Reading mode: Light Dark

The 24-70/2.8

Go to last post
WhateverNickname

WhateverNickname

Senior Member
Messages
4,667
Solutions
1
Reaction score
2,981
Location
BE
I had some time with it (and tried to take the same photos with it and with my f/4 on the same body with the same settings).

I feel it is the best 24-70 nikon has given us. To be honest it is much smaller and lighter than I expected it. It balances very well on a Z body. Even if Nikon gave it to me without a hood .. no clue how it feels with it.

Performance close to medium distance, especially from 50mm to 70mm sand p to 3m, is exceptional. At f/4 is visible better than the f/4 lens. OO rendering between the f/4 and f/2.8 at the same aperture is very similar. Actually I am not a fan of the elliptic bubbles the 2.8 gave from mid frame to corner.

Overall it left me with the feeling that the f/4 is an amazing lens and the 2.8 only make sense if I would need 2.8 or the extra performance at distances of 3m or less.
 
fpessolano said:
I had some time with it (and tried to take the same photos with it and with my f/4 on the same body with the same settings).

I feel it is the best 24-70 nikon has given us. To be honest it is much smaller and lighter than I expected it. It balances very well on a Z body. Even if Nikon gave it to me without a hood .. no clue how it feels with it.

Performance close to medium distance, especially from 50mm to 70mm sand p to 3m, is exceptional. At f/4 is visible better than the f/4 lens. OO rendering between the f/4 and f/2.8 at the same aperture is very similar. Actually I am not a fan of the elliptic bubbles the 2.8 gave from mid frame to corner.

Overall it left me with the feeling that the f/4 is an amazing lens and the 2.8 only make sense if I would need 2.8 or the extra performance at distances of 3m or less.
Click to expand...
I have to agree if you dont need to shoot at f/2.8 the current 24-70mm F/4 is an oustanding performer and a real steal as a Z6/7 kit lens. The price of the Z 24-70 2.8 is a real turn off
 
Last edited:
Were you able to assess it without the software lens corrections? It seems one criticism of the F4 lens is the distortion that is corrected in software.

Paul
 
that is a good point. I have all RAW files and I am trying to disable the correction to see what happens.

I suspect that the visible improvement at close to mention on the longer end comes from the 2.8 being better corrected optically.

When I use captureone without the profile applied, my fimding still applies. The f/2.8 is visibly better (from 50%) up to 3m from medium to longer end. Otherwise the difference is at pixel peeping level.

--
If I am not answering your provoking post, maybe you were welcomed in my ignore list.
 
Last edited:
No art and limited to the fact I had to take them at different times trying to remember the position (I have several more), but these two from the two lenses converted with Capture with lens profile setting all to off.



1481e003e435468484ba82680614ca74.jpg



fcec69d911154f21a2b04ca3abbb4b7f.jpg



--
If I am not answering your provoking post, maybe you were welcomed in my ignore list.
 
Yes, It does seem that the 2.8 is a little better corrected. But at about 1/3 the price, I agree the F4 is still a great value.

Thanks for posting the images.

Paul
 
Silverstreaks said:
I have to agree if you dont need to shoot at f/2.8 the current 24-70mm F/4 is an oustanding performer and a real steal as a Z6/7 kit lens. The price of the Z 24-70 2.8 is a real turn off
Click to expand...
in absolute agreement here that the 4.0S is a great value as a kit lens .... I know that this new 2.8S will make those who have the 2.8G or the 2.8E feel depressed because of the better IQ performance... However, at $2,300, I am not rushing out for the 2.8S because I am quite happy with my 4.0S ... but then, I may need the 2.8S to cure me if I get a bad case of GAS hitting me sometime in the future. - LOL
 
I am going for primes in case of GAS
 
Have you tested the older 24-70 2.8 on the Z6 OR 7. I find it hard to think the new version will be any better just liter.

I have been using the older 24-70 and there is nothing it lasks on my Z6 super sharp great contrast and fast focus.

Don't think anything could be any better or needs to be.
 
I have own two 28-70 and the 24-70 except the latest VR version.

Therefore, my comment is not applicable to the latest version. I should have specified, sorry
 
For what it's worth, a brief look see for the new 24-70 showing some of the usage properties.

 
Silverstreaks said:
fpessolano said:
I had some time with it (and tried to take the same photos with it and with my f/4 on the same body with the same settings).

I feel it is the best 24-70 nikon has given us. To be honest it is much smaller and lighter than I expected it. It balances very well on a Z body. Even if Nikon gave it to me without a hood .. no clue how it feels with it.

Performance close to medium distance, especially from 50mm to 70mm sand p to 3m, is exceptional. At f/4 is visible better than the f/4 lens. OO rendering between the f/4 and f/2.8 at the same aperture is very similar. Actually I am not a fan of the elliptic bubbles the 2.8 gave from mid frame to corner.

Overall it left me with the feeling that the f/4 is an amazing lens and the 2.8 only make sense if I would need 2.8 or the extra performance at distances of 3m or less.
Click to expand...
I have to agree if you dont need to shoot at f/2.8 the current 24-70mm F/4 is an oustanding performer and a real steal as a Z6/7 kit lens. The price of the Z 24-70 2.8 is a real turn off
Click to expand...
yes, nothing for me ... i will stay with f2.8G lens and lets see if there is a possibility to get a used 24-70 F2.8 S in 7 years .

these prices are way too high for enthusiasts like me
 
Escaping said:
Silverstreaks said:
I have to agree if you dont need to shoot at f/2.8 the current 24-70mm F/4 is an oustanding performer and a real steal as a Z6/7 kit lens. The price of the Z 24-70 2.8 is a real turn off
Click to expand...
in absolute agreement here that the 4.0S is a great value as a kit lens .... I know that this new 2.8S will make those who have the 2.8G or the 2.8E feel depressed because of the better IQ performance... However, at $2,300, I am not rushing out for the 2.8S because I am quite happy with my 4.0S ... but then, I may need the 2.8S to cure me if I get a bad case of GAS hitting me sometime in the future. - LOL
Click to expand...
 
fpessolano said:
that is a good point. I have all RAW files and I am trying to disable the correction to see what happens.

I suspect that the visible improvement at close to mention on the longer end comes from the 2.8 being better corrected optically.

When I use captureone without the profile applied, my fimding still applies. The f/2.8 is visibly better (from 50%) up to 3m from medium to longer end. Otherwise the difference is at pixel peeping level.
Click to expand...
Thinking about this last night while sipping my wine (maybe not the best source of cogitation :D ) and this utterance came to mind: "Welcome to one aspect of computational photography..."

I'm not an optics person, so take this with a grain of salt. But with the S line of lenses, it would appear the designers expanded their trade space into what software can do in post. I am a software person, so I can say with some assurance that distortion is less-destructively compensated in post than resolution, and it appears the lens designers have leaned into that to make sharper lenses through the focal range. Compelling Adobe to hard-code the lens corrections in LR helps me to believe this. I write my PP software, so one of my considerations in moving to a Z camera is making sure my tools do this properly...

Anyway, Food For Thought...
 
Last edited:
Time for me to open a new bottle of wine to ponder upon this ... how was the wine?
 
Escaping said:
Time for me to open a new bottle of wine to ponder upon this ... how was the wine?
Click to expand...
My wife is the oenophile, everything she picks is good... :D

So that this post isn't wasted in the thread, I want to add that I'm a bit bothered by the notion of accommodating hardware shortfalls in software. Being an old fool, I'm very much a fan of starting with the best measurements you can make, and doing as little to them as possible. But I do find this particular trade compelling, knowing the specifics of the available algorithms.
 
Last edited:
I'd like to have a 24-120/4 (or 20-100/4) rather this big 24-70/2.8
 
Just a curiosity question: correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the F mount version an internal zoom? And the S has a telescoping zoom?
 
fpessolano said:
I had some time with it (and tried to take the same photos with it and with my f/4 on the same body with the same settings).

I feel it is the best 24-70 nikon has given us. To be honest it is much smaller and lighter than I expected it. It balances very well on a Z body. Even if Nikon gave it to me without a hood .. no clue how it feels with it.

Performance close to medium distance, especially from 50mm to 70mm sand p to 3m, is exceptional. At f/4 is visible better than the f/4 lens. OO rendering between the f/4 and f/2.8 at the same aperture is very similar. Actually I am not a fan of the elliptic bubbles the 2.8 gave from mid frame to corner.

Overall it left me with the feeling that the f/4 is an amazing lens and the 2.8 only make sense if I would need 2.8 or the extra performance at distances of 3m or less.
Click to expand...
I totally agree with your assessment of the f/4 lens. It's a great performer. Initially I bought Z6 the body only and a week later, after reading the rave reviews of the lens, went back to the store and reverse the body only deal, taking the body plus the 24-70 f/4 lens deal instead. It was a smart decision on my part. I have a Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 VC G2 in case I really need F2.8.

--
Efraim
Vancouver, Canada
Nikon D750, Nikon Z6, Nikkor AF-S 70-200 F/2.8 G ED VRII, Nikkor AF-S 24-85 f/3.5-4.5, Nikkor AF-S 70-300 f/4.5-5.6 VR, Nikkor AF-S 16-35 f/4 VR, Nikon AF-S 50mm F/1.8, Tamron 24-70 f2.8 VC USD G2.
Web: http://www.rightonphotography.com
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top