I think if the 50mm 1.2 makes it into the erotica, the 135mm Plena should definitely have made it in. I have all three (50,85,135) and have shot a lot with them. To be honest I would have put the 50mm in the Juicy.. as it isn’t in the same league as the 85 and 135mm.. IMHO

The Plena in juicy??? Its flat out the best Z lens currently and I can say after having mine for the past two months it is untouchable when paired with the ZF, I've always used manual lenses (Voigtlander, Super Takumar) and this blows them away!!!

Definitely agree on the 35 1.8, only lens I bought and then returned nearly immediately. Still waiting for the 1.2

Thanks Zwade. Great content. Very helpful. This is your second video that I watched and you don’t mention Z 100-400 4.5-5.6 in either? Just curious as to why?

Thx...great review

Considering the Z mount has only been 6 years, I think you summarize it up on how well and they know what they're doing. Hopefully it lasts forever like the F mount. And you actually convinced me to rent both 50mm f1.2 and 85mm f1.2 Z for my next cosplay project rofl, and see if my 105mm f1.4 is still a keeper or I should move on to either of those, cause I can't keep both :(. I hope you're really happier making videos now!

I will soon add the 24-70 & 70-200 to my stable. Will also pick up a prime wide for astro. Thanks Z for your input.

Nice video Z... I just realized I have a lot of lenses that I forgot about. The "Couldn't tell ya" Line I have almost all of them but the 800mm. I was hoping to hear what you thought of them. Also, a lot I don't agree with you on but that's life. I don't have the 50mm 1.2 or the 85mm 1.2 yet but really don't have the need at this time. When I start doing fine art nudes again, I will get them then. Anyway, thanks for sharing...Peace

The excellent performance of the Nikon Z 50mm 1.8 lens dispels my desire to purchase the Nikon Z 50mm 1.2 lens. The Nikon Z 50mm 1.8 lens offers unrivaled value for money, exceeding other manufacturers in terms of price and quality.

Did I miss the 24-70 f/4.0 ?

This is actually so funny, I’ve spent weeks trying to decide a couple of lenses to round out my current kit (85 1.8 & 180-600) but apparently all I needed was to watch your video because I ended up choosing the 50 1.2 and 105 2.8 lol

Cool video! Generally agree, although I would nudge the 20 1.8 up a notch to Juicy/Erotica. I think it’s my favorite Nikon wide angle of all time, displacing the legendary vintage 28mm AI’s. If you ever do one of these scales for “value,” the 24-120 and the 180-600 would top the chart. Keep up the good work!

You can push the 400mm f/2.8 up into the excessive erotica category. It is stunning on every level and a fine fitness tool during down time. I think you hit most of what I shot correctly with my only disagreement point on the 70-200mm f/2.8 where I'd bump it up to juicy. Fun video to watch.

Good list. I definitely agree that Nikon has done a very good job with the overall quality of their lens lineup. My opinion of the 70-200 and 24-70 f/2.8, however, are exactly reverse of yours. I find the 24-70 very good as a tool, but lacking in character and especially micro-contrast. The 70-200 has much more pop and richness to my eye.

Interesting summary - perhaps because you validated my lens purchases 🙄. I didn’t see the 100-400. Have you tested that yet?

Being a 18 year shooter of 4/3 and m4/3 and having several pro primes from Olympus and Panasonic I decided to give Nikon a try. Bought a ZF with the 40mm f2. I'm enjoying the camera but I'm not sure about the lens. The only primes in the 28mm and 35mm around 1.8 and 2.0 that I would consider have really nice character are voigtlander and viltrox. I think I'm going to give the viltrox 28mm a try since it's been praised highly and see what I think.

The 24mm 1.7?

I have quite a few of these lenses and my favorite for "special sauce", aka "erotica", is my 70-200 f2.8, followed by the 105mm macro. Now you've got me wanting to try out the 85 1.2!

This video was borderline juicy/erotic! Great job, and I agree with the levels of everything both you and me have shot with, except for the 85mm f/1.8. To me, it very much has a "look," but I have to be far away from a single subject to achieve it. The isolation is superb, bokeh amazing, and the colors are almost as rich as the 50mm 1.2. Yes, the 1.2! The 105mm macro is every bit the phenom you described. I'll put it on to shoot wedding rings, and an hour later, it's still on my camera, shooting tens of keeper shots during wedding prep. It's very light for its size, too. Keep doing what you do, Zack! I enjoy your commentary.

I agree on 40mm F2 , 24-70F4 lenses, cause I have them. Especially 40mm F2, it is somewhat unique lens in Z lineup, the bokeh and rendition it has is staggering for the price of 250$. I have Z 180-600 lens for my wildlife photography, it is a crazy good value for such build quality and optics. With a few exceptions , Z glasses are always way better than F mount lenses. I plan on buying 1 more Z lens , probably it will be either 14-30 F4 or 20mm 1.8.

Cool video, but you need to use the Plena a little more and then you'll slide it up to Erotica.

Ertotica?...you mean erotica?

So Nikon launched a 28-400mm f/4-8. I wonder where this lens will end in your diagram if you ever gonna test it.

That's interesting .. I thought that Plena must be one of the exotic lenses, along with the Noct. I shoot Canon, but I've seen the pictures these Nikon lenses produce :)

I mostly agree with you Zwade, except for I would reverse your 50mm f1.8 and 80mm f1.8 rankings. I always find myself reaching for my 40mm f2.0 over my 35mm f1.8. I'm awaiting your further experience with the Plena.

I own 10 lenses and 8 of them are z mount. 85 1.8s in IMHO juicy. Colors are great and images just pop. This is the favorite in my stable.

Regarding the 24-200mm I think you had a bad copy or something. This lens has some sample variation apparently. My copy I would rate Z standard for sure. Agree on the 28 and 40mm.

I hate that I agree about the 70-200. I had a sigma 70-200 for F mount and every picture I took with it looked and felt like art. I don’t get that with the z 70-200. Great lens. But that opened my eyes to lens character more than anything.

I bet Nikon has a boardroom meeting right now where they watching this video😅

If would be nice if they all had a label so we don't have to remember what the good ones were, otherwise good video.

the 26mm f2.8 is so underrated. its out of this world for that price. the color is fantastic. it touches erotica, if you consider its "only" 450 euro.

Your 14-24 ranking is sus, for that range it belongs in the juicy category all things being equal.

I want the environment to have the character not the lens. I want the lens to be neutral. In other words, if you need a lens to add character to your picture, what are you doing wrong........................................

I am a little underwhelmed at this ranking you've given, but I'm not a Nikon shooter but a Pentax shooter only because I was looking at your Zeiss reviews in the past. I did once own an entry level Nikon apsc camera and 60mm 2.8 micro and it was the worst camera I've ever owned, and the lens was completely let down by the body. I went to a Sony SLT after that which was 1000 times better than my Nikon gear, and then later I put aside my bias and misplaced hatred for Pentax and ended up getting a Pentax camera, and went all in on Pentax lenses and cameras. Pentax even better than Sony. In Pentax land we got small apsc "DA limited lenses" and "FA limited lenses" that have a leica or Zeiss quality and maybe even bettering those two and Voightlander. Then there is the standard types of lenses like DFA 1.4 lenses and the usual Tamron trinity zooms that are alright. So when I look at mirrorless, and I had bought into Fuji and even had a 56mm 1.2 and was just not impressed with Fuji's poor image quality and build quality, I dumped the brand. I fell for the Fujifilm hype and it is definitely a bad brand in my opinion. So now when I see these rankings and compare them to Sony and the Zeiss offerings, I think Sony is still the better system. Everyone raves about their FE Zeiss lenses, and Sony is making a huge mistake dumping Zeiss and replacing them with G-master lenses. Sony is making those fat primes which are flat as you'd put it, and underwhelming. I'm not seeing a nice series of pancake lenses like Pentax and Leica does in this Nikon Z mount, except for that 26mm which you like. Others have spoken highly of the 40mm lens and it appears pretty good. There's basically no poor mans options except for the 26mm and 40mm and then you'd have to acquire some voightlanders to have pocketable primes with decent IQ. The 1.2 primes from Nikon and Sony are now encroaching on this apereture size that Canon exclusively made, and now everybody is making the 1.2's. Canon, Nikon and Sony are all basically making the exact same systems, except Sony has native Zeiss lenses which are the real deal. Fujifilm is sort of making an interesting lens selection with its f/1.4 primes and f/2.0 primes, but apsc is s**t and theres no full frame path in fujifilm. Plus fuji went and made half their lens selection obsolete when they went to 40mp sensors. Everyone is doing the exact same thing with lenses that are sharp corner to corner and edge to edge with the exact same bokeh and exact same rendition. Mirrorless to me is boring, except with Sony and Zeiss lenses which I can't justify switching to. Nikon is more geared to the telephoto shooter with $10,000 bucks + to spend on a single lens and thousands more on a body. Thats really good for the tele shooter, but not so interesting for the street shooter or portrait shooter using compact primes. 1.2 is nice but they weigh 2 kilos a pop.

Ertotica isn't as sexy as erotica...

What F------ watched this whole video and it was really good until you left out the Z100-400 what gives

Nikon has a long history of producing 24-50 that sucks.