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

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.


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