Nikon Z 24-70 f/2.8 for Landscapes?

BasilG said:

I agree with you - it is different. However, I am not sure a simulated infinity MTF chart without taking diffraction into account is a priori better (more useful in practice) than a PL-style MTF test.

Click to expand...

This is true for many MTF charts, but not all: OLAF, Zeiss, and probably Leica are all measured on real lenses. Even with the simulated results, they give you a more complete picture of a lens's potential than an arbitrary point on the MTF curve at a distance that's less than what one would use in this case. For their macro lenses, Zeiss even publishes a separate MTF chart for closer distances.

BasilG said:

You are correct that sensor performance enters the result, but I have never taken an image without one. So as far as evaluating real-world lens resolving characteristics, I do not see the problem.

Click to expand...

If you have a nuanced understanding of the differences between a chart MTF test like imatest and an optical bench, infinity focus test, then yes, I agree with you. The problem is when inexperienced people take these results without knowing how they were measured and try to generalize from them or even make them authoritative on a lens's quality: the interpretation of the result is dependent on knowing how the data was acquired.

Kamil Z said:

I'm planning a photo trip to Iceland at the beginning of March and want to upgrade my lenses for that trip. I've bought the Z 14-24 to replace my F 14-24, mainly because of filters and size reduction, but also because of the image quality, the difference is like night and day. Now I'm asking myself if I should buy the 24-70 as well to complete the trinity.

According to reviews, it is one of the sharpest 24-70 zooms, but it also seems to be not as sharp as the 14-24 and the 70-200. Its sunstars seem mediocre, and it has an external zoom, which I don't like. In the rough weather conditions of Iceland, one wants the best possible weather sealing, i.e., an internal zoom. But at the same time, you don't want to change lenses too often. For me, the 24-70 seems to be the best alternative to close the gap between 24 and 70 mm. Even though the 24-120 seems to produce better sunstars, corner sharpness is more important for me.

Does anyone use the 24-70 f/2.8 for landscapes? If so, could you please share your experience with some images, preferably with sunstars?

Does anyone have experience with landscape photography in Iceland? If so, how often do you need the 24-70mm? Can I use the 50 1.8 and zoom with my feet instead? I've been to Iceland four times, but never as an experienced photographer.

I'm planning to buy a 24-70 f/2.8 anyway. But the 24-70 seems to be the most incomplete lens of the trinity and could very well be replaced soon (hopefully not by a 28-70 f/2).

Click to expand...

The 24-70 2.8 S is the sharpest (as far as I know) that NIkon has made. It's a great landscape lens, but don't dismiss the 24-70 f/4 (which is just as good, stepped down) or the 24-120 f/4 S lens (also good. You can't go wrong with any of these, but the 2.8 S will be the best optically from corner to corner, with the 24-70 f/4 being a close second (Jim Kassoon I think did a comparison a few years ago, on his blog). His take (in brief) was that aside from differences in aperture, with shared FLs and apertures, only in the extreme corners was the 2.8 S sharper but that the 24-70 f/4 would be suitable for most people especially for travel and landscape.

I've had all three basically, and still have the 2.8 S and the 24-120 (sold the 24-70 f/4 although I wish maybe I didn't do that). But honestly, for the type of landscape shooting I do, I generally cannot tell the difference between the 24-120 and 24-70 except in two scenarios. Shallow DOF being one (rather) obvious one, and the second would probably be at 24mm which I feel is a weak spot for the 24-120. But beyond that, for my shooting (which is usually stepped down a bit like 5.6 to 11) I cannot really tell the difference in most cases. You can get nice background blur and separation with the 24-120 but you'd have to use a longer FL to do so than you would with the 2.8 S obviously, but it can be done, so I'd say don't feel as if you have to get the 2.8 S.

Yes you can use the 50mm (or any FL really) as it depends on what you want to accomplish and your "style". The 50mm might be good for isolating a subject and getting a nice creamy blurry background. Something you can't necessarily get with the 24-70 @ 50. So there area good reasons to shoot different FLs, and as mentioned, realy any lens and focal length can be used for landscape... it just depends on your style and what you want to capture/express.

For me, having shot wide angle landscapes almost exclusively for the past several years, I'm starting to move away from wide angle and am focusing a bit more on standard and more telephoto shooting. I got this concept from a few photographers who emphasize variety and while getting a wide shot can be compelling, and you should get the overall scene, sometimes going in and getting details can be equally as important, so shooting a 50mm, 85mm or even a 70-200 or longer can make sense and can add to your "story" of the area you were shooting. I like to start out a bit wide (like 24mm) but mostly find myself spending my time picking out scenes within the scene (I mean, how many wide shots do I really need of a scene?) So with that, my favorite landscape kit now is the Z 24-120, a 50mm (in my case 1.8 S because I'm cheap), and I do bring the 14-30 but again, I don't use it much and only for the overall shot, and then I go in and do details with the other two lenses. I generally leave the 24-70 at home most of the time because the 24-120 is such a great lens, and isn't as big/heavy but optically, when stepped down, not that far behind the 24-70 (but I also have gotten away from pixel peeing my images too).

--
PLEASE NOTE: I usually unsubscribe from forums and comments after a period of time, so if I do not respond, that is likely the reason. Feel free to PM me if you have a questions or need clarification about a comment I made.

shuncheung said:

I have used the 24-70mm/f2.8 S for landscapes, but I mainly use that lens for indoor events, parties and the occasional weddings ....

Click to expand...

True, I use it for both, my paid events parties and weddings and my paid landscapes.. along with 14-24mm F2.8S

shuncheung said:

For landscape, I wonder whether you want to travel with the 14-24mm/f2.8 plus the 24-70mm/f2.8. I would probably just get the 24-120mm/f4 S: lighter lens with a better zoom range.

Click to expand...

They are going on a nice scenic trip to Iceland and probably want the best image quality. Something the 24-120mm will not give, Certainly not as good as the 24-70 F2.8S. The 14-24 is wider than the 24-120. The 24-70F2.8S isn't a lot bigger and heavier than the 24-120 F4. You only miss 71-120. a range you won't be using a lot with landscapes.

sirhawkeye64 said:

Kamil Z said:

I'm planning a photo trip to Iceland at the beginning of March and want to upgrade my lenses for that trip. I've bought the Z 14-24 to replace my F 14-24, mainly because of filters and size reduction, but also because of the image quality, the difference is like night and day. Now I'm asking myself if I should buy the 24-70 as well to complete the trinity.

According to reviews, it is one of the sharpest 24-70 zooms, but it also seems to be not as sharp as the 14-24 and the 70-200. Its sunstars seem mediocre, and it has an external zoom, which I don't like. In the rough weather conditions of Iceland, one wants the best possible weather sealing, i.e., an internal zoom. But at the same time, you don't want to change lenses too often. For me, the 24-70 seems to be the best alternative to close the gap between 24 and 70 mm. Even though the 24-120 seems to produce better sunstars, corner sharpness is more important for me.

Does anyone use the 24-70 f/2.8 for landscapes? If so, could you please share your experience with some images, preferably with sunstars?

Does anyone have experience with landscape photography in Iceland? If so, how often do you need the 24-70mm? Can I use the 50 1.8 and zoom with my feet instead? I've been to Iceland four times, but never as an experienced photographer.

I'm planning to buy a 24-70 f/2.8 anyway. But the 24-70 seems to be the most incomplete lens of the trinity and could very well be replaced soon (hopefully not by a 28-70 f/2).

Click to expand...

The 24-70 2.8 S is the sharpest (as far as I know) that NIkon has made. It's a great landscape lens, but don't dismiss the 24-70 f/4 (which is just as good, stepped down) or the 24-120 f/4 S lens (also good. You can't go wrong with any of these, but the 2.8 S will be the best optically from corner to corner, with the 24-70 f/4 being a close second (Jim Kassoon I think did a comparison a few years ago, on his blog). His take (in brief) was that aside from differences in aperture, with shared FLs and apertures, only in the extreme corners was the 2.8 S sharper but that the 24-70 f/4 would be suitable for most people especially for travel and landscape.

Click to expand...

I had the 24-70F4S, thinking it would be be lighter walk around lens instead of using my 24-70F2.8S, I found it (24-70F4S, just like 14-30 F4) to be a very annoying lens, constantly had to un-lock and pop it out that annoying 1 inch plus or leave it unlocked and than it wasn't much shorter than 24-70F2.8S. Fully zoomed out the 24-70 F4 is pretty close to the length of the 2.8S version lens. The 24-70F2.8 is tack sharp at F2.8. Allows twice the light as the F4 lens. Esp if in dimmer indoors no flash.

sirhawkeye64 said:

I've had all three basically, and still have the 2.8 S and the 24-120 (sold the 24-70 f/4 although I wish maybe I didn't do that). But honestly, for the type of landscape shooting I do, I generally cannot tell the difference between the 24-120 and 24-70 except in two scenarios

Click to expand...

You must not print big enough. I do very large paid landscape work. The 2.8S is noticeable. Especially the corners and edges and distortion. Yes nikon autocorrects distortion but that takes way from the image.. 24-70F2.8S is far sharper in the corners wide open at F2.8 than the 24-120 F4 wide open at F4. The 24-120F4S at 24mm is 5% distortion. From 50mm to 120mm it is 3% to 4%. By comparison the 24-70 F2.8S keeps distortion far under 3% at all focal lengths, uncorrected. It's another reason why it costs more. Better made.

sirhawkeye64 said:

. Shallow DOF being one (rather) obvious one, and the second would probably be at 24mm which I feel is a weak spot for the 24-120. But beyond that, for my shooting (which is usually stepped down a bit like 5.6 to 11) I cannot really tell the difference in most cases. You can get nice background blur and separation with the 24-120 but you'd have to use a longer FL to do so than you would with the 2.8 S obviously, but it can be done, so I'd say don't feel as if you have to get the 2.8 S.

Click to expand...

No,even at F5.6 to F11, the 24-70 F2.8S is still noticeable sharper in the corners than the 24-120 F4 stopped down at the same F stops.

sirhawkeye64 said:

Yes you can use the 50mm (or any FL really) as it depends on what you want to accomplish and your "style". The 50mm might be good for isolating a subject and getting a nice creamy blurry background. Something you can't necessarily get with the 24-70 @ 50. So there area good reasons to shoot different FLs, and as mentioned, realy any lens and focal length can be used for landscape... it just depends on your style and what you want to capture/express.

Click to expand...

Correct, but I would never use a 50mm prime for landscape. 35mm prime sometimes...

sirhawkeye64 said:

For me, having shot wide angle landscapes almost exclusively for the past several years, I'm starting to move away from wide angle and am focusing a bit more on standard and more telephoto shooting. I got this concept from a few photographers who emphasize variety and while getting a wide shot can be compelling, and you should get the overall scene, sometimes going in and getting details can be equally as important, so shooting a 50mm, 85mm or even a 70-200 or longer can make sense and can add to your "story" of the area you were shooting. I like to start out a bit wide (like 24mm) but mostly find myself spending my time picking out scenes within the scene (I mean, how many wide shots do I really need of a scene?) So with that, my favorite landscape kit now is the Z 24-120, a 50mm (in my case 1.8 S because I'm cheap), and I do bring the 14-30 but again, I don't use it much and only for the overall shot, and then I go in and do details with the other two lenses. I generally leave the 24-70 at home most of the time because the 24-120 is such a great lens,

Click to expand...

It really isn't a great lens, the 24-120... 24-70 F2.8S, 14-24mm F2.8 etc are far better...

sirhawkeye64 said:

and isn't as big/heavy but optically, when stepped down, not that far behind the 24-70 (but I also have gotten away from pixel peeing my images too).

Click to expand...

The 24-120 isn't much lighter or smaller than the 24-70 F2.8S. It's nearly 80% the weight of the 24-70F2.8S. Compromise over quality. when the 24-120 is stopped down it is still not as good or sharp in the corners as the F2.8S glass, sorry. thats how it is. All the measured reviews show that. if you buying a Good Z body.. put top notch glass on it, to get the best image quality out of it.

Even the 24-120/4 is better than the 24-70/4. Not that much, but it is better.

And the 24-70/2.8 is noticeably better. Not just in acuity but also in contrast. As well it should be. It costs up to 4x as much!

I disagree though that the 24-70/2.8 is "tack sharp" at f/2.8. It is very good at f/2.8, even in the corners, but benefits from stopping down to at least f/4.

But overall, I am much more comfortable using the 24-70/2.8 at f/2.8 than I am using the 24-120/4 at f/4.

The 24-70/2.8 is my favorite lens, and is in my view a lens virtually without compromises. No matter what you need it for, no matter the focal length, no matter the aperture, this lens delivers. There is no other Nikon standard zoom that offers this level of creative freedom.

It's worth also considering how often you need the 70-120mm range. What I have found in my shooting, is that I rarely need much more than 70mm, and if I do, I usually want more reach than 120mm. So a 24-70 + 70-200 would be a good pairing for me.

One last note on the 24-120 is that it does suffer from sample variation, which shows up as weak corners at 24mm. I tried three copies, of which only one (a rental) was good, and I had to go through a lengthy and exhausting repair process with Nikon to get mine fixed.

This was so painful, I recommend the 24-70/2.8 for that reason alone.

anotherMike said:

Heatons a nice shooter, but having shot the 24-70/4, honestly I can't trust a thing Heaton says. The lens is not in the same league as the 24-70/2.8S, at all. I'm honestly shocked, just shocked, he can't see the obvious difference. Remember, just because someone is a nice shooter or famous on youtube does not mean they are the unquestioned authority/voice in everything related to photography.

Click to expand...

I completely agree. Having owned both (sold the f4) the 24-70 f4 is a decent kit lens, but the 24-70 f2.8S is a superb lens, leagues ahead, IMO.

Regarding your attached images and explanations:

Thank you, Nebido, for adding your thoughts and these examples into this thread.

Great images.

Reflecting real experience and considerable skill in execution.

Ah, movement of subject matter. An inconvenient reality.

And the light keeps changing as well. Who knew?

Not a boring craft we practice.

Challenges.

Enjoyable.

And I really enjoyed this post.

I believe you have had other threads on this forum with these images. Are there other posts that you might care to point those of us that are interested to that you would suggest? Certainly ones from you and ones with discussions of the techniques used?

Thanks again,

John

The tutorials on photographylife on these topics are a good source of inspiration that I also visit from time to time to get ideas for new techniques.

Here is a general article about the advantages of panoramic photography, here also using Iceland landscapes as a concrete example.

The Hidden Benefits of Panorama Photography


____

Averaged High Dynamic Range Technique (AHDR) Explained


The Image Averaging technique used is explained here.

___

In the context of the thread, this article is also worth reading

The Question of “Good Enough” Image Quality

Fullframer said:

shuncheung said:

I have used the 24-70mm/f2.8 S for landscapes, but I mainly use that lens for indoor events, parties and the occasional weddings ....

Click to expand...

True, I use it for both, my paid events parties and weddings and my paid landscapes.. along with 14-24mm F2.8S

Fullframer said:

For landscape, I wonder whether you want to travel with the 14-24mm/f2.8 plus the 24-70mm/f2.8. I would probably just get the 24-120mm/f4 S: lighter lens with a better zoom range.

Click to expand...

They are going on a nice scenic trip to Iceland and probably want the best image quality. Something the 24-120mm will not give, Certainly not as good as the 24-70 F2.8S. The 14-24 is wider than the 24-120. The 24-70F2.8S isn't a lot bigger and heavier than the 24-120 F4. You only miss 71-120. a range you won't be using a lot with landscapes.

Click to expand...

I disagree with your contention that longer focal lengths don't get much use in landscape photography. Focal lengths above 70mm are very useful in landscape photography to achieve compression and to bring distant subjects closer. I used the 24-200 and shot at the long end quite frequently when I was in Iceland (before the 24-120 had been released). I found the long end of my 24-120 (which replaced the 24-200) to be very useful on my recent trip to Norway. The 24-70 2.8 is absolutely a better lens than the 24-120, but I would find the long end lacking. Many people fall into the trap of thinking that landscape photography is mostly done with wide angle lenses. If you don't have interesting foreground elements and compelling compositions, this results in boring images with distant backgrounds that make up very little of the photo. There was a thread a while back on this specific topic: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/67809952

I already bought it and did a few test shoots. I'm blown away.

Nikon Z 24-70 f/2.8 S for all things

Kamil Z said:

I already bought it and did a few test shoots. I'm blown away.

Click to expand...

Happy to hear it! It's easy to hyper focus on any negative or critical comment about something expensive we're considering, no matter how minor (thanks, influencers and online reviewers...), but sometimes you just have to get an item in your hands and start using it to appreciate and see what works for you. This is one of those lenses where if you can't get a great photo with it, it's not the lens.

Again, glad to hear you're loving it!

How does z 24-120 compare to z 24-70 2.8 at f8? I rarely use aperture faster than f8 for landscape.

Central and midframe sharpness are pretty comparable on both lenses, the biggest difference is in the corner performance, where the Z 24-120/4 S cannot keep up even at f/8.

https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-z-24-120mm-f-4-s/3

This is where the biggest compromises are made with zoom solutions such as the Z 24-120/4 S and where the Z 24-70/2.8 S is more uncompromising.

The Z 24-70/2.8 S is simply closer to prime level without reaching it completely.

Nebido said:

Central and midframe sharpness are pretty comparable on both lenses, the biggest difference is in the corner performance, where the Z 24-120/4 S cannot keep up even at f/8.

https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-z-24-120mm-f-4-s/3

This is where the biggest compromises are made with zoom solutions such as the Z 24-120/4 S and where the Z 24-70/2.8 S is more uncompromising.

The Z 24-70/2.8 S is simply closer to prime level without reaching it completely.

Click to expand...

I have read photographylife's review, however they only test lens at test chart distance, the performance of lens at long distance may vary. For example my Z24-200 is quite soft at chart distance from 135-200mm but it is sharp at long distance.

Photographylife is using a longer test chart distance these days which does help mitigate some of the problems of using test chart approaches for lenses used for landscape use cases.

Unfortunately, relying so strongly on MTF50 scores from *any* test chart system is a fools errand as there is vastly more to lens performance than an MTF50 score measured at 3 spots in the field. It's the single most frustrating thing I've seen in forum land - this obsession with using lens test chart MTF50 scores as the ultimate truth in lens performance when it's absolutely not. It's just a narrow slice of general sharpness, and nowhere near complete enough to fully ascertain a lenses performance.

Anyway, to augment Nebido's answer: There is a myth that all lenses are equal at F/8, but sadly it doesn't work out that way. Aberration behavior is different dependent on the aberration in terms of whether the aberration improves as one stops down - and it turns out the ugliest aberration (from a landscape photographers perspective), astigmatism, doesn't go away as you stop down (neither does lateral color nor field curvature) And that's why the 24-70/2.8S corners and edges are better than the 24-120's at most every non-diffraction impacted aperture... the 24-70/2.8S is simply better at these critical (for landscape shooter) areas. Now of course, the bigger question is whether the magnitude of how much better the 24-70/2.8S is over the 24-120 is important for you - and because people have different standards for image quality, have different output and shoot different things, that's not a universal answer either.

I've used the 24-70/2.8, it's really good.

But for landscapes? You're at f/11 anyway.. The 24-70/4 or 24-120/4 really is just as good, and are both smaller, lighter, and in the case of the 24-120, provide more FL options. IMO for a landscape shooter, I think the 24-70/2.8 is kinda a waste of money

Terrible Photographer said:

I've used the 24-70/2.8, it's really good.

But for landscapes? You're at f/11 anyway.. The 24-70/4 or 24-120/4 really is just as good, and are both smaller, lighter, and in the case of the 24-120, provide more FL options. IMO for a landscape shooter, I think the 24-70/2.8 is kinda a waste of money

Click to expand...

Often you can use f/8, sometimes f/5.6 or lower. And here and there you need the f/2.8. Even at f/11 the 24-70 is sharper in the corners. The 24-120 has a lot of distortion at 24mm and some visible CAs. These are considered as issues that can easily be corrected, but correcting them will sacrifice a bit of the image quality.

The 24-70 has two significant advantages for my needs: it has better weather sealing and it can take the lens hood of the 14-24. Switching filters between these two lenses is very convenient.

If I need a focal length greater than 70mm, I would switch to the 70-200, even if I had the 24-120. But if I need, say, 35mm at f/2.8 for an astro shoot, I wouldn't have a lens for that without the 24-70.

I bought the 24-70 yesterday and I'm already blown away by it. This lens is also fun to use, the 24-120 extends a bit too much, IHMO.

Wezre said:

Fullframer said:

shuncheung said:

I have used the 24-70mm/f2.8 S for landscapes, but I mainly use that lens for indoor events, parties and the occasional weddings ....

Click to expand...

True, I use it for both, my paid events parties and weddings and my paid landscapes.. along with 14-24mm F2.8S

Wezre said:

For landscape, I wonder whether you want to travel with the 14-24mm/f2.8 plus the 24-70mm/f2.8. I would probably just get the 24-120mm/f4 S: lighter lens with a better zoom range.

Click to expand...

They are going on a nice scenic trip to Iceland and probably want the best image quality. Something the 24-120mm will not give, Certainly not as good as the 24-70 F2.8S. The 14-24 is wider than the 24-120. The 24-70F2.8S isn't a lot bigger and heavier than the 24-120 F4. You only miss 71-120. a range you won't be using a lot with landscapes.

Click to expand...

I disagree with your contention that longer focal lengths don't get much use in landscape photography. Focal lengths above 70mm are very useful in landscape photography to achieve compression and to bring distant subjects closer.

Click to expand...

We have diff types of shooting, for me most of my paid landscape are below 70mm. The few I've done for clients needing more than 70mm, I've done with my 70-200 F2.8S Z lens.

Wezre said:

I used the 24-200 and shot at the long end quite frequently when I was in Iceland (before the 24-120 had been released). I found the long end of my 24-120 (which replaced the 24-200) to be very useful on my recent trip to Norway. The 24-70 2.8 is absolutely a better lens than the 24-120, but I would find the long end lacking.

Click to expand...

Yes, and thats why I have the 70-200mm F2.8S Z lens. For when I need more than 70mm.. and it goes to 200mm. For well paying clients I'm not using an amateur 24-200 or 24-120, I'm using the best the Z system offers, which is the pro 70-200 F2.8S.

Wezre said:

Many people fall into the trap of thinking that landscape photography is mostly done with wide angle lenses. If you don't have interesting foreground elements and compelling compositions, this results in boring images with distant backgrounds that make up very little of the photo. There was a thread a while back on this specific topic: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/67809952

Click to expand...

It's not falling into a trap, it's what I shoot, my style and what my clients want. Also, some photographers say the 70-200mm F2.8 is one of the best lenses for landscapes... I've used mine for that. For me, most of mine are done at 70mm and less. But everyone is diff.

Kamil Z said:

Terrible Photographer said:

I've used the 24-70/2.8, it's really good.

But for landscapes? You're at f/11 anyway.. The 24-70/4 or 24-120/4 really is just as good, and are both smaller, lighter, and in the case of the 24-120, provide more FL options. IMO for a landscape shooter, I think the 24-70/2.8 is kinda a waste of money

Click to expand...

Often you can use f/8, sometimes f/5.6 or lower. And here and there you need the f/2.8. Even at f/11 the 24-70 is sharper in the corners. The 24-120 has a lot of distortion at 24mm and some visible CAs. These are considered as issues that can easily be corrected, but correcting them will sacrifice a bit of the image quality.

Click to expand...

Exactly.. the cheaper lenses lead to more post processing. and less image quality. My clients print at very large sizes, so those issues are more noticeable.

Kamil Z said:

The 24-70 has two significant advantages for my needs: it has better weather sealing and it can take the lens hood of the 14-24. Switching filters between these two lenses is very convenient.

If I need a focal length greater than 70mm, I would switch to the 70-200, even if I had the 24-120. But if I need, say, 35mm at f/2.8 for an astro shoot, I wouldn't have a lens for that without the 24-70.

I bought the 24-70 yesterday and I'm already blown away by it. This lens is also fun to use, the 24-120 extends a bit too much, IHMO.

Click to expand...

100% agreed.