Would you get S-line 24-70 f4?

mdavidp said:

Get the 24-70mm. lens.

The older adaptable 24-70 can't be as good.

Remember it is all about IQ.

If I bought into this system I would only buy lenses designed for the Z.

I believe Nikon has designed a line of superlative lenses for this camera.

If these lenses are not superior in every way the Z line will fail big.

And I don't believe this will happen.

Mike P

Click to expand...

True faith is a wonderful thing.

It's not like all Nikon lenses have suddenly gone bad. I suspect the 70-200 still performs magnificently as will their E glass.

I hope that you are right that S line is superlative. And yes, a new mount is bound to fail if the glass doesn't outperform older glass, especially if you put a premium price on it.

But I think I'll wait until they get out into the hands of some independent (or at least allegedly independent) testers to see how well they perform.

Virtual Photon said:

True faith is a wonderful thing.

It's not like all Nikon lenses have suddenly gone bad. I suspect the 70-200 still performs magnificently as will their E glass.

I hope that you are right that S line is superlative. And yes, a new mount is bound to fail if the glass doesn't outperform older glass, especially if you put a premium price on it.

But I think I'll wait until they get out into the hands of some independent (or at least allegedly independent) testers to see how well they perform.

Click to expand...

Of course all F-mount lenses are not suddenly bad, but there are two questions in my mind:

1. For wide angles, we'll likely see better optical designs since we no longer need to clear the space previously for the mirror. Whether you want to completely believe a Nikon rep is up to you to decide, but the one at the Nikon Z launch event I attended pointed out that the 24-70mm/f4 S is far superior to the F-mount 24-70mm/f2.8.
2. Whether AF on AF-S lenses designed for phase-detect AF on DSLRs will perform as well as mirrorless Z bodies. That we'll find out soon when Nikon starts shipping the Z7 later on this month.

If I were getting a Z body now, I would definitely get the 24-70mm/f4 S lens as well, unless you would like to wait for the 24-70mm/f2.8 S next year. For wide angles, you really need new Z-mount lenses to take fully advantage of mirrorless.

morinor said:

Menel16 said:

Michael said:

Isn’t the pricing best when bought as a kit or at launch? I pondered the same question but decided to purchase it with the Z7 after reading how good many people thought the lens was.

If after using it I can’t find any advantage I know I can always sell it and will find a buyer fairly easy and get a good portion of my money back.

Click to expand...

I am with Mike on this. Not sure I will like the lens (more of a prime guy) but if not it can easily be resold for more or less the same value. I also figured that Nikon will sell the items with the highest value first... that’s why I getting the kit with adapter + lens.

Click to expand...

The issue is that most probably this lens will be bought as a kit lens. So as has happened with the 24-120mm f/4, it will not have so much demand. As a result it will lose greatly its value.

Click to expand...

Agree 100%. Plus, it will be a kit lens with an uncommon mount, unlike the 24-120. The only audience you will have is people who are just like you and passed on it at $600, so what will the give you.

I would still have a hard time passing on at least one native lens that was designed specifically for the body.

Sitti said:

I'm considering of changing my pre-order in thailand. I pre-ordered full set but now thinking not getting the lens. Only the body and adapter. Other than size and weight, can you think of any reason why I would want to use 24-70 f4 over my old non-VR 24-70 f2.8 with an adapter?

Click to expand...

I will get it, though 90% or more would be shot at 24-35mm. A 21-35 or something like that would be more preferable for me with a 50mm f1.8 and 70-200mm. That would be a complete system for me at least, along with my 50mm Sigma macro.

t.

Not quite apples to apples, but my Sony 24-104 F4 out performs my adapted Canon 24-104 F4 on my Sony A7RIII by a wide margin. The adapted Canon performs better on the A7 than the 5D II, so it is not like it is crippled, but the Sony is in another league altogether.

So, you might want to have a native lens, just to benchmark what the camera can do.

Robert

Robert
I may not be a professional photographer, but I like to take pictures.

You should, IT was in my time with the Z a very impressive lens and even the Nikons ros indicated that it is better than the 2.8 F version except for it being 4. It is also very compact and light. Easy to handle Z+soom with one hand.

shuncheung said:

Of course all F-mount lenses are not suddenly bad, but there are two questions in my mind:

1. For wide angles, we'll likely see better optical designs since we no longer need to clear the space previously for the mirror. Whether you want to completely believe a Nikon rep is up to you to decide, but the one at the Nikon Z launch event I attended pointed out that the 24-70mm/f4 S is far superior to the F-mount 24-70mm/f2.8.
2. Whether AF on AF-S lenses designed for phase-detect AF on DSLRs will perform as well as mirrorless Z bodies. That we'll find out soon when Nikon starts shipping the Z7 later on this month.

If I were getting a Z body now, I would definitely get the 24-70mm/f4 S lens as well, unless you would like to wait for the 24-70mm/f2.8 S next year. For wide angles, you really need new Z-mount lenses to take fully advantage of mirrorless.

Click to expand...

I honestly hope the new 24-70 is "far superior." I also honestly have no reason NOT to believe the rep except that, well, it is his job to sell the system. I just like to temper my enthusiasm with some real world experience.

I think the point about AF is valid. We'll see, but the general feedback from folks who have walked into demos with backpacks full of lenses seems to be pretty positive- and that 'seamless transition' is really critical point from a user (and marketing) perspective.

Could you imagine the howls if they had crippled the performance like they did the FT1 adapter? You would hope they got that one right.

And yes I would get the 24-70 f4 S as well if only for the compactness of the system.

Added the 24-70 to my Z6 with adapter order after a week or so after pondering on it - I want the Z6 as a walk around camera and to have native glass to get the best out it.

This is a decision I am struggling with as well. I have the Z6 on pre-oder with the FTZ bundle only, and I'm considering whether I should change my order to include the 24-70S. As a general purpose, walk-around lens, it might be great, but for my needs and the kind of shooting I like to do, I don't know that it's something that I absolutely need. While I do think it's being offered at a reasonable price as part of the bundle as opposed to its stand alone price, I'm left wondering if I can make do without it given a few of considerations for and against:

For:

1. Native mount and initial reports seem to be generally really positive.

2. Might be a great all-around lens for basic video work with silent autofocus, so it would be a pretty good hybrid option to go from stills to video without needing to change lenses.

Against:

1. I already have the 24-85 G VR lens from my D610. Yes, I know it's not the best performer in the world, but it's not bad for the kind of stuff that I would use that lens for anyway. As yet I don't see the 24-70s being worlds better for my particular needs.

2. I think I would rather save the $600 to put toward a couple of the other lenses that are scheduled to be released sometime next year. I think I'll be looking at the 24-70 2.8 (which when released, I expect some of the 24-70 F4 lenses to be put up for sale at a decent enough price where just in case the 2.8 version is too expensive for me, I can then look at if I need). I am also looking at the 14-30 F4 which might actually be the best option for my needs for both video and street photography stills. I expect that lens will cost a pretty penny, too, but I think I'd be happier to put that $600 toward a focal range that I do not currently have a working option for.

3. Lastly, if I absolutely need to get a native lens right away, for my general needs and interests that $600 would probably be better spent on the 50 1.8 lens. It's a focal length that I'm quite fond of, and it forces me to think about how I take certain pictures. Yes there will be times that I cannot take those steps back, but having that F 1.8 is something that appeals to me more than the zoom, especially for street and low-light.

Decisions, decisions and a weeping bank balance haha. I suppose the best thing for now, and one of the boons about the Z6 not being released until November 30 is that we have a little bit of time for real-world reviews to come out for the system and the lenses before the order locks in.

I'd also like to add, a big part of my decision also hinges on whether Tamron will or won't support their lenses via firmware updates for the FTZ adapter. Of course, I can still carry around my D610, and as of now I plan to have my Tamron 35 1.8 VC attached to that body while I have my Nikkor 85 1.8G adapted to the Z6, but at some point maybe carrying two bodies around all the time will just become a chore.

Robert127 said:

Not quite apples to apples, but my Sony 24-104 F4 out performs my adapted Canon 24-104 F4 on my Sony A7RIII by a wide margin. The adapted Canon performs better on the A7 than the 5D II, so it is not like it is crippled, but the Sony is in another league altogether.

So, you might want to have a native lens, just to benchmark what the camera can do.

Robert

Robert
I may not be a professional photographer, but I like to take pictures.

Click to expand...

We could be believe you if Canon and Sony had 24-104mm f/4! Unless you have some special ones just for you. :-D

Wow, out by 1 mm. 24-105.

But the point still stands. Obviously the Metabones adapter has to translate Sony's protocol to Canon's protocol, and quite likely not a 1:1 translation. Canon's R mount also seems to have a different protocol from the EF lenses, since the camera is said to 'revert' to EF protocol when the adapter is mounted (I can't find where I read that).

So, it is possible (probable, likely?) that the Nikon Z protocol will differ from the Nikon AF protocol.

Anyways, the first time I used a native lens on the Sony, it was a revelation. I was comparing it to the Canon 5DII, though, which had pitiful focus.

So, you are going to want one native lens at least as a benchmark. The 24-70 F4 looks like a good deal, so I would go for it, just like I should have purchased the 24-105 with the Sony A7RIII in the first place.

Robert

Robert127 said:

Wow, out by 1 mm. 24-105.

But the point still stands. Obviously the Metabones adapter has to translate Sony's protocol to Canon's protocol, and quite likely not a 1:1 translation. Canon's R mount also seems to have a different protocol from the EF lenses, since the camera is said to 'revert' to EF protocol when the adapter is mounted (I can't find where I read that).

So, it is possible (probable, likely?) that the Nikon Z protocol will differ from the Nikon AF protocol.

Anyways, the first time I used a native lens on the Sony, it was a revelation. I was comparing it to the Canon 5DII, though, which had pitiful focus.

So, you are going to want one native lens at least as a benchmark. The 24-70 F4 looks like a good deal, so I would go for it, just like I should have purchased the 24-105 with the Sony A7RIII in the first place.

Robert

Click to expand...

I doubt that it is the same because of the translation needed from an non-open protocol to an open one. Also this translation is not done by manufacturers with so much history on developing mounts for Nikon and Canon as Sigma and Tamron. Nikon and Canon know exactly how their protocols are working and their new mount may just accept them with specific modes. So even retranslation from old to new can also not happening. Currently only some Tamron and some older Sigma lenses do not seem to work. I do not know if the stabilization is related on that cases. Do not be afraid to use first party lenses, search for test for third party lenses and wait for updates on lenses that can have one.

The native lenses are just lighter, smaller and better optically optimized than the lenses of older mounts on an adaptor.

Actually, I decided to go ahead and change my pre-order to the kit with the 24-70. Having a native mount glass from the get-go, one that will focus silently for video and that has some weather sealing, won out in the end.

CuriousB said:

Actually, I decided to go ahead and change my pre-order to the kit with the 24-70. Having a native mount glass from the get-go, one that will focus silently for video and that has some weather sealing, won out in the end.

Click to expand...

Good choice over your Nikon 24-85mm G VR. I think it will be way better optically.

morinor said:

CuriousB said:

Actually, I decided to go ahead and change my pre-order to the kit with the 24-70. Having a native mount glass from the get-go, one that will focus silently for video and that has some weather sealing, won out in the end.

Click to expand...

Good choice over your Nikon 24-85mm G VR. I think it will be way better optically.

Click to expand...

Agree, excellent move IMO. In particular, you are getting the 24-70mm/f4 S lens for an extra $600 as part of the kit, instead of the full $1000 price for that lens.

Against:

1. I already have the 24-85 G VR lens from my D610. Yes, I know it's not the best performer in the world, but it's not bad for the kind of stuff that I would use that lens for anyway. As yet I don't see the 24-70s being worlds better for my particular needs.

If the Z6's sensor has better resolution than the D610, the shortcomings of your 24-85 will be more obvious so it may not be as "usuable" for what you suggest you will be using it for.

A native z mount 50 mm lens would be a nice place to spend the money saved not purchasing the 24-70 but if the 24-85 does not cut it, in the long run I find the 24-70 FL quite usable and the 50 mm less flexible as a carry around lens.

Jerry Fisher said:

Against:

1. I already have the 24-85 G VR lens from my D610. Yes, I know it's not the best performer in the world, but it's not bad for the kind of stuff that I would use that lens for anyway. As yet I don't see the 24-70s being worlds better for my particular needs.

If the Z6's sensor has better resolution than the D610, the shortcomings of your 24-85 will be more obvious so it may not be as "usuable" for what you suggest you will be using it for.

A native z mount 50 mm lens would be a nice place to spend the money saved not purchasing the 24-70 but if the 24-85 does not cut it, in the long run I find the 24-70 FL quite usable and the 50 mm less flexible as a carry around lens.

Click to expand...

I use a 24-85VR occasionally on an 810 and the short comings are not apparent compared to the 24-70G I replaced with it. It's a much better lens than most give it credit for.

I would expect and native Z lens to be better on a Z body, however.

Yeah, from all people that used it it seems to be a great lens, and the price is ok in the kIt. So part of my Z6/FTZ/24-70/ preorder.

I want a Z6 + 24-70 f/4 as the compliment (not replacement) to my D850. But this is also because my current standard zoom is the 24-85 - hardly Nikon's best lens. I have f/2.8 zooms for wider or longer, but I like the small easy walk around lens.

I like the small size and inconspicuousness of my a6300 with its famously... barely adequate kit lens, so a really good kit lens is appealing to me and then I can adapt everything else.

However, if I had an f/2.8 24-70 that I really like, I'd probably just skip the 24-70 f/4, unless I wanted to go smaller and lighter.