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: 726941" data-attributes="member: 43545"><p>For a general comment. I bought a 24-70 2.8 S and it is on another level above the F mount, sold a F mount E type that covered it. Yeah it is great but the little f/4 version gets used daily on far more shots because it is with my in my light sling bag. Shooting for personal pleasure in jazz clubs, random people who become new acquaintances. If someone forced me to have only one zoom lens, I would pick the f/4 because it is going to get the rare shot opportunities because it is with me all the time. The 2.8, as good as it is, at f/4 is impossible to tell a difference at less than 100% pixel peeping. For commercial shoots where I take a large backpack or rolling case, the 2.8 is a primary go to lens. The only lenses in my slign bag that is with me everywhere, it is the 85 1.8 S, 24-70 f/4, and a wide prime like the 24 1.8s or none at all. Add a SB900 and flash controller and I am ready to handle almost anything I run across. </p><p>The 70-200 2.8 S will be ordered using cash from selling off more F lenses but it is not compact at all, larger than a F mount version. I hope a f/4 70-200 that is small and light like the well regarded F mount f/4 version I hardly see the in use or for sale so I suspect it never sold well. Using an FTZ to a f/4 70-200 F mount would make it longer than some 2.8 versions. The Tamron 70-200 2.8 is more compact but not light. I seldom use any F mount lenses now. I still have 3 full frame Nikon DSLRs so will keep a few. </p><p></p><p>Consider any remaining F lenses as temporary fill ins, to be replaced by better optics of the S glass. The non-S glass is also pretty good but not sealed as well, and not up to the corner to corner sharpness and lack of fringing that S glass is becoming famous for. For those who stop down a lot for greater depth of field, pro F glass is a fine substitute because they get better in the corners slower than 4 or 5.6. The fringing on fast F primes that limit edge detail pretty much disappears stopped down to 5.6. But most of us do not buy fast primes to shoot 5.6. A lot of subjects to not benefit that much from corner to corner sharpness, such as portaits that are limited to the center pf the frame, but anything where the edges or even bokah is within the final frame crop, at 5.6, the S lenses still embarrass some pretty pricey fast F mount lenses. The 85 for example shot wide open just begins to have oval bokah balls in specular highlights, like a 10% horizontal narrowing of the circles bu still no sign of onion rings.</p><p></p><p>These reasonably priced S primes are changing shooting preferences from zooms to primes. A lot of people are shifting to zooming with feet because they are so pleasant to use and what they do to our attention to framing and perspective. That shift might not have started if S lenses were not as stellar as they are.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="spb_stan, post: 726941, member: 43545"] For a general comment. I bought a 24-70 2.8 S and it is on another level above the F mount, sold a F mount E type that covered it. Yeah it is great but the little f/4 version gets used daily on far more shots because it is with my in my light sling bag. Shooting for personal pleasure in jazz clubs, random people who become new acquaintances. If someone forced me to have only one zoom lens, I would pick the f/4 because it is going to get the rare shot opportunities because it is with me all the time. The 2.8, as good as it is, at f/4 is impossible to tell a difference at less than 100% pixel peeping. For commercial shoots where I take a large backpack or rolling case, the 2.8 is a primary go to lens. The only lenses in my slign bag that is with me everywhere, it is the 85 1.8 S, 24-70 f/4, and a wide prime like the 24 1.8s or none at all. Add a SB900 and flash controller and I am ready to handle almost anything I run across. The 70-200 2.8 S will be ordered using cash from selling off more F lenses but it is not compact at all, larger than a F mount version. I hope a f/4 70-200 that is small and light like the well regarded F mount f/4 version I hardly see the in use or for sale so I suspect it never sold well. Using an FTZ to a f/4 70-200 F mount would make it longer than some 2.8 versions. The Tamron 70-200 2.8 is more compact but not light. I seldom use any F mount lenses now. I still have 3 full frame Nikon DSLRs so will keep a few. Consider any remaining F lenses as temporary fill ins, to be replaced by better optics of the S glass. The non-S glass is also pretty good but not sealed as well, and not up to the corner to corner sharpness and lack of fringing that S glass is becoming famous for. For those who stop down a lot for greater depth of field, pro F glass is a fine substitute because they get better in the corners slower than 4 or 5.6. The fringing on fast F primes that limit edge detail pretty much disappears stopped down to 5.6. But most of us do not buy fast primes to shoot 5.6. A lot of subjects to not benefit that much from corner to corner sharpness, such as portaits that are limited to the center pf the frame, but anything where the edges or even bokah is within the final frame crop, at 5.6, the S lenses still embarrass some pretty pricey fast F mount lenses. The 85 for example shot wide open just begins to have oval bokah balls in specular highlights, like a 10% horizontal narrowing of the circles bu still no sign of onion rings. These reasonably priced S primes are changing shooting preferences from zooms to primes. A lot of people are shifting to zooming with feet because they are so pleasant to use and what they do to our attention to framing and perspective. That shift might not have started if S lenses were not as stellar as they are. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Mirrorless Z
Z Lenses
Nikon Z s 24-70 2.8 vs the f4
Top