If money wasn't the issue, what would your ideal kit be. This kit would be for your personal enjoyment and paid work if it applies. It can be Nikon or any other system. Choose one option:
Option 1
- 1 Camera Body
- 4 Lenses
Option 2
- 2 Camera Bodies
- 3 Lenses
Mine: Nikon Z8 and Zr with 14-30, Tamron 35-150, and 85mm 1.2 S
I'm already there, but it took a lot of money and savings to be in this place.
Because I'm using my retirment and savings from a 30+ year career in teaching to live a simpler artist's life, I sold my big home, bought a tiny home and placed it on land near California's central coast.
I took some of my funds from my house sale to sure up my photo gear and have what I think is the ideal (for me) nature photographer's bag... Z9, Z8, 24-120 f4, 100-400S, and 400mm f2.8TC. Other than the addition of a 1.4x, this is my "ideal" kit.
In my opinion, a back up is absolutely necessary because gear breaks.
For me it would be Option 1, as I already have the Z9 and love it. Currently have and use a 100-400, 400 f4.5, and 180-600 lens, and would add the 400 2.8 with built in TC. IF I ever win the lottery I'm buying it!
bernardl wrote:
Out of curiosity why the Sony 24-70mm f2.8 and not the superior new Nikon 24-70mm f2.8 mkII?
Cheers,
Bernard
Good question.
There's a certain love affair that I have with the 24-120 Z. I do kiss the ground when I am able to use the 70-120 range.
I did not enjoy using the Sony 24-105. Rather the debate is whether I would prefer to use the 20-70 f4 or 24-70 2.8, and ultimately, if I HAD to use one lens, I think I'd opt for the 24-70 gm2. The 20-70 is nice, portable... but hard to say I'd get it if money were no object.
I'd prefer a second body, but I'm thinking mostly about versatility here with scapes and portraits being the priority and sports being the second priority. Tough to beat the holy trinity if I were forced into such restrictions.
Z8
14-24 f2.8S
24-70 f2.8S v2 (v1 is fine too)
70-200 f2.8S
50mm 1.2S
The 100-400mm f4.5-5.6 is awfully tempting instead of the 70-200mm, but the latter has more of a "wow" effect to me. Birds and marine animals need to come closer!
One-body kit for me with third party glass:
I'd get a silver-bodied Zf with teal blue trim. First lens would be a white Canon EF L-series 70-200mm. For the other glass, to be used more frequently, I'd look for the best manual-focus lenses available in silver. Maybe a black Plena would take up a slot.
That's probably what I'd end up doing too.
Ultimately, I have very high-quality equipment that leaves little to be desired.
Option 1 or Option 2 wouldn't help me.
I already have two Z bodies and eight native Z-mount lenses: six Nikkor Z S-line lenses, one Voigtlander, and one Thypoch.
Sure, without limitations, I could swap the Z 400/4.5 VR S for a Z 400/2.8 TC VR S, or the Z6 for a Z6 III.
I could replace the Z 50/1.8 S with a Z 50/1.2 S and the Z 14-30/4 S with a Z 14-24/2.8 S.
Three or four lenses would be unacceptable for me, especially as a prime lens enthusiast.
I'd rather stick with my eight existing Z-mount lenses plus the Z8 and Z6 than choose one of the options that would severely restrict my lens selection, even if you didn't have any financial limits with the 3-4 lenses.
But if money were no object, I wouldn't object to an additional Hasselblad X2D II 100C with suitable lenses.
I'd probably take a Leica Q3 as well.
As a fan of very high-quality manual focus lenses, I would probably buy the complete Cosina/Voigtlander Z-mount lens lineup and the Zeiss Otus 50/1.4 and 85/1.4 ML for Z-mount as well.
Nikon Z 58/0.95 Noct would also be a must-buy in the case of overflowing financial resources.
And while we're at it, air-conditioned and dust-free glass display cases filled with the complete Nikon Z body and lens line-up would also be something.
The crème de la crème of the F-mount lens range should also not be missing.
Therefore, if money were no object, my current Nikon system would not change significantly.
What would change is that I would add several additional cameras and camera systems/lenses.
