The Plena in juicy??? Its flat out the best Z lens currently and I can say after having mine for the past two months it is untouchable when paired with the ZF, I've always used manual lenses (Voigtlander, Super Takumar) and this blows them away!!!
If you like speed and character, the long 2.8 primes is where Nikon really shines the focusing on the 400mm f/2.8, it is so fast it will make the 70-200mm focus appear slow.
@@ZWadePhoto I still have my 300 f/2.8 is really fast with character on my z9 using ftz. I have used the 400mm TC, I just don't have the money to buy one. But that's my favorite Nikon lens. If you shoot birds the 600 tc would be your money maker. But I never shot either the f mount or the z
The 50mm 1.8 blew me away. I took it on a long trip rather than a zoom and I don't regret it. It's so sharp that you can crop pretty deep and still have a great photo.
Considering the Z mount has only been 6 years, I think you summarize it up on how well and they know what they're doing. Hopefully it lasts forever like the F mount. And you actually convinced me to rent both 50mm f1.2 and 85mm f1.2 Z for my next cosplay project rofl, and see if my 105mm f1.4 is still a keeper or I should move on to either of those, cause I can't keep both :(. I hope you're really happier making videos now!
@@jamesjackson4264 And that is correct, the compression it makes just suits my style very well. Even though I often take a full body with it, I can still communicate with my model, not as long as when I use any 135mm.
The excellent performance of the Nikon Z 50mm 1.8 lens dispels my desire to purchase the Nikon Z 50mm 1.2 lens. The Nikon Z 50mm 1.8 lens offers unrivaled value for money, exceeding other manufacturers in terms of price and quality.
@@mozzman I know people say, uuuugh 50 1.8 shouldn’t be that much, but for real, especially when they go on sale, it’s almost like you’re robbing Nikon. Hits way above the market
Being a 18 year shooter of 4/3 and m4/3 and having several pro primes from Olympus and Panasonic I decided to give Nikon a try. Bought a ZF with the 40mm f2. I'm enjoying the camera but I'm not sure about the lens. The only primes in the 28mm and 35mm around 1.8 and 2.0 that I would consider have really nice character are voigtlander and viltrox. I think I'm going to give the viltrox 28mm a try since it's been praised highly and see what I think.
Quick question, would the Nikon 105emm f/1.4 F mount be in the juicy category? Or would it really not matter much against the Z 105 S Line with the macro?
@@alphajam1 the 105 macro and 105 E are very different lenses. The 105 E, I’d say is a pretty juicy resolving lens. But I’d consider the 135mm Plena today
You can push the 400mm f/2.8 up into the excessive erotica category. It is stunning on every level and a fine fitness tool during down time. I think you hit most of what I shot correctly with my only disagreement point on the 70-200mm f/2.8 where I'd bump it up to juicy. Fun video to watch.
Cool video! Generally agree, although I would nudge the 20 1.8 up a notch to Juicy/Erotica. I think it’s my favorite Nikon wide angle of all time, displacing the legendary vintage 28mm AI’s. If you ever do one of these scales for “value,” the 24-120 and the 180-600 would top the chart. Keep up the good work!
I think if the 50mm 1.2 makes it into the erotica, the 135mm Plena should definitely have made it in. I have all three (50,85,135) and have shot a lot with them. To be honest I would have put the 50mm in the Juicy.. as it isn’t in the same league as the 85 and 135mm.. IMHO
I very well change my mind in the future, but at the moment I haven’t shot the 135 extensively yet, so I was kind of left with the basic, “Through the viewfinder and even with basic images the 50 just has more of that “special sauce” people talk about right off the bat ya know? We’ll see when portrait season opens.
@@johnw.3636 I honestly couldn’t tell ya my dude. Haven’t used it and I don’t know many people who have. It’s way down on my list of reviews. Unless Tamron wants to lend me one bag
This is actually so funny, I’ve spent weeks trying to decide a couple of lenses to round out my current kit (85 1.8 & 180-600) but apparently all I needed was to watch your video because I ended up choosing the 50 1.2 and 105 2.8 lol
Good list. I definitely agree that Nikon has done a very good job with the overall quality of their lens lineup. My opinion of the 70-200 and 24-70 f/2.8, however, are exactly reverse of yours. I find the 24-70 very good as a tool, but lacking in character and especially micro-contrast. The 70-200 has much more pop and richness to my eye.
Hmmmmmm. Quite exactly the opposite haha interesting. Craftsmanship variability? I hope not because that’s gonna have a lot of lenses getting sent back until I get a “good” one haha thanks for watching
I haven’t tested it, and I realized this morning that I missed it somehow. I got all of the clips FROM Nikon website in order so it either wasn’t there or I skipped over it accidentally.
@@ZWadePhoto The 24-70 2.8, 105 MC, 40 2.0, and 100-400. I’ve also kept my F mount 70-200 2.8 mostly for indoor shots of grandchildren and F 20 1.8 for astro.
Nice video Z... I just realized I have a lot of lenses that I forgot about. The "Couldn't tell ya" Line I have almost all of them but the 800mm. I was hoping to hear what you thought of them. Also, a lot I don't agree with you on but that's life. I don't have the 50mm 1.2 or the 85mm 1.2 yet but really don't have the need at this time. When I start doing fine art nudes again, I will get them then. Anyway, thanks for sharing...Peace
Thanks Zwade. Great content. Very helpful. This is your second video that I watched and you don’t mention Z 100-400 4.5-5.6 in either? Just curious as to why?
I made both of them at the same time, and the little 100-400 icon didn’t make it into the lens section. Since the video was not scripted I didn’t even realize I missed it until someone mentioned it here 🤦♂️
I agree on 40mm F2 , 24-70F4 lenses, cause I have them. Especially 40mm F2, it is somewhat unique lens in Z lineup, the bokeh and rendition it has is staggering for the price of 250$. I have Z 180-600 lens for my wildlife photography, it is a crazy good value for such build quality and optics. With a few exceptions , Z glasses are always way better than F mount lenses. I plan on buying 1 more Z lens , probably it will be either 14-30 F4 or 20mm 1.8.
That's interesting .. I thought that Plena must be one of the exotic lenses, along with the Noct. I shoot Canon, but I've seen the pictures these Nikon lenses produce :)
I have quite a few of these lenses and my favorite for "special sauce", aka "erotica", is my 70-200 f2.8, followed by the 105mm macro. Now you've got me wanting to try out the 85 1.2!
Regarding the 24-200mm I think you had a bad copy or something. This lens has some sample variation apparently. My copy I would rate Z standard for sure. Agree on the 28 and 40mm.
I thought that was a possibility for a long time because it was a rental. Then I used a friend’s copy, still thought it was bad. Then I reviewed some other images, raw and edited and I still found it to be sub par 🤷♂️ if there’s variability I think a good copy would be the exception. This is all just based on my own findings. I think having it priced at a couple hundred less than the 24-120, when not on sale is criminal. Lol
@@ZWadePhoto I had more or less the same thing with the Nikon 17-55mm f2.8. First two copies were trash so returned it. Such a high rated lens. The third copy finally was the one that delivered what I wanted.
@@Ton-x4r Well thats not good. I haven't heard of Nikon having that kind of copy variability. Even Tamron really stepped up their game like years and years ago.
you really really need to test the 24-120 f4 S, I expect that you will find it Juicy and bordering on Erotic. It's only sort of "Defect" is that it's not an f2.8 lens. Note the plus side of that "Defect" is affordability and less bulk and weight. Other than that it does everything in a very flawless manner.
@@Scooter-dm3qo it’s in my list my friend. I doubt it’s going to be erotic because I don’t think it’s going to show me any secret sauce, but I bet I’ll like it like everyone else does haha
I do believe that the 70-200 f/2.8 is a little low in your rating. IMO it has better sharpness than the 24-70 f/2.8. Though the 24-70s is much better and quite the surprise compared to the F-mount VRI&II versions, the F-mount 24-70 vr versions didn't impress me at all and would use the normal and wide primes. I have shot the 70-200 vrI and vrII and the Z version blows them away. I am considering the 105z or the Plena, thanks, I will get the 105
@@alphajam1 It’s all about unique optical qualities and I just always found the 70-200 to be a little on the flat side. Absolutely a fantastic tool though 🤙🤙🤙🤙
@@ZWadePhoto I do agree on the primes you listed; and have to compare the 24-70 again. I am amazed at how fast the 70-200 focuses on a black dog, with black eyes with fur partially blocking them running toward me less than 20' away, it grabs focus so fast. It was never reliable before the Z9 and Z glass like the 70-200mm
I mostly agree with you Zwade, except for I would reverse your 50mm f1.8 and 80mm f1.8 rankings. I always find myself reaching for my 40mm f2.0 over my 35mm f1.8. I'm awaiting your further experience with the Plena.
80mm? I want to try it! Lmfao just kidding buddy. People pick at me for my in video typos so I pick back! Haha Also…YOU SO CRAZY on switching those! We can disagree no problem! We totally agree on the 35 vs 40 I think the 40 is a better lens in most ways. Thanks for being cool William! See you around the channel
This video was borderline juicy/erotic! Great job, and I agree with the levels of everything both you and me have shot with, except for the 85mm f/1.8. To me, it very much has a "look," but I have to be far away from a single subject to achieve it. The isolation is superb, bokeh amazing, and the colors are almost as rich as the 50mm 1.2. Yes, the 1.2! The 105mm macro is every bit the phenom you described. I'll put it on to shoot wedding rings, and an hour later, it's still on my camera, shooting tens of keeper shots during wedding prep. It's very light for its size, too. Keep doing what you do, Zack! I enjoy your commentary.
I hate that I agree about the 70-200. I had a sigma 70-200 for F mount and every picture I took with it looked and felt like art. I don’t get that with the z 70-200. Great lens. But that opened my eyes to lens character more than anything.
If Plena isn't at the top of all the nikon lenses... or all lenses at al!! than i don't know what is... it's over the 50 1.2 i m o... And 70-200 2.8 is NOT just a regular lens, it's a holy grail of zoom lenses!
@@BogdanNYou the 135 has indeed, after much use, made it to erotica. The 70-200, scores much higher in usefulness, but I remain firm on it being a little typical on its rendering. Definitely sharp, “good” contrast but color is standard in my opinion. Thanks for watching.
@@ZWadePhoto currently binging your channel on my day off. Lots of awesome content! Nikon Z is my first camera system ever. Buying a new lens is always a stressfull decision but I like what I currently have. 50 1.8, 105 2.8, 135 1.8, 24-120 4. I really am just trying to decide about the long range with 180-600 vs the 100-400. The 180-600 seems like the best value in the entire lineup but I returned my 100-400 to buy the Plena (hense the wanting to find a reason to return it) and the images i got from the 100-400 are some of the most stunning shots ive captured and I only owned it for about 3 weeks.
Idk my man. I shot them side by side in a video, the 20mm was just better RAW, in all the ways that a prime would be better granted, and some noticeable ways some slight. But I think half way between juicy and Standard is a fair spot. 🤙 but Nikon always has done pretty f**kin king in this range industry wise.
@@ZWadePhoto I mean it's hard to compare it to their 20mm prime, but if you compare it to other zooms in that range, it's surely got be be Juicy for Nikon.
@@mozzman well really all I’m looking at is character. That special sauciness, and not a lot of mirrorless lenses have it. Not like the F mount days. The 14-24 doesn’t have as much to my eye 🤷♂️
I am a little underwhelmed at this ranking you've given, but I'm not a Nikon shooter but a Pentax shooter only because I was looking at your Zeiss reviews in the past. I did once own an entry level Nikon apsc camera and 60mm 2.8 micro and it was the worst camera I've ever owned, and the lens was completely let down by the body. I went to a Sony SLT after that which was 1000 times better than my Nikon gear, and then later I put aside my bias and misplaced hatred for Pentax and ended up getting a Pentax camera, and went all in on Pentax lenses and cameras. Pentax even better than Sony. In Pentax land we got small apsc "DA limited lenses" and "FA limited lenses" that have a leica or Zeiss quality and maybe even bettering those two and Voightlander. Then there is the standard types of lenses like DFA 1.4 lenses and the usual Tamron trinity zooms that are alright. So when I look at mirrorless, and I had bought into Fuji and even had a 56mm 1.2 and was just not impressed with Fuji's poor image quality and build quality, I dumped the brand. I fell for the Fujifilm hype and it is definitely a bad brand in my opinion. So now when I see these rankings and compare them to Sony and the Zeiss offerings, I think Sony is still the better system. Everyone raves about their FE Zeiss lenses, and Sony is making a huge mistake dumping Zeiss and replacing them with G-master lenses. Sony is making those fat primes which are flat as you'd put it, and underwhelming. I'm not seeing a nice series of pancake lenses like Pentax and Leica does in this Nikon Z mount, except for that 26mm which you like. Others have spoken highly of the 40mm lens and it appears pretty good. There's basically no poor mans options except for the 26mm and 40mm and then you'd have to acquire some voightlanders to have pocketable primes with decent IQ. The 1.2 primes from Nikon and Sony are now encroaching on this apereture size that Canon exclusively made, and now everybody is making the 1.2's. Canon, Nikon and Sony are all basically making the exact same systems, except Sony has native Zeiss lenses which are the real deal. Fujifilm is sort of making an interesting lens selection with its f/1.4 primes and f/2.0 primes, but apsc is s**t and theres no full frame path in fujifilm. Plus fuji went and made half their lens selection obsolete when they went to 40mp sensors. Everyone is doing the exact same thing with lenses that are sharp corner to corner and edge to edge with the exact same bokeh and exact same rendition. Mirrorless to me is boring, except with Sony and Zeiss lenses which I can't justify switching to. Nikon is more geared to the telephoto shooter with $10,000 bucks + to spend on a single lens and thousands more on a body. Thats really good for the tele shooter, but not so interesting for the street shooter or portrait shooter using compact primes. 1.2 is nice but they weigh 2 kilos a pop.
I will say this. When it comes to lens/image fidelity (character, 3-D pop, micro-contrast) I hold my Voightlander 58mm| 1.4 up there! The poor man’s zeiss😊
I knoooow dude. I didn’t script my speech for this one so when the 100-400 icon didn’t make it onto my table I didn’t even realize that it was missing until someone mentioned it on launch. 🤦♂️
I want the environment to have the character not the lens. I want the lens to be neutral. In other words, if you need a lens to add character to your picture, what are you doing wrong........................................
The lens makes a huge difference. When comparing two lenses side by side given that you have a character of a subject and environment the one lens with the special sauce can make a magical image.
You want a lens that perfectly renders the character of your subject. Too much glass (pure mass, but also surface count) gives flat images, and is impossible to recover in post information once it is lost.
@@ralfjansen9118 I’ll take some distortion, and flatten it out if I want to. I’m not talking like cheap lens distortion where it’s straight up wacky. A lil pincushion never hurt nobody 🤙🤙🤙
The Plena in juicy??? Its flat out the best Z lens currently and I can say after having mine for the past two months it is untouchable when paired with the ZF, I've always used manual lenses (Voigtlander, Super Takumar) and this blows them away!!!
Have you used the 85mm f/1.2, It has it beat in shear output beauty in my opinion.
If you like speed and character, the long 2.8 primes is where Nikon really shines the focusing on the 400mm f/2.8, it is so fast it will make the 70-200mm focus appear slow.
@@alphajam1 I want one. Lol
@@ZWadePhoto I still have my 300 f/2.8 is really fast with character on my z9 using ftz. I have used the 400mm TC, I just don't have the money to buy one. But that's my favorite Nikon lens. If you shoot birds the 600 tc would be your money maker. But I never shot either the f mount or the z
Definitely agree on the 35 1.8, only lens I bought and then returned nearly immediately. Still waiting for the 1.2
I needs it!
The 50mm 1.8 blew me away. I took it on a long trip rather than a zoom and I don't regret it. It's so sharp that you can crop pretty deep and still have a great photo.
🙌🙌🙌🙌
I will soon add the 24-70 & 70-200 to my stable. Will also pick up a prime wide for astro. Thanks Z for your input.
🫡🙌
24-70 f4.0 or 2.8?
Considering the Z mount has only been 6 years, I think you summarize it up on how well and they know what they're doing. Hopefully it lasts forever like the F mount. And you actually convinced me to rent both 50mm f1.2 and 85mm f1.2 Z for my next cosplay project rofl, and see if my 105mm f1.4 is still a keeper or I should move on to either of those, cause I can't keep both :(. I hope you're really happier making videos now!
Awesome dude! I know you’re gonna love both of those rentals
The 105 is erotica tho.
@@jamesjackson4264 And that is correct, the compression it makes just suits my style very well.
Even though I often take a full body with it, I can still communicate with my model, not as long as when I use any 135mm.
The excellent performance of the Nikon Z 50mm 1.8 lens dispels my desire to purchase the Nikon Z 50mm 1.2 lens. The Nikon Z 50mm 1.8 lens offers unrivaled value for money, exceeding other manufacturers in terms of price and quality.
🙌
That was the first lens I bought for Z mount.
@@mozzman I know people say, uuuugh 50 1.8 shouldn’t be that much, but for real, especially when they go on sale, it’s almost like you’re robbing Nikon. Hits way above the market
Being a 18 year shooter of 4/3 and m4/3 and having several pro primes from Olympus and Panasonic I decided to give Nikon a try. Bought a ZF with the 40mm f2. I'm enjoying the camera but I'm not sure about the lens. The only primes in the 28mm and 35mm around 1.8 and 2.0 that I would consider have really nice character are voigtlander and viltrox. I think I'm going to give the viltrox 28mm a try since it's been praised highly and see what I think.
🙌
So, what is your opinion on viltrox 28mm?
Quick question, would the Nikon 105emm f/1.4 F mount be in the juicy category? Or would it really not matter much against the Z 105 S Line with the macro?
@@alphajam1 the 105 macro and 105 E are very different lenses.
The 105 E, I’d say is a pretty juicy resolving lens.
But I’d consider the 135mm Plena today
Did I miss the 24-70 f/4.0 ?
It’s in there. But I did miss the 100-400 somehow
5:15 mark or so
You can push the 400mm f/2.8 up into the excessive erotica category. It is stunning on every level and a fine fitness tool during down time.
I think you hit most of what I shot correctly with my only disagreement point on the 70-200mm f/2.8 where I'd bump it up to juicy.
Fun video to watch.
You so cray cray !
Also, I’m jealous. If I had stupid money I’d love the 400. 😋
Kindly ship one to me
Cool video!
Generally agree, although I would nudge the 20 1.8 up a notch to Juicy/Erotica. I think it’s my favorite Nikon wide angle of all time, displacing the legendary vintage 28mm AI’s.
If you ever do one of these scales for “value,” the 24-120 and the 180-600 would top the chart.
Keep up the good work!
Actually, I have one for value in the hopper. Member of the channel can watch it right now, otherwise it’s scheduled for a couple weeks in think
I think if the 50mm 1.2 makes it into the erotica, the 135mm Plena should definitely have made it in. I have all three (50,85,135) and have shot a lot with them. To be honest I would have put the 50mm in the Juicy.. as it isn’t in the same league as the 85 and 135mm.. IMHO
I very well change my mind in the future, but at the moment I haven’t shot the 135 extensively yet, so I was kind of left with the basic, “Through the viewfinder and even with basic images the 50 just has more of that “special sauce” people talk about right off the bat ya know? We’ll see when portrait season opens.
I know this is a Nikon lens video, but where does the Tamron 35-150 f2-2.8 rank? I'm very interested in it as an all-arounder.
@@johnw.3636 I honestly couldn’t tell ya my dude. Haven’t used it and I don’t know many people who have. It’s way down on my list of reviews. Unless Tamron wants to lend me one bag
@@ZWadePhoto Gotcha. Thank you, ZWade.
This is actually so funny, I’ve spent weeks trying to decide a couple of lenses to round out my current kit (85 1.8 & 180-600) but apparently all I needed was to watch your video because I ended up choosing the 50 1.2 and 105 2.8 lol
Nice! That’s a great range you have now 🤙🤙🤙
Good list. I definitely agree that Nikon has done a very good job with the overall quality of their lens lineup. My opinion of the 70-200 and 24-70 f/2.8, however, are exactly reverse of yours. I find the 24-70 very good as a tool, but lacking in character and especially micro-contrast. The 70-200 has much more pop and richness to my eye.
Hmmmmmm. Quite exactly the opposite haha interesting. Craftsmanship variability? I hope not because that’s gonna have a lot of lenses getting sent back until I get a “good” one haha thanks for watching
Interesting summary - perhaps because you validated my lens purchases 🙄. I didn’t see the 100-400. Have you tested that yet?
I haven’t tested it, and I realized this morning that I missed it somehow. I got all of the clips FROM Nikon website in order so it either wasn’t there or I skipped over it accidentally.
What did you get?
@@ZWadePhoto The 24-70 2.8, 105 MC, 40 2.0, and 100-400. I’ve also kept my F mount 70-200 2.8 mostly for indoor shots of grandchildren and F 20 1.8 for astro.
@@ZWadePhoto I’d be interested in your opinion.
@@cmichaelhaugh8517 on the 100-400? Or everythig you listed?
Nice video Z... I just realized I have a lot of lenses that I forgot about. The "Couldn't tell ya" Line I have almost all of them but the 800mm. I was hoping to hear what you thought of them. Also, a lot I don't agree with you on but that's life. I don't have the 50mm 1.2 or the 85mm 1.2 yet but really don't have the need at this time. When I start doing fine art nudes again, I will get them then. Anyway, thanks for sharing...Peace
Yea sadly I can really pretend to know if anything has character if I haven’t used it.
But you could GIVE me all of your stuff and complete the list 😆
Thanks Zwade. Great content. Very helpful. This is your second video that I watched and you don’t mention Z 100-400 4.5-5.6 in either? Just curious as to why?
I made both of them at the same time, and the little 100-400 icon didn’t make it into the lens section. Since the video was not scripted I didn’t even realize I missed it until someone mentioned it here 🤦♂️
Cool video, but you need to use the Plena a little more and then you'll slide it up to Erotica.
Maybe but I don’t know if I will. The character is blatant on the 85 and 50. We’ll see though
I agree on 40mm F2 , 24-70F4 lenses, cause I have them. Especially 40mm F2, it is somewhat unique lens in Z lineup, the bokeh and rendition it has is staggering for the price of 250$. I have Z 180-600 lens for my wildlife photography, it is a crazy good value for such build quality and optics. With a few exceptions , Z glasses are always way better than F mount lenses. I plan on buying 1 more Z lens , probably it will be either 14-30 F4 or 20mm 1.8.
I don’t wanna tell you how to spend your money, but 20mm f1.8. lol
That lens will melt you face it’s so good
@@ZWadePhoto yeah I have examined raw files of 20mm lens. They are awesome, but still have to consider 14-30 for landscape versatility.
The 24mm 1.7?
Not covering the few DX lenses at this time
That's interesting .. I thought that Plena must be one of the exotic lenses, along with the Noct. I shoot Canon, but I've seen the pictures these Nikon lenses produce :)
It’s an Exotic to Nikon, maybe in time I’ll see its Erotic qualities
I own 10 lenses and 8 of them are z mount. 85 1.8s in IMHO juicy. Colors are great and images just pop. This is the favorite in my stable.
Right on my dude. I was never super thrilled with it, but to each their own eyeballs!
I have quite a few of these lenses and my favorite for "special sauce", aka "erotica", is my 70-200 f2.8, followed by the 105mm macro. Now you've got me wanting to try out the 85 1.2!
Man the 85 1.2 is so sweet. The Plena is contending for the spot though
@@ZWadePhoto have the plena taken the top spot?
Regarding the 24-200mm I think you had a bad copy or something. This lens has some sample variation apparently. My copy I would rate Z standard for sure. Agree on the 28 and 40mm.
I thought that was a possibility for a long time because it was a rental. Then I used a friend’s copy, still thought it was bad. Then I reviewed some other images, raw and edited and I still found it to be sub par 🤷♂️ if there’s variability I think a good copy would be the exception. This is all just based on my own findings.
I think having it priced at a couple hundred less than the 24-120, when not on sale is criminal. Lol
@@ZWadePhoto I had more or less the same thing with the Nikon 17-55mm f2.8. First two copies were trash so returned it. Such a high rated lens. The third copy finally was the one that delivered what I wanted.
@@Ton-x4r Well thats not good. I haven't heard of Nikon having that kind of copy variability. Even Tamron really stepped up their game like years and years ago.
I have the 24-200mm and would also rate in the Z-standard.
Thx...great review
Glad you enjoyed the content 🤙🤙🤙
you really really need to test the 24-120 f4 S, I expect that you will find it Juicy and bordering on Erotic. It's only sort of "Defect" is that it's not an f2.8 lens. Note the plus side of that "Defect" is affordability and less bulk and weight. Other than that it does everything in a very flawless manner.
@@Scooter-dm3qo it’s in my list my friend. I doubt it’s going to be erotic because I don’t think it’s going to show me any secret sauce, but I bet I’ll like it like everyone else does haha
I do believe that the 70-200 f/2.8 is a little low in your rating. IMO it has better sharpness than the 24-70 f/2.8. Though the 24-70s is much better and quite the surprise compared to the F-mount VRI&II versions, the F-mount 24-70 vr versions didn't impress me at all and would use the normal and wide primes. I have shot the 70-200 vrI and vrII and the Z version blows them away. I am considering the 105z or the Plena, thanks, I will get the 105
@@alphajam1 It’s all about unique optical qualities and I just always found the 70-200 to be a little on the flat side.
Absolutely a fantastic tool though 🤙🤙🤙🤙
@@ZWadePhoto I do agree on the primes you listed; and have to compare the 24-70 again. I am amazed at how fast the 70-200 focuses on a black dog, with black eyes with fur partially blocking them running toward me less than 20' away, it grabs focus so fast. It was never reliable before the Z9 and Z glass like the 70-200mm
I mostly agree with you Zwade, except for I would reverse your 50mm f1.8 and 80mm f1.8 rankings. I always find myself reaching for my 40mm f2.0 over my 35mm f1.8. I'm awaiting your further experience with the Plena.
80mm? I want to try it! Lmfao just kidding buddy. People pick at me for my in video typos so I pick back! Haha
Also…YOU SO CRAZY on switching those! We can disagree no problem! We totally agree on the 35 vs 40 I think the 40 is a better lens in most ways.
Thanks for being cool William! See you around the channel
This video was borderline juicy/erotic! Great job, and I agree with the levels of everything both you and me have shot with, except for the 85mm f/1.8. To me, it very much has a "look," but I have to be far away from a single subject to achieve it. The isolation is superb, bokeh amazing, and the colors are almost as rich as the 50mm 1.2. Yes, the 1.2!
The 105mm macro is every bit the phenom you described. I'll put it on to shoot wedding rings, and an hour later, it's still on my camera, shooting tens of keeper shots during wedding prep. It's very light for its size, too.
Keep doing what you do, Zack! I enjoy your commentary.
Thanks for the positive vibes my friend!
I hate that I agree about the 70-200. I had a sigma 70-200 for F mount and every picture I took with it looked and felt like art. I don’t get that with the z 70-200. Great lens. But that opened my eyes to lens character more than anything.
See I’m not the only one! It’s still fabulous functionally, just takes more to make it pretty later
So Nikon launched a 28-400mm f/4-8. I wonder where this lens will end in your diagram if you ever gonna test it.
I probably won’t test it unless someone lets me borrow it. My days of renting and reviewing for content are behind me
I bet Nikon has a boardroom meeting right now where they watching this video😅
I wish they would watch me. I have good ideas for them.
“Launch 35mm 1.2 NOW” for example
Well I am still fighting for a re-issued D700. 😊
@@Audimann D780?
@@ZWadePhoto no that was not a typing error. The one and only D700😀
the 26mm f2.8 is so underrated. its out of this world for that price. the color is fantastic. it touches erotica, if you consider its "only" 450 euro.
It’s so unfortunate that it launched with the 85 1.2. It was so long lusted for that the 26 just got side eyed haha and it does kick ass
If Plena isn't at the top of all the nikon lenses... or all lenses at al!! than i don't know what is... it's over the 50 1.2 i m o... And 70-200 2.8 is NOT just a regular lens, it's a holy grail of zoom lenses!
@@BogdanNYou the 135 has indeed, after much use, made it to erotica. The 70-200, scores much higher in usefulness, but I remain firm on it being a little typical on its rendering. Definitely sharp, “good” contrast but color is standard in my opinion. Thanks for watching.
If would be nice if they all had a label so we don't have to remember what the good ones were, otherwise good video.
What kind of label did you have in mind?
@@ZWadePhotojust some text on the lens picture that says 28/2.8 or whatever it is.
@@LTPottenger good suggestion but I don’t think I’d be able to do that visibly unless everyone watched in TVs hahaha
Love the list. Although The Plena is 100% ertotica and I was looking for every reason in the world to hate it and return it.
@@MikeVideos327 there’s not much to dislike about it lol. It’s even fast. And it doesn’t need to be lol 🤷♂️
@@ZWadePhoto currently binging your channel on my day off. Lots of awesome content!
Nikon Z is my first camera system ever. Buying a new lens is always a stressfull decision but I like what I currently have. 50 1.8, 105 2.8, 135 1.8, 24-120 4.
I really am just trying to decide about the long range with 180-600 vs the 100-400. The 180-600 seems like the best value in the entire lineup but I returned my 100-400 to buy the Plena (hense the wanting to find a reason to return it) and the images i got from the 100-400 are some of the most stunning shots ive captured and I only owned it for about 3 weeks.
Ertotica?...you mean erotica?
Hahahaha I wondered how long before someone got it. Didn’t last an hour haha. Caught it on upload, Would have needed a full remake so I said F it
Your 14-24 ranking is sus, for that range it belongs in the juicy category all things being equal.
Idk my man. I shot them side by side in a video, the 20mm was just better RAW, in all the ways that a prime would be better granted, and some noticeable ways some slight. But I think half way between juicy and Standard is a fair spot. 🤙 but Nikon always has done pretty f**kin king in this range industry wise.
@@ZWadePhoto I mean it's hard to compare it to their 20mm prime, but if you compare it to other zooms in that range, it's surely got be be Juicy for Nikon.
@@mozzman well really all I’m looking at is character. That special sauciness, and not a lot of mirrorless lenses have it. Not like the F mount days. The 14-24 doesn’t have as much to my eye 🤷♂️
I am a little underwhelmed at this ranking you've given, but I'm not a Nikon shooter but a Pentax shooter only because I was looking at your Zeiss reviews in the past. I did once own an entry level Nikon apsc camera and 60mm 2.8 micro and it was the worst camera I've ever owned, and the lens was completely let down by the body. I went to a Sony SLT after that which was 1000 times better than my Nikon gear, and then later I put aside my bias and misplaced hatred for Pentax and ended up getting a Pentax camera, and went all in on Pentax lenses and cameras. Pentax even better than Sony.
In Pentax land we got small apsc "DA limited lenses" and "FA limited lenses" that have a leica or Zeiss quality and maybe even bettering those two and Voightlander. Then there is the standard types of lenses like DFA 1.4 lenses and the usual Tamron trinity zooms that are alright.
So when I look at mirrorless, and I had bought into Fuji and even had a 56mm 1.2 and was just not impressed with Fuji's poor image quality and build quality, I dumped the brand. I fell for the Fujifilm hype and it is definitely a bad brand in my opinion.
So now when I see these rankings and compare them to Sony and the Zeiss offerings, I think Sony is still the better system. Everyone raves about their FE Zeiss lenses, and Sony is making a huge mistake dumping Zeiss and replacing them with G-master lenses. Sony is making those fat primes which are flat as you'd put it, and underwhelming.
I'm not seeing a nice series of pancake lenses like Pentax and Leica does in this Nikon Z mount, except for that 26mm which you like. Others have spoken highly of the 40mm lens and it appears pretty good. There's basically no poor mans options except for the 26mm and 40mm and then you'd have to acquire some voightlanders to have pocketable primes with decent IQ.
The 1.2 primes from Nikon and Sony are now encroaching on this apereture size that Canon exclusively made, and now everybody is making the 1.2's. Canon, Nikon and Sony are all basically making the exact same systems, except Sony has native Zeiss lenses which are the real deal. Fujifilm is sort of making an interesting lens selection with its f/1.4 primes and f/2.0 primes, but apsc is s**t and theres no full frame path in fujifilm. Plus fuji went and made half their lens selection obsolete when they went to 40mp sensors. Everyone is doing the exact same thing with lenses that are sharp corner to corner and edge to edge with the exact same bokeh and exact same rendition.
Mirrorless to me is boring, except with Sony and Zeiss lenses which I can't justify switching to. Nikon is more geared to the telephoto shooter with $10,000 bucks + to spend on a single lens and thousands more on a body. Thats really good for the tele shooter, but not so interesting for the street shooter or portrait shooter using compact primes. 1.2 is nice but they weigh 2 kilos a pop.
Not gonna lie. That was a book 👋
I will say this. When it comes to lens/image fidelity (character, 3-D pop, micro-contrast) I hold my Voightlander 58mm| 1.4 up there! The poor man’s zeiss😊
When did Pentax start making a full frame sensor camera?
@@williambuford6136 Since 2016. The K-1 series.
What F------ watched this whole video and it was really good until you left out the Z100-400 what gives
I knoooow dude. I didn’t script my speech for this one so when the 100-400 icon didn’t make it onto my table I didn’t even realize that it was missing until someone mentioned it on launch. 🤦♂️
Ertotica isn't as sexy as erotica...
I know! lol I uploaded, caught it, then decided I’m not remaking this shit and uploaded it. Someone caught in within the first hour hahaha
@@ZWadePhoto we all do it…blame it on dyslexia!
@@jimjimgl3 dylsexia. Lol
Nikon has a long history of producing 24-50 that sucks.
Hahahaha
I want the environment to have the character not the lens. I want the lens to be neutral. In other words, if you need a lens to add character to your picture, what are you doing wrong........................................
We can disagree! I like a lens to have a “look” to it
The lens makes a huge difference. When comparing two lenses side by side given that you have a character of a subject and environment the one lens with the special sauce can make a magical image.
@@readitoutloud exactly! Yes introduce interesting things as subject AND scene, I still want the lens with something a little extra personally haha
You want a lens that perfectly renders the character of your subject. Too much glass (pure mass, but also surface count) gives flat images, and is impossible to recover in post information once it is lost.
@@ralfjansen9118 I’ll take some distortion, and flatten it out if I want to. I’m not talking like cheap lens distortion where it’s straight up wacky. A lil pincushion never hurt nobody 🤙🤙🤙