The Nikon Z9 takes awesome pictures. Sometimes you look at them on the screen and you think, “Gee! They look pretty good.” Then you work them through post-processing and you go, “Wow! They look even better than I thought!”
What aids the pictures is the quality lenses that Nikon produces. Nikon has the Trinity Lenses. They are very fast (f/2.8). They are great for low light (the 14-24mm is even great for astrophotography) and they produce amazing pictures. On the downside they are fairly expensive and they are heavy. The Nikon 24-70mm, f/2.8 and the Nikon 70-200mm, f/2.8 combined weigh 75 oz, not a light piece of kit.
You can never go wrong with Nikon’s Trinity lenses. These are:
- For Wide-angle, the 14mm-24mm/f/2.8 S
- For Mid-range telephoto, the 24mm-70mm / f/2.8 S
- For more distance, the 70mm-200mm / f/2.8 S
There are three advantages to using these lenses. Besides taking some amazing tack-sharp photos, they are very fast, take in a lot of light quickly, and produce some really nice bokeh, the soft out-of-focus background effect that viewers love.
The problem is there are also some disadvantages. Besides being more expensive, there can be two drawbacks to these based on your situation. First, there is the weight of these lenses if you’re traveling. The 70-200mm f/2.8 weighs in at 3 lbs (1360 g). The second is never having the right lenses on the camera when you need it.
Soon I will be traveling a fair amount and with traveling there’s always the dilemma of what lenses to take. For that, I watched Scott Kelby’s “Shooting Travel Photos Like A Pro” from kelbyone. In that class he recommended carrying around just one lens. Since he uses Canon, he uses the Canon RF 24-240mm f/4-6.3. But he also recommended a Sony or the Nikon 24-200mm f/4-6.3 VR lens. Now Nikon has also come out with the 28-400mm f/4-8 VR lens selling for $1,299.95. That’s almost half the cost of one of Nikon’s Trinity lenses and only weighs in at 25.59 oz (725 g), a lot less weight to slug around.
A lens with that little weight and that much cheaper can’t possibly be as good, can it? So what lens or lenses do I take? To determine that, we did a test comparing pictures at similar apertures and lens settings at the same distance outside. That way we simulate most daylight shooting conditions you see in traveling.
Comparing Nikon Lenses
For all of these pictures we used a tripod and a remote release. We were striving for tack sharp pictures. Our lenses and test photos included the following:
Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8 @ 24mm
Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8 @ 24mm, 28mm, & 70mm
Nikon 24-200mm f/4-6.3 @ 24mm, 28mm, 70mm, 100mm, and 200mm
Nikon 28-400mm f/4-8 @ 28mm, 70mm, 100mm, 200mm, 400 mm
Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 @ 70mm, 100mm, & 200mm
Nikon 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 @ 100mm, 200mm, & 400mm @ 200mm
Nikon 400mm f2/8 @ 400mm
Lenses in Bold print are the Trinity lenses.
Lenses in Green are included as benchmarks. They are heavy, but take great photos.
We did a quick test to compare the different lenses. We were primarily concerned with focus and trying to get the center subject “tack-sharp.” Another test could be run looking at “softness” at the edges. But with the Z9, I figure I can either crop in or soften the edges further in post if my subject is sharp.
It was no surprise that the Trinity Lenses produced outstanding pictures across their various focal lengths and aperture settings. What was surprising was the performance of the two Nikon “travel lenses.”
Figure 1 – Nikon Z9 – 24-200 – 24mm f/4
Figure 2 – Nikon Z9 – 14-24 – 24mm f/2.8
Figure 3 -Nikon Z9 28-400 – 30mm f/6
Another good comparison can be made at 70mm as we have four lenses that can fill that setting.
Figure 4 – Nikon Z9 24-70 – 70mm f/6
Figure 5 – Nikon Z9 24-200 – 70mm f/6
Figure 6- Nikon Z9 28-400 – 70mm f/6
We also compared the lenses at 100mm, 200mm and 400mm. At 100mm we added in the Nikon 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6, a $2500 lens. And at 400mm we added in the Nikon 400mm f2.8 to benchmark the 28-400mm against a $13,000 lens.
The Results
Both of the “travel lenses” compared favorably to the other lenses. While a little “softness” was detected at various focal lengths compared to the much heavier glass, it was nothing that would turn your tack sharp wall blowup into a postcard only suitable for social media.
Before the test, I was reluctant to leave my Trinity Lenses at home. They cost too much to sit at home, but they do weigh heavily on you in the afternoon when you’ve been lugging them around all day. If I have a business need for the heavier, faster glass, then of course I will take them. So, it comes down to which one of the travel lenses do I take?
Here again it was hard to trust a super-telephoto with the range of the 28-400. It does allow you to really reach out beyond the 70-200 f2.8 even, but will it keep its performance? The results and the comparison again both the 100-400mm lens and the 400mm f2.8 shows that it will.
What about weight and size? The 28-400 only weighs about 5.5 oz more than the 24-200 and is about 1 ½ in longer. The focal length range is a difference of 4, but the minimal focus distance is 8” with the 28-400. I can shoot macro at that range.
The 28-400 will allow me to shoot landscapes, travel, large field sports, theme parks, and even street photography. With the f/4-8 I will have to be mindful of the shutter speed because it’s not as fast as the Trinity lenses in low light scenarios. As an insurance policy I will take the 14-24mm f/2.8 even if I leave it in the room and only bring it out at night. So the 28-400 is the winner of our sweepstakes. We will report back after the first of the year to see how it did.
