24-70 replacing all primes?

[cpt_spud]

However, I'll probably keep the F mount 20mm prime - trade in value here is only A$200, and I need a good wide lens for if I want to run a third camera at sports games.

HI!

\Well, you might want to check this comparison of the Fmount 20 1.8 vs the Z version:

Photography Life 20 1.8S review

Best Regards,

RB

Oh I have absolutely no doubt the Z version is sharper.

But for me the equation is, if I get a Z mount 24-70, the F mount 20mm only counts as $200 towards the new lens. I may as well keep it and leave myself with a wide option, which is also good for astrophotography. Also, it is still a good lens, even if the Z mount option is better.

 

[Fabian Joya]

So yes, I'm aware the primes are sharper than the zooms - been the same with my F mount lenses (probably to a lesser degree though).

That's no longer a given actually. Even the Z 24-120/4 is pretty much equivalent to the Z 35/1.8 and Z 50/1.8 at overlapping apertures. And the Z 24-70/2.8 is quite a bit sharper.

The days where primes outperform zoom lenses are rapidly disappearing.

 

[Z8ZF]

So coming from the DSLR world, it's always the fun question of "what do I upgrade, what do I keep as F Mount"

This is a highly individual issue

Currently I've got F Mount 20mm, 35mm and 50mm primes, as well as the older 24-70mm f2.8 G which I'm considering replacing.

Most of the Z mount lenses are better than there F mount counterparts.

And some are a lot better.

I've seen a couple options around, including secondhand markets, and have looked at the Z mount 20mm, 35mm, 50mm, 85mm and the 24-70mm f4 as there's a couple deals on the secondhand market for them all, but then that made me think.

The 24-70mm f2.8 S ii looks like it's fixed a lot of my past issues with the 24-70 range (mostly the extendable zoom), and I have only kept the 20mm and 35mm f1.8 range cause they're sometimes sharper than my 24-70, plus lighter too for hiking. Have thought of doing the 24-70 f4, and then primes for low light but I'm getting sick of carrying so many different lenses, especially when they don't get used and are just sitting around.

I really like my Z primes.

Everyone's situation is different (including photographically and financially).

So, speaking only for myself, if I was starting a Z lens collection from scratch, yes, the 24-70 f/2.8S Mk II might make sense unless you have a burning desire for a prime lens within that zoom range.

Regarding the prime Z lenses that I have, I've been very happy with the 20 1.8S, 35 1,2S, 50 1.2S, 105 MC, Plena, and 400TC.

However, they are are relatively large lenses for their respective focal lengths, and don't address your weight concerns.

Again, the new 24-70 ii looks even lighter, so it's got me thinking - maybe just sell them all and replace them with a single lens? Has anyone tried this with the Z mount? Even for things like astrophotography? (Main reason I bought the 20mm originally)

The Z mount 14-24 f/2.8 and Z mount 20 1.8 do pretty well with astro/milky way.

If it's anything like my 70-200 f2.8e, I know I won't miss the prime performance because the zoom is so good.

I liked my 70-200 f/2.8e, but sold it and got a refurished Z 70-200 f/2.8S which I like a little better (I mostly use prime lenses in the 70-200mm range).

As many have pointed out, the 24-70 f/2.8S Mk II has not yet been released other than "pre-production" lenses that Nikon put in the hands of reviewers.

So it's a little pre mature for most of the forum members to comment on this lens based on personal experience.

However, the reviewers that I have found to be honest, skilled and accurate, have been pretty positive about their experiences with the Mk II 24-70 f/2.8S

in any event good luck with your future photography!

Best Regards,

RB

It's going to be an epic lens! the extra blades plus the internal focus is a winner!

It would NEVER replace my primes set though.

 

[BillyBobSenna]

So coming from the DSLR world, it's always the fun question of "what do I upgrade, what do I keep as F Mount"

Currently I've got F Mount 20mm, 35mm and 50mm primes, as well as the older 24-70mm f2.8 G which I'm considering replacing.

I've seen a couple options around, including secondhand markets, and have looked at the Z mount 20mm, 35mm, 50mm, 85mm and the 24-70mm f4 as there's a couple deals on the secondhand market for them all, but then that made me think.

The 24-70mm f2.8 S ii looks like it's fixed a lot of my past issues with the 24-70 range (mostly the extendable zoom), and I have only kept the 20mm and 35mm f1.8 range cause they're sometimes sharper than my 24-70, plus lighter too for hiking. Have thought of doing the 24-70 f4, and then primes for low light but I'm getting sick of carrying so many different lenses, especially when they don't get used and are just sitting around.

Again, the new 24-70 ii looks even lighter, so it's got me thinking - maybe just sell them all and replace them with a single lens? Has anyone tried this with the Z mount? Even for things like astrophotography? (Main reason I bought the 20mm originally)

If it's anything like my 70-200 f2.8e, I know I won't miss the prime performance because the zoom is so good.

What’s wrong with an adapter?

 

[Bruno Zarokian]

What's your thoughts regarding Prime vs Zoom in that range? All the reviews on the F mount side said that the 70-200 f2.8e is basically as good as any prime within that range, quality wise. Interested to see if that's the same on the Z mount side.

There were certainly many primes much better than the 70-200 E, like the 105f1.4.

Likewise on the Z side, if (biggish if) money (and weight) are not a concern, the 85f1.2 and 135f1.8 are much better than the 70-200 on pretty much all aspects, sharpness corner to corner, contrast, bokeh, 2.5 stops faster etc. Arguably the 85f1.8 is already a bit better but that is a close call. I might have posted a head to head somewhere a while ago, need to find it back.

And the same applies to the current 24-70f2.8, the 35f1.2 and 50f1.2 are much better lenses at these FL (especially the 35) than the current zoom. Again it's a closer call with the f1.8 lenses.

Side note, the 20mm Z is much much better than the 20mm F, really worth the upgrade. But the 14-24f2.8 is actually very close and a real gem.

 

[rscott900ss]

So coming from the DSLR world, it's always the fun question of "what do I upgrade, what do I keep as F Mount"

Currently I've got F Mount 20mm, 35mm and 50mm primes, as well as the older 24-70mm f2.8 G which I'm considering replacing.

Unless you need the speed of your F-mount primes, I'd sell the 35mm, 50mm, and 24-70 f/2.8 G without hesitation and get the first or second version of the Z 24-70 f/2.8 :-D

 

[anotherMike]

Echoing another poster here, I would sell the 35 and 50G primes, and the 24-70G zoom and replace those with the 24-70/2.8S (either version) zoom. Unless you absolutely need F1.8 or so, the new zoom is actually equal to and often better than most of the core F mount 1.8G primes within the range. I used to not be a zoom guy, and have owned all of the F mount core primes plus a lot of Zeiss and Sigma Art, and I was shocked how good the 24-70/2.8S is, specifically at 35 and 50mm. I'd keep the 20/1.8G until you can afford to move up to the 20/1.8S, which is a notable upgrade and then you're good. Really the only sensible way to go from there if you really get caught up in extremely high image quality is the 1.2S primes, but those are all heavy and expensive, albeit amazing.

 

[Karl Huber]

So coming from the DSLR world, it's always the fun question of "what do I upgrade, what do I keep as F Mount"

Currently I've got F Mount 20mm, 35mm and 50mm primes, as well as the older 24-70mm f2.8 G which I'm considering replacing.

I've seen a couple options around, including secondhand markets, and have looked at the Z mount 20mm, 35mm, 50mm, 85mm and the 24-70mm f4 as there's a couple deals on the secondhand market for them all, but then that made me think.

The 24-70mm f2.8 S ii looks like it's fixed a lot of my past issues with the 24-70 range (mostly the extendable zoom), and I have only kept the 20mm and 35mm f1.8 range cause they're sometimes sharper than my 24-70, plus lighter too for hiking. Have thought of doing the 24-70 f4, and then primes for low light but I'm getting sick of carrying so many different lenses, especially when they don't get used and are just sitting around.

Again, the new 24-70 ii looks even lighter, so it's got me thinking - maybe just sell them all and replace them with a single lens? Has anyone tried this with the Z mount? Even for things like astrophotography? (Main reason I bought the 20mm originally)

If it's anything like my 70-200 f2.8e, I know I won't miss the prime performance because the zoom is so good.

I have the 24-70 f2.8 S all but welded to my Z7. That is the outfit which goes nearly everywhere with me.

I have also used that lens on my Z9 and it is a stellar performer which ever camera I have it on.

 

[shuncheung]

I have the 24-70 f2.8 S all but welded to my Z7. That is the outfit which goes nearly everywhere with me.

But that is merely the old, out-of-date version 1 that is surpassed in many ways by version 2. :-D

I have also used that lens on my Z9 and it is a stellar performer which ever camera I have it on.

 

[cpt_spud]

Echoing another poster here, I would sell the 35 and 50G primes, and the 24-70G zoom and replace those with the 24-70/2.8S (either version) zoom. Unless you absolutely need F1.8 or so, the new zoom is actually equal to and often better than most of the core F mount 1.8G primes within the range. I used to not be a zoom guy, and have owned all of the F mount core primes plus a lot of Zeiss and Sigma Art, and I was shocked how good the 24-70/2.8S is, specifically at 35 and 50mm. I'd keep the 20/1.8G until you can afford to move up to the 20/1.8S, which is a notable upgrade and then you're good. Really the only sensible way to go from there if you really get caught up in extremely high image quality is the 1.2S primes, but those are all heavy and expensive, albeit amazing.

I think this is the way to go. Am still undecided which version of the 24-70, but am leaving more towards the II just for the internal zoom.

The reason for keeping the 20mm f mount is also because my 3rd camera is still a D750, and for sports events or other times where I'd need a 3rd cam wide angle, I can't use the 24-70 so I'll need to keen an f mount one.

 

[Karl Huber]

I have the 24-70 f2.8 S all but welded to my Z7. That is the outfit which goes nearly everywhere with me.

But that is merely the old, out-of-date version 1 that is surpassed in many ways by version 2. :-D

I have also used that lens on my Z9 and it is a stellar performer which ever camera I have it on.

Haha. I was talking about the new model with a colleague recently. Like me, she also owns the “old” version and is sticking with it. I rather liked her comment that “it’s not possible to improve on perfection.”

There was a bit of "tongue in cheek" in that comment.

 

[cpt_spud]

So coming from the DSLR world, it's always the fun question of "what do I upgrade, what do I keep as F Mount"

Currently I've got F Mount 20mm, 35mm and 50mm primes, as well as the older 24-70mm f2.8 G which I'm considering replacing.

I've seen a couple options around, including secondhand markets, and have looked at the Z mount 20mm, 35mm, 50mm, 85mm and the 24-70mm f4 as there's a couple deals on the secondhand market for them all, but then that made me think.

The 24-70mm f2.8 S ii looks like it's fixed a lot of my past issues with the 24-70 range (mostly the extendable zoom), and I have only kept the 20mm and 35mm f1.8 range cause they're sometimes sharper than my 24-70, plus lighter too for hiking. Have thought of doing the 24-70 f4, and then primes for low light but I'm getting sick of carrying so many different lenses, especially when they don't get used and are just sitting around.

Again, the new 24-70 ii looks even lighter, so it's got me thinking - maybe just sell them all and replace them with a single lens? Has anyone tried this with the Z mount? Even for things like astrophotography? (Main reason I bought the 20mm originally)

If it's anything like my 70-200 f2.8e, I know I won't miss the prime performance because the zoom is so good.

What’s wrong with an adapter?

Absolutely nothing, I've been using that on both of my Z mount cameras all year. This exercise has come about for a couple reasons:

The F mount 24-70 currently holds a decent trade in value, and I didn't see much point in holding out on it until it's worth nothing.

Main thing is, yes the adapters work, however when you compare something like the F Mount 24-70 + FTZ compared to the size of the Z mount 24-70, it's so much smaller and that smaller size makes it a lot easier to use in tight spaces eg. crowded concerts etc.

I've always known there would be several F mount lenses that will always be used adapted (400mm f2.8 for example), so it's definitely not an issue with the adapter.

And it's also coming about because I'm wanting to downsize my lens collection.

 

[shuncheung]

Echoing another poster here, I would sell the 35 and 50G primes, and the 24-70G zoom and replace those with the 24-70/2.8S (either version) zoom. Unless you absolutely need F1.8 or so, the new zoom is actually equal to and often better than most of the core F mount 1.8G primes within the range. I used to not be a zoom guy, and have owned all of the F mount core primes plus a lot of Zeiss and Sigma Art, and I was shocked how good the 24-70/2.8S is, specifically at 35 and 50mm. I'd keep the 20/1.8G until you can afford to move up to the 20/1.8S, which is a notable upgrade and then you're good. Really the only sensible way to go from there if you really get caught up in extremely high image quality is the 1.2S primes, but those are all heavy and expensive, albeit amazing.

I think this is the way to go. Am still undecided which version of the 24-70, but am leaving more towards the II just for the internal zoom.

If you can, definitely get version 2 or you will soon be thinking about upgrading. When you have version 2, it will be at least another 6, 7 years before that incredible, "must have" version 3 with tons of improvements becomes available. ;-)

The reason for keeping the 20mm f mount is also because my 3rd camera is still a D750, and for sports events or other times where I'd need a 3rd cam wide angle, I can't use the 24-70 so I'll need to keen an f mount one.

Most of the improvements from F lenses to Z lenses are on the wide end, mid zooms, and those f1.2 lenses that were not possible with the F mount. At 20mm, you'll likely see a lot of improvements in Z. It is time to sell that D750 and get a Z6iii or something so that your 3rd camera is also Z. [ I am being semi serious. ]

 

[RBFresno]

However, I'll probably keep the F mount 20mm prime - trade in value here is only A$200, and I need a good wide lens for if I want to run a third camera at sports games.

HI!

\Well, you might want to check this comparison of the Fmount 20 1.8 vs the Z version:

Photography Life 20 1.8S review

Best Regards,

RB

Oh I have absolutely no doubt the Z version is sharper.

But for me the equation is, if I get a Z mount 24-70, the F mount 20mm only counts as $200 towards the new lens. I may as well keep it and leave myself with a wide option, which is also good for astrophotography. Also, it is still a good lens, even if the Z mount option is better.

Hi!



I only occasionally dabble in astro photography (...not an expert for sure, just a few Milky Way shots really). However, I do get a little annoyed when I pixel peep and see any trace of comma on the stars

I had been reasonably happy with my now"outdated" 28 f.14D AF with respect to comma (I think I have a very good copy)

More recently, i think that I'm getting slightly better results with the Z 14-24 f/2.8S and 20 1.8S than I had with their F mount counterparts.

Here's "Red Slave Obelisk in Bonaire this year:



14-24





20 1.8S





Best Regards



RB

http://www.dpreview.com/members/2305099006/challenges

NikonImages

Discover the artistry of Nikon photography. Join a community of passionate photographers sharing breathtaking images, tips, and insights using Nikon cameras and lenses.

www.nikonimages.com

 

[cpt_spud]

So just for a little bit of an update, I rented the Z 20mm and 35mm f1.8s for a concert shoot last night and spent the night running round with them on my second body.

Gotta say, they feel great and wow, everyone wasn't joking about the sharpness. It's a completely different league compared to the f-mount lenses. Definitely happy I rented them.

However, still wasn't a fan of having to swap lenses the whole time and really did miss my 24-70 (it was on a rented Z6iii videoing the whole thing), so I think next steps would be to rent a z-mount 24-70 to see if the difference in sharpness is really that big for what I need.

But yes, I am finally getting what all the hype is around these Z mount lenses!

RIP my wallet...

 

[shuncheung]

So just for a little bit of an update, I rented the Z 20mm and 35mm f1.8s for a concert shoot last night and spent the night running round with them on my second body.

Gotta say, they feel great and wow, everyone wasn't joking about the sharpness. It's a completely different league compared to the f-mount lenses. Definitely happy I rented them.

However, still wasn't a fan of having to swap lenses the whole time and really did miss my 24-70 (it was on a rented Z6iii videoing the whole thing), so I think next steps would be to rent a z-mount 24-70 to see if the difference in sharpness is really that big for what I need.

But yes, I am finally getting what all the hype is around these Z mount lenses!

For anything wide and mid zooms such as those that start from 24mm, 28mm, you'll likely see the big advantage of mirrorless as those wide angles no longer need to leave some 30mm or so space on the rear end for the mirror to flip.

If you have newer F-mount telephotos, the improvements in Z should be less obvious.

RIP my wallet...

 

[polizonte]

I really like my primes Nikon Z f/1.8 primes (35mm, 50mm, 85mm); I usually stop them down to f/4.5 -f6.3. Years ago I rented 24-70mm F/2.8 G but it wasn't for me. However this zoom's mentioned design improvements + the convenience of not having to carry a lens arsenal, nor even having to change lenses... I want to see how it performs.