Help me spend some money!

JasperKatJasperKat Posts: 4Member
Hi guys n gals, I'd be very grateful for your advice please...

I've got a z6 which I'm very happy with, after a disastrous 2021 I fully intend to get back to shooting landscapes with a little bit of wildlife too.

The only lenses I have are the 24-70mm Kit lens & Tamron SP AF 10-24mm DX lens.

I have about €3,000 to spend on new lenses & my aim is to get both an S-line wide-angle & also a zoom lens.

I’m torn between the 14-24mm F/2.8 & the 14-30mm F/4, what would you do?

For a zoom, I’d like to again go for an S-line, but weight is an issue for me. As mentioned, this won’t be bought for a few months, unless someone can point me to a real bargain buy & I will get the money together somehow…. (anyone want an extra kid?)

TIA

Comments

  • MrFotoFoolMrFotoFool Posts: 276Member
    I still use F mount, but there are several videos on YouTube if you search Nikon Z 14-24 vs Z 14-30. I would look at several (as well as written reviews) and see if the 14-30 is as sharp (or very close) to the 14-24. If it is and you don't need the extra stop of f2.8 then the 14-30 is the obvious choice. For landscape I would think the only reason you need the extra stop is if you do night sky photography (or you want to sometimes use it for non-landscape events, like an indoor concert).
  • PB_PMPB_PM Posts: 4,475Member
    MrFotoFool hit the nail on the head. The F4 wide-zooms are good for most situations, go F2.8 if you do more night shooting, it does help when focusing.
    If I take a good photo it's not my camera's fault.
  • WestEndFotoWestEndFoto Posts: 3,670Member
    I would buy the 14-30 for the wide end. At 5.6 it is pretty good everywhere. The 14-28 2.8 is better, but given your budget, not that much better.

    For the long end I would buy a good condition used 70-200 f/4.0 with an FTZii and use that until something compelling is released. The 70-200 2.8S is the best 70-200 money can buy, but heavy and expensive for you.
  • photobunnyphotobunny Posts: 517Member
    I would go for the S-line 70-200 f/2.8 or 100-400 depending on what reach you need. The 14-30 f/4.0 ultra wide is a good buy if it is just for landscapes or consider the 20 f/1.8 if you need astro.

    At this point I wouldn't be investing money in F glass unless is it a bargain. The adaptor is too much of a bother and they have too many niggles for me.
  • WestEndFotoWestEndFoto Posts: 3,670Member
    Photobunny, yes the adapter is a pain, unless you leave it permanently attached to a device. He could just leave the FTZ on the lens and never take it off. The downside is that like me, you will be buying multiple adapters if you have more than one lens.
  • photobunnyphotobunny Posts: 517Member
    Even permanently attached it is pain. You end up with a longer lens than the Z equivalent and one that just doesn’t behave the same. Reaching for the control ring to change my exposure compensation of to fn2 and it isn’t there can be a bother.
  • Ton14Ton14 Posts: 631Member
    edited January 10
    I never bought the 14-24mm, but I did buy the 20mm f/1.8S, which is fine for my wide-angle photos, the lens is nicely in the middle, is wide-angle enough for me and f/1.8 is perfect.

    At the moment I am still using the 70-200mm f/4G that I already had, with FTZ adapter permanently attached with the Nikon Z6, which works fine. It will be replaced by the 70-200mm f/2.8S at some point, but I'm in no hurry to do so. It will add about 3 ounces to my weight. Unfortunately, there is no lighter 70-200mm f/4S on the horizon yet, because that would be it.

    Agree with @WestEndFoto and @photobunny about the 70-200mm. For a used, with warranty 70-200 f/4G with the FTZ II I am spending around €1300.- here (new €1800.-) and for the 70-200mm f/2.8S €2650.-, so I would definitely not put money into glass for the F mount. (Oh, and the FTZ II is only preorder here).

    The f/4 S lenses are of excellent quality, lighter, a lot cheaper and work well on the Nikon Z6. My 24-70mm f/4S gives better image quality than my 24-70mm f/2.8G, weight and IQ were my issues going to the Nikon Z 2 years back.

    Note: I used my 70-200mm f/2.8G 10 years, so at the end it was a cheap lens :)
    Post edited by Ton14 on
    User Ton changed to Ton14, Google sign in did not work anymore
  • JasperKatJasperKat Posts: 4Member
    Thank you all for your helpful responses, I think I'm going to go with the 14-30mm & I would love the reach of the 100-400 but it's way out of my price bracket atm, so I'll either wait a while or will look out for an 70-200mm f/4G.
    Much appreciate your help & advice.
    Jasper
  • mhedgesmhedges Posts: 2,466Member
    edited January 11
    I would get the 14-30 and the 24-200. I have both and they are great.

    I would not buy the F mount 70-200 F4 unless you absolutely must have F4. Honestly I would avoid buying any F mount lens if at all possible.
    Post edited by mhedges on
  • JasperKatJasperKat Posts: 4Member
    Thanks, hedges, I'll take your advice... :smiley:
  • photobunnyphotobunny Posts: 517Member
    Seconding the recommendation for the 24-200 instead of a F lens. The 24-200 by all accounts performs well and produces good images in a rather compact form. I know a few people with it that love it. I wouldn’t bother with a 70-200 f/4.0 as I would only go f/2.8 or for a 70-300 f/4.0-5.6 unless that f/4.0 is can of coke sized like Canons.
  • PB_PMPB_PM Posts: 4,475Member
    edited January 11
    24-200 is sharp, but nothing special about it. Has that superzoom look to the images, the F6.3 aperture at 200mm is likely the cause. I find it better for video than stills. It is good enough for the 24MP bodies for landscape work though.
    Post edited by PB_PM on
    If I take a good photo it's not my camera's fault.
  • WestEndFotoWestEndFoto Posts: 3,670Member

    Seconding the recommendation for the 24-200 instead of a F lens. The 24-200 by all accounts performs well and produces good images in a rather compact form. I know a few people with it that love it. I wouldn’t bother with a 70-200 f/4.0 as I would only go f/2.8 or for a 70-300 f/4.0-5.6 unless that f/4.0 is can of coke sized like Canons.

    Personally, I would take a very close look at the optics on the Z 24-200 vs the F 70-200 4.0. It seems to me that both are not what the poster really wants. I suggested the f-mount version because it might be obtainable for a really reasonable price - KEH is a good source where I bought about a dozen AIS and D lenses for my Z7ii.

    Then when something more in line with the desire comes out, not much was "lost".
Sign In or Register to comment.