Consolidation to an All (*mostly) Mirrorless Kit

Joined
Jan 22, 2019
Messages
2,835
Location
Jupiter, FL
Real Name
Andy
I sold off all of my autofocus primes and my 70-200mm f/2.8E. Going forward, my kit is all zooms in Z-mount except for the 500PF:

14-24mm f/2.8 S
24-70mm f/4 S
70-200mm f/2.8 S
TC-1.4x

It was a long road to get here, but for now, parting with the primes in favor of the the zoom trinity (of sorts) in native Z-mount covers all I truly need. My inner bokeh monster will have to take a back seat.
 
Joined
Jul 8, 2019
Messages
1,023
Location
SF Bay Area, California, USA
Being a zoomie from way back, I resisted the primes, when I could get a zoom.
But, the old saying came back to bite me, time after time after time. In LOW light, FAST glass wins.
So, I now have at least one prime for that low light situation.
As I viewed the situation, my LOW light situation would likely be indoors, so cramped. Hence a moderate wide is preferable, over a normal. So for me, it would be a FX 35mm. Nikon DX does not have a fast moderate wide, which would be a 24/1.8, so I had to settle for the normal 35/1.8. For m4/3 I have a 17/1.8, which is equivalent to a FX 35/1.8.
Since I did not expect to use it much (and haven't), I did not want to spend a lot of $$$$ on it. So f/1.8 lens was "good enough."

So, I would think about putting something like a 35/1.8 or 50/1.8 into the kit. Not for bokeh, but for indoor low light.
The 35 and 50 f/1.8 lenses are a bit over 2-stops faster than the 24-70/4.

As I said, I don't use the primes a lot.
But when I do, like several times on vacation, that 2 stop advantage over my zoom, really made a difference. Like a handholdable 1/60 sec vs. a difficult 1/15 sec. Or, ISO 1600 vs 6400.

When I shoot basketball, even just a one stop difference f/1.8 prime vs. f/2.8 zoom makes a difference.
1/800 sec vs. 1/400 sec. I got a lot more blurred players at 1/400 sec with the f/2.8 lens.
 
Joined
Jan 22, 2019
Messages
2,835
Location
Jupiter, FL
Real Name
Andy
Good points, @ac12, regarding the low light advantage of f/1.8, and I do agree. I did try out the 35mm f/1.8 S and 85mm f/1.8 S for awhile. I purchased and resold them fairly quickly on the used market; much as I liked them, I realized that they weren't really needed. The one situation where the primes would pay for themselves in my usage is event work, which I have completely stopped doing (not the pandemic - I just really don't like it). With that recently self awareness realized, I sold the G versions of those two lenses also.

By not springing for the 24-70mm f/2.8 S, I can justify getting the additional 2.33 stops in one or more primes if I start to feel like I'm missing desirable opportunities. Another interesting option (for the future) is the f/2.8 pancake primes.
 
Joined
Jul 8, 2019
Messages
1,023
Location
SF Bay Area, California, USA
Good points, @ac12, regarding the low light advantage of f/1.8, and I do agree. I did try out the 35mm f/1.8 S and 85mm f/1.8 S for awhile. I purchased and resold them fairly quickly on the used market; much as I liked them, I realized that they weren't really needed. The one situation where the primes would pay for themselves in my usage is event work, which I have completely stopped doing (not the pandemic - I just really don't like it). With that recently self awareness realized, I sold the G versions of those two lenses also.

By not springing for the 24-70mm f/2.8 S, I can justify getting the additional 2.33 stops in one or more primes if I start to feel like I'm missing desirable opportunities. Another interesting option (for the future) is the f/2.8 pancake primes.

Lot depends on what you shoot.
If as you said you don't need it, then why bother. Use your funds elsewhere.

A LOT of what I currently shoot is high school sports.
I would say, about half of my gear was bought specifically for that.
Just like you, once I stop shooting high school sports, I really won't have a NEED for those cameras and lenses.
The catch is, can I "let go" of them and sell them? You have more discipline than me.
 
Joined
Jan 22, 2019
Messages
2,835
Location
Jupiter, FL
Real Name
Andy
Just like you, once I stop shooting high school sports, I really won't have a NEED for those cameras and lenses.
The catch is, can I "let go" of them and sell them? You have more discipline than me.
The most difficult step to take was the first one. After that, it became a painless steady flow of gear out the door.
 
Joined
Jan 22, 2019
Messages
2,835
Location
Jupiter, FL
Real Name
Andy
It took me a really long time to come to grips with making the transition from DSLR to mirrorless and once I'd made the decision I took the plunge all at once
Yes, I remember reading your posts at the time and thinking it would be financially overwhelming to migrate from Nikon F to Sony all at once. I see now that is much cleaner than the process many of us have followed in the straddle between F and Z.
 
Yes, I remember reading your posts at the time and thinking it would be financially overwhelming to migrate from Nikon F to Sony all at once. I see now that is much cleaner than the process many of us have followed in the straddle between F and Z.

It really was easier for me in the long run to just take the plunge all the way..... I knew myself well enough to realize that trying to do things piecemeal would not work and that I'd wind up with at least some Nikon lenses and a body or two still just sitting in the camera bags for another year or two or longer while I was busy playing with the new gear. Might as well just trade in the whole shebang right off the bat rather than keeping the older gear for an even more extended time and having the value deteriorate even more, especially as there were signs that the used market was already starting to become overwhelmed with gear as people were making switches in systems.

I knew what I wanted and at that particular time there was no indication of when Nikon might get around to offering those particular lenses in the Z series and at my age I decided I didn't want to wait, I didn't need to wait, I could just go ahead and get exactly what I wanted, which already was available in another system and start using and enjoying the fresh new gear right then. Non, je ne regrette rien.....
 
Joined
Jul 8, 2019
Messages
1,023
Location
SF Bay Area, California, USA
The 40-150 pro is a darn fine lens!

Yes it is.
But, the drag on the zoom ring makes it much harder to use than the Nikon 70-200/4, which I can and do zoom with my fingers. I have to grab the Olympus zoom ring with my hand to turn it. I've been spoiled by the Nikon 70-200.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Dec 7, 2005
Messages
1,070
Location
MN, USA
Good points, @ac12, regarding the low light advantage of f/1.8, and I do agree. I did try out the 35mm f/1.8 S and 85mm f/1.8 S for awhile. I purchased and resold them fairly quickly on the used market; much as I liked them, I realized that they weren't really needed. The one situation where the primes would pay for themselves in my usage is event work, which I have completely stopped doing (not the pandemic - I just really don't like it). With that recently self awareness realized, I sold the G versions of those two lenses also.

By not springing for the 24-70mm f/2.8 S, I can justify getting the additional 2.33 stops in one or more primes if I start to feel like I'm missing desirable opportunities. Another interesting option (for the future) is the f/2.8 pancake primes.
Hah! and yet you're exploring that 24-70 2.8S in the B&S! Honestly that pro-glass is addictive. :)
 
Joined
Jul 8, 2019
Messages
1,023
Location
SF Bay Area, California, USA
Hah! and yet you're exploring that 24-70 2.8S in the B&S! Honestly that pro-glass is addictive. :)

I tell myself that I don't NEED the pro lenses, but when I look at the extra detail in the image vs. a non-pro lens, it becomes a WANT.

The Nikon 70-200/4 was the lens that kicked me in the butt.
I did not need to upgrade from DX to FX. I just needed better glass, to get the most out of the DX sensor.
 
Joined
Dec 7, 2005
Messages
1,070
Location
MN, USA
I tell myself that I don't NEED the pro lenses, but when I look at the extra detail in the image vs. a non-pro lens, it becomes a WANT.

The Nikon 70-200/4 was the lens that kicked me in the butt.
I did not need to upgrade from DX to FX. I just needed better glass, to get the most out of the DX sensor.
Good glass is a drug. I'd been shooting a D70 with some assorted DX glass and got hold of a 180 f2.8. There's been very little self-control since . . .

These days I refuse to even hold a Leica, much less shoot with one. A couple of months ago I got hold of a Voigtlander 40 1.2. Don't get me started.
 
Joined
Jan 22, 2019
Messages
2,835
Location
Jupiter, FL
Real Name
Andy
I'm on a similar track but I. . .just. . .can't. . .give. . .up. . .the . . . D500.
That was indeed a tough one to let go. The stoppage of indoor sports (resulting from the pandemic) was just enough to make me think I could do without it. I still expect to wake up one day regretting the decision to sell it.
 
Joined
Jan 22, 2019
Messages
2,835
Location
Jupiter, FL
Real Name
Andy
Hah! and yet you're exploring that 24-70 2.8S in the B&S! Honestly that pro-glass is addictive. :)
Guilty as charged. At some point someone may let one go cheap enough that I can't resist. But the f/4 version + the 14-24 S combined are the same weight as the G version of the 14-24 alone. A kit that "carryable" is tough to beat. As this is a Lens Lust thread, perhaps I "need" both.

D'oh! Must. Maintain. Streamlined. Kit.
 
Joined
Jan 22, 2019
Messages
2,835
Location
Jupiter, FL
Real Name
Andy
I've been spoiled by the Nikon 70-200 f/4.
I used one for a sporting event a few years ago and found it to be a fine optic that I really enjoyed. But, in culling the images afterwards, I felt that many of them would have been better if they had been shot at f/2.8. However, I've never carried the 70-200mm f/2.8 on a backpacking trip.
 
Joined
Jul 8, 2019
Messages
1,023
Location
SF Bay Area, California, USA
I used one for a sporting event a few years ago and found it to be a fine optic that I really enjoyed. But, in culling the images afterwards, I felt that many of them would have been better if they had been shot at f/2.8. However, I've never carried the 70-200mm f/2.8 on a backpacking trip.

I used a f/2.8 at a soccer game ONCE. As you said, great optics, but It was too heavy for me to use free-hand. I had to put it on a monopod, and I don't like the reduced panning/tracking angle that I get with a monopod. So I compromised on the f/4, slower but half the weight of the f/2.8 lens.
 

Latest threads

Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Nikon Cafe is a fan site and not associated with Nikon Corporation.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Forum GIFs powered by GIPHY: https://giphy.com/
Copyright © Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom