Australia's South West Coast

[Les Olson]

The South West is a place apart, shaped by sandy soil, low summer rainfall, and a coast that is a sailor's nightmare - the long deep swells and frequent storms of the Southern Ocean, numerous reefs, no natural harbours, and plenty of seals to keep the Great White population healthy. Except for the sharks, a surfer's dream, especially in summer when a prevailing easterly wind smooths the face of the swell. These are on the Margaret River beach, with the famous point break on the right in the first one (Z50II with 16-50/2.8 at 16mm).

North of Perth there is less rain and the dominant trees are grass trees (Xanthorrhoea sp), which can be 6 m tall including the flower spike and form vast "forests". Also in this area there is a remarkable landscape called The Pinnacles - fields of limestone columns up to 4 m tall standing in bare sandy soil. They look like a petrified forest, but the mechanism of formation of the columns is controversial.

[Fons Baerken]

Without natural phenomena, like these, there'd be no photography.

[Les Olson]

There is a difference between an interesting photograph and a photograph of something interesting, but I agree that one of the reasons photography is interesting is the inexhaustible specialness of the world.

[Akira]

The landscape captured in the last one looks very peculiar.  Thank you for sharing!

How do you like the Z 16-50/2.8 zoom?

[Birna Rørslett]

Very interesting landscape features, for sure.

Isn't the 16-50/2.8 on the big and heavy side for a Z50-type camera?

[Akira]

Very interesting landscape features, for sure.

Isn't the 16-50/2.8 on the big and heavy side for a Z50-type camera?

It is much larger than the 16-50/3.5-6.3 kit zoom, but 330g of 16-50/2.8 is not all that heavy methinks.  I'm also using Z30 + 35/1.8S combo (which makes almost the same weight and size) and it's light and compact enough.  I'm looking at the f2.8 zoom as more versatile all-rounder than f3.5-6.3 one.

[Les Olson]

Isn't the 16-50/2.8 on the big and heavy side for a Z50-type camera?

Yes ... but. On the Z50II it is manageable, but using it all day I found the balance sub-optimal and I can see that might be problematic on a Zfc. However, the handling would not deter me from using the lens.

The 16-50/2.8 is a very nice lens optically - clearly better than the F mount 16-80. If an optically superior, large aperture mid-range zoom for DX is what is wanted, the 16-50/2.8 is it. For me, 16mm is not wide enough and I don't use the 35-50mm range a lot, so for travel and walk-around the 12-28 is a better fit, despite the smaller apertures.

[Nasos Kosmas]

Nice environmental captures Les, the final two very different from what I’m used to and yes this is another continent
Having a Z50ii as my only camera I do see 16-50 2.8 as a good choice but 12-28 you mentioned is under consideration even when I had my Z8: a lightweight affordable super wide lens
On the other hand the 16-50 kit lens is not bad,  had it in the past and very satisfied as my only dx lens
Regards

[Birna Rørslett]

The 12-28 Nikkor is optically speaking good, and certainly lightweight and very wide. However, the ultra-wide view is not really existing as the lens has high levels of barrel distortion at the widest end. Nikon software (or shooting jpgs) will not show this issue as corrections have been made, but alternate avenues to getting the final images certainly will, unless good lens profiles exist. Even in the latter case, some of the wide magic is lost due to corrections done (behind the curtains as it were).

The Viltrox 13mm f/1.4 is way faster, effectively wider, and very robustly built. Optics are excellent. It is also much heavier than the 12-28 Nikkor.

[Akira]

The 16-50/3.5-6.3 kit lens is decent and handy, so long as I use Z30 and kit lens combo as an alternative of compact digital.  On the other hand, I found its retractable construction quite irritating whenever I find something interesting to shoot while I'm strolling.

That's why I started to look at 16-80/2.8 zoom and even 18-140 one.  To me, the absense of the retractable constraction makes up for the increased weight and bulk.  Plus both candates are more versatile.

[Les Olson]

Having a Z50ii as my only camera I do see 16-50 2.8 as a good choice but 12-28 you mentioned is under consideration even when I had my Z8: a lightweight affordable super wide lens
On the other hand the 16-50 kit lens is not bad,  had it in the past and very satisfied as my only dx lens
Regards

I agree that the 16-50/3.5-6.3 is good enough that the 16-50/2.8 is only an obvious choice if you need the superior optical performance or capacity for subject isolation. That is more likely if, like me, you are DX only, but even then I need the 16-50/2.8 rather than the 16-50/3.5-6.3 only occasionally. The catch is that for those occasions it is hard to see a cost or weight competitive alternative to the 16-50/2.8.

The 12-28 is much better than its weight of 200g and cost of US$400 would suggest. As Birna points out, it has a lot of barrel distortion at 12mm (-15% radial, according to Bill Claff's Optical Bench site) so you lose some peripheral sharpness when that is corrected, but you have to spend a lot more money to do better (eg, at 14mm the 14-30/4 is about -7% at the DX boundary and the 14-24 is about -2%).

The 18-140 is inferior to the 16-50/3.5-6.3 in the overlapping range, so it is the longer focal lengths that make it attractive.