DX V FF lenses on a future Z500 body

DX V FF lenses on a future Z500 body


  • Total voters
    0
There seems to be at least 2 groups of photographers with regard to lens choice for DX bodies particularly a body designed for sports wildlife. I know the Z500 is a unicorn camera and may never be produced but if it was would you want a set of DX lenses comparable to their FF versions with regard to field of view ie instead of a 180-600 a small as possible 120-400, instead of a 70-200 a 45-135. or do you simply want to use the DX body as a quality 1.5X teleconvertor with existing FF lenses which you may already have for your FF body. I have kept the poll simple, basically yes or no.
No, not for any focal lengths above 24mm.

But yes, a Z DX 10-24/4 would be nice if in a professional grade package, weather sealed etc., but that will never happen.

Nikon does not seem to view Z DX as a pro system at all any more. Times have changed since D2X.

I would be happy with the 400/4.5 on a Z500.
That would be a big lens around 125mm dia front optic.
The perfect lens would be Z 500/4 @ 2.5 kg or so...(no PF), but it doesn't even exist for FF today.

And we might not even get one as the 400 TC, 600/6.3 PF is "overlapping".

Same with a Z 800/5.6, I doubt we will see one.
Sure, but significantly lighter than 600/4 and 400/2.8.

500mm is a better fit on DX than 600mm IMO, and f4 is better than the f5.6 or 6.3 lenses considering the smaller sensor size.
It depends on what you shoot. Kestrels are year-round residents where I live and winter is absolutely the best season to photograph them. They're also the smallest North American falcon. It's rare to get a photo op of a kestrel in-flight in which the bird fills the frame of a 750mm angle of view.

Though not as rare, it's still uncommon to get ops with eagles and hawks in-flight where the bird fills a 750mm angle of view.

When you consider the additional reach of a 600mm lens vs 500 or 400, plus the better low-light performance of a 600mm f/6.3 lens vs 500mm f/5.6 or 400mm f/4.5, I think the Nikkor 600mm PF would fly off the shelves (as much add any $4,800 lens can fly) as the optic of choice for bird and wildlife photographers using a hypothetical Z500.
Unfortunately I doubt we will see a 500mm/4, and probably not a Z500 either.
Agreed.
The D500 must have sold in very large numbers and made a good profit, since it was mostly same tech as the D5, so I don't get why Nikon didn't try to fill that whole earlier. The D500 was discontinued 2 years ago and as a comparison the Canon R7 (7D replacement) was released June, 2022.
Nikon sold about 200K units based on the serial numbers tracked at http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/camera.html

It wasn't near to being their best-selling DSLR but that's not a small customer base in the current dedicated digital camera market.
The only reason that I can see is that tech (at Nikon) haven't been good enough to make a competitive camera until lately, and of course they don't want to release a camera that can't compete wit R7, Fujifilm etc.

The D500 was released together with the D5 so the rumors of a high speed Z9 makes me dream about a deja-due double release: Z9H / Z900H before the Summer Olympics.

But what's the odds on that pipe dream? :-)
Nikon's done a brilliant job through performance, pricing, and unicorn lens development of enticing their bird, wildlife & sports shooting D500 owners to buy into full-frame mirorless. (And to attract photographers from other brands.) The Z8 and Z9 deliver amazing performance. They're not inexpensive - not by any stretch - but are competitively priced in their segment.

But it's Nikon's stable of Z-mount lenses that push all the right buttons. They've got ther widest and best selection of optics for wildlife and sports photogs. The 600 & 800 PF are incredibly tempting; again, not inexpensive, but really enticing considering performance and price. Shoot, the 800 PF is as good a low-light lens as a 500mm f/4 and not too far behind the 400mm f/2.8.
Absolutely, it's a nice lens lineup, but before that and before Z9/Z8, a bunch of Nikon shooters moved to Sony.
For good reason, too. But that's in the past. Nikon's on a roll with a series of quality full-frame camera releases, starting with the Z9.
But if you can't afford the Z8 or Z9, I don't see why getting into the Nikon Z system today, if shooting wildlife.

Competition have more compelling alternatives for those people. That's why Nikon needs a cheaper, faster camera with excellent AF and high MP, and DX seems to be a reasonable way to achieve that.
Trust me, I'm on board with Nikon developing and releasing a Z-mount D500 equivalent. I've been advocating for that since the first-gen Z6/Z7 were introduced. As a longtime Nikon photographer, it's the camera I've been holding out for...but that collection of lenses has me also considering full-frame options.

What's the old saying in photograhy; you date the camera but marry the lens. I think the current Z-mount lens lineup offers enough in the "marriage material" column to persuade customers to spend more than they'd prefer or to wait for a more affordable body to come along, before committing to another brand's lesser glass.

Nobody other than Nikon - not Canon, Sony, Fuji, nor OM-Systems - offers anything that can compete with the 500mm, 600mm or 800mm PF lenses. They're not inexpensive but, for the serious wildlife and bird photographer, they're incredibly tantalizing.

Based on the rumors about the Z6III, it appears Nikon may be developing a non-stacked sensor body that still delivers the autofocus performance a bird, wildlife or sports enthusiast would expect. It's a risky strategy. The Z6/Z7 bodies had locked-in a public perception that non-stacked sensor Z-mount bodies couldn't get the job done.

The recently released Zf has challenged that image. It's getting consistently favorable reviews for autofocus performance. If the Z6III continues that trend, Nikon will have a reasonably priced enthusiast-level full frame body that, when paired with one of the many excellent lens options (including the 180-600), can be used for a wide range of photographic genres, including wildlife and birds.

My preference, would be the introduction of a Z900 APS-C fast action body. But with Nikon's focus on full-frame as the format for serious amateurs and professionals, I'm not confident such a camera is in development.
 
If Nikon releases a true Z500 - BSI stacked sensor with APS-C version of Z9 autofocus, Z8-style body with professional user interface and a quality OEM vertical grip available - I'd pair it with a 600mm PF and be a happy guy :)
Especially if it has around 33 MP - putting more pixels on a subject than an equivalent Z8 cropped FX image.
That is exactly what I would buy, otherwise the Z8 is the alternative, use full frame and only crop in post.
You can buy the APS-C Canon R7 with 33 MP for less than half the price of a Z8.

Nikon needs a APS-C ML camera in that medium price segment as well.
Not quite up to the standard of a D500, body quality, dials, buttons etc. better than anything Nikon makes in the DX lineup.
That's true, and I would expect a "Z500" to be more solid, but also a bit more expensive than the R7. Let's say 50% of the Z8, to make it interesting enough for a broader audience.
 
I want a Z50 (or replacement) as a so-called small travel camera & as an occasional 2nd body with my existing S lenses so want a small & reasonably cheap camera, not semi-pro DX body. I’ve owned both a D700 (12MP with great high ISO performance) & a Sony RX100 MkI - 20MP with poor high ISO) so would prefer no more than 21-24MP & reason noise.

Although I’d prefer IBIS, I could live with the OIS that comes with the 16-50 lens & accept no stabilisation when using my S lenses - unless my Z70-200’s OIS works with the Z50 which I doubt. If I base my needs on what exists now, a used Z50 with the Z16-50 would be good.
 
There seems to be at least 2 groups of photographers with regard to lens choice for DX bodies particularly a body designed for sports wildlife. I know the Z500 is a unicorn camera and may never be produced but if it was would you want a set of DX lenses comparable to their FF versions with regard to field of view ie instead of a 180-600 a small as possible 120-400, instead of a 70-200 a 45-135. or do you simply want to use the DX body as a quality 1.5X teleconvertor with existing FF lenses which you may already have for your FF body. I have kept the poll simple, basically yes or no.
If Nikon could come up with a body similar to Sony's a6000 line, with IBIS and be around $1000 I would greatly buy it (would have to have improved AF, but could still have the same 20.9 MP sensor as I would personally only use it for light-duty photography while traveling). But this same body could be used for wildlife and sports photography as well, so it's an idea that could really kill two birds with one stone.

I know some would prefer the SLR style setup, especially with a larger grip for using with bigger/long lenses, but an a6000-style body would be a good place to start though. Perhaps they could do both if they re-used some of the components from the Z50 (like the sensor and overall body) with a new processor -- although this does make me think that any updated Z DX body with the modern (Expeed 7) processor may need a larger battery (the EN-25 or whatever the Z DX ship with) may not be enough or may result in very short battery life, like 200-250 shots). And that could be one reason we haven't seen one yet... Nikon is still trying to figure those little details out.

--
NOTE: If I don't reply to a direct comment in the forums, it's likely I unsubscribed from the thread/article..
 
Last edited:
If Nikon releases a true Z500 - BSI stacked sensor with APS-C version of Z9 autofocus, Z8-style body with professional user interface and a quality OEM vertical grip available - I'd pair it with a 600mm PF and be a happy guy :)
Especially if it has around 33 MP - putting more pixels on a subject than an equivalent Z8 cropped FX image.
That is exactly what I would buy, otherwise the Z8 is the alternative, use full frame and only crop in post.
You can buy the APS-C Canon R7 with 33 MP for less than half the price of a Z8.
But then you're stuck with Canon lenses. The two f/11 primes are seriously compromised from a light-gathering standpoint. The new 200-800 f/6.3-9 is kind of interesting. It's basically the Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6 paired with a TC. The new Nikkor 180-600 f/5.6-6.3 doesn't have as much native reach but is a skosh better in low light.
Nikon needs a APS-C ML camera in that medium price segment as well.
We'll see if Nikon delivers.
 
If Nikon releases a true Z500 - BSI stacked sensor with APS-C version of Z9 autofocus, Z8-style body with professional user interface and a quality OEM vertical grip available - I'd pair it with a 600mm PF and be a happy guy :)
Especially if it has around 33 MP - putting more pixels on a subject than an equivalent Z8 cropped FX image.
That is exactly what I would buy, otherwise the Z8 is the alternative, use full frame and only crop in post.
You can buy the APS-C Canon R7 with 33 MP for less than half the price of a Z8.
But then you're stuck with Canon lenses. The two f/11 primes are seriously compromised from a light-gathering standpoint. The new 200-800 f/6.3-9 is kind of interesting. It's basically the Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6 paired with a TC. The new Nikkor 180-600 f/5.6-6.3 doesn't have as much native reach but is a skosh better in low light.
The EF-RF adapter allows to use all the 3rd party EF options. It's SLR glass, sure, but it's also affordable, generally good quality and autofocus speed is like native glass. If you're trying to save a buck by going for the R7, might as well save a buck by going with EF glass as well.

RF glass is either compromised (f/11 primes means you can only shoot in good light or with tons of grain, some have expressed their dissapointment at the rather tight aperture values of the 200-800) or too expensive for a lot of people (100-500 L, and other 100-300 f/2.8, 600 f/4s ect)
Nikon needs a APS-C ML camera in that medium price segment as well.
We'll see if Nikon delivers.
I think they have to. The D500 was a highly popular camera, not releasing a mirrorless followup would prove to be detrimental for them I think. They're at risk of seeing innitially pretty loyal customers go to other brands. Once they switched to another system and are happy with it, you can't really win them back.
 
Still... a 500mm f/4 PF would be tempting for the speed increase.
Perhaps whoa there!

To be f4 a 500mm needs a minimum front element size of 125mm.

There seem to be no Nikon, Canon or Sony lenses with a front element this big costing under £/$ 5,000.
 
There seems to be at least 2 groups of photographers with regard to lens choice for DX bodies particularly a body designed for sports wildlife. I know the Z500 is a unicorn camera and may never be produced but if it was would you want a set of DX lenses comparable to their FF versions with regard to field of view ie instead of a 180-600 a small as possible 120-400, instead of a 70-200 a 45-135. or do you simply want to use the DX body as a quality 1.5X teleconvertor with existing FF lenses which you may already have for your FF body. I have kept the poll simple, basically yes or no.
You should have included a third option where there is a mix of FX and DX lenses. I would like to see the DX lens line fleshed out some more. I figure Nikon only needs a set of 12-15 good DX lenses to make this really work well. They already have three decent slow zooms. Perhaps a faster, premium DX 16-70mm VR zoom could be made that would pair up nicely with the smallish FX 70-180mm zoom. An equivalent to Sony’s well-regarded APS-C 70-350mm lens. A few f/2 or f/2.8 DX primes (12mm, 16mm, 20mm, 35mm, 70mm). A Z-mount replacement for the AF-P DX 10-20mm lens. If future DX cameras have IBIS then certain FX lenses could fill out any other likely needs a DX photographer would have.
Basically the first choice covers that, it's not DX only unlike the second choice which is FF only, you need a full range of DX lenses so that anyone using FF lenses has a large choice of the DX lenses, different users would want different DX lenses.

--
Mike.
"I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit, it's the only way to be sure."
 
Last edited:
If Nikon releases a true Z500 - BSI stacked sensor with APS-C version of Z9 autofocus, Z8-style body with professional user interface and a quality OEM vertical grip available - I'd pair it with a 600mm PF and be a happy guy :)
Especially if it has around 33 MP - putting more pixels on a subject than an equivalent Z8 cropped FX image.
That is exactly what I would buy, otherwise the Z8 is the alternative, use full frame and only crop in post.
You can buy the APS-C Canon R7 with 33 MP for less than half the price of a Z8.

Nikon needs a APS-C ML camera in that medium price segment as well.
Not quite up to the standard of a D500, body quality, dials, buttons etc. better than anything Nikon makes in the DX lineup.
That's true, and I would expect a "Z500" to be more solid, but also a bit more expensive than the R7. Let's say 50% of the Z8, to make it interesting enough for a broader
I agree, that is similar to the Cost difference between the D500 and D850 when they were released, with very similar bodies and features.
audience.
 
I want a Z50 (or replacement) as a so-called small travel camera & as an occasional 2nd body with my existing S lenses so want a small & reasonably cheap camera, not semi-pro DX body. I’ve owned both a D700 (12MP with great high ISO performance) & a Sony RX100 MkI - 20MP with poor high ISO) so would prefer no more than 21-24MP & reason noise.

Although I’d prefer IBIS, I could live with the OIS that comes with the 16-50 lens & accept no stabilisation when using my S lenses - unless my Z70-200’s OIS works with the Z50 which I doubt. If I base my needs on what exists now, a used Z50 with the Z16-50 would be good.
Perhaps you could do a poll on what people want in a Z50 replacement, It's a body I personally have no use for.
 
There seems to be at least 2 groups of photographers with regard to lens choice for DX bodies particularly a body designed for sports wildlife. I know the Z500 is a unicorn camera and may never be produced but if it was would you want a set of DX lenses comparable to their FF versions with regard to field of view ie instead of a 180-600 a small as possible 120-400, instead of a 70-200 a 45-135. or do you simply want to use the DX body as a quality 1.5X teleconvertor with existing FF lenses which you may already have for your FF body. I have kept the poll simple, basically yes or no.
If Nikon could come up with a body similar to Sony's a6000 line, with IBIS and be around $1000 I would greatly buy it (would have to have improved AF, but could still have the same 20.9 MP sensor as I would personally only use it for light-duty photography while traveling). But this same body could be used for wildlife and sports photography as well, so it's an idea that could really kill two birds with one stone.
It would also kill any interest in it from me. One reason I stuck with Nikon all this time is the tiny size and poor ergonomics of Sony bodies.
I know some would prefer the SLR style setup, especially with a larger grip for using with bigger/long lenses, but an a6000-style body would be a good place to start though. Perhaps they could do both if they re-used some of the components from the Z50 (like the sensor and overall body) with a new processor -- although this does make me think that any updated Z DX body with the modern (Expeed 7) processor may need a larger battery (the EN-25 or whatever the Z DX ship with) may not be enough or may result in very short battery life, like 200-250 shots). And that could be one reason we haven't seen one yet... Nikon is still trying to figure those little details out.
 
If Nikon releases a true Z500 - BSI stacked sensor with APS-C version of Z9 autofocus, Z8-style body with professional user interface and a quality OEM vertical grip available - I'd pair it with a 600mm PF and be a happy guy :)
Especially if it has around 33 MP - putting more pixels on a subject than an equivalent Z8 cropped FX image.
That is exactly what I would buy, otherwise the Z8 is the alternative, use full frame and only crop in post.
You can buy the APS-C Canon R7 with 33 MP for less than half the price of a Z8.
But then you're stuck with Canon lenses. The two f/11 primes are seriously compromised from a light-gathering standpoint. The new 200-800 f/6.3-9 is kind of interesting. It's basically the Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6 paired with a TC. The new Nikkor 180-600 f/5.6-6.3 doesn't have as much native reach but is a skosh better in low light.
Nikon needs a APS-C ML camera in that medium price segment as well.
We'll see if Nikon delivers.
That 200-800 appears to be a good lens but I have read enough reviews and watched video's on the 180-600 to know that is the lens I would want to buy, It suits my uses for Motorsport especially if the Z500 ever came around.
 
you need a full range of DX lenses so that anyone using FF lenses has a large choice of the DX lenses, different users would want different DX lenses.
Nikon seems not to have made more than 3 pro grade F mount DX lenses.

There are good Sigma f1.4 Nikon Z DX primes.

The one company that makes a wide range of DX lenses regularly says it does not make a 35 mm format system because there is too small an optical difference between the two format sizes.

With this in mind I believe there is very little chance of Nikon producing a wide range of DX lenses.
 
I want a Z50 (or replacement) as a so-called small travel camera & as an occasional 2nd body with my existing S lenses so want a small & reasonably cheap camera, not semi-pro DX body. I’ve owned both a D700 (12MP with great high ISO performance) & a Sony RX100 MkI - 20MP with poor high ISO) so would prefer no more than 21-24MP & reason noise.

Although I’d prefer IBIS, I could live with the OIS that comes with the 16-50 lens & accept no stabilisation when using my S lenses - unless my Z70-200’s OIS works with the Z50 which I doubt. If I base my needs on what exists now, a used Z50 with the Z16-50 would be good.
Perhaps you could do a poll on what people want in a Z50 replacement, It's a body I personally have no use for.
It's not my 1st choice either. I'd prefer something as small as Sony's RX100 VII with a faster lens & less zoom range. Can't see them updating it & I suspect it would be equally flawed anyway. The market for decent zoom compacts has been greatly reduced by phones. The Canon range of compacts are quite old now & would prefer something with at least a hint of weather sealing.
 
I'm sure he meant the 500/4.

But a Z version could easily shave off 500 grams compared to the current F-version when looking at what Nikon did with the Z 600 TC and 400 mm TC counterparts, and they include a TC as well, pretty amazing.

And a 500/4 would be even more manageable.

But unlikely..
I'm not sure that I would spend the money on a 500mm Z lens given that I have the 600 f/6.3. I have the 500mm PF lens in F-mount. Great lens, but I find it is usually not long enough for birds. It's either not long enough or it's too long. I find myself using the 600mm lens most of the time now.

And I find when the 600mm lens is too long, the 500mm will be too long as well. I'm talking about large birds like herons and egrets here, where I often have to use something like a 100-400 or 70-200.

Still... a 500mm f/4 PF would be tempting for the speed increase. Add a 1.4X TC and it would still be f/5.6.
I suspect that the 400/2.8 TC killed off the Z 500/4 version. Having fewer lenses in the production line will be more efficient for Nikon as well. Especially expensive models that doesn't sell in big numbers.

Sony and Canon don't have a 500/4 for mirrorless either.
 
If Nikon releases a true Z500 - BSI stacked sensor with APS-C version of Z9 autofocus, Z8-style body with professional user interface and a quality OEM vertical grip available - I'd pair it with a 600mm PF and be a happy guy :)
Especially if it has around 33 MP - putting more pixels on a subject than an equivalent Z8 cropped FX image.
That is exactly what I would buy, otherwise the Z8 is the alternative, use full frame and only crop in post.
You can buy the APS-C Canon R7 with 33 MP for less than half the price of a Z8.
But then you're stuck with Canon lenses. The two f/11 primes are seriously compromised from a light-gathering standpoint. The new 200-800 f/6.3-9 is kind of interesting. It's basically the Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6 paired with a TC. The new Nikkor 180-600 f/5.6-6.3 doesn't have as much native reach but is a skosh better in low light.
The EF-RF adapter allows to use all the 3rd party EF options. It's SLR glass, sure, but it's also affordable, generally good quality and autofocus speed is like native glass. If you're trying to save a buck by going for the R7, might as well save a buck by going with EF glass as well.

RF glass is either compromised (f/11 primes means you can only shoot in good light or with tons of grain, some have expressed their dissapointment at the rather tight aperture values of the 200-800) or too expensive for a lot of people (100-500 L, and other 100-300 f/2.8, 600 f/4s ect)
Nikon needs a APS-C ML camera in that medium price segment as well.
We'll see if Nikon delivers.
I think they have to. The D500 was a highly popular camera, not releasing a mirrorless followup would prove to be detrimental for them I think. They're at risk of seeing innitially pretty loyal customers go to other brands. Once they switched to another system and are happy with it, you can't really win them back.
That is a risk and one Nikon seems comfortable with.

When the 200-600 appeared on Nikon's Z-mount roadmap in (yup, it was later changed to 180-600) more than four years ago, I was positive that lens would be released with a Z900 APS-C body. It wasn't going to be an S-lens and what better camera to pair it with than a Z-mount D500 equivalent.

I was wrong, of course. Nikon hasn't leaked development of such a camera, let alone made a development announcement or introduction. I think they're gambling on their lenses and the attraction good glass has for a photographer.

Back in 2015 when I was just starting to scratch a new (for me) itch called wildlife photography, I was reading reviews and watching any YouTube video I could find comparing the Tamron and Sigma 150-600 offerings. They were all I could afford but none really called to me.

Then in August 2015, Nikon announced the 200-500mm f/5.6E. I jumped into the pre-order queue, received my first copy in September and a 200-500 has practically been glued to my camera ever since.

Nikon is, first and foremost, a lens manufacturer. That's how they started more than 100 years ago. Their lenses have been the nectar keeping longtime customers fed and attracting new ones. The Z-mount collection of lenses is impressive. The collection for wildlife and bird enthusiasts is arguably head & shoulders above what any other manufacturer offers.

I believe Nikon is betting that this long prime and telephoto zoom lineup will eventually lure the majority of D500 holdouts (like me) over to full-frame. And they might be winning the bet. I've been pounding the table for a Z900 as long as anybody. But lately, I've been giving the Z9 & Z8 a closer look.

Those Nikkor Z-mount lenses are that good and I'd need a body to put one on :)
 
If Nikon releases a true Z500 - BSI stacked sensor with APS-C version of Z9 autofocus, Z8-style body with professional user interface and a quality OEM vertical grip available - I'd pair it with a 600mm PF and be a happy guy :)
Especially if it has around 33 MP - putting more pixels on a subject than an equivalent Z8 cropped FX image.
That is exactly what I would buy, otherwise the Z8 is the alternative, use full frame and only crop in post.
You can buy the APS-C Canon R7 with 33 MP for less than half the price of a Z8.
But then you're stuck with Canon lenses. The two f/11 primes are seriously compromised from a light-gathering standpoint. The new 200-800 f/6.3-9 is kind of interesting. It's basically the Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6 paired with a TC. The new Nikkor 180-600 f/5.6-6.3 doesn't have as much native reach but is a skosh better in low light.
The EF-RF adapter allows to use all the 3rd party EF options. It's SLR glass, sure, but it's also affordable, generally good quality and autofocus speed is like native glass. If you're trying to save a buck by going for the R7, might as well save a buck by going with EF glass as well.

RF glass is either compromised (f/11 primes means you can only shoot in good light or with tons of grain, some have expressed their dissapointment at the rather tight aperture values of the 200-800) or too expensive for a lot of people (100-500 L, and other 100-300 f/2.8, 600 f/4s ect)
Nikon needs a APS-C ML camera in that medium price segment as well.
We'll see if Nikon delivers.
I think they have to. The D500 was a highly popular camera, not releasing a mirrorless followup would prove to be detrimental for them I think. They're at risk of seeing innitially pretty loyal customers go to other brands. Once they switched to another system and are happy with it, you can't really win them back.
That is a risk and one Nikon seems comfortable with.

When the 200-600 appeared on Nikon's Z-mount roadmap in (yup, it was later changed to 180-600) more than four years ago, I was positive that lens would be released with a Z900 APS-C body. It wasn't going to be an S-lens and what better camera to pair it with than a Z-mount D500 equivalent.

I was wrong, of course. Nikon hasn't leaked development of such a camera, let alone made a development announcement or introduction. I think they're gambling on their lenses and the attraction good glass has for a photographer.
Nikon never leaked of announced a development for the D500, it just appeared alongside the D5 taking everyone by surprise.
Back in 2015 when I was just starting to scratch a new (for me) itch called wildlife photography, I was reading reviews and watching any YouTube video I could find comparing the Tamron and Sigma 150-600 offerings. They were all I could afford but none really called to me.

Then in August 2015, Nikon announced the 200-500mm f/5.6E. I jumped into the pre-order queue, received my first copy in September and a 200-500 has practically been glued to my camera ever since.

Nikon is, first and foremost, a lens manufacturer. That's how they started more than 100 years ago. Their lenses have been the nectar keeping longtime customers fed and attracting new ones. The Z-mount collection of lenses is impressive. The collection for wildlife and bird enthusiasts is arguably head & shoulders above what any other manufacturer offers.

I believe Nikon is betting that this long prime and telephoto zoom lineup will eventually lure the majority of D500 holdouts (like me) over to full-frame. And they might be winning the bet. I've been pounding the table for a Z900 as long as anybody. But lately, I've been giving the Z9 & Z8 a closer look.

Those Nikkor Z-mount lenses are that good and I'd need a body to put one on :)
 
The real question is how much size and weight can be saved for DX. If you want a f/5.6 lens then that requires a specific aperture stop size. What can be saved is a bit of glass inside the lens because you have a smaller image circle. But how much can you really save, weightwise, by reducing a lens element from … 50mm to 40mm? Probably not a lot. Can size be reduced? Maybe in profile, but probably not in length.
There's the question of how much can you save, and then how much is important.

I can't speak for the lens barrel material itself, but don't forget the formula for area of a circle. In your example of 50mm down to 40mm the glass elements at 40mm would only be 65% of the 50mm elements.

You won't save as much on lens barrel components so what would a typical overall savings be? 20%? I don't know. How much do you need to save to make it worth it?

Another thing Nikon doesn't really have is a lineup of small primes, in DX or FX. I repeatedly mention my small Fujifilm kit. The core of it is a set of small APS-C f/2.0 primes; 18, 23, 35, and 50mm. I currently pair them up with an X-E3. There's a shutter speed dial and the lenses have marked aperture rings. Hard to beat for taking out on the street and just having fun.
I used a 12/2, 23/1.4, 27/2.8, 35/2, 50/2 and 90/2.8 on a XT2. The weight of a single lens is small. But summarize the weight of them all together.

I changed to a Z7 and 24-120 and 40/2.

It's not heavier and don't have to constantly change lenses during travel photography or hiking.
 
Last edited:
If Nikon releases a true Z500 - BSI stacked sensor with APS-C version of Z9 autofocus, Z8-style body with professional user interface and a quality OEM vertical grip available - I'd pair it with a 600mm PF and be a happy guy :)
Especially if it has around 33 MP - putting more pixels on a subject than an equivalent Z8 cropped FX image.
That is exactly what I would buy, otherwise the Z8 is the alternative, use full frame and only crop in post.
You can buy the APS-C Canon R7 with 33 MP for less than half the price of a Z8.
But then you're stuck with Canon lenses. The two f/11 primes are seriously compromised from a light-gathering standpoint. The new 200-800 f/6.3-9 is kind of interesting. It's basically the Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6 paired with a TC. The new Nikkor 180-600 f/5.6-6.3 doesn't have as much native reach but is a skosh better in low light.
The EF-RF adapter allows to use all the 3rd party EF options. It's SLR glass, sure, but it's also affordable, generally good quality and autofocus speed is like native glass. If you're trying to save a buck by going for the R7, might as well save a buck by going with EF glass as well.

RF glass is either compromised (f/11 primes means you can only shoot in good light or with tons of grain, some have expressed their dissapointment at the rather tight aperture values of the 200-800) or too expensive for a lot of people (100-500 L, and other 100-300 f/2.8, 600 f/4s ect)
Nikon needs a APS-C ML camera in that medium price segment as well.
We'll see if Nikon delivers.
I think they have to. The D500 was a highly popular camera, not releasing a mirrorless followup would prove to be detrimental for them I think. They're at risk of seeing innitially pretty loyal customers go to other brands. Once they switched to another system and are happy with it, you can't really win them back.
That is a risk and one Nikon seems comfortable with.

When the 200-600 appeared on Nikon's Z-mount roadmap in (yup, it was later changed to 180-600) more than four years ago, I was positive that lens would be released with a Z900 APS-C body. It wasn't going to be an S-lens and what better camera to pair it with than a Z-mount D500 equivalent.

I was wrong, of course. Nikon hasn't leaked development of such a camera, let alone made a development announcement or introduction. I think they're gambling on their lenses and the attraction good glass has for a photographer.
Nikon never leaked of announced a development for the D500, it just appeared alongside the D5 taking everyone by surprise.
Well, 8 1/2 years did pass between the introduction of the D300 and the introduction of the D500. This June will mark 8 1/2 years since the introduction of the D500.

That's it! I've cracked Nikon's secret formula. The board members are Fellini fans. When Nikon introduces the Z900 this June, remember that you read it first, here :)
Back in 2015 when I was just starting to scratch a new (for me) itch called wildlife photography, I was reading reviews and watching any YouTube video I could find comparing the Tamron and Sigma 150-600 offerings. They were all I could afford but none really called to me.

Then in August 2015, Nikon announced the 200-500mm f/5.6E. I jumped into the pre-order queue, received my first copy in September and a 200-500 has practically been glued to my camera ever since.

Nikon is, first and foremost, a lens manufacturer. That's how they started more than 100 years ago. Their lenses have been the nectar keeping longtime customers fed and attracting new ones. The Z-mount collection of lenses is impressive. The collection for wildlife and bird enthusiasts is arguably head & shoulders above what any other manufacturer offers.

I believe Nikon is betting that this long prime and telephoto zoom lineup will eventually lure the majority of D500 holdouts (like me) over to full-frame. And they might be winning the bet. I've been pounding the table for a Z900 as long as anybody. But lately, I've been giving the Z9 & Z8 a closer look.

Those Nikkor Z-mount lenses are that good and I'd need a body to put one on :)
 
Well, 8 1/2 years did pass between the introduction of the D300 and the introduction of the D500. This June will mark 8 1/2 years since the introduction of the D500.

That's it! I've cracked Nikon's secret formula. The board members are Fellini fans. When Nikon introduces the Z900 this June, remember that you read it first, here :)
That explains everything...almost...

In Japan, the two main lucky numbers are seven (七) and eight (八).

8 Years and 7 months... Release on July 8 of the Z800...

;-)

Actually I think Z800 is a more plausible name than Z900, the Z9 series should be in a league of its own, and Z800 will be the DX version of Z8, which also means minimal R&D costs. Just pop in a new sensor, skip the video features and Nikon are good to go.

I will give Nikon until 31 August 2024 to release a worthy D500 successor, then I will be moving on..
 
Last edited:

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top