Telephoto zooms - are they all just not very good?

[alanbeeb]

Sorry for the late reply - just seen this.

I think a lot depends on what's important to you. Weight and size, or outright image quality? To my mind, the Z7 strikes a wonderful balance. Compared with the likes of a D850, it's positively tiny. And when you factor in lenses like the 24-70/4 and 14-30/4, it makes for a wonderfully light and capable system. If that was still too heavy, then you could just stick with the 24-200, which should cover you for 95% of situations I'd have thought. We really are very lucky these days with the kit some of these companies are putting out.

Lefty

I now have a z7ii - sold the Z6 and upgraded for the higher pixel count. I've had the 14-30/4 for a while now and it is a stonkingly good lens that I wouldn't be without, but the 24-200 is used about 60-70% of the time. But there are definitely times when longer reach would be useful - the 300mm equivalent from the olympus 40-150 was getting mileage too.

So I think now I'm looking for something usefully longer than 200mm for the Nikon Z. Not sure I'm going to continue pursuing that for the Olympus M43 setup.... I've tried two well-reviewed £1k+ zoom lenses for that now and been disappointed. Primes for M43 are even more expensive.

 

[Mr Perceptive]

I now have a z7ii - sold the Z6 and upgraded for the higher pixel count. I've had the 14-30/4 for a while now and it is a stonkingly good lens that I wouldn't be without, but the 24-200 is used about 60-70% of the time. But there are definitely times when longer reach would be useful - the 300mm equivalent from the olympus 40-150 was getting mileage too.

Can you not just crop into the higher MP image - unless you are printing large this should present no issues

 

[andrewd]

That's been a good question to ask because I can see straightaway that the results from the z6 + 70-300 Nikkor were hugely superior to anything I've got from the Olympus em5 + either of the more expensive Olympus or Lumix lenses. And also you are completely correct that you can put the ISO of the Nikon z into the several thousands before it gets unacceptably grainy, while the olympus m43 sensor can't go much above 400 or so without becoming noticeable.

Z6 + 70-300 AF-P - 300mm, f5.6, ISO 400 1/2500

Trotternish & the Old Man 3 200916 by mr.noisy, on Flickr

300mm f5.6 iso 800 1/320

Edinburgh Castle & Fife 3 - August 30, 2020 by mr.noisy, on Flickr

300mm f5.6. iso 400 1/320

Edinburgh Castle & Fife 2 - August 29, 2020 by mr.noisy, on Flickr

Great shots of the castle. It is my favourite local subject. I am curious about the locations these were shot from. My guess is that castle shot 1 is from Blackford Hill and castle shot 2 is from Pentland hills.

Were these shot on a tripod?

 

[alanbeeb]

Great shots of the castle. It is my favourite local subject. I am curious about the locations these were shot from. My guess is that castle shot 1 is from Blackford Hill and castle shot 2 is from Pentland hills.

Were these shot on a tripod?

Thanks! First is from Craiglockhart Hill, second from the Pentlands, above the ski slope at Hillend.

I have a tripod but I rarely use it, just find it too cumbersome to carry around and setup. I find a monopod more useful - even if mainly as a walking stick - but probably not as effective.

 

[Lefty]

Only for my Nikon D850, 24-70 and 70-200. To save carrying two cameras I'd like to get a shorter zoom for my Sony A1 to stick in my bag . A few times when out walking looking for wildlife there's been places that would make a nice landscape shot but 200mm is usually too long .

Ah ok. A lot of Sony landscape togs swear by the 24-105/4. If I were still with Sony, it would definitely be in my kit bag.

Lefty

 

[Lefty]

I now have a z7ii - sold the Z6 and upgraded for the higher pixel count. I've had the 14-30/4 for a while now and it is a stonkingly good lens that I wouldn't be without, but the 24-200 is used about 60-70% of the time. But there are definitely times when longer reach would be useful - the 300mm equivalent from the olympus 40-150 was getting mileage too.

So I think now I'm looking for something usefully longer than 200mm for the Nikon Z. Not sure I'm going to continue pursuing that for the Olympus M43 setup.... I've tried two well-reviewed £1k+ zoom lenses for that now and been disappointed. Primes for M43 are even more expensive.

You could always get the 70-300 AF-P again as they are so cheap? About 1/5th the price of the Z 100-400!

Or even go for an F mount 100-40 like the Tamron. In fact, I may well pick one up myself.

Lefty

 

[Mark LJ]

I've always found that splitting resources between two systems can be awkward. Unless you have infinite financial resources.

I use the Z7 as my dog walking camera and have it with the 24-200. I have it set to DX mode mostly which makes it 36-300 and 21mp. That concentrates on the centre of the lens and the results are excellent. I've never been one for do it all lenses but I like this combo.

I can upload a couple of shots if you want, although there are plenty on my twitter and insta feeds under the user name Mark Littlejohn

 

[Lefty]

I've always found that splitting resources between two systems can be awkward. Unless you have infinite financial resources.

I use the Z7 as my dog walking camera and have it with the 24-200. I have it set to DX mode mostly which makes it 36-300 and 21mp. That concentrates on the centre of the lens and the results are excellent. I've never been one for do it all lenses but I like this combo.

I can upload a couple of shots if you want, although there are plenty on my twitter and insta feeds under the user name Mark Littlejohn

Great to see you back Mark!

Amar

 

[alanbeeb]

I've always found that splitting resources between two systems can be awkward. Unless you have infinite financial resources.

I use the Z7 as my dog walking camera and have it with the 24-200. I have it set to DX mode mostly which makes it 36-300 and 21mp. That concentrates on the centre of the lens and the results are excellent. I've never been one for do it all lenses but I like this combo.

I can upload a couple of shots if you want, although there are plenty on my twitter and insta feeds under the user name Mark Littlejohn

I have noticed a bit of darkening towards the edges with the 24-200 since moving to the the z7 from the z6. Possibly only when using a circ polarizer? Would need to check that. Using it in DX mode would eliminate that.

I wonder if there is a m43 body to Nikon z lens adapter... Would be interesting to see how the 24-200 works on the m43 sensor.

 

[Cesare]

I have noticed a bit of darkening towards the edges with the 24-200 since moving to the the z7 from the z6. Possibly only when using a circ polarizer? Would need to check that. Using it in DX mode would eliminate that.

It's pretty common at larger apertures with almost all lenses, and it might be that there's a mode in the z6/7 to apply corrections for lens vignetting?

 

[Mark LJ]

It corrects automatically. I'd assume its the polariser that is the issue. But as both cameras are full frame there shouldn't be an issue swapping between the two.

 

[alanbeeb]

I was not using the circular polariser when I had the Z6 so can't compare directly. (I no longer have the z6)

Here is an example, processed to really show it up. The photo was taken at 200mm so I don't think the vignetting can be caused by the physical frame of the filter. I'm not seeing this happen on other lenses where I have the same brand of CPL in use (Hoya Fusion One).


200mm CPL Vignetting example 1 November 13, 2021 by mr.noisy, on Flickr

Edited to say - the sun would have been at around my 7 or 8 o'clock at the time, you can see from shadows on some of the buildings in the foreground - so I don't think flare/reflections are an issue.

I should take some test shots with/without the CPL filter at different apertures to see if I can recreate this.

 

[Mark LJ]

Thats quite an extreme vignette and as its at 200mm is just a little bit strange. I can only imagine that there is a fault on the filter. Any issues are normally at the wide end, not the long end.

 

[alanbeeb]

Thats quite an extreme vignette and as its at 200mm is just a little bit strange. I can only imagine that there is a fault on the filter. Any issues are normally at the wide end, not the long end.

I went on my regular walk up Craiglockhart Hill this afternoon and took yet more pics of the castle and out to the bridges (you'll all be sick of them by now!) and can't detect any problems with the results .... and I wasn't using the CPL filter because when I went to screw it in I noticed some smears on it which my usual lens cleaner solution and tissues just wouldn't move, which is annoying. Maybe the source of the problem? not sure.

I have anyway ordered a Revoring adjustable CPL/ND filter to fit lenses from 67mm to 82mm thread (which the Nik Z 14-30 uses) - https://www.digitalcameraworld.com/...cular-polariser-and-variable-nd-filter-review.

I will therefore restore the Z 24-200 lens to my good opinion. It is an excellent lens in many ways - huge range, excellent results, compact, weather sealed. It suits me a lot of the time. I still am looking for something with longer reach though... native Z options still don't exist, goodness knows how long it will taken Nikon to to release the 100-400 and other promised telephotos for Z, and even then the prices will be eye-watering. Might look at Sigma lenses with the FTZ as an option.