Z 24-70mm F4 vs Z 24-70mm F2.8
Visit my Nikonians gallery.
-
#1. "RE: Z 24-70mm F4 vs Z 24-70mm F2.8" | In response to Reply # 0
nkcllewis Charter MemberThu 28-Mar-19 03:10 PMI do not envy your predicament. F/2.8 vs f/4 (assume build quality and weather sealing are comparable)
Pros
1) faster glass. This used to mean better optics with more light getting to the sensor but the incredible optics of the 24-70 S may have made that a moot point.
2) More depth of field. Nicer bokeh and background blur over the f/4, well this is a viable argument for some.
Cons:
1) Much heavier.
2) Much bigger.
3) Much more expensive if you get the 24-70 f/4 with the Z ($600) versus $2000+?
Kent in VAKent in VA
Instagram: @kent_lewis_perezcano
"A poor worker always blames his tools" Anonymous
Visit my Nikonians gallery.
-
#11. "RE: Z 24-70mm F4 vs Z 24-70mm F2.8" | In response to Reply # 1
Rohinton_Mehta Registered since 16th Feb 2002Thu 04-Apr-19 02:00 AMHello Kent,
I am a bit confused about the DoF issue in your post.
2) More depth of field. Nicer bokeh and background blur over the f/4, well this is a viable argument for some.
Shouldn't that be 'less' DoF? At f/2.8, the DoF should be less, not more.
Am I missing something?Rohinton
-
#2. "RE: Z 24-70mm F4 vs Z 24-70mm F2.8" | In response to Reply # 0
Visit my Nikonians gallery.
-
#3. "RE: Z 24-70mm F4 vs Z 24-70mm F2.8" | In response to Reply # 2
adcam Nikonian since 31st Dec 2007Thu 28-Mar-19 04:04 PMI decided to wait for 2.8 version as well. My only 2 Z lens' now are the 35/1.8 and 50/1.8. I've been using my 24-120/4 to tie me over for now.Visit my Nikonians gallery.
#4. "RE: Z 24-70mm F4 vs Z 24-70mm F2.8" | In response to Reply # 0
I purchased my Z7 with the Z 24-70mm f/4 lens and I feel it is sharper than my AF-S 24-70mm f/2.8G lens. Regardless I have ordered the 2.8 lens just because I do lots of late night photography.
Visit my Nikonians gallery.
#5. "RE: Z 24-70mm F4 vs Z 24-70mm F2.8" | In response to Reply # 0
Visit my Nikonians gallery.
#6. "RE: Z 24-70mm F4 vs Z 24-70mm F2.8" | In response to Reply # 0
#7. "RE: Z 24-70mm F4 vs Z 24-70mm F2.8" | In response to Reply # 0
Like you, I am very curious to see the results against the F4 version since that one has been so well received.
Visit my Nikonians gallery.
#8. "RE: Z 24-70mm F4 vs Z 24-70mm F2.8" | In response to Reply # 0
Now the Nikkor Z 24-70 f/2.8 S (28 oz) for $2300 vs the Tamron G2 at $999 (32oz) for about 5% of my really low light shooting requirements is a no brainer. An extra $1300 for 4 oz! So 95% of the time I will carry a 15 oz lens and 5% of the time a 32oz lens as apposed to carrying a 28 oz lens 100% of the time.
Yes, I will still have to bare up under the weight of carrying around that $1300 of savings. And yes the Tamron G2 performs just as well on the Z7 with adapter (4.8 oz) as does the Z f/4 lens.
Visit my Nikonians gallery.
-
#9. "RE: Z 24-70mm F4 vs Z 24-70mm F2.8" | In response to Reply # 8
ericbowles Nikonian since 25th Nov 2005Sun 31-Mar-19 10:06 AMIt really depends on the design of the f/2.8 Z lens.
The MTF of the Nikon 24-70 S f/4 is terrific on the wide end, but drops off moderately to sharply at the long end. As you move from the center toward the edge of the frame, there is almost no dropoff in sharpness all the way to frame edge at 24mm. At the long end, there is a definite drop off. But those measurements are at f/4 - so it's an indicator but not conclusive.
The Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 is excellent toward the center both wide and long, but it deteriorates as you move from the center - especially so at 70mm.
For portraits and other center oriented subjects, that does not matter at all since you want the center sharp and soft edges don't matter. But for landscapes or groups of people, the edges are important and the edge goes to the Nikon.
I expect the f/2.8 Z lens to be remarkably sharp at the wide end across the frame - and if so it tops anything available. Toward the long end, we don't know since none of the lenses are that sharp at 70mm when you look at the edges.
I have the f/4 version and find it's better than my Nikon 24-70 f/2.8 across the frame. For my landscape uses, there is no comparison. For most of my event work and portraits, they are both very good and the difference does not matter.
I'm considering the f/2.8 version of the 24-70 Z. I'm still on the fence because the D850 is still my primary camera.Eric Bowles
Director - Nikonians Academy
Nikonians Team Moderator
My Gallery
Workshops and Private Instruction
Nikonians membership — my most important photographic investment, after the camera-
#10. "RE: Z 24-70mm F4 vs Z 24-70mm F2.8" | In response to Reply # 9
lcador Nikonian since 03rd Oct 2015Sun 31-Mar-19 01:38 PMWhat is interesting to me is comparing the MTFs (sharpness) for the Z f4 and Z/2.8 it is difficult to choose a clear winner. The 2.8 is outstanding at 24mm at the center and barely bests the f/4 accept at the edges where it counts for landscapers. At 70mm, there is little to choose between the two across the frame but with a slight advantage to the F/4. At about a quarter of the price, if purchased with your Z camera, then the f/2.8 with less weight and size, I would expect far fewer exclusive landscapers to choose the higher priced alternative.
Now, this prediction depends upon real world results when both lenses are shooting at narrower apertures
(f/5.6 - f/10) and where the extra stop of light may benefit impatient shooters not willing to endure longer exposure times. For other low light shooters (weddings and the like) the f/2.8 on a z-body is a no brainer.Visit my Nikonians gallery.
-
#12. "RE: Z 24-70mm F4 vs Z 24-70mm F2.8" | In response to Reply # 10
rosewood_ltd Nikonian since 10th Sep 2008Thu 04-Apr-19 05:17 AMUsual disclaimers, YMMV, etc. I have the Z7 and the 24-70 kit lens. I have found that for low light situations, I am not at all missing the extras stop of my f2.8 24-70/D810 combo. The IBIS system of the Z7 is just about miraculous when it comes to slow shutter speeds. It easily makes up for the loss of one stop of light gathering.
When taking into account the weight of the D810/f2.8 combo, I think I have actually effectively lengthened the shutter speed that I can shoot hand held even further. With my old system, care and attention to bracing, wind, etc made 1/30th achievable on a moderately consistent basis. Best case scenario when braced was maybe 1/15th, with maybe 1/3 of images acceptably sharp.
With the Z7 and kit lens, I have shot fairly consistently at 1/15th and under ideal conditions of bracing, etc, as low as 1/6th. For me, on the whole it has been a net gain.
Speaking as a landscape photographer, I am very well satisfied with the IQ of the kit lens and ecstatic about the decrease in the weight of my rig.
I think for some, the issue will boil down to any perceived differences in subject isolation as it relates to DOF "shallowness" and the appearance of bokeh, an even more subjective judgement. If those considerations are of paramount importance in your shooting style, then I think you have to do a head-to-head comparison, because as I see it, the kit lens is not a compromise - it's an excellent piece of high performance glass in its own right.Russ
“The camera is an instrument that teaches people how to see without a camera.”
— Dorothea Lange
My Nikonians Gallery:
https://images.nikonians.org/galleries/showgallery.php/cat/500/ppuser/191414-
#13. "RE: Z 24-70mm F4 vs Z 24-70mm F2.8" | In response to Reply # 12
lcador Nikonian since 03rd Oct 2015Fri 05-Apr-19 04:53 AM | edited Fri 05-Apr-19 04:54 AM by lcadorWell said.
It occurs to me that if I am all that interested in great subject separation as a reason for not going with the f/4, I would certainly opt for a Z 1.8 at 24 or 14 mm prime which will cost a fraction of the 2.8 zoom and deliver far less DOF at far less size and weight and is much better suited for low and no light shooting. I frankly don't understand how one can herniate over the slight difference in performance between the f/4 and f/2.8 and the willingness to pay a huge premium and at the same time be unwilling to pay far less for a prime which will deliver far better performance in the exact areas they desire. They must really have sore feet.Visit my Nikonians gallery.
-
-
-
#17. "RE: Z 24-70mm F4 vs Z 24-70mm F2.8" | In response to Reply # 9
Attachment#1 (jpg file)
Attachment#2 (jpg file)
Attachment#3 (jpg file)
Attachment#4 (jpg file)
Attachment#5 (jpg file)
Attachment#6 (jpg file)
Attachment#7 (jpg file)
Attachment#8 (jpg file)
Visit my Nikonians gallery.
-
#18. "RE: Z 24-70mm F4 vs Z 24-70mm F2.8" | In response to Reply # 17
ericbowles Nikonian since 25th Nov 2005Sun 16-Jun-19 05:38 AMEveryone has their own perspective on these lenses, but it takes Imatest data or similar data to see small differences in sharpness across the frame. The images you posted are excellent, but they are with the F-mount f/2.8 lens rather than the Z lenses in the original post.
The F-mount Nikon lens is not as sharp in the corners as the new Z mount lenses (and tht's one of the big reasons for the Z-mount). For the kind of photos you posted, the corners don't matter, and the center sharpness, great AF performance, and handling make it a great choice. I've got the 24-70 f/2.8 F-mount lens, and it's excellent for most uses. But for landscapes and other situations where corner shaprness matters, it's not the best choice. In my stiched panoramas, I can see the imapact of corner softness so having an alternative is nice.
By the way - all these lenses are FX lenses. It's the mount that is different. But it I had a choice of the 24-70 f/4 S or the FTZ with 24-70 f/2.8 F-mount, the f/4 is better for corner sharpness where that matters. The f/2.8 Z mount is even better, but has a heavier build and is more like the build of the F-mount f/2.8 but with the corner sharpness of the Z.Eric Bowles
Director - Nikonians Academy
Nikonians Team Moderator
My Gallery
Workshops and Private Instruction
Nikonians membership — my most important photographic investment, after the camera
#15. "RE: Z 24-70mm F4 vs Z 24-70mm F2.8" | In response to Reply # 0
The other big difference with a faster lens is reduced noise. Having an extra stop can mean you use lower ISO and have less noise. For lower light conditions, this can make a difference - especially when you are trying to prevent subject blur such as with concerts and club photography or with photo journalism.
Compared to other f/2.8 lenses, I expect the latest version will provide more sharpness across the frame - especially toward the edges. That is also true of the f/4 version. This makes a difference in panoramas and group portraits. You may get a little more center sharpness, but it's the midpoint and closer to frame edges that really is unique to the Z-mount. In this case, both f/2.8 and f/4 lenses deliver, and the f/2.8 is a little sharper but probably not enough to be the reason you'd buy the lens.
The other benefit of the 24-70 Z f/2.8 is you can use it at f/2.8. historically you needed to stop down all the Nikon f/2.8 zooms for acceptable sharpness. That meant even with F mount 24-70 E or the excellent options from Tamron and Sigma, using the lens at f/2.8 was not a very good idea because you lost so much sharpness - especially outside the center of the frame. With the Z lenses, you can readily use them wide open or near wide open and have less need to stop down. That's also true for the f/4 model but to a lesser extent. And only the f/2.8 is really a good option for night photography landscapes so others would need a fast prime or wider fast lens (f/4 at 24mm is borderline, and by 40mm requires an unacceptable ISO).
I don't think there is any need to wait to see differences with more production field samples. If you need f/2.8, this is by a good margin the best available.
Eric Bowles
Director - Nikonians Academy
Nikonians Team Moderator
My Gallery
Workshops and Private Instruction
Nikonians membership — my most important photographic investment, after the camera
-
#16. "RE: Z 24-70mm F4 vs Z 24-70mm F2.8" | In response to Reply # 15
chip_3 Nikonian since 20th Jul 2006Sat 15-Jun-19 06:02 PM | edited Mon 17-Jun-19 05:38 AM by chip_3I have been using the new Nikkor 24-70 2.8 s for a month now and I am very impressed with the performance, focusing, detail and clarity I achieve with this new S type lens attached to the Nikon Z7, the handling is superb and focusing much quicker then using my FX equivalent with the Adaptor attached. the cut out facial image was taken at 70mm and f2.8 this is a minute part of the image but as you can see why I am very impressed with this lens taken on a windy day under rainy clouds at the local park shutter speed was only 60th of a second so ibis is also doing a wonderful job. https://www.nikonians.org/forums/user_files/411619.jpg:star: :star: :star: :star: Why would I not purchase the new 24-70 f4 s type lens, the 3 main reasons are it is made in Taiwan, has a lock at the outset when zooming ...a real pain, and thirdly no information from the lens as to the focal length and depth of field also I am a old camera user the information on the lens readout is so simple to change and I changed the meters distance readout to feet. Also for more information about the lens the L/fn LENS FUNCTION BUTTON can be programmed to 21 different uses of fast reliable information. I have been a member of Nikonians since early 2006 and because I am usually out with a Camera or 2 daily I very rarely post on the net or on this forum as you can see I have only posted 32 times in that time, not like some sit home photographers all day long, and talking about what they haven't got with great experience. the heading for this link of messages states Z 24-70mm F4 vs Z 24-70mm F2.8 but should read Z 24-70 F4 S OR Z 24-70 2.8 S , who in their rignt mind would purchase both.???
Attachment#1 (jpg file)
Attachment#2 (jpg file)
Visit my Nikonians gallery.
#19. "RE: Z 24-70mm F4 vs Z 24-70mm F2.8" | In response to Reply # 0
I shoot in a lot of low light scenarios (arenas, gymnasiums) and I have been totally amazed at the capability of my Z6 teamed with a Tamron f2.8 24-70 at high ISO.
That being said, I have been impressed with the f4 S lens results when compared to the f2.8 S. (I have also watched the Ricci video). However, I do like to minimize the amount of noise I have to deal with especially when cropping.
For me it sounds as if the 2.8 might be the best solution. But I was hoping some others might share additional experiences. Anyone?
Visit my Nikonians gallery.
#20. "RE: Z 24-70mm F4 vs Z 24-70mm F2.8" | In response to Reply # 0
Visit my Nikonians gallery.
-
#21. "RE: Z 24-70mm F4 vs Z 24-70mm F2.8" | In response to Reply # 20
ericbowles Nikonian since 25th Nov 2005Mon 07-Oct-19 02:34 PMI don't think it's an unusual move to own both lenses. They have very different roles.
The f/2.8 version is for optimal sharpness, low light, faster aperture, shallow DOF, etc. It will be the staple for professional work with portraits, weddings, landscapes, red carpet and similar events, etc. I might choose this lens for the Z7 and future high resolution cameras. I'd also choose this lens for situations where build and weather sealing are important.
The f/4 version would be the choice for travel, street, family and casual photography. This is probably the best all purpose lens and image quality is very solid compared to any prior version.
Both are better than F-mount alternatives. If you want sharper or faster, you would probably choose a prime. As far as zooms are concerned, both lenses are excellent to outstanding.Eric Bowles
Director - Nikonians Academy
Nikonians Team Moderator
My Gallery
Workshops and Private Instruction
Nikonians membership — my most important photographic investment, after the camera-
#22. "RE: Z 24-70mm F4 vs Z 24-70mm F2.8" | In response to Reply # 21
rickcornell Nikonian since 01st Mar 2017Mon 07-Oct-19 03:39 PMThank you for the information. I have managed to get close access to athletes in several different sports. Ex: basketball, volleyball, gymnastics. I currently use a Tamron f2.8 G2 version and really like the features an f2.8 brings. I use it with the FTZ on my Z6, but decided I wanted to go with an "S" version to help get the most out of the lens-camera combination.
As I have been pondering the options and looking at online reviews and images, I am finding myself leaning towards the 2.8. I have an older version of the Sigma f2.8 120-300 I may be able to trade in to get the price below $2000. But with it being old, who knows!Visit my Nikonians gallery.
-
#23. "RE: Z 24-70mm F4 vs Z 24-70mm F2.8" | In response to Reply # 21
chip_3 Nikonian since 20th Jul 2006Tue 08-Oct-19 04:27 AM | edited Tue 08-Oct-19 04:51 AM by chip_3https://www.nikonians.org/forum/topic/301-14801-14801/an-old-exotic-ultra-micro-nikkor-29-5mm-f1-2-lens
If you want to talk about detail, clarity, image contrast and the life like performance of a lens or its texture rendering capabilities in high detail. then read about an old exotic Nikkor from days gone by. but no mention of sharpness, I don't understand the correct meaning of sharpness and what is the character of such a statement, for instance how many lines per mm does some of the new lenses have and are capable off and what is the difference in real terms between 2 different lenses that people compare with no specific image proof and only hearsay, give me some images of proof.so as to compare.? Anyway what does it do to enhance a image that is likened because of its format, character and visual appearance, many photographers like me do not care about that silly word as it has nothing to do with experienced photography.Visit my Nikonians gallery.
-
G