Nikon D880

WestEndFoto

photobunny said:

@WestEndFoto only one of those lenses doesn’t have a markably better Z version. I would take that £1500 in FTZ's and those lenses to trade up for Z versions.

As I described in my response to PB-PM, that would be an $8,000 US bill. FTZs in Canada are only $139 (roughly I think) when you buy a new body. I will have 5 FTZs by the end of 2022. Maybe I have to pay full price for a two or three more as I use them for other purposes. Call it $1,000.

Plus only 3 of the 6 have Z versions.

PB_PM

5 bodies just to get cheap FTZs? Okay…

WestEndFoto

Nope 5 bodies. And since the FTZs are less than half the price when you buy a body, you grab them.

Nice try.

mhedges

WestEndFoto said:

PB_PM said:

Seems like a strange approach, when you consider the price of each FTZ adapter (you'd be looking at nearly $1k just in adapters). Might as well just sell of your least used gear and get the Z versions of what you use the most and forget the rest.

Well, let's do that math. We will use my 70-200 2.8E as an example. We will use US prices, despite me being Canadian.

If I buy an adapter just for that and leave it on, that will cost me a couple of hundred bucks. However, I am getting them for $139 CDN as I buy bodies. For a couple of hundred bucks, I have a 70-200 2.8E that works well on my Z bodies.

If I take your approach, how much will I get. Adorama has an excellent condition 70-200 2.8E for $1,649.00. I might get that much if I slog away on Ebay, but my time is worth enough that even if I did get $1,649 for it, I might be in the hole and I would certainly net less than a $1,000. If I took it to Adorama, I would probably get $1,000.

I would then have to buy the 70-200 2.8S which currently sells for $2,596. Subtract the $1,000 and the FTZ and my net bill is about $1,450.00.

Now, I acknowledge that the 70-200 2.8S is the best 70-200 made by anyone - bravo Nikon. However, the 70-200 2.8E is the second best 70-200 made by anyone (IQ wise - I don't care about weight), including the two Canon 70-200 2.8 lenses.

Is that little margin of IQ worth $1,450.00? Nope! Especially when I only use zooms for events etc. and the people that I send the pictures to probably would not be able to tell the difference between the two or even a third party lens.

And since I am talking the 8-15, 14-24, 24-70, 28, 70-200 and 105, that is six lenses. Even if Z versions were available the extra cost would be say: $8,000. I will save that money for an 85 1.2S, maybe a 135 1.4S and I will still have a few thousand left over.

Kind of a cherrypicking example - as you note there are minimal differences between the 70-200 2.8E and the Z mount lens. That is not the case for the other 2.8 zooms or the 105 (assuming you are talking about the 105 2.8, I wasn't clear on that).

WestEndFoto

OK, fare enough. But I would come to the same conclusion because for the subjects I shoot with my zooms more than “decent” good IQ is not required. I will use primes when I want that.

Have you seen Photography Life’s comparison of the E and S 70-200 though. It is not a small difference

PB_PM

WestEndFoto said:

Nope 5 bodies. And since the FTZs are less than half the price when you buy a body, you grab them.



Nice try.

Nope, the point was, you are worried about spending $8k on lenses, but you are spending more than that on camera bodies.

WestEndFoto

PB_PM said:

WestEndFoto said:

Nope 5 bodies. And since the FTZs are less than half the price when you buy a body, you grab them.



Nice try.

Nope, the point was, you are worried about spending $8k on lenses, but you are spending more than that on camera bodies.

So what is it too you? 8k on upgrading those lenses makes no sense to me while $15k on camera bodies makes perfect sense.

And by the way, I know the road you are going down so before you go there don't bother. I don't need your approval to make my buying choices. And there are lots of other people on here that I respect and do cause me to question my views in a positive constructive way rather than a negative judgemental tone.

Bye.

PB_PM

The judgment is only in your head, it’s not there. I just find your strategy as you call it, puzzling.

photobunny

@WestEndFoto if you are buying the bodies anyway then you might as well get the FTZ's, that does indeed make them cheeper. Here they are £250-£270 each so by the time you got five of them, you might as well have bought a Z lens. I do strongly believe the Z lenses are all markably better than their F counterparts, not just in IQ, but also in AF speed and build quality. Maybe not $8k in lenses worth, but certainly something to slowly work towards and as I suggested, send all those old lenses in and you've got $4k of lenses to buy left and your old F lenses are gone before being devalued to much.

WestEndFoto

Hi Photobunny, thanks for your response. I absolutely agree that the Z lenses are better.

I just think that for what I use my zooms for, it doesn't matter. The audience is for people that have little or no concept of art and would likely not notice the difference in resolution between an APS-C and full frame optical system. Why would I spend a penny increasing IQ for them. They are awesome people - just awesome in other ways. Convenience for me? Sure. But not IQ.

When I am worried about image quality, I will use the z primes - and they are quite fantastic. And those images are for me - and I am a very discerning customer.

Plus, when I use a zoom, I do not like the results. The approach I take to shooting with primes results in images that I find much more pleasing. It will be a very long time before I buy a zoom in the Z mount, and then probably only because it will be the only way I can get a prime focal length I like. For example, 14mm, which was the reason I bought the original 14-24 2.8G - it was the best 14mm prime I could get. Looking in Lightroom, 95%+ of my shots with that lens are at 14mm.

photobunny

That makes sense WestEndFoto. I have lenses and focal lengths I care about more than others and can see why upgrading them not being worth it. Though if I had collection of F lenses I would just shove them on a F body like my D500 is a '1.5x TC' for my 500 PF since I can't get hold of F TC's just now.

If I had a D850 or D5, the 500 PF would just live on one of those and my Z bodies would only use Z glass with no wart. If the FTZ had no wart on it, I would be keeping my 500 PF on a mirrorless body far more often. I really hate that stupid wart.

ggbutcher

WestEndFoto said:

Hi Photobunny, thanks for your response. I absolutely agree that the Z lenses are better.

I just think that for what I use my zooms for, it doesn't matter. The audience is for people that have little or no concept of art and would likely not notice the difference in resolution between an APS-C and full frame optical system. Why would I spend a penny increasing IQ for them. They are awesome people - just awesome in other ways. Convenience for me? Sure. But not IQ.

When I am worried about image quality, I will use the z primes - and they are quite fantastic. And those images are for me - and I am a very discerning customer.

Plus, when I use a zoom, I do not like the results. The approach I take to shooting with primes results in images that I find much more pleasing. It will be a very long time before I buy a zoom in the Z mount, and then probably only because it will be the only way I can get a prime focal length I like. For example, 14mm, which was the reason I bought the original 14-24 2.8G - it was the best 14mm prime I could get. Looking in Lightroom, 95%+ of my shots with that lens are at 14mm.

As someone who uses only zooms, I actually get your perspective. The reasons I use zoom lenses has nothing to do with image quality, really, more about dust control and safety in an industrial situation. But, If I really did landscape on a tripod, or group portraits...

spraynpray

You know what? When I look at my best pictures, whether they are taken on DX, FX or whateverX, they are good photos. If I had taken those that are DX on FX, it would not have made any difference that affects why they are good pictures. If we look at some of the great old shots that are technically um, poor, they are still great shots.

I will keep my D850 and handful of lenses until they are too heavy for me or I snuff it.

mhedges

spraynpray said:

You know what? When I look at my best pictures, whether they are taken on DX, FX or whateverX, they are good photos. If I had taken those that are DX on FX, it would not have made any difference that affects why they are good pictures. If we look at some of the great old shots that are technically um, poor, they are still great shots.

Yep, this. I just dropped some prints off at the local airport for display and funnily enough I think they were all taken on DX.

Photobug

spraynpray said:

You know what? When I look at my best pictures, whether they are taken on DX, FX or whateverX, they are good photos. If I had taken those that are DX on FX, it would not have made any difference that affects why they are good pictures. If we look at some of the great old shots that are technically um, poor, they are still great shots.

I will keep my D850 and handful of lenses until they are too heavy for me or I snuff it.

Agree....

DaveyJ

I think Nikon ought to do what they did to the D750 with the D780....that is the D850 is a GREAT camera and hybridizing it with Z tech will allow them a DSLR with attributes that will create a large amount of sales. I only own one FTZ adapter and I have tried it, ands set it aside rather quickly.

Nikon needs two Z telephoto lens, that is a non S 200-600 and a Z version of the 500 F5.6 PF. I have used the 500 5.6 PF on the D7500 and the D500 and it is great and fast! But a zoom I find wonderful as the field scenes almost require zooming in or zooming out!

The Z 6 II I have is very excellent with the Nikon 500 5.6 PF but the lens is pretty expensive and my personal testing showed the 200-500 F5.6 could hold it's own in comparison, So for right now, I await the 200-600. Time will tell!