Reading mode: Light Dark

Are any Nikon F mount lenses worth getting if you have the Z?

Go to last post
FootNote Photo said:
ghostfox_1 said:
"worth it" is consistently one of my most hated phrases.

It really depends on too many individual things to say yes/no to. What you shoot, how often, how much you're willing to carry, budget, etc etc etc.

There's a lot of good f mount stuff, especially on the used market now, but most of the z lenses are just better in most ways by a large margin
Click to expand...
Yeah, your not wrong. I guess for me "worth it" is quality of lens vs price point.

The Z 600/4 TC VR S is $14k vs the F 600/4 used is less than $2k.
Now I imagine the Z is better across the board, but is it $10k better?
Click to expand...
I've kept my 600mm f/4 AFS G for exactly that reason. I get $2500 worth of use out of the lens - and it's a great lens - but I also have the 800mm PF when I need something lighter and more portable. I have the 400mm f/4.5, F mount 600mm f/4, and 8000mm PF which covers the range of options quite well. But if I had an interest in a 600mm f/4, it's quite good. You could get the 600mm PF and the 600mm f/4 G for just over half the price of a Z 600mm f/4 TC - providing a lighter and heavier option.

The 60mm f/2.8 AF-S Micro is another good option - especially for a short macro lens - and as good or better than the Z 50mm MC. The 105mm micro lenses for F-mount are all very good - but the Z 105mm MC is better. So needing a short macro for slide/negative duplication or general use, you could get the 60mm lens.

There are also lenses like the 19mm PC that are not available in Z-mount and are optically fantastic. Again - the price of used copies of that lens has dropped a lot. It's manual focus only and a specialty lens, and works well on the Z cameras.
 
FootNote Photo said:
I know the general answer is no, but with some price points I figured I would ask if there were any particular exceptions.
I just saw someone selling a 600/4 F mount and that is what got me thinking. I imagine most lenses that might be worth it are the super telephoto lenses.
Click to expand...
The only F-mount I will keep active with my Z8's is my 300mm f2.8.
 
FootNote Photo said:
I know the general answer is no, but with some price points I figured I would ask if there were any particular exceptions.
I just saw someone selling a 600/4 F mount and that is what got me thinking. I imagine most lenses that might be worth it are the super telephoto lenses.
Click to expand...
Basically, if there’s no Z-mount focal length equivalent then look at F-mount.

--
Ryan
 
Last edited:
Same here for the 105 1.4E. Sold it, bought some Z lens, but was quickly very sorry, so when someone offered me a very nice 105 1.4E for 700 Euros, I took it without thinking twice. Z lenses have much quicker AF and are clinically sharp so if that is a factor, then Z lens, but some of F lenses just have that something that one sees only when going back through old photographs and then it hits you. Hard.
 
I still have the 500 f4VR that I paid over $9000 for about 15 years ago. I thought it was the ultimate lens back then, not too heavy, so hand holdable for short periods, and excellent image quality.

I admit that I'm a sucker for the latest technology so am now fortunate to use Z9’s and the 400TC, along with other Z telephotos.

I’m sure if the Z system didn’t exist, I’d still be enjoying the 500 f4, but would probably have traded it for the FL version (lighter and better balanced).

I was more than happy with these two images back in the day.

9923997c93024c49b59812bfbcbf1585.jpg

8a4a10c8be514ec59ceb50ca48cbfe93.jpg

--
Alan
 
Buying new? I can’t see the point. That being said, I don’t envision selling my 105 1.4 or 300 F4 Pf unless their Z mount successors give me a good reason.
 
I still use a D500 as my main birding camera so it makes sense to continue to use and buy F mount Telephotos and adapt them to my Z6 when needed.

Also I'm price sensitive so lean towards F mount lenses to Save money unless the Z mount equivalent offered some major difference to justify the extra cost.

Lastly some lenses like my 200F4 micro haven't been reproduced in Z mount yet
 
Z50II with FTZ, Kenko 1.4X , Nikon 70-300 AF-P



25f8bb0aafe042f6a156c1baf312d001.jpg



--
Police Officer (Retired)
No plan survives first contact with the enemy.
 
FootNote Photo said:
I know the general answer is no, but with some price points I figured I would ask if there were any particular exceptions.
I just saw someone selling a 600/4 F mount and that is what got me thinking. I imagine most lenses that might be worth it are the super telephoto lenses.
Click to expand...
I love running all the G 1.8 primes on my FF Z, they are great and poppy. I also love running old Sigma 10-20mm EX (DX lens) on my Zfc and FF Z. It's a really good score for the money. Next thing I want is Sigma 10-35/1.8...even though I should be sticking with FF.
 
It really depends on what you do, and the budget you allow yourself for lenses.

I myself only consider Z mount lenses when they provide a substantial size and weight advantage over F mount options, otherwise the cheaper F mount lenses are generally more than good enough for me, and represent most of my kit.

I only have the 28 f/2.8 and 40mm f/2 in Z mount, everything else (50mm, 35mm, 85mm, 100-400mm, 12-24mm) are all F mount because they're more than good enough for my needs, the Z mount equivalent is either costing a fortune or doesn't provide any size advantage (typically teh case of the 50mm and 85mm, the F mount equivalent are basically the same size once you factor in the FTZ).

F mount lense are more than good enough for my Z6, and they cost a fraction of what Z mount equivalents do, why would I even think about the Z moount ones? Tehre are a lot of underrated little ones too. The f/1.8G line is generally excellent value for the dollar (especially the 28mm and 85mm)
 
I think the 105mm f1.4 pretty interesting. The 85mm tilt-shift is essential to the kind of work I do. The 200-500 was too good to pass up, but I'm not really a super telephoto guy at this point.
 
1000DTL said:
Nikon doesn't make a Z mount 70-300 so the F mount AF-P Nikkor 70-300 works well with an FTZ. If you have a Z DX camera, the Sigma 18-35 f1.8 and 50-100 f1.8 are still two of the best zooms ever made. They are noisy focusing for video but you can't beat the image quality for DX even using an FTZ.
Click to expand...
There's a Z mount 70-300 made by Tamron and it's quite good.
 
FootNote Photo said:
I know the general answer is no, but with some price points I figured I would ask if there were any particular exceptions.
I just saw someone selling a 600/4 F mount and that is what got me thinking. I imagine most lenses that might be worth it are the super telephoto lenses.
Click to expand...
Nikon 28 1.4 and 105 1.4, 300 PF, 500 PF , 105 F2.0 DC, 135 F2 DC, and Sigma 40 F1.4, 105 F1.4, Zeiss Milvus 35 1.4, Milvus 85 1.4 and Milvus 135 would be my top pick, at least for me I will not let go mine and will continue to use on Z, in fact, a lot of those we simply don't have Z mount that can come even close to the quality of them, so I prefer shooting with all those F mount more than my the Z mount actually. they all work really well with the FTZ with my Z7, Z9.

I am still actively looking for a good condition 200mm F2. That would most likely be my next F mount lens.
 
Last edited:
My 70-200 f4 works really well on my Z6ii. However it is a long lens to start with and gets even longer on the FTZ.
 
FootNote Photo said:
I know the general answer is no, but with some price points I figured I would ask if there were any particular exceptions.
I just saw someone selling a 600/4 F mount and that is what got me thinking. I imagine most lenses that might be worth it are the super telephoto lenses.
Click to expand...
I made the conscious decision to transition to all Z mount lenses, shortly after I got my second such lens. However the transition wasn't immediate, as I kept my F mounts until the equivalent Z mount came out. That took 4 years. Yet, if I was in the market for a lens that was too price prohibitive in the Z mount, I would consider a used F mount. So if that 600 was available in F mount, and I needed it, I would consider getting it, because the Z 600 f4 TC VR S at $14000 is out of my budget. Even the Z 600 f6.3 VR S is pretty pricey. So if could score a F 600 f4 VR at the Z 6.3 price; I would consider it.
 
Yes AF is very slow with this lens on my D500, I actually prefer to use it on my Z6, Focus peaking makes manual focus very easy and the ibis helps stabilize the viewfinder if shooting handheld.
 
Anny Bobanny said:
1000DTL said:
Nikon doesn't make a Z mount 70-300 so the F mount AF-P Nikkor 70-300 works well with an FTZ. If you have a Z DX camera, the Sigma 18-35 f1.8 and 50-100 f1.8 are still two of the best zooms ever made. They are noisy focusing for video but you can't beat the image quality for DX even using an FTZ.
Click to expand...
There's a Z mount 70-300 made by Tamron and it's quite good.
Click to expand...
But I already own the Nikon AF-P 70-300 and it is good with the FTZ. I also use it with a Fringer adapter on my Fuji cameras. In fact I was using it on Fuji cameras before Fuji introduced their own 70-300.
 
MJ_Photo38 said:
the Z mount equivalent [...] doesn't provide any size advantage (typically teh case of the 50mm and 85mm, the F mount equivalent are basically the same size once you factor in the FTZ).
Click to expand...
Funny that you mention this, it was something I was figuring out myself recently, I'm new to Nikon so not well versed in the available options, especially AF-S.

In fact, when carrying several lenses, the camera-bag could be more compact when using F-primes instead of Z-counterparts. (But with different focal lengths, the bag could also be considerably larger)
MJ_Photo38 said:
The f/1.8G line is generally excellent value for the dollar (especially the 28mm and 85mm)
Click to expand...
I'm indeed considering the 85 1.8G, as it's compact. Could be useful when I'm walking with my Z9 + some F-lenses and want a short tele in the bag. It's cheap and only 1/3rd of the weight of my 105 1.4. On the other hand, 2 days ago, I handled the Z 85 1.8 and the AF is really fast. We will see, it's not a top priority right now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

C
Post-processing Nikon Z-body files from Z lenses (vs. F lenses)
Replies
19
Views
400
sirhawkeye64
S
Skraaal
Moving to the Nikon Z mount system, all in after my D850 was stolen.
2 3
Replies
48
Views
3K
PHXAZCRAIG
PHXAZCRAIG
Stockholmed-in-BadMusic
Panasonic Lumix S5II vs Nikon Z5II + L-mount vs Z-mount
Replies
14
Views
6K
RBIV
RBIV
C
Modern Voigtlander Z-native lenses on the 45 Mp bodies (Z9, Z8 etc)
Replies
18
Views
2K
Leonard Shepherd
L
M
  • Question Question
UWA for Z-mount
2
Replies
21
Views
836
monte12345
M

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top