+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 17 of 17
  1. #11
    Senior Member
    Rick M's Avatar

    Re: Nikon Z s 24-70 2.8 vs the f4

    Quote Originally Posted by Danno View Post
    I get pumped up about the 2.8 trinity too. But I really like my 24-70 f4. I really think i am going to stay in the f4 world for the 24-70 and the 14-30 to manage my costs, but the 70-200 f2.8... I really like the thought of that lens. I am just thinking about how I use the lenses. I like to use the 70-200 in indoor arenas for horse shows and such and the Tamron I use now sees a lot of use in f stops below 4. The other two lenses do not.
    It's good to know your most used settings/focal lengths to focus (ha, ha) your spending on the right lenses. I rarely shot below 20mm, that's why I ordered that instead of the 14-30. I want the best quality at the range I shoot the most. I'm also tempted by the 70-200, but I want to see what the specs are for the 100-400 first.


    › See More: Nikon Z s 24-70 2.8 vs the f4
    Rick

    http://www.rmillsphotography.com/

    Nikon Z7, Nikon Z s 50mm 1.8
    Nikonite
    Tee-shirt, lens cloth and business cards!




  2. #12
    Senior Member
    Danno's Avatar

    Re: Nikon Z s 24-70 2.8 vs the f4

    Quote Originally Posted by Rick M View Post
    It's good to know your most used settings/focal lengths to focus (ha, ha) your spending on the right lenses. I rarely shot below 20mm, that's why I ordered that instead of the 14-30. I want the best quality at the range I shoot the most. I'm also tempted by the 70-200, but I want to see what the specs are for the 100-400 first.
    I went back and forth on the 20mm this week as well. I rarely shoot under 20mm but with my thought is using it in the 24 to 30 range. Still saving money. That choice could still change. I really love my primes so far.

    I really appreciate these conversations on here. I had not looked at the 100-400 because of the poorly lit arenas and such that I have used the 70-200 in. But I do have time... or should I say I lack the funds to to prevent any quick spending. I do have time to consider both. I am trying to be very careful in my choices to get the most bang for my buck.

    All these S lenses are really good in my opinion. I have been really happy with each of mine. It does seem to come down more to the right fit than anything else.
    Thanks/Like Patrick Molloy, Rick M Thanks/liked this post
     
    Dan~~Kentucky

    "The natural man must know in order to believe; The spiritual man must believe in order to know. " ~ Aiden Wilson Tozer ~ "The Dwelling Place of God"

    Nikon Z 6 Nikon D7200 w/Grip, Nikon D700 w/Grip, AF-S Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR, Nikon 14-24 f/2.8, Nikkor 50mm/1.8G, Tamron 28-75, Tamron 70-200 F/2.8
    Yongnuo Speedlight YN568EX, Vanguard ALTA Pro 264AB Tripod, Vanguard
    SBH-100 ball head Beike Gimbal Head, ARCA Swiss B1 ball head

    https://www.dailywalkinthelight.com

  3. #13
    Senior Member
    spb_stan's Avatar

    Re: Nikon Z s 24-70 2.8 vs the f4

    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.
    Thanks/Like Rick M, Danno, Patrick Molloy Thanks/liked this post
     

  4. #14
    Senior Member
    Rick M's Avatar

    Re: Nikon Z s 24-70 2.8 vs the f4

    Quote Originally Posted by spb_stan View Post
    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.
    Thank you for the update/insight.

    I had the 70-200 f4 when it first came out and was a favorite lens, good IQ and somewhat compact. I really liked the fact that it was all internal, something I'm always looking for in a lens. The new s 70-200 2.8 is being criticized for it's size (compared to Canon), but I'll take all internal mechanisms over a dust pump any day.

    I've been holding off on the 14-30 f4 and have the 20mm s1.8 on pre-order. I'm hoping that satisfies my wide needs as I'd really rather have a prime. The s 20 looks to be right up there with the s 50.

    Which brings me to the mid-range and probably waiting for the s 24-105 f4 before I commit to the kit f4 or 2.8

    Tough decisions, but a great new system to be in. Nikon has really stepped up the game!
    Thanks/Like Patrick Molloy Thanks/liked this post
     
    Rick

    http://www.rmillsphotography.com/

    Nikon Z7, Nikon Z s 50mm 1.8
    Nikonite
    Tee-shirt, lens cloth and business cards!


  5. #15
    Senior Member
    Danno's Avatar

    Re: Nikon Z s 24-70 2.8 vs the f4

    ooops
    Last edited by Danno; 02-25-2020 at 05:09 PM.
    Dan~~Kentucky

    "The natural man must know in order to believe; The spiritual man must believe in order to know. " ~ Aiden Wilson Tozer ~ "The Dwelling Place of God"

    Nikon Z 6 Nikon D7200 w/Grip, Nikon D700 w/Grip, AF-S Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR, Nikon 14-24 f/2.8, Nikkor 50mm/1.8G, Tamron 28-75, Tamron 70-200 F/2.8
    Yongnuo Speedlight YN568EX, Vanguard ALTA Pro 264AB Tripod, Vanguard
    SBH-100 ball head Beike Gimbal Head, ARCA Swiss B1 ball head

    https://www.dailywalkinthelight.com

  6. #16
    Senior Member
    Danno's Avatar

    Re: Nikon Z s 24-70 2.8 vs the f4

    Quote Originally Posted by spb_stan View Post
    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.
    I agree. I still have my F lenses as fill until I can buy the replacement S glass, but my two favorites of the S glass that I have are the 20-70 f4 and the 85 f1.8 lenses. You will find one or the other on my Z6 all the time. and the other in my bag. I use them mostly at Church to capture important moments, but I love using either one riding around in the country. I am struggling right now between the 14-30 f4 or the 20 f1.8. the 20 is pulling ahead a bit.

    Thanks for your insight always. It is always helpful.
    Thanks/Like Patrick Molloy Thanks/liked this post
     
    Dan~~Kentucky

    "The natural man must know in order to believe; The spiritual man must believe in order to know. " ~ Aiden Wilson Tozer ~ "The Dwelling Place of God"

    Nikon Z 6 Nikon D7200 w/Grip, Nikon D700 w/Grip, AF-S Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR, Nikon 14-24 f/2.8, Nikkor 50mm/1.8G, Tamron 28-75, Tamron 70-200 F/2.8
    Yongnuo Speedlight YN568EX, Vanguard ALTA Pro 264AB Tripod, Vanguard
    SBH-100 ball head Beike Gimbal Head, ARCA Swiss B1 ball head

    https://www.dailywalkinthelight.com

  7. #17
    Senior Member
    spb_stan's Avatar

    Re: Nikon Z s 24-70 2.8 vs the f4

    Nikon Z s 24-70 2.8 vs the f4
    Here is an example why the lens options on the Z series with S lenses are all good, there are no bad choices.
    I had two lenses with me in my sling bag on a casual evening snap shot of my friend Julia who was having a birthday. We visited a bar where a band she likes was playing.
    These two shots were from a Z6 with f/4 24-70 S and a 85 1.8 S, one shot at f/4 and the other at f/4.5. 200 ISO and 1/50 shutter. There is a difference in contracts because between shots the bar lights were turned down as the band started to play. That caused the Balanced Flash mode to create different exposure ratio of background to subject.
    Although a couple minutes apart and with changing lighting, and naturally a slightly different pose, there is a lot less difference between a low cost soom and a great prime. It helps to have a model who has great skin of course :>) She turned 27 and was worried she was getting old. She is radiologist who I met when I bashed my head and the ambulance took me to a brain trauma hospital because they thought is was more serious than it was, based on and volume of blood lost(which was due o 5 holes punched through my scalp and the blood covered the whole entry hall and flowed user the outside door which caused the neighbor to call the ambulance. She took the3D Tomographs. By the way excellent care and all free of course. That was in November, so we go out dancing or to jazz clubs together. Very sweet shy girl. By the way she liked both photos.
    Nikon Z s 24-70 2.8 vs the f4-julia-birthday-.jpgNikon Z s 24-70 2.8 vs the f4-julia-birthday-2.jpg
    Thanks/Like Ironwood, Patrick Molloy Thanks/liked this post
     





Quick Reply Quick Reply

If you are already a member, please login above before posting.

Posting Permissions

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •