Building a lens set

[whettam]

I'm interested in how everyone has built your set of lens, especially your thoughts on how the set will work together why this fits for your chosen subjects, conscious overlaps, missing gaps and compromises? Interested partly to see whether others approaches, make me rethink mine.

On FX I had the 'holy trinity' and a few primes, but with mirrorless I'm looking to do things a bit differently. Like many I’m sure, I’m trying to balance quality, weight, flexibility and cost. Currently I just have the 35 1.8, 85 1.8 and the 24-70 f4 (kit lenses).

I’ve not decided yet which to add next, but have planned my target kit bag of lenses, I’ve broken this down by main photography subjects I'm interested in, I only want to carry max of three (pref 2) lenses at any onetime.

People (and Dog) Portraits / Documentary / Street Photography

• Nikon Z 35 f/1.8
• Nikon Z 85 f/1.8
• Nikon Z 70-180 f/2.8 (don’t yet own)
• Nikon Z 17-28 f/2.8 (or Viltrox 20 f/2.8, don’t yet own either)
• I know I said 3 lenses per category, but depending on location / subject I’d pick 2/3 from these 4

Everyday / Travel

• Nikon Z 24-120 f/4 (don’t yet own, I’ll trade in my 24-70 f/4 when I do get this)
• Nikon Z 40 f/2 (again don’t yet own)

Sports (likely to mainly be surfing / rugby / equestrian) / Dogs in action

• Nikon Z 70-180 f/2.8
• Nikon Z 35 f/1.8 (wider scene setting option for sports)

I’m not really a landscape, architecture or macro photographer, but think adding the above lenses will cover these bases if necessary. So that’s four more lenses making a total of six.

Rationale / Compromise in the planned purchases

The obvious omission / compromise is no 24 -70 f/2.8 and my decision (I think ;-) to just swap the f4 14-70 for the 24-120. This is partly because of cost / weight, but also for a general walkabout I think I’d like more reach than 70. If I'm limiting myself to the f4 of the 24-120, the 40 f2 seems a no brainer, as a low weight addition to give me a low light option.

Although the weight of the 24-120 and 40 are similar to the 24-70 f2.8, so I am prioritising that extra reach and hoping I can make the 35 / 85 and the 17-28 / 70-180, work for people / documentary.

I think I’m OK with quality compromise of the 70-180 vs the 70-200, it’s a lot lighter / cheaper and seems will fit for me, although I am tempted to wait and see if Tamron release the G2 version for Nikon Z.

The 17-28 is probably the one I have struggled choosing the most, when I previously had a UWA I was not a big fan of the photos I took (although I like other peoples). I’m also tempted to just start with the Viltrox 20 f/2.8 prime as a wide option, because I like using primes (will fit well with the 35 and 85) and the weight / low cost, I can then see how I get on with that. But ultimately think I may want more flexibility, hence the 17-28 which I think is a good range for my use cases.

As I said interested to hear how others are building your lens sets?

 

[PLShutterbug]

I suggest you search this forum for similar threads - there are dozens. The question has been discussed a lot, and you will get great advice.

 

[John Ideal]

I use the 17-28 and the 70-180 tamikons as my walkaround kit. I have a lot of other lenses, but these work for me on a day to day basis. 180-200 is going to be too short for field sports. I would advise you to also look at the 100-400, even though it's a pricey beginning.

 

[whettam]

I suggest you search this forum for similar threads - there are dozens. The question has been discussed a lot, and you will get great advice.

Hi thank you, yes I have searched and have already read alot about the individual lens decisions I'm making, but my question was specifically about how others are choosing to build their lens sets? There is not (unless I'm using search wrong) a specific thread on that in this forum, I think we often debate the merits of one lens vs another, but I think the lenses have to work as a set, which is what I was trying to get at by starting this thread. There was an old article on Photography Life on the topic, but its for FX and I was genuinely interested in other peoples thoughts on their lens combinations / rationale, apologies if that's not what the forum is for.

 

[Wezre]

I’ve not decided yet which to add next, but have planned my target kit bag of lenses, I’ve broken this down by main photography subjects I'm interested in, I only want to carry max of three (pref 2) lenses at any onetime.

People (and Dog) Portraits / Documentary / Street Photography

• Nikon Z 35 f/1.8
• Nikon Z 85 f/1.8
• Nikon Z 70-180 f/2.8 (don’t yet own)
• Nikon Z 17-28 f/2.8 (or Viltrox 20 f/2.8, don’t yet own either)
• I know I said 3 lenses per category, but depending on location / subject I’d pick 2/3 from these 4

Seems like a reasonable selection.

Everyday / Travel

• Nikon Z 24-120 f/4 (don’t yet own, I’ll trade in my 24-70 f/4 when I do get this)
• Nikon Z 40 f/2 (again don’t yet own)

I question the 40 f/2, as you already have the 35 1.8. Sure, the 40 is smaller/lighter, but the 35 really isn't a large lens in the scheme of things. I would consider something wider (Nikon 20 1.8, Viltrox 16 1.8) if you're looking to complement your two current primes.

Sports (likely to mainly be surfing / rugby / equestrian) / Dogs in action

• Nikon Z 70-180 f/2.8
• Nikon Z 35 f/1.8 (wider scene setting option for sports)

The 70-180 obviously also serves a purpose in the category above, but 180mm is too short for surfing and most field sports. The 100-400 would be a better choice but 1) it's much more expensive and 2) you'll have to decide if you can live with the slower aperture for the first category above. You could also consider the Tamron 150-500 which would bookend well with the 24-120. The other thing you could consider is the Tamron 35-150 instead of the 24-120 and/or 70-180, but it's large/heavy and not ideal for travel.

 

[Nebido]

The composition of a complete set of lenses is likely to be so individual and different that little advice can be given.
The requirements are far too different for that.
Someone who earns their living from photography has a different approach to a hobby photographer and even there the requirements and history of each individual photographer are completely different, so there is no one-size-fits-all solution.

For the majority, the lens fleet is likely to be an evolutionary process that often takes many years, or even decades.
Many of them are also likely to have switched to the Z system with previous equipment, so in such cases the demand is also built around the existing equipment.
In the end, you can only find out for yourself, the only advice I would give is to be very aware of the decision, analyze your needs precisely before investing a lot of money and take your time.

Trial and error and thus bad purchases over the years are also part of it.

As an example, I started photography in the late seventies with a Rollei 35 and Pentax Spotmatic.
That's why I love photography with fixed focal lengths and usually only go out for the day with a single focal length that I feel like using and that is suitable for the project.

Accordingly, zooms are underrepresented in my photography, they simply don't have the same appeal for me.
However, I'm also not a travel photographer or event photographer who needs and wants to be prepared for many situations.
For me, it's all about having fun, the joy of photography and the joy of high-quality lenses. I'm not interested in flexibility, but rather the opposite, specialization, min.-maxing as you would say in gaming, and limiting myself to the mind set of a focal length.

Then of course the money factor plays a major role in the choice of lens. Without limits I would certainly have almost the entire Z lens line-up.

But I have to see how I invest my money in such a way that it brings me the greatest benefit for my photography, but above all the greatest fun. Lenses like the 35/2 Apo-Lanthar, the Z 400/4.5 VR S or the Plena don't give me the maximum flexibility in terms of equipment, but they are the three lenses that give me the most joy by a huge margin.

I simply like going out with these lenses by far the most and that's what matters to me as a hobbyist in the end.

All three lenses motivate me to go out with them because each one is a real pleasure in its own way.

That is the essential factor for me and if that happens, the money was well invested.

So it's not just rational, a lens also has to touch me emotionally.

My lens selection in the Z system is therefore influenced by these factors, as well as by the fact that I already owned over a dozen lenses for adaptation before buying a Z-body.
So I already had various lenses, such as the Canon FD 20-35/3.5 L, 85/1.2 L, 200/2.8m CZJ Biotar 58/2, Tomioka 55/1.4, Mamiya Sekor 80/2.8 N and many more, which I continue to use and around which the need has developed in recent years.

Accordingly, various Z lenses have been added over the last few years.
Starting with the Z 24-70/4 S as a kit lens, which was then sold after the purchase of the Z 50/1.8 S and the Voigtlander 35/2 AL-Z.
Later came the Z 14-30/4 S, then the Z 105/2.8 VR S, then the Z 400/4.5 VR S with Z TC-1.4x and the last lens I bought was the Z 135/1.8 S Plena.

The requirements and prerequisites for another user will be completely different, so I think that such comprehensive consultations are relatively pointless.

You can really only recommend it for very precisely formulated requirement profiles/application areas; as soon as someone knows this very precisely, there is no longer need for advice.

 

[whettam]

Sports (likely to mainly be surfing / rugby / equestrian) / Dogs in action

• Nikon Z 70-180 f/2.8
• Nikon Z 35 f/1.8 (wider scene setting option for sports)

The 70-180 obviously also serves a purpose in the category above, but 180mm is too short for surfing and most field sports. The 100-400 would be a better choice but 1) it's much more expensive and 2) you'll have to decide if you can live with the slower aperture for the first category above. You could also consider the Tamron 150-500 which would bookend well with the 24-120. The other thing you could consider is the Tamron 35-150 instead of the 24-120 and/or 70-180, but it's large/heavy and not ideal for travel.

Thank you for the comments, think you have a really good point on the reach of the 180 for surfing, would work on some beaches but you are right I’d be be better with more reach, I suppose I’m prioritising the people / documentary use case, which I want the faster aperture for and the lower weight. Maybe longer term I’ll consider something longer.

 

[ajr images]

I agree with the comment about focal length for surfing.

Last year I used my 800mm f6.3 at the Huntington Beach championships, and previously the 300mm f2.8 VRII plus 1.4TC at the Wedge in Newport Beach, and the 500PF for dog surfing at Huntington Beach.

180mm is certainly too short. The cheapest solution is probably the 180-600mm. I know it's heavier and bulkier, but it should get you good images.

 

[Ruby Rod]

I started with the 24-70 f/4 kit lens. I've never liked medium long lenses, so that actually covers most of what I shoot. In 50 years of shooting I have about zero "keepers" between 106 and 200 mm.

The high ISO performance of the current crop of cameras is so good that I can't see spending money on faster lenses.

I do macro, so next up was the Nikkor Z 105 macro. Bought it as soon as it came out. Also covers the rare time I might need slightly longer than 70. In my old film days I always loved the 105 mm f/2.8 AiS.

The last planned lens was the 14-30 f/4. I don't use it often but when your back is literally against the wall, it gets the shot.

My last lens wasn't part of the big plan, but I got seduced by the idea of isolating the subject against the background more than my other lenses, so I picked up the 85 mm f/1.8. IMO, it's a bargain for what it is and if it cost more I probably wouldn't have gotten it.

Finally, I keep a nice old 300 mm f/4.5 AiS IF ED lens on a cheap adapter just in case I do need something longer. Since I use it so rarely it doesn't matter if it's a nice $200 classic or a $2000 zoom.

 

[chrisD46]

Z 24 - 120 f/4

A fast Z prime in either 35mm , 50mm or 85mm

 

[dj_paige]

For me, there was no thought out roadmap of what lenses I will need; no forethought about a process, and no thought at all about a "set" of lenses that would meet my needs. The process was purely happenstance, one day I realized that I am often in a situation where a different lens would be useful. And so I went out and got another lens (assuming my finances could handle it).

 

[msu79gt82]

I'm interested in how everyone has built your set of lens, especially your thoughts on how the set will work together why this fits for your chosen subjects, conscious overlaps, missing gaps and compromises? Interested partly to see whether others approaches, make me rethink mine.

In early 2019 I traded all my F-Mount gear for the Z6 and Z-Mount lenses. Early on the only rationale I had was getting what was available in Z as I was committed to transitioning as fully and quickly as possible. So I got the Z6 Kit that included the 24-70 f/4 and an FTZ. I also picked up the 35 f/1.8 and 50 f/1.8 Z primes. I bought the F-Mount 300PF and the 70-300 AF-P (and a second FTZ) to fill out the missing Z pieces 'temporarily'. A serious consideration is the size/weight of bodies and lenses (no need to post the "workout you wimp" suggestions, as I do not want larger gear).

I began adding desired Z pieces when they became available; the 14-30 f/4 in early 2020, 85 f/1.8 in late 2020, 24-200 in mid 2021, 24-120 f/4 in mid 2022 and the 100-400 f/4 and the Z TC-1.4x in mid 2023, and the 40 f/2 in late 2023. As you can see I've added about 1-2 lenses a year. I also picked up the Z50 Two Lens Kit in mid 2020.

Family / People / Indoor / Low Light

• The 1.8 and 2.0 primes along with the 24-70 f/4

Family Outdoor Gatherings

• The 24-200 is excellent for days at the park, picnics, pools, etc
• 24-120 f/4 or the 24-200 for simple all-in-one option

Everyday / Light Travel (lots of options here)

• 14-30 f/4 + 24-120 f/4 + 40 f/2
• The Z50 Two Lens Kit (I also use the Z50 as a Z TC-1.5x with the long zooms)

Serious Travel

• 14-30 f/4 + 24-120 f/4 + 100-400 f/4 (w/ TC) + 40 f/2

The 300 and 70-300 F-Mounts do not get used as much since the 100-400 acquisition. I am considering selling/trading the Z6, the Z 24-70, the F 70-300 (w/ FTZ), and perhaps the Z50 kit to help fund the Z6iii. I'm also interested in the Z 400 f/4.5 ??

 

[Suntan]

When I updated from F mount to Z mount, I did it with the intention of shooting highschool sports.

As such, I got a Z9, 24-70 2.8S and 70-200S. Once spring season track & field started I added a 400 4.5S and a backup/second body Z8.

With that I can cover everything.

I recently added a Viltrox 16mm 1.8 because it was a good balance of cheap and performance, for the limited times I shoot wider than 24mm.

 

[Fullframer]

I'm interested in how everyone has built your set of lens, especially your thoughts on how the set will work together why this fits for your chosen subjects, conscious overlaps, missing gaps and compromises? Interested partly to see whether others approaches, make me rethink mine.

On FX I had the 'holy trinity' and a few primes, but with mirrorless I'm looking to do things a bit differently. Like many I’m sure, I’m trying to balance quality, weight, flexibility and cost. Currently I just have the 35 1.8, 85 1.8 and the 24-70 f4 (kit lenses).

I’ve not decided yet which to add next, but have planned my target kit bag of lenses, I’ve broken this down by main photography subjects I'm interested in, I only want to carry max of three (pref 2) lenses at any onetime.

People (and Dog) Portraits / Documentary / Street Photography

• Nikon Z 35 f/1.8
• Nikon Z 85 f/1.8
• Nikon Z 70-180 f/2.8 (don’t yet own)
• Nikon Z 17-28 f/2.8 (or Viltrox 20 f/2.8, don’t yet own either)
• I know I said 3 lenses per category, but depending on location / subject I’d pick 2/3 from these 4

Everyday / Travel

• Nikon Z 24-120 f/4 (don’t yet own, I’ll trade in my 24-70 f/4 when I do get this)
• Nikon Z 40 f/2 (again don’t yet own)

Sports (likely to mainly be surfing / rugby / equestrian) / Dogs in action

• Nikon Z 70-180 f/2.8
• Nikon Z 35 f/1.8 (wider scene setting option for sports)

I’m not really a landscape, architecture or macro photographer, but think adding the above lenses will cover these bases if necessary. So that’s four more lenses making a total of six.

Rationale / Compromise in the planned purchases

The obvious omission / compromise is no 24 -70 f/2.8 and my decision (I think ;-) to just swap the f4 14-70 for the 24-120. This is partly because of cost / weight, but also for a general walkabout I think I’d like more reach than 70. If I'm limiting myself to the f4 of the 24-120, the 40 f2 seems a no brainer, as a low weight addition to give me a low light option.

The 24-120 F4 isn't a lot smaller and lighter than 24-70 F2.8. The 40 f2 is only good once stopped down to F4. Not that 2.0 -4.0 are bad, but it becomes very sharp/good once you hit F4.

Although the weight of the 24-120 and 40 are similar to the 24-70 f2.8, so I am prioritising that extra reach and hoping I can make the 35 / 85 and the 17-28 / 70-180, work for people / documentary.

I think I’m OK with quality compromise of the 70-180 vs the 70-200, it’s a lot lighter / cheaper and seems will fit for me, although I am tempted to wait and see if Tamron release the G2 version for Nikon Z.

The 17-28 is probably the one I have struggled choosing the most, when I previously had a UWA I was not a big fan of the photos I took (although I like other peoples). I’m also tempted to just start with the Viltrox 20 f/2.8 prime as a wide option, because I like using primes (will fit well with the 35 and 85) and the weight / low cost, I can then see how I get on with that. But ultimately think I may want more flexibility, hence the 17-28 which I think is a good range for my use cases.

As I said interested to hear how others are building your lens sets?

Holy Trinity. esp. if you are paid pro.... 14-24, 24-70 and 70-200 F2.8 Z zooms. all you need to shoot and event/wedding, etc . Some of the primes are nicer.. but by the time you switch back and forth, the priceless moment is gone. Primes are only for planned shots. Zooms for event/wedding photography where you distance can change way faster than you change a lens. Where with the zoom, far less chance of missing it. There are NO redo's in the wedding business. Got to nail it. and nail it right.

 

[Wysokcs]

Having the hindsight and experience of shooting for several years and knowing where my keepers are, the following suffices for most of what I do:

24-70mm f/4 S, 50mm f/1.8 S, 85mm f/1.8 S.

I used to do some ultra wide angles and macro on F-mount. But not enough to justify the costs of the 14-30mm f/4 S or the current MC lenses. So may eventually add a Z DX 2nd body with the 12-28mm and maybe a successor to the DX 40mm micro if Nikon ever releases one. The 18-140mm is also a possibility.

 

[jjz2]

When doing zooms, I still want good IQ but keeping size down. I think the F4 lenses do the best job at this for my needs.

so 14-30, 24-120... I may add something longer at some point.

For primes, I want the focal lengths I like while keeping size down. My favorite prime focal lengths are around 24mm 40mm and 85mm...so got as close as I could get.. 26mm 40mm... then I have 85mm, but there is nothing else Nikon offers there.

I started off my Nikon Z journey with the same 3 lenses you have now, 24-70mm f4, 35mm 1.8 and 85mm 1.8, but there wasn't much available then.

I've had other lenses but either don't really need them, something else came out better, or I wasn't using them... 20/35/50 1.8 Z primes, 24-70mm f4, 24-200mm, and 28-75 2.8.

 

[Saint Parallelogram]

Looks like we started with the same lenses, and those are 3 great ones IMO.

FWIW I added the Tamron 70-300 for a cheap zoom option, then picked up the Viltrox 16mm 1.8 for cheap wide angle options and feel like I am pretty set for now and have been quite happy with both of those lenses.

 

[yardcoyote]

My complete kit, regardless of camera, consists of two primes first, a 40 and an 85, then maybe a 50, and very probably some kind of macro lens, hopefully somewhat longer than 85. So I'm still in step one with my Zf, with the 40mm f/2 (kit lens) and the 85mm f/1.8.

Next might be a 50mm of some kind (maybe the 50mm f/2.8 MC?) , or a more compact lightweight 85 or 90mm for walkaround. 85 is my very favorite thing in the world and the 85mm f/1.8 (while an excellent lens in many ways) falls down in the areas of portability, fun and minimum focus distance. I could have three different 85s for my Zf (serious AF, fun AF, MF) and not feel silly about it.

My Z mount big finale will almost certainly be the 105mm MC. This would definitely be a very serious lens, but I want to shoot garden macro with this camera so badly.

And that's it. No wide primes, no fast portrait lenses, nothing long, and no zooms.

--
Instagram: @yardcoyote

 

[Joachim Gerstl]

Hi,

Before I got a full frame camera again I looked at the lenses from Canon, Sony and Nikon. There are some interesting lenses in each system but at the end I liked Nikons offerings most. It was close in between Nikon and Sony.

Here is what I got based on my favourite lenses from the past and my time when I shot only with Fuji.

• Z24-120/4S for the standard zoom
• Z14-24/2.8S for ultrawide
• Z40/2.0 small portrait, street lens
• Viltrox AF 28/1.8Z environmental portrait, street lens

Even though I have the 14-24 I still consider to get the Z20/1.8S too. I just love this focal length. So far I try to get away without a tele zoom. I would also like to see a Tamron G2 version of the 70-180 because I like the size and weight of this lens.

--
regards
Joachim
http://www.littlebigtravelingcamera.com

 

[baystater]

I came with the Tamron 70-300mm DX when I moved from the D5500 to the Z6ii. I love the 24-70mm kit lens that came with the mirrorless.

I am a serious amateur and rented lenses to get an idea which were the most fun and useful for me. The first big lens I saved for was the Nikkor 100-400mm and the TC 1.4, after which I planned on getting the MC 105 mm, which I just ordered.

In between, I bought the Nikkor 40/2. I occasionally need to photograph documents for work and this seemed like a good option. Instead, I find that I use the scanner feature on my phone more, but still will use this lens when I want a lightweight, easy lens on my camera.

I also picked up the lensbaby velvet 55mm when it was on sale as an artsy, fun alternative.

The 100-400mm is the one that lives on my camera.