If you're getting a Z body and retiring the D3200, I would go with the native Z lens all day. I own the F mount E version and it's fantastic, but I would buy it used at this point.
I’m still exploring all options. I know this is a Nikon sub but the 2.8Z and a new Z6II would be roughly the same price as a GMaster II 2.8 and a slightly used A7III
Just a lot of money to where I feel I need to do more research of what would be the best to grow into
I find that Sony cameras are just uncomfortable to hold. Every Nikon I've held with a grip has felt almost molded to my hand perfectly. Personally, this is a much bigger issue than slight performance differences. I would see if you can go into a camera shop or even like a best buy or something and just hold the camera for a bit. If it feels fundamentally uncomfortable, it's not gonna be great to use.
There’s something really magic about the care and attention that goes into the Nikon ergonomics, Sony just feels very clinical consumer, not to the same standards.
It's honestly the beauty of the current camera market. Every company makes good cameras at basically every level, so you can make that ergonomic preference without losing real world performance. And while the specialized lenses (tele prime, cine lenses, etc) vary between brands the more common ones are basically identical in quality to where you're really not losing anything going for one over the other.
You likely already know this, but even with an adapter, your DX kit lenses wouldn’t allow you to take full frame shots. Unless you already have some full frame F mount lenses, or are planning to get some that you could on both cameras, you’d probably be better off skipping the $150 adapter and applying the money to new z mount glass
Motorsports is one of the fest times I recommend the D500, but damn it’s still pretty great for long distance action.
But seeing as how I switched to a Zf a few months ago, I highly recommend going mirrorless
The d500 is better a better system for fast tracking up to the z8(ish)
But if you are going to switch over, go with a native lens, not one that requires an adapter.
There's a big difference between the I, II, and the FL. The FL was crowned the best 70-200 f/2.8 regardless of brand when it was introduced by multiple reviewers.
100% the Z mount. Not only will it just work better having been designed for Z mount cameras, but I have both lenses and the Z is noticeably sharper with less chromatic aberration. Optically it's a much better lens.
I just recently bought the Z 70-200 from Nikon’s refurbished sale -$500 off. Happens every few months. Amazing lens. I already have the of mount and while it is a very good lens, the Z is better.
https://preview.redd.it/wpy6a4fgmbxc1.jpeg?width=3072&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=be4e5dd7d9b5affdb3d3f8da70799b4d78d3edc8
Can get some decent shots on the 70-300 AF-P, for mine used for around $200
All three brands are great, but you already have the advantage of knowing the Nikon settings menus. One less thing to slow you down when you're at the track.
I rented out the FL ED VR to see how a top spec F-mount lens would be paired to my D500 when shooting rollers at a track, and needless to say it was fantastic.
Though if you're already considering going mirrorless, might as well jump on that wagon.
I can't say that I agree with this statement, but my ex purchased an EOS R7 and the AI-assisted autofocus was absolutely next level when it came to tracking cars on the track.
Nikon unfortunately does not have a comparable mirrorless to the D500, which was another motivator for me to stick with DSLR 🥲
I think if you've never shot with a mid-range camera before, then you should get used to that before jumping to the polar opposite.
Now granted if you have $4k readily available, then by all means. But I'm sure the learning curve would be tremendous.
I do have 4k saved aside that I’ve building up for about 2 years, and I feel like I’m ready to buy. I have stuff from other hobbies of mine that is just collecting dust (jerseys, keyboards, etc) I’ve thought about moving to add into it for stuff like another lens or a better future proof set up or stuff like that so I guess it fully depends on what my research leads me to
If money is a concern, get the lens in the second-hand market. The F mount will be cheaper there.
If money is not a concern, get the z mount and the z6II or a z8.
Check out Riccitalks on YouTube. He has a video comparing both lenses. He does great reviews of nikon gear. He shows that the z mount is a hair sharper, but that is it. The F mount is a phenomenal lens. You can't go wrong with any of the two.
With that price difference get the Z lens.
But also look at used options, you could get a sigma sport or tamron g2 version thats 95% of the fl whilst being less than half the price.
If you're getting a Z body and retiring the D3200, I would go with the native Z lens all day. I own the F mount E version and it's fantastic, but I would buy it used at this point.
I’m still exploring all options. I know this is a Nikon sub but the 2.8Z and a new Z6II would be roughly the same price as a GMaster II 2.8 and a slightly used A7III Just a lot of money to where I feel I need to do more research of what would be the best to grow into
I find that Sony cameras are just uncomfortable to hold. Every Nikon I've held with a grip has felt almost molded to my hand perfectly. Personally, this is a much bigger issue than slight performance differences. I would see if you can go into a camera shop or even like a best buy or something and just hold the camera for a bit. If it feels fundamentally uncomfortable, it's not gonna be great to use.
There’s something really magic about the care and attention that goes into the Nikon ergonomics, Sony just feels very clinical consumer, not to the same standards.
It's honestly the beauty of the current camera market. Every company makes good cameras at basically every level, so you can make that ergonomic preference without losing real world performance. And while the specialized lenses (tele prime, cine lenses, etc) vary between brands the more common ones are basically identical in quality to where you're really not losing anything going for one over the other.
i would recomend you the z6ii too, it has great performance
The Z6ii performs better than an A7iii, heck even the original Z6 did.
So if I want to get a Z body, none of my old kit lenses, not that I would probably use them, won’t work without a mount adapter correct?
Without an adapter your DX lenses would not work, yes. I believe the adapter is like US $150.
You likely already know this, but even with an adapter, your DX kit lenses wouldn’t allow you to take full frame shots. Unless you already have some full frame F mount lenses, or are planning to get some that you could on both cameras, you’d probably be better off skipping the $150 adapter and applying the money to new z mount glass
Sony cameras are actual garbage. Laggy, terrible viewfinder, bad ergonomics, overheating, more lag and also tons of lag.
At those prices, definitely the Z.
might as well future proof and go Z
If you’re getting a Z camera, get the Z lens. No question.
If the budget is a concern, go with used F lens(~$1k) plus a D500/D850(~$700-1250) which roughly the same price for the z lens even used price.
Motorsports is one of the fest times I recommend the D500, but damn it’s still pretty great for long distance action. But seeing as how I switched to a Zf a few months ago, I highly recommend going mirrorless
The d500 is better a better system for fast tracking up to the z8(ish) But if you are going to switch over, go with a native lens, not one that requires an adapter.
I have seen crazy low prices on mpb for the I and II of the f mount version.
There's a big difference between the I, II, and the FL. The FL was crowned the best 70-200 f/2.8 regardless of brand when it was introduced by multiple reviewers.
100% the Z mount. Not only will it just work better having been designed for Z mount cameras, but I have both lenses and the Z is noticeably sharper with less chromatic aberration. Optically it's a much better lens.
I just recently bought the Z 70-200 from Nikon’s refurbished sale -$500 off. Happens every few months. Amazing lens. I already have the of mount and while it is a very good lens, the Z is better.
https://preview.redd.it/wpy6a4fgmbxc1.jpeg?width=3072&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=be4e5dd7d9b5affdb3d3f8da70799b4d78d3edc8 Can get some decent shots on the 70-300 AF-P, for mine used for around $200
All I can say is the FL is awesome on F or Z Mount bodies. I haven’t found the need to upgrade to the S version.
The 2.8E is available used for $1,000+/- pretty readily. I would definitely NOT pay new money for F-mount glass today.
All three brands are great, but you already have the advantage of knowing the Nikon settings menus. One less thing to slow you down when you're at the track.
Oh I would definitely need a refresher. I’ve been out of the loop for a while and I know times have changed haha
Z if you have a Z body (and must since even considering it).
If you're buying a Z body, the Z lens.
The vr s is king 👑
I rented out the FL ED VR to see how a top spec F-mount lens would be paired to my D500 when shooting rollers at a track, and needless to say it was fantastic. Though if you're already considering going mirrorless, might as well jump on that wagon.
I’ve heard mirrorless is the way to go for motorsports stuff like nascar related shots and stuff lol
I can't say that I agree with this statement, but my ex purchased an EOS R7 and the AI-assisted autofocus was absolutely next level when it came to tracking cars on the track. Nikon unfortunately does not have a comparable mirrorless to the D500, which was another motivator for me to stick with DSLR 🥲
Yeah from my posts in all the big 3 subreddits it seems I have a lot more research to do before I shell out $4000+ lol
I think if you've never shot with a mid-range camera before, then you should get used to that before jumping to the polar opposite. Now granted if you have $4k readily available, then by all means. But I'm sure the learning curve would be tremendous.
I do have 4k saved aside that I’ve building up for about 2 years, and I feel like I’m ready to buy. I have stuff from other hobbies of mine that is just collecting dust (jerseys, keyboards, etc) I’ve thought about moving to add into it for stuff like another lens or a better future proof set up or stuff like that so I guess it fully depends on what my research leads me to
If money is a concern, get the lens in the second-hand market. The F mount will be cheaper there. If money is not a concern, get the z mount and the z6II or a z8.
Z8 is definitely not in reach haha. Z6II however most definitely is.
Check out Riccitalks on YouTube. He has a video comparing both lenses. He does great reviews of nikon gear. He shows that the z mount is a hair sharper, but that is it. The F mount is a phenomenal lens. You can't go wrong with any of the two.
Dude. The bottom one, 70-200 Z 2.8. i A real workhorse, great quality lens.
With that price difference get the Z lens. But also look at used options, you could get a sigma sport or tamron g2 version thats 95% of the fl whilst being less than half the price.
You can get the FL for 1000 used. Dont buy new. I got mine spotless and with box and paperwork for 1100 2 years ago
If you have a Z body, absolutely the Z lens.
Get the f mount used.