𝒀𝒐𝒖'𝒍𝒍 𝑳𝒊𝒌𝒆 𝑻𝒉𝒊𝒔! • I Shot the Nikon 135mm...
In this excellent video I rank Nikon Z mount lenses into tiers of value of your hard earned dollar.
⊖ ⊖ ⊖ ⊖ ⊖ ⊖ ⊖ ⊖ ⊖ ⊖ ⊖ ⊖ ⊖ ⊖ ⊖ ⊖ ⊖ ⊖ ⊖ ⊖ ⊖ ⊖ ⊖ ⊖ ⊖ ⊖ ⊖ ⊖ ⊖ ⊖ ⊖ ⊖ ⊖ ⊖ ⊖ ⊖ ⊖ ⊖ ⊖ ⊖ ⊖ ⊖ ⊖
🅶🅴🅰🆁 🆁🆄🅽🅳🅾🆆🅽
Davinci Resolve
Adobe Lightroom Classic
Luminar Neo
Apple Studio M1 Max
Apple Studio Display
🅣🅐🅖🅢
#photography #nikon #camera #cameralens #cameraman #technology
⊖ ⊖ ⊖ ⊖ ⊖ ⊖ ⊖ ⊖ ⊖ ⊖ ⊖ ⊖ ⊖ ⊖ ⊖ ⊖ ⊖ ⊖ ⊖ ⊖ ⊖ ⊖ ⊖ ⊖ ⊖ ⊖ ⊖ ⊖ ⊖ ⊖ ⊖ ⊖ ⊖ ⊖ ⊖ ⊖ ⊖ ⊖ ⊖ ⊖ ⊖ ⊖ ⊖
𝑭𝑻𝑪 𝑳𝒆𝒈𝒂𝒍 𝑫𝒊𝒔𝒄𝒍𝒂𝒊𝒎𝒆𝒓
Some links found in the description box of my videos may be affiliate links, meaning I will make commission on sales you make through those links. These links will not cost you anymore on any purchases, but rather the sellers will pay out a small commission to ZWade Photo LLC. So, it's a great way to support the channel!
𝑪𝑯𝑨𝑵𝑵𝑬𝑳 𝑩𝑰𝑶
I'm ZWade the ZWade in ZWade Photo and I pride myself on having the most honest, no BS photography content on my channel where you can laugh, learn, consume photography in live photoshoots, get the latest news in informative yet comedic format, or maybe fill that itch to see a review for or watch before you buy photography tech such as cameras, lenses, and photography accessories.
𝑷𝑬𝑹𝑺𝑶𝑵𝑨𝑳𝑰𝑻𝒀 𝑩𝑰𝑶
I've been shooting photography most of my adult life. It started with an on sale Nikon D3200 that wasn't even interested in using, all the way through being a photography business owner, teacher, and KZhead Photography Content Creator.
My favorite subjects are Human Portraits and Shallow Depth of Field with my specialty, or claim to fame if you will, being Dramatic Nude and Bodyscape. Over my many years of photography I've mastered many genres but I never stop learning and I don't want you to stop either. That's why I started my KZhead Channel in the year 2020. After a hiatus from photography, I picked up my camera again just in time for the Covid Pandemic. The world shut down. With more time than ever and no humans to photograph I found myself bored but motivated. ZWade Photo, the KZhead Channel, was born.
I have always been a Nikon brand photographer, but in my community on KZhead there is limitless room for Canon, Sony, Fuji, Leica, Hasselblad, Nikon, AND any other brand, photographers. Follow along as this channel one day grows into the biggest, most honest, and most fun photography community on the internet.
I'm ZWade the ZWade in ZWade Photo, Stay Sharp KZhead.
𝑺𝑶𝑪𝑰𝑨𝑳𝑺 𝑨𝑵𝑫 𝑪𝑶𝑵𝑻𝑨𝑪𝑻
zwadephotosales@gmail.com
www.zwadephoto.com
The only thing I slightly disagree with is the 14-30/4 S. I think that 3mm on the wide end is pretty significant (as opposed to 3mms on telephoto lenses) and a thousand bucks seems totally reasonable to me. Very thoughtful information on your part though, and nicely done 😎👍
Thanks Jeffrey!
I agree! I shoot real estate with this lens and it's excellent. The 14-24 2.8 is an excellent lens but it's over $1000.00 more than the 14-30. If I was shooting portraits or astro then the 14-24 may be the better choice.
Yeah for the performance of that 14-30 F4 it’s not over priced. It’s very close to the 14-24 in optical quality and it’s very portable. I picked it over the 17-28. F2.8 means heavy/larger and that’s not what I want for general use. If you’re really into Astro then the 2.8 is probably worth it. With how good ISO is on recent camera’s F4 isn’t a problem. For landscapes which is what the 14-30 I’m guessing is going to be used for a lot, 14 vs 17 is a big deal. Personally for Astro photography I would just get the 14-30 and the 20 1.8 for the same price as the 14-24.
@@kalimarus Well said. I've never had much use for wide aperture wide angle lenses, but I have no interest in astro photography. It seems the big selling point for the 17-28 is f2.8 at a reasonable price, but really how useful is f2.8 with those focal lengths? When I use a wide angle I'm always stopping down. Thanks
@@jeffrey3498 Same for me, I have the 14-30 and use it for landscapes/city and don’t miss 2.8 at all. I really appreciate that it’s 98% as sharp as the double the price 2.8 and way smaller. Plus filters are great on it. I have a 20 1.8 for night use. The 17-28 2.8 seems caught in the middle and kinda pointless to me. 14mm is noticeably better for landscapes than 17mm. Other than Astro F2.8 on a wide is not really useful and just makes a lens huge. I use the 24-200 plenty for travel which this guys seems to think is terrible but I disagree. That and the 14-30 are a really good combo for a lightweight travel it. Nobody is going to notice the slightly softer images when they get shared on iPhones 99% of the time these days. Nobody would notice in a wall print either.
I would argue that the 40mm f/2.0 is THE BEST value in the entire system. Those colors, the character, the ease of use, wow. What value.
🙌🙌🙌🙌
Indeed !!!!!
No weather sealing for wetter countries unfortunately.
@@Visual_Ghoul that a bummer too because gaskets are dirt cheap lol
The only one I really disagree with out of these is the 24-200. I get that super zooms are hated, usually by professionals where they just don’t make sense in a workflow. But for the rest of us they can make for a really compact travel kit and let’s be honest about optical quality here. NOBODY who isn’t a really picky pro photographer is going to know the difference in image quality if you use that lens or one twice as expensive if you do your part as a photographer. Regular people can barely tell the difference in a iphone vs mirrorless image when they’re printed out in large formats. It’s cheaper than the Sony and Canon 24-240’s, Canons isn’t weather sealed either. For its category of lens it’s actually at the top of the pile. Side by side with the 24-120 it’s not as sharp but I’d pick it every single time for travel for the extra reach. The reduction in optical just isn’t enough that my friends and family would ever notice which lens I used. I owned the F mount 24-120 F4 and found it a bit to short on the telephoto end. It’s a great wedding lens though. I’ll actually probably never pick this lens up being that I still own the F variant and would only use it for a wedding/portraits. But I’d rather use my S primes for that in the first place. It just goes to show how much value is tied to use case for lenses.
Thanks for watching Kalimarus
@@ZWadePhoto Thanks for taking the time to make the video Zwade
I'm pretty sure he just missed focus when he reviewed the lens and he never got over it. And some of the sample images were sharp but he would say otherwise. My only gripe with it is less snappier focus than the 24-120mm but at same apertures, it's on par in image quality.
@@rayrayg9 pffffft. I gave this lens its due. You might just have a tad of emotion that you overpaid for subprime quality and I’m pooping on that fact 😜
You can pry my 24-200 from my cold dead hands lol. I also had the f mount 24-120, might have got the z version if I hadn't already gotten the 24-70 f4. I end up missing the extra reach when carrying one lens though. The vr on the 24-200 is nice too and I got it on sale for $700.
The S lens 24-70 and 70-200 2.8 are NOT overpriced. Look at the price of those lenses historically, the price is the price, even with F-mount lenses. The tamaron/nikon 2.8s are great value though-
24-70 f/4 new is I think is after the 28-75 release and maybe even more now that the Tamron G2 is out for Z mount. I have really looked into it's performance yet. The 70-200, I thought it was high when I was working coming directly from the Tamron G2, I still think is, for the non working photographer more so than the career shooters. Thanks for watching my dude
14mm vs 17mm absolutely makes a difference when photographing interiors for real estate/architectural/commercial property photography. f4 is irrelevant for these applications because you’re on a tripod and stopping down to at least f8 anyway. BUT for a generalist, I’d agree with your overall point here
Thanks for watching my dude
yes, it makes a huge difference. I did not see the rest of the video after it was mentioned that it does not make a difference.
@@ashokkandimalla5962 for you. Not everyone
@@ZWadePhoto See another post saying the same thing. It may not matter for everyone, but the converse is also true. It matters to many. The AOV is difference between 14 and 17 mm lenses on an FF format is 10.5 deg diagonally which I feel is significant as other posts here say. However, it could mean nothing to a bird photographer. A few days back I was photographing a palace with my 14-30 and I could get the whole building in one exposure. My friend who was using a Tammy 15-30 could not. In any case it is your opinion, and you have every right to it. Have a good day friend.
Well I didn’t actually say it didn’t matter. I said I don’t think you’ll suffer. I’m quite privileged in being able to own the best of the best while much of the rest of my audience doesn’t and are less experienced. So putting things into this following perspective: What do I shoot and where does it fit in. There is importance in wider for some genres especially indoors, in many scenarios not THAT big of a deal. Most folks don’t care about angle of view. So when “I say I don’t think you’ll suffer” I still think that rings true. Based on only a few people getting their feelings hurt about 3mm and EVERY one else not giving a damn, I’d say I read my typical audience correctly and we have ideas of importance in common
Agree with your analysis, especially about the 105mm f/2.8 MC. Love your new format too! How can one join your channel?
Thanks friend! You can go to the my main page and hit join!
@@ZWadePhoto Done! Thank you! I was expecting a Patreon-type link and completely missed the "Join" button 🤦😆
@@TillmanTech Hell Yea my friend! The perks are gonna be getting better and better! We are just getting started!
Do you use any third party lenses for the Z mount by the way? And by that I mean the good stuff. Voigtlander has nine lenses for the Z mount in their line up. I have my Voigtlanders for the F mount. They are AIs styled lenses like from the 70's and 80's but have CPU contacts. It is manual focus of course but because of the CPU you can AF fine tune them.
I REALLY want to try out the voigts. I'm a big fan of Voigtlander. But i haven't done much with the third parties yet.
Curious what your thoughts will be on the new 28-400 that they just announced :). Great video
If Nikon would recognize all the free advertisement I give them and send me one I’d try it out. Haha
The 24-70 f4 is the most traded to be sold lens in the Z lineup. A lot of folks got them kitted with cameras and immediately traded them in. I see them all the time in excellent condition but would NEVER pay the $1000 Nikon charges for the lens on a stand-alone basis. If I were to substitute the 28-75 mm f2.8, I'd buy the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 G2 instead.
Thanks man, very useful information. Haven't made the switch to Z mount yet, but when I do it's going to be big.
Glad I could help Joel!
Have you had the chance to test the just released Tamron 28-75 f2.8 g2 version?
Very entertaining to hear someone else articulate their decision making process when it comes to building a lens collection. I found / find myself in the same position as I have switched over from F mount in the past few years. Apart from the 105 MC which I owned and sold ( great optics , didn't like how it handled ) and the 180 -600 , ordered it but cancelled and bought the 400 4.5 and 1.4 tc instead , I am in complete agreement with your top tier as it applies to value and own them all. No arguing with the value proposition on the 180-600 but I found it a bit too large and heavy and I use the 400 4.5 to shoot deep sky astro ( a bit niche I admit ). Great videos. Thanks for making and keep it up!
🙌🙌🙌🙌
Thanks for the input! 0:00 Introduction 0:54 14-24 f2.8 S 1:24 14-30 f4 S 1:52 17-28 f2.8 2:50 20 f1.8 S 3:47 24-50 f4.5-6.3 4:17 24-70 f4 S 5:05 28-75 f2.8 5:57 24-70 f2.8 S 6:56 70-200 f2.8 S and 70-180 f2.8 8:39 24-120 f4 S 10:00 24-200 f4-6.3 11:23 24 f1.8 S 11:44 26 f2.8 12:24 40 f2 / 28 f2.8 13:18 35 f1.8 S 14:10 50 f1.2 S 15:09 50 f1.8 S 16:47 58 f0.95 S 17:54 135 f1.8 S Plena 18:59 85 f1.2 S & 85 f1.8 S 20:49 400 f2.8 S 20:57 600 f4 S 21:15 400 f4.5 S 21:35 600 f6.3 S 22:09 180-600 f5.6-6.3 23:47 MC 50 f2.8 24:24 800 f6.3 S 24:35 MC 105 f2.8 S
Thanks for watching!
Fun video! I think it is important also to consider the excitement/enjoyment factor. I love the hell out of shooting with the 50 1.2 and 600 6.3.
I think k I’m going to do a video on the most fun lenses I love shot, totally subjective, but another subscriber and I were talking about the huge difference between “The value to my bag” vs “bang for buck” and that’s a WHOLE conversation
I just picked up a Z7II on sale a few days ago and paired it with a 28-75 in like new condition for just over $800. It’s a great price point to get into Nikon. I mainly shoot Sony because at the time I bought in the lens selection was unbeatable but Nikon has been coming out with some great glass since then.
🙌🙌🙌🙌🙌
I think you did a pretty good job overall. I looked and saw someone else mention the list is not complete with out the 100-400 f 4.5-5.6 S lens. I highly recommend it! I’m fortunately work for a world know wildlife and landscape photographer during the summer. He made the suggestion of what to buy. The above was 1. The rest I have are the 20mm 1.8 S for landscape but more importantly Astro photography. 24-120mm f4 S. I have gotten to try the 800mm is definitely for bird photography, and expense. I have for now chosen a cheaper route f mount 500mm f5.6 PF with FTZ (DX or 1.4 teleconverter) for now. Excellent glass! Going from D600 to mirrorless was a game changer!
oooo That 500 is something. And yea the image I had of the 1-400 didn't make it too the table so it was overlooked my mistake. Thanks for watching my friend!
No big diff between 3 mil on the wide end between 14 and 17, you lost me there
There's only a few genres that I think it makes a HUGE difference in. For the level of photographers that I imagine were searching the topic of "Nikon Z Lenses best Value for money" I don't think those few mm will kill them. Thanks for watching.
Pretty good reckoning, depending what use one needs. Funny enough my line up is 14-24 f2.8, an amazing lens and at very wide angles low distortion, high-resolution and amazing rendering are so important as there's so much information/data in those files. Then I have the 24-120, no brainer, 105 MC, incredible across the whole file and also just as good at infinity. Then the 50/1.8 and 85/1.8, I love mine so much, then the 180-600/6.3, great value for money indeed. You'll laugh, for a light weight extra reach lens for hiking I use the F-mount AF-P 70-300 f4.5-5.6 E VR on the FTZ adapter. There's still nothing light weight to compete with this lens, I hope they bring out some light, slow-ish but optically good Z mount lenses in the 200-300 range. I've bid on a 20mm f1.8 for landscape/astro, its a great lens but a little overpriced new. I would love the 50mm f1.2, 85/1.2 and a Plena but the costs and weight I feel aren't worth it for me, I'm getting on and weight (and price) conscious...
Thanks for engaging with the content!
hopefully they'll make a 70-300 Z, but the 28-400 Z just came out at same size/weight and double the price
@@Damon_Mah I think know burnt out in all the Zoom and telephotos. I needs me some more primes! Like the 35 1.2 that I’m starting to wonder if they ever plan on doing lol
@@Damon_Mah Yes saw that, looks expensive for that grade of glass. I don't mind the f8 between 200-400mm as it's for telephoto landscape on a tripod but I don't think the quality or resolving power will be good enough. Will have to wait and see. The weight is ideal.
I agree with you assessment here; especially the shut up and buy category 😂. I have downsized my working kit to the Nikon Z 17-28 (super underrated), the Tamron Z 35-150 f2/2.8 (have you tried that one; I find it outstanding), the Z 50 1.8s (no brainer; clients freak when they see images from this lens…in a good way). I’m waiting for a 180-600 (hens teeth) and wrestling with what to do for a longer portrait lens. While the 85 1.2 is unreal (rented for a wedding recently), I’m wondering if the 105 2.8 will serve as another Swiss Army knife lens…while keeping the kit on the minimal side. GAS is real, and I’ve learned it’s not about how much gear you have but what you actually need and use…and, most importantly, like to use.
🙌🙌 preach
If you can find the Nikon Z 180-600 you have to purchase it! I waited for four months and finally received it and it has not been off my Z8, it is outstanding!
I bet they are on EBAY for 6,000 bucks lol Nikon preferred customers always get theirs first even though they don’t want them, then gouge the market
@@ZWadePhoto, what’s even weirder I would have paid an even $2,000 for it without hesitation. Nikon is pretty smart what they are doing.
I agree with 90 percent of where you placed all the lenses . I do have have the 50 mm 1.8 and it’s just a great overall 50mm so that’s a no brainer . I did get the 85 mm 1.8 and agree it’s not a wow lens it’s just good . Where I might disagree slightly is my 70-200 mm I always smile when I see what the photos look like from this lens , although I’ve never tried the Tamaron version to compare . I bought the 85 1.2 recently and though it’s ouch expensive it’s a jaw dropping lens and I can’t wait to try it also on some night time photo shoots . Thanks for the video Z ✌🏼
You bet Michael. I think the 85 1.2 may be in the words of General Patton “The greatest photo implement ever devised” he accidentally said M1 Garand
@@ZWadePhoto I asked the question in a plena group , if they had both which would be their go to and they jumped all over me 😂. According to them the plena stays on their camera full time . Don’t understand the logic but hey 🤣
@@michaelmalodrums9674 that’s ok. They just think they have something better because it’s considered an Exotic like the Noct with their yellow Name scribed in. If the 85 was called the 85mm f/1.2 Lentum Braccas they’d magically see the character within lol
@@ZWadePhoto haha Noctus habbilus
Z wade, I agree with most of your lens rankings and thoughts on the MC 105mm being a versatile lens...One of my favorites on my camera shelf as of now. A friend of mine gave me the "85mm Matrix Pills" about two years ago and been hooked since. I have the 1.4 G and 1.8 S (won from an auction at a super low price); and was curious of the 85 1.2 S, so rented it. My jaw was on the ground after most of the shots from the 1.2...Awesome lens! My opinion ranking after using them on my Z8 (there will be people to think otherwise): #1, 85 1.2 S, #2, 1.4 G (despite the age and tech, the lens can still hold it's on a Z body with the FTZ adapters) and #3, 85 1.8 S. I still want to buy the 85 1.2; it's ridiculous on how this lens assaults the background and no charges are filed! Keep up the great videos!
24-200 is the best backpacking lens out there tho. For someone who carries 2 lenses, the 14-30 and 24-200 while doing week long alpine missions i dont see a better lens for the job. The 200 MM over the 24-200 gives me wildlife capabilities. What do you suggest?
I’m not saying it doesn’t have its uses. I’m saying that for what they traditionally retail for, it doesn’t perform at that level
Thanks for the analysis. To follow it up, I did rent both 20mm f1.8 S and 50mm f1.2 S, friend of mine rented the 85mm f1.2 S since we're in the same boat that weekend. As much as the 50mm is more versatile, the 85mm f1.2 is just on another level for me to do. I'm just a hobbyist cosplay photographer, and learning that I may not buy this lens just because of its price hurts me rofl. It's so good that I hate it. Other than that, I think the 20mm f1.8 S is justified since it doesn't cover most genre, but I like having distortion as one of my creative angle to take my cosplay story, it felt different and sometimes for some characters it fits and works perfectly. Thank you for the content. I'm ended up keeping my Ertotica 105mm f1.4, and maybe save for the 20mm f1.8 S.
🙌🙌 thanks for watching my friend
Recently picked up the Plena and I love it
I’m shooting with it a lot right now. Really developing a deeper opinion on it
Useful comparison; generally agree with most of your analysis; in fact I own all of the "Shut Your Fat Mouth And Buy" collection. That being said, a few minor tweaks in my opinion: I would nudge up the 50 1.2 into the upper end of "Got What You Paid For" or even "High Value." Never in a million years would I think I could justify its cost, but after using it for 9 months I am convinced that it is my favorite lens of all time. I am constantly astonished by what this lens does for me, and for that I have to value it at a higher level. I'm glad I got this lens near the beginning of my Z-lens buildup because it made me rethink my entire lens strategy; I was always "best Holy Trinity zooms with prime fillers" - now I am "best primes with zooms as needed." Then there's the 14-30 f4. Higher distortion and vignetting than I would like, but boy is this thing useful to me. I do a lot of architectural, interiors, and sweeping landscapes and this lens kills it every time; yes, the 14-24 would definitely have better IQ but the price difference, bulk, and weight are not worth it to me, especially when the 14-30 meets all my needs. I would definitely put this in "Got What You Paid For." Final note on the 180-600. In my 44 years (ouch!) of using Nikons, I never had any real use for any focal length above 300mm. When announced, I considered the 180-600 as way underpriced and thought I could give it a shot. Wow, am I so glad I got this thing. It opened up a whole new world for me - soccer, equestrian, auto racing, some wildlife - I live half an hour from a 4,000 acre nature preserve consisting of forest, fields and wetlands; I have spent 8 hours at a time there just with the 180-600, the 105 macro, and the 50 1.2. - Pure joy! Really enjoy your stuff!
That’s John! The hardest part of this list was trying to separate value to my work versus value for dollar. That being said, the 50mm f1.2 is absolutely PRICELESS. I’ve never left home without it since I got it.
I totally agree with the prime comment too. Haha I was so happy to stop working and replacing my holy trinity with insane primes 🙌🙌
Agree 24-120 is outstanding! even in low light! with LR noise reduction just great optics all around, love this lens! Agree with your assessments ZWade.
🙌🙌🙌🙌🙌🙌
Just cause you cant afford it doesnt mean its not high value.
Kind of elitist yea? Lmao it has less to do with affordability and more to do with one compared to the other. If I haven’t shot it, have no need to shoot it (I hate sports and don’t shoot wildlife) then we can easily stack value up for regular folks in which case the 400 4.5 600 6.3 are much better value than 5 digit price tags, for regular people. Not career sports folk, yes or yes?
this review should be titled "I Ranked All Nikon Z Lenses by Value for Money from portrait/street photo prospective! " ... some of those "I will never know" lenses are great for the purpose they were made, yes they are expensive, but the quality (sharpness, color, bokeh..) of photos you can get with those lenses, you won't get with other lenses
@@michelebelotti2022 the problem with that though…too many letter and it gets cut off in the feed my guy!
I really love this vidéo. It makes me think about getting the 50 1.8. and the 180/600
The video's title explicitly says *Value FOR MONEY* 🙄
May I know which one will you choose Z 24-70 / 2.8 or TAMRON 28-75 / 2.8 Camera : NIKON ZF
Personally, I think the 24-70 f/2.8 has juicier qualities. I’ll link you my video where I tested them side by side
kzhead.info/sun/g8NsZ9eMo5qZoYk/bejne.htmlsi=2PANnMTVe511_uLh
The only reason I picked up the 50mm MC was for digitizing. When you own the 50 f/1.8 and the 105 MC there's little reason to use it aside from that but it is a great little lens.
Thats fact. The little film tray is a cool addition to the offering. Honestly they should just give it away in the box. haha.
@@ZWadePhoto I agree. That thing was also backordered for like a year right when I really needed it, of course.
I've taken the Noct hiking several times so has good value for me. I don't mind manual focus and gravitate towards the voightlander primes. Agree with almost all of your rankings. Not as much hate for the 24-200mm and maybe a little more for the 24-50mm. I will agree the 24-200mm hasn't seen my bag since the 24-120mm and at the price I wouldn't buy it again but in no hurry to sell.
I would terrified to take the noct hiking lol. Not because of performance but because the price and the fact that they didn’t make a ton of them haha
You take the Noct hiking?! My kind of photographer 👍
I need to know if the 180-600 would be worth it for action shots?
That I don’t know. You might have to check out some of the big channels that got to test it to get some feedback on focus speed
Great vid. Don’t like the 70-200 ranking but I agree with you haha. Subbed!
I appreciate cordial disagreement! This is what a proper comment looks like everyone. Thanks for the sub my friend!
That 400mm f/4.5 looks so intriguing for amateur/recreational sports shoots. Still pricey but 3 times less if not more than the 400 f/2.8 tc and it’s available for renting in my area too. Like 75 dollars per weekend. Mind you the background blur/bokeh won’t be as great as the f/2.8 but it’s definitely not 3 times as bad. Also like the 180-600mm. Nice video my friend.
Thanks for watching!
Something I would like to add when it comes to the 24-70/4. You are right when it comes to it being kinda overpriced if you look at the price for a new one. 1000 bucks when the 24-120/4 exists? It just makes no sense! However, the used marked is flooded with them. And they are all basically in brand new condition since most folks sell them right away to replace them with a 24-70/2.8. I got mine used at my favorite camera store for just 350 bucks. Pretty much never used. And they currently have *eight* more of them in stock in the same like new condition. People sleep on this lens because it is "just a kit lens" so they underestimate what it can do. And for 350 bucks I would put it in high value, maybe even shut your fat mouth an buy 😁 Though I get that many don't like buying used gear and if you want to have a level playing field, including used prices can make things a bit muddy. If I had to buy a new lens I would go with the 24-120.
Oh for $350, yea buy that sh*t now lol
@@ZWadePhoto For that price it's easily the lens with the best value that I own. I really didn't regret it. I wonder if the price will go down even further as stores try to get them off the shelves.
@@MattisProbably You’re probably seeing a lot of those as they were sold as ‘kits.’ A lot of people have dumped them on E Bay, etc and moved on to like the 24-120, or others? Solid lens when bought in a kit or used. Nikon USA always has them for sale as a ‘Refurb,’ and even then, too much IMO. Always wait for their occasional ‘Sale’ on their Refurbs. And check the lens out quickly and carefully. Nikon has sold some sketchy stuff at times. Missing lens caps, and failures to communicate with the camera body, on a supposedly ‘Factory checked and certified’ unit!?
@@georgedavall9449 My camera store of choice checks everything they sell and cleans all items as they come in. If something is missing they will tell you. Even got a 1 year warranty for the lens. Bought my Z7 II there as well.
@@georgedavall9449 My camera store of choice cleans and checks everything that comes in. If something is missing they will tell you about it. They give you a 1 year warranty as well. I bought my Z7 II there, too. It's a great local business I like to support and their deals are often way better than what I find online.
I too disagree regarding the 24-200 6.3 lens. I bought that lens when I scored my Z8, it was a bundle deal. (I had been using the Z9 for a year.) I liked that lens! But, the ring around the front element that describes the lens fell out! I was at the Sturgis Motorcycle Rally, and realized that piece was gone. I sold it as is for a loss. I kept recalling how pleased I was with it, and just recently I got another. I'm pleased, compared it to my 24-120 S and seem identical. I'm very happy I convinced myself to re-buy. This was my first time to bump into your post, I'll hang in. Carry on.
Even though we disagree, I appreciate your civility on the matter and I appreciate you watching!
Liked the video. Just a tip, include the price more clearly next time. Some don't have all the prices in our head. But this was BRAVE!
Thanks for the feed back! I'm a LITTLE more specific on script, but off scripts, and really in general I try not to be overly specific on price because my goal is to keep the videos as ever green as possible. In 5 or 10 years people will be like, WHAT THE HECK LENSES USED TO BE 15,000 DOLLARS? MY 50MM F/1.8 COST ME $27,000 That's dramatic inflation but still, thats why I don't often go with exacts. haha.
Thank You The ZWADE!
Any time my friend!
Nice video. I definitely agree with you on this list. The 24-120 has been the most versatile lens in my collection. Like you I did not get the 35mm 1.8 due to the price and the want for a 35mm 1.2. The 85mm 1.2 was a no brainer for me. I’ve actually used it on some bird photography with the z8 in my yard. It’s very capable and was a shut my fat mouth and buy lol.
Hahaha. It hurts me to not put a few of these in Shut your mouth and by. That’s the difference between value to the bag and value for the dollar. Maybe a video should do 🧐
@@ZWadePhoto right
I agreed with your comments, not necessarily your value ranking. A normal thing. You might try assigning a number scale value to each of the factors you mentioned and then add up the numbers and see where things land. The whole point is A sharp image that captures the scene you are looking at.
I did a numerical rank a long time ago. The results were similar with people getting mad because I don’t like their stuff as much as they do lol
Great video sir. I have the 24-200mm that you, ahem, don't care for. I am particularly fond of it for my landscape work. Perhaps the subject matter is forgiving enough not to notice what you don't care for in it. I've been debating the 24-120 S lens ..
Right on tom! We don't have to agree, we just have to be able to take jokes and appreciate others perspectives! See you around the channel.
Hi I got my wife a z5 kit with basic lens for christmas and added the 24-120s for versatility its great. we recently looked at the 180-600 but shes waiting for her tax return to buy it glad to see you think both are good value
Very nice!
Had a feeling the 24-120 f4 S was going to make the top category. The more I hear about it, the more love I hear. Whereas the 24-200 appears to remind people of the compromises that come with a wide zoom range, the 24-120 amazes with the lack of.
Exactly. People fight me hard in the comments over the 24-200 and I just don't see it lol. Thanks for Watching!
Great video. Good to see what other Z-lens owners think.
Thanks my friend. Some of these other commenters need realize that too. It's what I think. Man i'm hurting peoples wittle hearts.
I have to admit that I do not like the 105 at all. It may be because I find 105mm a weird focal length, but it is my least favorite macro. Yep, it is very sharp, yep it is light, but the transition to the bg can be strange (triple rendered bg elements) and please someone make a longer macro for me. 200mm or something like that.
Thanks for watching Martin
Really interesting video...but what about the Z 100-400/4.5-5-6 S?
I had the picture and everything, it somehow didn’t make it into the tier maker and didn’t catch it until after upload.
I agree with one of your choices; the Nikon Z 24-120mm f4 is a great lens. I have enjoyed a couple of your other videos.
Excellent! Glad you’re enjoy the show my friend!
27:35 How would using .95 dictate having to use a tripod? This is a super fast aperature so explain how you'd have to use a tripod?
Because it’s manual focus with a vapor thin depth of field @ .95. The tiniest of movements of your body or the subject will move the focus plane. This would not be the case with either continuous AF or at tighter apertures.
You said 24-200mm is a bad lens, but I was aiming at it, because of some youtube reviews, mainly Landscape photographers rated this lens very highly, one review even compared it with Z70-200mm f/2.8 and there he says it stand shoulder to shoulder. But your review says otherwise. Got me in confusion, what to do. Now please take a look at 28-400mm as soon as possible I think it to will be similar to 24-200 in quality.
Maybe I can help answer. The video is what lens is a good or bad VALUE, not just overall good bad lens. For the $ there are just better lens choices out there in these alternate ranges. Typically super zoom lenses have many optical compromises which can outweigh the upsides. In the case of the 28-200 you're paying a high $ for a very slow lens. If you want to shoot at f/6.3-f8 range all the time, then it might work for you, but many photographers will demand more versatility in fstop range.
Good reply craig. Whatever youtuber said that the 70-200 and 28-200 stand shoulder to shoulder is on some illegal feel good products. Lol. I trash the 28-200 a lot because I do think its sucks, but it is a good choice for some people out there. As far as the 28-400 request, I take video requests from channel members, but just for transparency, I probably won't test that lens ever because I don't generally rent or buy lenses that don't fit in with my type of work JUST for the sake of making KZhead content. I did once upon a time, but that has to be financed from out of my own pocket because Nikon does not give me things to try, so I only rent before I actually consider something that I'd might buy.
I wouldn’t call the 24-200 a bad lens, but it’s not the 70-200 2.8. The 24-200 is one of the best of it’s type for travel. You’ll take the hit in optical quality but not as much as past super zooms. It’s a convenience lens that deliver’s results that the 99% of viewers will be fine with. Same deal for the 28-400 which I’ll probably buy eventually. I have the 24-200 and use it for business travel trips often when I want to just being the body and one lens in my carryon for weekends or whatever. It’s a great lens for that. For a professional it wouldn’t be on my list for paid work though. There are very few of the super zooms that are weather resistant, Canons RF is not and Sony’s is worse and costs more.
@@craigmckernan4056 Gonna quote it get it right, for clarity sakes, and for others: It is the 24-200 Sir! And It is not that bad of a lens. Yeah it is ‘slowish,’ but it covers a LOT of range. And anyone buying this are kidding themselves if they’re going to use it for other than its intended use, which is an all rounder, travel type lens, whatever! I have seen some surprising results with my Z7, and others not so good. But isn’t that the case with all Photography? There are going to be compromises in such a design and targeted price range. Take care Craig! Peace
Oracle, while I concur almost all the time with ZeeWade, I have to take exception here. Is the 24-200 a great lens? I would not say it is, but I would not say it is awful either. It was made to a ‘price point.’ I have achieved good results, mostly, on my Z7. I would have preferred a switch or two on the lens, and a much stiffer control ring. IT is really bad! I think it would be better on the 24 Mp Z cameras. Apart from the 50 and 85 F/1.8 lens, I’m not really crazy about any of the Z lens line up. I own those, as well as the 24-200, and the ‘sweet’ little 40 f/2.0, and 28 f/2.8 lens. I do not have much experience with other lens, other than the occasional rental. I am glad to see Nikon still ‘alive’ and striving to produce the lenses on their road map. Take care.
Hi. Thank you for your work. Anyway I consider this list not to be complete since some very serious options are simply not mentioned (100-400. Tamron 35-150, all the Voigtländer MF lense etc). I don´t agree on the 14-30 since it is so damned good. Color rendition, sharpness etc. Night photography long exposure you can get nice "stars" etc. Also the extra 2 mm really matter.
2mm used to be a big deal when I shot real estate. But in general, I don't think most people will suffer. Also, 100-400 somehow didn't end up on my table, and the 35-150, I didn't even know that existed until earlier this very morning. I don't pay attention to new releases because I'm only missing one lens. 35 1.2 thanks for watching.
@@ZWadePhoto Yes, until they will release a 35mm 1.2, I use my Tamron 1.4. Only lens I adapt with FTZ on my Z8 - best AF F-Mount lens ever.
@@michaltopas I love that lens. Now that Tamron is making Z lenses under their own name, I hope they start bringing some primes.
The plena is my 85 1.2 lol a stunner that l will rent on every occasion i can justify it
I'm ready for spring weather so I can go out and really run some frames through it.
I currently have the z105 and z40 and I use the 105 the most and I don’t do macro. 😅 I really want the 180-600 for fun but I know I won’t use it much. I’m recently taking some pictures at church and trying to figure out another lens I need. Was thinking about the 70-180 for reach.. but the 25-75 looks good too.
🤙🤙🤙🤙🤙 I dig the 105
You covered a lot of the Tamrons but you left out the 35-150 f2.0-2.8 which I freaking love. To me that is a high value bordering on top tier if you do any event work.
Only included the Nikon branded lenses. While the “Tamrons” I mentioned are Tamrons, they aren’t exactly “Tamrons”. I’ll do another video in the future about labeled third party brands. Mostly because I am specifically waiting for Tamron primes because I’m a fan of
How about 100-400 and the recent 28-400? How u feel about that?
Haven’t used either. Based on the images I see with 1-400, I’d be upper got what you paid for or maybe even better had I used it to gauge the speed myself. I haven’t seen any images of the 28-400 so I don’t know where to begin on that unfortunately
@@ZWadePhoto I think the 28-400 is going to be at least high value due to the range with VR. But we will wait and see.
If you can't get good photos with the 24-200 then then perhaps it is you and not the lens. It is a fantastic lens fir the money and I have taken great shots with it. I also have six S line lenses.
It is definitely not me, It is NOT a good lens for the money. It IS OVER priced.
Henh, Thanks for the opinion, kinda wrong about the key trilogy lenses, particularly the 70-200 f/2.8 (if only you knew what your talking about with this one) which is remarkably correctly claimed as the best lens of its range on the market, ever. With this one you get what you pay for and when you have one your glad you did.
“Thanks for the opinion”, followed by “kind of wrong” makes it not an opinion at all lol. I did have this lens from launch until I stopped taking paid work recently. And it is excellent as a tool. The majority of my audience does not have the means for $2700 USD, with my opinion and this is mind it’s a hard sell for a non professional (almost all of my audience) Thanks for watching
Just as expected. nikon makes some of the best stuff out there, but it comes at a cost. But hey, at least they let you ise third party lenses, if you want better prices, unlike other brands *coughcanoncough*.
Thanks for watching
Wow! I have 3 Z lenses so far and they're all in the "Shut your fat mouth and buy" category. I have the 24-120, the 105 MC and the 40. I love them all! I agree with all of your ratings. Good job! And thank you for the entertaining video. 🙂
Glad I could entertain you today!
ZWade Photo ZEE WADE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ‘Putting down my cherished 24-200! ‘. 😯🙄🤔😃😂✌
Hahaha. Oh hold on some one is calling 📞💩 💩 💩….oh it was just the 24-200 told him I wasn’t interested. Buuuuurn hahahaha thanks for watching George 🤙🤙
For God's sake, post the chart rankings and explanations where one can READ it. Sitting through this is AGONY.
Ugliest name I’ve ever seen in my life. It’s not that you have to sit through folks, it’s Glinda Qualding not being able to do anything but sit. Like grandpa in Charlie and the Chocolate factory, only we don’t get a catchy music number, we get…Glinda Qualding…bitching about a video that could easily be turned off. lol loser 🤡🤡🤡🤡
So, now where would you say the Z28-400 lens go? I already know, but I had to ask... 😅
I don’t actually know yet. Even If it is the same image quality as the 24-200, id say its a better value for money lol because its more range and not that much more expensive.
I have NO issue with wide range zoom. Only overpriced stuff and the 24-120 is way too good for the price ratio compared to the 24-200 🤙🤙🤙🤙
@@ZWadePhoto True. 😊
@@ZWadePhoto you should do a review on the Nikkor Z 28-400. I just wish it was a S lense... 😏
@@amirrarastehpour5393 some point maybe. But I only buy what I need, and the KZhead channel has to make enough to justify renting something that I’m not shopping for haha. Become a member. Lmfao
14mm vs 17mm is a big difference.
In some scenes sure. But not in general for what I do. I'm not big in real estate anymore or architecture. 14-24 was a necessity when I was in real estate though. Thanks for watching
@@ZWadePhoto oh so the video is representative of your current style of photography. That makes sense.
@@livejames9374 I mean, yea kind of. VERY general perspective. I’ve been tuning my videos towards recent search trends and if people are asking about value for money I imagine they are newer probably shopping lower priced items. This video is more helpful there. And Like I said in the beginning “value for money is hard, so Let’s just have fun” Another commenter and I agreed earlier that a whole OTHER conversation could be had about “The value in your bag vs monetary value”
Hum I know that evaluating the value of lenses is very subjective and linked to the usage but some affirmations here surprise me. You place the 14-30 f4 in too costly and the 17-28 f2.8 as good value saying there is not so much difference between 14 and 17mm. First the difference of price is less than 20%, then sorry but 14mm is around 15% larger so might be important in constrained environment and finally the interest of f2.8 vs f4 for a wide angle can be challenge… so for me the 2 lenses should be in the same value category then you have the choice between a larger range vs an aperture and know your needs you take the best for your usage. Same for 28-70 f2.8 vs 24-70 f4… the quality is similar - we have two good lenses here - yes the f2.8 can be interesting here ( even if an additional 50 f1.8 is far more interesting according to,me) but a 24 is useful… then it s very easy to find on se and market very cheap and not used 24-70 as a lot are sold with a body so generally the f4 will be far cheaper than a new 28-75… and their value increases. So again they should be on the same value category ( even if with this second market phenomena I consider the 24-70 as a better value) and again you choose between large range and aperture. Here are my thoughts. See you.
Thanks for watching
@@ZWadePhoto thx for your thx even if I am not sure you liked my comments :)))
if you shoot sports the no brainer value for money would be the 180-600mm f5.6-6.3 and the 400mm f4.5
🙌
You must have a bad copy of the 24-200mm! No doubt about it! I tried it with a couple of other photographers in mid-to-good light conditions and no one was able to distinguish the photos of the 24-200mm from the 24-120mm f4 ones.
Idk man. Nikon isn’t impervious to making poopers 🤷♂️
@@ZWadePhoto Lens quality variability, might be more common in this lens and other non S-line lens?
A comment re the 20mm f1.8, ask any astrophotograpfer or those doing nightscapes, nearly all will place this on the top of there list. Basically, a 20mm 1.8 gives almost the maximum amount of light to the sensor and this one is very sharp, low distortion, comppact and light and not too expensive. I would place it atleast as high value.
Oh yea. This lens kicks ass 🤙🤙🤙🤙
3 of my 4 lenses are in Shut up and.. 😂😊 Only the 14-30 is further down. But it is brilliant. And the difference to the 17-28 is worth loosing the 2.8 as it costs the same here
🤙🤙🤙
looks like you missed 100-400
I know! I grab the imagery straight from Nikon and didn't upload it to my table. Did catch that until it went public. Missed in both of these tier lists because I did them at the same time. Bummer, it's a great offering.
I did not like the nikkor/tamron 28-75, It was not very sharp wide open.
I think it's fine at half the price. Curious to see how the Branded Tamron G2 that was just release will do. Thanks for watching.
You put some expensive lenses as got what you paid for or over priced. But plena 135mm or 50mm 1.2, they give so much difference in photography and photos you make that it can make the work go from 500$ to 1000$. They are invaluable. Maybe dont give thoughts based on price, as there are photographers that can get 3000$ a shooting. The price on the lenses means nothing to them. Maybe for casual people that photograph for fun, your chart is fine, otherwise if you work in a bussy work environment, you need fast glass, fast camera and fast everything ;)
This is a tough thought to conceptualize, but I did do another video that’s JUST about that look. That special little extra. But I agree. The value to MY bag is way different than any money can quantify
@@ZWadePhoto i also use the 28-75 and 70-180 2.8 lenses with the z5. It works good for me as i do model photoshoots and food photography. But i used to work in an agency for photo and video, and these wouldnt cut it at all. The work was needed to be done so fast as we had to finish one and go to the next project. Also we usually used the 28-70 2.0 canon lenses with r5 and they did the job perfect. There is no way i could work there with cheap lenses or cameras. At the end it really depends on your use case
You are so wrong about the 24-200.
Show me
How do you know if someone has a Noct? They'll tell you every chance they can get. 😆 For that reason I think it's a "Got what you paid for."
Bragging rights Category lol
So you want us to believe you have done extensive testing or even shot all these lenses? My apologies if you have, but doubtful. I own 6 of those lenses and I will say they all perform extremely well for what I purchased them for. All the top manufacturers don't make junk, but when you think about it, most lenses are overpriced, just like everything today.
Here’s my impression of tomlew55 “😭😭😭. Mrrr mrrr mrrr mrrr. ZWade has an opinion different than meeeeee…my diaper is full momma”🤡🤡🤡🤡 Did you miss the part where I said “don’t take this too seriously we’re just gonna have some fun today?” This video was free and you didn’t like it you got exactly what you paid for. But, for what it’s worth, yea I’ve used a lot of Z and F glass. Used a lot and owned, traded, owned again, etc a lot. It kind of comes with the KZhead territory, and collector territory but I don’t do the collecting anymore.
@@ZWadePhoto Did you miss the part of my apologies if you had tested all those lenses. Just my opinion that it seemed hard to believe. Didn't intend to get you butthurt and turned into a 3rd grader.
@@tomlew55 Pretending that your delivery was not snarky? “But, doubtful” I clown all the trolly people generally to the extent that they remove their own comments. might start doing a monthly public segment on my livestreams where I collect, read and shame the dorks who get hurt looking for confirmation bias and not finding it here lol It would have been cordial to not bother typing your first 2 sentences. Re-read your comment and tell me I’m wrong. So….🤡honk honk🤡
I find myself have got all the shut your mouth and buy it catagory lens except the 180-600. I got the 400 4.5 instead.
🙌🙌🙌
You always get what you paid for. Nothing is free
Generally, I agree. Sometimes you over pay
Value is a weird measurement for choosing a lens. The best 'value' lenses are most often the cheapest and optically worst. Besides that, value is meaningless when comparing lenses with so different characteristics. There's no good in having the absolute best 'value' lense, when you cannot take the pictures you want with it... ;)
Exactly like I said. Value is tough, so let’s just have fun with it. I might do one more, money irrelevant, and just the value in my own bag which is a WAY more important way to classify things
Who wants to fight? Come on Man! 🧤 😯 😂
Why I ooouuughta
I currently own the 24-120. It isn't a golden turd. You probably couldn't tell the image differences between the 24-120 and 24-200, but poo on it.
Who said it was a golden turd?
too much personal opinion and not facts ...
Hmmmm. Yes Glad I didn't forget to mention to not take it too serious and lets just have some fun.
This video should be seen as comedy very entertaining but not very informative.
Good things it’s not a sales pitch. Also, there plenty of small info bits for people to take a research deeper 🤙
I knew already before I saw the video where the 24-200mm was going to end😅😅😅 I have the same thing with Fujifilm 18-55mm f2.8-4. People rave about this lens that it is so good. I think that the person who designed this lens was high on meth or something😅
Lmfao. Finally someone not fighting me on this lol
@@ZWadePhoto Oh, and be aware of the Tamron SP AF28-75mm F/2.8 XR Di LD. Probably designed by the same guy after he got fired by Fujifilm.
why do you have to be vulgar about lenses?
Because it’s funny to me.
Last comment super lame sorry but sick 🤢 of all the self crap
Huh? Lol
Bored huh?
Huh?