I've been looking to get a fast telephoto (Nikon) without breaking the bank and as everyone slowly moves to the new mirrorless platforms the prices for DSLR lenses are 30% of their original

I would assume there wouldn't be too much of a deterioration in optical quality from the use of an FTZ adapter as it's really just a spacer to match the original DSLR focus plane

I would also likely have a teleconverter for more reach as needed in front of the FTZ which I think shouldn't pose any more drawbacks than with the original DSLR

my main question is if there's any major advantages to getting a native mirrorless knowing it's going to cost 3x more and lose half it's value as soon as it's bought

there's currently a local seller listing the 300mm f/2.8G VR II for $2,000 USD (currently $5,500 USD new) which could probably be knocked down a bit further

>>4434341 (OP)
What do you currently take picture of that a 300 f2.8 will improve?

>>4434341 (OP)
Cheap entry level mirrorless lenses these days have optical quality that rivals pro tier DSLR lenses.
But realistically you're not going to notice -- most of the optical deficiencies are in the corners or when you're pixel peeping 40+ MP images.
A second consideration is that DSLR lenses used worse AF systems -- noisier, slower, less accurate.
But realistically you're not going to notice unless you're doing video.
The main drawback will be more size and weight.

>>4434367
I get what you're saying in terms of optics, but there aren't really that many options for the Z mount right now

there's no 300mm prime
Nikkor Z 400mm f/2.8 is fuckin $15,000
Nikkor Z 400mm f/4.5 would obviously be the budget version at $3,300
Nikkor Z 600mm f/6.3 is $5,400 but already slower than the 300mm f/2.8 with a 2x teleconverter

or do you suggest just fuck the aperture right off and get something like
Nikkor Z 180-600mm f/5.6-6.3 for pure versatility if the optical quality is that good with mirrorless

>>4434364
animals, birds, anything at a distance further than my current max 200mm can reach without cropping the fuck out of it

obviously the 2.8 speed will have great performance for capturing moving things, or things in the dark while also giving decent performance with a teleconverter as well

>>4434370
> But realistically you're not going to notice
I don't recommend the Z lenses unless you got the money to blow or you're actually pro.

>>4434370
A 180-600 is a lot more practical and definitely a better option for birds
300 f2.8 if you are doing evening sports maybe

>>4434372
so we're back to the F mount then?

FF birding and outdoor sports is exclusively for professionals mostly because bird pics are boring shit and not that different from plugging the species name into google and sports photography requires that you be connected enough to pretend watching the game from the sidelines is a job

>>4434406
Most of the best bird photo people I've met just do lots of general wildlife
The people that only ever focus on birds tend to be some of the weirdest people I've met

>>4434367
>Cheap entry level mirrorless lenses these days have optical quality that rivals pro tier DSLR lenses.
Nope

I'm in the same boat, but with Canon. Seems like Nikon is kinda like Canon in that regard when it comes to protecting their lens sales.
Would have loved to pick up the Sigma 500 5.6.

>>4434341 (OP)
Fast + Telephoto + Nikon’s got a new system + without breaking the bank
=
Total Thermonuclear Destruction

Be very careful anon. FTZ adapterinos offer AF, but limited to non-D lenses, to ensure everyone buys the new Z lenses. And there’s some fucking problem with G lenses not working on classsic film bodies bc they’re missing their aperture ring & just shoot wide open 100% of the time. So instead of being able to use a nice F mount telephoto on both your classsic Nikon 35mm camera and your new Z FF body, forget it, the dollar-worshipping sleazebag American Businessmen who invested in Nikon that killed its camera manufacturing division also carefully made that impossible. I would totally say fuck New Nikon, but there is no way around it, their design & engineering is first rate, their lenses are fucking tits and their bodies are the nicest to shoot with out of everyones right now. RIP Nikon, Long Live Nikon, I guess. fml, what a bastard

>>4434370
% I had the 180-600 for 3 days before I had to gibs it back to my local friendly jewfish overlords. …or Italian, I forget which. Regardless: that lens is very, very, verrrry fine. It is also huge, but 100% worth lugging it around. Unfortunately it rained all three days, so I only kept a pair of shots from it, this cardinal, shot through a rain-streaked plate glass window, through a fence, across a whole yard. That lens is a motherfucker, and l look forward to buying one just as soon as I suck 3500 dix to raise the monies.

>>4434654
1920x1080 subject crop (not resized at 100%)
Straight out of the camera, no adjusts.

>>4434682
Full Image (resized to 1920x1080)

>>4434682
Huh. Look at that, I swing & a miss on the focus on that shot.
Here are a couple others.

>>4434685
Both cropped not resized, no edits.
Though this Junkle wouldn't hold still so is still blurry in parts. spazzy little mofos.

>>4434341 (OP)
Only do that if you’re going for used market

If you buy new anyway might as well get native dlsm lenses

>>4434371
You want at least 400mm and fast aperture is not the most concern especially on mirrorless. Get a 150-500, 150-600, 200-500 or something like that, 80-400 IS II and along those lines.

>>4434546
The 40mm F2 is smaller and sharper, better contrast, and faster autofocus than almost of F mount 35mm equivalents. The only downside is the that it has a much worse build quality but you can also get it for like 100$ used so who cares.

Different Anon's thoughts here;
-Absolutely worth getting older lenses, old glass still has value IMO.

-Personally I buy most of my lenses second hand and when on sale from retailers that also offer repair warranties.

-Both zooms and primes are fine don't need to worry about nitpicking image quality, noone outside of photographers care about image specs, same with using tele-converters though I usually go for longer reach lenses in preference to using TCs.

My TL;DR unnecessary observation is that there's always a counter-culture resistance to tech advancements, and when it comes to optics people find that older lenses tend to have more character in colour rendering that means there's still a place for vintage optics be it from 3y ago or 30.

Sharpness has it's use cases but desu people have been taking powerful, incredible photos as long as photography has been around without AF or IBIS or any other modern comforts.

I'm someone that shoots on various different systems, and going in a direction with my photography where I'm moving away from the over-sharpened clinical modern class to older vintage lenses, which I'm being drawn to more for their character and can deal with the softness.

They're often also super affordable and some can be super fun and tactile to use, but if you're looking at $2k USD probably less relevant 4 u.

I wouldn't necessarily recommend going the crazy route I did by getting a vintage Pentax Tak 500mm f4/5 thats MF only with 4 elements that weigh more than most modern tele zooms + a body, but for <200 bucks how could I not.

Absolutely stupid having it attached to either my apsc mlc Fuj or my Canon/Nik slrs when the lens already uses adaptors for m42, but if you handle things with care go hog wild.

>>4434341 (OP)
Long focal length lenses have not been improved by a shorter flange distance.

>>4434367
>less accurate
If they're ultrasonic, the lens drive isn't going to be any less accurate than a native mirrorless optic.
The off-image plane AF array of DSLRs is what lead to inaccuracies.

>>4439565
But they have been improved by everything else getting better

Old nikon lenses focus slow as balls and are all soft. Even canon EF lenses focus slow and they're way faster than nikon. Sony mirrorless has been a game changer.

>>4439568
>motors never improve
>precision manufacturing doesnt improve
old lenses are soft and focus slow sorry

>>4439610
>>4439612
How old are you talking about?
None of the F mount lenses in OP's screenshot are slow or soft.

>>4434341 (OP)
For big tele lenses, yes, just get a DSLR lens at 1/3rd the price. Mirrorless versions arent even smaller and overpriced.

>>4434841
>this one cherry picked example that I'm talking out my ass about though
baka