Sample gallery from my Z24-70 F/4 S, my new favorite walk around lens!

Started 3 months ago | Discussions thread
MustAg
OP MustAg Forum Member • Posts: 51
Re: Couple of points...

rbmphoto wrote:

My comment on the 2.8 were regarding usage on a ff sensor - and the visual differences are quite distinct, though perhaps unimportant to some. I would expect less noticeable variation on a dx sensor. Everyone has to find their own comfort level on cost vs image quality. I do like the 4.0 image quality on my z50, but not nearly as much on the Z7.

On the d7xxx/z50 af question, I have to admit, on no Nikon bodies I’ve had over the last 30+ years have I ever used live view - but then I have never spent time on macro photography. I must confess, I’m a tad confused why one would not prefer manual focus during that process. Even using manual lens such as Zeiss 135, I don’t use live view, but the focusing aids available through the viewfinder. Sadly, I’m the kind of guy that has an unused RRS setup collecting dust in a closet, so I’m not a good one to judge.

I do believe your comments regarding the dxxx series and autofocus could be misconstrued - using autofocus for macro vs moving targets such as birds have little in common. While the z50 is a delightful body, autofocus responsiveness is not its strong suit. It is a delight however, as are all the Nikon mirrorless bodies, when it comes to autofocus accuracy.

Having used the 7200 and still owning the 7500 for use on a couple of older lens, I would suggest that the 7500 is a step up in af, if not iq, over previous d7xxx bodies. Truly, for moving targets, at present dslr’s still rule the roost, and within that family, the af abilities pretty much directly improve with budget. (If you have not done so, but ever have an opportunity to try a single digit D Nikon, by all means do so - the camera ‘slamming’ lens into focus is not to be missed. 🙂) I in no way want to disparage the z50, just clarify its fitness for some purposes based on my usage to date - just my limited observation and opinion.

Fortunately, within the Nikon family, there is some combination that will satisfy almost everyone. A difficulty for us all I think, is narrowing down from all the information and opinions that are available, those that are directly relevant to our own situation. Clarity too on our own experience, and not too broadly generalizing gear assessments - Thom is particularly good I think at setting the stage, and limits, for his tests and opinions.

I got involved in this thread because a poster asked a specific question about two lens on a specific body, all of which I happen to own. My advice to him was as he aleady And again want to point out that I really like your photos you’ve certainly got a combination that works well for you.

regards

Haven't used the Z 24-70mm 2.8 on an FF body, but I've met many photographers who said the difference on a 24.5mpix cam is negligible, more noticeable on a 45mp sensor and even then not huge. I guess different folks different strokes?

A 2.8 aperture doesn't necessarily mean the lens is gonna yield better quality btw, and that's not just my word for it, it's verified by lab tests. I couldn't find these data on the 2.8 vs 4 versions of this lens, but here's a comparison between the Nikon 70-200mm F2.8 VR II vs F/4 in which the F/4 holds its own and even delivers better contrast:

Please note that this doesn't mean I believe Z24-70mm F/4 is better, just that a pricier lens with a wider aperture isn't automatically better, at least not substantially. When it gets to the point that you need MTF charts, and even then it's a toss up, I'm no longer interested which one's IQ is better. Sure many can't do without 2.8, and understandably so, but for those who can, I wouldn't shell out more for the bigger pricier lens just for IQ. Again, could be just me.

And sure, I'm not saying a 850 dollars, 21mpx APSC body is gonna be as good as a 3000 dollars 45 mpx FF one, that much is obvious. But compared to a D7200, it's better in pretty much every way that matters to me. AF, IQ, high ISO performance, plus fps for action shooting. AF is far from bad, yes it obviously struggles every now and then, but again, I pointed my camera at a dog that was jumping around, at night, I even had to use the built in flash as you can easily tell prolly and took 3 shots. 2 were in focus, the other one was discarded since the dog's face was turned away from the cam:

This isn't bad at all in my book, in fact this is at least as good as AF in D7500 ovf. If you really really need the best AF and fps, you'll obviously want to invest in a Z6 II or something like that. But for what you pay, this is really really good. It ofc makes no sense to compare it with bodies costing 5+ times more, else an A9 II would be better too. Maybe a 50K slow mo camera while you're at it 😉

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow