Z50 + ftz + Nikon 16-85mm VR DX

[Shurik30]

Hello folks,

Today I use D7100 + Nikon 16-85mm VR DX (for personal use).

For the photo it works well, but for the shooting videos it lacks the autofocus. I thought I will be able to shoot with manual focus, but it’s very challenging when I am trying to take a video of my kids.

I am wondering if anyone use Z50 + ftz adapter + 16-85 AF-S DX? How it works, is it a smooth autofocus? How is the quality? How do you like this combination?

Thank you!

 

[powerbook]

Hello folks,

Today I use D7100 + Nikon 16-85mm VR DX (for personal use).

For the photo it works well, but for the shooting videos it lacks the autofocus. I thought I will be able to shoot with manual focus, but it’s very challenging when I am trying to take a video of my kids.

I am wondering if anyone use Z50 + ftz adapter + 16-85 AF-S DX? How it works, is it a smooth autofocus? How is the quality? How do you like this combination?

Thank you!

I have had D7200 + DX16-80 / f2.8-4VR and kept the lens for a while together with Z50. I did not experience any difference in how the lens behaved on the D7200 and Z50.

 

[Capture the Moment]

Hi I love that lens but I’m thinking of buying a Z50 with the kit lens. From what I've read apart from the slow aperture this lens would probably outperform the 16-85. Just a thought.

 

[skyrunr]

I found the 16-80VR to outperform the 16-50 all around. I didn't consider/try it with video because the focusing would be noisy because it doesn't have AF-P (Stepper motor.) It would be great if Nikon updated all f-mount lenses to AF-P, updated coatings, and the option to upgrade currently owned gear. NOTE: Linear does have some benefits for sports, but this could change.

As great as the 16-80VR is, the 14-30F4S and 24-70F4S are that much better, compact, don't need the FTZ, and they are absolutely GREAT on the Z50. The 24-70F4S can be had for under $500, around the price of the 16-80VR used. It would be a viable upgrade if you can work with the 36-95mm eq. The other downside of the 16-80VR is that is gathers internal dust more quickly than any other lens I've owned.

The size of the 16-50DX is undeniably beneficial and it does video very well. However, nowhere near as well as a z-prime would. If video is your goal, a used Z6 with the 24-70F4S would serve you MUCH better than a Z50 with any DX lens for very little additional investment if any at all.

 

[rbmphoto]

I owned the 16-85 and used it exclusively as a travel lens when first came out. Owned it for years, and it was excellent through the d5100 series. Then purchased a 16-80, which I still own, and by comparison found the newer lens a bit better in every way. After several years, finally wistfully sold the 16-85.

When I purchased the Z50, it came with the 16-50 kit lens - other than size and weight, the 16-80 was better in every way, really no comparison. Sold the 16-50. Have used the 16-80 as a travel lens with ftz on what limited travel has been available for a while.

During the covid down time compared the z50/16-80 combo against my Z7/24-70 kit combo and found them roughly a wash on iq. The 16-80 I believe has superior coatings, much better range, the 24/70 has the more modern design.

Recently I compared the two lens on the z50. For the same range, though not overwhelming, the nod does go to the 24/70. The advantages of using a fx lens on a dx body are readily apparent; edges and corner weaknesses that a high mp fx sensor display, don’t come into play on the dx sensor.

Sadly, when used inside, or in a low light scenario, the lack of lens vr, and in body stabilization are readily apparent on the 24/70. For those of us who have been fortunate enough over the past few years to be spoiled by vr, and perhaps become slack in our technique, or perhaps are getting older, or are interested in video which pretty much demands stabilization - IMO, the 24/70 solution would be a non starter. In my case, using dx bodies exclusively for travel, I long ago became dependent on vr…

After the recent comparison, and knowing now that I prefer the 16/80 for my z50 purposes, I traded the 24/70 kit with the Z7 toward a Z7ii.

my experience and opinion only…

good luck with your decision!

 

[powerbook]

Hi I love that lens but I’m thinking of buying a Z50 with the kit lens. From what I've read apart from the slow aperture this lens would probably outperform the 16-85. Just a thought.

I don’t know if Z16-50 outperform the 16-85, but I think so. My old 16-80f2.8-4VR outperformed Z16-50 but 16-80 is very noisy in the microphone when shooting video, and it is bulky with FTZ on a nice and small camera like Z50. That is why I sold it.

I love the Z16-50 on Z50. It is a VERY small and light combo. The IQ is very good. I use it for travel often just in my pocket. I will buy the comming DX lens Z18-140 for travel too. My Z 50-250 kit lens is always at home because life is too short to spend time to constantly change lenses on vacation

The two kit lenses has a good IQ.

 

[ZapperVT]

Hello folks,

Today I use D7100 + Nikon 16-85mm VR DX (for personal use).

For the photo it works well, but for the shooting videos it lacks the autofocus. I thought I will be able to shoot with manual focus, but it’s very challenging when I am trying to take a video of my kids.

I am wondering if anyone use Z50 + ftz adapter + 16-85 AF-S DX? How it works, is it a smooth autofocus?

The autofocus is fine for stills but it is noisy. In AF-C mode it seeks a lot and makes more noise. The focus does not seem to be able to make small continual changes like the modern Z lenses do, so the lens is moving focus back and forth, and the AF motor makes much more noise than any of the Z lenses I own. Shooting video is like shooting AF-C in stills, the lens is very busy.

By comparison the Z 16-50 is quiet and smooth focusing.

How is the quality? How do you like this combination?

Optically the 16-80 lens is very good. The 16-50mm Z lens is also very good. I haven't pixel peeped the difference between them, but I find both give photos I'm very happy with. The biggest advantage of the 16-80 is the extra light gathering, which allows you to use lower ISO for less noise, and the increased focal length range.

I used the 16-80 as the main lens on my Z50 for a year and a couple of big overseas vacations and was very pleased with the results. Previously I had a Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 and preferred the 16-80 for sharpness on the wide end and greater focal range. I preferred it to the Z 16-50 for faster aperture and greater zoom range.

I'll add that I don't like the feel of the 16-80 + FTZ + Z50. The FTZ tripod foot sticks down where I want to cradle the lens in my left hand and feels uncomfortable. It gets in the way when tripod mounting because it sticks down lower than the camera bottom, and the camera doesn't sit flat when you put it on the table for the same reason.

I recently sold off my F DX lenses including the 16-80 because I bought a Z7 and a set of Z FX lenses, so the Z50 has been demoted from my main camera with a full set of F-mount lenses to the secondary small camera with just the kit lenses. I wanted the new Z lenses primarily for their optical quality and better AF behavior and not having to use the FTZ - not for full frame per se. But if you want a nice set of Z lenses you gotta buy full frame. Now my camera bag is heavier and I can't carry as many lenses as I could with the F DX kit, although the IQ is certainly better.

If I could wish for one lens from Nikon that's not on the roadmap it would be a Z DX 10-20mm. My second wish would be a Z DX 16-80mm. If I had those two lenses I might be taking the Z50 on trips instead of the Z7.

Thank you!

 

[ANAYV]

Hi I love that lens but I’m thinking of buying a Z50 with the kit lens. From what I've read apart from the slow aperture this lens would probably outperform the 16-85. Just a thought.

I agree. My 16-50 Z lens is sharper than my 16-85 AF-S lens. No need at all for that lens now.

Stay healthy

ANAYV.

 

[NikonMike]

I have both the 16-85 that I use on my D300s and the 16-50 that I use on my Z50. I tried using the 16-85 on my Z50 with the FTZ but the sharpness was not even close to the Z mount kit lens. Focusing was noticeably slower too. But as far as having a large range in one lens it works out good for that.

Mike

 

[Shurik30]

Cool, thanks for the feedback!

 

[Virtual Photon]

I found the 16-80VR to outperform the 16-50 all around. I didn't consider/try it with video because the focusing would be noisy because it doesn't have AF-P (Stepper motor.) It would be great if Nikon updated all f-mount lenses to AF-P, updated coatings, and the option to upgrade currently owned gear. NOTE: Linear does have some benefits for sports, but this could change.

As great as the 16-80VR is, the 14-30F4S and 24-70F4S are that much better, compact, don't need the FTZ, and they are absolutely GREAT on the Z50. The 24-70F4S can be had for under $500, around the price of the 16-80VR used. It would be a viable upgrade if you can work with the 36-95mm eq. The other downside of the 16-80VR is that is gathers internal dust more quickly than any other lens I've owned.

The size of the 16-50DX is undeniably beneficial and it does video very well. However, nowhere near as well as a z-prime would. If video is your goal, a used Z6 with the 24-70F4S would serve you MUCH better than a Z50 with any DX lens for very little additional investment if any at all.

+1 Except that you lose VR with the 14-30/24-70 Z50 combination. OTOH, between the fine high ISO performance of the Z50 sensor, and modern noise reduction programs, this less of an issue than in the past.

 

[ANAYV]

I have both the 16-85 that I use on my D300s and the 16-50 that I use on my Z50.

Same here. Bought the 16-85 for my D300s.

It was a fine , sharp lens with that camera.

Even on my D7500 , at 20.9MP resolution..it seemed sharp.

That is until I shot with the 16-50mm Z lens on my Z 50.

Then the 16-80mm lens was no longer sharp

I tried using the 16-85 on my Z50 with the FTZ but the sharpness was not even close to the Z mount kit lens.

No surprise to me . I am more convinced that Z lenses are just sharper than AF-S lenses.

Focusing was noticeably slower too. But as far as having a large range in one lens it works out good for that.

Range was good...but I mostly used mine at the wide end.

Thats why I dont miss the extra 50mm reach.

Also with the excellent sensors in todays cameras....less need for faster glass.

Just raise ISO .

For landscape and scenic type shots...I stop down to f8 anyway.

Stay healthy

ANAYV

 

[powerbook]

Just a hint

Be careful not to mix the lenses together. Some write 16-85 and and some write 16-80.

Nikon 16-85 has lower IQ than 16-80

Nikon 16-85 is f3.5-5.6
Nikon 16-80 is f2.8-4

 

[ANAYV]

Just a hint

Be careful not to mix the lenses together. Some write 16-85 and and some write 16-80.

Nikon 16-85 has lower IQ than 16-80

Nikon 16-85 is f3.5-5.6
Nikon 16-80 is f2.8-4

Yep. Don't think there's a mixup ...as the rightful owners are the ones mentioning either 16-80 or 16-85 lens they have and/ or used.

Either way Im sure the DX Z lens is sharper than both older lenses.

Slower...yes...but thats what ISO is for

Stay healthy

ANAYV

 

[NikonMike]

I have both the 16-85 that I use on my D300s and the 16-50 that I use on my Z50.

Same here. Bought the 16-85 for my D300s.

It was a fine , sharp lens with that camera.

Even on my D7500 , at 20.9MP resolution..it seemed sharp.

That is until I shot with the 16-50mm Z lens on my Z 50.

Then the 16-80mm lens was no longer sharp

I tried using the 16-85 on my Z50 with the FTZ but the sharpness was not even close to the Z mount kit lens.

No surprise to me . I am more convinced that Z lenses are just sharper than AF-S lenses.

Focusing was noticeably slower too. But as far as having a large range in one lens it works out good for that.

Range was good...but I mostly used mine at the wide end.

Thats why I dont miss the extra 50mm reach.

Also with the excellent sensors in todays cameras....less need for faster glass.

Just raise ISO .

For landscape and scenic type shots...I stop down to f8 anyway.

Stay healthy

ANAYV

Exact same experience as me. The lens worked great on my D300s and I got some really nice images with it,, but the little 16-50 blew it away on my Z50.

 

[iljitsch]

Ok, maybe a bit late with my reply...

But I couldn't resist testing (on the Z fc, not the Z50).

The 16-85 makes some sound when the aperture changes, but that shouldn't be an issue, just shoot your video in aperture priority mode and the aperture won't be changed by the camera while you shoot video.

The focus motor is not loud, but certainly noticeable and keeps doing its thing as you point the camera in different directions. Focus also hunts from time to time.

With the 16-50 Z DX kit lens, I couldn't hear the aperture. In AF-F (fulltime) focussing mode, I also couldn't hear the focus motor. However, focus changes pretty slowly in this mode. If you half-press the shutter, the image snaps into focus, but then the focus motor is clearly audible, but much quieter than with the 16-85.

BTW, weird that focussing in AF-F is so slow. There is actually a setting for this, but it goes from "glacially" to "just regular slow". You can focus faster in AF-C but then you need to hold down the shutter in a half-press or a button configured to be AF-ON. In AF-C the focussing is much faster but (mostly?) no noise, that only seems to be an issue in AF-S mode.

Edit: actually it's not always slow. What I did is pan around a bit and then it's definitely slow. But pushing in on a subject will keep the subject in focus, as long as you don't do it too fast. I have nothing that runs around here in the house so I can't test tracking moving subjects right now, I assume those will also be faster than panning.