So I just got this Nikon Z5 because I wanted to take better pictures than my phone for my big trip to Japan next month but honestly looking at all these lens options is making my head spin. I have no idea what these numbers mean like what is the real difference between a 24-70mm and a 24-200mm? Is a bigger number always better or does it just mean it zooms more? My logic was if I get a lens that goes from a small number to a big number then I wont have to carry a bag of glass around with me which sounds like a total nightmare when I am walking 20k steps a day in Tokyo. I really just want one single thing I can leave on the camera all the time for everything from close up photos of ramen to big tall buildings. My budget is around $900 max so I cant really afford those super expensive professional ones. I saw someone online mention a 24-120 lens but then someone else said a 28-75 is better for blurry backgrounds and now I am just stuck. Sorry if this is a totally basic question but I literally dont know where to start or if I should just stick with the flat little lens it came with. What is actually the best one to get for someone who just wants to point and shoot without changing parts every five minutes...
Ngl I was in the same boat when I first got my Z. I ended up grabbing the Nikon NIKKOR Z 28-75mm f/2.8 for a trip to Osaka last year and it stayed on my camera 95 percent of the time. Honestly so happy with how it handled the low light in those tiny alleys.
- Way better for blurry backgrounds.
- Fits your budget easily.
- Light enough to not kill your neck. It works well for everything from ramen to street shots tho you lose a tiny bit of that wide view for the big buildings.
Quick reply while I have a sec. Make sure to consider that the Nikon NIKKOR Z 24-70mm f/4 S is often half your budget used. I would suggest grabbing that and saving the rest for your trip. Be careful with those massive zoom ranges... they usually compromise on quality in low light. The 24-70 is light enough for 20k step days and handles everything from ramen to skyscrapers easily.
Unfortunately, the Nikon NIKKOR Z 24-200mm f/4-6.3 VR had disappointing resolution at 200mm. Id suggest the Nikon NIKKOR Z 24-120mm f/4 S for its constant f/4 aperture and superior optics.
Been using this for years, no complaints
^ This. Also, if you want to get technical about it, the Nikon NIKKOR Z 24-120mm f/4 S is basically the most corrected lens in your price bracket. It usually hovers around $1k but you can find it for $900 if you shop around or go used. The reason people prefer it over the Nikon NIKKOR Z 24-200mm f/4-6.3 VR is the edge-to-edge sharpness and the constant f/4 aperture. When youre in a dim restaurant in Kyoto, that f/6.3 on the longer zoom is gonna force your ISO way too high and make images grainy... Since you mentioned the 28-75mm too, just keep in mind that 24mm vs 28mm is a huge deal for architecture. Youll want that extra width for big shrines or narrow streets. If you want a third-party option for low light, the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 Di III VXD G2 for Nikon Z is a solid alternative, but honestly native S-line glass usually handles flare better. For 20k steps, the 24-120 is the most logical compromise between weight and focal range.
