What's your / a good Z lens purchase strategy?

I started watching a Youtube video the other day of a photographer talking about his favorite lenses. The first was an f/1.8 50 mm prime. The second a slightly different f/1.8 50 mm  prime. The third an f/1.4 50 mm prime. That's where I stopped  watching.

Now let he who is without sins cast the first stone, as I also have multiple versions of the same type of lens for most of my lenses. So I thought I would ask for the wisdom of this forum on a strategy to avoid keeping buying the same lens. (Well, better/different versions of the same type of lens.)

Then I thought: let's make this a bit broader. Looking at Nikon's Z lens roadmap, it starts becoming clear that for < 300 mm they have a few main sets of lenses:

• Currently just one f/1.2 S-line prime, but looks like two more are  coming
• A good number of f/1.8 S-line primes
• f/2.8 S-line "holy trinity" zooms: 14-24, 24-70, 70-200 mm
• f/4 S-line zooms: 14-30, 24-70, 24-120 mm (but no matching tele zoom?)
• f/2.8 non S-line zooms that seem to be licensed from Tamron, currently 17-28  and 28-75, likely 70-180 mm on the way
• Variable aperture zooms

(Roughly, the  f/2.8 S-line lenses are all $2000+, the S-line f/4 lenses and non S-line f/2.8 zooms a bit over $1000 and the variable aperture zooms under $500.)

Until now, my strategy has always been to look for the sharpest affordable variable aperture lenses. But those f/4 S-line zooms look really sweet, especially when the time comes to make the jump from DX to full frame.

But then, wouldn't I want to upgrade those to the f/2.8 S-line versions at some point, and once again have to add an extra shelf to my lens closet?

So what is your Z lens acquisition strategy? Or a strategy that you  recommend?

I kept the poll answers as simple as possible, so please pick the one that comes closest and of course add details and other thoughts to the discussion.

Buy the lenses you'll use and need.

I have the 24-70 f4 for a decent landscape lens, the 50 1.8 for astro, I'll get the 200-600 when it comes out (come on nikon, it's been 3 years, release it already) plus a Tc for wildlife. I also have the 105 macro lens.

Then I have my f mount manual focus primes (rokinon lenses, 135 f/2 and 14 2.8) that I'll eventually replace with z mount when they have equal/better options for not high prices (eg not 3k for a 14-24 2.8, I'd take a solid performing 14mm prime in z mount at 2.8 though).

I buy lenses based on what I shoot. When I bought the Z7 I got the 24-70/4 because it was the only one available (March 2019). The Z7 was my MBA grad present to myself and I selected it over the D850 to move o MILC. I don’t need f/2.8 or the weight, and reviews all say it was really good. I have been happy with it as a walk-around lens.

I also knew I wanted the 14-30/4 and was one of the first in my area to get it. For landscape it is fantastic.

I don’t currently have a zoom at 70-200 so got the 24-200 next. Now, like many, I’m debating whether to hold on to the 24-70, sell it and get the 24-120, or sell it and just go with the 24-200/4. Nikon hasn’t yet announced a 70-200/4 yet so that is still an open question.

I got the 105MC in July and have enjoyed it both for macro and portraits.

I will buy the 200-600 on release with the 1.4TC to replace my 200-500, and that will complete my kit.

So … I buy what I need, when I need it. I spend zero time on YouTube researching.

My strategy is to buy the lenses I need.  If that lens happens to be top of the line, then so be it.  If not, doesn't matter.

I have the 24-120 f/4 lens.  I would never use any other lens in that zoom range.  I have the 24-70 f/4 because it was the only lens available when the Z line was introduced in 2018.

I have the 70-200 f/2.8 S lens.  I would always buy that lens, even if they came out with a 70-200 f/4.  Why?  Because I can put a 1.4X TC on it and it's still f/4.

I just recently moved to Full Frame (Prior DX D50, D300, D7100) also N2000 35mm Film

I got the Kit lens the Z 24-70 f/4 S lens. I like the 24mm side as it is close to if not the same as my 16-85 DX which is my 99% used lens on my D7100 and also the D300.

The Z 24-40/4 is an awesome lens, however I have no comparison as I only have one Z lens at the moment.

I have 2 Old Tamron lenses 28-80 f/3.5-4.2 and 70-210 f/3.5 (not used this much on my Z7ii yet)

For me it has been gradually coming for some time. I feel now that the image quality, on modern lenses, has become so good that differences at overlapping focal lengths and apertures are irrelevant. This may change if they release higher resolution sensors and I know the minor differences matter to others.

For me, now, it's purely a decision based on a compromise between, focal lengths, aperture, bulk, features and budget. If you won't be shooting faster than F4 the F4 zooms are plenty good enough. You can still end up with multiple overlapping lenses though as priorities change depending on the activity or what you are shooting For example, I wouldn't bother carrying the 12-24 2.8 if F4 upwards was going to be enough. However I always miss the function button especially on the Z6ii and Z7ii

When I decided  to go mirrorless, I committed to replacing the focal lengths that I had used with my DSLRs, as a starting point. I completed that task in four years (2018-22). However I made some revisions. I replaced my 1.8g with 1.8s primes; mixed my trinity, using both f4 (14-30) and f2.8 (24-70, 70-200). Previously I had nothing but f2.8 trinity lenses. I then replaced my “auxiliary lenses. (24-120, 105 f2.8, and 120-300) with Z mount 24-120, MC 105, and z100-400). I’m set…for now. With this task completed, I’ll be looking at a new body to add, when it comes out.

None apply to me. I buy what I fancy at the time because I am a bit older and this is my passion.

If I was just starting out I would be more than happy with the 24-70 f4 for a zoom, and the 50 1.8 for a prime.

Right now I have a the 2.8 zooms but for the 12-24. The 100-400, 50 1.2 and all the 1,8 primes- If I had to go with just one it would be the 24-70 2.8, it really is that good... And I thought the F mount was WAY overrated.

Right now I am happy walking around with my 50mm 1.2, but the 24-70 2.8 would be the one if I only had one.

I thought I wanted the 2.8s because well, why not! But then really they were not what I needed. I've got the the 24-120 f/4 and it's superb. It is currently paired with the also excellent 100-400, which is variable but... what can you do? a 100-400 f/4 would be a brick and a half.

Now it's become more difficult. I like the look of the 12-24 f/2.8 - it's pretty, has 3 rings, a (semi-useless) screen that is the same as the 100-400 - but again I cannot really justify the cost/weight for how much I will use it; so I've decided to go with the 14-30 f/4 instead for an un-holy trinity.

Final game is when it's dark... I toiled a long time over whether or not to get one of the muffin lenses or to proper and get 1.8 prime. The 50 f/1.8 is about to win, because it's just better and not prohibitively expensive. Might as well take the best photo if you're going to take one at all.

So I guess my strategy is
1) get the must for what you going to take photos of most of the time
2) get a secondary set for the other cases - if it's not the primarily, do you really need a trinity lens?
3) pick'n'mix from the remaining based on your available budget! (*)

(*) avoiding 2.8 lets you get more glass! yey!

HTH.

iljitsch wrote:

I started watching a Youtube video the other day of a photographer talking about his favorite lenses. The first was an f/1.8 50 mm prime. The second a slightly different f/1.8 50 mm prime. The third an f/1.4 50 mm prime. That's where I stopped watching.

Sounds like someone really likes their 50mm's haha.

Now let he who is without sins cast the first stone, as I also have multiple versions of the same type of lens for most of my lenses. So I thought I would ask for the wisdom of this forum on a strategy to avoid keeping buying the same lens. (Well, better/different versions of the same type of lens.)

So, I'm certainly not without sin, but at least I don't own all 3 variants of the 50mm in Z mount... (2/3rds of the way there haha).

(Roughly, the f/2.8 S-line lenses are all $2000+, the S-line f/4 lenses and non S-line f/2.8 zooms a bit over $1000 and the variable aperture zooms under $500.)

Until now, my strategy has always been to look for the sharpest affordable variable aperture lenses. But those f/4 S-line zooms look really sweet, especially when the time comes to make the jump from DX to full frame.

But then, wouldn't I want to upgrade those to the f/2.8 S-line versions at some point, and once again have to add an extra shelf to my lens closet?

So what is your Z lens acquisition strategy? Or a strategy that you recommend?

So, there really is a use case for all of the lenses. By that I mean each have their own situation that they'd fit best for. The way I see it, there isn't an issue with buying multiple variants of the same lens. For example, I have both the 50 f/1.8 and 50 f/1.2, and I use both. When I have time and I can switch lenses on a shoot, I usually would bring the 50mm f/1.8 because I'm also bringing other lenses and need room in my bag. If I know I'm shooting in really poor lighting conditions, or I will have extremely poor choices for backgrounds, I bring the 50mm f/1.2. If I'm doing a wedding for a couple hours and trying to cram in hundreds/thousands of shots in a short amount of time.... I usually skip the 50 primes all together and keep the 24-70 f/2.8 glued to my camera.

So Step One is to not fear that you may purchase a lens that you may overlap sometime in the future. (Also selling lenses you don't use or replace is always an option).

All of that said, I don't know what kind of photography you do so it is very hard to recommend a particular strategy to you. It's hard to go wrong with the f/1.8 primes, as they are complete gems. If you shoot a lot of indoor weddings then investing in f/2.8 zooms should be a priority. If you shoot outdoor weddings (or like a fair amount of DoF) then there's nothing wrong with the f/4 zooms, and I'm sure a 70-200 f/4 S will turn up eventually.

Personally I do weddings and portraits, but I also came from F mount and had a gamut of lenses to fall back on. Also, I had the F mount equivalents of most of these, so they were more replacements than new purchases. My Z purchases were, in order:

• Z 50mm f/1.8 (stellar lens, replaced F 50mm f/1.4),
• Z 35mm f/1.8 (meh - I'd like a f/1.2 version, replaced F 35mm f/1.8 DX version that was fine on FX DSLR),
• Z 85mm f/1.8 (great - not sure I'd need f/1.2, replaced F 85mm f/1.8),
• Z 24mm f/1.8 (meh, wish it were a 28 f/1.8, but it helps for family shots indoors with the 1.3 stops of extra light over f/2.8, kind of replaced the F 28mm f/1.8)
• Z 24-70 f/2.8 (fantastic zoom, replaced my trusty Sigma Art 24-70 f/2.8 thast just never balanced will with the FTZ)
• Z 70-200 f/2.8 (also fantastic, replaced the Sigma Sport 70-200 for the same reason as above)
• Z 24-70 f/4 (excellent zoom, got basically new for $300 off eBay, and is a good alternative when I don't need the big bulky 24-70 f/2.8
• Z 105mm MC f/2.8 (stellar, replaced the F 105mm Micro f/2.8, honestly makes it in my bag more often than the Z 85mm does now)
• Z 50 f/1.2 (Outstanding, sharp wide open, and I wish I could shoot with it more but it's so ginormous that I often use the Z 50mm f/1.8 because I can't fit what I need into a reasonable sized bag otherwise.)

I hope this helps!

Unfortunately I can't pick any of the poll options, because none of them fit me. My strategy is pretty simple, at least for me - Buy with purpose, spend as little as possible, and spend a lot when needed.

First for me is having a strong need to shoot a particular type of shot. I'll spend a lot of time debating in my head whether I really have a use for a lens type. Then, I spend a lot of time researching options, and the take the plunge on the right choice.

When I started out with Z, I specifically started with the kit 24-70 f4, 20mm f1.8 (landscape astro) and 70-200 f2.8 (son’s hockey games at first, and later for deep sky astro). I never looked into anything new in the 2x-7x range because the 24-70 f4 kit lens was perfect for my near-mid range needs (at least vs a desire to spend 2k on the f2.8). I only started looking at the 85 f1.8 when I had spent a while thinking about doing some portrait work (and it showed up at a good price on a Nikon refurb sale).  And most recently, I bought the 400 f4.5 because I’ve started shooting some football/soccer and want something longer than 200 (280 w/ TC), and this will also be something I can try with deep sky astro and wildlife.

I refuse to buy a lens just to buy a lens. If it is going to do little more than sit on a shelf, I just cannot justify it.

It took me a long time to jump to the Z mount, but I finally did in June when I ordered a Z9, which was delivered 3 weeks later.

In the meantime I needed lenses. Or sort of needed lenses - the Z9 I bought was bundled with an FTZ2, and I received the FTZ2 within a few days of my order. I could have simply put any of my current f-mount lenses on, but I chose to use only the 500pf.

I have a full set of f-mount lenses, and in many cases 2 generations of lenses. But I wanted to lean into the z-mount right away to get maximum use out of it while I still can. (I'm almost 69 years old. This could end up being the last camera.)

So, like you, I needed to decide a strategy on which lenses to replace. I like both primes and zooms, and the primes I normally carry were all F1.4. 35f1.4 Sigma ART, 50F1.4g, 85F1.4g

I have the Holy Trinity, and I have various travel and wildlife zooms.

For travel, which is possibly most of my photography, I have long carried only 3 lenses that must fit in my waist bag. (Bag limits the amount of lenses, thus weight, I carry.) Those lenses are 16-35vr, 24-70vr, and 80-400g

For wildlife, I mostly use the 500pf now, previously a 200-500 and before that 300F4+1.4 TC and 80-400g.

A huge focus for me over the past several years has been underwater photography, which is extremely limited in lens support. There I use the 16-35 and the 105 macro.

I have a number of nice lenses that I almost never use, including the 14-24F2.8 and the 70-200F2.8 vr II.

+++

So the strategy is to replace the most-used/required f-mounts with z-mount equivalents. Additionally, I chose to skip replacing lenses I almost never use. That simplified things a lot, so here are the choices and reasons.

First, underwater. Choices are both limited and clear here. 14-30 replaces 16-35 and 105s macro replaces 105 f-mount macro.

Second, travel. 14-30, 24-70f2.8 and .... ? The 80-400g is not so easily replaced by the similarly-sized 100-400 because it is significantly less wide, making it less suitable for travel.

Here a good alternate choice would be 14-30, 24-120 and 100-400, except I really like F28 more than 70 to 120mm.

At this point, simply covering my travel and underwater needs gives me a viable set of starting lenses. 14-30, 24-70f2.8, 100-400, and 105 macro.

Those three zooms cover my need for pretty much any other zooms. Other zooms now become interesting only in terms of specialized uses.

Which leaves my trio of F1.4 primes. Here is really the only sort-of dilemma as I have no F1.4 z-mount choices. Since I needed to get going fast, I decided to just make do with the F1.8 choices. I don't know I'll ever want F1.2 enough to pay the weight penalty as well as the price penalty. So I picked up the 35F1.8s, the 50f1.8s and the 85F1.8s.

And there is my set of lenses choices. I bought all but the 100-400 on sale during the 4th of July promotion. I had all of those lenses before I received the Z9.

I continue to use the 500pf on the FTZ2. I'm hoping for a 600pf (F5.6 - F6.3) at some point, and I am interested in the 85F1.2 once it comes out, except I'm scared of the pricing.

Because I had this stack of lenses to try when my Z9 arrived, I have not tried any of my f-mount lenses on the FTZ2 except the 500pf.

I don't really feel like I'm missing anything but a small niche of image scenarios with the lenses I have now. I am more concerned about the wide end of the 100-400 when traveling more than anything else.

Well, as always it depends on your use case. Working pro? Nope, firmly in the prosumer camp. Primarily wildlife, street, travel, macro, astro, not in any order.

I checked the "primes" option, but for me, I opted to go with the best IQ I could afford for the $$$ via the primes I knew I would use a lot, and augment with the affordable f/4 zooms. So if there was an "other" or "hybrid option in your poll, I would have checked that.

The prime I use the most is the Z 105mm f/2.8 MC. All the S primes are significantly better than the F-mount equivalents, but the 105 is so ridiculously good and versatile (for me) that it's probably moved me off of buying any more F-mount glass in the future. Specifically the 105mm f/1.4, a big hunk of glorious glass I have long lusted after.

Next up for me will be the Z 100-400mm, probably followed by the Z 70-200mm f/2.8, the only one of the Z f/2.8 trinity I could actually justify spending that kind of cash on for my use case. I'll take a look at the rebadged Tamron Z 70-300mm when it comes out, but unless that is by some miracle it is leaps and bounds better than the Sony E-mount version (which I tried on a friend's A7C and, well, it was, OK) ...probably gonna have to swallow hard and take the plunge, as I don't think we're going to see an S-Line Z 70-200mm f/4 out of Nikon anytime soon.

Of course, if the Z 200-600mm finally gets rolled out for this holiday season, that one goes to the top of the charts with a bullet.

This is a pretty decent thread, as it is interesting to compare the loadouts of the working pros in the Z universe vs. those that ain't.

So what is your Z lens acquisition strategy? Or a strategy that you recommend?

Have your credit card ready. And tell your wife and/or your banker that there has been an emergency situation.

What do I need? Is there a product that addresses my concerns about light gathering, weather sealing, focal length, and weight-to-volume ratio.

What can I afford? Anything over $600 will simply never happen as my yearly big purchase. Not for a hobbyist on a Sr. software developer's salary anyway.

The only Nikkor Z lens other than the two Z50 kit lenses I have is the 50mm 1.8 S because I needed a bright weatherized lens for about 1/2 the year, and it was the one I could afford. If the new Nikkor Z DX prime lenses are not weather sealed then I won't even bother, as the dirt cheap TTArtisan bright primes will do the same thing in overlapping conditions.