We are testing the mighty Nikon Z 24-70 2.8 vs the old 24-70 2.8g, the 24-70z F4 and the 24-200z! Which will win the battle off for quality and price! www.russellwhi... linktr.ee/lozzom
I got the 24-70 mm f/4.0 as a kit with the Z6. I sold the kit and got the Z6 II. I am a landscape photography enthusiast and not a professional. I am getting into wildlife photography as well. I got the 70-200 mm f/2.8 S lens plus the teleconverters for this purpose as there is no super-telephoto zoom lens yet for the Z cameras. The 70-200 mm lens is phenomenal! I was planning on eventually completing the Holy Trinity. I hike a lot with my gear, and weight is very important. That's why I opted with the 14-30 mm f/4.0 S instead of the 14-24 mm f/2.8 S. The 24-200 mm intrigues me. The hesitation I have is that it is not an S line and the variable aperture. However, your positive reviews of the 24-200 mm Z lens makes it a compelling alternative to the 24-70 mm f/4.0 S and f/2.8 S lenses.
Thanks George, we find the 24-200 to be really nice to use if you can live with the higher f stops. I often use it for a walk around with great results. As with the z bodies and lenses, they seem to eradicate the old notions that cheap lenses weren't so good.
On the Z7 and Z7 II you do see a difference (I had them both) because of the higher resolution. You can definitely see the edges were sharper on the 24-70mm f/2.8 S.
I migrated from Nikon d810+24-70 f/2.8 (non-vr ) to z7-II + 24-70 f/2.8 S and I absolutely love the new combination. I am no pro like you guys…so I need a lot of support from the tools 😃…and this new combo doesn’t fail me…the color, contrast and sharpness of the photos ooc is at a different level….
I traded the 24-70 f4 in for the 24-200 and haven't regretted it one bit. The 24-200 is a superb lens and the versatility is exceptional. My only caveat is that I seem to take most of my photos in the 100-200 range which would mean the real comparison would be with a 70-200 f4 if ever such a lens got created
Great side-by-side! Wonderful information. I think this just helped me overcome the fear of buying an F/4 kit lens. I think I will likely be very happy with it on the z6. I will only be using it for video so that certainly makes a difference as well. Thanks my friend.
Thanks so much for a kind response. We get a lot of rude comments against us. The F4 is a solid good quality lens, they all are really. The Z6 is so good once you get used to using it. Very powerful and great for the price compared to other brands. The updated auto eye focus is impressive too!
That's a good point... VIDEO! Not often do you look for that ultimate f2.8 bokeh, and more often are grateful for that little extra depth of field to guarantee focus.
@@russandloz A bit late, but I thought I could chime in and agree with Josh. Great job with this and with all the other videos of yours. Recently discovered your channel.
Thanks for your response Paulo, yes it is nice to have a constant F4, though having the 24-200 as well might give you further opportunities as a everyday walkaround.
On one hand I agree that the 24-200 is a great travel, hiking, bike-packing lens, on the other hand the resolution of Z6 and especially Z7 are so high and the lenses so super sharp that there is still plenty of room for cropping as well. So on a Z7 the 24-70 zoom can be quite comfortably be used as a 24-~140 zoom and the 24-200 would then cover a 24-400mm range and more than what is typically used for landscape. So the new upcoming 24-105, that is on the roadmap of Nikon, might be an interesting choice then as well as it will probably offer a brighter aperture than the 24-200 and cover enough range when cropping is acceptable for you.
Thanks for the review. It all depends on your use case. They are all very nice lenses but I rather like the 24-70 f2.8. It is more expensive but for good reason. The 2.8 gets you nicer bokeh, a bit sharper in the corners in some cases especially on the Z7, and some low light shots you would not have gotten otherwise. I suspect it will maintain its performance over a much longer life time and there is probably less variability among different copies of the lens. And then there are addition features like faster focusing, control ring, function button and display.
The Z7/Z7II possess a much fussier sensor. The high resolution sensor picks apart lenses like no other. Given the differences seen with the Z6, I’m sure the difference would be more profound with the Z7x cameras. Especially when cropped. I love the 24-70 S f/2.8 on my Z7II.
Before I watch the video (I will watch it, still). Camera and lens comparisons generally are 90% raw processing and the profiles applied therein. (Profiles of lower level raw processing parameter settings based on camera and lens testing.) Lightroom gave me noise with my Z 7 in broad summer mid-daylight at ISO=100 and C1 and PhotoLab4 didn't. Topaz GigaPixel AI also didn't. I still use LR though, for its asset management and straight forward connection to Photoshop. And critical raw processing goes to Nikon NX Studio. Now for the Z 7ii. I have all the Z 1.8S primes and C1 has limited lens level support. And expensive update/upgrade policy. And a saturated color/exposure profile that is easily mimicked in LR. PL4 has incredible noise processing AI that is sold separately now - PureRAW - that fits in an Adobe workflow as preprocessor (I'll test that). At 24MP we can easily see the chromatic aberration of F lenses. When our raw processing software (TPGPAI does that all by itself and upsamples very, very well) scales up nicely then the other lens differences are camouflaged. The 45.7 sensor will be more revealing here, not because it is almost 2* 24, but because it lacks the fuzzy filter (low-pass or anti-aliasing). Absence of the fuzzy filter gives sharper raw files and complicates raw processing. Note that humans see sharpness (detail resolution) as function of linear comparison and MP are an area unit. To get 2x sharper to the human eyes we need 2x linear resolution increase. That means 96MP is twice the resolution of 24MP. Ceteris paribus and assuming lenses and systems can reveal this. (In the case of the Z 7ii, the absence of the fuzzy filter breaks the ceteris paribus requirement, though.) Nikon started to leave the fuzzy filter out with the 36MP D800E - and the Mudbricks still haven't got that right. Now three of my five Z/S primes got a firmware update and I don't know how this impacts my raw files, nor the secret profiles in LR. Raw processing is in part driven by our display's resolution - LR takes the horizontal measure and at 2x 4K I needed a beast workstation to get it to work stable (with 11 GB video RAM on the GPU and 64GB to the CPU). A raw file has no pixels (dots with RGB) but monochrome photosite LV. What we see on the display is deeply impacted by the raw processing. When DxO tells me with their Mark that my camera's sensor has 27 bits color space, what they mean is that their raw processing cannot do better. And they imply the camera around the sensor does nothing (total male bovine excrement). Why did Nikon release NX Studio? Because they understand their cameras extremely well and do raw processing all the time in camera: each JPEG, MPEG and live view display involves raw processing. That all said, these Z/S lenses are incredibly good and will beat gold ring F when fully opened. These lenses have no flare. And there's a smaller chance of total reflection between the sensor and the glass layer(a) over it. Chromatic aberration, glare and that total reflection made me replace my gold ring F glass by Z/S. And that F glass was very good in most use cases already.
@@russandloz - in short: yes. But, it may save you a lot of money in (not) upgrading lenses, to never try to "see" chromatic aberration. In raw processing software we all can pixel peep and see the differences. The question with sharpness is not necessarily "science" but, what level of detail do you want to see. A dad in his 50s wanted to compare the photos from his smartphone with his late-20s-daughter's new smartphone, because it had many more megapixels. They took similar photographs and he said, yours is much better. Then she said, no yours is much better!. He asked her, why? Answer: because it doesn't show all the details. The Z 7ii and Z/S glass are extremely sophisticated and software to upsample to very large pixel sizes is very smart too. Now we need something that gives less details in portraits without resulting in "plastic" looks.
@@jpdj2715 that's an interesting perspective regarding a softer lens for portraits. I've seen where some photographers are using vintage lenses adapted to the Z to achieve more unique effects including softer "creamier" images.
@@douggross2555 - I still have a couple AF-D ("screwdriver AF") lenses and a 24MP DSLR. My 180ED gets bad sharpness from DxO Mark but still reveals the tiny down hairs in people's skin that the naked eye doesn't see. And details in skin pores. That lens is beautifully soft and warm. But I prefer my recent Z 105/2.8S over it. There's a skin softener in Ps that works very well and fast. Occasionally, I use a manual focus Petzval (1840s design) on the FTZ adapter with the Z 7ii. I had two rants since I started with Nikon (F2) in 1975: chromatic aberration and tint differences between different lenses and so far, Nikon have totally silenced that with the Z system. Way back, I also shot Hasselblad medium format and the Zeiss lenses were more consistent. With 4" x 5" and 8" x 10" that seemed less of an issue - for one because there was so much color saturation that film and print dominated the impression. Bottom line, I never felt that artistic quality of photos depends a lot on sharpness or other lens qualities. Look at photos from the Tokyo Olympics, e.g. of a hurdle race. Tack sharp, athletes frozen in the air. I prefer a longer shutter speed that gives a bit of motion blur to the legs. That is more important to me than the look of old lenses. Or, not a lot of nostalgia for me.
The 24-200 has less flare resistance compared to the 24-70 f/4 or f/2.8. It doesn't have any of the fancy coatings. It has less weather sealing. The corners are a bit soft. Horses for courses. You need them all really. You only really compared all these lenses in the centre of the frame. But it is extremely versatile. Re that 24-70 f/2.8 that you spent so much money on, it has many optical and build characteristics that set it apart. I think you are glossing over its virtues.
In reality in shooting in daylight, we don't think there is much difference, but yes I love my 24-70 2.8 so we might need a part two to reflect on these findings.
I have always had a 24-70 f2.8 and own the new Mirrorless version on my Z7 which is the Best version I have >> yes as a Kit lens the F4 is great but its not the Pro quality I like. Any Zoom over 4x is to be avoided so that cuts out the 8 x Zoom 24-200 Z which yes the Landscapers love ...But I have the 14-30 f4 , 20 f1.8 (Astro) , 24-70 f2.8 and 70-200 f2.8 Z lenses for Landscapes
Nice collection of lenses you have. Other than the 24-70 f/2.8 S, I have the same set-up. With your line-up, you got mostly covered - landscape, astro, wildlife, and portrait photography.
What a helpful selection of lenses to test. I have the 24-70 f/4 and am on a waiting list for the 24-120. This video persuaded me not to hold out for the 24-70 f/2.8 to have more of a pro kit with my 70-200 2.8.
@@russandloz Thanks. I’m thinking the 24-120 on a Z6 will be a great kit for handheld photography with the family, especially with its high iso performance, and I’ll keep the 50 on a Z7 as my I’ve got megapixels to crop camera.
Waiting for the 24-105 that Nikon has announced on their roadmap. I am assuming it will be 2.8 at wide end with F4 at 105 end. That will replace all 3 lenses for me
if you are comparing the qualities of the lens, should have used the z 7 and realy tried them out, as they would be resolved by a 47.5 MP sensor, so any mistake should show up, but other than the normal iso difference due to the different apatures used, all great quality, but just dependent on how the PHOTOGRAPHER defines the qualities they are after in their genre of photography.
A 24Mp sensor with an AA filter isn`t going to push the difference between these lenses, stick them on a Z7 with 46Mp and no AA filter and I`d hope you could see why the 24-70 F2.8 Z costs two grand ... I`m still amazed how well the 24-70 F4 Z stacks up on the Z7 wideopen
Thanks for your response, I have a z7ii and don't really see any difference apart from a larger crop factor from a Z6ii. Apart from low light where the z6 pulls away. That said, I love my 24-70 2.8 for its extra low light and dof ability.
I firstly got 24-70 F4 as a kit and sold it and bought 24-120 F4. And now thinking to sell it and buy 24-70 F2.8 lol. F4 lenses are really good but I feel a bit frustrated on F4. I want smaller aperture value.
The Z mount 24-70 F4 S lens is my go to lens for event/group photos that requires me to always shoot F4 and above for overall sharpness on group photos..light weight and sharp..if i need that bokeh separation i can always get the 50 1.2s or 35 f1.8 S..skipped the Z 24-70 f2.8 S and got the more versatile super sharp Z 70-200 f2.8 S..
I often find myself in low light situations for events photography, so the F4 wouldn't be good enough as even 2.8 can struggle but can make the difference.
@@russandloz your absolutely right..an F4 is not a low light lens to start with..i do corporate event group photos so always has to use a flash and above F4. i do carry a second body with a 35 1.8 or a 50 1.2 for those couples that i need to separate them from the busy background and tight spaces
@@russandloz I am glad that I have a tripod and not only compare low light performance at 100% instead of a fixed output size. then the z7 is comparable.
So for video only (and not worried about a 2nd card slot), the Z6 and f4 24-70mm is good enough? There's a great deal at the moment on the Z6 with this kit lens.
Yes its very good, the reason I went for the mkii version was for the second card slot as I'm a wedding photographer and also the future updates. Though our recent testing shows its very similar on auto eye focus.
just to add to my comment though there are great deals on the Z6ii bundles at the moment which makes it almost the same price as the Z6 - we've just done a video on it
The 24-200 has VR/optical image stabilization, which gives it an edge for outdoor handheld video. Of course the variable aperture is an issue. But having better stabilization in footage often trumps sharpness and bokeh. It came as a kit. I got a 24-70 f4 used (mint) for about 500 USD. I would use it more as an inexpensive indoor kit lens. the 2.8 is too expensive. Ayway I have the 50mm 1.8, and I am still shooting some assignments kobs with Sony APSC woth the 16-55 2.8 and the Sigma 1.4 primes. I like the Nikon colors better straight of the camera. better skin tones. Sony has an edge with AF-C, but requires more work ip post. I really like the video out of the Nikon. I am tempted selling the 24-70 and 24-200 for the new 24-120 and simplify. But it lacks the VR/optical stabilization. So probably not worth selling the 24-200, I would lose 1 stop or so at 120, but lose the stabilization.
@@willoughby5150 It'll always be slower using the FTZ adapter. I ended up exchanging all my old kit. Though you may find the DSLR is quicker in some focus methods.
It's a nice video but apologies, I do have to disagree at 2:47 - 2:54. They are most definitely not identical. The level of detail and contrast is superior on the Zed mount (S lens). It's quite visible on my monitor even before zooming into 100%. I think if you had gone to 200% it might have been even more obvious. Thanks for posting though!
Thanks for your response Rob. We are also finding great results with the Z system compared to DSLR. With this comparison it could also have been the changing light adding to the difference so gave it some leeway.
@@terrywbreedlove The Z lenses are generally sharper, thats why we show the live comparison for the viewer to also decide by how much. Also, maybe different monitors will show different things. :-)
@michael - Hi Michael thanks for your comment 😀 I have to respectfully disagree. I think across the entire image the z-mount lens is far superior. If you look at the base of the monument/fountain/whatever this thing is the level of detail is superior in the S lens. If you look at the tree trunk, the details are far superior in the S lens. Even the details in the grass are better. It's very obvious to me across the entire frame. Even the details in the limbs of the tree are superior in the S-lens. To say they are "almost identical" is inaccurate in my opinion. I understand that lighting conditions change which can impact the level of detail but if it's obvious to the naked eye in a backlit image (which tends to distort details) then it's obvious the S lens is superior.
Nice comparison video. I saw mixed reviews on the 24-70 f4 so I got the 50 f1.8 when I bought my Z6 and love it. Can't afford the Z 70-200 f2.8 but want something with a longer focal length. Ideally a Z 70-200 f4 if it existed but thoughts on the F mount Tamron 70-200 G2 f2.8? Been seeing them on sale and they're basically the same price as the Z 24-200.
@@russandloz I agree. I had the Tamron lens. It definitely slowed down the focusing and even misses. I sold the Tamron and got the Z 70-200 mm f/2.8S. It is by far the best lens I ever used/purchased!
So here is the take away. What should be the worst performer of the bunch is still so good that the diminishing returns are not worth it. As for Bokeh, you can add that to your liking in photoshop.....
I am seriously considering getting the 24 - 200, I mainly do landscape but it would be lovely to capture a few other things as well, like animals or portraits, and also to zoom in on aspects of the landscape without the hassle of changing lenses. Should I keep the 24-70 f4 though for those situations where it may be an advantage to have, or should I just sell it to help pay for the other? I don't want to regret not having it but I don't know if I would ever need it realistically. I am not a professional so I could never justify the cost of the f2.8 at the moment. Are Nikon going to bring out 70-200 f4?
The 24-200 would be good for animals, for portraits you wouldn't have the creamy shallow depth of field pro's desire. But its a great little all round lens I often use for street and walks, it does everything apart from low light. At 24 I think they are all the same so I don't see why you'd need the F4 really. Overall the 24-200 gives much better value and is more flexible if the variable f-stop won’t be a problem.
I got the 24-70 mm f/4.0 as a kit with the Z6. I sold the kit and got the Z6 II. I am a landscape photography enthusiast and not a professional. I am getting into wildlife photography as well. I got the 70-200 mm f/2.8 S lens plus the teleconverters for this purpose as there is no super-telephoto zoom lens yet for the Z cameras. The 70-200 mm lens is phenomenal! I was planning on eventually completing the Holy Trinity. I hike a lot with my gear, and weight is very important. That's why I opted with the 14-30 mm f/4.0 S instead of the 14-24 mm f/2.8 S. The 24-200 mm intrigues me. The hesitation I have is that it is not an S line and the variable aperture. However, your positive reviews of the 24-200 mm Z lens makes it a compelling alternative to the 24-70 mm f/4.0 S and f/2.8 S lenses.
Thanks George, we find the 24-200 to be really nice to use if you can live with the higher f stops. I often use it for a walk around with great results. As with the z bodies and lenses, they seem to eradicate the old notions that cheap lenses weren't so good.
That was the best review video I have ever seen. The discussion at the end was amazing.
24-200 is a great lens despite the variable aperture. It's super sharp and with great colors
Yes we agree, a great walk around lens!
On the Z7 and Z7 II you do see a difference (I had them both) because of the higher resolution. You can definitely see the edges were sharper on the 24-70mm f/2.8 S.
I migrated from Nikon d810+24-70 f/2.8 (non-vr ) to z7-II + 24-70 f/2.8 S and I absolutely love the new combination. I am no pro like you guys…so I need a lot of support from the tools 😃…and this new combo doesn’t fail me…the color, contrast and sharpness of the photos ooc is at a different level….
I traded the 24-70 f4 in for the 24-200 and haven't regretted it one bit. The 24-200 is a superb lens and the versatility is exceptional. My only caveat is that I seem to take most of my photos in the 100-200 range which would mean the real comparison would be with a 70-200 f4 if ever such a lens got created
Yes well I guess that's another positive about the 24-200, it crosses both wide and long!
Great side-by-side! Wonderful information. I think this just helped me overcome the fear of buying an F/4 kit lens. I think I will likely be very happy with it on the z6. I will only be using it for video so that certainly makes a difference as well. Thanks my friend.
Thanks so much for a kind response. We get a lot of rude comments against us. The F4 is a solid good quality lens, they all are really. The Z6 is so good once you get used to using it. Very powerful and great for the price compared to other brands. The updated auto eye focus is impressive too!
It’s a great lens - you will love it; I used it for a wedding video which it was excellent for
That's a good point... VIDEO! Not often do you look for that ultimate f2.8 bokeh, and more often are grateful for that little extra depth of field to guarantee focus.
@@russandloz A bit late, but I thought I could chime in and agree with Josh. Great job with this and with all the other videos of yours. Recently discovered your channel.
The consistency accross the range of the f4S is not repleaceable by the 24-200mm variable aperture. I'd never give up on my 24-70mm f4s just for this.
Thanks for your response Paulo, yes it is nice to have a constant F4, though having the 24-200 as well might give you further opportunities as a everyday walkaround.
They have just proved it is
thanks guys, you have convinced me to bin my 24-70 f4 and go with the 24-200, for landscapes up in the mountains will save me having to carry 2 lens!
Yeah thanks Phillip, the 24-200 is a great carry lens that does a great job in the daytime.
On one hand I agree that the 24-200 is a great travel, hiking, bike-packing lens, on the other hand the resolution of Z6 and especially Z7 are so high and the lenses so super sharp that there is still plenty of room for cropping as well. So on a Z7 the 24-70 zoom can be quite comfortably be used as a 24-~140 zoom and the 24-200 would then cover a 24-400mm range and more than what is typically used for landscape. So the new upcoming 24-105, that is on the roadmap of Nikon, might be an interesting choice then as well as it will probably offer a brighter aperture than the 24-200 and cover enough range when cropping is acceptable for you.
Thanks for the review. It all depends on your use case. They are all very nice lenses but I rather like the 24-70 f2.8. It is more expensive but for good reason. The 2.8 gets you nicer bokeh, a bit sharper in the corners in some cases especially on the Z7, and some low light shots you would not have gotten otherwise. I suspect it will maintain its performance over a much longer life time and there is probably less variability among different copies of the lens. And then there are addition features like faster focusing, control ring, function button and display.
Thanks yes I agree, I guess we were surprised how well the others performed in comparison but we love the 2.8 DOF.
The Z7/Z7II possess a much fussier sensor. The high resolution sensor picks apart lenses like no other. Given the differences seen with the Z6, I’m sure the difference would be more profound with the Z7x cameras. Especially when cropped. I love the 24-70 S f/2.8 on my Z7II.
🎯
The 24-200 and a prime would be the choice for me.
Yeah a good choice, though I often find the 2.8 has a good versatility and DOF.
@@russandloz I agree. I have the 50mm f1.8 until the release of the 28mm pancake.
@@jamesspicewilliams8835 40 f2 even better
@@gregorjeric I just picked one up. Love it.
Before I watch the video (I will watch it, still). Camera and lens comparisons generally are 90% raw processing and the profiles applied therein. (Profiles of lower level raw processing parameter settings based on camera and lens testing.) Lightroom gave me noise with my Z 7 in broad summer mid-daylight at ISO=100 and C1 and PhotoLab4 didn't. Topaz GigaPixel AI also didn't. I still use LR though, for its asset management and straight forward connection to Photoshop. And critical raw processing goes to Nikon NX Studio. Now for the Z 7ii. I have all the Z 1.8S primes and C1 has limited lens level support. And expensive update/upgrade policy. And a saturated color/exposure profile that is easily mimicked in LR. PL4 has incredible noise processing AI that is sold separately now - PureRAW - that fits in an Adobe workflow as preprocessor (I'll test that).
At 24MP we can easily see the chromatic aberration of F lenses. When our raw processing software (TPGPAI does that all by itself and upsamples very, very well) scales up nicely then the other lens differences are camouflaged. The 45.7 sensor will be more revealing here, not because it is almost 2* 24, but because it lacks the fuzzy filter (low-pass or anti-aliasing). Absence of the fuzzy filter gives sharper raw files and complicates raw processing. Note that humans see sharpness (detail resolution) as function of linear comparison and MP are an area unit. To get 2x sharper to the human eyes we need 2x linear resolution increase. That means 96MP is twice the resolution of 24MP. Ceteris paribus and assuming lenses and systems can reveal this. (In the case of the Z 7ii, the absence of the fuzzy filter breaks the ceteris paribus requirement, though.) Nikon started to leave the fuzzy filter out with the 36MP D800E - and the Mudbricks still haven't got that right.
Now three of my five Z/S primes got a firmware update and I don't know how this impacts my raw files, nor the secret profiles in LR. Raw processing is in part driven by our display's resolution - LR takes the horizontal measure and at 2x 4K I needed a beast workstation to get it to work stable (with 11 GB video RAM on the GPU and 64GB to the CPU). A raw file has no pixels (dots with RGB) but monochrome photosite LV. What we see on the display is deeply impacted by the raw processing. When DxO tells me with their Mark that my camera's sensor has 27 bits color space, what they mean is that their raw processing cannot do better. And they imply the camera around the sensor does nothing (total male bovine excrement). Why did Nikon release NX Studio? Because they understand their cameras extremely well and do raw processing all the time in camera: each JPEG, MPEG and live view display involves raw processing. That all said, these Z/S lenses are incredibly good and will beat gold ring F when fully opened. These lenses have no flare. And there's a smaller chance of total reflection between the sensor and the glass layer(a) over it. Chromatic aberration, glare and that total reflection made me replace my gold ring F glass by Z/S. And that F glass was very good in most use cases already.
Thanks for your scientific explanation. But do you think these differences are noticeable to most people?
@@russandloz - in short: yes. But, it may save you a lot of money in (not) upgrading lenses, to never try to "see" chromatic aberration. In raw processing software we all can pixel peep and see the differences. The question with sharpness is not necessarily "science" but, what level of detail do you want to see. A dad in his 50s wanted to compare the photos from his smartphone with his late-20s-daughter's new smartphone, because it had many more megapixels. They took similar photographs and he said, yours is much better. Then she said, no yours is much better!. He asked her, why? Answer: because it doesn't show all the details.
The Z 7ii and Z/S glass are extremely sophisticated and software to upsample to very large pixel sizes is very smart too. Now we need something that gives less details in portraits without resulting in "plastic" looks.
@@jpdj2715 that's an interesting perspective regarding a softer lens for portraits. I've seen where some photographers are using vintage lenses adapted to the Z to achieve more unique effects including softer "creamier" images.
@@douggross2555 - I still have a couple AF-D ("screwdriver AF") lenses and a 24MP DSLR. My 180ED gets bad sharpness from DxO Mark but still reveals the tiny down hairs in people's skin that the naked eye doesn't see. And details in skin pores. That lens is beautifully soft and warm. But I prefer my recent Z 105/2.8S over it. There's a skin softener in Ps that works very well and fast.
Occasionally, I use a manual focus Petzval (1840s design) on the FTZ adapter with the Z 7ii. I had two rants since I started with Nikon (F2) in 1975: chromatic aberration and tint differences between different lenses and so far, Nikon have totally silenced that with the Z system. Way back, I also shot Hasselblad medium format and the Zeiss lenses were more consistent. With 4" x 5" and 8" x 10" that seemed less of an issue - for one because there was so much color saturation that film and print dominated the impression. Bottom line, I never felt that artistic quality of photos depends a lot on sharpness or other lens qualities. Look at photos from the Tokyo Olympics, e.g. of a hurdle race. Tack sharp, athletes frozen in the air. I prefer a longer shutter speed that gives a bit of motion blur to the legs. That is more important to me than the look of old lenses. Or, not a lot of nostalgia for me.
The 24-200 has less flare resistance compared to the 24-70 f/4 or f/2.8. It doesn't have any of the fancy coatings. It has less weather sealing. The corners are a bit soft. Horses for courses. You need them all really. You only really compared all these lenses in the centre of the frame. But it is extremely versatile.
Re that 24-70 f/2.8 that you spent so much money on, it has many optical and build characteristics that set it apart. I think you are glossing over its virtues.
In reality in shooting in daylight, we don't think there is much difference, but yes I love my 24-70 2.8 so we might need a part two to reflect on these findings.
I have always had a 24-70 f2.8 and own the new Mirrorless version on my Z7 which is the Best version I have >> yes as a Kit lens the F4 is great but its not the Pro quality I like. Any Zoom over 4x is to be avoided so that cuts out the 8 x Zoom 24-200 Z which yes the Landscapers love ...But I have the 14-30 f4 , 20 f1.8 (Astro) , 24-70 f2.8 and 70-200 f2.8 Z lenses for Landscapes
Thanks for your response Peter. The 24-200 is better than expected and might be good as a compact walk around.
Nice collection of lenses you have. Other than the 24-70 f/2.8 S, I have the same set-up. With your line-up, you got mostly covered - landscape, astro, wildlife, and portrait photography.
What a helpful selection of lenses to test. I have the 24-70 f/4 and am on a waiting list for the 24-120. This video persuaded me not to hold out for the 24-70 f/2.8 to have more of a pro kit with my 70-200 2.8.
Thanks Jim, the 2.8’s are good in low light but if you don’t need that the f4’s are great! You’ll love the 70-200!
@@russandloz Thanks. I’m thinking the 24-120 on a Z6 will be a great kit for handheld photography with the family, especially with its high iso performance, and I’ll keep the 50 on a Z7 as my I’ve got megapixels to crop camera.
interesting comparrisons! if i wouldn't already own the 24-70 f4 i'd def get the 24-200
They both have their benefits and good points. Could possibly trade in?
Waiting for the 24-105 that Nikon has announced on their roadmap. I am assuming it will be 2.8 at wide end with F4 at 105 end. That will replace all 3 lenses for me
Pretty sure it’s going to be f4 throughout
my most used lens is the 24 - 120 F4 with the FTZ adapter, best walk around lens ever. And there is a Z version to ;-)
We’ve just done a review of that. Worth a watch!
As a cost exercise, we are saying that the 24-70mm 2.8 G lens is still a good option at 5/600 quid s/h and gives you the 2.8 for low light?
I did think of that, though fmount lenses aren't always quick or sharp on z bodies. I went for the 20mm 1.8z instead, video coming soon!
if you are comparing the qualities of the lens, should have used the z 7 and realy tried them out, as they would be resolved by a 47.5 MP sensor, so any mistake should show up, but other than the normal iso difference due to the different apatures used, all great quality, but just dependent on how the PHOTOGRAPHER defines the qualities they are after in their genre of photography.
A 24Mp sensor with an AA filter isn`t going to push the difference between these lenses, stick them on a Z7 with 46Mp and no AA filter and I`d hope you could see why the 24-70 F2.8 Z costs two grand ... I`m still amazed how well the 24-70 F4 Z stacks up on the Z7 wideopen
Thanks for your response, I have a z7ii and don't really see any difference apart from a larger crop factor from a Z6ii. Apart from low light where the z6 pulls away. That said, I love my 24-70 2.8 for its extra low light and dof ability.
Russ you dont see contrast well. Many of the shots sharpness was equal but big differences in contrast.
I firstly got 24-70 F4 as a kit and sold it and bought 24-120 F4. And now thinking to sell it and buy 24-70 F2.8 lol.
F4 lenses are really good but I feel a bit frustrated on F4. I want smaller aperture value.
Yes in low light they don't really work very well but in daylight are great for general use. I recommend a 1.8 to your lenses
@@russandloz Thanks for the reply. You are right. Actually I have 50ｍｍ F1.8 and am also thinking to buy 85mm F1.8. I am drowning in a swamp lol.
@@omu_omuomu We have a video on that and others worth looking at to see the comparison :-)
The Z mount 24-70 F4 S lens is my go to lens for event/group photos that requires me to always shoot F4 and above for overall sharpness on group photos..light weight and sharp..if i need that bokeh separation i can always get the 50 1.2s or 35 f1.8 S..skipped the Z 24-70 f2.8 S and got the more versatile super sharp Z 70-200 f2.8 S..
I often find myself in low light situations for events photography, so the F4 wouldn't be good enough as even 2.8 can struggle but can make the difference.
@@russandloz your absolutely right..an F4 is not a low light lens to start with..i do corporate event group photos so always has to use a flash and above F4. i do carry a second body with a 35 1.8 or a 50 1.2 for those couples that i need to separate them from the busy background and tight spaces
i bet the differences on the z7 would be higher, but i am also using the 24-200 on the z6 ;)
Yes, the z7 is worse in low light.
@@russandloz I am glad that I have a tripod and not only compare low light performance at 100% instead of a fixed output size. then the z7 is comparable.
So for video only (and not worried about a 2nd card slot), the Z6 and f4 24-70mm is good enough? There's a great deal at the moment on the Z6 with this kit lens.
Yes its very good, the reason I went for the mkii version was for the second card slot as I'm a wedding photographer and also the future updates. Though our recent testing shows its very similar on auto eye focus.
Definitely, I shot a wedding video using the Z6 and the 24-70 F4 - turned out great
just to add to my comment though there are great deals on the Z6ii bundles at the moment which makes it almost the same price as the Z6 - we've just done a video on it
The 24-200 has VR/optical image stabilization, which gives it an edge for outdoor handheld video. Of course the variable aperture is an issue. But having better stabilization in footage often trumps sharpness and bokeh. It came as a kit. I got a 24-70 f4 used (mint) for about 500 USD. I would use it more as an inexpensive indoor kit lens. the 2.8 is too expensive. Ayway I have the 50mm 1.8, and I am still shooting some assignments kobs with Sony APSC woth the 16-55 2.8 and the Sigma 1.4 primes. I like the Nikon colors better straight of the camera. better skin tones. Sony has an edge with AF-C, but requires more work ip post. I really like the video out of the Nikon. I am tempted selling the 24-70 and 24-200 for the new 24-120 and simplify. But it lacks the VR/optical stabilization. So probably not worth selling the 24-200, I would lose 1 stop or so at 120, but lose the stabilization.
Interesting. We don’t really test for video purposes so it’s good to hear about what works.
@@russandloz I find optical + in body stabilization works best. Any plans of getting/trying the 24-120?
How’s does the 24-70 2.8g perform on the z system focus wise?
From what we can tell all z lenses focus really well. Also improving all the time.
@@russandloz sorry I meant how does the old 24-70 focus on the z series?
@@willoughby5150 It'll always be slower using the FTZ adapter. I ended up exchanging all my old kit. Though you may find the DSLR is quicker in some focus methods.
thought I'd recognised the location at 13:43 Bridge over the River Leam
Yes we are Coventry and Leamington based.
@@russandloz any chance you can post the link to the 70-200 test. RE Daffodil Park is Jephson Gardens.
@@paulriley323 It's on our Channel page. ruclips.net/video/z1yvQ_MOliM/видео.html
@@russandloz found and bookmarked it, a lot of interest in the Z 24-200, lately. Had mine 13 months.
It's a nice video but apologies, I do have to disagree at 2:47 - 2:54. They are most definitely not identical. The level of detail and contrast is superior on the Zed mount (S lens). It's quite visible on my monitor even before zooming into 100%. I think if you had gone to 200% it might have been even more obvious. Thanks for posting though!
Thanks for your response Rob. We are also finding great results with the Z system compared to DSLR. With this comparison it could also have been the changing light adding to the difference so gave it some leeway.
I was seeing the same as you and wondering what the hell he was looking at 😝. The Z mount 24-70 F2.8 was clearly much sharper
@@terrywbreedlove The Z lenses are generally sharper, thats why we show the live comparison for the viewer to also decide by how much. Also, maybe different monitors will show different things. :-)
@michael - Hi Michael thanks for your comment 😀 I have to respectfully disagree. I think across the entire image the z-mount lens is far superior. If you look at the base of the monument/fountain/whatever this thing is the level of detail is superior in the S lens. If you look at the tree trunk, the details are far superior in the S lens. Even the details in the grass are better. It's very obvious to me across the entire frame. Even the details in the limbs of the tree are superior in the S-lens. To say they are "almost identical" is inaccurate in my opinion. I understand that lighting conditions change which can impact the level of detail but if it's obvious to the naked eye in a backlit image (which tends to distort details) then it's obvious the S lens is superior.
Nice comparison video. I saw mixed reviews on the 24-70 f4 so I got the 50 f1.8 when I bought my Z6 and love it. Can't afford the Z 70-200 f2.8 but want something with a longer focal length. Ideally a Z 70-200 f4 if it existed but thoughts on the F mount Tamron 70-200 G2 f2.8? Been seeing them on sale and they're basically the same price as the Z 24-200.
Thanks for your response Ian, we find using the FTZ adapter slows the focus and generally the Z lenses are sharper, quieter and lighter.
@@russandloz I agree. I had the Tamron lens. It definitely slowed down the focusing and even misses. I sold the Tamron and got the Z 70-200 mm f/2.8S. It is by far the best lens I ever used/purchased!
@@ThePinoyAggie Yes, we have mostly swapped to the new z glass to bring a better experience. A new era!
So here is the take away. What should be the worst performer of the bunch is still so good that the diminishing returns are not worth it. As for Bokeh, you can add that to your liking in photoshop.....
It's true there aren't any bad z lenses, though I've never been happy with the look of artificially creating bokeh.
I am seriously considering getting the 24 - 200, I mainly do landscape but it would be lovely to capture a few other things as well, like animals or portraits, and also to zoom in on aspects of the landscape without the hassle of changing lenses. Should I keep the 24-70 f4 though for those situations where it may be an advantage to have, or should I just sell it to help pay for the other? I don't want to regret not having it but I don't know if I would ever need it realistically. I am not a professional so I could never justify the cost of the f2.8 at the moment. Are Nikon going to bring out 70-200 f4?
The 24-200 would be good for animals, for portraits you wouldn't have the creamy shallow depth of field pro's desire. But its a great little all round lens I often use for street and walks, it does everything apart from low light. At 24 I think they are all the same so I don't see why you'd need the F4 really. Overall the 24-200 gives much better value and is more flexible if the variable f-stop won’t be a problem.
get a cheap 40 f2
Try shooting backlit portraits, you'll see a serious difference.
Interesting, in what way?
@@russandloz I found less haze and better contrast, a big deal for me.
Clearly the Z mount 24-70 F2.8 is sharper than them all.
yep as youd expect but i dont think theres a lot in it?