Nikon Z s 24-70 2.8 vs the f4

Rick M

Senior Member
I've watched all the videos and read all the reviews and still torn. Since I havent bought either yet I'm still in the blissful state of not committed. Going with the kit would allow me to pick up the 14-30 at the same time. Anyone on here shot both?
 

spb_stan

Senior Member
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?
 

hark

Administrator
Staff member
Super Mod
Contributor
Sorry I don't have an answer to your question, Rick. Since you mentioned not yet being committed, I highly doubt Nikon will drop the price between now and New Years. I'm thinking back to when a different new body was released (maybe the D500). Whatever body it was, Nikon didn't offer any better price than was available on Black Friday. But the following year, they did have some specials.

You might want to see if February brings any additional markdowns. Quite often Nikon has a mid-February sale. Or sometimes in May or July - can't remember for sure.

Hope you will get some feedback in response to your question! :)
 

Rick M

Senior Member
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?

Thank you for the in-depth response. Reviews and videos get so tedious and few are impartial. I typically shoot landscapes, some portraits but not professionally. I wouldn't need f2.8 for landscapes unless there was a measurable difference in the corners. It sounds like the 14-30 is perfect for my needs. When I was shooting Nikon years ago I often considered the 14-24 2.8 but wasn't interested in the filter systems it would require.

The 24-70 2.8 really has me thinking in regards to events and capturing the grandchildren as they grow (fast moving portrait targets). So I guess I'm trying to decide if the F4 has enough subject isolation. With that said I will certainly add the 85 1.8 down the road if I go with the f4; but would I if I had the 2.8 would I need to...., . I've noticed some used F4's showing up for sale and I'm guessing it's folks upgrading to the 2.8, which is what I hope to avoid.

Thank you for your thoughts.
 
Last edited:

spb_stan

Senior Member
I would suggest checking out the 14-30 as probably the optimum combination of traits in a wide angle for your style: reasonable price, small size and great optical performance.
The 2.8 version of the 24-70 is expensive for the subject you would like to capture. regardless of how great that version is. If the "kit" lens was not as good as it is, it would be easier to justify the larger more expensive lens. But the f/4 really is good and the only limitation is maximum aperture which can be made up for by a stop increase in ISO or the fact that the IBIS is 5.5 stops, allowing you to shoot ridiculously long shutter speeds hand held. I think a better option for people who are more flexible in shooting conditions is to get a used f/4 and for optimum isolation and lowlight, adding with the money saved, the 50 1.8 or 85 1.8 S. I use my f/4 24-70 all the time, every day because the small walking around kit is so light and compact that it fits into a LowePro sling bag that serves the dual purpose of camera bag and man-purse. I doubt you could fine a used 85 1.8 S but there are some 50mm 1.8 S because it has been out over a year. I have both and both are spectacular but differ only in field of view. For me, the 85 is used more but the 50s can serve more subjects.
In my sling bag is also a SB900 Nikon flash because I use flash a lot, not only in low light but daytime for smoothing hard mid-day shadows. If used properly, a small box of light is useful for almost every scene even if just as a hair light behind the subject. Flash negates the need for wide apertures.Subject isolation is possible with any lens at almost any aperture, and is mostly determined by the ratio of camera-to-subject versus subject-to-background. Moving in closer increases the isolation. This is doubly possible due to the 24-70 f/4 has such a short minimum subject distance. When you really want a near field background to melt into a foggy cloud, the 85 1.8 S is a Bokeh monster.. The 50 is a little more granular to my eye but it is easier to get cream at 85 or 105.
 

Danno

Senior Member
Mark, I was in a similar place. I shot a lot of landscapes and sunrises with my D700. I used the 14-24 2.8 lens. For Church photos and just walk around I had drifted to a Tamron 28-75 2.8 and enjoyed using it a lot on the D700.

When I bought the Z6 it was before the 2.8 came out but I was still unsure about getting the 24-70 f4 but after a number of reviews including some comments from Stan, I went for the kit that included the 24-70 f4 and the FTZ adapter. I figured worse case I could always upgrade, but once I got the lens I have found no need to do so.

I am sure that there are times when the 2.8 might be nice, but not when I consider the price differential. I now have the 50, and 85 f1.8 lenses and I am very pleased and I have found myself using the primes more and more. I am really glad I purchased it, and the money I saved made the two primes more reachable.

Health issues have kept me from landscape stuff this year. I just have not been out as much. But what little I have gotten out I have used the 14-24. It is fine, but it is heavy and the filters are a challenge for me so I have some limitations as to what I can do. My goal is to replace it with the 14-30 f4 just based on weight and filter issues. I rarely if ever went all the way to 2.8 with the 14-24 and based on the reviews I have seen, and my experience with all the S lenses, I will be more than happy with the 14-30 f4 lens.

I know that I can be a bit enthusiastic when it comes to the Z platform. But I have to tell you that with every aspect of the platform I have been presently surprised with its performance. It really meets my needs. It has also given me more confidence in my photos. It is kind of like a good guitar. You may have a decent guitar and you can play ok, but when you get a really nice one with a good neck suddenly everything is a bit easier and you will try that run that you couldn't do on your old guitar and you nail it.
 

Patrick M

Senior Member
This has been an interesting read.
I just sold ALL my DX lenses, and my D7500 so I’ve cleared the slate for the z6.
I was quite keen on the f2.8 S trinity. The reviews of the 24-70 f2.8 S have been outstanding....more so than any other lens that I’ve researched.
But....now I’m wondering if for me, an enthusiastic amateur, the f4 “trinity” might be as good an option. Hmmmmm


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:

Rick M

Senior Member
This has been an interesting read.
I just sold ALL my DX lenses, and my D7500 so I’ve cleared TJR slate for the z6.
I was quite keen on the f2.8 S trinity. The reviews of the 24-70 f2.8 S have been outstanding....more so than any other lens that I’ve researched.
But....now I’m wondering if for me, an enthusiastic amateur, the f4 “trinity” might be as good an option. Hmmmmm


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I think I read a rumor that the 100-400 might be an F4 s-line. That would be a heck of a trinity 14-400mm coverage with just a 30mm gap isn't too shabby.

I'm still on the fence though. The 24-70 2.8 I believe is internal focus and zoom which eliminates dust issues down the road if its your most used range.
 

Danno

Senior Member
This has been an interesting read.
I just sold ALL my DX lenses, and my D7500 so I’ve cleared TJR slate for the z6.
I was quite keen on the f2.8 S trinity. The reviews of the 24-70 f2.8 S have been outstanding....more so than any other lens that I’ve researched.
But....now I’m wondering if for me, an enthusiastic amateur, the f4 “trinity” might be as good an option. Hmmmmm


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

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.
 

Rick M

Senior Member
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.
 

Danno

Senior Member
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.
 

spb_stan

Senior Member
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.
 

Rick M

Senior Member
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!
 

Danno

Senior Member
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.
 

spb_stan

Senior Member
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.
Julia-birthday-.jpgJulia-birthday--2.jpg
 
Top