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

[astirusty]

I know the general answer is no, but with some price points I figured I would ask if there were any particular exceptions.

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR is a good vacation all around lens. By no means a Z 24-70mm f/2.8 S (5 stars by me).

I give 28-300mm 3.5 stars and Z 70-200mm f/2.8 S 4.0 stars.

Getting 70-200mm out to 300m requires a TC, which lowers image quality. Bringing 28-300mm back to 200mm brings it up closer to quality of 70-200mm.

 

[Wezre]

I know the general answer is no, but with some price points I figured I would ask if there were any particular exceptions.

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR is a good vacation all around lens. By no means a Z 24-70mm f/2.8 S (5 stars by me).

I give 28-300mm 3.5 stars and Z 70-200mm f/2.8 S 4.0 stars.

Getting 70-200mm out to 300m requires a TC, which lowers image quality. Bringing 28-300mm back to 200mm brings it up closer to quality of 70-200mm.

These lenses are in completely different universes of performance and are meant for totally different purposes. Even the Z 70-180 f/2.8 trounces the 28-300. As does the Z 24-200.

 

[Suntan]

Frankly, there's none I want to buy in F mount.

There are a handful remaining that I would like Nikon to update to Z mount. But none I want to pay market rates for in F mount. (With the possible exception of the old 105 DC, purely for the purpose of wanting that one back in the day.)

 

[TheNextThing]

On DX the AF-S 16-80 f/2.8-4E VR has no Z-mount equal, and is still a superb lens.

As others have mentioned, the AF-P 70-300 f/4.5-5.6E FX lens is also worth adapting. The Tamron 70-300 lacks VR and is f/6.3 instead of f/5.6.

 

[Paddler213]

Zeiss 1.4/25 Milvus, Sigma 40/1.4 Art, AF-S 300/4D, 500PF. All of which I own.

 

[ajr images]

Yes, weight and balance point, is certainly something to consider with the old F 400 2.8 and 600 f4 (certainly prior to the FL versions), and also the fact that these old lenses are going to be difficult to repair once the AF motor stops working.

I need a long telephoto that can be handheld for long periods and want the best image quality, so for me it was worth the money to buy the 400TC. I expect this to last me for many years.

I still own the F 300 2.8VRII and the 500mm f4VR. Great lenses, but I haven't used them since switching to Z9's in 2001. They now command such a low resale value that it's not worth selling them.

 

[astirusty]

I know the general answer is no, but with some price points I figured I would ask if there were any particular exceptions.

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR is a good vacation all around lens. By no means a Z 24-70mm f/2.8 S (5 stars by me).

I give 28-300mm 3.5 stars and Z 70-200mm f/2.8 S 4.0 stars.

Getting 70-200mm out to 300m requires a TC, which lowers image quality. Bringing 28-300mm back to 200mm brings it up closer to quality of 70-200mm.

These lenses are in completely different universes of performance and are meant for totally different purposes. Even the Z 70-180 f/2.8 trounces the 28-300. As does the Z 24-200.

Did you bother to read (in bold) what I wrote before pouncing?

And for purpose I set forth (bold italic above), 70-180 isn't. And 24-200 lacks the reach.

 

[Sjak]

When I traded my M246, I was debating to get either a S1R, some Sony or Nikon Z. I ended up with a Z9, an important factor were the FTZ and Techart-M/Z- adapters.

For use with the FTZ, I bought the following lenses:

• AFS 105 1.4, fantastic lens, in itself sufficient reason to get the FTZ
• Sigma Art 40 1.4, Sigma went all-out on this one, a "benchmark-lens", and available used for around 500 euro. It's huge though for a 40mm
• Sigma Art 24 1.4 - no Z-mount-alternative, half the price of a used AFS 24 1.4 and arguably better
• 300mm PF - very lightweight tele, 1st impressions are very positive
• 24-45-85 PCE; no Z-alternative, the 24 is of course useful for architecture, but my favourite so far is actually the 45 for landscape-work. I haven't yet tested the 85 PCE as I received it only 2 days ago.

 

[Leonard Shepherd]

As the Nikon ZML range is still incomplete I consider there is no one answer.

As an example if you need a 300 mm f2 .8 the F mount is the only option. Even so if I needed one, I would buy it secondhand in anticipation of the lens range being expanded over time.

 

[studio460]

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.

 

[Sjak]

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.

For people, it's indeed a great lens, but actually it'll handle anything you throw at it. One of my favorite lenses ever.

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.

It's indeed tempting

The 300PF for its superior light weight and the 300/2.8 for its speed. This is an either-or purchase decision.

I have been debating more or less similar 300mm-options recently.

I admit that for my use of lenses (walking a lot, and also pub/club/event-stuff) the 2.8 options seemed less than ideal due to the totally not subtle size

So I bought a 300PF this week for 900 euro incl. 1 year of warranty, and added a 1.7* TC for outdoors. I'll see how I get along with it, but the size&weight is really nice; I knew it was 755 grams but actually handling the lens was still a surprise; great for handheld operation all day long.

You could try it, and if the f/4 is too limiting, you can always sell it later and get the 2.8.

 

[olyflyer]

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 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.

 

[jtr27]

I've made some "contrarian" lens purchasing decisions, based on compelling value, and now find myself owning four (!) F-mount lenses, all of which I acquired used after having bought my Z camera.

• Nikon 200-500 F5.6
• Tamron 17-35 F2.8-4 G2
• Sigma 105mm F2.8 DS OS Macro HSM
• Nikon AF-S 70-200mm f/4 G ED VR

I don't do a lot of wildlife, macro or ultrawide shooting, which makes adapting F mount lenses a livable solution for occasional use. As for the 70-200, it is an excellent lens which I primarily use for landscapes, but I also own the Z mount Tamron 70-300, and I use that instead of the 70-200 when I am hiking and weight and compactness are at a premium.

The superb Z 24-120 F4 is my bread and butter lens and is on my camera most of the time. I also own the Z 24-70 F4, a terrific hiking lens.

I am not in any rush to upgrade my F mount lenses to Z mount, but if I were to upgrade, I'd most likely begin with the Tamron 17-35 and get the Z 14-30 instead. If Nikon ever does make a Z mount 70-200 F4, I'd be interested in that as well.

 

[Wezre]

I know the general answer is no, but with some price points I figured I would ask if there were any particular exceptions.

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR is a good vacation all around lens. By no means a Z 24-70mm f/2.8 S (5 stars by me).

I give 28-300mm 3.5 stars and Z 70-200mm f/2.8 S 4.0 stars.

Getting 70-200mm out to 300m requires a TC, which lowers image quality. Bringing 28-300mm back to 200mm brings it up closer to quality of 70-200mm.

These lenses are in completely different universes of performance and are meant for totally different purposes. Even the Z 70-180 f/2.8 trounces the 28-300. As does the Z 24-200.

Did you bother to read (in bold) what I wrote before pouncing?

And for purpose I set forth (bold italic above), 70-180 isn't. And 24-200 lacks the reach.

I did. You started by setting a purpose that the 70-200 was never intended for and then finished by talking about optical performance. If you need to shoot the 28-300 at 200mm anyways to get the level of optical performance you want, then just use the 24-200 and be done with it. No need to use an FTZ. And if you absolutely must have a wide to telephoto zoom with 300mm reach, then Nikon’s native Z mount option is the 28-400. But most people are really enjoying the 24-200 as an all-purpose travel zoom.

 

[zachdog]

I love the 58mm f/1.4G. It’s a lovely lens that has some of the same qualities of the Plena in a normal length. The Z 50mm lenses may be sharper, but the bokeh on the 58 is absolutely incredible.

I also regularly use a 16-80mm f/2.8-4E with my Zfc. It’s chunky with the adapter but wow, that lens is spectacular.

A 70-300mm is in my cabinet, and I haven’t yet updated my 85mm. I only use those a few times a year, so it’s not worth the cost.

 

[Wezre]

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 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.

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.

 

[Jonny N]

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.

For people, it's indeed a great lens, but actually it'll handle anything you throw at it. One of my favorite lenses ever.

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.

It's indeed tempting

The 300PF for its superior light weight and the 300/2.8 for its speed. This is an either-or purchase decision.

I have been debating more or less similar 300mm-options recently.

I admit that for my use of lenses (walking a lot, and also pub/club/event-stuff) the 2.8 options seemed less than ideal due to the totally not subtle size

So I bought a 300PF this week for 900 euro incl. 1 year of warranty, and added a 1.7* TC for outdoors. I'll see how I get along with it, but the size&weight is really nice; I knew it was 755 grams but actually handling the lens was still a surprise; great for handheld operation all day long.

You could try it, and if the f/4 is too limiting, you can always sell it later and get the 2.8.

I bought the 300mm PF last week for $715 and have been very happy with it on my Z50 II. It’s a great small telephoto set-up.

I was so pleased with it, I splurged on the TC 14E III and a minty 500mm PF from B&H for $1,720. Looking forward to putting that thru its paces on my Z8!

These are great lenses that are a substantial saving to similar offerings in the Z range.

Everyone has different value propositions but these seemed very compelling to me.

 

[Pemanja]

If you want the best 35mm for Nikon, Tamron 35mm f1.4 is the best...only thing that I would like to be better is the weight...it's 800g and ftzII is like 150g, so it's almost 1kg in weight...but it's worth it.
Focus is great, it's sharp with great bokeh, it's better than sigma 35mm, and Nikon 35mm f1.8S.

 

[Brian Homer]

Not for me. I have fully gone Z and will not be considering F lenses.

 

[Rodenmg]

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.

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.