p.3 #1 · What’s Sony’s Answer to Nikkor Z 24-120 f/4?
chez wrote:
And most don’t change systems to chase lenses as new lenses come all the time. Changing systems is a losing game…especially if it’s for 1 lens.
I would tend to agree with you !!! That wasn't the case for me though
I was actually able to change over without having to put out any money changing systems with two bodies and 7 lenses to two bodies and 5 lenses. Getting a good discount from Sony and my dealer also helped. I also didn't change just for one lens, I changed for two . The 50-150/2 and 300/2.8.
p.3 #2 · What’s Sony’s Answer to Nikkor Z 24-120 f/4?
SAR just posted a new rumor stating that Sigma will launch a 20-200 mm zoom in september : interesting news as far as i am concerned ! Curious what its footprint and weight will be but - if it's reasonable - i might be in as, although i do really enjoy the 20-70 mm (great quality/size/footprint ratio), it's a little too short (and 105mm or 120mm would be as well too short for my hikes) and the perspective of having a single lens in my bag is really tempting...
p.3 #3 · What’s Sony’s Answer to Nikkor Z 24-120 f/4?
chez wrote:
And most don’t change systems to chase lenses as new lenses come all the time. Changing systems is a losing game…especially if it’s for 1 lens.
Who are you to decide what is winning and losing?
I also like my Z 85/1.2, where you at on that Sony?
p.3 #5 · What’s Sony’s Answer to Nikkor Z 24-120 f/4?
85/1.2 is IMO the most beautiful of all Z lenses But of course that was with my use case for shooting people
Where is Nikon's 12-24 F2.8? How about small and easy to carry wide angle primes such for astro ?
Also both Nikon and Sony do not have 24-105 f2.8 and 100-300 f2.8.
I have Both Nikon and Sony cameras, but I take out Sony a lot more, just because Sony lens are generally a lot smaller. I most use Nikon for birding as I do not think Sony will make a 400 f4.5 any time soon.
p.3 #6 · What’s Sony’s Answer to Nikkor Z 24-120 f/4?
There are gems and gaps in every systems lineups
Right now I’m in a sweet spot with Sony for my use cases ☺️
Where is Nikon's 12-24 F2.8? How about small and easy to carry wide angle primes such for astro ?
Also both Nikon and Sony do not have 24-105 f2.8 and 100-300 f2.8.
p.3 #7 · What’s Sony’s Answer to Nikkor Z 24-120 f/4?
I wish Nikon and Canon had gone L mount when they joined the mirrorless world late. At least then we would have had a bit less friction for mixing and matching lenses and bodies.
Currently, though, you can mix and match Sony E lenses on Nikon Z bodies fairly well, and the AF hit for adapting lenses e to z seems to be getting smaller by the year.
Admittedly, if I won lotto I would probably end up adding some Canon R and Panasonic L mount gear to the mix. All 4 FF mounts (E, Z, R, L) have their standout lenses and or cameras. But currently, a mix of Sony E and Nikon Z has provided me with everything I realistically need, and most of what I want.
-------
As for the Nikon Z 24-120mm f4 vs Sony 24-105mm f4. I have both, and the Nikon is definitely the better lens.
The only way I can really see matching is on the Sony side is by pairing two lenses together that overall give a wider versatility than the 24-120mm f4. For example, the Sony 20-70mm f4 and 70-200mm f4 II. But I have neither lens to make a direct comparison.
p.3 #9 · What’s Sony’s Answer to Nikkor Z 24-120 f/4?
DWOfPaul wrote:
Currently, though, you can mix and match Sony E lenses on Nikon Z bodies fairly well, and the AF hit for adapting lenses e to z seems to be getting smaller by the year.
.
Before switching to Sony, I tried the megadap with my Z9 and the Sony 70-200/2.8 GM. Hit rate was excellent for static subjects, but poor for any moving subjects. I was just tracking people walking and slow moving bikes, but the hit rate was about 70%
p.3 #10 · What’s Sony’s Answer to Nikkor Z 24-120 f/4?
mholdef wrote:
Before switching to Sony, I tried the megadap with my Z9 and the Sony 70-200/2.8 GM. Hit rate was excellent for static subjects, but poor for any moving subjects. I was just tracking people walking and slow moving bikes, but the hit rate was about 70%
I don't have the 70-200mm to compare, but with my 200-600mm on my Z8, the megadap firmware that came out in March this year (1.38) definitely improved AF with moving subjects, especially when adding a TC. I also noticed some improvements with the firmware that came out in early 2024 (1.33 / 1.34). Next up, I need to give firmware V2 a try, which came out a few weeks ago.
So far, I don't find that adapting is quite seamless enough to recommend a Nikon Z users go out and buy a bunch of Sony lenses. But if you're mostly a Nikon Z user, and there is a Sony lens or two you want to add to your kit. Or if you're a dual system user and want to use a Z body as a backup E body or second E body at times. Adapting seems the be getting better and better.
It is kind of wild how far adapting lenses has come. I remember the early days of Nikon F to Sony E smart adapters and being happy when AF was good enough to use on static subjects.
p.3 #11 · What’s Sony’s Answer to Nikkor Z 24-120 f/4?
DWOfPaul wrote:
I don't have the 70-200mm to compare, but with my 200-600mm on my Z8, the megadap firmware that came out in March this year (1.38) definitely improved AF with moving subjects, especially when adding a TC. I also noticed some improvements with the firmware that came out in early 2024 (1.33 / 1.34). Next up, I need to give firmware V2 a try, which came out a few weeks ago.
So far, I don't find that adapting is quite seamless enough to recommend a Nikon Z users go out and buy a bunch of Sony lenses. But if you're mostly a Nikon Z user, and there is a Sony lens or two you want to add to your kit. Or if you're a dual system user and want to use a Z body as a backup E body or second E body at times. Adapting seems the be getting better and better.
It is kind of wild how far adapting lenses has come. I remember the early days of Nikon F to Sony E smart adapters and being happy when AF was good enough to use on static subjects....Show more →
Makes sense - Just I wasn't about to shell out 4K€ for the 50-150 that I would use to shoot sports with such a low hit rate. The adapter can definitely help make use of lenses though
p.3 #12 · What’s Sony’s Answer to Nikkor Z 24-120 f/4?
mholdef wrote:
Makes sense - Just I wasn't about to shell out 4K€ for the 50-150 that I would use to shoot sports with such a low hit rate. The adapter can definitely help make use of lenses though
I would defnitly be intresting hearing how you like the 50-150mm for sports. Sounds like a lens and use case that would be perfect for an A1.
p.3 #13 · What’s Sony’s Answer to Nikkor Z 24-120 f/4?
DWOfPaul wrote:
I would defnitly be intresting hearing how you like the 50-150mm for sports. Sounds like a lens and use case that would be perfect for an A1.
So far I've used it for dance and people. Ice hockey pre-season starts September 13th, so will be first game using it in combination with the 300/2.8 which probably will probably get about 20% use but when good will be good . That combination should also work really well with ice dancing, and when seasons picks up again in November, field hockey, where I'd be using the 300 a bit more than the 50-150
p.3 #14 · What’s Sony’s Answer to Nikkor Z 24-120 f/4?
Any thoughts as to the 35-150/2-2.8s cutting into the 24-105/4 territory? Maybe even the 50-150/2 but besides weight it's substantially more expensive, too.
I'd think the weight difference might still work to the 24-105/4 or many users, travel?
p.3 #15 · What’s Sony’s Answer to Nikkor Z 24-120 f/4?
I’m curious how it stacks up against the Tamron 28-200. Seen any comparison? Obviously losing 4mm but gaining 8. Overlapping range the aperture is probably 2.8-4.5 ish. It’s got great character and is light.
RoamingScott wrote:
There has been no answer. I know I get laughed at for it, but I moved to Z simply to get access to the 24-120. Cold dead hands and all that. The G can't hold a candle on close inspection, and really shows its age on the 61mp sensors. Even having had the Z lens since launch day, I still have a few more years experience with the G, so no hyperbole here, just thousands of first hand data points.
You've seen the proof in the Z image thread at least
p.3 #16 · What’s Sony’s Answer to Nikkor Z 24-120 f/4?
Craig Gillette wrote:
Any thoughts as to the 35-150/2-2.8s cutting into the 24-105/4 territory? Maybe even the 50-150/2 but besides weight it's substantially more expensive, too.
I'd think the weight difference might still work to the 24-105/4 or many users, travel?
Do you need the 24-35mm range? If you do, neither of those other lenses will work, so even though they seem similar on paper, they are quite different for some use cases. I'd never take a lens that is 35mm at its widest on a landscape trip as my "one lens" solution, for instance.
Some landscape folks make this distinction even tighter, saying they can't deal with 28mm on the wide end (I'm close to this camp but not a 100% stickler for it). Other say even 24mm isn't wide enough.
It's all down to the shooter, there is no one best lens in this category. If I was a sports shooter, I'd much rather have the 35-150 for instance.
p.3 #17 · What’s Sony’s Answer to Nikkor Z 24-120 f/4?
Everything works for travel. I've been slow driving from Poland to Estonia for the last 2 months with the 50-150 f2, 28-70 f2, 12-24 gm, and 2 more lenses. It is a non issue.
Craig Gillette wrote:
Any thoughts as to the 35-150/2-2.8s cutting into the 24-105/4 territory? Maybe even the 50-150/2 but besides weight it's substantially more expensive, too.
I'd think the weight difference might still work to the 24-105/4 or many users, travel?
p.3 #18 · What’s Sony’s Answer to Nikkor Z 24-120 f/4?
Craig Gillette wrote:
Any thoughts as to the 35-150/2-2.8s cutting into the 24-105/4 territory? Maybe even the 50-150/2 but besides weight it's substantially more expensive, too.
I'd think the weight difference might still work to the 24-105/4 or many users, travel?
For travel the weight difference alone leans heavily towards the 24-105. Add the starting focal length of 24mm makes it a no brainer. Personally I travel with 25, 40 and 85 and those focal lengths never leave me wanting. But then I always carry all my gear with me.
p.3 #19 · What’s Sony’s Answer to Nikkor Z 24-120 f/4?
Just wondering. when I'd been in aps-c looking to add FF, I'd have preferred the 24-105/4 or 24-120/4sover 24-70. Kind of depends on which system I was considering, when using Nikon dslr before moving to Sony mirrorless, I believe both Nikon and Sigma had an option, one 24-105/4, one 24-120/4. I'd have likely traded the f2.8 for the reach to 105mm or 120mm. I'd had the 18-70 Nikon and liked the range, tried the 18-140 liked the range, my copy was awful so chose the Sigma 17-50/2.8 to replace. chose the 28-200 when adding FF. It covers a range I would be using more than a little and also expecting that 24mm or 28mm wasn't always going to be wide enough, having a 12-24/4 for aps-c "wides."
The new, faster lenses don't help. agreed, on the wide end but might be "long enough" for some to pass on a 70-200 sort. While I wouldn't expect to find 35mm wide enough as a single lens answer, for me, with common 17-28s and 16-35s out there for wides, they might work with a 35-xx sort for a two lens approach.
p.3 #20 · What’s Sony’s Answer to Nikkor Z 24-120 f/4?
I still think people should not dismiss 20-70 f4 so quickly.
On full frame, 20 mm gives ~84° horizontal field of view; 24 mm gives ~74°. That ~10° sounds modest until you translate it: at the same shooting position, 20 mm captures 20% more width and about 44% more scene area than 24 mm. There’s no post-processing trick that truly recovers that missing coverage. When you need 20mm, generally blackout is not possible or stitching photos are time consuming and not feasible either.
Maybe some one should make a 20-105 or 20-120 f4 lens.
. The 50-150/2 and 300/2.8. 