Hi Matt. Good video. I picked up a used (well, 'like new never opened') 50-250 recently for $300. New they are up to $639 since the May price rises. For $179 I got the FTZ earlier on. I convinced myself that these two items were funded by selling my 70-200 2.8 VR with focus issues for $500. I am SHOCKED with how good the quality of the 50-250mm is. It leaves the OG 70-200 for dead! and I'm not missing it one bit. The sheer weight saving makes me actually want to take it out with me. The other thing you didn't mention here is that the 50-250 is the advantageous 5x zoom range versus 3.1x of the 70-200. On cropped bodies the focal range between 50-70 makes it so much more usable, in my opinion. Not to mention that extra 20% tele. Surely for the difference in price there are serious optical compromises being made. I wonder if these compromises are all being mitigated by the Z mount itself; ie the shortened flange distance? It was be interesting to see what the Z 70-200 puts out of it its going to be an optically similar formula to the F FL ED? Interesting that there is no full frame Z lenses at all yet. Also nicely framed for your piece to camera. You set yourself up nicely with the intersecting line of the horizon and rolling hill. John, Gold Coast.

Hi Matt, Very interesting results. The new Z mount lenses seem to be getting better and better. Previous generation all-in-one or cheap telephoto zooms weren't all that impressive. And now high ISO and VR/IS makes things so much easier. However, the two big advantages of the fast aperture lenses are the subject isolation and the ability to use a faster shutter speed for the same other settings. This is critical for fast-moving action. you cannot photograph a fast-paced sporting even under floodlights and freeze the action at say 1/60 sec when 1/500 sec is needed. It doesn't matter if VR stops the camera shake - it can't freeze the action. But, in many other situations, it just doesn't matter. No doubt many people will be persuaded to get this new lens.

Matt, as I said a couple of weeks ago, 'it aint broke, don't fix it' and this is exactly what I meant; a well-presented video, plenty of good information but one that leaves us thinking, and possibly with an unanswered question or two. You're asking us to engage and (I believe) that's what we want from you. I wonder how many are now saying, 'at $200, I can afford to buy and even break three or four of them and still be in front of the $4000 version with not a lot, if any, drop-off in image quality.' It aint broke mate!!

Well it's oficial I used to watch for the photography but now I watch it for the good vibes! Thanks! You really make me want to go outside and shoot. Love from Portugal!

Wow interesting how 90% of people could really just get by using the cheaper stuff , as opposed to spending a fortune for little improved results, but also realising this isn't a real extensive test . Thanks Matt 🙂👍

The 70-200mm f2.8 is meant for professional uses that require the wider aperture, such as fast moving subjects, or shallow depth of field applications such as portrait photography. And like you pointed out Matt, that lens is built like a tank. Outside of those uses, a cheaper alternative can surely work for most people. I'm interested in the edge to edge sharpness though, even for landscape photography, since I often print very large prints.

Having had the Z50 with both kit lenses as my big step into photography, I’m more than satisfied for its capabilities and price point. Out here in the states, the lens is running up about 400 bucks while the new 70-200mm Z lens, yet to be released, will be approximately 2860 bucks taxes included. Is it supposed to be good in low light? Not at all really especially with the aperture going down to f/4.5 at the max. Is it going to outperform most of the Z lenses or F mount lenses that are more expensive? Probably not or at least fair okay against them. But for that price point, I’ve been able to get amazing reach and fantastic image quality of the animals I photograph when at the zoo. Even when in the San Diego Zoo Safari Park which is a massive place with expansive field exhibits, the images pulled from the lens are astounding. I wholeheartedly recommend anyone who has the Z50 or any other Z mount camera to pick it up as your travel kit lens at the bare minimum. The Z line up lenses have been pulling out some fantastic imagery compared to their f mount counterparts.

Excellent video and it just shows you do not nave to pay $3000 for a 70 - 200 f 2.8 to do landscape because you would have to use it a F 7.1 and above anyway. A good comparison would be in a covered Sports stadium or shaded bush area where the Nikon 50- 250 would be usable by comparison because of its compromise between low shutter speeds or hi ISOs when hand held. I have those lenses and the D750 and a Z50. I brought Z50 new for $1050 NZ with both kit lenses and as you pointed out the 50 - 250 in the right light is excellent . If you just want an excellent travel camera or just starting out in photography, $1000 Z50 kit or $7000 for a full frame set up it’s a no-brainer really.

Funny to see that a cheap Nikon lens for mirrorless is actually as good as an expensive Nikon lens for DSLR, it shows that the mirrorless lenses are generally in a different class than DSLR lenses, and that is another reason to switch from Nikon's DSLR system to Nikon's new mirrorless system! Cheers Jess

Thanks for the test, when I remember my 55-200mm f5.6 vrII on d5300/d7200 and the phenomenal resolution that setup provided, the Sigma Art 50mm f1.4 was slightly worse, a great lens on the old Dx!

Thanks Matt, I really appreciate the practical side of this. My new Z50 will be in my hands in a couple days!! This video shows me the purchase of this camera was a great choice. Keep up the great work, love the content you're producing in a positive energetic manner.

I picked up a good condition 70-200 f2.8E FL ED on eBay from a guy who lives ten minutes away in Melbourne for $1890. Have tested it out and more than happy. Lived up to the reviews, definitely!

I love how you colorgrade mid video, almost like a transition. Its a nice touch and different.

In this specific setup the 50-250mm performed well, but most cheap telephoto lenses would. It was middle of the day, a lot of light, you had a tripod and time to shoot a picture. How about do some low light photography with some action? Some wildlife photography in the forest?

Great surprise. Of course for portraiture still 70-200 is much better because of the f/2.8 bokeh, but for landscapes and cityscapes they perform almost identically...and the weight matters.

Nice birds! Well spotted Marc.

Thanks for taking us through this Matt. I'm now thinking the Z 50-250mm will get me started at least. I'm building up a kit after a 15 year break. Loving the Z6. I have the 24-70mm f4 kit lens and am contemplating investing in the Z 35mm 1.8 prime or maybe the Z 20mm 1.8 if I win Lotto (as I'm passionate about low light and night shots, timelapse and quite a lot of video). Thanks again, your episodes always inspire and get me thinking.

How if I am using the 50-250 on a FF body?And keep 24-70 f4 FF lens for the wider side. That would give me best of both worlds, right?

So great to see that formation of Cormorants 08:17!!!!!

Oh , time is change

Lovely production and information. Thanks Matt.

Another brilliant video as and shows up the new Z mount is the way forward

At one point I thought you were channelling Dennis Denuto - and I'd have to agree with you! Y

Excellent video. Thank you

Hi Matt can you please do a video of z24-200 on a zfc

Great video! Not the one that Nikon wants you to see. 🙂 I would like to see the same comparison but not on landscape photography, on portrait for example. Can you do that in one of your next videos?

You guys have a mean breeze blowing. I was in the Geelong area last December with a local buddy shooting a timelapse sunset from a lookout tower. Both our rigs on tripods came crashing on hard concrete😖😱. Cheers from 🇨🇦😊

Really informative Matt thanks. I moved to Sony a few years ago and really enjoyed the electronic viewfinder on my A7R3 but I am seeing really great, clean images from the Nikon F mount range. Temptation is to get a Z6 and a Tech-Art adapter and dip my toe back in the Nikon water. Their Nikon Pro support was always great but Sony seems really tricky to access, they keep telling me I'm not a Pro, maybe not in their eyes :-)

Love the orange jacket. Great video. It would be interesting to see still images.

great review and comparison!!!

the crop 50-250 looks like the new coming Z 24-200 FX the same cheap and nit S Lens, still the prices competition and weight i prefer the 24-200

come to England....warmest spring for ages LOL

Surprisingly similar, but if you shoot at f/4 why use a f/2.8 lens. Tests of inexpensive lenses compared to similar more expensive ones, seldom get very interesting if you don't test things where the less expensive lens falls behind. Do the same comparison on a portrait shoot and it would be much clearer why many people are prepared to pay the higher price.

How do you think the 50-250mm performed?

Great comparison! I am always surprised how good the z glass is. Btw there is a third option if someone needs fast aperture in a telephoto without selling a kidney, the old afd 70-200 f2.8 is a true workhorse with great image quality, and it is dirt cheap. Of course it won't autofocus on the z6/7 but worth the price I think.

I could buy 15 z mount lens to compensate for the weather seal

It's a shame that Nikon doesn't give us a lightweight full frame tele zoom lens for Z. Maybe a F4 or so. There will be a 24-200 but I don't expect the quality to be good on this lens. I want to buy a Z6 but I need a lightweight tele for hiking. Otherwise I have to go for Fuji. Z50 misses other Z DX lenses ... Will you also compare the kit lenses? (16-50 vs 24-70) I downloaded 16-50 raw samples some days ago and edited them and was completely shocked on how good the quality was. Didn't expect that.

Matt now that the Z 24-200 is available would you consider it over the APS-C 50-250 or if one already has the crop 50-250 lens just call it a day and move on? Curious. Or even the upcoming 24-120?

Well, to me this is more sensational than your usual content Matt. The $200 lens matching the $4000 lens it being "even slightly sharper"... Well... really? I wonder what is the bokeh in close to midrange focus situations? The F-mount DX 55-300 for instance had some really horrible bokeh (e.g. rabbit in high grass at 10-20m distance). How's the quality of the out of focus area in such situations?

I've ridden past that hill many times. I didn't realise what a good photo vantage point it is.

Matt - great channel - fantastic work. I've got my Z6 (in addition to probably too many cameras) - what can I say, addicted to photography for too many years! My best to you where you are. Chris From Canada.

Can you compare 50-250 vs 24-200 Z-mount lens?

Good luck getting the 50-250 for $200! More like $500 2nd hand on EBay. Perhaps supply and demand kicked in after this video aired?😊😊😊

Hi Matt, good to see you. I am wondering if you used the Z50 to take the shots you would have similar results?

Why didn't you use the Z7 since the DX on it is about the same as the Z50. My son is enjoying his new Z50 I got him for his birthday.

price is not all that matters, and in this technical marvel i don't understand why pay more exactly but i bet there are the few odd eggs out there, probably working for nasa or something like big company.

Thanks for the video Matt. I regretfully have to say, I told you the Z version of the 70-200 is nowhere in sight.

You seem to be confused about lenses and focal range - a 50-xxxx mm lens on a full frame (z7) is exactly starting at 50 mm, not an “equivalent of 75 mm” or anything other than 50 mm. There’s no such thing as a cropped lens, only lenses for cropped format, and cases (Nikon!) where the manufacturer forces the full frame camera to DX mode, even though it has nothing to do with putting a DX lens on it per-se... the camera switching to DX is a separate and Nikon specific decision to probably keep shooters from only buying DX lenses...

Buy the 50-250mm, rent the 70-200mm :)

Oooof Matt what focus mode did you have it on. Maybe the jacket was putting it off?

External Focus lenses suck dust (and water), and the bigger ones throw balance off on the tripod. The only thing worse than external focus is variable Aperture...

Are orange jackets and orange sneakers a big thing in Australia?

Lens hoods..! vital . 👏 👋

But what have Nikon embedded into the Z mount lens RAW files 🤔

Another well invested 20 minutes. On my part. I'm sure your time investment was much greater.

Is it possible to compare image quality for stills from both the lens?

That UV filter on your 70-200 should be removed in this kind of test.

Good video 👍🏻 but I have Sony 🎥 sorry, but very interesting 👌 best cinematic greetings from germany

Only differences I see is the Z is sharper and the 2.8 has more tonal range.

good lens for family gatherings and non professional work id say

too much stress on camera mount without using the tripod mount.

a 2.8 lens is meant to be shot at 2.8. that is what you are paying for.. you can't compare them both...

You've sold me on the 50/250...how about you sell it to me?...200 sounds good!

And seeing the 50/250 is better than the 70/200,you won't need it anymore.I suppose I could give you 199 for that one!$

70-200 is for portraits, not ...not landscape

UV filter on the 70-200, WTF?

try to do the videos much shorter..

Maybe next time you compare an apple with a banana? It would be at least funny - although both are useless

way too long video. keep it shorter. have images online to be downloaded. I will watch a few videos. if I smell that you started getting jubjective and biased to gear, youre out. there were a few I followed and over time they were biased, had sponsored gears and probably money under the table. they are out. lets see what you do. keep the video length shorter.