Z mount diameter matters, but that doesn't mean that Sony can't make some stellar lenses with their mount.

But the 24-70 f2.8 is a workhorse lens; it's a staple of most pro's and serious hobbyists. And being a zoom, it is harder to design for such excellence than a prime. So I do believe that Nikon has delivered a world class lens in one of the most useful configurations possible.

I think you're probably right about the 24-70 f2.8 being a world class lens but that's the point. Nikon Z has some pretty good lenses like the 24-70 f4, 14-30 f4, 35 f1.8 and a couple of really good lenses like the 24-70 f2.8 and the 50 f1.8. Sony has examples of the same with some really good and some exceptional. I'm still skeptical that this proves that the mount is much of a factor. At some point when Nikon has another 10+ Z lenses maybe we'll be able to see a pattern that but not yet.

From what I understand, and I am no optical engineer, the larger mount allows lens designers more flexibility. So for instance, if they want to go all out for performance, they can do it. It appears they have done that with this 24-70 f2.8. And it's still smaller than their F mount version.

If they want to have a smaller size but still great performance, they can do that. So the 24-70 f4 is a fantastic lens in a very small package. The 50 f1.8 has gotten great reviews.

So I do think Nikon is producing some fantastic lenses. But as you say, we will see over time. I am willing to bet their 70-200 f2.8 will be at least as good as this 24-70.

No extra cookies for the pets? Poor things ... :)

Not the same mount. Mounts do not improve photographs. So why change mount? Do you mean that you'd have to spend $2300 just because the lens mount is different?

No, he means that you can’t use the 24-70S on an F mount and you can’t use the Tamron on a Z mount without an adapter. So on a Z camera it becomes longer, “heavier” (which in the big picture is not that heavy) and while you get VC, you don’t get 5 axis IBIS. The adapter makes prime F lenses palatable on the Z, but zooms become a bit annoying with the added length. So, even IF all things were equal, the Nikon native lens is more attractive than the Tamron. And since not all things are equal and the Nikon is better in every way, the Tamron only has price in its corner. And if it’s price you’re after, the Nikon 24-70 f/4S is cheaper as a kit, gets full 5 axis IBIS and smokes the Tamron again in every metric.

From my point of view, the Canon RF 28-70mm F2L USM is much less useful than the Nikon NIKKOR Z 24-70mm f/2.8 S. It is a heavy behemoth, it only starts at 28mm and neither the lens nor any of the available bodies have image stabilization.

@Einride: Nothing to do with fanboyism. It's just fact. You may not have use the RF, but feel free to look at the samples here and do the math. In a workhorse system, weight & size doesn't matter much, you have all those mammoth primes & zooms.

Compare the samples closely and evaluate your response, you'll see what I mean - color, contrast, sharpness, and the "3D Pop" both at wide & Tele end. Just examine...feel free to download and pixel peep too.

https://www.dpreview.com/sample-galleries/6689405339/canon-rf-28-70mm-f2-l-usm-sample-gallery

Wow, that(Canon F2) is an amazing lens! I wish I could afford it...

@Jack Jian I looked and I don’t see the same as you at all so don’t misuse the word “fact”. From what I can see the Nikkor looks sharper and with better rendering.
The Canon F2 zoom is an event lens for photographing people with shallow depth of field. In reportage the smaller size but more importantly, 24 mm on the wide end is more useful than the extra stop of light. A 24-70 2.8 is a more versatile lens for pros. Which is why Canon is also making one. The f2 some is a huge and heavy speciality lens. Just like the Nikkor 58mm f0.95. Very cool but not the most useful.

Looked at the 28-70 f2 gallery.

Doesn't it say "Adjustments made to exposure parameters, vibrance, contrast and curves? Sharpening has been set to 25%. All lens corrections turned off."

There's your color and contrast to taste.

An f2 lens would give less DOF, < your 3D explained.

It's not sharper than the Z24-70. Just go loupe on the models for comparison. Image 2 or 3 for the 28-70 and Image 40 for the Z24-70.
Compare the sharpest areas.
That shallower DOF working against sharpness.

To quote Luke Skywalker, "Every word of what you just said... was wrong"

Didn't say it the 24-70VR was bad, but it isn't a keeper for the price. Slightly better edge quality than the older one but worse center sharpness? Big reason I kept the old one.
Better options via 3rd party at almost 1/3 the price as well.
Don't shoot videos so VR not a must.

The 24-70VR is ok but it is no 70-200 f2.8E.

Canon also came out with their 24-70 stunner at about the same time. It made me think I'll just wait till Nikon makes something as good.

And here it is.

@Barney:
Thanks for the input.

I know 24-70mm's aren't portrait lenses and shouldn't be judged by that criteria but for me the Nikkors sometimes rendered almost like mirror lenses and i just found them too distracting.

Unfortunately, a theme I'm seeing with Z lenses is an obsession with sharpness. That singular pursuit tends to rob lenses of more-important characteristics. For me personally, sharpness is fun for pixel-peeping, which i do like to do, but not nearly as important as the overall image feel. IMO sharpness is the rookie's priority, and the artist's afterthought. Unless, of course, there's a specific need for maximum sharpness as in macro, texture, or other subjects where detail IS the feature. Continued...

By policy, we shoot lens sample galleries on the highest resolution body we can, at low ISOs. The Raws are made available if you'd like to develop them at 24MP, which should act as a pretty good proxy for shooting on a Z6. I'd recommend playing around with the downsizing method but it should give you a good indication of likely performance.

Short version - if a lens is stellar on 40MP+, it won't disappoint you at 24MP.

Your post is too logical Barney. Some people on this site may not understand it.
The shoes I chose fit me perfectly, can I see the same shoes in one size larger to see if they are too tight.

@HowaboutRAW - I see no harm in asking for Z6 samples: the more information the better.
My point was that if a lens can resolve 47 mpx, than it should easily be able to resolve 24 mpx. The optics of the lens do no change if you put a lower mpx sensor in front of it. CA, vignetting are properties of the lens not sensor. My comments come from the lens dominates camp, since light goes thru it first.

@HowaboutRAW - "Short version: A lens can look stellar at low ISOs and be not so at higher ISOs." True, but that would be a function of the sensor, not the same lens. If the RAW's from the Z6 are not as good, blame the Z6 sensor, not the lens. The lens optics are neutral.

This Tamron 28-75 is a real bargain and extremely popular among new Sony users. Its great IQ makes it hard not to compare it with any native lens from any manufacturer. Let's see how their new FE 17-28 stacks up against competition.

Four letters for you: IBIS.

Think about that......

This might be interesting for the sake of argument:

https://photographylife.com/lens-stabilization-vs-in-camera-stabilization

I'm not sure if 70mm would be considered telephoto or not (depends on who you ask I guess). However I will say that I've made it through 3 years with my 24-70 ED lens (which doesn't have VR) and done fine in about 80% of the shots (obviously I had some instances where it didn't fare too well, particularly in low-light or at night) but you do have IBIS in the Z series which is better than nothing.

However, I would say (IMO) anything beyond 100mm should have some sort of OIS (obviously this falls below that so it's a toss-up, and with the excellent high ISO performance of cameras today, this has become less of an issue too as you can now do ISO 3200 or even 6400 without a huge noise penalty).

That's all cute until Nikon releases lower priced bodies with no IBIS to compete with A7II and RP.

This lens displays virtually no lateral or longitudinal CA. Automatic profiling is possibly removing lateral CA (it's easy to do) but the lack of LoCA is impressive. There are plenty of images in this gallery which would show CA if it were there - it's not necessary to shoot a sunset or sunrise to demonstrate.

scokill, don't be like that. jglaser757 is obviously talking about the F-mount glass.

A fast 24-70mm is one of the most difficult kinds of lenses to design. We've had this confirmed by optical engineers. Standout examples of the type (Canon's mark II version for EF mount, and this new Nikon Z design) are exceptions. A 24-70mm which is sharp at all focal lengths and apertures, and (crucially) doesn't fall apart at close distances is a special thing indeed.

I can't make sense of your question, but I have spoken to a lot of optical engineers over the past decade.

Well, Canon famously doesn't get much credit for its achievements here. The Canon EF 24-70/2.8L II speaks to the high quality of Canon's achievement 7 years ago, considering how other manufacturers are so late to catch up. Seven years after Canon's lens, and even with the advantage of designing for a mirrorless system, Nikon still fails to exceed Canon's benchmark for weight. Meanwhile, Sony's comparable lens is even heavier.

Canon's EF 24-70mm f2.8 II is an excellent lens, and a benchmark for that class of lenses for DSLR. No argument here. If you don't think we've recognised Canon's outstanding achievements in optics over the past few years I'd respectfully suggest you haven't been looking hard enough ;)

I do think you recognised Canon's outstanding achievements in optics over the past few years.

What I don't think is that you're as enthused with those achievements as you recurrently are with camera's ones, from other brands.

Which is a bit strange as, this being DPR's editors chosen field of work, you should know how much more important the former are over the latter, both financially (...bodies come and go, outstanding optics stay for decades...) and technically (...if we want a specific look from a scene, once the FL, aperture and sensor format is chosen, the body tends to be a bit secondary...).

...and, believe me, I have looked and will keep looking hard enough...

The golden age of vanishing sales? You must be wearing Elton John pink glasses. LOL
Earth to Thoughts...this is just 2500 dollars lens that performs as such.

“With the larger mounts for Nikon and Canon, we are entering a golden age for fabulous new lenses. We will see higher performance standards than ever before.”
Lol this is some funny $417. Lay off the brand cool aid before you explode all over your computer.

The thing is razor sharp!

Depends on where you look. Mostly it is razor sharp, but on image 12 at 70mm the edges look rather soft

You need to get an eye appointment ASAP something is really wrong

Image 12.. the log?

The log is sharp at the point of focus. The right side is shallow depth of field and is soft just as it should be.

You need to put down the crack pipe if these don't look sharp to you. Most are wide open too.

"may be I need better eyes?"
Yes, obviously you do.

The flower pictures are not sharp, when you look at 100% size.

There's a hint of movement in the flower stems. 1/160 is probably inadequate to freeze subjects for a 45MP camera when pixel peeping. Pink Flower on the rock is mighty sharp compared to tulips. f2.8 too. That's impressive.

I completely agree with you.
The images look very sharp when displayed at smaller sizes. It looks like it has pretty great microcontrast, especially for a zoom lens.

But once you zoom in 1:1 it is evident that resolution isn't this lens' main strength. It looks good enough on its own but people who know how 1:1 at this MP number can look like will find it to be mediocre.

The people who say there is something wrong are either trolling or should check their own eyes first.

I checked the raw files I took with this lens and they are extremely sharp from near by to medium distance.
Do not rely on dpr samples, just test it if you have any interest in it or ignore it.

You can also download our Raw samples. We dial down ACR's default sharpening to +25 (as noted in the descriptions on the images) but you can do whatever you want to the Raws, and process them according to your own preferences.

I don't follow you. Raws are Raws. We offer them for download so that you can do whatever you like to them.

key word is native and key price is under $1800.
Those are all pro lenses so another key word.. compromise.

I want to use my Z 6, not a Z 7 and not "buy a high res body to use in aps-c".. I have 2 D500s.

I'm still waiting for the Z8 or whatever they're going to call their true pro Z. But indeed a 20mm f1.8 Z lens would be one of my first bought. Well, depending on whether Nikon goes crazy on pricing...

you get what you pay for!

You can jut the price if you cut corners, use cheaper glas which has a larger dispersion hence more CA. For many customers the number one the box is relevant. (2.8/24-70) Others want the extra millage in optical IQ.

It is good that people have a choice.

So we give the OP a block of aluminum and a pail of sand and soda so he can start from scratch and make a lens for 1/3rd the cost. Oh wait! Design, development, manufacturing, quality control and marketing add to the cost of raw materials. I read that someone made a lens from beach sand and a blow torch, then took a photo with it. I guess there's hope for the hapless entrepreneur.

I could understand high price of really large telephoto prime lens with ton of glass or special lens like: Nikon 200 f2 but come on guys this is just standard 2.8 24-70 lens. It should not cost more than $1500 where you would already paid extra for Nikon badge anyway. How come Tamron can make lens which sells for 1/3 of this Nikon price and still make money from it? The same applies for standard 70-200 2.8 zooms. As far we keep bending and paying ridiculous money for lenses they never lower prices.

@sirhawkeye64
I guess you meant 24-70G for older design and 24-70 ED VR for the latest model :)
I've been using 24-70G on D810 for some time and can confirm it is indeed still very good lens.

3rd party lens makers have always been cheaper. Quite often cheaper in quality too in my experience. The price is fully in line with the competition and even a bit cheaper than the Nikon 24-70VR E.

But I guess you’re a n00b who just started photography as you’re comparing Nikkor to Tamron.

@milk..... Canon and Sony and Nikon all have 24-70 lenses over $2000. 3rd party cheaper? Sure. It's how they have to be competitive. Also, 3rd party makers don't have nearly the same infrastructure to fund as the OEM brands do. Have you ever seen TPS? Tamron Professional Services? Nope, neither have I. Have you ever seen a Tamron regional office? Nope, either have I, because they sell through distributors where as OEM brands typically have offices and services centres in major countries. You may pay more for OEM, but you get more too. It's not just about build and optics, there are staff and overhead to pay. People keep forgetting that.

Yes @sirhawkeye and @mgblack74... you guys covered it perfectly. Brand matters. If it didn't, first party lenses couldn't be priced with a premium. Personally I shoot 3rd party glass but I definitely see the value in 3rd party glass. milkod cries about this lens every time there is an article about it

@milkod2001 not only are you wrong, you're a liar too. Wow. For starters, what other 24-70 2.8s are there for Z mount? Secondly, on F mount the premium is nowhere near 3x. The Nikkor 2.8E is $2400. Both the Tamron G2 and Sigma ART 2.8 zooms are $1200. Quick maths shows that's a 1x premium. Unless you are comparing used F mount lenses to new Z mount lenses which would not surprise me.

"If you don't want it, don't buy it" is absolutely the best answer. Nikon doesn't owe you anything and a $2400 lens is hardly going to sink the company. You have options. Just today I bought an old Tamron G1 2.8 standard zoom for $430. Why do you need a brand new lens?

Well you shouldn't judge distortions based on DPreview galleries. Because "off" for some systems means default.

So M43, Fuji, and Nikon Z galleries are shown with the baked in distortion correction. (At least that was the case with the 24-70 F4 S) Because you cannot disable them in ACR

If you want to look at distortion download the RAWs and put them through a converter that lets you disable corrections like C1

All that said, there is a reason distortion correction is standard on many mirrorless systems. And that is because the lenses can be designed with electronic corrections in mind. Something that many M43 and Fuji lenses do very successfully and still provide sharp corners