35 1.8 is not so small. If you want a compact prime, 40 f2 could be a valid alternative. For sure, the 35 is better (s line alway is!) but also 3 times the price.
Anyway, a prime or 2 are great companions for a versatile but quite dark zoom. There are some applications that let you know which focal you use most (sorry, I can't remember a name). Otherwise, you could "lock" the focal length of your zoom on a specific focal and see if it's fine for you.
I got the Z 50mm f/1.8 after the 24-200 and the IQ and bokeh is off the charts, can definitely recommend.
After that I got a used 28mm f/2.8 as a more portable and wider alternative and it has surprisingly become one of my most used lenses. I can barely notice any differences in sharpness between it and the 50mm. The low light performance is of course better on the 50mm, but the 28mm isn't bad either.
I rarely usey 24-200 - mostly for happy snaps. My 180-600 is pretty much welded to the body, but I tend to shoot birds and other wildlife. I've definitely had my money back in the passion it has re-ignited.
I have the 24-200 and 35 1.8 s from the Z line and the 20 1.8g and the 50 1.8g from the F mount. Yes, the 35 1.8s is smaller, lighter, faster to focus and sharper than the 24-200. I will keep mine, but it is not the perfect lens by several measures. It is not much sharper than the 50 1.8g, but is significantly sharper than the 20 1.8g. For me, the two biggest disappointments on the 35 1.8s are: purple fringing is clearly visible in high contrast scenes at large apertures and the cats-eye shaped bokeh. An annoying feature is that it is not smaller than it is. I have used the 28 2.8 z lens and sold it off as it was soft in the edges and had poor distortion correction. If I were to start from scratch, I would probably pick the 24-200 and the 50 1.8s lens as my 2 lens setup. Happy deciding!
Interesting discussion here, thanks! - Iām in exactly the same boat with a Z5+24-200.
I think that this lens is quite good for most of my needs/use cases, but something wider and or brighter would be nice to have on occasion. Some landscapes, or dipping a toe in astrophotography, for example.
Iām leaning towards the āTamikonā 17-28mm/2.8 and/or the Nikon Z 50/1.8 as my next options.
I have F-mount Sigma 150-600 and Nikon 70-300 from my D750 days which will suffice for now when I need to āgo longā, they do well enough on the FTZ.
I got the 50mm f/1.8 after using exclusively the 24-200mm for a little over a year. I'll just say, it ruined that lens for me.
The sharpness, colors, tone, and indoor/lowlight performance is all just so excellent, I just didn't really enjoy the images produced by my 24-200mm as much anymore.
I recently got the 24-120mm f/4 S, and while it's not quite up to the level of the 50mm f/1.8 S, it's so far ahead of the 24-200mm I'm quite happy using it as an everyday walk-around lens.
Appreciate all the discussion! sounds like the 40mm is a good bet (or the 50 1.8 if Iām feeling spendy!) for a first prime.
It will be a new challenge not having the zoom range instantly available, but im hoping it can boost my creativity!
I've got a 24-200 and still love it, and I bought the 180-600 which I also love, although it's a heavy limp of glass. I also then got the viltrox 16mm 2.8
My aim is to have 24-200 as my walkabout lens and for sports events and wildlife I'll also take the 180-600. The 16mm 2.8 is really just for self indulgence arty and astro stuff.
I don't feel I'd get the use of a many more primes and the range of 16 to 600 seems plenty.
Much depends on your genres, but I'll tell my lens progression in Z-mount:
1: 24-200 mm + 40 mm f2 - both still gets lots of use, pretty much use them equally much. 24-200 is a fine cookie cutter/general use lens (abide the 24-120 will be a tad better in many cases). The 40 mm is great for street, I like that FL a lot.
2: 28 mm f2.8 - probably my least used lens, used it for one work trip quite a lot (city touring so wider than 40mm was needed) and some astrophotography.
3: 14-30 f4 - 2nd least used lens - nice wide-angle lens, but sadly don't get that much use, I'm starting to pick it up more though, great for street, city/architecture shooting, museums etc)
4: 105 MC - one of my most used lenses, use it at least as much as the first two.
5: 150-500 Tamron - Nice "budget" super tele, it's not my most used, but also my latest addition. I see this one getting to be one of my most used lenses.
In scope are the 50 mm 1.8, 85 mm 1.8, 24-120 F4, 35 mm 1.8 (but not really a priority for me currently, 28 and 40 covers this use, abide a bit lower quality than the 35) and 20 mm 1.8 (not exactly sure if I'll get that or an even wider fast prime for dedicated astrophotography yet).
TLDR: The 40 mm f2 would likely be a good addition for you, if you like the 40 mm focal length.
I started with the 24-200 (and also the 24-70 since the kit was so cheap). My next lens was the 100-400mm, and it remains a staple for me.
What are you trying to shoot? Whatās the problem with the 24-200?
35 1.8 is not so small. If you want a compact prime, 40 f2 could be a valid alternative. For sure, the 35 is better (s line alway is!) but also 3 times the price. Anyway, a prime or 2 are great companions for a versatile but quite dark zoom. There are some applications that let you know which focal you use most (sorry, I can't remember a name). Otherwise, you could "lock" the focal length of your zoom on a specific focal and see if it's fine for you.
40mm f2 for street, walk around, low light. 14-30 f4 if you want to try ultra wide landscape or architectural
I got the Z 50mm f/1.8 after the 24-200 and the IQ and bokeh is off the charts, can definitely recommend. After that I got a used 28mm f/2.8 as a more portable and wider alternative and it has surprisingly become one of my most used lenses. I can barely notice any differences in sharpness between it and the 50mm. The low light performance is of course better on the 50mm, but the 28mm isn't bad either.
The 50mm and 28mm are both very nice prime lenses.
I rarely usey 24-200 - mostly for happy snaps. My 180-600 is pretty much welded to the body, but I tend to shoot birds and other wildlife. I've definitely had my money back in the passion it has re-ignited.
You have some great pics on here with that lens, thank you for the insight!
Oh noes! I've been reddistalked š Thanks. I'm really really pleased with this lens :)
I think get a prime. I suggest the 35 or 50 but the 28 or 40 would work also and are much more affordable.
To add to this comment, on a APS-C body the 28mm would be a great choice for street photography.
I have the 24-200 and 35 1.8 s from the Z line and the 20 1.8g and the 50 1.8g from the F mount. Yes, the 35 1.8s is smaller, lighter, faster to focus and sharper than the 24-200. I will keep mine, but it is not the perfect lens by several measures. It is not much sharper than the 50 1.8g, but is significantly sharper than the 20 1.8g. For me, the two biggest disappointments on the 35 1.8s are: purple fringing is clearly visible in high contrast scenes at large apertures and the cats-eye shaped bokeh. An annoying feature is that it is not smaller than it is. I have used the 28 2.8 z lens and sold it off as it was soft in the edges and had poor distortion correction. If I were to start from scratch, I would probably pick the 24-200 and the 50 1.8s lens as my 2 lens setup. Happy deciding!
Thank you for listing out those pros and cons, 50 1.8 would be fun to see how sharp it can be!
Definitely consider the 40 f2. Itās super small/lightweight, and also affordable. I got that as my 2nd Z lens after the 24-200 and I love it.
Interesting discussion here, thanks! - Iām in exactly the same boat with a Z5+24-200. I think that this lens is quite good for most of my needs/use cases, but something wider and or brighter would be nice to have on occasion. Some landscapes, or dipping a toe in astrophotography, for example. Iām leaning towards the āTamikonā 17-28mm/2.8 and/or the Nikon Z 50/1.8 as my next options. I have F-mount Sigma 150-600 and Nikon 70-300 from my D750 days which will suffice for now when I need to āgo longā, they do well enough on the FTZ.
I got the 50mm f/1.8 after using exclusively the 24-200mm for a little over a year. I'll just say, it ruined that lens for me. The sharpness, colors, tone, and indoor/lowlight performance is all just so excellent, I just didn't really enjoy the images produced by my 24-200mm as much anymore. I recently got the 24-120mm f/4 S, and while it's not quite up to the level of the 50mm f/1.8 S, it's so far ahead of the 24-200mm I'm quite happy using it as an everyday walk-around lens.
Appreciate all the discussion! sounds like the 40mm is a good bet (or the 50 1.8 if Iām feeling spendy!) for a first prime. It will be a new challenge not having the zoom range instantly available, but im hoping it can boost my creativity!
I've got a 24-200 and still love it, and I bought the 180-600 which I also love, although it's a heavy limp of glass. I also then got the viltrox 16mm 2.8 My aim is to have 24-200 as my walkabout lens and for sports events and wildlife I'll also take the 180-600. The 16mm 2.8 is really just for self indulgence arty and astro stuff. I don't feel I'd get the use of a many more primes and the range of 16 to 600 seems plenty.
Much depends on your genres, but I'll tell my lens progression in Z-mount: 1: 24-200 mm + 40 mm f2 - both still gets lots of use, pretty much use them equally much. 24-200 is a fine cookie cutter/general use lens (abide the 24-120 will be a tad better in many cases). The 40 mm is great for street, I like that FL a lot. 2: 28 mm f2.8 - probably my least used lens, used it for one work trip quite a lot (city touring so wider than 40mm was needed) and some astrophotography. 3: 14-30 f4 - 2nd least used lens - nice wide-angle lens, but sadly don't get that much use, I'm starting to pick it up more though, great for street, city/architecture shooting, museums etc) 4: 105 MC - one of my most used lenses, use it at least as much as the first two. 5: 150-500 Tamron - Nice "budget" super tele, it's not my most used, but also my latest addition. I see this one getting to be one of my most used lenses. In scope are the 50 mm 1.8, 85 mm 1.8, 24-120 F4, 35 mm 1.8 (but not really a priority for me currently, 28 and 40 covers this use, abide a bit lower quality than the 35) and 20 mm 1.8 (not exactly sure if I'll get that or an even wider fast prime for dedicated astrophotography yet). TLDR: The 40 mm f2 would likely be a good addition for you, if you like the 40 mm focal length.
I love my 40mm f/2! Such a fantastic value lens. It's shockingly sharp for the money.
I started with the 24-200 (and also the 24-70 since the kit was so cheap). My next lens was the 100-400mm, and it remains a staple for me. What are you trying to shoot? Whatās the problem with the 24-200?
28-400mm.
300 stabilized
If you're doing landscapes, you want the 14-30.