aerospace99
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
RoamingScott wrote:
It's become clear that having access to dirt cheap Chinese lenses is a path into photography for folks that felt priced out before, so in that respect, it's good that it's enabling a whole new swath of customers to enter the scene.
On the flip side...as someone with far higher standards than your entry level shooter, and someone that has a gear cabinet that is steadily filling with Chinese lenses as they keep showing up on my doorstep from these companies, I don't feel that any of them (short of the TTA 40 perhaps) are in any position to replace a native Z lens that I already had (and even then, it replaces a lens that is ostensibly the same price).
In general, the Chinese lenses' weather sealing tends to be worse, their coatings are worse, their reliability and warranties are worse, and their AF performance is worse. I think most folks with my level of discernment see the Chinese glass as a fun side piece but not things we'd use or trust for paying gigs or fine art in most cases.
Nikon righted their ship and became a big player in mirrorless again without these Chinese lenses, and the chatter around this glass over the last year comes mostly from new-to-Nikon shooters that don't want to see their cheapest options disappear. We are shortsighted and are looking at the currently absurd tariff'd prices of Z glass, forgetting that it wasn't always this way.
There is still SO much money to be saved by buying clean used or refurbished from Nikon that the laments of the loudest are falling on deaf ears to me.
Go shoot Sony with their ass ergos, garish menus, firmware updates that brick your camera, and absurd prices, just to have your middling quality, cheap lenses, I guess. I moved to Nikon for Nikon's gear and continue to be impressed by what has been released, if not mildly annoyed by what has not (small, aperture-ring'd lenses for the small cameras)....Show more →
I sort of follow you a bit on this but quite honestly feel that unless you want to fork over a lot of money, Nikon is starting to lose me. As of recent, I bought my first Sony camera, an unused A7RIII to go with my recent e-mount lenses that fill gaps that Nikon cannot fill. Then there are 2 Viltrox lenses to fill more gaps than Nikon cannot fill. I have been loyal up till now but really feel that Nikon is not interested in my business. So I may drift towards those garish menus, at least a bit.
28 1.8 No Nikons, Viltrox is nice
85 1.4 No Nikons, Viltrox is nice
35 1.4 Nikon is weak at 1.4, Samyang Series II for E-Mount is very good. Better rendering without that weird bokeh.
50 1.4 Nikon is ok at 1.4 but the G Master is the best I have used. Sold my 50 1.2 Z to get rid of the extra bulk/weight. (was a very nice rendering lens to be sure, but like the 70-200 Z, 105 1.4, and now 35 1.2, 85.1.2, too heavy, too expensive for my needs.
135 1.8 The Nikon is the best but too high. Got a nice G Master 135 under 1000.
Summary, I do not need a 1.2 aperture but was not happy with the 1.8s. Sony and Viltrox fill gaps that Nikon refuses to fill.
The 3 e-mounts worked very well adapted but I was motivated to get a native camera to go with the 3 e mounts. Glad I did. I will stay with the nikon Z7II but disappointed no Z7III. The older Sony has better AF. And no, I am not pouring money into a bigger camera (Z8) with a lot of tech and speed I do not need. I am not returning to 24 MP cameras. Sold my Zf to make the switch. Looks like I will be a hybrid shooter.
Seems that Nikon caters to the pro market or the basic consumer but the middle ground is lacking.
Edited on Feb 09, 2026 at 08:42 PM · View previous versions
|
