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

Started 4 months ago | Discussions
MustAg
OP MustAg Forum Member • Posts: 51
Re: No...

Brueghel wrote:

Thank you very much for your post.

If I understand you right, the 24-70 F4 S is kind of an overkill on the Z50. Not so on the sensors of its larger cousins (at least the Z7) in the unlikely case one uses a DX lens on the Z7

I love the 16-80 but it is not light ans small. If you add the FTZ the result is kind of strange (one of the reasons I bought this camera was its size, but I lose this advantage quickly )))

In my context, the only times when I am acutely aware of AF perfomance are when I have the chance to see neat birds. And then I am normally using the only piece of hardware I ever fell in love with (the 300mm PF F4).

In any case, thanks again. Very useful info.

P

PS: I perfectly realized that he did not really answer my question. But I appreciate people who take the time to answer, even if imperfectly

I never used a 16-80mm but I'm gonna say while the FTZ doesn't seem to affect the IQ, I'm yet to come across a single adapted lens that focuses as fast it as accurately as native Z glass, particularly in low light. That includes the 24-70 F/2.8, which costs several times as much, and works pretty much the same in good lighting, but trails a good distance behind in low light. Dunno if I posted that in this thread before, but using Nikon's animal eye tracking AF, I was able to lock onto a dog that was moving non-stop at night, and get a tack sharp image at F/6.3. I'm yet to encounter an adapted lens that can do the same.

It doesn't come as a surprise to me tbh, the FTZ is designed so that adapted lenses sit at more or less the same distance from sensor as they would've in an F Mount camera making IQ for the same lens nearly identical whether it's sitting on a F or Z mount, but the F mount lenses weren't built with the new AF systems in Nikon's mirrorless cameras in mind, unlike the Z lenses which are built to work with it and take full advantage of it. Backwards compatibility can only do so much.

Now whether or not that'll matter depends on your needs, if you don't shoot much in low light, especially if you don't shoot moving objects in low light, you might not care. However, while I do believe in overkill bodies, I don't believe in overkill lenses tbh, I'll prefer to buy the best lens that I can afford. Still, if you don't plan on making the jump up FF in the foreseeable future, then you could arguably call any FX lens "overkill". Again, that's up to you.

Just my 0.02

MustAg
OP MustAg Forum Member • Posts: 51
Re: Not really...

rbmphoto wrote:

The 24-70 is not overkill, it is more limited on the z50 than the 16-80. On the Z7, the 24-70 let’s one use the full benefit of the larger sensor, albeit with limited range. However, having used it extensively on the Z7, I would always prefer the 2.8s version, or a prime - the kit lens is a great kit lens, but at the end of the day, it still is a kit lens. But as the op showed - you can get very good pics using it with proper technique with still subjects.

If af performance is important to you, let me suggest a Z6/Z7, or the ii versions of each, with your 300mm lens. Useful as the z50 may be, it is not in the same AF class, by far, as its semipro ff z big brothers. Something Clint E .said about knowing one’s limits...

In summary, I’m not sure what you would gain by spending money on a 24-70 4.0 s for your z50. I also believe that you would get greater satisfaction with your beloved 300mm lens on a larger z body with better af, and ibis for that matter. Your d7100 is probably more responsive, but less accurate, than the z50 with the 300mm. For af response, it is tough to beat the dslr’s compared to mirrorless, however you take a large step up in mirrorless response by going to the single digit z’s.

again, good luck!

Thank you for the nice words!

A few things I beg to differ on:

- Having rented the Z 28-70mm F/2.8 for a test, I had a very hard time telling the difference between that one and my 24-70 F/4 at the same aperture. Most reviewers seem to agree on that too. About the only significant difference was distortion and vignetting at wider apertures but that wasn't at the level where it's something that's hard to fix in post. Given the huge price gap, and since I have other primes that open wider than F/4 so the wider aperture isnt an absolute must for me, I decided to keep my F/4 version.

- I have owned a D7200 then D7500 and the Z50 focuses better in live view, much better too, than even 7500. It also has a better high ISO performance. Dunno how that particular lens would compare between 7100 and Z50, but I'm gonna give it to Z50 if I had to guess.

- totally agree that those who can afford the jump should move on to Z6 II/7 II after a while with the Z50. Tho AF on the latter has become way better than first firmware. I am able to get tack sharp shots with animal eye tracking in low light. That said, if af is a big concern, I would skip the first Z6 Z7 iterations for mk 2.

strawbale Senior Member • Posts: 1,645
Re: Sample gallery from my Z24-70 F/4 S, my new favorite walk around lens!
1

Lovely shots, but only one at f/4 and another one at f/5; the rest at f/7.1-f/14 whilst your reason for not using the Z50's kit is because it's so slow?

 strawbale's gear list:strawbale's gear list
Nikon Coolpix P7800
MustAg
OP MustAg Forum Member • Posts: 51
Re: Sample gallery from my Z24-70 F/4 S, my new favorite walk around lens!

strawbale wrote:

Lovely shots, but only one at f/4 and another one at f/5; the rest at f/7.1-f/14 whilst your reason for not using the Z50's kit is because it's so slow?

Most of these are either macros where dof would've been problematic wide open, or landscapes where you don't need F/4. I do shoot handle in low light every now and then, and more importantly I shoot portraits with the zoom lens but I can't post on public forums without my friends' permission πŸ˜‰

But yeah, 75% of my zoom lens shooting happen at narrower than F5.6. I would still need F/4 for 25% and when the 16-50 is only 150 bucks to maybe 200 cheaper than what I bought this one for, there's little reason to go for it.

Not to mention that any DX isn't an option for me since I'm moving to an FF Z body soon

rbmphoto Senior Member • Posts: 1,768
Couple of points...
1

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. πŸ™‚) 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

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. πŸ™‚) 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 πŸ˜‰

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads