Intending to consolidate on Nikon side coming from m43
This topic is locked. This message is locked.
|
-
#2. "RE: Intending to consolidate on Nikon side coming from" | In response to Reply # 0
Mon 18-Nov-19 05:59 PMEven with the smaller DX sensor, the larger mount of the Nikon Z cameras allows for better optical designs. The 16-50 lens is inexpensive and small, so it's a good option anyway. But the test results I've seen show remarkable quality compared to alternatives. I think the 16-50 is a very good option either because of it's small size or as a starting point for the Nikon system. The 50-250 is supposed to be good, but I have not heard details yet.
The 24-70 f/4 for the Z mount is remarkably good. It's still relatively small and light. Optical quality is excellent. It's a full frame lens and it is more expensive. At the wide end it's not that wide given the crop sensor of the Z50.
With the FTZ, the Nikon 70-300 is another good option. There are a lot of versions of 70-300 lenses, but the most recent one is quite good.
If you actually needed a fast lens, the new Nikon lenses are excellent. You could also keep an eye out for the two new compact prime lenses on the roadmap.
You can always spend more money on lenses for sharper, faster, etc. There's a balance in what really makes a difference, and I'm not sure you really need the sharpest lenses unless you are making large prints. Otherwise the images from all these lenses are quite good and you'll probably be very happy with the results.Eric Bowles
Director - Nikonians Academy
Nikonians Team Moderator
My Gallery
Workshops and Private Instruction
Nikonians membership — my most important photographic investment, after the camera-
#3. "RE: Intending to consolidate on Nikon side coming from" | In response to Reply # 2
>Even with the smaller DX sensor, the larger mount of the
>Nikon Z cameras allows for better optical designs. The 16-50
>lens is inexpensive and small, so it's a good option anyway.
>But the test results I've seen show remarkable quality
>compared to alternatives. I think the 16-50 is a very good
>option either because of it's small size
And the smallness adding to the portability of Z50+16-50
or/and there's be an inherent design advantage? Lens design
is arkana to me
>or as a starting
>point for the Nikon system. The 50-250 is supposed to be
>good, but I have not heard details yet.
>
>The 24-70 f/4 for the Z mount is remarkably good. It's still
>relatively small and light. Optical quality is excellent.
>It's a full frame lens and it is more expensive. At the wide
>end it's not that wide given the crop sensor of the Z50.
I'd assume it to surpass the 16-50 in optical quality, and, yes
it be more a 24-72 or some such on DX
>With the FTZ, the Nikon 70-300 is another good option. There
>are a lot of versions of 70-300 lenses, but the most recent
>one is quite good.
Good to hear. I hesitated thinking it to attempt to much, quality
resting with the 70-200/210 designs.
>If you actually needed a fast lens, the new Nikon lenses are
>excellent. You could also keep an eye out for the two new
>compact prime lenses on the roadmap.
The 35/1.8 quite fast and sort of 'normal' lens on DX as many an
analog camera had it built in fixed.
>You can always spend more money on lenses for sharper, faster,
>etc. There's a balance in what really makes a difference, and
>I'm not sure you really need the sharpest lenses unless you
>are making large prints.
I don't print often and 'large' would amount roughly to dbl letter-
sized
>Otherwise the images from all these
>lenses are quite good and you'll probably be very happy with
>the results.
Thanks for filling in the gaps, presently large ones for me. These
items around the Z50 are very new and the FX in the Z-line only
a good year older.-
#4. "RE: Intending to consolidate on Nikon side coming from" | In response to Reply # 3
Have to come back yet again to my earlier answering.
What I'd be giving up in a trade (and therewith a simplification) is this m43 gear:
G81 (=85)
Olympus M. Zuiko lenses 12-40/2.8, 75/1.8
Panasonic Lumix G lenses 7-14/4.0, 35-100/2.8
sm. items (extension rings, pol filter) but not the tiny Panasonic GM5+1.7/2.0 and the Oly macro 60/2.8 (there not being a Z-macro lens at this time I believe).
Those lenses rate tops at DxO (for whatever that is worth) and they astonish me every now and then in their prowess. The Nikon 'vacation lens' 18-200 VRII looks poorly in the respective realms of the m43 lenses.
I have no way to judge the Z 16-50 against the M.Zuiko 12-40 or the 50-250 against the Lumix 35-100. But I have the sneaking suspicion that Z-lens output viewed even on the screen might not match the m43 glass.
All I would gain with some certainty is a simplification of camera bag contents in that I'd have all Nikon equipment (D7500, Z50; similarities in handling camera body, one menu structure to be familiar with). Also, I'd benefit from better DR; m43 sensor can suffer low light issues, it's what made me fo APS-C.
I remain uncertain at this time ...take advantage of the introductory offer (until NV28) or wait and see what early adopters report and then perhaps - and with more knowledge - jump at another occasion?
>>Even with the smaller DX sensor, the larger mount of the
>>Nikon Z cameras allows for better optical designs. The
>16-50
>>lens is inexpensive and small, so it's a good option
>anyway.
>>But the test results I've seen show remarkable quality
>>compared to alternatives. I think the 16-50 is a very
>good
>>option either because of it's small size
>
>And the smallness adding to the portability of Z50+16-50
>or/and there's be an inherent design advantage? Lens design
>is arkana to me
>
>>or as a starting
>>point for the Nikon system. The 50-250 is supposed to be
>>good, but I have not heard details yet.
>>
>>The 24-70 f/4 for the Z mount is remarkably good. It's
>still
>>relatively small and light. Optical quality is excellent.
>
>>It's a full frame lens and it is more expensive. At the
>wide
>>end it's not that wide given the crop sensor of the Z50.
>
>
>I'd assume it to surpass the 16-50 in optical quality, and,
>yes
>it be more a 24-72 or some such on DX
>
>>With the FTZ, the Nikon 70-300 is another good option.
>There
>>are a lot of versions of 70-300 lenses, but the most
>recent
>>one is quite good.
>
>Good to hear. I hesitated thinking it to attempt to much,
>quality
>resting with the 70-200/210 designs.
>
>>If you actually needed a fast lens, the new Nikon lenses
>are
>>excellent. You could also keep an eye out for the two
>new
>>compact prime lenses on the roadmap.
>
>The 35/1.8 quite fast and sort of 'normal' lens on DX as many
>an
>analog camera had it built in fixed.
>
>>You can always spend more money on lenses for sharper,
>faster,
>>etc. There's a balance in what really makes a difference,
>and
>>I'm not sure you really need the sharpest lenses unless
>you
>>are making large prints.
>
>I don't print often and 'large' would amount roughly to dbl
>letter-
>sized
>
>>Otherwise the images from all these
>>lenses are quite good and you'll probably be very happy
>with
>>the results.
>
>Thanks for filling in the gaps, presently large ones for me.
>These
>items around the Z50 are very new and the FX in the Z-line
>only
>a good year older.-
#5. "RE: Intending to consolidate on Nikon side coming from" | In response to Reply # 4
Mon 25-Nov-19 07:00 AMI don't know the 4/3 systems and glass as well as you do. The 16-50 needs to have some context - it's a $100 lens. The 24-70 f/4 is still a small lens and it is better in terms of the optics - especially paired with the 14-30 f/4. But both of those are full frame lenses.
That the 16-50 is even in the conversation is pretty remarkable. It's much better than the 18-200. The 16-50 will hold its own or be better than any DX lens Nikon makes. If you are going with the Z50, I'd probably get the 16-50 because the price for performance is so good. And as you point out, with the FTZ you can use all your other Nikon lenses.Eric Bowles
Director - Nikonians Academy
Nikonians Team Moderator
My Gallery
Workshops and Private Instruction
Nikonians membership — my most important photographic investment, after the camera-
-
#7. "RE: Intending to consolidate on Nikon side coming from" | In response to Reply # 6
Mon 25-Nov-19 01:58 PMThat sounds like a good choice.
The big advantage of the Z50 is that it is small making it a reasonable replacement for a 4/3 system if that is a priority. While the lens is remarkably good and a big step up from the 18-200 in quality, it's a little short of the 24-70 f/4 and other Z lenses.
It's really nice that there are so many good choices, and sitting tight for another year is a viable option.
I think the Sigma 100-400 is an excellent choice!Eric Bowles
Director - Nikonians Academy
Nikonians Team Moderator
My Gallery
Workshops and Private Instruction
Nikonians membership — my most important photographic investment, after the camera
-
-
-
-
-
G
Upload images
6
Uploading and including images in forums available to members on Silver membership level or higher. Please upgrade to take full advantage.
Before I jump I would like to know more about the 16-50 and the 50-250 (both rather slow). Am I giving up optical quality and noticeably so?
I'm into photography for over 60 years, never as an artist but documentary (archaeology, art & culture history). I used Olympus Pen-F long, long ago, later Nikon FM2 with shift and more, then 12 years ago into retirement with m43 but for birding I switched to D7500, Sigma 100-400 due to m43 low light issues.
TNX for opinions, considerations, pointers (those two Z50 kit lenses). -- Ren
--- NIK ADMIN LOCK BOT v1.00 ---
Post locked 14-Apr-2024 13:35:34 CEST since more than 36 months old
---