 14-30 f4. I originally bought the 24-200 as a placeholder till I could get the trio I wanted. the 24-200 definitely won't be in my bag forever but will be until I at least get the 135 and 24-70
Hi. Thank you for your work. Anyway I consider this list not to be complete since some very serious options are simply not mentioned (100-400. Tamron 35-150, all the Voigtländer MF lense etc).
I don´t agree on the 14-30 since it is so damned good. Color rendition, sharpness etc. Night photography long exposure you can get nice "stars" etc. Also the extra 2 mm really matter.
2mm used to be a big deal when I shot real estate. But in general, I don't think most people will suffer. Also, 100-400 somehow didn't end up on my table, and the 35-150, I didn't even know that existed until earlier this very morning. I don't pay attention to new releases because I'm only missing one lens. 35 1.2
thanks for watching.
@@ZWadePhoto Yes, until they will release a 35mm 1.2, I use my Tamron 1.4. Only lens I adapt with FTZ on my Z8 - best AF F-Mount lens ever.
@@michaltopas I love that lens. Now that Tamron is making Z lenses under their own name, I hope they start bringing some primes.
For some, the size and weight is more important than ultimate quality. E.g., the 24-70 f/4 is compact, relatively cheap, and excellent if we are in the above f/4 range. Thanks for the hint to the 17-28 which was not on my screen.
@@ReneGrothmann I have a size and weight list coming soon.
You covered a lot of the Tamrons but you left out the 35-150 f2.0-2.8 which I freaking love. To me that is a high value bordering on top tier if you do any event work.
Only included the Nikon branded lenses. While the “Tamrons” I mentioned are Tamrons, they aren’t exactly “Tamrons”.
I’ll do another video in the future about labeled third party brands. Mostly because I am specifically waiting for Tamron primes because I’m a fan of
I agreed with your comments, not necessarily your value ranking. A normal thing. You might try assigning a number scale value to each of the factors you mentioned and then add up the numbers and see where things land. The whole point is A sharp image that captures the scene you are looking at.
I did a numerical rank a long time ago. The results were similar with people getting mad because I don’t like their stuff as much as they do lol
i am very confuse about what to buy between 40 f2 se vs 50 f1.8 s :/
Personally, I'd grab the 50/1.8 S 🤙
@@ZWadePhotoi just search those 2 lens, 50 f1.8 is way bigger than 40 f2 lmao 😂 and my body is zf
I need to know if the 180-600 would be worth it for action shots?
That I don’t know. You might have to check out some of the big channels that got to test it to get some feedback on focus speed
Do have this chart available where you can see the model numbers instead of a micro-thumbnail?
I do not, but on my website I have given every Nikon made Z lens I’ve shot a score in various categories. I’m currently in the process of testing every Nikon Brand Z lens so as I do, that gets updated. www.zwadephoto.com/theopticexplorer
You forget something vital, the actual point of existence of the 24-200... It is not for professionals, it is for everyone else. It is also for professionals or generally anyone who does not want to carry 2 or 3 lenses around... or for those not willing to spend 1K dollars more on the 120S
Besides, it is the BEST at serving that point of being a one and only lens. Sure, I wish it was a fixed F4.. or an internal zoom, or as sharp as the 120 S (remember, we never saw such sharp lenses that could cover this range, so this is actually the best at it) but the point is that it is an affordable all purpose lens for non pros. It is in fact not that far from the 120S quality all in all...
And for that price it is actually very affordable. This lens belongs to the Got what you paid for / high value.
WOW! people who are not professionals or pixel peepers use high end cameras too!!! big surprise!! Yep, exactly that´s why the 24-200 is a pretty good lens ;)
@@Aphorism89 it’s overpriced in performance and who it’s intended for then.
105 2.8 vs 85 1.2 for portraits and product photography ??
For product AND portraits, definitely Z MC 105. More versatile if you want to do products, and is exceptional for portraits.
adorama.rfvk.net/Y9525j
The 135mm f1.8 PLENA is a lens that is my reason that I will never leave Nikon Z!
It’s sooooo good. Never fails to impress
14mm vs 17mm is a big difference.
In some scenes sure. But not in general for what I do. I'm not big in real estate anymore or architecture. 14-24 was a necessity when I was in real estate though. Thanks for watching
@@ZWadePhoto oh so the video is representative of your current style of photography. That makes sense.
@@livejames9374 I mean, yea kind of. VERY general perspective. I’ve been tuning my videos towards recent search trends and if people are asking about value for money I imagine they are newer probably shopping lower priced items. This video is more helpful there. And Like I said in the beginning “value for money is hard, so Let’s just have fun”
Another commenter and I agreed earlier that a whole OTHER conversation could be had about “The value in your bag vs monetary value”
I wach this ranking for Nikon Nikkor Z Dx 50-250 mm (not S) and you didn't rank it :/. Could you tell us your rank value of this one?
@@lukibuki7651 I actually haven’t used or seen a lot of work from it yet, so I can’t. But I am reviewing it very soon.
Hi! Nice video. I believe that you are wrong about the 24-200. I use it with the Z5 and I believe It's an amazing lens. Especially for people who can't afford the more expensive prime lenses. I would never dare to call it "bad". But of course each one of us may have different opinions.
Thanks for watching