A point about the DSLR/.vs./MIRRORLESS

Started 3 months ago | Discussions thread
anotherMike Forum Pro • Posts: 10,280
Re: A point about the DSLR/.vs./MIRRORLESS
7

Bingo. What you said.

I owned the 24-70/2.8G for a decade, at one point I owned two of them because it was so critical a lens. Know that lens real well.

Evaluated a colleagues 24-70/2.8 E VR, a minor to moderate improvement over the G, but not enough of one that I considered it.

I'm pretty much a prime shooter who runs blind print tests to see if lens differences matter, and once I got the 24-70/2.8S on my Z7, the difference between it and the prior F mount 24-70's was a hell of a lot more than subtle. The new lens can essentially match a couple of 1.8G primes in performance (in some cases bettering) them at a focal length or two, and even when it doesn't, it's a hell of a lot more balanced across the frame and has more bite/microcontrast in a very broad center too.

These days I'd grade the original 24-70G about 3 stars - good enough for average image quality work, the 24-70E VR about 3.5, a better lens, and the new 24-70/2.8S would be close to 4 to 4.5 stars - it is not perfect (and I didn't expect it to be) for a high image quality standard prime shooter like myself, but man, Nikon got so much closer to a "prime replacer" with that one than the previous iterations, and I'd have to *seriously* question anyone who has shot them all who doesn't see it that way. The difference is flat out obvious in even reasonable print sizes.

-m

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