Thom Hogan

Sometimes I just don't get Nikon. They don't appear to be getting information from the right users, let alone be able to relate it back to other similar users. This has been true in the past, and now we have another example. 

The previous problems had to do with Nikon's Professional Setting Guides as they pertained to sports, all the way back into the DSLR era. There was also a marketing brochure on how mirrorless AF-area modes mapped to DSLR ones. I ended up having to write my own "corrections" to what Nikon put in those documents. 

Now we have a new one to contemplate: Z9/Z8 Professional Setting Guide — Wildlife Edition. After using almost half the pages talking up their lenses, we get to the "nitty gritty"—I'm tempted to write s**** gritty—and boy are most of us working wildlife photographers going to not only ignore Nikon's advice, but we're going to have to now teach people why Nikon's "advice" is mostly wrong.

On page 16, Basic Camera Settings, we start to get our first taste that whoever wrote and edited this document doesn't actually use Nikon gear to take wildlife photos: White balance of Auto. First of all, it almost certainly should be Natural light auto, since very little wildlife photography is done under artificial light. But if it's going to be Auto, which version of that should it be? It's kind of important to get animal colors correct, after all ;~).

Next up we have the recommendation of RAW + JPEG normal. Hmm, are they not aware that there's a perfectly usable JPEG basic image already in the raw file, or that the camera can squirt over a JPEG automatically to SnapBridge if all you want to do is have something to share quickly? Again we're missing useful detail, such as whether that should be optimal quality (star) or size priority (no star). In essence, Nikon is saying here to "just use a slightly better compression if you're going to add a JPEG image." I'd argue that if you're going to go to the trouble of using something other than what's already in the file (again, JPEG basic), you need to swing further. It should probably be RAW + JPEG fine (star), otherwise you're not achieving much. 

Nikon also recommends 3D-tracking. I guess building subject detection into the camera was a waste, eh? Hybrid button focus techniques, which most of us are using in some form or another aren't even mentioned. Oh, but wait, they suggest you use subject detection after all! This gets a little tricky with 3D-tracking, which is why most of us use a Hybrid button method. I suspect they're trying to avoid the multiple subjects problem. But the way the wildlife pros do that is with a custom Wide-area AF box. Later on, Nikon suggests you add AF-area mode > 3D-tracking to a custom button. What? You want me to override 3D-tracking with 3D-tracking?

Next up, we're told to use Auto capture. I guess the new feature gets all the attention, but the guide really should have spending time on suggesting some Pre-release capture uses and issues. I did particularly enjoy the phrase "This allows the photographer to capture the natural expressions of wildlife without having to be present at the shooting location." Got it, Auto capture is necessary to capture "natural expressions," and I don't need to go out in the field any more except to set up the camera once. By the way, Nikon, do you know what happens if you set up an unattended camera in lion territory? 

I'm not going to tear every word to pieces, it's just not worth it. My suggestion is you ignore this new PDF from Nikon. It doesn't teach you anything, it has misguided, misleading, and inconsistent info in it, and I fail to see how it's going to make you a better wildlife photographer. Oh, it's a long way from "technical." 

As everyone is just now figuring out, the recent Z8 2.00 and Z9 5.00 firmware updates still don’t conform the two cameras to the same exact configurations, options, or functions. The Z8 now has Pixel shift shooting, the top-of-the-line Z9 does not. The Z9 now has High frequency flicker reduction presets, the Z8 does not. The list of differences goes on, and on, and on. 

Many years ago I used to believe that Nikon’s firmware updates were constrained by some internal memory constriction. That belief stemmed from my knowledge of how the film SLRs used a form of EEPROM, and then later how Nikon sometimes took a feature out of a DSLR to put a new one in. I suppose it’s possible for some form of memory limitation still to be in effect, but I no longer believe that’s the driving issue for these differences.

Nikon uses an independent team approach to cameras. It’s not the same team working on all cameras, it’s individual teams for each camera. These teams cycle and hop scotch. For instance, many from the D3 team including the leader went on to be the Nikon 1 team. That was partly because Nikon back in 2008 already knew that the future of autofocus was centered on the image sensor, not a separate component, and they wanted a top team working on that. 

Each camera team within Nikon seems able to make many of its own design decisions, which explains some of the odd things and differences that have happened along the way. 

I don’t have any issues with a team approach like this. However, this does bring into play how the teams are managed. Who’s doing the work trying to keep the teams on the same basic path? 

At Nikon, that management tends to be financially driven, not customer driven. The management above the teams is more worried about costs and profit margins, which suggests part reuse and rationalization, then they are customer-driven choices, which suggests function/UX reuse and rationalization. 

As I’ve written before, I was trained for and performed product line management for most of my career, and I believe that this requires more attention to the customer side. Products need to be clearly defined and organized, otherwise customers get confused. 

Should you buy a Z8 or a Z9? I don’t know. The dynamics of that choice seem to vary with firmware update! Even with both cameras now recently updated, I don’t understand why a Z8 user would need HEIF and Pixel shift shooting over a Z9 user. And why would a Z9 user need the Profoto A10 support and high-frequency lighting presets over a Z8 user? 

The devil’s in the details, too. The Z8 firmware added programmability to a lot of extra buttons. The Z9, not so much. I’m still trying to figure out if I can make my Z9 controls exactly match my Z8 ones. There seem to be some key differences, still. 

While making all these significant firmware updates is getting Nikon a lot of props from its users, at the same time it is also introducing questions that don’t seem answerable, and which also confuse those same users. Moreover, it makes marketing more difficult. Quick question: what’s Nikon’s best mirrorless camera? Well, that would be a Z9. Unless you need Pixel Shift Shooting or HEIF. Uh, what? Aren’t those things I’d expect in the “best” camera and not so much lower in the lineup? 

So I have a question: does Nikon even have a chart somewhere that tracks all of the features they do on one axis and cameras that have those features on the other? Yes, I know it would be a whopper of a chart. But it would quickly point out the issues from the marketing/customer side with the current situation. To me, what I see is a somewhat random jumble on that chart, not a logical progression. Even accounting for differences in model age, the chart is a mess right now. 

Bottom line: only Nikon knows why they’re making these seemingly random feature choices. Except I’m betting that they don’t actually know why they’re doing it. Which would be a problem, right?

Nikon has a pretty incredible telephoto Z-mount lens lineup already. Unfortunately the lineup is incredible enough to provoke a lot of buying angst among users. There’s a lot of nuance that has to be juggled to make good buying/using decisions. 

I’m a wildlife photographer much of the time. I’ve already written several times that the 400mm f/2.8 TC VR S is my choice for “long lens.” Given my usual access to animals and my extreme travel, I find that lens is the best choice for me in balancing a lot of different variables. For others, the 600mm f/4 TC VR S might be the better choice. But the 400 gives me 400/560/840mm at the flip of switch or button on the Z8 or Z9 (the longer lens provides 600/750/1125mm). 

The question then becomes what do I use at the “short end” for my second body on safari. Most recently, that’s been a Tamron 35-150mm f/2-2.8, though that leaves me a gap from 150 to 400mm. However, I tend towards favoring subject isolation capability and edge of day light needs, thus my two fast lens choices. 

If you’re picking a 400mm or 600mm lens as your primary lens for safari, you have quite a few options for a secondary lens. Some users tend towards only using one body, or not having a Z8 or Z9 in the first place, thus have very different needs (which are likely completely filled by the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR S or 180-600mm f/5.6-6.3 VR). Either way, it’s important to understand what we have that’s native Z-mount that’s available as a second lens for your second body.

I assume that if you have an F-mount lens, you can already evaluate how that works; it would be rare that a Z System user buys a new F-mount lens these days: (1) you end up extending the length of the lens via the FTZ adapter; (2) the F-mount lenses other than the PF lenses tend to be heavier; and (3) the F-mount lenses are not holding vaue at all, due to how many are being traded in. If you already have an F-mount lens, great. If you want to dip into the used pool to pick up a fantastic F-mount exotic at a low price, that’s great too. But for the purposes of this article I’m going to stick to Z-mount lenses, and in particular, FX ones.

I make the assumption that you want flexibility in your second lens on safari. Normally, this lens is on your second body, and ready for when the action gets closer to you. Or when you're dealing with large mammals, such as elephants or giraffes, at modest distance. Some also want this lens to be useful for potential scenic imagery, as well. 

Here are the primary second lens choices for safari in the Z-mount:

• Nikkor 24-120mm f/4 S — My teaching assistant uses this and is happy with what it provides (his primary lens is a 400mm f/4.5 VR S or sometimes 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR S). One aspect of the 24-120mm f/4 S lens that isn't often mentioned is its ability to focus close (15", or 35cm). That provides another sometimes useful aspect on safari, for instance when you're in a mokoro photographing reed frogs. My only comment is that you wouldn't pair this mid-range zoom lens with a 600mm or longer primary optic, as that just leaves you too much “focal length gap." 
• Nikkor 24-200mm f/4-6.3 VR — This superzoom sounds like a good choice at first glance, but it is clearly the worst possible choice once you're in the true telephoto range. Moreover, like all superzooms, the 24-200mm f/4-6.3 VR loses some focal length as you focus closer. You'll also note that the f/6.3 side is slower than the other lenses I put in this group. One reason you sometimes pick up your second body and lens is because the light is disappearing at the end of the day and you're not able to hold subjects with your long lens due to aperture. 
• Tamron 35-150mm f/2-2.8 — This is my usual second lens (again, my primary is the 400mm f/2.8 TC VR S). I'm less worried about the wide scenic, but more worried about subject isolation, which is the reason why the previous lens isn't the one I carry. I've never been unhappy with the results from the Tamron 35-150mm f/2-2.8, and now that we have a native Z-mount version of it—the original was a Sony E-mount one that I used on a Megadap adapter—I can heartily recommend it to all.
• Nikkor 70-180mm f/2.8 — On my last trip I brought this lens with me (as a second to the 180-600mm f/5.6-6.3 VR), and I'm going to say something bold: it's a better choice than the 70-200mm f/2.8 VR S. No, it's not sharper in the corners. Yes, it can flare more. No, the bokeh isn't quite as well handled. But those aren't the big things you're typically worried about on safari. Here's the reason why I give it a strong nod: it focuses down to essentially macro levels (1:2; though don't place focus in the corners; keep focus centered). It travels smaller and lighter, it has perfectly fine DX-boundary sharpness, and it has that close focus ability. The "drawback" that keeps some from this lens is that it doesn't have VR. Frankly, the sensor VR is good enough to handle 180mm decently, and you're not likely pushing down into slower shutter speeds on safari, anyway.
• Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8 VR S — Absolutely nothing wrong with this lens. As 70-200's go, it's right there at the top of the heap. But it's surprisingly the size and weight of the F-mount version, and the thing we're all clamoring for these days is to make our overall kit smaller and lighter. The 70-200mm f/2.8 VR S doesn't do that ;~). I'm perfectly happy with the 70-200mm f/2.8 VR S, but for the size and weight I like the Tamron 35-150mm f/2-2.8 better. And if I need smaller/lighter, the 70-180mm f/2.8 is the clearer choice for me. 
• Tamron 70-300mm f/4.5-6.3 — Price and focal length made you look. It's not a terrible lens, but this falls into the 24-200mm type classification: you can do better. 
• Nikkor 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR S — If you're using a really long primary lens such as the 600mm or 800mm, you might want to give up a bit on the wider side and get something that covers more of the telephoto focal lenth gap. The 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR S would be that lens. We were all excited and happy when this zoom came out, though it's been a bit eclipsed by subsequent offerings in different ways. Still, it focuses close and it's still remarkably good. 

As you probably noted in those bullets, a couple of things come up: (1) what lens are you pairing the second one with?; and (2) does your second lens have more flexibility or a downside? 

I'll get to some pairings in a moment, but it's worth spending a few more words on the downside/upside equation. Things that are upsides include: smaller, lighter, closer focusing, longer focal range, faster aperture. sharp in the DX boundary. Things that are downsides include: larger, heavier, poor close focus, minimal focal range, slower aperture, lack of sharpness compared to the alternatives. Flexibility has to do with both focal length range (more is better, plus less gap to your primary lens), and perhaps also with faster apertures should you wish to go for subject isolation. Make sure when you pick a lens you're considering the balance of all these things. 

As for pairings, here are two I currently favor:

• 35-150mm f/2-2.8 with the 400mm f/2.8 TC VR S. Top level optical results, with strong ability to isolate subjects. Yes, I have a gap in the 150-400mm range, but I tend to control that with my position relative to the animals (safari) or players (sports). I can also flip to DX crop and get 225mm out of the second lens, if necessary. This is what I refer to as a "luxury pairing."  I'll just say this: I'm never unhappy with the results when I'm carrying that duo on my Z9's. 
• 70-200mm f/2.8 with the 600mm f/4 TC VR S. Another luxury pairing that’s scaled upwards for more reach. This tends to be a little too much lens for my style of wildlife (and sports) work, and it’s a heavier and larger kit to carry. 
• 70-180mm f/2.8 with the 600mm f/6.3 PF VR S. If you’re looking for reach but going for smallest and lightest kit, this would be my choice, though some of you might consider using the 100-400mm f/4-5.6 VR S as the second lens if you’re worried about the focal length gap. That doesn’t give you a low light option, though.
• 70-180mm f/2.8 with the 180-600mm f/5.6-6.3 VR. No gap! Close focus supported. Solid optical performance, particularly in the DX boundary. This is the best "budget pairing" for sure. Send me to Africa for a season with these two lenses and I'll be happy enough (and yes, I have experience with doing just that). I'd even go so far as to say this: if you think you need more than this combo, you need to explain the reason why to me carefully and get that validated before buying a more expensive option. 

I will point out a bit of a dilemma for those who favor really long primary lenses (e.g. 600mm f/4 TC VR S, 600mm f/6.3 PF VR S, or 800mm f/6.3 PF VR S): it gets tricky to pair a second lens with the long primary primes. Indeed, I'd tend to say that the first lens this group should probably consider is the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR S. One problem with such “long reach pairing" is aperture: best case is f/4 or f/4.5, which starts to have significant impact as the light wanes. Given that the animals on safari are most active and interesting at first and last light in the day, you need to be careful that you're not locking yourself into high ISO values all the time. 

Nikon could improve the long pairing by introducing a 100-300mm f/2.8 or f/4, but remember one of the other drawbacks that you need to consider: size and weight. 

There's no one right choice in safari lens pairing. It's all about tradeoffs and balances. For my workshops, I'm generally "negotiating" with students prior to the workshop trying to figure out what the right combo they should bring is from the gear they have (or are willing to add). These discussions are sometimes fraught with FOMO (fear of missing out). 

Let me try to clarify that FOMO worry a bit. Here's my thought: I miss out on something all the time while on safari. I'm not always in the right position, I don't quite have the lens I need, I wasn't there at the right moment, and much more. Don't worry about that. What I want you to worry about is: do you have the right gear for when things are right and aligned for what you want to accomplish?

If subject isolation is "your style," then a 300mm f/6.3 aperture—see Tamron—probably isn't going to help you. If isolating small birds mid-day is your game, you want long focal length choices, or you'd better be spending your entire day in a well positioned hide (maybe both!).  

By my calculations I've now spent over a year in the bush in just Botswana. Why do I return? Well, there's a lot I haven't seen, a lot I haven't photographed. I don't think of my trips from the standpoint of "what did I miss," but rather from the standpoint of "what did I capture?" That starts with, while still back home, figuring out what I want to capture, and that's where my lens choice comes into play. 

This is the way you should think of it, too. Don’t get into the “I must be ready for absolutely any possibility,” because there’s no such combination of lenses that will cover everything. Instead, find a combination that has the best likelihood for bringing back the type of images you wish to capture.

This article has also been published to the Z-Mount Lenses/Nikkor Lenses/Z-Mount Lens Articles folder.