Hi Matt. Good video. I picked up a used (well, 'like new never opened') 50-250 recently for $300. New they are up to $639 since the May price rises. For $179 I got the FTZ earlier on. I convinced myself that these two items were funded by selling my 70-200 2.8 VR with focus issues for $500. I am SHOCKED with how good the quality of the 50-250mm is. It leaves the OG 70-200 for dead! and I'm not missing it one bit. The sheer weight saving makes me actually want to take it out with me. The other thing you didn't mention here is that the 50-250 is the advantageous 5x zoom range versus 3.1x of the 70-200. On cropped bodies the focal range between 50-70 makes it so much more usable, in my opinion. Not to mention that extra 20% tele. Surely for the difference in price there are serious optical compromises being made. I wonder if these compromises are all being mitigated by the Z mount itself; ie the shortened flange distance? It was be interesting to see what the Z 70-200 puts out of it its going to be an optically similar formula to the F FL ED? Interesting that there is no full frame Z lenses at all yet. Also nicely framed for your piece to camera. You set yourself up nicely with the intersecting line of the horizon and rolling hill. John, Gold Coast.
Cheers John, great to have your feedback, and to hear another photog having similar results. Yes I wonder what the compromise is. For starters it is the lack of 2.8, then robustness, then weather sealing, then DX vs FX ... metal vs plastic. These are all real things that have an impact here and there and on build price. The 70-200 2.8 is made to be used everyday, 5000 frames per day for 10 years. I suspect a lens like this would not stand up to that if in a war zone, or safari park or with a photojournalist ... but yes I think the Z mount is contributing to it optically in these like for like conditions delivering a similar result ... I do think the Z 70-200 will be even better than the FL ED. How much so ... we don't really know yet. The delay is frustrating as the lens exists, I think Nikon are struggling to actually get it out of the factory. And if I was Nikon I would be saying, people are locked at home there is no rush. But that reason is pretty much starting to fade away globally now. Time will tell. Cheers matt
Hi Matt, Very interesting results. The new Z mount lenses seem to be getting better and better. Previous generation all-in-one or cheap telephoto zooms weren't all that impressive. And now high ISO and VR/IS makes things so much easier. However, the two big advantages of the fast aperture lenses are the subject isolation and the ability to use a faster shutter speed for the same other settings. This is critical for fast-moving action. you cannot photograph a fast-paced sporting even under floodlights and freeze the action at say 1/60 sec when 1/500 sec is needed. It doesn't matter if VR stops the camera shake - it can't freeze the action. But, in many other situations, it just doesn't matter. No doubt many people will be persuaded to get this new lens.
For sure it has a specific place. For low light high speed, it would be harder to justify. Although with ever increasing ISO performance, it is possible a compromise exists in there somewhere. Of course the $4000 lens is superior, for F stops, build quality, internal zoom mechanism, weather sealing and being 35mm. For me the idea of this video came about because we don't have native long end tele lenses besides this one fro Z, I wanted to see if it was any good as a stop gap lens ... and I am surprised by this test. Low light and portrait test coming soon ... watch this space : ). The Z7 high ISO performance is great. I wonder if I shot at 3200 or 6400 low light high shutter speed would it deliver ... could be a stretch. Might be my next test : ) thanks for sharing. Cheers Matt
Matt, as I said a couple of weeks ago, 'it aint broke, don't fix it' and this is exactly what I meant; a well-presented video, plenty of good information but one that leaves us thinking, and possibly with an unanswered question or two. You're asking us to engage and (I believe) that's what we want from you. I wonder how many are now saying, 'at $200, I can afford to buy and even break three or four of them and still be in front of the $4000 version with not a lot, if any, drop-off in image quality.' It aint broke mate!!
Thanks Grant for that feedback, much appreciated. You have pretty much nailed my intention. Yes I will head out at night as well and see if it performs as well ... keep you posted : ). Cheers Matt
Wow interesting how 90% of people could really just get by using the cheaper stuff , as opposed to spending a fortune for little improved results, but also realising this isn't a real extensive test . Thanks Matt 🙂👍
The 70-200mm f2.8 is meant for professional uses that require the wider aperture, such as fast moving subjects, or shallow depth of field applications such as portrait photography. And like you pointed out Matt, that lens is built like a tank. Outside of those uses, a cheaper alternative can surely work for most people. I'm interested in the edge to edge sharpness though, even for landscape photography, since I often print very large prints.
The thing is 50-250 is a stunningly sharp lens. Corner to corner. I am not surprised by these results. The only softening can be seen at 250mm, but not a significant one.
Excellent video and it just shows you do not nave to pay $3000 for a 70 - 200 f 2.8 to do landscape because you would have to use it a F 7.1 and above anyway. A good comparison would be in a covered Sports stadium or shaded bush area where the Nikon 50- 250 would be usable by comparison because of its compromise between low shutter speeds or hi ISOs when hand held. I have those lenses and the D750 and a Z50. I brought Z50 new for $1050 NZ with both kit lenses and as you pointed out the 50 - 250 in the right light is excellent . If you just want an excellent travel camera or just starting out in photography, $1000 Z50 kit or $7000 for a full frame set up it’s a no-brainer really.
Having had the Z50 with both kit lenses as my big step into photography, I’m more than satisfied for its capabilities and price point. Out here in the states, the lens is running up about 400 bucks while the new 70-200mm Z lens, yet to be released, will be approximately 2860 bucks taxes included. Is it supposed to be good in low light? Not at all really especially with the aperture going down to f/4.5 at the max. Is it going to outperform most of the Z lenses or F mount lenses that are more expensive? Probably not or at least fair okay against them. But for that price point, I’ve been able to get amazing reach and fantastic image quality of the animals I photograph when at the zoo. Even when in the San Diego Zoo Safari Park which is a massive place with expansive field exhibits, the images pulled from the lens are astounding. I wholeheartedly recommend anyone who has the Z50 or any other Z mount camera to pick it up as your travel kit lens at the bare minimum. The Z line up lenses have been pulling out some fantastic imagery compared to their f mount counterparts.
I picked up a good condition 70-200 f2.8E FL ED on eBay from a guy who lives ten minutes away in Melbourne for $1890. Have tested it out and more than happy. Lived up to the reviews, definitely!
Well it's oficial I used to watch for the photography but now I watch it for the good vibes! Thanks! You really make me want to go outside and shoot. Love from Portugal!
Thanks for the test, when I remember my 55-200mm f5.6 vrII on d5300/d7200 and the phenomenal resolution that setup provided, the Sigma Art 50mm f1.4 was slightly worse, a great lens on the old Dx!
Great surprise. Of course for portraiture still 70-200 is much better because of the f/2.8 bokeh, but for landscapes and cityscapes they perform almost identically...and the weight matters.
Yes I think they would be, but I need to do a follow up video from all the questions that have been asked about this video. In the coming weeks I will answer that question. : ). Cheers Matt
Matt now that the Z 24-200 is available would you consider it over the APS-C 50-250 or if one already has the crop 50-250 lens just call it a day and move on? Curious. Or even the upcoming 24-120?
I have the 50-250 on my Z50.. I came from a D7100 (which I still have and love) , along with a few F mount lenses..I was pleasantly surprised and actually shocked with the performance..thanks Matt !
It is amazing seeing the differences and similarities between those two lenses. What are you feeling? Whats driving you? Whats motivating you? Thats more of what photography is about than any gear. But of course the gear helps us to get to the point where we can convey those things more accurately or even more ruggedly. Thank you again for your continues inspiration and fantastic viewpoints my brother. Always a highlight!
Thanks so much Shane, it is a balance of the two. Ultimately gear without goals will get you nowhere fast ... I think there is a video in that ... coming next week : ). Cheers Matt
In this specific setup the 50-250mm performed well, but most cheap telephoto lenses would. It was middle of the day, a lot of light, you had a tripod and time to shoot a picture. How about do some low light photography with some action? Some wildlife photography in the forest?
@Taipei Geek I dont see where you are coming from. The lenses won't magically change, optically, in low light. There is more chance of seeing lens flaws in brighter light. If you simply mean a low light test with the pro lens at f/2.8 (and a 2.33 stop lower ISO) than the kit lens at f/6.3, well that's obvious and not even worth testing. It'll be an ISO test and not a lens quality test. Or are you wanting to see how AF performance compares in low light? The faster lens should perform much better.
Hey Taipei Geek - I would not be so sure about other cheap telephotos (I've had many) - this Z lens (even this super cheap one) is much sharper then the old AF-D and AF-S DX crop lenses by far. I also own an old Full frame 2.8 Lens and it's better optically than that. I own them all and the Z glass makes a lot of difference. Trust me I was surprised about that. Cheers and stay safe.
There was a time when more expensive lenses really made a difference however with modern manufacturing and quality control it’s more a question of light transmission, build quality and weather sealing and speed of AF motors. Unless you print big or crop a lot the average person won’t notice the difference.
Funny to see that a cheap Nikon lens for mirrorless is actually as good as an expensive Nikon lens for DSLR, it shows that the mirrorless lenses are generally in a different class than DSLR lenses, and that is another reason to switch from Nikon's DSLR system to Nikon's new mirrorless system! Cheers Jess
a 2.8 lens is meant to be shot at 2.8. that is what you are paying for.. you can't compare them both... you are paying the premium for 2.8....... if you don't need 2.8 there is no need to get the expansive lens.
NikCan, it shows potential, this is a limited landscape test. But my gut feeling is it will work well in other areas relative to its tiny cost. I will do more testing and report back : ). Cheers Matt
Matt Irwin Photography Looking forward to your Matt Irwin’s Investigates future advances of camera and lens designs and directions we may venture into as photographers
Lol. Face detect. I was a long way from the camera. It reallly wanted the background. I need to change how fast wants to move when I spin or wave my hands. It set to the middle right now. I’ll get optimal settings one day. 😀
You guys have a mean breeze blowing. I was in the Geelong area last December with a local buddy shooting a timelapse sunset from a lookout tower. Both our rigs on tripods came crashing on hard concrete😖😱. Cheers from 🇨🇦😊
Thanks for taking us through this Matt. I'm now thinking the Z 50-250mm will get me started at least. I'm building up a kit after a 15 year break. Loving the Z6. I have the 24-70mm f4 kit lens and am contemplating investing in the Z 35mm 1.8 prime or maybe the Z 20mm 1.8 if I win Lotto (as I'm passionate about low light and night shots, timelapse and quite a lot of video). Thanks again, your episodes always inspire and get me thinking.
For sure Selwyn, this is a test for landscape in good light, I will follow up with a low light and portrait test in the coming weeks ... and the thing of most concern to me with a lens like this is toughness, which cannot be anywhere near matched against a lens like the 70-200 2.8. Cheers Matt
@@MattIrwinPhotography That's great. I'll wait to see how the Z 50-250 handles low light. I'm not in a rush and will enjoy contemplating in the meantime. Thanks again Matt.
Matt Irwin Photography Hi Matt, I’m using the Z6 with two native lenses and one adapted lens. Have commented on your videos before. It’s awesome information and they give me confidence in the z mount system. Unfortunately I haven’t seen much advertising from Nikon; they could do a lot better in this area (which I’ve heard from either yourself or another Pro say previously)
Thanks Matt, I really appreciate the practical side of this. My new Z50 will be in my hands in a couple days!! This video shows me the purchase of this camera was a great choice. Keep up the great work, love the content you're producing in a positive energetic manner.
It's a shame that Nikon doesn't give us a lightweight full frame tele zoom lens for Z. Maybe a F4 or so. There will be a 24-200 but I don't expect the quality to be good on this lens. I want to buy a Z6 but I need a lightweight tele for hiking. Otherwise I have to go for Fuji. Z50 misses other Z DX lenses ... Will you also compare the kit lenses? (16-50 vs 24-70) I downloaded 16-50 raw samples some days ago and edited them and was completely shocked on how good the quality was. Didn't expect that.
Well, to me this is more sensational than your usual content Matt. The $200 lens matching the $4000 lens it being "even slightly sharper"... Well... really? I wonder what is the bokeh in close to midrange focus situations? The F-mount DX 55-300 for instance had some really horrible bokeh (e.g. rabbit in high grass at 10-20m distance). How's the quality of the out of focus area in such situations?
Hi Andreas, indeed, it is a funny thing, I never think about out of focus areas, and quality of bokeh, as I find it to be a very subjective area. Some people like it creaming, some people like it swirly, some people like it punchy ... This was a test for landscape, day, on a tripod. I was not trying to say anything else. And if one is wondering how it works for portraits, they need to find a review about portraits etc. What I can tell you if you watch from here ruclips.net/video/N9LtIfSehSI/видео.html you can see this is the lens at work, with the out of focus areas behind it. : ) I suppose my style of video making is to show what I get, present outcomes to screen, and at the end of the day allow you to make your own judgement based on the data presented. And what I will be doing next is creating a video with this lens at night, and for portraits as a follow up to this video. I agree, let's push it harder. : ) Cheers matt
Surprisingly similar, but if you shoot at f/4 why use a f/2.8 lens. Tests of inexpensive lenses compared to similar more expensive ones, seldom get very interesting if you don't test things where the less expensive lens falls behind. Do the same comparison on a portrait shoot and it would be much clearer why many people are prepared to pay the higher price.
It's hard to argue with perfection. How are the still images of the 50 - 250 on the z7 for portraits where f6 - f11 is handy for getting clothes etc in focus. I tend to shoot at about 125mm and the small size and lightweight lens would be perfect around the studio if its eye autofocus and sharpness was up to the 45mp sensor
Great comparison! I am always surprised how good the z glass is. Btw there is a third option if someone needs fast aperture in a telephoto without selling a kidney, the old afd 70-200 f2.8 is a true workhorse with great image quality, and it is dirt cheap. Of course it won't autofocus on the z6/7 but worth the price I think.
I did some work with an 80-200 2.8 AF D (Push Pull) mounted on a Z6. I shot 1500 photos with the help of peak focus in a dance school competition and deleted only 100 photos. Some because it was sequences and others out of focus. It unfolded on a poorly lit basketball court. Now, in terms of quality, nothing to envy a 70-200 2.8. I've also tried the 80-200 2.8 2-ring and they don't vary as much in sharpness. Less than what Matt shows us in this video between Z and F lenses. Finally, there is an 80-200 AF-S version that has an internal motor. Search a video of someone who can do it in a Z6 but only in Af Wide mode. And thanks Matt as always !! Greetings from Uruguay, take care!
Great video! Not the one that Nikon wants you to see. 🙂 I would like to see the same comparison but not on landscape photography, on portrait for example. Can you do that in one of your next videos?
Really informative Matt thanks. I moved to Sony a few years ago and really enjoyed the electronic viewfinder on my A7R3 but I am seeing really great, clean images from the Nikon F mount range. Temptation is to get a Z6 and a Tech-Art adapter and dip my toe back in the Nikon water. Their Nikon Pro support was always great but Sony seems really tricky to access, they keep telling me I'm not a Pro, maybe not in their eyes :-)
Yeah we don't know ... I am still trying to work out how to turn that stuff off ... conversely we can see the video looks good ... I don't think it is all computational ... interesting point though.
price is not all that matters, and in this technical marvel i don't understand why pay more exactly but i bet there are the few odd eggs out there, probably working for nasa or something like big company.
You seem to be confused about lenses and focal range - a 50-xxxx mm lens on a full frame (z7) is exactly starting at 50 mm, not an “equivalent of 75 mm” or anything other than 50 mm. There’s no such thing as a cropped lens, only lenses for cropped format, and cases (Nikon!) where the manufacturer forces the full frame camera to DX mode, even though it has nothing to do with putting a DX lens on it per-se... the camera switching to DX is a separate and Nikon specific decision to probably keep shooters from only buying DX lenses...
@@MattIrwinPhotography yep. Tbh its hard to judge from YT. (Short answer) They're so close in output, that the lens design, aperture and durability are the main factors aside from cost to consider like you said. The crazy thing about the Z lens is, it's so damn cheap you could just buy another if it breaks or just buy 2 initially, one being the rugged ver. and the other, you take to nice places. You'd still be at near a 10th the cost. I want to say you're buying the 2.8 zoom for low light and that's why it cost so much blah blah blah but you can push ISO safely to 51200 on a Z 50 for sports quality images. F2.8 at 6400 iso for fast action at night on avg. walking around. F6.3 at 25600 iso (+1/3 iso) I don't know what the iso invariance is on the Z 50. These days DOF is all that stands in anyone's way with these new cameras unless they are a good editor, you can edit Bokeh in (not practical).
Matt - great channel - fantastic work. I've got my Z6 (in addition to probably too many cameras) - what can I say, addicted to photography for too many years! My best to you where you are. Chris From Canada.
External Focus lenses suck dust (and water), and the bigger ones throw balance off on the tripod. The only thing worse than external focus is variable Aperture...
Matt Irwin Photography Hey Matt, I only ever use my UV filters when I go to the coast/beach to protect the main lens from spray. Once I’m home I remove, clean, and store them away ready for another time. Otherwise for all my event, portrait and wedding work, I never use filters at all, unless at the beach.
@@prl105 Fair enough, I always leave them on for the same reasons you do, protection. And they have saved my lenses a few times from fatal lens damage not just to airborne particles, but also impact damage. I'd prefer to blow $200 on a filter than $2-4 k on a lens. Cheers Matt
@@Mr09260 Hi Peter, that is another great idea, I actually rarely use hoods, as they slow me down, and I like flare in the lens ... we are all a little different arn't we. : ) I do use the lens hood on my 200-400mm because filters that size are very hard to find. Cheers Matt
I think I know what you are saying, but I don't really understand. Take this video on face value. In the situation presented these lenses are similar. That's it. I will shoot a portrait with it, I will go out at night, and again we can see. Some people don't have budget for a $3k 2.8 lens, so maybe they would like to know if they can shoot landscapes ... If they want to shoot concerts at night, they would never get this lens ... I talked about the 2.8 ...
way too long video. keep it shorter. have images online to be downloaded. I will watch a few videos. if I smell that you started getting jubjective and biased to gear, youre out. there were a few I followed and over time they were biased, had sponsored gears and probably money under the table. they are out. lets see what you do. keep the video length shorter.
Thanks Ron. I’ll do my best to meet RUclips’s 1 billion subscribers needs. I’ll continue to listen. And follow my nose. Up front I can tell you I don’t think it will be possible to like 100% of what I do. Physics won’t allow for it. Thanks for your feedback. Cheers Matt
Cheeky, aren't you Ron? You think Matt really gives a monkeys about being " on notice" He won't say it, because he's too polite, but I will! How about if you don't like the content, just sling your hook! Those of us who appreciate his words of wisdom will stick around!
![Jack Harlow - Hello Miss Johnson [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Q86_nlRoIGw/mqdefault.jpg)
Hi Matt. Good video. I picked up a used (well, 'like new never opened') 50-250 recently for $300. New they are up to $639 since the May price rises. For $179 I got the FTZ earlier on. I convinced myself that these two items were funded by selling my 70-200 2.8 VR with focus issues for $500. I am SHOCKED with how good the quality of the 50-250mm is. It leaves the OG 70-200 for dead! and I'm not missing it one bit. The sheer weight saving makes me actually want to take it out with me.
The other thing you didn't mention here is that the 50-250 is the advantageous 5x zoom range versus 3.1x of the 70-200. On cropped bodies the focal range between 50-70 makes it so much more usable, in my opinion. Not to mention that extra 20% tele.
Surely for the difference in price there are serious optical compromises being made. I wonder if these compromises are all being mitigated by the Z mount itself; ie the shortened flange distance? It was be interesting to see what the Z 70-200 puts out of it its going to be an optically similar formula to the F FL ED? Interesting that there is no full frame Z lenses at all yet.
Also nicely framed for your piece to camera. You set yourself up nicely with the intersecting line of the horizon and rolling hill.
John, Gold Coast.
Cheers John, great to have your feedback, and to hear another photog having similar results. Yes I wonder what the compromise is. For starters it is the lack of 2.8, then robustness, then weather sealing, then DX vs FX ... metal vs plastic. These are all real things that have an impact here and there and on build price. The 70-200 2.8 is made to be used everyday, 5000 frames per day for 10 years. I suspect a lens like this would not stand up to that if in a war zone, or safari park or with a photojournalist ... but yes I think the Z mount is contributing to it optically in these like for like conditions delivering a similar result ... I do think the Z 70-200 will be even better than the FL ED. How much so ... we don't really know yet. The delay is frustrating as the lens exists, I think Nikon are struggling to actually get it out of the factory. And if I was Nikon I would be saying, people are locked at home there is no rush. But that reason is pretty much starting to fade away globally now. Time will tell. Cheers matt
Hi Matt, Very interesting results. The new Z mount lenses seem to be getting better and better. Previous generation all-in-one or cheap telephoto zooms weren't all that impressive. And now high ISO and VR/IS makes things so much easier. However, the two big advantages of the fast aperture lenses are the subject isolation and the ability to use a faster shutter speed for the same other settings. This is critical for fast-moving action. you cannot photograph a fast-paced sporting even under floodlights and freeze the action at say 1/60 sec when 1/500 sec is needed. It doesn't matter if VR stops the camera shake - it can't freeze the action. But, in many other situations, it just doesn't matter. No doubt many people will be persuaded to get this new lens.
For sure it has a specific place. For low light high speed, it would be harder to justify. Although with ever increasing ISO performance, it is possible a compromise exists in there somewhere. Of course the $4000 lens is superior, for F stops, build quality, internal zoom mechanism, weather sealing and being 35mm. For me the idea of this video came about because we don't have native long end tele lenses besides this one fro Z, I wanted to see if it was any good as a stop gap lens ... and I am surprised by this test. Low light and portrait test coming soon ... watch this space : ). The Z7 high ISO performance is great. I wonder if I shot at 3200 or 6400 low light high shutter speed would it deliver ... could be a stretch. Might be my next test : ) thanks for sharing. Cheers Matt
Matt, as I said a couple of weeks ago, 'it aint broke, don't fix it' and this is exactly what I meant; a well-presented video, plenty of good information but one that leaves us thinking, and possibly with an unanswered question or two. You're asking us to engage and (I believe) that's what we want from you. I wonder how many are now saying, 'at $200, I can afford to buy and even break three or four of them and still be in front of the $4000 version with not a lot, if any, drop-off in image quality.' It aint broke mate!!
Thanks Grant for that feedback, much appreciated. You have pretty much nailed my intention. Yes I will head out at night as well and see if it performs as well ... keep you posted : ). Cheers Matt
Wow interesting how 90% of people could really just get by using the cheaper stuff , as opposed to spending a fortune for little improved results, but also realising this isn't a real extensive test .
Thanks Matt 🙂👍
The 70-200mm f2.8 is meant for professional uses that require the wider aperture, such as fast moving subjects, or shallow depth of field applications such as portrait photography. And like you pointed out Matt, that lens is built like a tank. Outside of those uses, a cheaper alternative can surely work for most people. I'm interested in the edge to edge sharpness though, even for landscape photography, since I often print very large prints.
Howdy Yuri, yep I agree. And I need to do some follow up testing. Coming soon. Watch this space : ). Cheers Matt
@@MattIrwinPhotography for sure. i'm locked in. Thanks for the reply.
The thing is 50-250 is a stunningly sharp lens. Corner to corner. I am not surprised by these results. The only softening can be seen at 250mm, but not a significant one.
Excellent video and it just shows you do not nave to pay $3000 for a 70 - 200 f 2.8 to do landscape because you would have to use it a F 7.1 and above anyway. A good comparison would be in a covered Sports stadium or shaded bush area where the Nikon 50- 250 would be usable by comparison because of its compromise between low shutter speeds or hi ISOs when hand held. I have those lenses and the D750 and a Z50. I brought Z50 new for $1050 NZ with both kit lenses and as you pointed out the 50 - 250 in the right light is excellent . If you just want an excellent travel camera or just starting out in photography, $1000 Z50 kit or $7000 for a full frame set up it’s a no-brainer really.
Having had the Z50 with both kit lenses as my big step into photography, I’m more than satisfied for its capabilities and price point. Out here in the states, the lens is running up about 400 bucks while the new 70-200mm Z lens, yet to be released, will be approximately 2860 bucks taxes included. Is it supposed to be good in low light? Not at all really especially with the aperture going down to f/4.5 at the max. Is it going to outperform most of the Z lenses or F mount lenses that are more expensive? Probably not or at least fair okay against them. But for that price point, I’ve been able to get amazing reach and fantastic image quality of the animals I photograph when at the zoo. Even when in the San Diego Zoo Safari Park which is a massive place with expansive field exhibits, the images pulled from the lens are astounding. I wholeheartedly recommend anyone who has the Z50 or any other Z mount camera to pick it up as your travel kit lens at the bare minimum. The Z line up lenses have been pulling out some fantastic imagery compared to their f mount counterparts.
I picked up a good condition 70-200 f2.8E FL ED on eBay from a guy who lives ten minutes away in Melbourne for $1890. Have tested it out and more than happy. Lived up to the reviews, definitely!
Well it's oficial I used to watch for the photography but now I watch it for the good vibes! Thanks! You really make me want to go outside and shoot.
Love from Portugal!
Lovely feedback Nippius. Cheers matt
Thanks for the test, when I remember my 55-200mm f5.6 vrII on d5300/d7200 and the phenomenal resolution that setup provided, the Sigma Art 50mm f1.4 was slightly worse, a great lens on the old Dx!
Great surprise. Of course for portraiture still 70-200 is much better because of the f/2.8 bokeh, but for landscapes and cityscapes they perform almost identically...and the weight matters.
I love how you colorgrade mid video, almost like a transition. Its a nice touch and different.
How if I am using the 50-250 on a FF body?And keep 24-70 f4 FF lens for the wider side. That would give me best of both worlds, right?
Hi Matt, good to see you. I am wondering if you used the Z50 to take the shots you would have similar results?
Yes I think they would be, but I need to do a follow up video from all the questions that have been asked about this video. In the coming weeks I will answer that question. : ). Cheers Matt
At one point I thought you were channelling Dennis Denuto - and I'd have to agree with you! Y
LOL : )
Matt now that the Z 24-200 is available would you consider it over the APS-C 50-250 or if one already has the crop 50-250 lens just call it a day and move on? Curious. Or even the upcoming 24-120?
Nice birds! Well spotted Marc.
: )
How do you think the 50-250mm performed?
I have the 50-250 on my Z50.. I came from a D7100 (which I still have and love) , along with a few F mount lenses..I was pleasantly surprised and actually shocked with the performance..thanks Matt !
It is amazing seeing the differences and similarities between those two lenses. What are you feeling? Whats driving you? Whats motivating you? Thats more of what photography is about than any gear. But of course the gear helps us to get to the point where we can convey those things more accurately or even more ruggedly. Thank you again for your continues inspiration and fantastic viewpoints my brother. Always a highlight!
Thanks so much Shane, it is a balance of the two. Ultimately gear without goals will get you nowhere fast ... I think there is a video in that ... coming next week : ). Cheers Matt
Yeah Dan it is good, next I will try it at night and into the sun. : )
In this specific setup the 50-250mm performed well, but most cheap telephoto lenses would. It was middle of the day, a lot of light, you had a tripod and time to shoot a picture. How about do some low light photography with some action? Some wildlife photography in the forest?
Good plan. Wildlife is not really me. Happy to go low light. I reckon like for like settings it will do well.
@Taipei Geek I dont see where you are coming from. The lenses won't magically change, optically, in low light. There is more chance of seeing lens flaws in brighter light.
If you simply mean a low light test with the pro lens at f/2.8 (and a 2.33 stop lower ISO) than the kit lens at f/6.3, well that's obvious and not even worth testing. It'll be an ISO test and not a lens quality test.
Or are you wanting to see how AF performance compares in low light? The faster lens should perform much better.
Hey Taipei Geek - I would not be so sure about other cheap telephotos (I've had many) - this Z lens (even this super cheap one) is much sharper then the old AF-D and AF-S DX crop lenses by far. I also own an old Full frame 2.8 Lens and it's better optically than that. I own them all and the Z glass makes a lot of difference. Trust me I was surprised about that. Cheers and stay safe.
There was a time when more expensive lenses really made a difference however with modern manufacturing and quality control it’s more a question of light transmission, build quality and weather sealing and speed of AF motors. Unless you print big or crop a lot the average person won’t notice the difference.
I could buy 15 z mount lens to compensate for the weather seal
Funny to see that a cheap Nikon lens for mirrorless is actually as good as an expensive Nikon lens for DSLR, it shows that the mirrorless lenses are generally in a different class than DSLR lenses, and that is another reason to switch from Nikon's DSLR system to Nikon's new mirrorless system!
Cheers Jess
Totally agree. Just an example of what Nikon are up to with their ‘cheap’ Z glass... Really interesting.
a 2.8 lens is meant to be shot at 2.8. that is what you are paying for.. you can't compare them both... you are paying the premium for 2.8....... if you don't need 2.8 there is no need to get the expansive lens.
Another brilliant video as and shows up the new Z mount is the way forward
NikCan, it shows potential, this is a limited landscape test. But my gut feeling is it will work well in other areas relative to its tiny cost. I will do more testing and report back : ). Cheers Matt
Matt Irwin Photography Looking forward to your Matt Irwin’s Investigates future advances of camera and lens designs and directions we may venture into as photographers
Oooof Matt what focus mode did you have it on. Maybe the jacket was putting it off?
Lol. Face detect. I was a long way from the camera. It reallly wanted the background. I need to change how fast wants to move when I spin or wave my hands. It set to the middle right now. I’ll get optimal settings one day. 😀
Still better quality than the gh5 that everyone uses 🤷♂️. Keep it up sir nice to see someone putting the z stuff to the test
You guys have a mean breeze blowing. I was in the Geelong area last December with a local buddy shooting a timelapse sunset from a lookout tower. Both our rigs on tripods came crashing on hard concrete😖😱. Cheers from 🇨🇦😊
Can you compare 50-250 vs 24-200 Z-mount lens?
Thanks for taking us through this Matt. I'm now thinking the Z 50-250mm will get me started at least. I'm building up a kit after a 15 year break. Loving the Z6. I have the 24-70mm f4 kit lens and am contemplating investing in the Z 35mm 1.8 prime or maybe the Z 20mm 1.8 if I win Lotto (as I'm passionate about low light and night shots, timelapse and quite a lot of video). Thanks again, your episodes always inspire and get me thinking.
For sure Selwyn, this is a test for landscape in good light, I will follow up with a low light and portrait test in the coming weeks ... and the thing of most concern to me with a lens like this is toughness, which cannot be anywhere near matched against a lens like the 70-200 2.8. Cheers Matt
@@MattIrwinPhotography That's great. I'll wait to see how the Z 50-250 handles low light. I'm not in a rush and will enjoy contemplating in the meantime. Thanks again Matt.
Lovely production and information. Thanks Matt.
Thanks Gavin, what camera are you creating with in 2020? Cheers Matt
Matt Irwin Photography Hi Matt, I’m using the Z6 with two native lenses and one adapted lens. Have commented on your videos before. It’s awesome information and they give me confidence in the z mount system. Unfortunately I haven’t seen much advertising from Nikon; they could do a lot better in this area (which I’ve heard from either yourself or another Pro say previously)
Hi Matt can you please do a video of z24-200 on a zfc
So great to see that formation of Cormorants 08:17!!!!!
Birds in flight rock so much Charles, I totally agree. : )
Thanks Matt, I really appreciate the practical side of this. My new Z50 will be in my hands in a couple days!! This video shows me the purchase of this camera was a great choice. Keep up the great work, love the content you're producing in a positive energetic manner.
Thanks BK for the feedback, and enjoy the z50. Did you choose the twin or single lens kit? Cheers Matt
It's a shame that Nikon doesn't give us a lightweight full frame tele zoom lens for Z. Maybe a F4 or so. There will be a 24-200 but I don't expect the quality to be good on this lens. I want to buy a Z6 but I need a lightweight tele for hiking. Otherwise I have to go for Fuji. Z50 misses other Z DX lenses ...
Will you also compare the kit lenses? (16-50 vs 24-70) I downloaded 16-50 raw samples some days ago and edited them and was completely shocked on how good the quality was. Didn't expect that.
the crop 50-250 looks like the new coming Z 24-200 FX the same cheap and nit S Lens, still the prices competition and weight i prefer the 24-200
Well, to me this is more sensational than your usual content Matt. The $200 lens matching the $4000 lens it being "even slightly sharper"... Well... really? I wonder what is the bokeh in close to midrange focus situations? The F-mount DX 55-300 for instance had some really horrible bokeh (e.g. rabbit in high grass at 10-20m distance). How's the quality of the out of focus area in such situations?
Hi Andreas, indeed, it is a funny thing, I never think about out of focus areas, and quality of bokeh, as I find it to be a very subjective area. Some people like it creaming, some people like it swirly, some people like it punchy ... This was a test for landscape, day, on a tripod. I was not trying to say anything else. And if one is wondering how it works for portraits, they need to find a review about portraits etc. What I can tell you if you watch from here ruclips.net/video/N9LtIfSehSI/видео.html you can see this is the lens at work, with the out of focus areas behind it. : ) I suppose my style of video making is to show what I get, present outcomes to screen, and at the end of the day allow you to make your own judgement based on the data presented. And what I will be doing next is creating a video with this lens at night, and for portraits as a follow up to this video. I agree, let's push it harder. : ) Cheers matt
Why didn't you use the Z7 since the DX on it is about the same as the Z50. My son is enjoying his new Z50 I got him for his birthday.
Yep I totally should have ... sometimes my brain gets stuck in the '4k video will do' space ... and not the stills. I learn every day : ). Cheers Matt
@@MattIrwinPhotography We hope we learn. ;)
Surprisingly similar, but if you shoot at f/4 why use a f/2.8 lens. Tests of inexpensive lenses compared to similar more expensive ones, seldom get very interesting if you don't test things where the less expensive lens falls behind. Do the same comparison on a portrait shoot and it would be much clearer why many people are prepared to pay the higher price.
Love the orange jacket. Great video. It would be interesting to see still images.
With Matching sneakers too
I'm all about the fashion ... : )
Cheers Barry, do you mean as a download? Cheers Matt
It's hard to argue with perfection. How are the still images of the 50 - 250 on the z7 for portraits where f6 - f11 is handy for getting clothes etc in focus. I tend to shoot at about 125mm and the small size and lightweight lens would be perfect around the studio if its eye autofocus and sharpness was up to the 45mp sensor
Great comparison! I am always surprised how good the z glass is. Btw there is a third option if someone needs fast aperture in a telephoto without selling a kidney, the old afd 70-200 f2.8 is a true workhorse with great image quality, and it is dirt cheap. Of course it won't autofocus on the z6/7 but worth the price I think.
I did some work with an 80-200 2.8 AF D (Push Pull) mounted on a Z6. I shot 1500 photos with the help of peak focus in a dance school competition and deleted only 100 photos. Some because it was sequences and others out of focus. It unfolded on a poorly lit basketball court. Now, in terms of quality, nothing to envy a 70-200 2.8. I've also tried the 80-200 2.8 2-ring and they don't vary as much in sharpness. Less than what Matt shows us in this video between Z and F lenses.
Finally, there is an 80-200 AF-S version that has an internal motor. Search a video of someone who can do it in a Z6 but only in Af Wide mode.
And thanks Matt as always !!
Greetings from Uruguay, take care!
@@borocotochacha thanks for the detailed reply, its nice to hear that you have great results with that glass!
Excellent video. Thank you
I've ridden past that hill many times. I didn't realise what a good photo vantage point it is.
Yeah it is a good spot, I have returned to many, many times ...
Are orange jackets and orange sneakers a big thing in Australia?
Lol if you are me. 😀
Oh , time is change
great review and comparison!!!
Great video! Not the one that Nikon wants you to see. 🙂
I would like to see the same comparison but not on landscape photography, on portrait for example.
Can you do that in one of your next videos?
For sure Vlad, this vid has generated a lot of interest beyond the landscape. I'm on it. : ). Cheers
Really informative Matt thanks. I moved to Sony a few years ago and really enjoyed the electronic viewfinder on my A7R3 but I am seeing really great, clean images from the Nikon F mount range. Temptation is to get a Z6 and a Tech-Art adapter and dip my toe back in the Nikon water. Their Nikon Pro support was always great but Sony seems really tricky to access, they keep telling me I'm not a Pro, maybe not in their eyes :-)
come to England....warmest spring for ages LOL
Would love to. : )
good lens for family gatherings and non professional work id say
Thanks for the video Matt. I regretfully have to say, I told you the Z version of the 70-200 is nowhere in sight.
LOL I think it will be here soon, month or two. Otherwise we send out a search party : ) Cheers Matt
@@MattIrwinPhotography lol. Release the hounds.
But what have Nikon embedded into the Z mount lens RAW files 🤔
Yeah we don't know ... I am still trying to work out how to turn that stuff off ... conversely we can see the video looks good ... I don't think it is all computational ... interesting point though.
Is it possible to compare image quality for stills from both the lens?
Yep it is towards the end of the vid. Around 15-16 mins. 👍😀
Haha.. My bad. Watching it now
price is not all that matters, and in this technical marvel i don't understand why pay more exactly but i bet there are the few odd eggs out there, probably working for nasa or something like big company.
You seem to be confused about lenses and focal range - a 50-xxxx mm lens on a full frame (z7) is exactly starting at 50 mm, not an “equivalent of 75 mm” or anything other than 50 mm. There’s no such thing as a cropped lens, only lenses for cropped format, and cases (Nikon!) where the manufacturer forces the full frame camera to DX mode, even though it has nothing to do with putting a DX lens on it per-se... the camera switching to DX is a separate and Nikon specific decision to probably keep shooters from only buying DX lenses...
Good luck getting the 50-250 for $200! More like $500 2nd hand on EBay. Perhaps supply and demand kicked in after this video aired?😊😊😊
When bought in the kit is what I meant. Although it’s been a few years since I watched this. 😀
Lens hoods..! vital . 👏 👋
I almost never use them, I love some flare in the lens : ) 99% of the time. Cheers Matt
Only differences I see is the Z is sharper and the 2.8 has more tonal range.
Hi Donovan, It really is interesting how they perform. Do you think the tonal difference could be delivered in post? Cheers Matt
@@MattIrwinPhotography yep. Tbh its hard to judge from YT. (Short answer)
They're so close in output, that the lens design, aperture and durability are the main factors aside from cost to consider like you said.
The crazy thing about the Z lens is, it's so damn cheap you could just buy another if it breaks or just buy 2 initially, one being the rugged ver. and the other, you take to nice places. You'd still be at near a 10th the cost.
I want to say you're buying the 2.8 zoom for low light and that's why it cost so much blah blah blah but you can push ISO safely to 51200 on a Z 50 for sports quality images.
F2.8 at 6400 iso for fast action at night on avg. walking around.
F6.3 at 25600 iso (+1/3 iso)
I don't know what the iso invariance is on the Z 50.
These days DOF is all that stands in anyone's way with these new cameras unless they are a good editor, you can edit Bokeh in (not practical).
Matt - great channel - fantastic work. I've got my Z6 (in addition to probably too many cameras) - what can I say, addicted to photography for too many years! My best to you where you are. Chris From Canada.
G'day Chris, thank you. Great to have you on board. Stay safe. Cheers Matt
External Focus lenses suck dust (and water), and the bigger ones throw balance off on the tripod.
The only thing worse than external focus is variable Aperture...
That UV filter on your 70-200 should be removed in this kind of test.
Good video 👍🏻 but I have Sony 🎥 sorry, but very interesting 👌 best cinematic greetings from germany
All god Schöfer, you have the camera that works for you and that is awesome. Cheers matt
a 2.8 lens is meant to be shot at 2.8. that is what you are paying for.. you can't compare them both...
Well I did say that ... you pay for the 2.8, but if you don't care about that it is an interesting proposition ...
too much stress on camera mount without using the tripod mount.
Yeah. Agree. It was to allow for the quick change. 😀
Another well invested 20 minutes. On my part. I'm sure your time investment was much greater.
Yes sir. These vids take between 5-15 hours to make. Depending on location, length, number of camera used etc. 😀. I really enjoy creating them.
Buy the 50-250mm, rent the 70-200mm :)
70-200 is for portraits, not ...not landscape
LOL not in my world. :) I have a video coming out today which is largely shot landcapes on a 70-200 cheers Matt
@@MattIrwinPhotography really? wow, I haven't heard that a lot. But yes, I can imagine why you'd use it that way. probably with a tripod though
You've sold me on the 50/250...how about you sell it to me?...200 sounds good!
LOL Peter.
And seeing the 50/250 is better than the 70/200,you won't need it anymore.I suppose I could give you 199 for that one!$
Lol
UV filter on the 70-200, WTF?
G'day Paul, I have UV's on all my lenses pretty much. Have been doing that over 30 years. What do you do? Cheers matt
@@MattIrwinPhotography I use the Lens Hood and Insurance to protect my Digital Lenses
Matt Irwin Photography Hey Matt, I only ever use my UV filters when I go to the coast/beach to protect the main lens from spray. Once I’m home I remove, clean, and store them away ready for another time. Otherwise for all my event, portrait and wedding work, I never use filters at all, unless at the beach.
@@prl105 Fair enough, I always leave them on for the same reasons you do, protection. And they have saved my lenses a few times from fatal lens damage not just to airborne particles, but also impact damage. I'd prefer to blow $200 on a filter than $2-4 k on a lens. Cheers Matt
@@Mr09260 Hi Peter, that is another great idea, I actually rarely use hoods, as they slow me down, and I like flare in the lens ... we are all a little different arn't we. : ) I do use the lens hood on my 200-400mm because filters that size are very hard to find. Cheers Matt
try to do the videos much shorter..
Haim Green ok
@@MattIrwinPhotography but I do like your videos :)
Maybe next time you compare an apple with a banana? It would be at least funny - although both are useless
I think I know what you are saying, but I don't really understand. Take this video on face value. In the situation presented these lenses are similar. That's it. I will shoot a portrait with it, I will go out at night, and again we can see. Some people don't have budget for a $3k 2.8 lens, so maybe they would like to know if they can shoot landscapes ... If they want to shoot concerts at night, they would never get this lens ... I talked about the 2.8 ...
way too long video. keep it shorter. have images online to be downloaded. I will watch a few videos. if I smell that you started getting jubjective and biased to gear, youre out. there were a few I followed and over time they were biased, had sponsored gears and probably money under the table. they are out. lets see what you do. keep the video length shorter.
Thanks Ron. I’ll do my best to meet RUclips’s 1 billion subscribers needs. I’ll continue to listen. And follow my nose. Up front I can tell you I don’t think it will be possible to like 100% of what I do. Physics won’t allow for it. Thanks for your feedback. Cheers Matt
Cheeky, aren't you Ron? You think Matt really gives a monkeys about being " on notice" He won't say it, because he's too polite, but I will!
How about if you don't like the content, just sling your hook! Those of us who appreciate his words of wisdom will stick around!