Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Mirrorless Z
Z Lenses
Nikon Z s 24-70 2.8 vs the f4
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="spb_stan" data-source="post: 718798" data-attributes="member: 43545"><p>I have shot both extensively.IF you need a top flight mid zoom, you can't do better than the 24-70 2.8.In every criteria it is quite probably the best mid zoom on the planet. But it is not cheap and might not be needed.The F/4 version is excellent, better than either the 24-70 2.8 G or E versions which I also have. </p><p>The 14-30 is slower in aperture but it compares very well to the famous 14-24 2.8. Corner to corner, an important criteria for landscape and architecture photography, is better with the smaller, lighter and better suited to filters and ND filters since it has a front element recessed so it accepts standard screw on filters. I am a big fan of the 14-30 because it is the perfect travel wide angle and fitts and carry-on or camera bag. Unless someone really needs 2.8, it is hard to justify the higher cost of the 14-24 2.8. For a long time it was the best ultra-wide angle available. But since that time the lower cost Tamron 15-30 2.8 had excellent VR and $500 cheaper. I sold my 14-24 some time ago but bought a Tamron last year and find it to be very impressive in feel, build, optics and 5 stops of VR. Then enter Z cameras with the gigantic flange and the shortest flange distance so ultra wide lenses can be smaller and simpler. The f/4 14-30 S lenses is too small, too light and too good to be ignored. As a travel lens, I think it is the best option on the market for any mount. If you need a sharp wide angle and do not need faster than f/4, I say it ticks all the right boxes.</p><p></p><p>What do you shoot that would benefit from f/2.8 in a mid zoom? I do a lot of low light and portraiture and events where 24-70 is very useful but find I really do not need 2.8 when the excellent 1.8 85 , 35 and 50mm primes that are super. I did a shoot tonight, portrait and boudoir session tonight and took only a SB900, the Z6, a 24-70 f/4, 85 1.8 S, and 50 1.8 S that fit in a small sling bag. I have not edited them but the images looked great on the monitor. Every image was taken with the 24-70 f/4 or the 85 1.8.</p><p>No lens is magic, they are tools and like all tools, they assist the craftsmen but do not make the results. What do you shoot and in what conditions?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="spb_stan, post: 718798, member: 43545"] I have shot both extensively.IF you need a top flight mid zoom, you can't do better than the 24-70 2.8.In every criteria it is quite probably the best mid zoom on the planet. But it is not cheap and might not be needed.The F/4 version is excellent, better than either the 24-70 2.8 G or E versions which I also have. The 14-30 is slower in aperture but it compares very well to the famous 14-24 2.8. Corner to corner, an important criteria for landscape and architecture photography, is better with the smaller, lighter and better suited to filters and ND filters since it has a front element recessed so it accepts standard screw on filters. I am a big fan of the 14-30 because it is the perfect travel wide angle and fitts and carry-on or camera bag. Unless someone really needs 2.8, it is hard to justify the higher cost of the 14-24 2.8. For a long time it was the best ultra-wide angle available. But since that time the lower cost Tamron 15-30 2.8 had excellent VR and $500 cheaper. I sold my 14-24 some time ago but bought a Tamron last year and find it to be very impressive in feel, build, optics and 5 stops of VR. Then enter Z cameras with the gigantic flange and the shortest flange distance so ultra wide lenses can be smaller and simpler. The f/4 14-30 S lenses is too small, too light and too good to be ignored. As a travel lens, I think it is the best option on the market for any mount. If you need a sharp wide angle and do not need faster than f/4, I say it ticks all the right boxes. What do you shoot that would benefit from f/2.8 in a mid zoom? I do a lot of low light and portraiture and events where 24-70 is very useful but find I really do not need 2.8 when the excellent 1.8 85 , 35 and 50mm primes that are super. I did a shoot tonight, portrait and boudoir session tonight and took only a SB900, the Z6, a 24-70 f/4, 85 1.8 S, and 50 1.8 S that fit in a small sling bag. I have not edited them but the images looked great on the monitor. Every image was taken with the 24-70 f/4 or the 85 1.8. No lens is magic, they are tools and like all tools, they assist the craftsmen but do not make the results. What do you shoot and in what conditions? [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Mirrorless Z
Z Lenses
Nikon Z s 24-70 2.8 vs the f4
Top