>>4223466Coming from the 1st gen 70-200 VR, the Z 70-200 is a big step up. Granted, I know I skipped over two superior F mounts versions of that lens, but still, to me it was a good upgrade. Maybe not so different if I'd had the FL version.
The 24-70 f/4 was the kit lens that came with my Z6, and it's a better lens than the old 24-70 f/2.8 AF-S I had (again, I didn't have the latest greatest 24-70 on F mount). The 2.8 version is otherworldly sharp and flawless. I've still yet to take the 2.8 out for much work, but I have similar expectations of it.
So if you had the best of the best F mount stuff, D850, I can see where you're coming from. Stabilization is definitely part of it too, as well as the superior focus system leading to more in focus shots. My D850 was famous for just slightly backfocusing on the subject, in a way that the microadjustments never seemed to take care of.
And there's just no comparative lens to the 14-30 on F mount, the 16-35 is way worse and bigger.
It's not something I'll ever likely own, but the 800mm prime is like $12,000 cheaper than the F mount version and weighs half as much. The 100-400 is reportedly super nice though I haven't tried it. The Z system has some really cool lenses that don't have exact duplicates on the F side of things. F mount glass' falling prices are really wonderful for photogs starting out today, you can build an absolutely amazing pro system for a pennies on the dollar compared to a few years ago, so it's a win for both systems' users, whether you're using a FTZ or a F body user.
