Z7-Z6 Lenses

1192022242530

Comments

  • SearcySearcy Posts: 786Member
    Symphotic said:

    Searcy said:

    Symphotic said:

    Searcy said:

    Last week I saw that Adorama had a used Z mount 35mm 1.8S so I bought it. It arrived yesterday. Here is my first shot with it. I have always loved the 35mm focal length. I think I'll be looking at the 85mm next.

    I have the 35 and the 85. I'm happy with both.

    How to you like that Les Paul? I was thinking about postponing my next lens acquisition in order to buy an ES-339, but I saw the Les Paul Studio Model in a shop for a pretty good price.
    I love it. I actually have two Les Pauls and two SGs. The only think I have like an ES is a 1989 Gibson Chet Atkins Country Gentleman which has the nicest next I have ever played.
    Les Pauls and SGs are as good as it gets.

    After a bit of looking around I found a guitar trader with Custom Shop ES-339 from 2007 (the first year they were made.) It’s beautiful despite it’s nicks, dings, and stink of cigarette smoke. It came out of Sony’s recording studio here. I was told Gibson gave it to Sony to try to get as many recording artists to play it as possible when the ES-339 first came out. It certainly has been played a bit, and the original pickups are gone and replaced with custom hand-made pickups in both positions. I wish I knew who did that and why.

    I’ll post a picture later. I’ll use my 35 mm S for the photo. EDIT: I used my 24-70 f/2.8 instead:

    Untitled

    I’m trying to figure out how to play Bach’s Cello Suites on it. The weird guitar tuning is messing with my mind: I’m more used to violin and mandolin than guitar.
    That's a beauty. I've always liked the 339.

    This is the rest of the Les Paul from the other shot.

    1988 Gibson Les Paul

    Nikon Z 6
    NIKKOR Z 35mm f/1.8 S
    ƒ/1.8 (Should have gone for a little more DOF)
    35.0 mm
    1/250
    ISO 800

    I found this as a bare wood body and neck at the Nashville Flee market and took it home. In the late 90s through 2010 I had a business making and rearing guitar and bass pickups. I still dabble in it from time to time. I actually a bass player. I fake it with guitars but I'm not very good.
  • rmprmp Posts: 585Member
    That was a good review of the 24-200. If anyone does an image quality comparison between the 24-70 f 2.8 and the 24-200 f4-6.3 please report the differences.
    Robert M. Poston: D4, D810, V3, 14-24 F2.8, 24-70 f2.8, 70-200 f2.8, 80-400, 105 macro.
  • donaldejosedonaldejose Posts: 3,415Member
    When Nikon announced the Z mount they said it would enable the creation of better lenses. It seems they are correct, all Z mount lenses seem to be quite good.
  • rmprmp Posts: 585Member
    Is the old 200mm F2.0 sharper that the new 70-200 f2.8 at 200 mm?
    Robert M. Poston: D4, D810, V3, 14-24 F2.8, 24-70 f2.8, 70-200 f2.8, 80-400, 105 macro.
  • PB_PMPB_PM Posts: 4,493Member
    The thing I don't get about the 24-200mm is why they didn't follow the older formula of 3.5-5.6. Surely it isn't a size and weight issue. F6.3 at 200mm makes it more difficult to isolate subjects that aren't right on top of you.
    If I take a good photo it's not my camera's fault.
  • WestEndFotoWestEndFoto Posts: 3,675Member
    rmp said:

    Is the old 200mm F2.0 sharper that the new 70-200 f2.8 at 200 mm?

    I tried that. A friend has the 200 and I have the zoom. At 2.8 it is really close. Hard to tell. If I had to choose, I would pick the zoom.

    That said, I would expect a new 200 2.0E or S to significantly beat both the 70-200 2.8E and the 200 2.0G, even wide open.
  • rmprmp Posts: 585Member
    Thanks, WestEndFoto.
    Robert M. Poston: D4, D810, V3, 14-24 F2.8, 24-70 f2.8, 70-200 f2.8, 80-400, 105 macro.
  • WestEndFotoWestEndFoto Posts: 3,675Member
    rmp said:

    Thanks, WestEndFoto.

    Yes, I am extremely tempted to bite the bullet and just get the 200 2.0G so I have tried it out. But the 70-200 2.8E is incredibly sharp at 200mm. The only advantage to the prime is f/2.0. That is a big deal to me, but I will suffer it until a proper modern even sharper prime comes out to fill the hole in my "portrait set", which currently includes the 28 1.4E, 58 1.4G, 105 1.4E, the 70-200 2.8E as a 200mm stopgap and the 400mm 2.8E.
  • rmprmp Posts: 585Member
    Do you own Nikon stock?
    Robert M. Poston: D4, D810, V3, 14-24 F2.8, 24-70 f2.8, 70-200 f2.8, 80-400, 105 macro.
  • WestEndFotoWestEndFoto Posts: 3,675Member
    rmp said:

    Do you own Nikon stock?

    No. Investing in the shares of my hobby would be an imprudent investment strategy in my opinion. I try not to let personal biases affect financial matters.
  • PB_PMPB_PM Posts: 4,493Member
    Considering that Nikon stock was bleeding like crazy even before the current economic crash, that would have been a poor choice anyways.
    If I take a good photo it's not my camera's fault.
  • tc88tc88 Posts: 537Member
    Maybe someone could have shorted it to pay for the lens. :smile:
  • donaldejosedonaldejose Posts: 3,415Member
    WEF: 400mm as a portrait prime? Don't you have trouble communicating with the subject? I knew a professional photographer who sold his 200mm f2 because it was too limited in use. He found he preferred and got much more use out of 85, 105 and 135mm primes.
  • WestEndFotoWestEndFoto Posts: 3,675Member

    WEF: 400mm as a portrait prime? Don't you have trouble communicating with the subject? I knew a professional photographer who sold his 200mm f2 because it was too limited in use. He found he preferred and got much more use out of 85, 105 and 135mm primes.

    Yes, it is certainly a challenge. A walkie talkie works. I am also a loud yeller.
  • donaldejosedonaldejose Posts: 3,415Member
    edited April 2020
    Personally, I do not use more than about 150mm on a f2.8 zoom. I just feel too far away beyond that. However, seven years ago I did shoot this self-portrait headshot at 200mm and f2.8 to achieve good bokeh.

    outsidebokehtest01_24250289438_o
    Post edited by donaldejose on
  • donaldejosedonaldejose Posts: 3,415Member
    edited April 2020
    Here is a guy trying to use a 500mm for portraits. It is sort of funny to see the distance he has to be from the model and the difficulty of communicating at that distance. But it can be done. I find it easier to achieve good bokeh outdoors by choosing a location where the background is far away from the model, as I did in the above example. Bokeh can be enhanced by increased lens millimeters and wide f-stop creating a small depth of field or by a large distance between the subject and the background.

    Post edited by donaldejose on
  • WestEndFotoWestEndFoto Posts: 3,675Member

    Personally, I do not use more than about 150mm on a f2.8 zoom. I just feel too far away beyond that. However, seven years ago I did shoot this self-portrait headshot at 200mm and f2.8 to achieve good bokeh.

    outsidebokehtest01_24250289438_o

    Handsome dude!
  • WestEndFotoWestEndFoto Posts: 3,675Member

    Here is a guy trying to use a 500mm for portraits. It is sort of funny to see the distance he has to be from the model and the difficulty of communicating at that distance. But it can be done. I find it easier to achieve good bokeh outdoors by choosing a location where the background is far away from the model, as I did in the above example. Bokeh can be enhanced by increased lens millimeters and wide f-stop creating a small depth of field or by a large distance between the subject and the background.

    When I use my 400, it is not about the bokeh. All the lenses in my portrait set (28 1.4, 58 1.4, 105 1.4, 200 2.8 (provided by a 70-200 2.8E at 200) and 400 2.8 provide good bokeh.

    It is about the perspective. For one, you can control which part of a background is actually in the image - and for two, that particular part will be hugely magnified. Almost everything in the background is in the image when I shoot with a 28, whether I like the background or not.

    When shooting for perspective, I am shooting stopped down to some degree (perhaps a lot), because I want the background to be recognizable, albeit with the right amount of blur to provide subject background separation.
  • PB_PMPB_PM Posts: 4,493Member
    edited April 2020
    I love shooting at 200mm+ for portraits, , both the 70-200mm F2.8 and back in the day the 300mm F4, even with a TC. Haven't tried with the 200-400mm, would be a little award. Long telephotos compresses the background, while allowing you to use say F8-10 to get the face sharp. I find anything less than 85mm too close for adults. I find shorter focal lengths work well with little kids, lets you get up close into their world.
    Post edited by PB_PM on
    If I take a good photo it's not my camera's fault.
  • donaldejosedonaldejose Posts: 3,415Member
    edited April 2020
    I can see how more mm narrows the amount of background which appears in the image behind the subject because higher mm equals narrower angle of view. I have read that some fashion photographers like using the 300mm f2.8 lens and I know one was keen on the old 180mm f2.8 Nikon lens until he started using the 24, 28, and 35mm range because that is what today's youth are used to seeing on Instagram photos taken with cell phone cameras. 300 mm is the highest I have heard of until WEF's post about using his 400mm. Back to the Z lenses, I imagine over time we will see Z mount lenses produced in many of the common f mount focal lengths. There should be a 300mm Z 2.8 prime.
    Post edited by donaldejose on
  • WestEndFotoWestEndFoto Posts: 3,675Member

    I can see how more mm narrows the amount of background which appears in the image behind the subject because higher mm equals narrower angle of view. I have read that some fashion photographers like using the 300mm f2.8 lens and I know one was keen on the old 180mm f2.8 Nikon lens until he started using the 24, 28, and 35mm range because that is what today's youth are used to seeing on Instagram photos taken with cell phone cameras. 300 mm is the highest I have heard of until WEF's post about using his 400mm. Back to the Z lenses, I imagine over time we will see Z mount lenses produced in many of the common f mount focal lengths. There should be a 300mm Z 2.8 prime.

    Well, I think that 400mm is not that common and it is due the challenges described above. But that is part of the appeal...…………...
  • DaveyJDaveyJ Posts: 1,084Member
    Has anybody else used the Nikon Z cameras with the 24-200 lens? I am now looking at buying the Nikon Z6 and hope it comes with the latest updates although I guess I can make those on the Internet. Right now I'd get to with the 24-70f4 kit lens. I have been using the Nikon Z50 and the two kit lenses and find them GREAT! Even makes me wonder what I'd get in FF Nikon Z compared to the DX version. I need or want the video as well which is why the Z6 over the Z7 and OF COURSE the price difference. I'd get the FTZ although I have great reservation about using it at all. Looks like $49 is about the FTZ cost so that is not a big factor! But the Z50 and 16-50 and the 50-250 have been quite amazing. It does take quite a while to get used to various aspects of the Z50 compared to the D500 or D7500 which is the one I used almost everyday until the Z50 use.
  • donaldejosedonaldejose Posts: 3,415Member
    I don't think the Z 24-200 is shipping yet.
  • DaveyJDaveyJ Posts: 1,084Member
    I guess if I bought a Z6 I'd have to get the 24-70F4. The 24-200 needs though to also be listed as a kit lens. But actually I myself would prefer a 70-300 as a second Z6 lens. That way I'd get a combo as perfect as the Z50 but in full frame. Yet the 24-200 review I saw was convincing. Maybe even a 70-400 zoom?? The 80-400 DSLR zooms are proof that that range might be OK?? I've asked for a B&H alert when the 24-200 is available and I get regular updates that it is not shipping yet.
Sign In or Register to comment.