z50 lens recommendation - ftz adapter for existing 35mm f/1.8 vs Z 28mm f/2.8 vs Z 40mm f/2?

All of your concerns are valid. As you've found out, there is a large gap and concern when it comes to Z lenses in the Z DX lineup. There are several manual focus and Viltrox options, but they were not for me. If you want the cost down you're going o have to use the FTZ and deal with the bulk. I think the 16-50DXVR is going to surprise you.



The compact Z lenses are a bit softer under 6' and have less contrast wide open. They benefit greatly from being stopped down 1-2 stops. I would consider the 24-70F4S used. For $450 or less it is the best value, almost compact, and highest quality lens. IF you can get by with F4. (I can't tell you how many images I shot with my D500 at f2.8 that would have been better off at F4 over the years.) The improvement in focusing accuracy is significant going to the Z system. Enough for me to give up that f2.8 and get better results overall. The 24-70F4S matches the S primes at F4, and is better than nearly ANY f-mount lens you might compare it to. Or even consider the 24-120F4S or 14-30F4S depending on your shooting style.



Otherwise you may want to consider adapting Sony lenses to the Z50 using the Megadap V2 adapter. It is much smaller than the FTZ. However, the adapter and a Sony G lens (the 15f1.4G or 24f2.8G due to their more compact size,) isn't cheap. You lose VR and a bit of AF-C performance. You may run into firmware issues down the road with the adapter, camera, and lens.













--
SkyRunR
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
RULE1&TIP1: Be kind and avoid the reply with quote button at all cost!
TIP2: RT#M and don't list gear in your signature, happy shooting!
'Out of the darkness there must come out the light.' Bob Marley

skyrunr said:

All of your concerns are valid. As you've found out, there is a large gap and concern when it comes to Z lenses in the Z DX lineup. There are several manual focus and Viltrox options, but they were not for me. If you want the cost down you're going o have to use the FTZ and deal with the bulk. I think the 16-50DXVR is going to surprise you.

The compact Z lenses are a bit softer under 6' and have less contrast wide open. They benefit greatly from being stopped down 1-2 stops. I would consider the 24-70F4S used. For $450 or less it is the best value, almost compact, and highest quality lens. IF you can get by with F4. (I can't tell you how many images I shot with my D500 at f2.8 that would have been better off at F4 over the years.) The improvement in focusing accuracy is significant going to the Z system. Enough for me to give up that f2.8 and get better results overall. The 24-70F4S matches the S primes at F4, and is better than nearly ANY f-mount lens you might compare it to. Or even consider the 24-120F4S or 14-30F4S depending on your shooting style.

Otherwise you may want to consider adapting Sony lenses to the Z50 using the Megadap V2 adapter. It is much smaller than the FTZ. However, the adapter and a Sony G lens (the 15f1.4G or 24f2.8G due to their more compact size,) isn't cheap. You lose VR and a bit of AF-C performance. You may run into firmware issues down the road with the adapter, camera, and lens.

Click to expand...

I am curious if you have tried the Sigma 18-50 f2.8 E-mount yet, as I think it can be a good option in meeting OP's needs. If yes, what do you think about it?

I don't have the need for a fast wide zoom as my goal was something as portable and simple as possible, but wanted f1.x. I'll crop and superres if I need to. I could see trying the 18-50f2.8 eventually. I haven't fully tested the 15mm G lens, it is working well enough, but there really isn't much competition for it either.

Most of the compatibility problems are with lenses more than five years old.

I am planning on trying the Sigma 100-400 e-mount though. I have the f-mount with the FTZ for now, but I purchased those by mistake, and I should have went with the E-mount version.

laurenc6 said:

I'm looking to upgrade to the z50, coming from a d3000. I already have (and almost exclusively use) the AF-S DX NIKKOR 35mm f/1.8G on my current camera. I'll get the kit 16-50mm f/3.5-6.3 lens, but also want a faster prime option so am deciding between three solutions:

• get the ftz adapter so I can use my existing 35mm f/1.8
• get the Z 28mm f/2.8
• get the Z 40mm f/2

My questions are: how much faster/better is the f/2 than the f/2.8? I'm worried about the 40mm f/2 being too cropped/close for everyday shooting (acknowledging that I'm already getting a crop with the z50 sensor), but the aperture is better than the 28mm. The adapter and two Z lenses are all around the same price, so I'm just looking for the best option that will "do-it-all" the best!

I'll mostly be doing pet photography, a bit of landscapes, some product photos, but mostly action photos of people & animals.

Thanks for your help!

Click to expand...

I've used all three of your possible options. I prefer the 40mm f/2 but probably use the 28mm f/2.8 much more...it pretty much is permanent affixed to the Z fc at this point.

I can't speak of this lens but u may want to consider the Viltrox 23mm f/1.4 DX for Z mount for ur purposes. I just got the 13mm f/1.4 DX and my initial impressions are so favorable that I am very likely to order the 23mm for th Z fc.

I have the own the 35/1.8DX, FTX, 28/2.8, and 40/2.0 myselfs.

Given that you'll also have the 16-50, my choice would be the 40/2. The 35/1.8DX and FTZ combo doesn't really add anything over the 40/2 and is much larger and clunkier. The 28/2.8 is actually my favorite of the three choices, but if I was combing it with the 16-50 I'd want the extra stop of light from the 40/2.

The Z50 + 40/2 is an awesome combo. Great autofocus, awesome image quality, very small, lightweight, etc.

I had the DX 35mm on my DSLR and it usually stayed there. It was a great all around lens on DX. I have both of the other lenses on my Z5, and they are both great. But for general DX shooting as you describe, I would go for the 28mm. I think the 40mm will be a little too tight in field of view for every day stuff (though a 55 or 58 used to be pretty common, so you still might be happy with it). The 28mm will give you a very normal-looking field of view on DX, and those extra few degrees of view you'll see over the 35mm might be welcome, or at least might be a tolerable difference to get a more compact setup.

The 28mm is only slightly slower than the 40mm. The low-light advantage of f2 or f1.8 are not as great as it would seem since you give up depth of field. So you are trading (possible) motion blur or ISO noise for depth of field blur. If you WANT the bokeh effect, the 40 (and the 35) are better for that. But if you are mostly interested in overall picture clarity in most situations, then the 28 will work just fine for that.

So I would start with the 28, get the 40 next, and if you really want the 35 also you can find a cheap used one very easily.

skyrunr said:

I don't have the need for a fast wide zoom as my goal was something as portable and simple as possible, but wanted f1.x. I'll crop and superres if I need to. I could see trying the 18-50f2.8 eventually. I haven't fully tested the 15mm G lens, it is working well enough, but there really isn't much competition for it either.

Click to expand...

Good to hear. The f1.4 aperture + the great low-light capability of Z50 are going to be useful in lowlight photograhy.

skyrunr said:

Most of the compatibility problems are with lenses more than five years old.

I am planning on trying the Sigma 100-400 e-mount though. I have the f-mount with the FTZ for now, but I purchased those by mistake, and I should have went with the E-mount version.

Click to expand...

The new Tamron 50-400 seems to be excellent optically on the A7RIV, and I was thinking about buying the ETZ21 and adapting it on my Z6.


But then I decide to wait because I believe Tamron is going to release the 50-400 on Z-mount eventually (seeing the 70-300 is released on Z-mount).

Ricosuavefoto said:

The 28mm is only slightly slower than the 40mm. The low-light advantage of f2 or f1.8 are not as great as it would seem since you give up depth of field. So you are trading (possible) motion blur or ISO noise for depth of field blur. If you WANT the bokeh effect, the 40 (and the 35) are better for that. But if you are mostly interested in overall picture clarity in most situations, then the 28 will work just fine for that.

Click to expand...

To be fair, the 16-50 actually has surprisingly good IQ and at f/3.5 on the wide-end is not terrible in low light, especially given that the 16-50 DOES have VR. For static subjects, the 28/2.8 and 16-50 are very similar when you consider the zoom has VR. That's why I say the 40mm is a better compliment to the 16-50 than the 28mm is. I have a much harder time distinguishing the 28mm photos from the kit lens photos than I do with the 40mm. If I had the 16-50 and 28 in my bag, I'd say the 16-50 would stay on my camera 90% of the time. Where as with the 16-50, it might be closer to a 60/40 split for me as the 40mm is definitely the more flattering lens for portraits.

I think you should do whatever you can to avoid having to use the FTZ. Don’t get me wrong, I’m glad we have it as an option, but it adds size and weight and some lenses just look weird on it.

I’d probably try to wait a little bit to see what the DX-specific 24mm prime looks like. From the roadmap, it looks even smaller than the 28 and 40mm compacts. Or I’d just get the 28 now and add the 40 later — you can get both for less than many of the S-line primes.

The viltox primes look pretty appealing too. And I believe they’re f/1.4.



It seems like all of a sudden there are a lot of options for the Z50, so I would avoid going back to F mount.

thisisbenji said:

Ricosuavefoto said:

The 28mm is only slightly slower than the 40mm. The low-light advantage of f2 or f1.8 are not as great as it would seem since you give up depth of field. So you are trading (possible) motion blur or ISO noise for depth of field blur. If you WANT the bokeh effect, the 40 (and the 35) are better for that. But if you are mostly interested in overall picture clarity in most situations, then the 28 will work just fine for that.

Click to expand...

To be fair, the 16-50 actually has surprisingly good IQ and at f/3.5 on the wide-end is not terrible in low light, especially given that the 16-50 DOES have VR. For static subjects, the 28/2.8 and 16-50 are very similar when you consider the zoom has VR. That's why I say the 40mm is a better compliment to the 16-50 than the 28mm is. I have a much harder time distinguishing the 28mm photos from the kit lens photos than I do with the 40mm. If I had the 16-50 and 28 in my bag, I'd say the 16-50 would stay on my camera 90% of the time. Where as with the 16-50, it might be closer to a 60/40 split for me as the 40mm is definitely the more flattering lens for portraits.

Click to expand...

My kit came with the 24-50 zoom and at first I was unhappy with it in lower light. But as I figured out my post processing with the new camera it has grown on me and I think it is good for many situations. I suspect the same is true for 16-50. In most cases I could just say my 28 and my 40 are covered by that zoom, and just throw on that lens and be done with it.

But the OP was asking about primes. I don't know if he is just looking for faster lenses, or if he wants to shoot prime for other reasons. I admit to being a weirdo about primes--I enjoy the idea that I have to look for specific types of shots and will miss others that I can't get with the single focal length. I enjoy the challenge/clarity of looking for a narrower set of compositions, and I'll often take the same walk with different lenses and get completely different photos. I've enjoyed that the Z makes it easier to shoot with vintage glass, so I've been able to play with a wider range of primes than I ever had before. My current favorites for this are the 28 (both Z and a vintage f3.5), the Z40, a pentax 50 f1.7, and a vintage nikon 105 f2.5.

But if it's just concerns about low light shooting and not a specific desire for a prime, you are right that the OP should consider the 16-50. It's in the same price range as the 28 and 40. I used to use the DX 18-55 (which has similar range and aperature) on my D7500 a lot and it was just fine in lower light or all types of situations.

He said that he'd be getting the kit with the Z50 + 16-50 and adding the prime. So he'll have the 16-50 already and is trying to decide which prime best compliments the 16-50 is how I interpreted his post.

Yes, exactly! It was late, so I didn't explain it very clearly but this is exactly what I was asking. Thanks!

This makes a lot of sense and is SUPER helpful! I think based on all of this I'll shoot with the 16-50 for a while and then get the 40/2 because of the bokeh, portrait and light perks. If I wasn't already getting the 16-50 with the kit I think I would definitely go with the 28mm for all-round use (if I could find a body + 28mm lens for the same price as the kit that includes the body + 16-50mm I would prefer that, but that doesn't seem to be very cost effective or available). Also, it sounds like the 40/2 will do pretty much the same as the ftz + 35mm I already have, so I might as well go with the 40/2 to reduce bulk? Thanks to all, this has been incredibly informative!

Ah, the usual prime problem with the Z50...wish Nikon would sort this out already.

Personally, I have the Z50 with FTZ and 35 mm DX F mount, but I wouldn't really recommend. That's not because the lens has any problems, but I find the FTZ clunky and awkward to use, especially because it protudes from the bottom of the camera and makes the camera very front heavy. It nullifies the advantage of having a small compact camera.

I wouldn't go for the 28 mm f2.8 either because it's pretty slow as a prime for DX, which leaves us with either the 40 mm f2 or the viltrox lenses.

If you are not in a rush, it's also worth to consider waiting, since there's a nice compact 24 mm DX planned.

Given what you like to shoot and you already have the 16-50, get the 50-250 zoom lens.

Photodog2 said:

Given what you like to shoot and you already have the 16-50, get the 50-250 zoom lens.

Click to expand...

I was gonna suggest that as IMHO the 50-250mm is BY FAR the best "kit" lens Nikon has ever produced...so much so that I think I am gonna stop referring to it as such. But It looked like the OP was primarily looking for a fast low light prime and didn't express a need for any focal length beyond 50mm.

fotosean said:

Photodog2 said:

Given what you like to shoot and you already have the 16-50, get the 50-250 zoom lens.

Click to expand...

I was gonna suggest that as IMHO the 50-250mm is BY FAR the best "kit" lens Nikon has ever produced...so much so that I think I am gonna stop referring to it as such. But It looked like the OP was primarily looking for a fast low light prime and didn't express a need for any focal length beyond 50mm.

Click to expand...

Fair enough. She did say "mostly action photos of people and animals" and that requires a zoom lens. Those primes would be too short. The 50-250 is one of my favorite dog park lenses.

Photodog2 said:

fotosean said:

Photodog2 said:

Given what you like to shoot and you already have the 16-50, get the 50-250 zoom lens.

Click to expand...

I was gonna suggest that as IMHO the 50-250mm is BY FAR the best "kit" lens Nikon has ever produced...so much so that I think I am gonna stop referring to it as such. But It looked like the OP was primarily looking for a fast low light prime and didn't express a need for any focal length beyond 50mm.

Click to expand...

Fair enough. She did say "mostly action photos of people and animals" and that requires a zoom lens. Those primes would be too short. The 50-250 is one of my favorite dog park lenses.

Click to expand...

Ha, It is my go-to at the local dog park as well!!!

fotosean said:

Photodog2 said:

fotosean said:

Photodog2 said:

Given what you like to shoot and you already have the 16-50, get the 50-250 zoom lens.

Click to expand...

I was gonna suggest that as IMHO the 50-250mm is BY FAR the best "kit" lens Nikon has ever produced...so much so that I think I am gonna stop referring to it as such. But It looked like the OP was primarily looking for a fast low light prime and didn't express a need for any focal length beyond 50mm.

Click to expand...

Fair enough. She did say "mostly action photos of people and animals" and that requires a zoom lens. Those primes would be too short. The 50-250 is one of my favorite dog park lenses.

Click to expand...

Ha, It is my go-to at the local dog park as well!!!

Click to expand...

The OP did mention the 40mm prime and here's an animal action example below.



I guess if you're close enough the prime can work too. As an advantage the 40mm does have a fast AF with less lens elements to move. (It was front focused. Not the gear but my fault. I still like the way it came out.)