Thank you very much - as always I also enjoyed very much this new field test. Like Karen Vaisman I also noticed a color shift between the different kits. Nikon is not well positioned for wildlife and zoo photography at present. If these were my main disciplines I would change horses an go to Canon. They already have SIX (6!) lenses better suited for that purpose than Nikon: RF 70-200 F4 L IS USM: 695g (not even on Nikon's Roadmap!!!) RF 70-200 F2.8 L IS USM: 1070g only (much lighter than the Nikon-sibling) RF 100-400 F5.6-8 IS: 635g only (Nikon: No 100-400er yet ...) RF 100-500 F4.5-7.1: 1530g (Nikon: Nothing comparable...) RF 600 F11 IS STM: 930g (very innovative ... although not my cup of tea with f/11...) RF 400 F2.8 L IS USM: 2900 g (Nikon: not yet) Apart from that, Canon already has TWO very versatile standard-zooms with 24-105mm (Nikon: none yet...)
@@RussandLoz Hope is always ok - but do you have evidence justifying your hope that these lenses come SOON? And what could be reason that a versatile Z 70-200/4.0 doesn't even appear on the Roadmap? Sony has it, Canon has it, Nikon also has it for their DSLR-lineup - for good reasons! It's ideal for travel and hike!! Nevertheless I stay with Nikon, because I prefer the bodies and they make some outstanding glasses.
@@markusbolliger1527 To be honest with the global situation I don't think the new lenses will come soon, but maybe it's not particularly Nikon's fault.
Good stuff. I sold my 70-200 2.8G lens. I have to say, the 50-250 I have gives it a run for the money! Its a very sharp lens. And sooo much lighter, cheaper etc etc. Yes, at 2.8 you have an advantage in low light, and the 70-200 was sharp at 2.8 in the centre. I think the 50-250 can struggle in direct frontal light, say the sun, and give some flare, but it is an exceptional lens. I am very happy with it IQ wise, and have no complaints. It knocks the 70-300 AFP DX off the shelf, in my tests, and does compete IQ wise with my old 70-200 2.8 for sure. I was amazed. If I was to get a brighter zoom,, it woudl be a 70-200f4, simply due to weight, and then price. I'm not very intrested in heavy gear any more.
Unless it's my eyes or how the youtube video renders, the 50-250 looks better in every picture. I am definitely getting this lens. I know it's not fast, but the size, price, and image stabilisation sharpness outweighs the rest. That's my opinion.
Thanks Karen, we are actually not sure why there is a colour difference as we shoot with the same picture profiles. So it must be the lenses or maybe the Z7?
Thank you very much - as always I also enjoyed very much this new field test. Like Karen Vaisman I also noticed a color shift between the different kits.
Nikon is not well positioned for wildlife and zoo photography at present. If these were my main disciplines I would change horses an go to Canon. They already have SIX (6!) lenses better suited for that purpose than Nikon:
RF 70-200 F4 L IS USM: 695g (not even on Nikon's Roadmap!!!)
RF 70-200 F2.8 L IS USM: 1070g only (much lighter than the Nikon-sibling)
RF 100-400 F5.6-8 IS: 635g only (Nikon: No 100-400er yet ...)
RF 100-500 F4.5-7.1: 1530g (Nikon: Nothing comparable...)
RF 600 F11 IS STM: 930g (very innovative ... although not my cup of tea with f/11...)
RF 400 F2.8 L IS USM: 2900 g (Nikon: not yet)
Apart from that, Canon already has TWO very versatile standard-zooms with 24-105mm (Nikon: none yet...)
Yes we are hoping for new longer lenses soon!
@@RussandLoz Hope is always ok - but do you have evidence justifying your hope that these lenses come SOON? And what could be reason that a versatile Z 70-200/4.0 doesn't even appear on the Roadmap? Sony has it, Canon has it, Nikon also has it for their DSLR-lineup - for good reasons! It's ideal for travel and hike!!
Nevertheless I stay with Nikon, because I prefer the bodies and they make some outstanding glasses.
@@markusbolliger1527 To be honest with the global situation I don't think the new lenses will come soon, but maybe it's not particularly Nikon's fault.
Good stuff. I sold my 70-200 2.8G lens. I have to say, the 50-250 I have gives it a run for the money! Its a very sharp lens. And sooo much lighter, cheaper etc etc. Yes, at 2.8 you have an advantage in low light, and the 70-200 was sharp at 2.8 in the centre. I think the 50-250 can struggle in direct frontal light, say the sun, and give some flare, but it is an exceptional lens. I am very happy with it IQ wise, and have no complaints. It knocks the 70-300 AFP DX off the shelf, in my tests, and does compete IQ wise with my old 70-200 2.8 for sure. I was amazed. If I was to get a brighter zoom,, it woudl be a 70-200f4, simply due to weight, and then price. I'm not very intrested in heavy gear any more.
Thanks, yes, same for me, the heavy lenses including the 50 1.2 is too big and heavy for me making it not so nifty fifty.
What the hell is a one day safari?
😁
It is funny watching our old videos back, our video productions are much better now. Just released my 1 year of wildlife photography video
The dx lens is crazy sharp
Unless it's my eyes or how the youtube video renders, the 50-250 looks better in every picture. I am definitely getting this lens. I know it's not fast, but the size, price, and image stabilisation sharpness outweighs the rest. That's my opinion.
It is good. It the 200-500 has much better image rendition. As would the new 180-600. Suits a dx body best.
I enjoy your discussions and comparisons. I noticed a color shift was that a difference between the two bodies? Or lenses? Or wb settings?
Thanks Karen, we are actually not sure why there is a colour difference as we shoot with the same picture profiles. So it must be the lenses or maybe the Z7?
@@RussandLoz have you seen a difference between your Z6ii and your Z7ii before Russ?
@@lozzom Yes, its a bit annoying when Im shooting a wedding as I need them to match for the album.