It never in my life occurred to me to frame a shot with a zoom lens by setting according to the little numbers on the barrel.
Well, I certainly hope Nikon is not toast. After 25 years as a Canon shooter, I sold my R a couple months ago and got both a Z5 and Z50. The Z5 refurbished was $899, it was too good a deal to pass up as I continued to wait for a low or mid priced FF mirrorless and an APS-C RF mount camera from Canon. There are no doubt trade-offs in switching, but Nikon offered certain things in FF mirrorless that Canon so far has not brought to the table (lighter, smaller high-quality lenses, and a low-priced FF with a high quality sensor and 2 card slots). What convinced me to switch was their Z 24-200mm f/4 and 14-30mm f/4 lenses. I much prefer a lens with a wide zoom range, and while I thought the Canon RF 24-240 was a very good lens for its type, the 24-200 just blew me away. Both lenses (as well as their 24-70 f/4) are smaller and lighter than comperable Canon offerrings, something that I was really hoping for with a switch to mirrorless with Canon. I miss the back screen touch AF (and focus in general is noticeably slower) but I'm using the Nikon Z5 mainly for landscape, so neither of those specs are particularly needed. One keeps hearing negatives online about Nikon, but as a photographer and not a gear-head, their lenses were so good I decided to switch. (The price of the cameras was also a factor, of course.)
I was a big fan of Nikon mirrorless after years with Nikon DSLRs (back to the D100). Z6 was a delight. But... Canon was producing great lenses and Nikon's are ho-hum. The deal-breaker was the 70-200, with Canon's amazing compact form compared to Nikon's horse's leg. I did love the Z24-70 f4, except for the irritant that it was non-functional in its normal compact position.
The 16-35 f4 is my most used lens. i usually know what focal length to select before looking through the viewfinder. there is a big difference between 14mm and 20mm. i think it is a mistake that canon did not put a 16mm marking on the lens. nikon had the foresight to do it.
I thought that before I bought the EF 11-24, a $3,000 lens that weighs 1,180g and vignettes over 4 stops in the corners. Then I got it and shut up and took pictures with it, what an amazing lens. Funny thing is I have never looked at the corners and thought 'darn that vignetting is an issue'.
Really? That small zoom range?
Yes, and it is lovely to behold. (chef kiss)
Gee, I feel bad for you a bit. I feel bad for anyone that is suckered into Nikon who doesn't already have a large glass commitment to them. They just barely limp in with gear now, playing catch-up with Sony and Canon. If it was anytime before 1987, I would go all in on Nikon, they are legendary, BUT it isn't 1986.....the world has moved on. If I was wealthy and impatient I too may have bought the Z, just to play with for a few months, but I remember reading the specs and not being impressed, as usual, when I compared it to Sony. At that time I just bought a Sony rx1rm2 to tide me over. The last time Nikon impressed me was the 36mp d800E, which was the last Nikon body I ever owned. It was when they moved manufacturing that I realized they were probably done, and would end up the next Ricoh or Pentax, making a few cameras for extreme fans, but making nothing really innovating or industry-changing.
Do people actually rely on those markings? I usually just frame my shot. What is accomplished by the markings?
Yes, that small a zoom range, but because I am imagining it being half the size of a 24-70, which isn't necessarily true. My 16-35 f4 is my first zoom ever, so I am new to zooms. With the adapter, the EF 16-35 is HUGE on my rp and r5. I used to favor an 85 prime doing street, isolating subjects in narrow DoF, but now I want to do entire scenes at f4 or slower, and I find myself using 24, 28, and 35 most of all.
