Z Vs F Mount | $200 Lens Vs $4000 | 50-250mm Vs 70-200mm | Matt Irwin

#Zooms #bestZoom #Zmount

Do lens optical designs keep improving?

Check out my social media

[johnneumann]

Hi Matt. Good video. I picked up a used (well, 'like new never opened') 50-250 recently for $300. New they are up to $639 since the May price rises. For $179 I got the FTZ earlier on. I convinced myself that these two items were funded by selling my 70-200 2.8 VR with focus issues for $500. I am SHOCKED with how good the quality of the 50-250mm is. It leaves the OG 70-200 for dead! and I'm not missing it one bit. The sheer weight saving makes me actually want to take it out with me.

The other thing you didn't mention here is that the 50-250 is the advantageous 5x zoom range versus 3.1x of the 70-200. On cropped bodies the focal range between 50-70 makes it so much more usable, in my opinion. Not to mention that extra 20% tele.

Surely for the difference in price there are serious optical compromises being made. I wonder if these compromises are all being mitigated by the Z mount itself; ie the shortened flange distance? It was be interesting to see what the Z 70-200 puts out of it its going to be an optically similar formula to the F FL ED? Interesting that there is no full frame Z lenses at all yet.

Also nicely framed for your piece to camera. You set yourself up nicely with the intersecting line of the horizon and rolling hill.

John, Gold Coast.

[imaginationphotographyvide]

Hi Matt, Very interesting results. The new Z mount lenses seem to be getting better and better. Previous generation all-in-one or cheap telephoto zooms weren't all that impressive. And now high ISO and VR/IS makes things so much easier. However, the two big advantages of the fast aperture lenses are the subject isolation and the ability to use a faster shutter speed for the same other settings. This is critical for fast-moving action. you cannot photograph a fast-paced sporting even under floodlights and freeze the action at say 1/60 sec when 1/500 sec is needed. It doesn't matter if VR stops the camera shake - it can't freeze the action. But, in many other situations, it just doesn't matter. No doubt many people will be persuaded to get this new lens.

[Nippius]

Well it's oficial I used to watch for the photography but now I watch it for the good vibes! Thanks! You really make me want to go outside and shoot.

Love from Portugal!

[juliocastro]

Having had the Z50 with both kit lenses as my big step into photography, I’m more than satisfied for its capabilities and price point. Out here in the states, the lens is running up about 400 bucks while the new 70-200mm Z lens, yet to be released, will be approximately 2860 bucks taxes included. Is it supposed to be good in low light? Not at all really especially with the aperture going down to f/4.5 at the max. Is it going to outperform most of the Z lenses or F mount lenses that are more expensive? Probably not or at least fair okay against them. But for that price point, I’ve been able to get amazing reach and fantastic image quality of the animals I photograph when at the zoo. Even when in the San Diego Zoo Safari Park which is a massive place with expansive field exhibits, the images pulled from the lens are astounding. I wholeheartedly recommend anyone who has the Z50 or any other Z mount camera to pick it up as your travel kit lens at the bare minimum. The Z line up lenses have been pulling out some fantastic imagery compared to their f mount counterparts.

[stjepanjina]

Thanks for the test, when I remember my 55-200mm f5.6 vrII on d5300/d7200 and the phenomenal resolution that setup provided, the Sigma Art 50mm f1.4 was slightly worse, a great lens on the old Dx!

[grantking]

Matt, as I said a couple of weeks ago, 'it aint broke, don't fix it' and this is exactly what I meant; a well-presented video, plenty of good information but one that leaves us thinking, and possibly with an unanswered question or two. You're asking us to engage and (I believe) that's what we want from you. I wonder how many are now saying, 'at $200, I can afford to buy and even break three or four of them and still be in front of the $4000 version with not a lot, if any, drop-off in image quality.' It aint broke mate!!

[yurijones]

The 70-200mm f2.8 is meant for professional uses that require the wider aperture, such as fast moving subjects, or shallow depth of field applications such as portrait photography. And like you pointed out Matt, that lens is built like a tank. Outside of those uses, a cheaper alternative can surely work for most people. I'm interested in the edge to edge sharpness though, even for landscape photography, since I often print very large prints.

[lukes]

Wow interesting how 90% of people could really just get by using the cheaper stuff, as opposed to spending a fortune for little improved results, but also realising this isn't a real extensive test .
Thanks Matt 🙂👍

[evanb_]

I picked up a good condition 70-200 f2.8E FL ED on eBay from a guy who lives ten minutes away in Melbourne for $1890. Have tested it out and more than happy. Lived up to the reviews, definitely!

[debadri]

How if I am using the 50-250 on a FF body?And keep 24-70 f4 FF lens for the wider side. That would give me best of both worlds, right?

[TaipeiGeek]

In this specific setup the 50-250mm performed well, but most cheap telephoto lenses would. It was middle of the day, a lot of light, you had a tripod and time to shoot a picture. How about do some low light photography with some action? Some wildlife photography in the forest?

[smokeontherocksbbq]

Matt now that the Z 24-200 is available would you consider it over the APS-C 50-250 or if one already has the crop 50-250 lens just call it a day and move on? Curious. Or even the upcoming 24-120?

[pdevonport]

Excellent video and it just shows you do not nave to pay $3000 for a 70 - 200 f 2.8 to do landscape because you would have to use it a F 7.1 and above anyway. A good comparison would be in a covered Sports stadium or shaded bush area where the Nikon 50- 250 would be usable by comparison because of its compromise between low shutter speeds or hi ISOs when hand held. I have those lenses and the D750 and a Z50. I brought Z50 new for $1050 NZ with both kit lenses and as you pointed out the 50 - 250 in the right light is excellent . If you just want an excellent travel camera or just starting out in photography, $1000 Z50 kit or $7000 for a full frame set up it’s a no-brainer really.

[digiwhale]

I love how you colorgrade mid video, almost like a transition. Its a nice touch and different.

[BKMonf]

Thanks Matt, I really appreciate the practical side of this. My new Z50 will be in my hands in a couple days!! This video shows me the purchase of this camera was a great choice. Keep up the great work, love the content you're producing in a positive energetic manner.

[MattIrwinPhotography]

How do you think the 50-250mm performed?

[nishit]

Hi Matt can you please do a video of z24-200 on a zfc

[cesarm]

Hi Matt, good to see you. I am wondering if you used the Z50 to take the shots you would have similar results?

[photo-markus]

Great surprise. Of course for portraiture still 70-200 is much better because of the f/2.8 bokeh, but for landscapes and cityscapes they perform almost identically...and the weight matters.

[PrVladimir]

Can you compare 50-250 vs 24-200 Z-mount lens?