There aren’t a lot of photographers who have used every Nikon Z lens. And actually, I’m not one of them – I still need to test two, the Nikon Z 58mm f/0.95 Noct and the newest Z 35mm f/1.4. But I have tested 38 of the 40 (plus both TCs), and by now, I’ve settled on my favorites and least favorites of the bunch. I’ll share those with you today.
Before I begin, I should mention that there are many more important things in photography than camera and lens selection. Get a lens that meets your needs, and after that, try to think as little as possible about gear. It will only distract from your photography.
That said, I’m writing this article for a reason. The reality is that most of the questions I get these days are about lenses. Which makes sense – these are big purchases, and most people don’t have the ability to try a bunch of lenses themselves and only keep their favorites. So, I hope that you’ll find this article useful if you’re in that boat.
Keep in mind that I’m just one photographer with an opinion. But at least my opinion is based on experience with almost all of Nikon’s mirrorless lenses.
Most Favorite
There are only two Nikon Z lenses that I’ve given a perfect 5.0/5 star rating on Photography Life. I consider these to be my two favorite Nikon mirrorless lenses: the Nikon Z 14-24mm f/2.8 S and the Nikon Z MC 105mm f/2.8 S Macro.
Starting with the 14-24mm f/2.8 S, this lens improves upon the famously good F-mount 14-24mm f/2.8G more than I would have thought possible. It somehow manages to be sharper than its predecessor, and it’s also very flare-resistant (which was the biggest flaw of the F-mount version). It even has excellent image quality at f/2.8 in the corners, making it an ideal choice for Milky Way photography. Optically, there is not a single meaningful flaw with this lens.
It’s also impressive mechanically. Very few 14mm zooms can take normal filters, but this one is the exception, utilizing a 112mm filter thread in combination with the HB-97 lens hood. It’s lighter than competing zooms, and it accomplishes all this as a semi-internal zoom (where the front element moves within a fixed barrel). Taking everything into account, it is one of the strongest and most capable lenses I’ve ever seen.
![Nikon Z7 II Image Samples #40](https://photographylife.com/cdn-cgi/imagedelivery/GrQZt6ZFhE4jsKqjDEtqRA/photographylife.com/2021/04/Nikon-Z7-II-Image-Samples-40.jpg/w=960)
Then there’s the Nikon Z MC 105mm f/2.8 Macro. This lens has some of the best optical performance of any Nikon Z lens today, including excellent corners throughout the aperture range. I don’t see any substantial flaws with this lens except that it doesn’t take teleconverters. Apart from just sharpness, it has great bokeh and retains excellent contrast in backlit conditions, as well as impressive vignetting, distortion, and chromatic aberration characteristics.
I had very high expectations for this lens, since Nikon has always been known for good macro lenses. Even so, it still surpassed them.
![Macro Photo of Butterfly with Nikon Z 105mm f2.8 S](https://photographylife.com/cdn-cgi/imagedelivery/GrQZt6ZFhE4jsKqjDEtqRA/photographylife.com/2023/01/Macro-Photo-of-Butterfly-with-Nikon-Z-105mm-f2.8-S.jpg/w=960)
Those were the only two Nikon Z lenses that earned a perfect score in my reviews, but several others came close. The following lenses stand out to me the most upon reflection:
- Nikon Z 20mm f/1.8 S: A nearly perfect ultra-wide prime with exceptional image quality. It loses one tenth of a star only because the usual price of $1050 is a little high. (Sony’s equally perfect 20mm f/1.8 G costs $900. Any time the Nikon Z 20mm f/1.8 S goes on sale for a similar price, it rises to 5.0/5 in my book.) All of the other Z f/1.8 primes are also great optically, but that’s a more difficult accomplishment to pull off at 20mm.
- Nikon Z 24-120mm f/4 S: Not optical perfection, but probably the best all-around midrange zoom that I’ve used. It balances price, weight, reach, and image quality better than anything else out there. What’s more, it remains just as strong at the longer focal lengths, which is very uncommon for this type of lens.
- Nikon Z 135mm f/1.8 Plena: This one is optical perfection – or at least, as close as I’ve ever seen – although it’s big, heavy, and expensive. If you like this focal length, you really can’t beat the Plena.
- Nikon Z 70-200mm f/2.8 S: The sharpest zoom lens we’ve ever reviewed, with better corner performance than almost any other lens on the market (including high-end primes). It’s not just sharpness, either. Nikon has steadily refined the handling, focus speed, and general image quality of their 70-200mm f/2.8 lenses over the years. This one is the epitome of their efforts.
- Nikon Z 400mm f/2.8 TC VR S and Nikon Z 600mm f/4 TC VR S: Of course, the image quality is impeccable – no surprises there. But what really impresses me is the built-in teleconverter. This is a transformative technology. I hope it makes its way into less expensive lenses one day.
What about Nikon’s other Z lenses? Almost all of Nikon’s mirrorless lenses have impressed me so far, especially the telephotos and anything in the S line. And the non-S lenses still punch above their weight in many cases. There’s a reason why I called this article “my favorite” Z lenses and not “the best” Z lenses – I don’t think that there is such a thing as the best ones, just the best for your needs.
For anyone who might be wondering, my personal Nikon Z kit is simply the 14-30mm f/4 S and the 24-200mm f/4-6.3. I chose them because the Nikon Z system is my lightweight/hiking camera kit of choice, and those lenses are great for traveling light. They aren’t my “favorite” lenses in a subjective sense, and I have a few gripes with them, but they were ideal for my situation.
![Nikon-Z7-00015](https://photographylife.com/cdn-cgi/imagedelivery/GrQZt6ZFhE4jsKqjDEtqRA/photographylife.com/2022/06/Nikon-Z7-00015.jpg/w=960)
Least Favorite
This is going to be a shorter section, because so far there have only been two Nikon Z lenses that I don’t like. All of the others are logical choices in the niche that they occupy, even if I wouldn’t buy them for my own photography. But I think that Nikon could have left these two on the drawing board.
First, the Nikon Z 26mm f/2.8. I know that this lens has its fans among photographers who want the lightest possible kit, but I think that its older brother – the Nikon Z 28mm f/2.8 – makes more sense. The 28mm version is less expensive and clearly better optically. Unfortunately, the corners on the 26mm version never really sharpen up. In many of my sample photos, I ended up having to crop them out even at narrow apertures.
I still enjoyed how light the 26mm f/2.8 was when I used it. But I could say the same thing about the 28mm version. The difference between the two in weight is a mere 35 grams (1.2 ounces), barely more than a lens cap – pretty irrelevant most of the time.
The one saving grace of the Nikon Z 26mm f/2.8 is its size. Other than its oddly-designed lens hood, the 26mm is about half the length of the 28mm – itself already a slim lens. If you’re willing to pay for this portability both in price and image quality, be my guest. But I think $500 for the 26mm f/2.8 is too high when the better 28mm f/2.8 costs $300. These two lenses often go on sale for $400 and $230 respectively, but the story is the same.
![Nikon-Z-26mm-f2.8-Review-Sample-Image-Photography-Life00034](https://photographylife.com/cdn-cgi/imagedelivery/GrQZt6ZFhE4jsKqjDEtqRA/photographylife.com/2023/04/Nikon-Z-26mm-f2.8-Review-Sample-Image-Photography-Life00034.jpg/w=960)
Finally, we have my least favorite Nikon Z lens, the Nikon Z 24-50mm f/4-6.3. The zoom range is tiny, and the maximum aperture is dim. It’s also one of the weakest Nikon mirrorless lenses optically, performing even worse than Nikon’s superzooms (i.e. the 24-200mm and 28-400mm). I do like that it’s small and ultralight, but so are prime lenses. I think that either the Nikon Z 28mm f/2.8 or the Nikon Z 40mm f/2 makes a better choice for most photographers who are considering this lens. (Plus, you could almost buy both of those lenses for the price of the 24-50mm.)
If I squint, I can see the case for the 24-50mm f/4-6.3 as a travel photography or hiking lens. However, even then, I would prefer a Nikon DX camera with the 16-50mm f/3.5-6.3 instead – which is 60 grams lighter, plus the DX camera is lighter on top of that. Not to mention that the DX 16-50mm f/3.5-6.3 has a better zoom range and is sharper from corner to corner! In many cases, you would actually get better image quality from the DX kit.
Again, don’t let me rain on your parade if you love the 24-50mm f/4-6.3. But it’s not for me.
![Nikon Z5 Image Sample #33](https://photographylife.com/cdn-cgi/imagedelivery/GrQZt6ZFhE4jsKqjDEtqRA/photographylife.com/2020/12/Nikon-Z5-Image-Sample-33.jpg/w=960)
Conclusion
Nikon’s mirrorless lens lineup has expanded at a nice pace over the last few years, and now we’ve got a pretty comprehensive system. Some of the lenses are obviously better than others, but even taking the worst lenses into account, the average quality of the Z system is really impressive.
Now that I’ve used all but two of Nikon’s mirrorless lenses (and published a review on all but six), I can confidently say they’re all capable of good photos in the right hands. Yes, that includes the 26mm f/2.8 and 24-50mm f/4-6.3 – it’s not even a question. But if you wanted to know where I stand on my favorites and least favorites, I hope you found this article useful. You can also check out our lens reviews for more comprehensive discussions on these lenses and others that I didn’t have the space to include today.
Great article and I agree with all of it. Especially the “my personal Nikon Z kit is simply the 14-30mm f/4 S and the 24-200mm f/4-6.3”. My personal choices as well but I added the Nikon Z 100-400 f/4-5.6 VR S with a 1.4x teleconverter for wildlife.
Great article. My standard is the 24-200mm, which I use most of the time for travel and landscapes. While not perfect, there’s nothing that I can’t fix in post. My kit includes the 18-24mm for wide landscapes. For wildlife, my default is the amazingly light 600mm PF. For the occasional need for flexibility in wildlife situations, I have kept my old non-Z 200-500mm.
it’s valuable to bounce personal experience back and forth. it helps demonstrate how relative an opinion might be.
for me it comes down more to workflow, personal taste (image quality), and safety — but the 26mm f2.8 fits a niche no other lens has so far managed to fill. it also superior to the 28mm muffin in that it lacks the infrared hotspot of the latter.
so i would argue it has more than one saving grace, but whether one benefits from such graces is entirely dependent on the context of how it’s being used. YMMV. :)
You have never reviewed the Z 50/1.2… That is one of the best Z lenses IMHO. Extremely sharp, but still with a delicate rendering that makes it not clinical.
That’ll be the next Nikon Z lens that we review!
I agree, this is for me the best prime for Z system with the rendering of the F 105 or 28 mm f/1,4E. I’m not a fan of the rendering IQ of Z f/1,8 line up except the 20mm.
Hi Spencer – like you, I’ve been using the Z 24-200 as my primary travel lens, simply because of the convenience. I get that it’s not as sharp as having separate lenses, however it’s hard to beat the flexibility of a single lens. With that in mind, I sold my 24-200 and bought the Z 28-400 just before a trip to NYC. While I did notice the difference between the 24 & 28 at the short end, the ability to get to 400 is an absolute game changer! I have three shots from the top of the Empire State Building at 28, 180, and 400 that I’ll upload separately since I can’t seem to here. I think you’ll see that the quality is “good enough”. But as you indicated in your review of the lens, it is a blast to have that flexibility in a single lens.
My favorite travel lenses are the 14-30, 24-200 and 70-300 Tamron. I almost always bring the 26 2.8 since it’s practically a body cap or the 28 2.8/40 2 so I have something for low light street shooting. The inexpensive viltrox 20 2.8 is also much better than I would ever expect for $160 and it’s super small and light as an alternative to the 14-30.
Thanks Spencer, those are the 2 lenses I’m aiming to grow my Z line.
This is very helpful I will be visiting USA next month to visit family and we will be going to Yellowstone. I have a Nikon Z 50 and the kit lenses, I also have a Tamron 100-400 with the FTZ. I feel that this is too much to carry on and off flights as I’m not young. Is there a lens that you would recommend to cover the range I need that wouldn’t be too heavy for me. Weight is the reason I have a Z50.
When you say you have the kit lenses, are you talking about the 16-50mm and the 50-250mm? Those would be the exact two lenses I’d recommend for a lightweight Yellowstone visit with the Z50.
250mm is already a pretty impressive 375mm equivalent. I don’t think you need anything longer. If you do, your lightest option is the Nikon Z 28-400mm f/4-8. A bonus is that it would let you leave the 50-250mm at home. A downside is that f/8 is pretty dim (and it’s already at f/8 by 200mm).
The Nikon Z 400mm f/4.5 is heavier than the 28-400mm, but a hair lighter than the Tamron + FTZ. It would give you that extra light-gathering capability with f/4.5, and it has excellent image quality, though it’s more expensive.
I would really consider just bringing the 16-50mm + 50-250mm combination unless you think you’ll miss the range up to 400mm. If so, either the 28-400mm or the 400mm f/4.5 are the two most reasonable options.
Thankyou. Yes I have the 16-50mm and the 50-250mm. I also have an RX101V another possibility. I used this on safari in South Africa 5 years ago and got decent shots after been advised not to take a bunch of lenses there.
Thanks for the excellent article! I’m pleased to have the top three of your favorites. In my “light” kit I too carry the 24-200, but on a Z50; along with a Z7 with a 14-24. Or call it a “old guy who can’t hike or carry a lot” kit. For birds my favorite is my Z8 with the 180-600, on a tripod. I long to try the 24-120; but I have the splendid 24-70 2.8…? decisions, decisions… Cheers
Sounds like you’ve got a great kit! The Z 24-70mm f/2.8 is Nikon’s best midrange zoom optically, even though I like the 24-120mm f/4 better for its price and zoom range.
Hi Spencer,
Interesting and useful article!
As a landscape photographer shooting mostly at f/8 anf f/11 (occasionally at f/5.6 and f/16), I would be interested to hear you about your best camera-lens combo “go to” or travel kit.
With my D850 and D800, I mostly use 24-120 f/4 and 80-400 f/4.5-5.6 AFS VR lenses.
You may include third-party products.
Yvan
You said landscape: I’m not Spencer, but I’d suggest the 14-24 or 20.
It’s a hard question, but the most straightforward answer is to mimic your F-mount kit with the Nikon Z 24-120mm f/4 S and the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6. Like Steven says, you could add either the 14-24mm f/2.8 or the 20mm f/1.8 if you need something wider. (The 14-30mm f/4 and 17-28mm f/2.8 are no slouches either.)
That said, I would be tempted by various lighter options like the Tamron 70-300mm f/4.5-6.3, and various brighter options like the Z 24-70mm f/2.8 S as well. It depends on exactly what your priorities are.