Best kit lens I've ever tried. I love the bokeh, the max magnification, the lightness and the solid performance in every focus distance. You can buy it new for 500€ by the way.
Kudos to Nikon for providing a "kit lens" of such high quality. It used to be that kit lenses were just very nominal offerings, something that you'd never actually use in practice. (Seems like Sony still has this philosophy, arguably.). That said, the f/2.8 version of this lens is said to be the best in the business.
Well, Nikon always had a philosophy to make even the kit lens in a way that they could produce great photos in the hands of knowledgeable people- they stripped them down in the right places. I am currently stocking up on old manual focus lenses and prepare to maintain them myself- and even the old E Series ("el cheapo kit lenses" of 1980) were optically verrrry good, but had lots of plastics involved and inferior coating than theiy official Nikkor pendant... Also the 18-55 DX lenses are quite good, when you treat them right-and don't expect wonders from them...
I really don’t mind vignetting too much. My 24-120 and D750 vignette like hell but I don’t always want to “correct” that as vignetting often draws you in to the picture. So even if I do correct it (maybe because I’m cropping) I might want to add vignetting when I process the file. And actually, it’s similar for distortion, at least at wide angles. Unless it’s an architectural shot, maybe I don’t mind that the middle of the image is proportionally bigger than the sides. It’s not “correct”. But then, what is? I mean, if you shoot with a zero-distortion lens of 15mm on fullframe, don’t tell me shapes in the corner of the frame look natural.
Today it's because most people either replace it with the 24-70 f/2.8 or the 24-120 f/4, both of which are better in every way except size and weight. (Of course they are more expensive though.)
Christopher , thanks for adding Nikon to your repertoire , I would suggest trying out the 50mm F/1.8s Z lens its performance for the price is spectacular. I have in the past rallied against software corrections but for what it is worth , it is the norm in mirrorless. As an example my previous Sony 24-105mm g { a £1200 lens when it came out } has a huge 5+ stops of vignetting at the wide end when viewed at uncorrected , the corners are literally black. Similar story with the Canon RF zooms and m43 lens use the most software input of any format. The reviewers take on this leads to quite a different assessment of the lens in question :-) I find inconsistency in testing methods a tad annoying over on DPreview where as they use ACR there is no possibility of turning off the often epic corrections of m43 lenses. These lenses get a free ride . While they then criticise other makers results when they have deliberately turned off corrections . It is a tricky one whether to compare with profiles applied { which is of course how the lenses are designed to be used } or use software packages that can disable the corrections. I suspect most users are interested in the end results regardless
Very good and reliable review. This is the place I come when I want to buy new lenses. Last year, while travelling and shopipng for a camera I ended up buying my first full frame with some great lens. I remember watching your videos a lot from the hotel. I ended up buying the Sony a7III with the 85 f1.8, 50mm f1.8, Sony 28mm f2.0. Thank you very much !
Good review. Nice sample shots! I think f4 is perfect for mirrorless cameras. Since we’re viewing through an evf, it’s always bright. So - what advantage would there be with the f2.8 version for a thousand US dollars more? Especially since we can shoot at high ISO’s now with high quality. I AM concerned about the distortion and vignetting you demonstrate. Hopefully the Z9 will correct in camera. My previous beloved walkabout was the 35 1.8 G f mount. But it lacks the contrast of the newer lenses and…saturation. Go figure.
Maybe I got lucky and got a good example of this lens, but it works fantastic on my Z7. Lots of reviewers dis this lens because it's not "professional," or it's just a plastic kit lens, but a majority agree with Christopher, that it's a great lens and good value.
Well done Christopher. Hope you are receiving enough funding to permit the purchase of Nikon gear. In the past, I found, even compared to Canon L glass, seriously too expensive. Smart of Nikon to follow the Canon L glass route and offer top of the range focal lengths, but with f4, not the eye wateringly expensive 2.8.
Hi, I was wondering if this lens works great as a landscape lens. I only shoot landscape and i already own a dslr 2.8 version. I am contemplating converting to mirrorless but dont want to invest on another 2.8 lens as i mostly shoot at f10 on landscape. Looking for advices...thank you
Very nice review!! I watched your review to buy the 50mm 1.8 f mount lens for my d5600. I am thinking about upgrading to Z6 with this kit lens, do you think i will see difference compared to the system i have atm? i am interested in bokeh, low light performance and sharpness.Ty!!
Подскажите, хочу купить Nikon Z6II (у меня ранее был зеркальный фотоаппарат Nikon D780, продал) и не знаю то ли брать стандартный объектив Nikon NIKKOR Z 24-200mm f/4, то ли мой новый оставить AF-S NIKKOR 24-120mm 1:4G и докупить переходник адаптер новую модель второго поколения цель съемки репортажная съемка утренников, свадеб? Что скажете?
@@jaspergoodall3206 Interestingly, i really like the way he does the reviews. Froknows, tony northrp .etc do their reviews a certain way, and i feel Christopher's style really compliments well with that. Then again, nobody is going to buy a camera/lens based off on just a single review online. So.
I'm looking to upgrade my 5 year old D3300 to Z6. Only decent lens I'll have for it will be my 50 1.8g. I love to shoot videos (mostly manual focus), portraits, and am looking forward to photo weddings, with renting D750 as a main camera, until I get Z5, in future. What would be the best option? 24-70/4 or 24-120g/ 24-105sigma? Are the extra 35/50mm worth it? I am planning to purchase S primes in future btw.
Hi Chris, just wondering if you will start testing field curvature? I noticed a bit on my sample at the widest end, but it improves noticeably throughout the rest of the zoom range.
Do you want an Autofocus ? Because you can surely get some Vintage lenses from Nikon used with those focal lengths. I Just got a very old 28-70mm f2.8 used.
I would be happy if you would also test sun stars (from the real sun) in your reviews in the future. Sun stars from artificial light sometimes behave differently compared to the real sun. For example, I think of the Nikon 14-30mm f4 S in particular: lights on the Christmas tree look fantastic (see here: "DPReview TV: The great ultra-wide sunstar shootout"). But at the same settings with the real sun, the sun stars seem a bit jumpy and form less defined rays. You have to google for sample images. Furthermore, it is important that the atmosphere is free of any haze, dust, clouds, so that you get sun stars (whether beautiful or less beautiful). Of course, all sun stars can gain a boost towards beauty when the sun hangs in the dense treetop with lots of leaves or scratches another edge of an object (mountain, house wall, etc.). However, this type of test is rather less meaningful. As a landscape photographer I like to position the sun in the sky without an object scratching the sun. Okay, sometimes the sun hangs between branches etc. ;-) I would also like to point out something else: The sun stars also change with the focal length of the lens. For example, the new Nikon 24-70 f4 S has a nice sun star with defined lines at 24mm and f22, but no defined rays emerge at 35mm, 50mm and 70mm (anything above 24mm). Despite the closed aperture, these rays appear to have fanned out. I hope you understand my request Chris. Therefore, I would be happy if you consider all focal lengths with a closed aperture in your reviews and use the right sun (free atmosphere) as the light source. I've seen a lot of reviews here on RUclips and unfortunately the sun stars are very often neglected! As a landscape photographer who wants really nice sun stars (bless the old Nikon 20mm f1.8!), it's difficult to find this info on a number of websites. I think this adds even more value to your reviews. I hope I'm not alone with my thoughts and desires and would appreciate a "thumbs up" so Chris can read this. So thanks again for everything and may God bless you!
Maybe you can do a comparison between tamrom35-150 and nikon 24-120. I've searched around but find nothing. You know 35-150mm 2.8-4 is really competitive for its price and image quality and it's really similar to f4 lenses! I do appreciate to watch the comparison.
Canon can make serious flaws and still get a highly recommended and here? What's wrong with the lens? * great size (small) * great built quality with included lens hood * Weather protection * great sharpness with good contrast, minimal weakness in the corners * no focus breathing * AF fast, accurate and quiet * Distortion and vignetting bad but easily correctable * impressive performance against bright light * bokeh good * price reasonable
@@NEOM80 Well is that not your answer you are seeking? If you are on a budget get a used F version and if you want the highest quality get the Z version.
thank you for the review! watched the Fuji 16-80 before and the Nikon 24-70 seems to be clearly the better choice. (when you have to decide between Fuji X-T3/X-T4 and Nikon Z6)
Great review as always, you are my most trusted reviewer. I always take your point of view before moving on to Dustin Abbott, Matthew Gore, Thomas Heaton, Pierre T Lambert, Julia Trotti, Dan Watson. Though I am primarily a Canon user yet I check your other brand reviews. Can you please review Tamron 35mm f 1.8 VC. As need your pov to decide between Sigma 35mm f1.4 & Tamron 35mm F1.8. Only factor which is holding me back from buying Sigma is its AF which you have mentioned in your review.
I didn't end up reviewing the Tamron 35mm f/1.8 because I reviewed the 45mm version instead. The two lenses are virtually the same in performance - take a look at my review of the 45mm lens for a good idea of it :-)
Good morning, i'm considerig to buy a new lens fo my z50 camera... i'm thinking to consider the z 24 70mm f4. or the smc z 28 140mm f3.5 6.3 vr... regarding image quality and resolution , in your opinion, which of them should i buy? Many thanks
For a kit lens it looks pretty good but I'd never buy it without the kit. For that price point I could get a pretty nice used nikon 24-70 f2.8 and the adapter for Z-mount.
If you want nice result for cheap on APS-C Nikon's, i would say get a 50mm F/1.8G (not the AF-D you won't get autofocus with it), or a little more pricy 85mm f/1.8G, still looks great on DX Nikon bodies in my experience. Or if you want more versatility for your money, get an image stabilized 55-200mm or 70-300mm lens, they let in less light, but still produce acceptable portrait shot, and since they're zoom lenses you can use them more that are not only portrait. Getting a Tamron or Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 or Nikon 17-55 f/2.8 works too, for general purposes and indoors event photography, but the backgrounds are usually rendered more busy and not that smooth. Prices wary on your location and whether you get them used or new.
Really worrying trend we're seeing of lens designers relying on software to correct for poor design choices & engineering. Fair enough at the budget end of things but come on Nikon this should be better when you're kitting it with a £2k body.
I would actually just save the $1000 and wait till I have $2000 for the 24-70 2.8s I mean, that's twice the price, but there is a very big diffirence in quality between the f4 and f2.8 pro grade lens
As we all are faced with such dramatic changes in our lives, could this be the MOST dramatic, the strangest 'new normal' ever? Christopher Frost reviews Nikon...
I am planning to. I was going to borrow one from the lens hire company, but the person who used it before me crashed their car while doing a photography stunt and totalled it, along with some other lenses they were borrowing (I'm not kidding!) - so you'll have to wait a little while I'm afraid!
@@christopherfrost That's terrible.. But thank you for reply. Your channel is the only channel on youtube so far, where one can watch objective and understandable tests. )
I’ve watched probably all of your reviews (witch are excellent) but from this review I’ve notice that you, in your own heart, are still a cannon fan! Please don’t let that ruin your judgement.
So you're saying you think I'm biased. Taking into consideration the test results from this lens, and the exact words I used to describe my opinion of it, please explain to me exactly what you mean.
I suspect that it is priced this way to encourage buyers to get it as part of a kit. When sold this way it works out at about £430. The much poorer Sony 24-70mm F/4 despite its Zeiss branding was priced similarly when new ruclips.net/video/rVqL8aP4Wuc/видео.html
Well I was considering forgiving Nikon after 5 years and was getting interested in the Z system but, your review has killed that interest dead. The reason I dumped Nikon was software correction of lens aberrations. I dont use Adobe software and I refuse to buy uncorrected lenses; I dont remove aberrations in post, I remove them with my credit card. Modern lenses seem universally ghastly; it seems chromatic aberration is now a Zeiss trademark making Zeiss now my least favourite marque after Canon (no I dont buy bloated over sharp primes either); that really is saying something as I exclusively used Zeiss Planar and Sonnar lenses right through the 70s and 80s. So back to my Panasonic and Sony cameras ;-)
Vici, Sony and Panasonic use very extensive software corrections. For example uncorrected my Sony 24-105mm has literally black corners with more than 5 stops of vignette. As for Panasonic if you are talking about their m43 lenses them and Olympus use the most software of any brands, the only difference is that they hard bake the corrections into JPEG's and and instruction in the header means that it is automatically applied in many of the big photo editing options. The results from uncorrected m43 lenses is shockingly poor even amongst some very high end lenses. It is frankly stupid to rant against one brand when every single mirrorless maker is doing in fact Nikon is actually doing it to a lesser degree , but you cannot beat fandom
@@Mr09260 do you know what "historically" means? Just saying... And at least this particular Z lens shows *exactly* that behaviour, although here it's probably mostly due to the strong distortion correction.
I’ve been watching your channel for years and years but i still have to say shooting your paper test chart indoors and analyzing the sharpness is mostly pointless because most if not all lenses exhibit field curvature up close. also lenses shoot differently in general up close vs at infinity where most people might shoot landscapes. simply your tests do not reflect how real people would use the lenses in real situations. your old outdoor style tests were way better than these.
You make a valid point, but it’s not that easy to rely on the weather for testing lenses. Even on good days, the lighting difference between days will create differences in contrast and maybe perceivable sharpness. Test chart shooting might have its limitations, but you get direct comparisons under identical conditions. It’s also a very hard test for lenses to photograph near their minimum focus distance, but it provides the “worst case scenario” of how a lens will perform. Lastly, what Christopher has found for certain lenses with the test chart method, I found applies to my own testing of those same lenses I used, so I continue to trust his reviews.
Best kit lens I've ever tried. I love the bokeh, the max magnification, the lightness and the solid performance in every focus distance. You can buy it new for 500€ by the way.
Kudos to Nikon for providing a "kit lens" of such high quality. It used to be that kit lenses were just very nominal offerings, something that you'd never actually use in practice. (Seems like Sony still has this philosophy, arguably.). That said, the f/2.8 version of this lens is said to be the best in the business.
Nikon kinda did that thing back then with their AF film SLRs back then, at least my sources says. Specifically the 28-80mm, both D and G models
Well, Nikon always had a philosophy to make even the kit lens in a way that they could produce great photos in the hands of knowledgeable people- they stripped them down in the right places. I am currently stocking up on old manual focus lenses and prepare to maintain them myself- and even the old E Series ("el cheapo kit lenses" of 1980) were optically verrrry good, but had lots of plastics involved and inferior coating than theiy official Nikkor pendant...
Also the 18-55 DX lenses are quite good, when you treat them right-and don't expect wonders from them...
Also quite large
For the most part, one exception is the Canon 24-105 f4 L which was the kit lens for the 5D
Just want to say that I’ve had this lens since launch and the click where you first start using it feels exactly the same, it seems robust.
I think you'd be mighty impressed with the f2.8 version, though it is three times the price! Cheers.
He was ..Chris did that review recently
@@Mr09260 no he didn't? He said this is his first Nikon lens review. I can't find the review on his RUclips channel.
@@Mr09260 that's for canon buddy
A review of that lens is being worked on right now
@@christopherfrost cool
I've been shooting with it for a year and love it - it's an excellent compact travel lens.
As a Fuji user, I really like Nikon's cameras and lenses, how they look mostly. I don't know why.
Actually, Nikon and Fuji have very similar image setting in terms of contrast,highlight, shadow and gema
@@aimeecute4216 I was talking about the aesthetics of the equipment mostly. You're right about that, too :3
Me too
I have both..😊
I'm a Canon user but I am really happy to see you finally reviewing Nikon. Well done and keep up the good work.
Happy to finally see you testing some Nikon gear, Christopher :)
I really don’t mind vignetting too much. My 24-120 and D750 vignette like hell but I don’t always want to “correct” that as vignetting often draws you in to the picture. So even if I do correct it (maybe because I’m cropping) I might want to add vignetting when I process the file. And actually, it’s similar for distortion, at least at wide angles. Unless it’s an architectural shot, maybe I don’t mind that the middle of the image is proportionally bigger than the sides. It’s not “correct”. But then, what is? I mean, if you shoot with a zero-distortion lens of 15mm on fullframe, don’t tell me shapes in the corner of the frame look natural.
In germany you can buy this lens used for 300-400€...it is like no nobody wants to keep it because "kit lense"...but I love that little thing.
Today it's because most people either replace it with the 24-70 f/2.8 or the 24-120 f/4, both of which are better in every way except size and weight. (Of course they are more expensive though.)
Christopher , thanks for adding Nikon to your repertoire , I would suggest trying out the 50mm F/1.8s Z lens its performance for the price is spectacular. I have in the past rallied against software corrections but for what it is worth , it is the norm in mirrorless. As an example my previous Sony 24-105mm g { a £1200 lens when it came out } has a huge 5+ stops of vignetting at the wide end when viewed at uncorrected , the corners are literally black. Similar story with the Canon RF zooms and m43 lens use the most software input of any format. The reviewers take on this leads to quite a different assessment of the lens in question :-)
I find inconsistency in testing methods a tad annoying over on DPreview where as they use ACR there is no possibility of turning off the often epic corrections of m43 lenses. These lenses get a free ride . While they then criticise other makers results when they have deliberately turned off corrections . It is a tricky one whether to compare with profiles applied { which is of course how the lenses are designed to be used } or use software packages that can disable the corrections. I suspect most users are interested in the end results regardless
Very good and reliable review. This is the place I come when I want to buy new lenses. Last year, while travelling and shopipng for a camera I ended up buying my first full frame with some great lens. I remember watching your videos a lot from the hotel. I ended up buying the Sony a7III with the 85 f1.8, 50mm f1.8, Sony 28mm f2.0. Thank you very much !
Glad to be of service :-)
Good review. Nice sample shots! I think f4 is perfect for mirrorless cameras. Since we’re viewing through an evf, it’s always bright. So - what advantage would there be with the f2.8 version for a thousand US dollars more? Especially since we can shoot at high ISO’s now with high quality. I AM concerned about the distortion and vignetting you demonstrate. Hopefully the Z9 will correct in camera. My previous beloved walkabout was the 35 1.8 G f mount. But it lacks the contrast of the newer lenses and…saturation. Go figure.
Maybe I got lucky and got a good example of this lens, but it works fantastic on my Z7. Lots of reviewers dis this lens because it's not "professional," or it's just a plastic kit lens, but a majority agree with Christopher, that it's a great lens and good value.
Well done Christopher. Hope you are receiving enough funding to permit the purchase of Nikon gear. In the past, I found, even compared to Canon L glass, seriously too expensive.
Smart of Nikon to follow the Canon L glass route and offer top of the range focal lengths, but with f4, not the eye wateringly expensive 2.8.
Hi, I was wondering if this lens works great as a landscape lens. I only shoot landscape and i already own a dslr 2.8 version. I am contemplating converting to mirrorless but dont want to invest on another 2.8 lens as i mostly shoot at f10 on landscape. Looking for advices...thank you
Wish they went with the standard 24-105 f4:( I loved my sigma 24-105 on my d750
There’s a ton of these tossed onto the used market for pretty cheap (for what it is).
Thank you very much. Glad there was criticism of Nikon too. It's really wonderful.
Very nice review!! I watched your review to buy the 50mm 1.8 f mount lens for my d5600. I am thinking about upgrading to Z6 with this kit lens, do you think i will see difference compared to the system i have atm? i am interested in bokeh, low light performance and sharpness.Ty!!
you can currently in 2023 get this lens on ebay for about $300-#350 bucks and it a crazy nice lens for that price!!!
would love to see this compared to an adapter 24 - 120 f/4! does that lens hold up in 2020? and is the extra range worth the tradeoff?
Подскажите, хочу купить Nikon Z6II (у меня ранее был зеркальный фотоаппарат Nikon D780, продал) и не знаю то ли брать стандартный объектив Nikon NIKKOR Z 24-200mm f/4, то ли мой новый оставить AF-S NIKKOR 24-120mm 1:4G и докупить переходник адаптер новую модель второго поколения цель съемки репортажная съемка утренников, свадеб? Что скажете?
Nice review. Can't wait for the 35mm, 50mm and 85mm 1.8 s lens reviews :)
Derrish dev have a look around dude, there’s like a bazillion reviews out there. This guy is very very late to the party.
@@jaspergoodall3206 Interestingly, i really like the way he does the reviews. Froknows, tony northrp .etc do their reviews a certain way, and i feel Christopher's style really compliments well with that. Then again, nobody is going to buy a camera/lens based off on just a single review online. So.
Christopher reviewing a Nikon lens!! We are living some crazy days!
This is lens is far better value for the money than Nikon's 24-70 2.8.
Can you do the 24-200 f4-6.3 ? From what I have seen it has pretty much the same quality as this one with a similar body but it’s way more versatile.
I'm looking to upgrade my 5 year old D3300 to Z6. Only decent lens I'll have for it will be my 50 1.8g. I love to shoot videos (mostly manual focus), portraits, and am looking forward to photo weddings, with renting D750 as a main camera, until I get Z5, in future.
What would be the best option? 24-70/4 or 24-120g/ 24-105sigma? Are the extra 35/50mm worth it?
I am planning to purchase S primes in future btw.
Hi Chris, just wondering if you will start testing field curvature? I noticed a bit on my sample at the widest end, but it improves noticeably throughout the rest of the zoom range.
is IQ and performance better than tamron 24-70 f2.8 G2 lens?
I always wanted an f mount 24-70 f4... nice to know that this is a reliable one.
Thanks for start making nikon reviews :)
Do you want an Autofocus ? Because you can surely get some Vintage lenses from Nikon used with those focal lengths. I Just got a very old 28-70mm f2.8 used.
@@mainmain5303 i know, it’s good to know that it is available when i decide to make the jump to mirrorless
@@benni1015 not at all, i tend to use my lenses for landscape-ish photos. It’s the 28-70 2.8D?. How’s the sharpness and contrast?
I would be happy if you would also test sun stars (from the real sun) in your reviews in the future. Sun stars from artificial light sometimes behave differently compared to the real sun. For example, I think of the Nikon 14-30mm f4 S in particular: lights on the Christmas tree look fantastic (see here: "DPReview TV: The great ultra-wide sunstar shootout"). But at the same settings with the real sun, the sun stars seem a bit jumpy and form less defined rays. You have to google for sample images.
Furthermore, it is important that the atmosphere is free of any haze, dust, clouds, so that you get sun stars (whether beautiful or less beautiful). Of course, all sun stars can gain a boost towards beauty when the sun hangs in the dense treetop with lots of leaves or scratches another edge of an object (mountain, house wall, etc.). However, this type of test is rather less meaningful. As a landscape photographer I like to position the sun in the sky without an object scratching the sun. Okay, sometimes the sun hangs between branches etc. ;-)
I would also like to point out something else:
The sun stars also change with the focal length of the lens. For example, the new Nikon 24-70 f4 S has a nice sun star with defined lines at 24mm and f22, but no defined rays emerge at 35mm, 50mm and 70mm (anything above 24mm). Despite the closed aperture, these rays appear to have fanned out.
I hope you understand my request Chris. Therefore, I would be happy if you consider all focal lengths with a closed aperture in your reviews and use the right sun (free atmosphere) as the light source.
I've seen a lot of reviews here on RUclips and unfortunately the sun stars are very often neglected! As a landscape photographer who wants really nice sun stars (bless the old Nikon 20mm f1.8!), it's difficult to find this info on a number of websites. I think this adds even more value to your reviews.
I hope I'm not alone with my thoughts and desires and would appreciate a "thumbs up" so Chris can read this.
So thanks again for everything and may God bless you!
Maybe you can do a comparison between tamrom35-150 and nikon 24-120. I've searched around but find nothing. You know 35-150mm 2.8-4 is really competitive for its price and image quality and it's really similar to f4 lenses! I do appreciate to watch the comparison.
I'm looking at getting a Z6 II. This lens looks pretty basic. Should I just skip getting it with the kit lens, and invest in an f/2.8 instead?
Canon can make serious flaws and still get a highly recommended and here? What's wrong with the lens?
* great size (small)
* great built quality with included lens hood
* Weather protection
* great sharpness with good contrast, minimal weakness in the corners
* no focus breathing
* AF fast, accurate and quiet
* Distortion and vignetting bad but easily correctable
* impressive performance against bright light
* bokeh good
* price reasonable
what would you recomend for kit lens for z5, 24-50 or this one?
Excellent review. Please review the new 24-200 if you get the chance. I might switch from the 24-70 to add the extra reach.
I use this lens for almost five months now. Love it. I even made an extensive real life review on my blog...
Please review the 14-30 f4 S vs the AF-S 17-35 f2.8D ED and the AF-S 16-35 f4G
Why? No F mount lens comes close to 14-30 in that range.
But they're less expensive than the 14-30 and most commons standard Nikon wideangle zoom lenses.
@@NEOM80 Well is that not your answer you are seeking? If you are on a budget get a used F version and if you want the highest quality get the Z version.
Have this lens with a Z6 II and I don’t intend to buy anything more for my style of shooting
thank you for the review! watched the Fuji 16-80 before and the Nikon 24-70 seems to be clearly the better choice. (when you have to decide between Fuji X-T3/X-T4 and Nikon Z6)
I’m between the xt4 and Z6ii. Leaning towards Nikon as I have always had Nikon plus seems the Nikon fits better in the hands.
Or you can have both.
Great review as always, you are my most trusted reviewer. I always take your point of view before moving on to Dustin Abbott, Matthew Gore, Thomas Heaton, Pierre T Lambert, Julia Trotti, Dan Watson. Though I am primarily a Canon user yet I check your other brand reviews.
Can you please review Tamron 35mm f 1.8 VC. As need your pov to decide between Sigma 35mm f1.4 & Tamron 35mm F1.8.
Only factor which is holding me back from buying Sigma is its AF which you have mentioned in your review.
I didn't end up reviewing the Tamron 35mm f/1.8 because I reviewed the 45mm version instead. The two lenses are virtually the same in performance - take a look at my review of the 45mm lens for a good idea of it :-)
Is that really a kit-lens? Nice!
1st video and just subscribed. great job, straighforward review with great samples. bravo.
Good morning, i'm considerig to buy a new lens fo my z50 camera... i'm thinking to consider the z 24 70mm f4. or the smc z 28 140mm f3.5 6.3 vr... regarding image quality and resolution , in your opinion, which of them should i buy? Many thanks
18-140 Z is far more useful especially since it has VR.
Amazing, Christopher, Nikon users are sooo happy!!!
Love your videos Chris.
Any chance we could see a review on the Tamron 35-150 sometime? Thank you
Eventually
Christopher, thank you for another excellent review!
Excellent video 😮!
For a kit lens it looks pretty good but I'd never buy it without the kit. For that price point I could get a pretty nice used nikon 24-70 f2.8 and the adapter for Z-mount.
huhu currently selling my current gear to go back to Nikon. Aiming for the Z6 + this and FTZ. Great review! So great you can now include Nikon glass!
There's more to come :-)
@@christopherfrost Excited to see the 35mm or 50mm soon if you'll review them!
Look forward to Noct 58mm 0.95 and adapted old Nikkor F mount lens review. Voigtlander 125mm F2.5 anyone?
Would this work with a Nikon D5600 digital camera?
No
I watch you since the very beginning keep the good work 👌
What lems to buy for d3500 portrait
If you want nice result for cheap on APS-C Nikon's, i would say get a 50mm F/1.8G (not the AF-D you won't get autofocus with it), or a little more pricy 85mm f/1.8G, still looks great on DX Nikon bodies in my experience.
Or if you want more versatility for your money, get an image stabilized 55-200mm or 70-300mm lens, they let in less light, but still produce acceptable portrait shot, and since they're zoom lenses you can use them more that are not only portrait.
Getting a Tamron or Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 or Nikon 17-55 f/2.8 works too, for general purposes and indoors event photography, but the backgrounds are usually rendered more busy and not that smooth.
Prices wary on your location and whether you get them used or new.
I too recommend AF-S 50 1.8G
Really worrying trend we're seeing of lens designers relying on software to correct for poor design choices & engineering. Fair enough at the budget end of things but come on Nikon this should be better when you're kitting it with a £2k body.
its still one of the best "kit" lenses out there.
I would actually just save the $1000 and wait till I have $2000 for the 24-70 2.8s
I mean, that's twice the price, but there is a very big diffirence in quality between the f4 and f2.8 pro grade lens
Any chance you'll being testing out the tamron 70-180?
Sure, eventually :-)
As we all are faced with such dramatic changes in our lives, could this be the MOST dramatic, the strangest 'new normal' ever? Christopher Frost reviews Nikon...
24-120 f4s more sharp 24-70?
Highly recommended by me... such a nice piece of glas. 😊
Please review the 24-200.
Good afternoon Mr Frost.
Is it possible to do a video on Nikon z 14-30mm F4 s
Eventually, yes
@@christopherfrost I look forward to hearing from you with thanks😃😃😃😃😃
WIll this lens work in Z50 (since it is for Full Frame and Z50 is APS-C)...?? Thanks
Yes, it will work with Z50. You will not have stabilization.
I'm so switching from Canon to Nikon. Very disappointet with Canon and the new RF lenses.
i guess your poor
i'm trying to figure out why every picture i take is so gritty and chalky. its the correction
you`re doing a great job, thank you
Thanks. What is the filter diameter?
It's in the video and on the front of the lens
Will you review the kit Nikkor z 16-55 mm lens?
I am planning to. I was going to borrow one from the lens hire company, but the person who used it before me crashed their car while doing a photography stunt and totalled it, along with some other lenses they were borrowing (I'm not kidding!) - so you'll have to wait a little while I'm afraid!
@@christopherfrost That's terrible.. But thank you for reply. Your channel is the only channel on youtube so far, where one can watch objective and understandable tests. )
Apparently the people were okay - that's the main thing
Christopher Frost Photography Oh, that's good at least.!
I could barely see any difference when you compared the AF of the Nikon to the Canon?? Weird.
Nick-on... It's driving me crazy 😂 great video though!
When will the Sony A7000 come? :D Sry that was off topic. I really appreciate your recently investment (Nikon) :)
It's not coming the A6600 is their flagship. The upcoming camera from Sony is the A7siii.
@@saadazzahrani i know... it is sad for APS-C User. but the A7SII User waited long enough as well ^^
Should the corner sharpness be better on the Z6 with its smaller sensor?
ooh this will be good!
Great review！but more fuji please！
Vielen Dank Bruder 👍 Grüße aus Deutschland 🇩🇪
I’ve watched probably all of your reviews (witch are excellent) but from this review I’ve notice that you, in your own heart, are still a cannon fan! Please don’t let that ruin your judgement.
So you're saying you think I'm biased. Taking into consideration the test results from this lens, and the exact words I used to describe my opinion of it, please explain to me exactly what you mean.
I got no sense of this at all from the review. Its clearly a good lens as described. What element/s in your view were biased?
1:04 You made me hungry, very hungry
Crazy price for a lens like this.
I suspect that it is priced this way to encourage buyers to get it as part of a kit. When sold this way it works out at about £430. The much poorer Sony 24-70mm F/4 despite its Zeiss branding was priced similarly when new ruclips.net/video/rVqL8aP4Wuc/видео.html
Thank you
Thank you, Christ. Thank you.
Yes thanks Chris ..great review
All Nikon lenses zoom opposite to that of Canon. That must have been a pain
yo thank you!!!!
Hi why not have review Nikon 24-70 f2.8g?
I did
Finally 🔥🔥
Test Nikon's 58mm Noct
The question is, where can I get one to test?
NIKON！！！！！！！！
take a show every time he says lovely
F4? 24-70? What?
It's not an uncommon spec - Canon and Sony have them , too
👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼
Me just realising it came with a lens hood 🙈😂
😍
mirrorless lens has poorer distortion control than their dslr counterparts
nice
Why did it take you so long to start reviewing Nikon gear?
I'd imagine cost and time
Pat is correct. Cost and time
❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️👍👍👍👍👍
That distortion and vignette, khhhmm.......
Bro give me small camera please🙏 😔
This is disappointing when compared to Nikkor Z 24-120 F/4 S
Well I was considering forgiving Nikon after 5 years and was getting interested in the Z system but, your review has killed that interest dead. The reason I dumped Nikon was software correction of lens aberrations. I dont use Adobe software and I refuse to buy uncorrected lenses; I dont remove aberrations in post, I remove them with my credit card. Modern lenses seem universally ghastly; it seems chromatic aberration is now a Zeiss trademark making Zeiss now my least favourite marque after Canon (no I dont buy bloated over sharp primes either); that really is saying something as I exclusively used Zeiss Planar and Sonnar lenses right through the 70s and 80s. So back to my Panasonic and Sony cameras ;-)
Vici, Sony and Panasonic use very extensive software corrections. For example uncorrected my Sony 24-105mm has literally black corners with more than 5 stops of vignette. As for Panasonic if you are talking about their m43 lenses them and Olympus use the most software of any brands, the only difference is that they hard bake the corrections into JPEG's and and instruction in the header means that it is automatically applied in many of the big photo editing options. The results from uncorrected m43 lenses is shockingly poor even amongst some very high end lenses. It is frankly stupid to rant against one brand when every single mirrorless maker is doing in fact Nikon is actually doing it to a lesser degree , but you cannot beat fandom
Historically Nikkor lenses are never really sharp at corners
Rubbish comment ..Have you tried the new Z lenses ..thought not
@@Mr09260 do you know what "historically" means? Just saying... And at least this particular Z lens shows *exactly* that behaviour, although here it's probably mostly due to the strong distortion correction.
I’ve been watching your channel for years and years but i still have to say shooting your paper test chart indoors and analyzing the sharpness is mostly pointless because most if not all lenses exhibit field curvature up close. also lenses shoot differently in general up close vs at infinity where most people might shoot landscapes. simply your tests do not reflect how real people would use the lenses in real situations. your old outdoor style tests were way better than these.
Digital Tog I still believe that the test shown here are pretty useful. It is hard to make a review that covers a lens true performance
You make a valid point, but it’s not that easy to rely on the weather for testing lenses. Even on good days, the lighting difference between days will create differences in contrast and maybe perceivable sharpness. Test chart shooting might have its limitations, but you get direct comparisons under identical conditions. It’s also a very hard test for lenses to photograph near their minimum focus distance, but it provides the “worst case scenario” of how a lens will perform. Lastly, what Christopher has found for certain lenses with the test chart method, I found applies to my own testing of those same lenses I used, so I continue to trust his reviews.