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

Hilifer · Jan 19, 2025

studio460 said:
Nikkor F-mount lenses I own and use on Nikon Zf + Z9:

Nikon AF DC-Nikkor 105mm/135mm f/2D
Nikon AF-S Nikkor 105mm F1.4E ED
Nikon AF-S Nikkor 200mm f/2G ED VR II

The DC-Nikkors in particular are very nice lenses for portraiture, wedding photography, and people shots, and especially, "glamour" shots. Their by-design, spherical-aberration adds a very organic looking "soft-focus" effect (which is actually a misnomer), where the highlights bleed slightly into the shadows. While named, "de-focus," (again, technically inaccurate) the lens is actually capable of being very sharp, supported by my own acutance tests using a sharpened knife-blade as the test target.

The 105mm f/1.4E is simply a super-fast, mid-tele; the kind of lenses for which I have an uncontrollable affinity; again, destined for portraiture and people shots.

The legendary 200mm f/2G was holy grail lens for me and I finally broke down and pulled the trigger on one off eBay last year. I bought it for shooting full-length fashion shots from a fair distance while still being able to drop the background out-of-focus.

Nikkor F-mount lenses I'm thinking of buying for use on Zf +Z9:

AF-S Nikkor 300mm f/4 E PF ED VR: ~$1,000, used.
AF-S Nikkor 300mm f/2.8 G ED VR II: ~$2,000-$2,500, used.
AF-S Nikkor 500mm f/5.6E PF ED VR: ~$1,500-$1,700, used.
AF-S Nikkor 120-300mm f/2.8E FL ED SR VR: ~$6,000-$7,000, used.

Both the 300mm and the 120-300mm are huge beasts of a lens. However, the 300/2.8 has been another holy grail lens for me; again, for dropping backgrounds out-of-focus even when subject-to-camera distance is relatively far.

Currently, I'm trying to decide between the first three, with the 120-300 being a bit too steep for my wallet. The 300PF for its superior light weight and the 300/2.8 for its speed. This is an either-or purchase decision.

For the 500PF, I'm really on the fence since I also own the close-in-spec, Nikkor Z 400mm f/4.5.

Love my copy of the 120-300/2.8E. I shoot it on both my D850 and Z8, often with a 1.4 teleconverter (which I have in both F and Z flavors). On the D850, it complements a 600 PF on my Z8.

I don’t think anyone has mentioned yet the 180-400/4E TC1.4. For a number of years, I was only aware of its existence (well beyond my means), and only last year discovered its younger cousin which I pounced on (used). I’ve considered getting one, primarily for its convenient built in TC. Last I looked, they were selling used for less than the 120-300.

--
Moretti
"Things are more like they are now than they've ever been before."

Hilifer · Jan 19, 2025

Rodenmg said:
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’ve now sold all my old F lenses except two. The 50mm f1.8 and 85 f1.4, both “G” models. I’ll keep the 50 because it works so well with my IR convert Z6 and the 85 because it’s still my favorite “character” lens in this focal length range. To me it’s one of the most beautifully flawed lenses I’ve ever shot.

In the portrait lens range I also have the Nikon 135 Plena and Fuji GF110 f2. Both benchmark lenses but when I want “that” look I’ll still go for the old 85 f1.4.

A desire to one day add a full spectrum IR body (e.g., D800) to my kit is one part of my reasoning to hold onto some of my F glass which include Zeiss 15/2.8 and 25/2 ZF.2 Distagons, Nikkor 105/2.5 AI-S P-C, the estimable Voigtlander 125/2.5 APO Lanthar and a Nikkor 16/2.8 fisheye.

--
Moretti
"Things are more like they are now than they've ever been before."

Rodenmg · Jan 19, 2025

Hilifer said:
Rodenmg said:

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’ve now sold all my old F lenses except two. The 50mm f1.8 and 85 f1.4, both “G” models. I’ll keep the 50 because it works so well with my IR convert Z6 and the 85 because it’s still my favorite “character” lens in this focal length range. To me it’s one of the most beautifully flawed lenses I’ve ever shot.

In the portrait lens range I also have the Nikon 135 Plena and Fuji GF110 f2. Both benchmark lenses but when I want “that” look I’ll still go for the old 85 f1.4.

Click to expand...

A desire to one day add a full spectrum IR body (e.g., D800) to my kit is one part of my reasoning to hold onto some of my F glass which include Zeiss 15/2.8 and 25/2 ZF.2 Distagons, Nikkor 105/2.5 AI-S P-C, the estimable Voigtlander 125/2.5 APO Lanthar and a Nikkor 16/2.8 fisheye.

chambeshi · Jan 19, 2025

Hilifer said:
studio460 said:

Nikkor F-mount lenses I own and use on Nikon Zf + Z9:

Nikon AF DC-Nikkor 105mm/135mm f/2D
Nikon AF-S Nikkor 105mm F1.4E ED
Nikon AF-S Nikkor 200mm f/2G ED VR II

The DC-Nikkors in particular are very nice lenses for portraiture, wedding photography, and people shots, and especially, "glamour" shots. Their by-design, spherical-aberration adds a very organic looking "soft-focus" effect (which is actually a misnomer), where the highlights bleed slightly into the shadows. While named, "de-focus," (again, technically inaccurate) the lens is actually capable of being very sharp, supported by my own acutance tests using a sharpened knife-blade as the test target.

The 105mm f/1.4E is simply a super-fast, mid-tele; the kind of lenses for which I have an uncontrollable affinity; again, destined for portraiture and people shots.

The legendary 200mm f/2G was holy grail lens for me and I finally broke down and pulled the trigger on one off eBay last year. I bought it for shooting full-length fashion shots from a fair distance while still being able to drop the background out-of-focus.

Nikkor F-mount lenses I'm thinking of buying for use on Zf +Z9:

AF-S Nikkor 300mm f/4 E PF ED VR: ~$1,000, used.
AF-S Nikkor 300mm f/2.8 G ED VR II: ~$2,000-$2,500, used.
AF-S Nikkor 500mm f/5.6E PF ED VR: ~$1,500-$1,700, used.
AF-S Nikkor 120-300mm f/2.8E FL ED SR VR: ~$6,000-$7,000, used.

Both the 300mm and the 120-300mm are huge beasts of a lens. However, the 300/2.8 has been another holy grail lens for me; again, for dropping backgrounds out-of-focus even when subject-to-camera distance is relatively far.

Currently, I'm trying to decide between the first three, with the 120-300 being a bit too steep for my wallet. The 300PF for its superior light weight and the 300/2.8 for its speed. This is an either-or purchase decision.

For the 500PF, I'm really on the fence since I also own the close-in-spec, Nikkor Z 400mm f/4.5.

Click to expand...

Love my copy of the 120-300/2.8E. I shoot it on both my D850 and Z8, often with a 1.4 teleconverter (which I have in both F and Z flavors). On the D850, it complements a 600 PF on my Z8.

I don’t think anyone has mentioned yet the 180-400/4E TC1.4. For a number of years, I was only aware of its existence (well beyond my means), and only last year discovered its younger cousin which I pounced on (used). I’ve considered getting one, primarily for its convenient built in TC. Last I looked, they were selling used for less than the 120-300.

I found a Mint 180-400 TC14 early 2022 at a much lower price. It is my primary wildlife lens for inside a vehicle for mammals.

It is an excellent optic

shuncheung · Jan 19, 2025

studio460 said:
Nikkor F-mount lenses I'm thinking of buying for use on Zf +Z9:

AF-S Nikkor 300mm f/4 E PF ED VR: ~$1,000, used.
AF-S Nikkor 300mm f/2.8 G ED VR II: ~$2,000-$2,500, used.
AF-S Nikkor 500mm f/5.6E PF ED VR: ~$1,500-$1,700, used.
AF-S Nikkor120-300mm f/2.8E FL ED SR VR: ~$6,000-$7,000, used.

Some of those used prices are puzzling. In the latter part of 2024, starting from September 3, Nikon USA had a blow-out sale for all F-mount super teles; they were all 30% or so off from the initial price, across the board. See the screen capture on B&H's web site.

That was about 4 months ago. A few items have been taken off discount, such as the 180-400 and 120-300, but some of the sales continue to this day. I think it is a matter off what Nikon USA has stock on hand. If they were selling brand new 120-300 at $6646 recently, used ones shouldn't be anywhere close to $7000.

To me, it looks like all of those F-mount lenses will soon be officially discontinued.

rcower · Jan 19, 2025

The only F mount lens I've bought since moving to Z bodies is the 500 pf. Found a like new copy with lens coat that was $1500. I've been looking at the 8-15mm, had one, sold it and I miss it.

Hilifer · Jan 19, 2025

shuncheung said:
studio460 said:

Nikkor F-mount lenses I'm thinking of buying for use on Zf +Z9:

AF-S Nikkor 300mm f/4 E PF ED VR: ~$1,000, used.
AF-S Nikkor 300mm f/2.8 G ED VR II: ~$2,000-$2,500, used.
AF-S Nikkor 500mm f/5.6E PF ED VR: ~$1,500-$1,700, used.
AF-S Nikkor120-300mm f/2.8E FL ED SR VR: ~$6,000-$7,000, used.

Click to expand...

Some of those used prices are puzzling. In the latter part of 2024, starting from September 3, Nikon USA had a blow-out sale for all F-mount super teles; they were all 30% or so off from the initial price, across the board. See the screen capture on B&H's web site.

That was about 4 months ago. A few items have been taken off discount, such as the 180-400 and 120-300, but some of the sales continue to this day. I think it is a matter off what Nikon USA has stock on hand. If they were selling brand new 120-300 at $6646 recently, used ones shouldn't be anywhere close to $7000.

To me, it looks like all of those F-mount lenses will soon be officially discontinued.

When I saw that sale, I experienced a very small infarct, less than a year after I’d acquired my used copy (10 condition), less than a year earlier for not much more.

That said, both NikonUSA and B&H currently show the lens as back ordered. Nikon likely wanted to clear out inventory of a lens that isn’t in much demand (as much for the price as for the niche market it serves), at the same time they were seeing strong draw to the Z 100-400. The few used copies on ebay are today well over $6k and I expect them to stay like that for the foreseeable future. This is a marquee lens for Nikon, produced in limited quantities (Roland, on Photosynthesis, indicates a range of fewer than 1100 serials); I doubt they’ll build more, though one can expect them to offer refurbs as they come in on trades, etc. With my copy, I feel like I’m at the beginning of a beautiful friendship…

--
Moretti
"Things are more like they are now than they've ever been before."

Andre Yew · Jan 19, 2025

Many have been suggested by other people already, but here's my list:

19PC-E

28/1.4E

58/1.4G *

105/1.4E

70-300 AF-P

200/2

Tokina 90/2.5 “Bokina”

Voigtlander 180/4

Zeiss Milvus: 24, 35, 50, 85, 135 (135 is also fine in Classic ZF.2 form)

Zeiss Otus: all of them

There are others I haven't used like the 8-15 zoom fisheye that don't have an equivalent Z version.

The older PC-Es are quirky especially the 24. The 85 is probably best replaced with the Canon TS-E 135 if you're going to adapt. The 58G above has an asterisk because it's got a lot of issues, but if your first priority is focus transition, it's still really great.

BBMT · Jan 19, 2025

I agree with many other posters on this thread. The only f mount lenses worth considering are those without z equivalents (or approximates).

fisheye,

tilt shift,

fast tele zooms (120-300 and 180-400)

200 2

300 2.8

I sold both f mount PFs over a couple years while I transitioned to z due to the performance being close enough for me with corresponding z mount zooms (100-400 and 180-600) even with the aperture compromises. I have no regrets.

I currently have an ftz with nothing to mount it to.

MJ_Photo38 · Jan 19, 2025

Sjak said:
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)

Sjak 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.

I would argue thet the AF on the 85 G isn't that bad. It's was more than fast enough to keep a dogg running at full speed in focus, depends what you shoot of course.

I used a Z6 (because I'm cheap), I don't know how it would do on a Z9.

ajr images · Jan 19, 2025

I still have the 8-15mm fisheye, 200 f2, and 300 f2.8 but they are all gathering dust since I moved to the Z system.

They are all great lenses, but the fisheye is very specialized, the Plena substitutes for the 200 f2, and the 400TC substitutes for the 300 f2.8.

buildingsights · Jan 19, 2025

BBMT said:
I agree with many other posters on this thread. The only f mount lenses worth considering are those without z equivalents (or approximates).

fisheye,

tilt shift,

fast tele zooms (120-300 and 180-400)

200 2

300 2.8

I sold both f mount PFs over a couple years while I transitioned to z due to the performance being close enough for me with corresponding z mount zooms (100-400 and 180-600) even with the aperture compromises. I have no regrets.

I currently have an ftz with nothing to mount it to.

this seems to be a good strategy, no cuestion... but wouldn't be great also to use some olds one ... ai-s 50mm noct, 6mm fisheye, or a humble 35mm f/1.4 for example

Andre Yew · Jan 19, 2025

Sjak said:
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.

The Z mount 85/1.8S walks all over the 85/1.8G, which is an average lens at best. The S lens has faster AF as you've found, much less CA, and is much higher resolution. With the FTZ, the 85G is not really smaller than the 85S. If you like 85s, the 85/1.8S is one of the must-have lenses in Z mount.

If you really need an F-mount 85mm, the Tamron 85/1.8 is much better than the 85G, but adapted to Z, it's a little sluggish in AF, and it's also larger and heavier than the 85G.

--
https://www.instagram.com/lolcar/

studio460 · Jan 19, 2025

studio460 said:
Nikkor F-mount lenses I own and use on Nikon Zf + Z9:

Nikon AF DC-Nikkor 105mm/135mm f/2D
Nikon AF-S Nikkor 105mm F1.4E ED
Nikon AF-S Nikkor 200mm f/2G ED VR II

The DC-Nikkors in particular are very nice lenses for portraiture, wedding photography, and people shots, and especially, "glamour" shots. Their by-design, spherical-aberration adds a very organic looking "soft-focus" effect (which is actually a misnomer), where the highlights bleed slightly into the shadows. While named, "de-focus," (again, technically inaccurate) the lens is actually capable of being very sharp, supported by my own acutance tests using a sharpened knife-blade as the test target.

The 105mm f/1.4E is simply a super-fast, mid-tele; the kind of lenses for which I have an uncontrollable affinity; again, destined for portraiture and people shots.

The legendary 200mm f/2G was holy grail lens for me and I finally broke down and pulled the trigger on one off eBay last year. I bought it for shooting full-length fashion shots from a fair distance while still being able to drop the background out-of-focus.

Nikkor F-mount lenses I'm thinking of buying for use on Zf +Z9:

AF-S Nikkor 300mm f/4 E PF ED VR: ~$1,000, used.
AF-S Nikkor 300mm f/2.8 G ED VR II: ~$2,000-$2,500, used.
AF-S Nikkor 500mm f/5.6E PF ED VR: ~$1,500-$1,700, used.
AF-S Nikkor120-300mm f/2.8E FL ED SR VR: ~$6,000-$7,000, used.

Both the 300mm and the 120-300mm are huge beasts of a lens. However, the 300/2.8 has been another holy grail lens for me; again, for dropping backgrounds out-of-focus even when subject-to-camera distance is relatively far.

Currently, I'm trying to decide between the first three, with the 120-300 being a bit too steep for my wallet. The 300PF for its superior light weight and the 300/2.8 for its speed. This is an either-or purchase decision.

For the 500PF, I'm really on the fence since I also own the close-in-spec, Nikkor Z 400mm f/4.5.

Well, those lenses were burning a hole in my shopping cart, so I just went and did it (YOLO!). The only rationalization I had is that I have a hole in the lightweight 300mm-500mm range (save for my Nikkor Z 400mm f/4.5).

So I got both PFs, but not the 300/2.8—it's just too heavy (plus, I have the 200/2.0 just for that use-case), while the F-mount PF-lenses are light enough that I may actually take them out and carry around—I mean, they're PF lenses—I had to buy them.

• AF-S Nikkor 300mm f/4 E PF ED VR: LN- (like new minus).
• AF-S Nikkor 500mm f/5.6E PF ED VR: Excellent (high-SN; photos were flawless).

Both at the low-to-middle range of used prices; one from KEH (like-new 300PF), and one from MPB (500PF).

Also, this is in light of the fact that I don't plan on using either my AF-S Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6E nor my Nikkor Z 180-600mm f/5.6-6.3 VR anytime soon. They're simply far too bulky and heavy. If I'm going to go through all that trouble, I may as well bring either my F-mount 200/2.0 + FTZ or 800mm f/6.3 Z-lens.

MrHollywood · Jan 19, 2025

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.

My Sigma 135 1.8 ART lens is really just as good as the Nikon Plena, at least for portrait work. I'll still buy the Plena at some point to avoid the adapter, but the Sigma is exotic level glass for not much money.

I also still have the Sigma 35mm ART 1.4. I haven't replaced it because I don't use 35mm much and I have the Nikon 24-70 2.8S, which is stellar.

In absolute terms I've steadily gone almost exclusively to Nikon Z glass. Great stuff. The main exception would the Voigtlander 50mm APO that I recently picked up for my Zf and the 28mm I'll be also buying. Nikon has no Z answer for those tenses.

Robert

zephxiiii · Jan 20, 2025

Andre Yew said:
Sjak said:

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.

Click to expand...

The Z mount 85/1.8S walks all over the 85/1.8G, which is an average lens at best. The S lens has faster AF as you've found, much less CA, and is much higher resolution. With the FTZ, the 85G is not really smaller than the 85S. If you like 85s, the 85/1.8S is one of the must-have lenses in Z mount.

If you really need an F-mount 85mm, the Tamron 85/1.8 is much better than the 85G, but adapted to Z, it's a little sluggish in AF, and it's also larger and heavier than the 85G.

https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-85mm-f1-8g/2

I don't think it's as bad as you make it sound... yes the Z is a big improvement but the G is decent.

Leonard Shepherd · Jan 20, 2025

Andre Yew said:
Many have been suggested by other people already, but here's my list:

19PC-E

The 19 mm PC has not been listed as available new in the UK or Europe for at least 12 months.

Off and on topic this might be because Nikon had some advance knowledge that two PC lenses focusing to half-life size were coming out of China at less than $/£1000 each. They are now arriving.

The breadth of optically decent non-Nikon Z lineup at remarkably low prices seems to be expanding at more than 25 a year - almost blink and you have missed a new product.

There will be merit for some (or many) looking at these as viable alternative products even compared to Nikon second-hand for the lenses that are around one third of the new prices of top quality Nikon, Canon or Sony ML lenses.

My speculation is that perhaps over the next 2 years this expanding competition will reduce the number of lenses sold per body from the big manufacturers, as well as perhaps depressing some secondhand prices.

--
Leonard Shepherd
In lots of ways good photography is similar to learning to play a piano - it takes practice to develop skill in either activity.

MJ_Photo38 · Jan 20, 2025

Andre Yew said:
Sjak said:

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.

Click to expand...

The Z mount 85/1.8S walks all over the 85/1.8G, which is an average lens at best.

Flat out not true. It's a very sharp lens, with more CA than the Z version, but still manageable and nothing that can't be taken care of with a single button in post processing. It's sharper than the gold ring 85mm f/1.4G, and faster focusing.

Andre Yew said:
The S lens has faster AF as you've found, much less CA, and is much higher resolution.

Yes, although when tested on a 45MP camera the 85G was still able to resolve the sensor, and considering we don't have access to higher resolution than 45MP, I consider this as a non issue.

Only difference you'll notice is that the 85G is a little softer wide open (which we want sometimes, especially for portraits), when the 85S is already super sharp wide open. The difference isn't night and day.

Andre Yew said:
With the FTZ, the 85G is not really smaller than the 85S.

You forgot the important point : when stored away in a bag, it is smaller as it doesn't have the FTZ attached, if it is used for otehr lenses.

Andre Yew said:
If you like 85s, the 85/1.8S is one of the must-have lenses in Z mount.

Probably, although it's more than 3 times the price, it's heavier and if you happen to have any D camera around you can't share it with a DSLR.

I would make the argument that if you're not a huge 85mm (or short telephoto user) and just want to have the option for the few instances where you'll need it, then the 85G is more than enough for pretty much everyone.

Andre Yew said:
If you really need an F-mount 85mm, the Tamron 85/1.8 is much better than the 85G, but adapted to Z, it's a little sluggish in AF, and it's also larger and heavier than the 85G.

And while the optics are sharp, they're not night and day differnece with the 85G either. With some software, lens correction profiles can be hit and miss, and the optical stabilizer in this lens (which is most of the reason why it's twice as expensive as the 85G) is completely lost on Z cameras as you can use any kind of dual IS (it might be handy on DX Z cameras though).

Leonard Shepherd · Jan 20, 2025

MJ_Photo38 said:
Yes, although when tested on a 45MP camera the 85G was still able to resolve the sensor, and considering we don't have access to higher resolution than 45MP, I consider this as a non issue.

Although not relevant to the general topic, the laws of optics clarify no current lens out resolves a sensor, or vice versa.

This is why when you increase either sensor or lens resolving ability image resolution increases ;-)

olyflyer · Jan 20, 2025

Wezre said:
olyflyer said:

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...

My opinion is no, not today. I mean, if you can't afford it then you don't need it, only want it, and in that case it is better to save until you can afford it.

Click to expand...

I generally agree, but some lenses like the 400 f/2.8 and 600 f/4 will always be out of reach for people, or they can’t justify spending that much even if they can afford it. Or, lenses like the 500 f/4 aren’t available. The latest F-mount 500 f/4 is also significantly lighter than the other two I mentioned. I’ve thought about getting one of these lenses just because it would give be a class of lens that I just wouldn’t have access to if I insisted on sticking with native Z mount glass.

If those lenses are out of your reach then perhaps you should set more realistic targets and should ask yourself if the 400/2.8 and the 600/4 is something you really need, or perhaps the 400/4.5 S and the 600/6.3 S are good enough for your REAL use cases.

The Nikon AF-S 400mm f/2,8E FL ED VR costs actually slightly more than the Nikon Nikkor Z 400mm f/2,8 TC VR S, and the Nikon Nikkor Z 600/4 TC VR S is about the same price, at least here in Sweden. Or are you comparing a second hand lens with a new one? Because that is really apples and oranges when it comes to price comparison, but even so, even a second hand is very expensive according to my book, so again, if you can't afford the Nikon Nikkor Z 400mm f/2,8 TC VR S then you probably don't need it but want it, which is different, and according to my philosophy, in that case you can actually wait and save. I know that "waiting and saving" is a dirty word in many people's vocabulary today, but in any case, that is my opinion regarding the OP's questions.

Photography is an expensive hobby, and as such, my only motivation or justification to spend money on it is the enjoyment, and while I would also like to have the Nikon Nikkor Z 600/4 TC VR S, I realize that it would be insane of me to spend that much on a single lens just for the ability to say that I have it and to take a few images per year with it. No lens is worth that much for me, it is also a very poor financial investment to buy photographic gear, so I am satisfied with the 100-400 S, and that is at least a lens I can use often. Nevertheless, if I really wanted something longer, I'd definitely only buy Z lenses today, because they are available and more convenient to use than F lenses. But perhaps I'd compromise and not aim at the most expensive lenses, but aim at the slower ones, like the 400mm F4,5 VR S or the 600/6,3 VR S. I am good at setting realistic targets and happy with what is reachable for me, don't need the latest and the greatest all the time.

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

Senior Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Well-known member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Leading Member

Senior Member

Leading Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts