Thom Hogan

In dealing with a lot of Nikon DSLR users contemplating moving to mirrorless, the full frame folk seem to have things easier than the DX folk. And the "hard part" once again comes with lenses. 

Let's assume for a moment that you want to move from DX DSLR to DX mirrorless. Your body choices right now are the Z50 and the Z50 II, uh, I mean Zfc. Which is a body somewhere between the D5600 and D7500 in capability, basically, only smaller and lighter. So let's further assume that yes, you're a D5600 or D7500 user and want to consider mirrorless with a Z50.

The dilemma that keeps filling my In Box with missives from such folk has to do with lens choice. You obviously want a complete lens set after you move. 

So let us consider your options:

1. Do the Nikon thing: 16-50mm f/3.5-6.3 VR and 50-250mm f/4.5-6.3 VR. 24-375mm equivalent in two lenses.
2. Do the Nikon thing in one lens: 18-140mm f/3.5-6.3 VR. 27-210mm equivalent in one lens.
3. Do the Nikon thing in transition: 10-20mm and 70-300mm DX lenses get mounted on an FTZ adapter, use the 16-50mm for the rest. 15-450mm equivalent in three lenses.
4. Do the future Nikon thing in two lenses: 12-28mm future lens, 24-200mm current lens. That's 16-300mm equivalent in two lenses.

The equivalent focal length range of each choice is okay, as it means that you're covered from wide angle to telephoto, though in a consumery way (which is okay considering that the Z50 is a consumery camera). 

The problem is that no other option really is available that's going to get you VR. And every one of those choices I just listed has some minuses to go with its pluses:

1. Nikon's preferred kit is small and light for what it does. Optically the mid-range zoom is beyond expectations: very, very good. The telephoto end has some optical issues at the long end, has funky VR that doesn't always kick in right, and both lenses are what you'd consider slow aperture. The 16-50mm might even be regarded as "aperture okay" up through 20mm (30mm equivalent). However, you're going to want some fast aperture option, which Nikon doesn't have yet (I suggest you look at the Viltrox autofocus lenses, but you won't get VR).
2. Nikon's Swiss-Army-Knife-kit is a little more problematic. It doesn't go wide enough, and it would again be considered slow in aperture from about 30mm (45mm equivalent) onward. As I noted in my review, it's pleasantly surprising for a superzoom, with no clear optical downside. But hey, no lens hood was another mistake on Nikon's part. (Don't worry Nikon, even if you supplied one, the consumer will lose it quickly enough and order a new one. ;~).
3. The straddle option (mirrorless body with some DSLR lenses) is awkward, particularly if you use more than one F-mount lens and have only one FTZ adapter. Why awkward? Consider the three lens solution I mentioned. You take the 10-20mm off and put the 16-50mm on, then you decide you really need the 70-300mm—you now have to take the FTZ off the 16-50mm and put it on the 70-300mm. Meanwhile the 10.5mm fisheye is screw-drive, so it doesn't autofocus. The 16-80mm f/2.8-4 is too big on the current Z DX bodies. There's a lot of "not quite what I want" if you take this approach. My Z50 kit to date has been a Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 on an FTZ and the two kit lenses, which is about as "smooth" a kit as I could produce that goes from ultra wide to long telephoto. (Smooth as in stays light and small as much as possible, reduces FTZ transitioning, provides excellent results.)
4. Buying half of what you want today is a possibility, but until the wide-angle zoom appears, you're stuck at 36mm equivalent at the wide end, which isn't very wide. The good news is that because you're using the DX image circle on an FX lens, the equivalent focal lengths are better than that of using the 50-250mm kit lens. You did pay more, though ;~).

One of the comments coming at me about these "logical" options is: 12-28mm for the upcoming wide angle zoom—though it looks to be remarkable small—doesn't really align with the existing choices. That seems correct. With option #1 you're only getting 12-16mm extra by buying the third lens; with option #2 you're only getting 12-18mm extra; with option #3, you're just replacing an F-mount lens, but with one that isn't as wide; though with option #4 you gain a more usable 12-24mm (usable because it means you're not constantly changing lenses at the wide to ultra wide end). Nothing seems to align perfectly if we really do end up with a 12-28mm wide angle DX zoom (my guess is that this is another misdirection by Nikon, ala what they did with the 24-105mm they promised). But if that's what they end up making, you'll end up with overlap between your wide angle and your mid-range focal lengths. 

And then we have the FX primes that make sense on the Z DX bodies due to their small size: 28mm f/2.8, 40mm f/2, and 50mm f/2.8 macro. None have VR. Doh! Best case you're gaining two stops at the aperture (40mm f/2), which doesn't make up for VR, but generally you're maybe gaining a stop with the 28mm. Which isn't enough to make the Z50/Zfc into low light wonders. The obvious choice for the light-challenged are the three Viltrox autofocus DX lenses (23mm f/1.4, 33mm f/1.4, and 56mm f/1.4). Again, no VR, but at least now we're starting to let quite a few more photons through to the sensor at the equivalent focal lengths that Nikon can supply. 

So I'm hearing a bit of a buzzing sound. Not quite a distinct buzz, buzz yet. But just a raspy rumbling rising from the rabid rabble.