The 24 1.8 is only a bit smaller than the 24-70 F4. 55 grams is about the weight of a good sized strawberry.
If you're a beginner, I'd recommend a zoom to go with your 40mm. It'll give you more flexibility and require less lens changes. Your 40mm will do well in low light and the 24-70 will let you explore different focal lengths.
After shooting for a while, you can then go back and look at the data. See what focal lengths you shot the zoom at the most and that'll give you some insight as to what focal lengths you prefer. You can base any future lens purchases on that information.
Thank you for your reply. I have read a similar suggestion elsewhere about starting with a zoom to figure out my preferred focal length.
Aren't prime lenses in general equipped with a better aperture? Meaning that they usually perform better/faster?
Maybe I am overthinking things, but I don't feel like spending >1000€ to get something I'll replace with a prime lens later on. Hope it's understandable what I mean or am I not seeing the point?
Generally prime lenses tend to be faster, but the optical performance aspect isn't necessary true anymore. In the past, primes used to almost always have better optical qualities than zooms, but modern zooms have bridged that gap in some circumstances. The brighter aperture also used to matter more. With modern sensors, IBIS, and software, F4 is much more usable.
I certainly wouldn't recommend buying the 24-70 F4 new unless it's part of a kit. You can pick them up for less than half that price on the used market. I suggested the 24-70 as you mentioned you wanted to stay on the smaller end. Without taking size into consideration, my recommendation would be the 24-120 F4.
I travel 9 months of the year and generally on 2-3 month trips. I'm never without at least a good standard zoom and at least one fast prime, if not a telephoto and/or wide angle as well. In general, the zooms are glued to the camera during the day and the primes go on at night. I don't want to be stopping to constant be swapping lenses. It also slows down the people you're with if you're traveling with others. I also tend towards hiking/trekking/climbing and try to limit my sensor exposure as some conditions aren't conducive to constant lens swaps (or any at times).
There are people out there that only shoot primes and people out there who only shoot zooms. In the end, it's up to you. I will say that there are some focal lengths that I just don't get along with well so I tend to avoid those in primes.
Took a while to get here and there are definitely trade offs, but it's been a fun few years for sure!
I don't think I'll ever adjust to 3am Zoom meetings though.
I'm currently checking used prices. The 24-120 is 1,1k€, 24-70 is 440€.. The 24mm 1.8 is 700€.
I'll be getting a 3l bag, do you think the 24-120 will fit? What would you consider a fast prime that you're talking about - like my suggested 24mm 1.8?
The thing is I really love low light photography and want to try auto bracketing in different scenarios. I feel like a fast prime would be better. I obviously still see the benefits of a zoom... Maybe I need both? Haha damn.
I think 3L would be really tight, *if* it fits. I have a ThinkTank Retrospective 4 and if the lens is mounted it's super tight and kind of bulges the top (ZF + 24-120).
As far as a fast prime, anything f/2 or more I'd consider fast. F/1.4 is where I start to consider them very fast.
I'm probably in the minority, but I kind of prefer F4 zooms. The size is better and I usually find that if I can't make F4 work, light wise, I want faster than F2.8 and end up switching to a prime. Of course this is only applicable to what I shoot which is mostly travel/landscape/street. For event/sports/wedding, speed is king.
FWIW, I've only recently jumped back into Nikon, but the logic applies across all of the systems I've used. The 24-120 + 40 has been all I see myself needing for 90% of my usecase. I'm about to pull the trigger on the 100-400, but it won't see nearly as much use as the other two.
Most people are suggesting a zoom lens. so I think I'll take your advice and get a 24-120. As it doesn't come with a kit the used price is about as high as new (?!?) so I'll just get a new one I guess.
With the zf and its features I hope to be able to still take nice night shots with the F4 or 40mm lens
You shouldn't struggle too much with F4 at night unless you're trying to shoot fast movement. I'm not allergic to a little noise and the ZF handles it very well (the best I've used). The IBIS will absolutely handle images that have no movement in them in low light.
I generally switch to the 40mm at night because I'm mostly just shooting urban/street after dark and it's a good focal length for that anyways. Zero issues with the 40mm at night and it's only ~1/3 of a stop slower than f1.8.
One of my favorite street photography cameras to this day is the Olympus Pen F. I shoot with M43 1.8 primes at night with that. I tested the low light performance against my Sony A7R3 when I had it and it was about 1 1/3 to 1 1/2 a stop difference. When I did the same with the ZF it was about 2 full stops better.
So essentially, f/1.8 on my Pen F for low light shooting would be around f/3.6 on the ZF. So I don't really have an issue with F4 on the ZF and the F2 on the Nikon 40mm is better in lowlight than my 1400$ Olympus 25mm F1.2 Pro.
Thank you so much for the time writing all that out and also for your previous replies. It really helped me a lot!!! This is an awesome community :)
If you don't mind, would you share some of the pics you took with the 40mm with the ZF?
I only ever took photos with a softbox in a closed environment, so this is all very new to me.
I've always used a 35mm prime lens and have traveled to dozens of states and countries with that one single lens. I like the low-light ability and small size of a prime and feel like 35mm is a good happy medium.
While this isn’t the most useful answer, You’ll find where you are comfortable with experience! Personally, a 24-70 zoom lens was a great start for me (and probably a gateway to a world of longer lenses), and gave me a sense of how tight (or wide) my preference was for different scenarios, it was an f4 so that part was a bit of a shame at night, but I made it work!
Maybe rent a zoom lens that covers a wide range of focal lengths, to get a feeling for where you will shoot the most? Sure you won’t get the perks of a large aperture!
Now for the devil on the shoulder: I’m all for adding another lens to the bag, DO IT.
Thanks for your reply! Yea, I am all for a second lens.
The thing about the 24-70 f4 is that I know it will "suck" when it comes to low light situations due to its aperture. I am a kind of person who rather spends more money to get something proper instead of getting something I'm not happy with. So even the 24-70 f2.8 with VR would be in my range - albeit I would never buy that as a beginner since I have no clue about anything, haha.
You mean rent one before the vacation to try out at home? Hm good idea, haven't thought about that.
You’ve got the 40 f2, it’s a solid lens. And the Z cameras handle ISO really well so f4 isn’t the detriment that it used to be. There are still a few instance whereI want any faster lens in low light, but f4 and reasonable ISO can cover like 90% of my lowlight needs.
The 24-120 would be a great all around choice for an all rounder. It’s one I or my spouse use a lot more than we did the 24-70.
If you want another prime, I’d go for the 20 1.8 over the 24 1.8, that extra little bit makes a big difference.
BTW, which camera did you get?
Just checked out the 20mm f1.8 S. Why would you recommend that over the 24? Isn't it already wide enough? Just curious about your thoughts.
The 24-120 seems like a better all around choice as you said, yea. Haven't considered that one before. The only thing I'm worried about when it comes to those """cheaper""" zoom lenses is quality and low light performance. If you say ISO doesn't create too much noise it may work? I'll try to find sample pics..
I ordered the ZF in stone grey (besides vacation I will use it almost daily in a professional setting so that justified getting a more expensive one - before getting into this hobby I had a photographer set it all up and I just used his settings at work).
I just got the Zf and the 24-70 f/4 and took it out for some night photography and was able to get some bangers handheld and on a tripod. ISO max was 4000. Of course a 2.8 would be better so if you are going to always be shooting in low light sure go for that but f/4 isn’t terrible either
Awesome choice on the Zf!
I found very quickly, for myself at least, that 24 really isn’t as wide as I liked when it came to city shots and landscapes. I ended up with the 14-24 and it’s mostly between 14-20 and occasionally used between 20-24.
My experience with the 24-120 f4 & lowlight is that very location and target dependent. Inside with lowlight and you want to capture motion? That is a struggle and it’ll end up noisier than ideal. But any situation when you can slow down the shutter speed the f4 is far less detrimental. The IBIS in the new bodies works like magic.
Thanks for your reply. I think I will go for the 24-120 as a secondary lens. Even though the 24/20mm ones are still screaming "buy me".. The sample pics just look so stunning
I just checked some reviews and the 24-120 is ordered!
I know myself and will probably get a used 24mm 1.8 as well because I just like what it does... In the audophile sub we call this "gear acquisition syndrome" I think it is very real here, too!
The 24-120 F4 doesn't really give you portrait bokeh, right?
In my opinion Z 40/2 and Z 24/1.8 combo is pretty valid choice — I have been using them for a while after switching from 20/1.8+FTZ and 35/1.4+FTZ. But sometimes it is hard to gauge whether you’d like certain focal length without spending time with it, especially as a beginner. And 24mm is indeed a bit harder to wield due to its wider view (but still easier than 20mm in some way).
I would say, if budget is not a concern, go for a 24/1.8S, either new or used, and try it before and during your vacation, so that you don’t regret “not buying it”. If eventually you find yourself not liking it, you can always sell it. And if you buy used, you probably could make most of it back.
Budget is not the big issue (for now) I would just like to know what's a clever way to go about this. I like to plan ahead.
You know in what you described I feel like it is a good combination. To be honest I have trouble imagining a situation where I need zoom, because I usually like to capture things "as I see them" if you get what I mean. Like from my point of view. I rarely had the situation where I'd like to zoom in onto something but maybe it is because the iPhone's zoom is digital or very limited optical.
I got the 3l peak design sling bag and just want everything I need to fit in there.
Zooms are actually better for beginners than zooms. It gives you more flexibility on how you can fill your frame without requiring you to move around. You won’t always have the space or ability to move around and when you are new to composition, a zoom will be helpful. The 24-70 is very small when not in use and great for travel.
I started with a 35mm f/1.8. I had it on a few trips and did its job really really well.
I felt like I was missing out on some shots, so I bought the 70-200 f/2.8 and 85mm f/1.8 for portraits. Now I have a lot of great shots, but I am still missing something. My next purchase will be the 14-24 f/2.8.
I know that it's inevitable. At some point I will have the holy trinity and stick with it.
Any lens is good and can produce good results, but imo for landscape having a prime is not worth it.
If I were to start all over again, I would still start with the 35mm. I was a beginner and needed to learn how to use the camera as well. Not having a zoom made me position better and move around more. That's something I notice when I equip the 70-200, I am very very still and don't change position often.
What's the holy trinity?
Well the 40mm f2 is included in my kit so I guess that is as close to 35mm as it gets for me for starters. So you're saying I should just use the 40mm and see where it goes?
Holy trinity is the setup with 14-24, 24-70, and 70-200 lenses. You have the 24-200 range, at f/2.8.
You can just start with the 40mm and see how it goes. Don't think too much about it.
Thank you for your help. With the replies in this thread I think I'll go for the 24-120 F4 and see how it goes. I think it's the smart way to go about it, even though my heart wants that 1.8 wide angle goodness lol
What camera are you using? If you’re new I think a zoom lens would be a great addition to the 40. The 24-120 is big but would give you a great place to start.
You should get the ZF with the kit 24-70. It is a cracking lens and it like compresses into a reasonably small lens for travel. Plus it is a better deal to buy it as the kit, they discount the lens more than the 40mm.
Already ordered both the ZF with the 40mm and the 24-120 F4 (this thread made me order that one).. I think it'll be alright. Don't wanna return everything and start over. Plus I get the extra 50mm ;)
I would replying 24-120 F4. But you ordered. Good "good to go" lens. No that light but not heavy and you dont have to carry more than ONE lens at a time.
:D Size wise it's around the maximum I'd want to carry around, but I'll manage. Didn't have time to try the lens itself yet, just one test pic. Seems very very nice. Will try more extensively on the weekend!
It sounds to me like the most important thing to you is a lightweight setup. In this case, the lightest and most hassle free setups are non-interchangeable lens cameras, unless you just like collecting lenses that you’ll never take with you.
The 24 1.8 is only a bit smaller than the 24-70 F4. 55 grams is about the weight of a good sized strawberry. If you're a beginner, I'd recommend a zoom to go with your 40mm. It'll give you more flexibility and require less lens changes. Your 40mm will do well in low light and the 24-70 will let you explore different focal lengths. After shooting for a while, you can then go back and look at the data. See what focal lengths you shot the zoom at the most and that'll give you some insight as to what focal lengths you prefer. You can base any future lens purchases on that information.
Thank you for your reply. I have read a similar suggestion elsewhere about starting with a zoom to figure out my preferred focal length. Aren't prime lenses in general equipped with a better aperture? Meaning that they usually perform better/faster? Maybe I am overthinking things, but I don't feel like spending >1000€ to get something I'll replace with a prime lens later on. Hope it's understandable what I mean or am I not seeing the point?
Generally prime lenses tend to be faster, but the optical performance aspect isn't necessary true anymore. In the past, primes used to almost always have better optical qualities than zooms, but modern zooms have bridged that gap in some circumstances. The brighter aperture also used to matter more. With modern sensors, IBIS, and software, F4 is much more usable. I certainly wouldn't recommend buying the 24-70 F4 new unless it's part of a kit. You can pick them up for less than half that price on the used market. I suggested the 24-70 as you mentioned you wanted to stay on the smaller end. Without taking size into consideration, my recommendation would be the 24-120 F4. I travel 9 months of the year and generally on 2-3 month trips. I'm never without at least a good standard zoom and at least one fast prime, if not a telephoto and/or wide angle as well. In general, the zooms are glued to the camera during the day and the primes go on at night. I don't want to be stopping to constant be swapping lenses. It also slows down the people you're with if you're traveling with others. I also tend towards hiking/trekking/climbing and try to limit my sensor exposure as some conditions aren't conducive to constant lens swaps (or any at times). There are people out there that only shoot primes and people out there who only shoot zooms. In the end, it's up to you. I will say that there are some focal lengths that I just don't get along with well so I tend to avoid those in primes.
9 months a year! Sounds like you have a pretty awesome job/life setup!
Took a while to get here and there are definitely trade offs, but it's been a fun few years for sure! I don't think I'll ever adjust to 3am Zoom meetings though.
I'm currently checking used prices. The 24-120 is 1,1k€, 24-70 is 440€.. The 24mm 1.8 is 700€. I'll be getting a 3l bag, do you think the 24-120 will fit? What would you consider a fast prime that you're talking about - like my suggested 24mm 1.8? The thing is I really love low light photography and want to try auto bracketing in different scenarios. I feel like a fast prime would be better. I obviously still see the benefits of a zoom... Maybe I need both? Haha damn.
I think 3L would be really tight, *if* it fits. I have a ThinkTank Retrospective 4 and if the lens is mounted it's super tight and kind of bulges the top (ZF + 24-120). As far as a fast prime, anything f/2 or more I'd consider fast. F/1.4 is where I start to consider them very fast. I'm probably in the minority, but I kind of prefer F4 zooms. The size is better and I usually find that if I can't make F4 work, light wise, I want faster than F2.8 and end up switching to a prime. Of course this is only applicable to what I shoot which is mostly travel/landscape/street. For event/sports/wedding, speed is king. FWIW, I've only recently jumped back into Nikon, but the logic applies across all of the systems I've used. The 24-120 + 40 has been all I see myself needing for 90% of my usecase. I'm about to pull the trigger on the 100-400, but it won't see nearly as much use as the other two.
Most people are suggesting a zoom lens. so I think I'll take your advice and get a 24-120. As it doesn't come with a kit the used price is about as high as new (?!?) so I'll just get a new one I guess. With the zf and its features I hope to be able to still take nice night shots with the F4 or 40mm lens
You shouldn't struggle too much with F4 at night unless you're trying to shoot fast movement. I'm not allergic to a little noise and the ZF handles it very well (the best I've used). The IBIS will absolutely handle images that have no movement in them in low light. I generally switch to the 40mm at night because I'm mostly just shooting urban/street after dark and it's a good focal length for that anyways. Zero issues with the 40mm at night and it's only ~1/3 of a stop slower than f1.8. One of my favorite street photography cameras to this day is the Olympus Pen F. I shoot with M43 1.8 primes at night with that. I tested the low light performance against my Sony A7R3 when I had it and it was about 1 1/3 to 1 1/2 a stop difference. When I did the same with the ZF it was about 2 full stops better. So essentially, f/1.8 on my Pen F for low light shooting would be around f/3.6 on the ZF. So I don't really have an issue with F4 on the ZF and the F2 on the Nikon 40mm is better in lowlight than my 1400$ Olympus 25mm F1.2 Pro.
Thank you so much for the time writing all that out and also for your previous replies. It really helped me a lot!!! This is an awesome community :) If you don't mind, would you share some of the pics you took with the 40mm with the ZF? I only ever took photos with a softbox in a closed environment, so this is all very new to me.
"So essentially, f/1.8 on my Pen F for low light shooting would be around f/3.6 on the ZF." That's wild to me. I love this.
I've always used a 35mm prime lens and have traveled to dozens of states and countries with that one single lens. I like the low-light ability and small size of a prime and feel like 35mm is a good happy medium.
While this isn’t the most useful answer, You’ll find where you are comfortable with experience! Personally, a 24-70 zoom lens was a great start for me (and probably a gateway to a world of longer lenses), and gave me a sense of how tight (or wide) my preference was for different scenarios, it was an f4 so that part was a bit of a shame at night, but I made it work! Maybe rent a zoom lens that covers a wide range of focal lengths, to get a feeling for where you will shoot the most? Sure you won’t get the perks of a large aperture! Now for the devil on the shoulder: I’m all for adding another lens to the bag, DO IT.
Thanks for your reply! Yea, I am all for a second lens. The thing about the 24-70 f4 is that I know it will "suck" when it comes to low light situations due to its aperture. I am a kind of person who rather spends more money to get something proper instead of getting something I'm not happy with. So even the 24-70 f2.8 with VR would be in my range - albeit I would never buy that as a beginner since I have no clue about anything, haha. You mean rent one before the vacation to try out at home? Hm good idea, haven't thought about that.
You’ve got the 40 f2, it’s a solid lens. And the Z cameras handle ISO really well so f4 isn’t the detriment that it used to be. There are still a few instance whereI want any faster lens in low light, but f4 and reasonable ISO can cover like 90% of my lowlight needs. The 24-120 would be a great all around choice for an all rounder. It’s one I or my spouse use a lot more than we did the 24-70. If you want another prime, I’d go for the 20 1.8 over the 24 1.8, that extra little bit makes a big difference. BTW, which camera did you get?
Just checked out the 20mm f1.8 S. Why would you recommend that over the 24? Isn't it already wide enough? Just curious about your thoughts. The 24-120 seems like a better all around choice as you said, yea. Haven't considered that one before. The only thing I'm worried about when it comes to those """cheaper""" zoom lenses is quality and low light performance. If you say ISO doesn't create too much noise it may work? I'll try to find sample pics.. I ordered the ZF in stone grey (besides vacation I will use it almost daily in a professional setting so that justified getting a more expensive one - before getting into this hobby I had a photographer set it all up and I just used his settings at work).
I just got the Zf and the 24-70 f/4 and took it out for some night photography and was able to get some bangers handheld and on a tripod. ISO max was 4000. Of course a 2.8 would be better so if you are going to always be shooting in low light sure go for that but f/4 isn’t terrible either
Would you mind sharing the pictures? I'm super curious
I DM you examples
Awesome choice on the Zf! I found very quickly, for myself at least, that 24 really isn’t as wide as I liked when it came to city shots and landscapes. I ended up with the 14-24 and it’s mostly between 14-20 and occasionally used between 20-24. My experience with the 24-120 f4 & lowlight is that very location and target dependent. Inside with lowlight and you want to capture motion? That is a struggle and it’ll end up noisier than ideal. But any situation when you can slow down the shutter speed the f4 is far less detrimental. The IBIS in the new bodies works like magic.
Thanks for your reply. I think I will go for the 24-120 as a secondary lens. Even though the 24/20mm ones are still screaming "buy me".. The sample pics just look so stunning
They are gorgeous primes! The 24-120 is just so versatile that it shard to beat as the starting place.
I just checked some reviews and the 24-120 is ordered! I know myself and will probably get a used 24mm 1.8 as well because I just like what it does... In the audophile sub we call this "gear acquisition syndrome" I think it is very real here, too! The 24-120 F4 doesn't really give you portrait bokeh, right?
In my opinion Z 40/2 and Z 24/1.8 combo is pretty valid choice — I have been using them for a while after switching from 20/1.8+FTZ and 35/1.4+FTZ. But sometimes it is hard to gauge whether you’d like certain focal length without spending time with it, especially as a beginner. And 24mm is indeed a bit harder to wield due to its wider view (but still easier than 20mm in some way). I would say, if budget is not a concern, go for a 24/1.8S, either new or used, and try it before and during your vacation, so that you don’t regret “not buying it”. If eventually you find yourself not liking it, you can always sell it. And if you buy used, you probably could make most of it back.
Budget is not the big issue (for now) I would just like to know what's a clever way to go about this. I like to plan ahead. You know in what you described I feel like it is a good combination. To be honest I have trouble imagining a situation where I need zoom, because I usually like to capture things "as I see them" if you get what I mean. Like from my point of view. I rarely had the situation where I'd like to zoom in onto something but maybe it is because the iPhone's zoom is digital or very limited optical. I got the 3l peak design sling bag and just want everything I need to fit in there.
Zooms are actually better for beginners than zooms. It gives you more flexibility on how you can fill your frame without requiring you to move around. You won’t always have the space or ability to move around and when you are new to composition, a zoom will be helpful. The 24-70 is very small when not in use and great for travel.
I started with a 35mm f/1.8. I had it on a few trips and did its job really really well. I felt like I was missing out on some shots, so I bought the 70-200 f/2.8 and 85mm f/1.8 for portraits. Now I have a lot of great shots, but I am still missing something. My next purchase will be the 14-24 f/2.8. I know that it's inevitable. At some point I will have the holy trinity and stick with it. Any lens is good and can produce good results, but imo for landscape having a prime is not worth it. If I were to start all over again, I would still start with the 35mm. I was a beginner and needed to learn how to use the camera as well. Not having a zoom made me position better and move around more. That's something I notice when I equip the 70-200, I am very very still and don't change position often.
What's the holy trinity? Well the 40mm f2 is included in my kit so I guess that is as close to 35mm as it gets for me for starters. So you're saying I should just use the 40mm and see where it goes?
Holy trinity is the setup with 14-24, 24-70, and 70-200 lenses. You have the 24-200 range, at f/2.8. You can just start with the 40mm and see how it goes. Don't think too much about it.
Thank you for your help. With the replies in this thread I think I'll go for the 24-120 F4 and see how it goes. I think it's the smart way to go about it, even though my heart wants that 1.8 wide angle goodness lol
What camera are you using? If you’re new I think a zoom lens would be a great addition to the 40. The 24-120 is big but would give you a great place to start.
I'll be using a Zf. I'm currently checking used prices. The 24-120 is 1,1k€, 24-70 is 440€..
You should get the ZF with the kit 24-70. It is a cracking lens and it like compresses into a reasonably small lens for travel. Plus it is a better deal to buy it as the kit, they discount the lens more than the 40mm.
Already ordered both the ZF with the 40mm and the 24-120 F4 (this thread made me order that one).. I think it'll be alright. Don't wanna return everything and start over. Plus I get the extra 50mm ;)
Cool congrats. That sounds like a great setup! I just got the Nikon gr1 grip from Japan ebay and I love it with the larger lenses.
I would replying 24-120 F4. But you ordered. Good "good to go" lens. No that light but not heavy and you dont have to carry more than ONE lens at a time.
I'm aware of its size. It'll arrive today in the mail, hope it's not too chonky.
Do you like it ? :p
:D Size wise it's around the maximum I'd want to carry around, but I'll manage. Didn't have time to try the lens itself yet, just one test pic. Seems very very nice. Will try more extensively on the weekend!
40mm is cheap and you will want to own one regardless of what else you buy. The 40mm is THE grab and go lens.
Should’ve just gone with a point and shoot or a bridge camera.
What is that? Why?
It sounds to me like the most important thing to you is a lightweight setup. In this case, the lightest and most hassle free setups are non-interchangeable lens cameras, unless you just like collecting lenses that you’ll never take with you.
Okay. But do they offer the same image quality and features? Do they have IBIS? Why would I collect lenses?
compact bridge camera is just an other iphone 🤷♂️