I know this is more on the harsh side, but when you look at how good the Z6 and Z7 are and the type of Glass that Canon is putting out for the RF, this lens make you scratch your head. You have to be honest about this stuff, it's not the best feeling lens in the world and it's an F4. We know I am harsher on F4's but I stand behind being harsh on them. They have their place, but that place generally is not in my bag. There are a few F4 lenses that can sit in my bag. One is the Canon 11-24 F4 because of how special it is, the F4 doesn't matter as much on such a fantastic lens. The Nikon 300 F4 PF because it replaces something much much larger in the way of the 300 2.8. That's about it for now.
everything makes sense..Why would someone buy a lens like that: If you own a full frame camera you obviously care about the depth of field...1000 bucks? noooope
A couple years late, but... now you can get that for 300-400. Speaking of small lens, I guess Fro will be baffled at those tiny Leica lenses and looking at that price-tag!
i bought this lens. not happy with the plastic touch and that click sound feels about to break the lens when you rotate it and why you have to rotate first before you can start shooting??? just like my point and shoot old camera? oh my… but this lens is tack sharp than my canon 24-70 2.8 L lens!!! boom!
I have the Z7 with this lens. Personally, I like it a lot. I like that it is light weight. It’s one of the reasons I went with the Z7. As a landscape photographer with arthritic shoulders I am looking for the lightest weight possible to lug around in my backpack. I also could not care less about it being f4, I am generally stopping down anyway. What I do care about is sharpness, and this lens has it in spades. I wish you reviewers would stop fixating on speed and bokeh. That is not the be all and end all of what makes a good lens. It has its place, but not everyone is a portrait/fashion/wedding photographer. Landscape photographers have different needs, and this lens and system has what it takes. My 2c.
I've been playing for ages to see what other lenses need to be in my bag. Everything I put against this lens is mush. Had to just content myself until the rest of the Z lenses come. This obsession with lens speed is nuts when we're talking about the Z7, the camera itself is sooooo fast. Also the re-assignable command ring makes me feel like Zeus. Z7 + this lens = 80% of photography needs at edge to edge super sharpness in a way not much else can compare to.
This is so true I’m an architectural photographer I’m also not shooting people (unless I’m blurring them across a scene) weddings, sports, etc weight is important as is dynamic range and quality of the actual glass. I tether to capture one so it’s not like I use any card slots at all so the fact the z7 and 6 only have one doesn’t mean anything for me. I currently shoot d850 but if the mirrorless system had pce Lens I’d make the jump but I can’t see that happening for a long time and outside of the Nikon 19pce the rest of the tilt shift range from Nikon is aging a bit
Whilst I share your thoughts, for a lens $1000 it does not pack the punch. Sharpness and depth of field plays a massive role in sizing up the investment.
You make good points, It's good to know where this lens shines, But you should know by now what type of photography Jared's doing. He's more about low light situations and movement than stills and landscape. Every type of photography has it's place and time, but if you want a review of lenses that fits with "your" needs, maybe watch the reviews of an other channel?
I think, if you’re a landscape photographer and go on a lot of hikes, it’s going to be good, due to the light weight. Plus you don’t need the 2.8 for landscapes, f4 lenses are just fine.
@@frostasaurus2190Absolutely not! If I pay premium I do expect premium quality (nothing really to do with adding weight just to make it heavy). Usually it can be achieved by using better quality materials/finish etc. I am quality inspector for over 10 years and in my career I've never came across of the idea of improving quality by adding weights or increasing size... You got this wrong. It can happened that both attributes are somehow connected (e.g using metal rather than plastic elements) but the quality itself is much more than weight.
@@at4095 but you understand that the price that it currently is, is the price for those materials. If you actually got the metal finish etc - you'd be paying significantly more which then means the justification for the F4 version of the lens comes down to nothing but size. And all the people who wanted an affordable 24-70 are screwed again.
This review couldn't be farther from the truth. This lens is SHARP. Sharper than most 1.8 primes. The bokeh is just as good, too. Amazing lens if you get it in the bundle, even without the bundle. In terms of sharpness, this lens is just as sharp as any other Z lens.
To keep repeating that this lens is $1000 is extremely disingenuous. It is $600 when purchased with the body. You keep calling it a kit lens almost as if you know it is most commonly purchased as part of a kit. On the other hand, the Canon 24-105 is $1100 whether it is purchased alone or as a kit. So the Nikon has image quality that surpasses the 24-70/2.8 VR when shot at f/4 yet is less the half the weight and one quarter the cost. Sounds like a win to me. And the Nikon is $500 cheaper than the Canon kit and about 30% lighter. Nikon clearly wanted to provide a lightweight kit lens with professional image quality for their system. It sounds like hit a homerun towards that goal! Sorry if you can't get over your preconceptions of what a good lens should feel and sound like.
Agreed. Basically I tell people, Buy it with the kit. If you don't want it, I'm sure there is someone out there that would buy it for $600 so you have very little to lose (I think used 24-70 f/4s were going for about $700-800 used last I checked).
Well said, Preston! IMHO, this NIkkor S 24-70 f/4 makes a fantastic companion lens to the Z6 or, in my case, the Z7, precisely because of the light weight and superb sharpness. As a landscape and product photographer, I always shoot around f/8 anyway, and could care less about bokeh or low-light capabilities of an f/2.8 lens, as Jared seems to do. I also think that quality plastics are fine, as long as the lens mount is metal. Overall image quality and sharpness are my 2 most important criteria, and for that, this lens is a clear winner. Thanks!
@Im A visitor it has proper weather sealing, don't know what you're on about here. And terrible build quality? What because it's plastic with metal mount? The lens feels fantastic to use and sturdy, very sturdy. Far from terrible build quality. And it's still cheaper in kits. You were very wrong 2 yrs ago and still are today lol
Just got my Z6 with the 24-70. I don't anything cheap about the lens. The clock is just to park the lens. Its no different than a lock button. The lens feels solid, and is amazing optically. And F4 is most certainly pro. I've been shooting this Z6 up to ISO 25,600 and it's suuuuuper quiet. No complaints or regrets. It's a great lens. Hands down.
I’d take a better performing lens that will only last 4 years over a subpar lens that’s built to last 8 years. I wish this video showed the sample pictures and compared to the Canon kit F4 rather than discuss the aesthetic... Clients aren’t marveled by how cool your lens looks, they want good pictures.
Hey Buddy Couldn't agree with you more I bought it as a Kit I figured if I was going to switch to Nikon I would jump All In Not having any older Nikon glass but coming from M43'rds I can tell you that the Z6 and the 24-70 f/4 are a great camera setup Especially for Videographers who want to keep their Kit light I have also shot a Lot of product photos (controlled environment) in the past couple weeks and I still disagree with Jared
I couldn't agree more it is foolish not to buy this lens with your body for $500. It is how I justified buying my Z6 to begin with I convinced myself I was buying a more lightweight travel kit. The lens is really sharp for the general focus distance and that much sharper with a flash so I will not be selling this baby anytime soon or likely ever because of the compact design. Cheers ^^
i dont think, there will be big enough market for this lens to sell secondhand for a while. And .. yep, it is light, but it is F4 - there is nothing more to add. it should have been F2.8, or 24-105. I have Tamron 24-70 for F mount and it is great, but i would not buy it with F4 and it is the same at Z. I think this lens is only for amateurs, and that is not enough.
I actually traded in my D800 and 24-70 2.8G for a Z6 and the 24-70 f4 because I wanted a lighter travel option (I also have the D850, and shoot primes on it mainly). Personally I like the build quality, size and IQ of the 24-70 f4. For travel photography and landscape type work, I think it's great. For portraits and events, then of course, 2.8 is always better.
At the end of the day, this lens performs really well, is sharp edge to edge, works flawlessly for both photos and videos and yes, is nicely compact. I love my D850 but am constantly grabbing the Z6 and this lens due to its mix of practicality and uncompromising quality.
No Jared, it's not a bad lens, it's just not for you. It's the perfect lens for many landscape photograpers, where weight and size is a huge issue but a big aperture isn't as important (most of the time).
@@tfsamrtguy Obviously you have not used it or taken one apart. It is metal but has a polycarbonate covering and has more elements than the 2.8 versions that have good but lower image quality. It will be rugged as a daily use lens and I hardly carry either of my 24-70 2.8 G or E. The focus motor is a silent stepper motor which is more suited to video than the 2,8 lenses which are noisier. Jarad does not use it and if you have seen his photos, image quality is just not important to him.
Seems like a kit lens? IT IS a kit lens! Feels “plasticky?” IT IS plastic! I come from the days of all metal camera bodies and lenses, and I can tell you that today’s cameras and lenses are lighter and better and do things we never dreamed of when I bought my Pentax Spotmatic in 1967. The difference between f4 and f2.8 is ONE STOP. That’s an ISO adjustment from 100 to 200 (pick your starting point) - something only the most fanatic pixel peeper would be able to detect. And - anyone who actually pays a grand for this lens is an idiot. Such a silly, silly review.
I’m glad someone else said it. This guy has gotten more boushy over the years than I care to say. He got all this gear now and he went from being humble and doing honest reviews to just being a horrible snob with incorrect and inaccurate reviews. Just because a person has all metal lenses in their Arsenal doesn’t make them a pro. I know plenty of guys that have top of the line gear that take shitty pictures not worth a second look. I also know guys that shoot with plastic lenses that run circles around guys that claim they are pros when it comes to photography. The review of this lens is inaccurate and bullshit…period. This lens takes great pictures and handles nicely in the hands of a real pro. Newsflash!!! The 24-70mm f/2.8 F Mount Nikon lens is only 1 stop better. The sharpness is the same as the F/4. A quick switch of the ISO setting and the F/4 is back in the game. You also don’t get a nice bokeh shot with an F/4 if your subject is right up against the background. Any idiot knows the subject and the background need to have separation of at least 7ft to show any type of bokeh. Your subject was right up against the wall when you talked about depth of field..LMAO.
I'm new to this, but every video I see of his seems so arrogant and high brow. I don't think this guy could make a good review for anything under $1500. I'm looking at the Z7ii for astrophotography (I want to make very large prints and this camera seems to be a great value) and I expect that at f4 compensation with a good star tracker and longer exposures will have to be made. But that's what I can afford for now. I want a good allrounder until I can afford some z mount primes. Maybe I'm wrong and the lens is crap? I don't think so though. I think this guy's videos are crap. 🤷
@@Code_Monkey_ Agreed. That’s usually what happens when guys get sponsors. They sell out for free gear and then become extra boujie . You can actually see the progression of his snobbery and douchebaggery over the last 6 years. I was a fan of his back then. Now I only come here to see what new misinformation and inaccurate gear reviews he’s going to put out to the photography community.bathe Z7II is an awesome camera. The fact you can use your old F Mount lenses with the FTZ adapter is a blessing. The firmware updates that increase the performance in auto focus is great also. Nikon really made it nice for their DSLR users to make a somewhat seamless transition over to mirrorless. You’ll be extremely happy even if you just use your Nikon F lenses with your Z7II. The equivalent Canon mirrorless overheats and the Sony can’t get their damn colors right yet. FujiFilm got it right if you like their medium format. Nikons color saturation, contrast, dynamic range, and image quality shits on Canon and Sony mirrorless.
I don’t care how it feels or smells, I only look at the images the lens delivers. And I tell you that the pics are excellent especially for landscape which I use it for. Is not ok to recommend people not to buy. Especially together with the kit it is worth it.
@@sasca854 The Len's IQ sharpness and CA compares very favorably to the FE 24-70 Zeiss f/4, it's light, fully weather sealed, _and_ parafocal making it ideal for image stacking for landscape photographers, all this comes in a kit lens. A kit lens. So it's also cheaply available on the used market.
24-70 S lens is One of the fastest and lightest f/4 lenses I have every heald Also just as small as m43 lenses I dont want heavy anymore and am super happy with this lens
Jared, I have a new Z6 and this lens, and it doesn't feel cheap or kit at all. It has a similar composite feel to a Sigma, and it's tight and sharp. The parking mechanism seems solid and you don't cross the transition i n regular use. I think the mechanism is pretty smart actually. I love F4 lenses. I just disagree that it's a cheap lens. And also, the Z6 seems to be amazing at high ISO, so even indoors, it works pretty darned well. So I would recommend this lens in the kit, especially for the bundled price. It's a very good lens.
If you like to focus-stack, this lens is for you though. As far as I know this is the only modern Parafocal kit-zoom in existence. I think the lens is fine. Well suited for travel.
On this one I disagree with Fro. I own the Z7 and the 24-70mm S lens. I’m holding the lens in my hands and it is simply NOT cheap feeling. It has an all metal body with standard plastic telescoping lens segments. Exactly like every other zoom lens. In my hands it’s solid and streamlined. The only thing cheap about this lens is the paper thin crap lens hood they shipped with it. It’s truly trash. Now I have tested this against the stabilized Nikon and Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8’s and it is noticeably sharper than both at every focal distance. Sharp all the way to the edges. What the hell more could you want from a lens? Should it play music for you? I’m probably going to sell this when the new Z mount S 24-70mm f/2.8 comes out this year. For portraits an f/2.8 is a requirement for me. But if you don’t need the F/2.8 and f/4 is good enough for your needs, then get it, you’ll love it. The price is a little high, but it seems that Nikon’s charging more for all of their lenses and this one is the sharpest of the three. And my tests of the three lenses was thorough. The new Z mount lens is clearly better than the other two. Nikon should be lauded for making a lens that performs so damned well.
@@froknowsphoto For 1 stop paying $1000-1500 more and 3 lbs? The f/4 is the sharpest and best contrast mid zoom on the market now. If I really need 2.8, I can do better with my 1.4 primes. There are very few cases where the f/4 is too slow but where the 2.8 is not. You lose credibility with you disregard the most important traits of a lens, image quality. Sure, for more speed I could shot my 27-70 2.8 G or E but lose IQ for the added weight, noise and size.
Hello Jared, do you have a personal relationship with our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ? The Son of God. That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. - Romans 10:9. And please ask the Lord Jesus to bless you with wisdom, knowledge, understanding, and discernment. And please ask the Lord Jesus to forgive you for all of your sins and transgressions.
The lens hood is not of the same rugged quality of F Mount lenses, mine got marked on its first outing and it took me ages to get it back to pristine condition. Apart from that I love the lens, especially the light weight and superb sharpness.
@@bjnslc Z series has IBIS. No need for VR = decreased weight, decreased optical complexity, increased sharpness. Needles to say, you cannot mount a Z mount lens to any other body but the Z series. One of the most expensive parts of a lens is the coating of the optical elements. This lens has all but one of the Nikon most advanced coatings (even fluorine for easy ceaning of the front element). It also has a lot of special features glass inside - aspherical, extra low dispersion... On top, it is said that the quality control has improved for the Z mount S line lenses - that translates into higher cost (but lower samples variations as a benefitl.
Ive watched a lot of videos and read many reviews on the Z System. Im seeing a trend....It seems like regardless of what people are saying, they are grabbing their Z6 and Z7 cameras a LOT more than their DSLRs. That in and of itself says a lot...
I shoot most of my portraits in the studio at around f8 and at the age of 60, the lighter Z6ii and this lens is a godsend for my hands... Sharp as I need it. Easy to hold and handle on those longer sessions. Thank you Nikon!
The base Z6 is $1996 body only... I pre-ordered it with the FTZ and the 24-70 for only $2,746.95.. So, take off the FTZ which sells for $250 and I only paid $500 for the 24-70 F4 which is about what the lens is actually worth. Would I pay a grand for it? Nope.. I'd get a used 24-70 F2.8... But for $500 it's worth it... it's really great in video also with no focus breathing which you didn't mention.
It's a fantastic travel/walk around lens though. Compact, keeps the entire system light, great quality, and good range. Bought with the kit it's a great value, also. And to be fair that click is to lock/unlock it so it doesn't creep, as well as makes it smaller for storage/travel.
Hell of a lot better than the damn button that Nikon used to use. At least Olympus realized that people usually want to extend the lens quickly, so you don't have to press the button to extend their lenses.
Don't forget that Sony released their 24-70 f4 Zeiss for $1100. And it was a much worse lens. I think that's the reason Nikon made it so expensive. Though they didn't think of options like Canon 24-105 4 (which wasn't released yet) and Tamron 28-70 2.8 for Sony E. I still think that buying it in a kit (for $500-600) is worth it.
That's true, I'm a Sony fanboy but at least this lens is sharp. The Sony 24-70 f4 is worse than their own kit lens and costs 1100$. That's just a ripoff.
If you buy it in the kit the price is reasonable. 1 thing though: that click at 2:00 is when you turn it all the in to the travel position. It's like a lock. You don't have that click between 24 and 70.
Considering the weight and size advantages of mirrorless, the f/4 lens seems a great choice. It's not as if we're going to have to wait more than a few months for the 2.8 version. The lens is light, compact, sharp from edge to edge, has nice micro-contrast and color. It's weather resistant, what's not professional? There's that RUclips reviewer perceived need for shallow depth of field, ho-hum, which hasn't kept me from using this for portraits. It an excellent street lens, where I want a greater DOF anyway. It does take a few weeks to get used to automatically twisting the barrel to open it, but I learned that. I got through that. No missed photos anymore. I love it on my Z7. It also lets me see just how heavy my old 24-70 2.8 is.
Saying something "feels" cheap makes no sense. I have this lens and so far it's been great. Obviously a 2.8 is better but they haven't put that out yet. I like the fact that it feels lighter than just lenses. Less load to carry.
@@AllenInRealLife I'm quite sure this isn't the first time a lens is made from cheap plastic. If there are other lenses made with the same plastic and feel and you know they break early then why is it unfair to say it feels cheap and flimsy?
When bought with the camera body, this lens costs around 500 USD and for that money I think its a great value for money lens. It is compact, is a good zoom range and provides tremendous image quality and is pretty weather resistant. Not everyone needs a 2.8 zoom lens. Those are generally much heavier and much more expensive and I don't think this kit lens competes with them. The Canon RF system is heavier and more expensive than the Z6 kit and is also the only full frame mirrorless I can think off that does not have IBIS. So I think Z6 kit is a pretty decent buy!
You might not like it, but you made a lot of assumptions that are just not true. The camera is metal, and it is the sharpest 24-70, small, light and fast/silent focusing and great for video. The lens was $600 and better than either my 24-70 2.8G or E versions. Of the 3 lenses, the one that gets used most if the S lens you think is a bad deal. For the same price nothing comes close in image quality and in fact in a zoom it stands out very well. It is sharp enough to match or beat the best primes in its range and one of the few lenses that can challenge the Z7 46mpx. You lose credibility when panning a great lens because you think a lens needs to be 6 lbs to be decent while disregarding its superior image quality.. Those of us who actually shoot with it have a much higher opinion of it. What is your definition of rugged? Drop a 24-70 2.8 and a f/4 S on a concrete floor and see which one survived.
I disagree. I have used lenses back to the days of the FM and F3 and this lens feels very well built to me. Properly damped and solid. It seems that most all of this opinion is based on anecdotal evidence. the real, and only question, is: does it provide high quality images and does it last mechanically? The answer to both, for me, is yes. Lab data shows it is incredibly sharp. As a mechanical engineer, I'm in the business of designing robust equipment that meets specifications so I know a little about what I'm saying. If you need one more stop of light, then the 2.8 is for you. I have lots of 2.8 lenses and some faster and some slower. I've taken many, many good photos with all of them.
I know the Nikon Z 24-70 f/4 doesn’t have as good build quality as the Sony Zeiss 24-70 f/4 but can you do a side by side comparison of the image quality from pictures taken with a Nikon Z6 using the 24-70 f/4 and a Sony A7iii using the Zeiss 24-70 f/4.
I have the z6 and I got it as a kit with this lens. I also have a D5 and I have 135mm DC, 80-200 2.8, 35mm 1.4 and 50mm 1.8. Anything F glass on the Z6 looks too heavy. The advantage of the Z6 and 7 is they really are small and very compact vs F mount DSLRs. Based on that the 24-70 z mount is perfectly sized and I carried it by hand all day and it takes fantastic pictures you will not be in any way disappointed. The lens itself to me feels quality in the same way the Z6 does, these are very well put together products. I don’t find my self shooting below f4 unless I am shooting stars at night or I’m trying to achieve something specific like very shallow focus with nice bokeh in the background. This lens has nice bokeh and I have taken portraits with it but if you are looking for a special result use something like my 135mm f2 DC. I found this review from Jared disappointing, I learnt nothing who cares if it’s plastic, what can I do with it and what can’t I ? Doesn’t mention that there is zero barrel, it’s sharp edge to edge at all apertures and creates beautiful color and bokeh. Plus focuses close. Really that’s incredibly versatile.
@@GRJCLyon The "click" is caused by the lens collapsing into itself so that it becomes significantly shorter than with it unclicked. Yes, clicking DOES make it smaller. That click is caused by the locking mechanism that prevents the lens from extending and becoming damaged while being carried.
Darrell Young right now I can think of 2 of lenses I’ve owned telescoped into themselves. Tammy 24-70 and Sigma 17-50. Neither clicked and neither had an issue while being carried. Both were smaller when closed up and put in a bag no issue. A click didn’t help them.
It IS their kit lens. They made it light probably for the same reason that the Z series have one card slot: they think that mirrorless is for people that want light small kits. They are still not convinced that the pro industry is moving entirely to mirrorless.
Exactly we’ll stated Art this is the point that everyone is missing with the Z6 and 7, plus the Z mount lens. It’s not a replacement it’s to fill a specific need. And light and small with fantastic image quality is awesome.
They made it more complex and with better image quality for the same reason they put in the much more expensive bus and slot XQD, because it is more reliable than 2 SD slots. If they had cheapened out there would be less future proofing of this camera system. By using the faster data architecture, and a real pro card system, it means the Z6 is the only full frame or crop camera that can deal with ProResRAW. An XQD is an advantage in many ways and the other brands will need to add it on their next cameras or lose out on video.
@@justdoittom8431 completely agree. At least half of my pro friends have moved to mirrorless due to features beyond just the smaller form factor. The younger / newer-to-photography pro-sumer level crowd are also snapping up full frame mirrorless bodies like they're going out of style. Nikon and Canon need to make mirrorless adaptations of their flagship cameras ASAP since brand loyalty only goes so far.
That's the problem, it's a kit lens at a pro-lens price. From the reviews like this one here, the quality of the build isn't commensurate to the price they're charging. I know Canon gear, not Nikon, but I know that a Canon kit lens wouldn't be in the same price neighborhood as an L-series lens.
So what z lens would you recommend if you just bought the new z6 II and just spent $2,000 on it and only had 600 -800 on your budget? If you buy the kit lense you get the $1,000 lens for a discount.
Jared .. I also have both. I did get the f4 version with my Z6 and I have to say that the 2.8 version with the FTZ adapter is still much better indoors. I am disappointed with my only Z mount lens. I suppose it has to do with the fact that the 2.8 gathers twice as much light and therfore focuses better indoors. I thought I'd sell my D750 but I decided to keep them both. The D750 just does indoor moving subjects (ie dance photography) better. The f4 version is a great travel lens though. Good honest review. Thanks.
Interesting how Canon and Nikon approached full frame mirror-less. Nikon looks as if they put more effort into the body than the lenses, where as Canon went out and made some great RF mount glass and hopefully, one day, they build a body the matches the quality of the glass. Canon could really threaten the mirror-less market if they stopped holding back camera technology. In my opinion, they always had great lenses, just need the to put the same type of effort into their camera bodies, (They are not horrible, but behind Sony and Nikon).
@@BizStyle87 I'm genuinely curious how many people actually do watch RUclips in 4k. I do on my TV once in a blue moon but I'm usually on mobile or my PC which is 1440p. I still record in 1080p due to it being cheaper and easier to deal with, with more options for the equipment price.
when I got my Z7. At worst, if I hated the lens (which I don't) I could re-sell it for $600 and be in the same place as if I hadn't gotten it in the first place. But after shooting with it I like it. i don't find the lens to be cheap. I mean it's not a metal barrel like the 2.8G F-mount is, but it also doesn't weigh has much as that lens, ans is much more compact. I think $1000 is pretty much appropriate for this type of lens and build quality. I think Fro is maybe just used to the big heavy tanks that were paired with large DSLRs (hence, the metal 24-70's).
At the risk of making a point deemed naiive, or which has already been addressed, how many owners of the f2.8 lens actually use that aperture? I don't own any big 2.8, but with the lenses I do use, I'm rarely utilizing their maximum aperture. I suppose it's nice to know it's there, but is it necessary?
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.
The sniff & blow bit is reeeeeaaly getting old, Fro. As for the lens: it's probably good for landscapists who shoot on a tripod most of the time. But I agree, it does look and sound chintzy. Is it at least weather-sealed? You didn't say.
Thanks bro...I was just reviewing for the Z6 along with the kit lens...after spending hours on deciding to buy, it struck me to have your review...you explained it very well. Yes f/4 sucks, and I agree to that...I needed your guidance in depth now. I would invest in the body, plus the Z 50 f/ 1.8, and the FTZ adaptor, so can the FTZ adaptor be used for sigma or any other brand lenses or will it just support Nikon? lenses only? Thanks in advance.. Peace ✌
Great review! I love the sniff and the windtunnel test hahaha I know that how the lens smells is very important, but what's the story about the the windtunnel test?
Newbie getting into photography, and doing a lot of looking around. I’ve ordered a Nikon Z5, and just grabbed. This lens and the 50mm 1.8 brand new on EBay for about 500 each. It’s not hard to find marked down prices if you’re looking
What about the optical quality? The internal construction? How quick and smooth it focuses? The lenses coatings? How durable and reliable is it? That's what matters for some of us, not the label of 2.8 just to flex and brag. I own a Nikkor 17-35mm 2.8D. It's old, It's all metal built but at 2.8 It's soft, I work around it to get better results and yet Im happy but I would rather have it plastic made but have better updated optics and sharp wide open at F4.
Too bad it's attached to an APSC sensor that is no better than anyone else's APSC sensor. I flirted with Fuji, but am back to Nikon because it's a HUGE advantage to have both DX and FF in your kit. FF always wins when you can fill the frame. EVERY TIME.
@@erintaylor5856 I will agree with the comment on the sensor. I wasn't pleased with the results of my X-T2 (mainly because Adobe doesn't support X-Trans files very well so I felt I was losing a lot of detail during post processing). The place where Fuji really shines is with it's OOC JPEGs and film simulations. I also own a Nikon and I'd say that yeah the NIkon APS-C bodies do a better job than the Fuji, partially because they use a standard Bayer color array and not X-Trans. And about the lenses, as long as they have what one would need, then there's not really a problem there. Yes having access to both FF And APS-C is nice, but not always important to people.
Im pretty happy with this lens build quality and performance and buying together with z6 it's 600 compared to 1k alone so this option makes sense and it's good enough . I've tried adapted lenses and noticed focusing speed drop as you mentioned , personally I don't like it and building everything around Z mount.
I wanted to add that kit lenses usually depreciate heavily due to the supply/upgraders. This lens can be found used open-box for under $450. Which makes it by far the best value in a Z lens. It is so good that I'm having a haven't needed to carry/justify a prime in this range. I didn't go with the 20-S because it is larger than this lens. However, I do wish that it had VR like the 16-50DX does, and that all S lenses had two Fn buttons. Even if it meant giving up the custom ring, which many do not use because it doesn't have enough friction or indexing.
I've got a Z7 with this lens. It's much like the Z system on the whole right now- it's VERY good for the things it's good at.. but those things are limited. It's sharp edge to edge, so if you've got great light, this lens is tops. If you're doing video (again, in good light) this lens is incredible for run and gun work. If you're doing low light..nah. If you need the extra reach from 70-105.. nah. If you're not really doing video at all.. just go with something else. As a kit lens for $600, it's fine. Would've preferred a 24-105, but it's fine. The goal is to try to sell this for not too heavy of a loss whenever a 24-70 2.8 comes out.
Literally no one else is RUclips is saying this. Everyone else loves this lens. I love this lens. It’s not plastic and I super appreciate how light it is
I really like your videos Jared, but I don‘t get your „everything higher than f2.8 is not professional“ meaning. So a lot of people how make there living with landscape photography whilst using a f4 lenses aren‘t pros? Not me btw, unfortunately. I really think you should take a closer look outside the portrait-box you’re seems to be stuck. Nevertheless, I like your videos and in general your opinion.
This is a truly great, compact and useful lens. Everything Nikon makes is overpriced when released. Look at what they are selling the D750 for lately. Pretty sure they are still making money. When the S 24-70 f/2.8 comes out this year at $1800 or whatever, I still think this lens will still be worth the money. Best to get it with the camera and save almost 1/2 on the price though.
Hey Jared! You teased us a while ago on your Instagram story, or maybe on FB, but you were using the new Simga 70-200 2.8 Sport and shooting indoor basketball for a review. Thats mostly what I shoot, high school basketball with a Canon 6D Mark II. I have the Canon 28-300L, but looking to buy either the Sigma or new Canon version of the 70-200. When do you think you'll release the review. I think a lot of people are excited about it!
Hey Jared, i'm fighting between Nikon Z6 with kit lens and Eos RP with Kit lens... i do like more the Z6 but i agree with you on the lenses... I saw them booth at a store and i believe the same exact thing about them. I don't want other lenses for either of those cameras because of the price difference. i do believe for the extra money those lenses on each kit are a good value. I am an amateur photographer with a cheap Olympus, and now i want to go more professional, for sure with Full frame system now... What do you think? Does the Z6 with the shitty lens worth the extra 400 euros? 2k is my top budget
I love what they have done with the lens and I feel that it does not feel cheap at all. Feels great on hand and smooth rings. Shows great quality. And best is that it’s not heavy.. which means it’s easy on the arms, neck, back after a day of shooting. We’ve been bitching about more compact and lightness and now that we get it we complain.. and no it does not feel like it’s gonna break. Now I will agree on that it is high on the price, should be a 2.8 for that price
You have passed by the optical quality and edge to edge sharpness like it is something trivial and speak about how light the lens is. It is the optical quality (with all but one advanced coatings) that makes this lens relatively expensive. I've shot Canon 24-105 f/4 on a Canon DSLR - it does not come even close to Z 24-70 f/4 for image quality. I bought Z7 and this lens because it gives me a high megapixel full frame beast, sharp edge to edge, at just over 1kg! I needed small and light. If you shoot portraits, you are best of using primes. If you shoot nightscapes, you are best of using primes. Only if you shoot events, you MUST have a 2.8 heavy standard zoom.
Thanks Jared for your opinion. I always respect it. I’ve reached that stage in life when I cannot carry the weight of my D500 and long lenses for wildlife or sports, even walking about town with a 16-80 lens. I've settled on buying a Z6 mark 2. I am still thinking of this lens but I’m concerned about the robustness. I do take great care of my kit.
I am not a professional photographer. More of an enthusiast. But i feel my knowledge is pro level. I have been watching your videos since more than 6-7years now. Sometimes I feel you are just not accepting about some little things which can easily be ignored or worked around. For example. The opening and closing mechanism that clicks the lens, is totally optional. Like you can leave the lens in its working position all the time. You paid for it and no one's gonna stop you from keeping the lens open all the time. Other than that I haven't used the lens or any other comparable lenses from other manufacturers so i will just take your word for it as long as this video is relevant.
I got mine for 499 brand new (not sure if they know the price is so low) and that made it feel way worth it!. Not a small mom and pop shop, wouldn't do that to them, but a very well to do midsize retailer owned by a local humble billionaire... cough couch NFM, as of today Jan 2022 still haven't changed the price if you are interested:) For 500 bucks as a travel / walk around, love it! I wouldn't have purchased at 999 especially considering what's available / about to become available as of early 2022 but for that price I had to jump on it!
I do not know why I keep on looking at these lens and camera reviews. They are actually pointless. I am a long time Nikon user, with DX, FX bodies and lenses. I got the Z6 used, along with kit and FTZ, and the 24-70 F4. I loved how the F4 zoom works with Z6. Because in the Z6 one can push the ISO. And images comes out great. I also added a 85mm f1.8 g lens. Using the adapter it works fine, and the images are pretty sharp. So now, when I go any place indoors, I carry the zoom lens. And when outdoors, I have the 85mm. I also have 105mm AIS, 50mm f2D. But mostly they stay home. The point I am trying to make is, most of us are not going to sell the photos. We are hobbyist. Hence people for buying the expensive 2.8 lens is just salesman call. I understand your channel is your way of passive income. But frankly, having just the kits lens will do for 90% of the work. And the kit lens is better at focus tracking. In fact I was planning to get rid of z6....but after comparing with d7100, d700, and z6, with the same 85mm, I am sticking with it.
Apologies if u answered this in the vid... but curious if you could set your prince, how much WOULD you pay for this lens? Agree 1K was too much; even 600 with a body is too much IMO as well
I’ve had lenses a lot cheaper built than this one and haven’t had any problems with them. I usually agree with Jared, but not on the, “cheapness” of this lens. I just picked up the new 24-70mm f2.8 Z and it’s truly a pro lens. The f4 though is certainly good for its intended purpose. But I will say this, Jared has a hell of a lot more experience with Nikon lenses and cameras than I.
Just got this. It cost $600 as part of a kit with a Z6II...so, not $1,000. It does feel plasticky (but that also means low weight which is a plus). I don't like that it telescopes out and in, unlike my good old Nikkor 24-70 f/2.8 ED. But you know what? I just shot a news assignment plus quick portraits with it for a national newspaper, and the photos look excellent. Everything is beautifully sharp, even the corners. The colors are rich and lifelike but not hyped and unrealistic. AF is snappy. When you carry three cameras all at once, or even two, weight matters. The difference between a 2.8 and a 4.0 lens is one stop, so...eh. Not a big deal except in very low light. Between the two of them, I think the 4.0 is in some ways the better product. It doesn't look as imposing as the 2.8 but at this point I'm kinda beyond caring about my gear's look or what other people may think; I just want high-quality optics and fast AF performance (and - bonus - a break for my poor back and shoulders). This little lens delivers.
In the old days with my D700 and 24-70 f2.8 I couldn't really put it in my normal day backpack conveniently and found myself carrying a camera bag which didn't fit daily items. The Z 6 and this new lens fits in any backpack so much easier and the output is at least 2x better. Sure I lost some light but I never used that thing at 2.8 anyway and now I get IBIS. We don't need all lenses to be "premium + price" when there is a market for "good enough + convenience". Even bringing up the fact you can get the F mount lenses with the adapter suggests that Nikon chose convenience first for this new Z system since they already have decent F mount options. They are bringing the f2.8 versions this year but the f4 kit lens makes the package more appealing at launch price wise... and it is a "kit lens". So yes the title is accurate however the package as it is is not being marketed or conveyed as "professional" if that means expensive and premium. I'm not sure if I would buy it separately but with the body + adapter for $2800 that's a good deal.
So it is small and light and razor sharp edge to edge, and somehow this is a bad thing? I agree that for a professional this is not a lens they would want, but lets be fair: no kit lens ever is! The f/4 is for amateurs that want to use this for their vacation shots and such. And for that this thing is perfect due to its weight and size. Personally I would like to see a 24-105 f2.8-4 kit lens (something unique no other manufacturer every developed, like their 14-30 with 82mm filter option is unique and can't be found anywhere else)
I got this lens virtually for free with my Z6 for £1800 for the kit. It’s the sharpest lens I have owned. F4 is fine for me, I will save up and get the 50mm 1.8 for portraits. Until then I’ll use Canon’s nifty 50 on my APSc Canon 77d. Job done
I am not sure how much you have used this lens but personally I find it is an excellent lens, very sharp on my Z6 after using it for travel and landscape for the best art of 2 years.
I'd consider the IBIS and high ISO capability of the Z6 when discussing this lens. Obtaining very shallow DOF isn't the end all and be all of photography, particularly for amateurs and tourists like me. I took this lens to Disneyland at night on my Z6 and everywhere but inside the dark rides it was great, and capable of handling the mixed, and low light situations there. (I used an AF-S 50mm f/1.8 G with the FTZ adaptor inside rides, also great, shooting mostly wide open at auto ISO up to 51,200.) I bought the kit, however. Your point about the "$1,000" stand-alone price is worth considering only because at, or near, that price, there are other options to be considered. Particularly, I'm guessing like everyone reading this, if you have other Nikons with F mounts that would appreciate new glass, too.
_“It’s so plasticky... it feels like a kit lens”_ That’s because it is? If you can attest to the point that it’s really sharp and a very decent performing lens then surely you’ll have to see that Nikon had to cut costs somewhere.
This lens is fire, I neglected it for a while since I had a bunch of better lenses, but I bought this one with my Zf since it was more cost efficient (like 300-400 less than buying the lens on its own) and I think it is INCREDIBLY SHARP. I’m also not one of those people that only looks for bokeh. No doubt the 2.8 is better if that’s what you’re looking for, but it’s so much more expensive and honestly not worth it in my humble opinion
right now there are over 200 new and used F4 lenses on eBay I suspect the price of this lens on the used market will be down to 300-400 soon. I asked about trading to a Nikon Dealer for the 2.8F and was only offered 200. Its a handy lens for sure very Lightweight. The 2.8F I have is great but heavy
What is it with these guys complaining about build quality? I think this lens is better made than my old made in Japan F equivalents that are still current. Not only that but the optics are better too. This particular lens is compact too. They were expensive on release but not now, that's a fair criticism.
The problem with the older 2.8G lens (And to an extent, the 2.8E f-mount lens) is they aren't as evenly sharp across the frame. So there is some merit to the f/4 S lens, especially those who travel and/or don't need or ever shoot at 2.8. I have the 2.8G lens, love it for portraits and whatever, but am also considering picking up the f/4 S version for travel and when I don't need 2.8 (still cheaper than the new 2.8 S lens they just came out with). Plus I wouldn't have to adapt the f/4 S as pointed out. And at the end of the day, it's the image that comes out of the camera that matters. You know the 85mm 1.8G and the 50mm 1.8G also feel cheap, but are wonderful lenses that give great results. So feel (build quality) is only part of the equation.
Not everyone who watched your videos are professional photographer ,, I would say that 99 percent of them are not .This lens is perfect for me , small . light and very good , it is the reason I bought the Z6 with this lens ...,.,
I know this is more on the harsh side, but when you look at how good the Z6 and Z7 are and the type of Glass that Canon is putting out for the RF, this lens make you scratch your head. You have to be honest about this stuff, it's not the best feeling lens in the world and it's an F4. We know I am harsher on F4's but I stand behind being harsh on them. They have their place, but that place generally is not in my bag.
There are a few F4 lenses that can sit in my bag. One is the Canon 11-24 F4 because of how special it is, the F4 doesn't matter as much on such a fantastic lens. The Nikon 300 F4 PF because it replaces something much much larger in the way of the 300 2.8. That's about it for now.
Nicely said, a place but not in you bag haha 😁
I hope the next lenses on their roadmap will be more pro. Otherwise they would make a big mistake.
everything makes sense..Why would someone buy a lens like that: If you own a full frame camera you obviously care about the depth of field...1000 bucks? noooope
@@desmoMarco91 Or low light capabilities. Or big hands. Or to adapt lots of old lenses (like 80-200/4.5 N).
theyre making me even happier I invested in Sony
Marco Brotto who’s paying $1000 for this lens? Anyone with any sense is going to buy it in the kit for $600. It’s a very nice lens at that price.
When this guy tells me a lens is bad and not to buy it... I buy it.
Yep 💯
Haha yes
"It's sharp as fuck, but it's lighter than the Canon 25-105mm f/4 so it must be a piece of shit!"
Just saved you all five minutes.
Lol
Yeah, the lens is great and doesn't feel cheap at all.. it's classic Fro hating on Nikon.
A couple years late, but... now you can get that for 300-400. Speaking of small lens, I guess Fro will be baffled at those tiny Leica lenses and looking at that price-tag!
Haha exactly. Price in Japan is like 600$
i bought this lens. not happy with the plastic touch and that click sound feels about to break the lens when you rotate it and why you have to rotate first before you can start shooting??? just like my point and shoot old camera? oh my… but this lens is tack sharp than my canon 24-70 2.8 L lens!!! boom!
I have the Z7 with this lens. Personally, I like it a lot. I like that it is light weight. It’s one of the reasons I went with the Z7. As a landscape photographer with arthritic shoulders I am looking for the lightest weight possible to lug around in my backpack. I also could not care less about it being f4, I am generally stopping down anyway. What I do care about is sharpness, and this lens has it in spades. I wish you reviewers would stop fixating on speed and bokeh. That is not the be all and end all of what makes a good lens. It has its place, but not everyone is a portrait/fashion/wedding photographer. Landscape photographers have different needs, and this lens and system has what it takes. My 2c.
I've been playing for ages to see what other lenses need to be in my bag. Everything I put against this lens is mush. Had to just content myself until the rest of the Z lenses come. This obsession with lens speed is nuts when we're talking about the Z7, the camera itself is sooooo fast. Also the re-assignable command ring makes me feel like Zeus. Z7 + this lens = 80% of photography needs at edge to edge super sharpness in a way not much else can compare to.
Same here. F/8.0 - F/11 is the play ground. Love this kit lens so much and I kind of put the S35 aside.
This is so true I’m an architectural photographer I’m also not shooting people (unless I’m blurring them across a scene) weddings, sports, etc weight is important as is dynamic range and quality of the actual glass. I tether to capture one so it’s not like I use any card slots at all so the fact the z7 and 6 only have one doesn’t mean anything for me. I currently shoot d850 but if the mirrorless system had pce Lens I’d make the jump but I can’t see that happening for a long time and outside of the Nikon 19pce the rest of the tilt shift range from Nikon is aging a bit
Whilst I share your thoughts, for a lens $1000 it does not pack the punch. Sharpness and depth of field plays a massive role in sizing up the investment.
You make good points, It's good to know where this lens shines,
But you should know by now what type of photography Jared's doing.
He's more about low light situations and movement than stills and landscape.
Every type of photography has it's place and time,
but if you want a review of lenses that fits with "your" needs, maybe watch the reviews of an other channel?
I think, if you’re a landscape photographer and go on a lot of hikes, it’s going to be good, due to the light weight. Plus you don’t need the 2.8 for landscapes, f4 lenses are just fine.
Agree with you.
Yup, most likely you would use 85+mm for portraiture but build quality still is important. If I pay 1k for lens I don't won't it feel cheap.
@@at4095 So what you want them to add weights and bulk just for appearance?
@@frostasaurus2190Absolutely not! If I pay premium I do expect premium quality (nothing really to do with adding weight just to make it heavy). Usually it can be achieved by using better quality materials/finish etc. I am quality inspector for over 10 years and in my career I've never came across of the idea of improving quality by adding weights or increasing size... You got this wrong. It can happened that both attributes are somehow connected (e.g using metal rather than plastic elements) but the quality itself is much more than weight.
@@at4095 but you understand that the price that it currently is, is the price for those materials. If you actually got the metal finish etc - you'd be paying significantly more which then means the justification for the F4 version of the lens comes down to nothing but size. And all the people who wanted an affordable 24-70 are screwed again.
This review couldn't be farther from the truth. This lens is SHARP. Sharper than most 1.8 primes. The bokeh is just as good, too. Amazing lens if you get it in the bundle, even without the bundle. In terms of sharpness, this lens is just as sharp as any other Z lens.
z,b
To keep repeating that this lens is $1000 is extremely disingenuous. It is $600 when purchased with the body. You keep calling it a kit lens almost as if you know it is most commonly purchased as part of a kit. On the other hand, the Canon 24-105 is $1100 whether it is purchased alone or as a kit. So the Nikon has image quality that surpasses the 24-70/2.8 VR when shot at f/4 yet is less the half the weight and one quarter the cost. Sounds like a win to me. And the Nikon is $500 cheaper than the Canon kit and about 30% lighter. Nikon clearly wanted to provide a lightweight kit lens with professional image quality for their system. It sounds like hit a homerun towards that goal! Sorry if you can't get over your preconceptions of what a good lens should feel and sound like.
He is still in the, big lens will make me look like a pro category. Unfortunately, this is true in his case.
Agreed. Basically I tell people, Buy it with the kit. If you don't want it, I'm sure there is someone out there that would buy it for $600 so you have very little to lose (I think used 24-70 f/4s were going for about $700-800 used last I checked).
I think JP is a troll. He's in the business of sensationalistic and hype-based opinions
Well said, Preston! IMHO, this NIkkor S 24-70 f/4 makes a fantastic companion lens to the Z6 or, in my case, the Z7, precisely because of the light weight and superb sharpness. As a landscape and product photographer, I always shoot around f/8 anyway, and could care less about bokeh or low-light capabilities of an f/2.8 lens, as Jared seems to do. I also think that quality plastics are fine, as long as the lens mount is metal. Overall image quality and sharpness are my 2 most important criteria, and for that, this lens is a clear winner. Thanks!
@Im A visitor it has proper weather sealing, don't know what you're on about here.
And terrible build quality? What because it's plastic with metal mount? The lens feels fantastic to use and sturdy, very sturdy. Far from terrible build quality.
And it's still cheaper in kits.
You were very wrong 2 yrs ago and still are today lol
I love your channel, Jared, but his non-review of the 24-70 f/4 S was really nothing but a filler video, in my opinion.
Just got my Z6 with the 24-70. I don't anything cheap about the lens. The clock is just to park the lens. Its no different than a lock button. The lens feels solid, and is amazing optically. And F4 is most certainly pro. I've been shooting this Z6 up to ISO 25,600 and it's suuuuuper quiet. No complaints or regrets. It's a great lens. Hands down.
I’d take a better performing lens that will only last 4 years over a subpar lens that’s built to last 8 years.
I wish this video showed the sample pictures and compared to the Canon kit F4 rather than discuss the aesthetic... Clients aren’t marveled by how cool your lens looks, they want good pictures.
I like Jared am not a fan of the aperture @f4. In fact if it’s over f2, I don’t know what to do ©. But I will say that when I rented the Z7 and used the 24-70f4. It actually wasn’t a bad lens. I even shot a wedding with it and it performed very well. But foolishly when i brought my Z6 i skipped on the 24-70 kit and just got the FTZ adapter instead thinking I would use that $600 towards the purchase of the 35mm prime instead. Well I never got around to buying the 35mm until this week. And I regretted these last 2 month of not having that 24-70 lens. Once you get over the f4 part, It’s actually a very useful lens and rendered very beautiful images. If you don’t have a ton of F-Mount glass especially AF-S G Zooms like me. Then get the 24-70 Z kit. And then later on sell it to fools like me who didn’t buy it at the discount. You could probably get $700-$800 for it and actually make some money on it. Just saying 🤷🏾♂️
Thank you for your wise response based on real use of the lens not just conjecture.
I got the whole kit and I was concerned about having the f4 lens too until I used the thing. I like the lens a lot. I like how small it is.
Hey Buddy
Couldn't agree with you more
I bought it as a Kit
I figured if I was going to switch to Nikon I would jump All In
Not having any older Nikon glass but coming from M43'rds I can tell you that the Z6 and the 24-70 f/4 are a great camera setup
Especially for Videographers who want to keep their Kit light
I have also shot a Lot of product photos (controlled environment) in the past couple weeks and I still disagree with Jared
I couldn't agree more it is foolish not to buy this lens with your body for $500. It is how I justified buying my Z6 to begin with I convinced myself I was buying a more lightweight travel kit. The lens is really sharp for the general focus distance and that much sharper with a flash so I will not be selling this baby anytime soon or likely ever because of the compact design. Cheers ^^
i dont think, there will be big enough market for this lens to sell secondhand for a while. And .. yep, it is light, but it is F4 - there is nothing more to add. it should have been F2.8, or 24-105. I have Tamron 24-70 for F mount and it is great, but i would not buy it with F4 and it is the same at Z. I think this lens is only for amateurs, and that is not enough.
I actually traded in my D800 and 24-70 2.8G for a Z6 and the 24-70 f4 because I wanted a lighter travel option (I also have the D850, and shoot primes on it mainly). Personally I like the build quality, size and IQ of the 24-70 f4. For travel photography and landscape type work, I think it's great. For portraits and events, then of course, 2.8 is always better.
Some people will complain this lens is light and flimsy for $1000, some would complain if it was heavier. You can't please everyone.
At the end of the day, this lens performs really well, is sharp edge to edge, works flawlessly for both photos and videos and yes, is nicely compact. I love my D850 but am constantly grabbing the Z6 and this lens due to its mix of practicality and uncompromising quality.
F4 is compromising to me personally.
@@froknowsphoto how many times did you shoot landscape on 24mm on 2.8 ?? just asking... me never
@@froknowsphoto My z6 handles low light/high iso so well, unless you're looking for shallow depth of field, it's almost a non issue.
No Jared, it's not a bad lens, it's just not for you.
It's the perfect lens for many landscape photograpers, where weight and size is a huge issue but a big aperture isn't as important (most of the time).
It's also cheaply made and not worth the price. Tsk, tsk, tsk.
If it was made like lens in the past , well it still wouldn't be good enough
@@tfsamrtguy It is a fully metal lens.
@@tfsamrtguy Obviously you have not used it or taken one apart. It is metal but has a polycarbonate covering and has more elements than the 2.8 versions that have good but lower image quality. It will be rugged as a daily use lens and I hardly carry either of my 24-70 2.8 G or E. The focus motor is a silent stepper motor which is more suited to video than the 2,8 lenses which are noisier. Jarad does not use it and if you have seen his photos, image quality is just not important to him.
@@JimCutler Just watch Everyday dad's take on this lens. He loves this lens more than anything else.
Seems like a kit lens? IT IS a kit lens! Feels “plasticky?” IT IS plastic! I come from the days of all metal camera bodies and lenses, and I can tell you that today’s cameras and lenses are lighter and better and do things we never dreamed of when I bought my Pentax Spotmatic in 1967. The difference between f4 and f2.8 is ONE STOP. That’s an ISO adjustment from 100 to 200 (pick your starting point) - something only the most fanatic pixel peeper would be able to detect. And - anyone who actually pays a grand for this lens is an idiot.
Such a silly, silly review.
THANKS FOR YOUR COMMENTS
I’m glad someone else said it. This guy has gotten more boushy over the years than I care to say. He got all this gear now and he went from being humble and doing honest reviews to just being a horrible snob with incorrect and inaccurate reviews. Just because a person has all metal lenses in their Arsenal doesn’t make them a pro. I know plenty of guys that have top of the line gear that take shitty pictures not worth a second look. I also know guys that shoot with plastic lenses that run circles around guys that claim they are pros when it comes to photography. The review of this lens is inaccurate and bullshit…period. This lens takes great pictures and handles nicely in the hands of a real pro. Newsflash!!! The 24-70mm f/2.8 F Mount Nikon lens is only 1 stop better. The sharpness is the same as the F/4. A quick switch of the ISO setting and the F/4 is back in the game. You also don’t get a nice bokeh shot with an F/4 if your subject is right up against the background. Any idiot knows the subject and the background need to have separation of at least 7ft to show any type of bokeh. Your subject was right up against the wall when you talked about depth of field..LMAO.
I'm new to this, but every video I see of his seems so arrogant and high brow. I don't think this guy could make a good review for anything under $1500. I'm looking at the Z7ii for astrophotography (I want to make very large prints and this camera seems to be a great value) and I expect that at f4 compensation with a good star tracker and longer exposures will have to be made. But that's what I can afford for now. I want a good allrounder until I can afford some z mount primes. Maybe I'm wrong and the lens is crap? I don't think so though. I think this guy's videos are crap. 🤷
@@Code_Monkey_ Agreed. That’s usually what happens when guys get sponsors. They sell out for free gear and then become extra boujie . You can actually see the progression of his snobbery and douchebaggery over the last 6 years. I was a fan of his back then. Now I only come here to see what new misinformation and inaccurate gear reviews he’s going to put out to the photography community.bathe Z7II is an awesome camera. The fact you can use your old F Mount lenses with the FTZ adapter is a blessing. The firmware updates that increase the performance in auto focus is great also. Nikon really made it nice for their DSLR users to make a somewhat seamless transition over to mirrorless. You’ll be extremely happy even if you just use your Nikon F lenses with your Z7II. The equivalent Canon mirrorless overheats and the Sony can’t get their damn colors right yet. FujiFilm got it right if you like their medium format. Nikons color saturation, contrast, dynamic range, and image quality shits on Canon and Sony mirrorless.
I don’t care how it feels or smells, I only look at the images the lens delivers. And I tell you that the pics are excellent especially for landscape which I use it for. Is not ok to recommend people not to buy. Especially together with the kit it is worth it.
Kai's Corner why is it "not okay" to recommend that people do not purchase this overpriced piece of mediocrity?
@@sasca854 The Len's IQ sharpness and CA compares very favorably to the FE 24-70 Zeiss f/4, it's light, fully weather sealed, _and_ parafocal making it ideal for image stacking for landscape photographers, all this comes in a kit lens. A kit lens. So it's also cheaply available on the used market.
24-70 S lens is One of the fastest and lightest f/4 lenses I have every heald
Also just as small as m43 lenses
I dont want heavy anymore and am super happy with this lens
Jared, I have a new Z6 and this lens, and it doesn't feel cheap or kit at all. It has a similar composite feel to a Sigma, and it's tight and sharp. The parking mechanism seems solid and you don't cross the transition i n regular use. I think the mechanism is pretty smart actually. I love F4 lenses. I just disagree that it's a cheap lens. And also, the Z6 seems to be amazing at high ISO, so even indoors, it works pretty darned well. So I would recommend this lens in the kit, especially for the bundled price. It's a very good lens.
Thanks for the positive review! I feel better because I have this lens!
If you like to focus-stack, this lens is for you though. As far as I know this is the only modern Parafocal kit-zoom in existence.
I think the lens is fine. Well suited for travel.
What the hell is wrong with this guy?
Yeah, the sniffing and blowing part was quite weird.
A lot.
He had sniffed and blown too much...
On this one I disagree with Fro. I own the Z7 and the 24-70mm S lens. I’m holding the lens in my hands and it is simply NOT cheap feeling. It has an all metal body with standard plastic telescoping lens segments. Exactly like every other zoom lens. In my hands it’s solid and streamlined. The only thing cheap about this lens is the paper thin crap lens hood they shipped with it. It’s truly trash. Now I have tested this against the stabilized Nikon and Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8’s and it is noticeably sharper than both at every focal distance. Sharp all the way to the edges. What the hell more could you want from a lens? Should it play music for you? I’m probably going to sell this when the new Z mount S 24-70mm f/2.8 comes out this year. For portraits an f/2.8 is a requirement for me. But if you don’t need the F/2.8 and f/4 is good enough for your needs, then get it, you’ll love it. The price is a little high, but it seems that Nikon’s charging more for all of their lenses and this one is the sharpest of the three. And my tests of the three lenses was thorough. The new Z mount lens is clearly better than the other two. Nikon should be lauded for making a lens that performs so damned well.
Compare it with a 24-70 2.8 z when it comes out. There’s a difference between 2.8 glass and 4. Plain and simple.
Jared Polin As my old Appalachian buddy Wetzel would say... I guess it’s a matter of personal preferverence. 😃
@@froknowsphoto For 1 stop paying $1000-1500 more and 3 lbs? The f/4 is the sharpest and best contrast mid zoom on the market now. If I really need 2.8, I can do better with my 1.4 primes. There are very few cases where the f/4 is too slow but where the 2.8 is not. You lose credibility with you disregard the most important traits of a lens, image quality. Sure, for more speed I could shot my 27-70 2.8 G or E but lose IQ for the added weight, noise and size.
Hello Jared, do you have a personal relationship with our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ? The Son of God. That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. - Romans 10:9. And please ask the Lord Jesus to bless you with wisdom, knowledge, understanding, and discernment. And please ask the Lord Jesus to forgive you for all of your sins and transgressions.
The lens hood is not of the same rugged quality of F Mount lenses, mine got marked on its first outing and it took me ages to get it back to pristine condition. Apart from that I love the lens, especially the light weight and superb sharpness.
Ok, this is a joke, right? At first I thought he was serious.
I suppose Nikon could have added more weight to satisfy all pompous asses out there.
Yep, I think he is still in the... Big lens makes me look pro category. Which unfortunately is true in his case.
Adding VR would go a long way to make the price more reasonable. I won't pay the asking price.
BJ Nicholls - VR is not needed as the camera body has VR.
@@bjnslc Z series has IBIS. No need for VR = decreased weight, decreased optical complexity, increased sharpness. Needles to say, you cannot mount a Z mount lens to any other body but the Z series. One of the most expensive parts of a lens is the coating of the optical elements. This lens has all but one of the Nikon most advanced coatings (even fluorine for easy ceaning of the front element). It also has a lot of special features glass inside - aspherical, extra low dispersion... On top, it is said that the quality control has improved for the Z mount S line lenses - that translates into higher cost (but lower samples variations as a benefitl.
Great comment. It's like someone saying, a VW Beatle today weights 30% less than 40 years ago, it is therefore of lower quality and less safe :-)
Ive watched a lot of videos and read many reviews on the Z System. Im seeing a trend....It seems like regardless of what people are saying, they are grabbing their Z6 and Z7 cameras a LOT more than their DSLRs. That in and of itself says a lot...
I shoot most of my portraits in the studio at around f8 and at the age of 60, the lighter Z6ii and this lens is a godsend for my hands... Sharp as I need it. Easy to hold and handle on those longer sessions. Thank you Nikon!
The base Z6 is $1996 body only... I pre-ordered it with the FTZ and the 24-70 for only $2,746.95.. So, take off the FTZ which sells for $250 and I only paid $500 for the 24-70 F4 which is about what the lens is actually worth. Would I pay a grand for it? Nope.. I'd get a used 24-70 F2.8... But for $500 it's worth it... it's really great in video also with no focus breathing which you didn't mention.
I got the same kit. I really like the lens.
Russell Mondy same here
It's a fantastic travel/walk around lens though. Compact, keeps the entire system light, great quality, and good range. Bought with the kit it's a great value, also.
And to be fair that click is to lock/unlock it so it doesn't creep, as well as makes it smaller for storage/travel.
Hell of a lot better than the damn button that Nikon used to use. At least Olympus realized that people usually want to extend the lens quickly, so you don't have to press the button to extend their lenses.
Don't forget that Sony released their 24-70 f4 Zeiss for $1100. And it was a much worse lens. I think that's the reason Nikon made it so expensive. Though they didn't think of options like Canon 24-105 4 (which wasn't released yet) and Tamron 28-70 2.8 for Sony E.
I still think that buying it in a kit (for $500-600) is worth it.
That's true, I'm a Sony fanboy but at least this lens is sharp. The Sony 24-70 f4 is worse than their own kit lens and costs 1100$. That's just a ripoff.
The Tamron is 28-75
Alien Drone Services you're right. Confused with Canon.
Sony has a 24-105 that performs on the same level with canon rf equivalent
Laeica wezlar I know, but it's $400 more expensive than RF right now.
Why would you roast an F4 lens for being F4? I'm sure Nikon will release a 2.8 in the future
If you buy it in the kit the price is reasonable. 1 thing though: that click at 2:00 is when you turn it all the in to the travel position. It's like a lock. You don't have that click between 24 and 70.
King David exactly
Considering the weight and size advantages of mirrorless, the f/4 lens seems a great choice. It's not as if we're going to have to wait more than a few months for the 2.8 version. The lens is light, compact, sharp from edge to edge, has nice micro-contrast and color. It's weather resistant, what's not professional? There's that RUclips reviewer perceived need for shallow depth of field, ho-hum, which hasn't kept me from using this for portraits. It an excellent street lens, where I want a greater DOF anyway.
It does take a few weeks to get used to automatically twisting the barrel to open it, but I learned that. I got through that. No missed photos anymore. I love it on my Z7. It also lets me see just how heavy my old 24-70 2.8 is.
Saying something "feels" cheap makes no sense. I have this lens and so far it's been great. Obviously a 2.8 is better but they haven't put that out yet. I like the fact that it feels lighter than just lenses. Less load to carry.
@@EmberSkyMedia Right. But he has no evidence yet. So it's irresponsible to say that.
Totally agree. I love it on my Z6. And I don’t know who’s paying $1000 for it when you can get it in the kit for $600.
@@AllenInRealLife I'm quite sure this isn't the first time a lens is made from cheap plastic.
If there are other lenses made with the same plastic and feel and you know they break early then why is it unfair to say it feels cheap and flimsy?
When bought with the camera body, this lens costs around 500 USD and for that money I think its a great value for money lens. It is compact, is a good zoom range and provides tremendous image quality and is pretty weather resistant. Not everyone needs a 2.8 zoom lens. Those are generally much heavier and much more expensive and I don't think this kit lens competes with them. The Canon RF system is heavier and more expensive than the Z6 kit and is also the only full frame mirrorless I can think off that does not have IBIS. So I think Z6 kit is a pretty decent buy!
Your review is untrue. This is an excellent lens that is small, light, sharp no contrasty.
He never said that it isn't, he said it's overpriced for what it is.
It's light, small, f4 is just fine - paired with Z6/Z7 perfect combo. If you love dragging 2-3lbs lenses be my guest!!!
Buy it as part of the Z 6 or 7 kit. It's a nice lens.
You might not like it, but you made a lot of assumptions that are just not true. The camera is metal, and it is the sharpest 24-70, small, light and fast/silent focusing and great for video. The lens was $600 and better than either my 24-70 2.8G or E versions. Of the 3 lenses, the one that gets used most if the S lens you think is a bad deal. For the same price nothing comes close in image quality and in fact in a zoom it stands out very well. It is sharp enough to match or beat the best primes in its range and one of the few lenses that can challenge the Z7 46mpx.
You lose credibility when panning a great lens because you think a lens needs to be 6 lbs to be decent while disregarding its superior image quality.. Those of us who actually shoot with it have a much higher opinion of it. What is your definition of rugged? Drop a 24-70 2.8 and a f/4 S on a concrete floor and see which one survived.
You tell him, Stan!
What did you smoke before making this video?
Felt same
Just skip to 03:55 for the important part.
I disagree. I have used lenses back to the days of the FM and F3 and this lens feels very well built to me. Properly damped and solid. It seems that most all of this opinion is based on anecdotal evidence. the real, and only question, is: does it provide high quality images and does it last mechanically? The answer to both, for me, is yes. Lab data shows it is incredibly sharp. As a mechanical engineer, I'm in the business of designing robust equipment that meets specifications so I know a little about what I'm saying. If you need one more stop of light, then the 2.8 is for you. I have lots of 2.8 lenses and some faster and some slower. I've taken many, many good photos with all of them.
I know the Nikon Z 24-70 f/4 doesn’t have as good build quality as the Sony Zeiss 24-70 f/4 but can you do a side by side comparison of the image quality from pictures taken with a Nikon Z6 using the 24-70 f/4 and a Sony A7iii using the Zeiss 24-70 f/4.
Use sony 24-105 and report the results.. waiting on it
I got this lens with my Z6 and I'm quite happy with it as a travel and walk about lens.
I have the z6 and I got it as a kit with this lens. I also have a D5 and I have 135mm DC, 80-200 2.8, 35mm 1.4 and 50mm 1.8. Anything F glass on the Z6 looks too heavy. The advantage of the Z6 and 7 is they really are small and very compact vs F mount DSLRs. Based on that the 24-70 z mount is perfectly sized and I carried it by hand all day and it takes fantastic pictures you will not be in any way disappointed. The lens itself to me feels quality in the same way the Z6 does, these are very well put together products. I don’t find my self shooting below f4 unless I am shooting stars at night or I’m trying to achieve something specific like very shallow focus with nice bokeh in the background. This lens has nice bokeh and I have taken portraits with it but if you are looking for a special result use something like my 135mm f2 DC. I found this review from Jared disappointing, I learnt nothing who cares if it’s plastic, what can I do with it and what can’t I ? Doesn’t mention that there is zero barrel, it’s sharp edge to edge at all apertures and creates beautiful color and bokeh. Plus focuses close. Really that’s incredibly versatile.
Omg that unlocking and clicking reminds me of the D3300 kit lens lmao
With all due respect for Jared Polin, but he is really splitting hair with this clicking thing.
Darrell Young what does it clicking have to do with it fitting in a bag? If it didn’t click it would still fit. Clicking doesn’t make it smaller.
@@GRJCLyon The "click" is caused by the lens collapsing into itself so that it becomes significantly shorter than with it unclicked. Yes, clicking DOES make it smaller. That click is caused by the locking mechanism that prevents the lens from extending and becoming damaged while being carried.
Darrell Young right now I can think of 2 of lenses I’ve owned telescoped into themselves. Tammy 24-70 and Sigma 17-50. Neither clicked and neither had an issue while being carried. Both were smaller when closed up and put in a bag no issue. A click didn’t help them.
Hey when's the portrait critique video coming?
It IS their kit lens. They made it light probably for the same reason that the Z series have one card slot: they think that mirrorless is for people that want light small kits. They are still not convinced that the pro industry is moving entirely to mirrorless.
Exactly we’ll stated Art this is the point that everyone is missing with the Z6 and 7, plus the Z mount lens. It’s not a replacement it’s to fill a specific need. And light and small with fantastic image quality is awesome.
They made it more complex and with better image quality for the same reason they put in the much more expensive bus and slot XQD, because it is more reliable than 2 SD slots. If they had cheapened out there would be less future proofing of this camera system. By using the faster data architecture, and a real pro card system, it means the Z6 is the only full frame or crop camera that can deal with ProResRAW. An XQD is an advantage in many ways and the other brands will need to add it on their next cameras or lose out on video.
Nikon stated that mirrorless isn’t the future of photography...yet here they are playing catch up. Me thinks it’s the end for DSLR’s.
@@justdoittom8431 completely agree. At least half of my pro friends have moved to mirrorless due to features beyond just the smaller form factor. The younger / newer-to-photography pro-sumer level crowd are also snapping up full frame mirrorless bodies like they're going out of style. Nikon and Canon need to make mirrorless adaptations of their flagship cameras ASAP since brand loyalty only goes so far.
That's the problem, it's a kit lens at a pro-lens price. From the reviews like this one here, the quality of the build isn't commensurate to the price they're charging. I know Canon gear, not Nikon, but I know that a Canon kit lens wouldn't be in the same price neighborhood as an L-series lens.
So what z lens would you recommend if you just bought the new z6 II and just spent $2,000 on it and only had 600 -800 on your budget? If you buy the kit lense you get the $1,000 lens for a discount.
Jared .. I also have both. I did get the f4 version with my Z6 and I have to say that the 2.8 version with the FTZ adapter is still much better indoors. I am disappointed with my only Z mount lens. I suppose it has to do with the fact that the 2.8 gathers twice as much light and therfore focuses better indoors. I thought I'd sell my D750 but I decided to keep them both. The D750 just does indoor moving subjects (ie dance photography) better.
The f4 version is a great travel lens though.
Good honest review. Thanks.
Interesting how Canon and Nikon approached full frame mirror-less. Nikon looks as if they put more effort into the body than the lenses, where as Canon went out and made some great RF mount glass and hopefully, one day, they build a body the matches the quality of the glass. Canon could really threaten the mirror-less market if they stopped holding back camera technology. In my opinion, they always had great lenses, just need the to put the same type of effort into their camera bodies, (They are not horrible, but behind Sony and Nikon).
Why is Canon behind? Because of this 1 Card Slot? Because of the 4K-Crop? - ask some youtubers how many people are watching their videos in 4K.
@@BizStyle87 I'm genuinely curious how many people actually do watch RUclips in 4k. I do on my TV once in a blue moon but I'm usually on mobile or my PC which is 1440p. I still record in 1080p due to it being cheaper and easier to deal with, with more options for the equipment price.
I like F4s. Ordered a Z6 and this lens. Seems plenty sharp and great for street and travel.
when I got my Z7. At worst, if I hated the lens (which I don't) I could re-sell it for $600 and be in the same place as if I hadn't gotten it in the first place. But after shooting with it I like it. i don't find the lens to be cheap. I mean it's not a metal barrel like the 2.8G F-mount is, but it also doesn't weigh has much as that lens, ans is much more compact. I think $1000 is pretty much appropriate for this type of lens and build quality. I think Fro is maybe just used to the big heavy tanks that were paired with large DSLRs (hence, the metal 24-70's).
At the risk of making a point deemed naiive, or which has already been addressed, how many owners of the f2.8 lens actually use that aperture? I don't own any big 2.8, but with the lenses I do use, I'm rarely utilizing their maximum aperture. I suppose it's nice to know it's there, but is it necessary?
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.
The sniff & blow bit is reeeeeaaly getting old, Fro. As for the lens: it's probably good for landscapists who shoot on a tripod most of the time. But I agree, it does look and sound chintzy. Is it at least weather-sealed? You didn't say.
of course its weather sealed
Thanks bro...I was just reviewing for the Z6 along with the kit lens...after spending hours on deciding to buy, it struck me to have your review...you explained it very well. Yes f/4 sucks, and I agree to that...I needed your guidance in depth now. I would invest in the body, plus the Z 50 f/ 1.8, and the FTZ adaptor, so can the FTZ adaptor be used for sigma or any other brand lenses or will it just support Nikon? lenses only?
Thanks in advance.. Peace ✌
Great review! I love the sniff and the windtunnel test hahaha I know that how the lens smells is very important, but what's the story about the the windtunnel test?
So basically landscape, light to carry and sharp. How is it at f/16?
Should i buy this lense with Z6ii or buy only Z6 ii body with 85mm1.8s
Newbie getting into photography, and doing a lot of looking around. I’ve ordered a Nikon Z5, and just grabbed. This lens and the 50mm 1.8 brand new on EBay for about 500 each. It’s not hard to find marked down prices if you’re looking
5 years later and this still sounds like a bad take.
What about the optical quality? The internal construction? How quick and smooth it focuses? The lenses coatings? How durable and reliable is it?
That's what matters for some of us, not the label of 2.8 just to flex and brag.
I own a Nikkor 17-35mm 2.8D. It's old, It's all metal built but at 2.8 It's soft, I work around it to get better results and yet Im happy but I would rather have it plastic made but have better updated optics and sharp wide open at F4.
Fuji 18-55 is the king of kit lenses.
Fuji 16-55 is a tad better, but a bit heavier. The 18-55 is a good travel lens though (but it has the variable aperture)
Too bad it's attached to an APSC sensor that is no better than anyone else's APSC sensor. I flirted with Fuji, but am back to Nikon because it's a HUGE advantage to have both DX and FF in your kit. FF always wins when you can fill the frame. EVERY TIME.
@@erintaylor5856 I will agree with the comment on the sensor. I wasn't pleased with the results of my X-T2 (mainly because Adobe doesn't support X-Trans files very well so I felt I was losing a lot of detail during post processing). The place where Fuji really shines is with it's OOC JPEGs and film simulations. I also own a Nikon and I'd say that yeah the NIkon APS-C bodies do a better job than the Fuji, partially because they use a standard Bayer color array and not X-Trans. And about the lenses, as long as they have what one would need, then there's not really a problem there. Yes having access to both FF And APS-C is nice, but not always important to people.
Nikon heard you, fro. They have a new NIKKOR Z 24-70mm f/2.8 S. And such a deal! $2,299.95
The Z pricing is ludicrous.
Im pretty happy with this lens build quality and performance and buying together with z6 it's 600 compared to 1k alone so this option makes sense and it's good enough .
I've tried adapted lenses and noticed focusing speed drop as you mentioned , personally I don't like it and building everything around Z mount.
I wanted to add that kit lenses usually depreciate heavily due to the supply/upgraders. This lens can be found used open-box for under $450. Which makes it by far the best value in a Z lens. It is so good that I'm having a haven't needed to carry/justify a prime in this range. I didn't go with the 20-S because it is larger than this lens. However, I do wish that it had VR like the 16-50DX does, and that all S lenses had two Fn buttons. Even if it meant giving up the custom ring, which many do not use because it doesn't have enough friction or indexing.
I've got a Z7 with this lens. It's much like the Z system on the whole right now- it's VERY good for the things it's good at.. but those things are limited.
It's sharp edge to edge, so if you've got great light, this lens is tops. If you're doing video (again, in good light) this lens is incredible for run and gun work.
If you're doing low light..nah. If you need the extra reach from 70-105.. nah. If you're not really doing video at all.. just go with something else.
As a kit lens for $600, it's fine. Would've preferred a 24-105, but it's fine. The goal is to try to sell this for not too heavy of a loss whenever a 24-70 2.8 comes out.
Literally no one else is RUclips is saying this. Everyone else loves this lens. I love this lens. It’s not plastic and I super appreciate how light it is
Jared Polin review! Cheap feeling, overrated and not professional enough!
The correct title
I really like your videos Jared, but I don‘t get your „everything higher than f2.8 is not professional“ meaning. So a lot of people how make there living with landscape photography whilst using a f4 lenses aren‘t pros? Not me btw, unfortunately. I really think you should take a closer look outside the portrait-box you’re seems to be stuck. Nevertheless, I like your videos and in general your opinion.
This is a truly great, compact and useful lens. Everything Nikon makes is overpriced when released. Look at what they are selling the D750 for lately. Pretty sure they are still making money. When the S 24-70 f/2.8 comes out this year at $1800 or whatever, I still think this lens will still be worth the money. Best to get it with the camera and save almost 1/2 on the price though.
Hey Jared! You teased us a while ago on your Instagram story, or maybe on FB, but you were using the new Simga 70-200 2.8 Sport and shooting indoor basketball for a review. Thats mostly what I shoot, high school basketball with a Canon 6D Mark II. I have the Canon 28-300L, but looking to buy either the Sigma or new Canon version of the 70-200. When do you think you'll release the review. I think a lot of people are excited about it!
I like the little touch of “Photo News Fix” I have noticed in a couple of the newer reviews.
Hey Jared, i'm fighting between Nikon Z6 with kit lens and Eos RP with Kit lens... i do like more the Z6 but i agree with you on the lenses... I saw them booth at a store and i believe the same exact thing about them. I don't want other lenses for either of those cameras because of the price difference. i do believe for the extra money those lenses on each kit are a good value. I am an amateur photographer with a cheap Olympus, and now i want to go more professional, for sure with Full frame system now... What do you think? Does the Z6 with the shitty lens worth the extra 400 euros? 2k is my top budget
I love what they have done with the lens and I feel that it does not feel cheap at all. Feels great on hand and smooth rings. Shows great quality. And best is that it’s not heavy.. which means it’s easy on the arms, neck, back after a day of shooting. We’ve been bitching about more compact and lightness and now that we get it we complain.. and no it does not feel like it’s gonna break. Now I will agree on that it is high on the price, should be a 2.8 for that price
You have passed by the optical quality and edge to edge sharpness like it is something trivial and speak about how light the lens is. It is the optical quality (with all but one advanced coatings) that makes this lens relatively expensive.
I've shot Canon 24-105 f/4 on a Canon DSLR - it does not come even close to Z 24-70 f/4 for image quality.
I bought Z7 and this lens because it gives me a high megapixel full frame beast, sharp edge to edge, at just over 1kg!
I needed small and light.
If you shoot portraits, you are best of using primes.
If you shoot nightscapes, you are best of using primes.
Only if you shoot events, you MUST have a 2.8 heavy standard zoom.
Thanks Jared for your opinion. I always respect it. I’ve reached that stage in life when I cannot carry the weight of my D500 and long lenses for wildlife or sports, even walking about town with a 16-80 lens. I've settled on buying a Z6 mark 2. I am still thinking of this lens but I’m concerned about the robustness. I do take great care of my kit.
The lens is robust. You can buy it used for ~$350.
@@FawfulDied ty
anyone remember Rawtalk?
L MOUNT ALLIANCE!!!!! I Got you Todd!
I am not a professional photographer. More of an enthusiast. But i feel my knowledge is pro level. I have been watching your videos since more than 6-7years now. Sometimes I feel you are just not accepting about some little things which can easily be ignored or worked around. For example. The opening and closing mechanism that clicks the lens, is totally optional. Like you can leave the lens in its working position all the time. You paid for it and no one's gonna stop you from keeping the lens open all the time. Other than that I haven't used the lens or any other comparable lenses from other manufacturers so i will just take your word for it as long as this video is relevant.
I got mine for 499 brand new (not sure if they know the price is so low) and that made it feel way worth it!. Not a small mom and pop shop, wouldn't do that to them, but a very well to do midsize retailer owned by a local humble billionaire... cough couch NFM, as of today Jan 2022 still haven't changed the price if you are interested:)
For 500 bucks as a travel / walk around, love it! I wouldn't have purchased at 999 especially considering what's available / about to become available as of early 2022 but for that price I had to jump on it!
I own both the f2.8 non VR and the f4 Z. Picked the f4 every time.
Yeah but it's sharp as hell end-to-end
I do not know why I keep on looking at these lens and camera reviews. They are actually pointless.
I am a long time Nikon user, with DX, FX bodies and lenses.
I got the Z6 used, along with kit and FTZ, and the 24-70 F4.
I loved how the F4 zoom works with Z6. Because in the Z6 one can push the ISO. And images comes out great.
I also added a 85mm f1.8 g lens. Using the adapter it works fine, and the images are pretty sharp.
So now, when I go any place indoors, I carry the zoom lens.
And when outdoors, I have the 85mm.
I also have 105mm AIS, 50mm f2D. But mostly they stay home.
The point I am trying to make is, most of us are not going to sell the photos. We are hobbyist.
Hence people for buying the expensive 2.8 lens is just salesman call.
I understand your channel is your way of passive income. But frankly, having just the kits lens will do for 90% of the work.
And the kit lens is better at focus tracking.
In fact I was planning to get rid of z6....but after comparing with d7100, d700, and z6, with the same 85mm, I am sticking with it.
Apologies if u answered this in the vid... but curious if you could set your prince, how much WOULD you pay for this lens? Agree 1K was too much; even 600 with a body is too much IMO as well
Does this guy knows what he is talking about?
I’ve had lenses a lot cheaper built than this one and haven’t had any problems with them. I usually agree with Jared, but not on the, “cheapness” of this lens. I just picked up the new 24-70mm f2.8 Z and it’s truly a pro lens. The f4 though is certainly good for its intended purpose. But I will say this, Jared has a hell of a lot more experience with Nikon lenses and cameras than I.
Just got this. It cost $600 as part of a kit with a Z6II...so, not $1,000. It does feel plasticky (but that also means low weight which is a plus). I don't like that it telescopes out and in, unlike my good old Nikkor 24-70 f/2.8 ED. But you know what? I just shot a news assignment plus quick portraits with it for a national newspaper, and the photos look excellent. Everything is beautifully sharp, even the corners. The colors are rich and lifelike but not hyped and unrealistic. AF is snappy. When you carry three cameras all at once, or even two, weight matters. The difference between a 2.8 and a 4.0 lens is one stop, so...eh. Not a big deal except in very low light. Between the two of them, I think the 4.0 is in some ways the better product. It doesn't look as imposing as the 2.8 but at this point I'm kinda beyond caring about my gear's look or what other people may think; I just want high-quality optics and fast AF performance (and - bonus - a break for my poor back and shoulders). This little lens delivers.
In the old days with my D700 and 24-70 f2.8 I couldn't really put it in my normal day backpack conveniently and found myself carrying a camera bag which didn't fit daily items.
The Z 6 and this new lens fits in any backpack so much easier and the output is at least 2x better. Sure I lost some light but I never used that thing at 2.8 anyway and now I get IBIS.
We don't need all lenses to be "premium + price" when there is a market for "good enough + convenience".
Even bringing up the fact you can get the F mount lenses with the adapter suggests that Nikon chose convenience first for this new Z system since they already have decent F mount options. They are bringing the f2.8 versions this year but the f4 kit lens makes the package more appealing at launch price wise... and it is a "kit lens".
So yes the title is accurate however the package as it is is not being marketed or conveyed as "professional" if that means expensive and premium. I'm not sure if I would buy it separately but with the body + adapter for $2800 that's a good deal.
So it is small and light and razor sharp edge to edge, and somehow this is a bad thing? I agree that for a professional this is not a lens they would want, but lets be fair: no kit lens ever is! The f/4 is for amateurs that want to use this for their vacation shots and such. And for that this thing is perfect due to its weight and size. Personally I would like to see a 24-105 f2.8-4 kit lens (something unique no other manufacturer every developed, like their 14-30 with 82mm filter option is unique and can't be found anywhere else)
I got this lens virtually for free with my Z6 for £1800 for the kit. It’s the sharpest lens I have owned. F4 is fine for me, I will save up and get the 50mm 1.8 for portraits. Until then I’ll use Canon’s nifty 50 on my APSc Canon 77d. Job done
I am not sure how much you have used this lens but personally I find it is an excellent lens, very sharp on my Z6 after using it for travel and landscape for the best art of 2 years.
I'd consider the IBIS and high ISO capability of the Z6 when discussing this lens. Obtaining very shallow DOF isn't the end all and be all of photography, particularly for amateurs and tourists like me. I took this lens to Disneyland at night on my Z6 and everywhere but inside the dark rides it was great, and capable of handling the mixed, and low light situations there. (I used an AF-S 50mm f/1.8 G with the FTZ adaptor inside rides, also great, shooting mostly wide open at auto ISO up to 51,200.) I bought the kit, however. Your point about the "$1,000" stand-alone price is worth considering only because at, or near, that price, there are other options to be considered. Particularly, I'm guessing like everyone reading this, if you have other Nikons with F mounts that would appreciate new glass, too.
_“It’s so plasticky... it feels like a kit lens”_
That’s because it is? If you can attest to the point that it’s really sharp and a very decent performing lens then surely you’ll have to see that Nikon had to cut costs somewhere.
This lens is fire, I neglected it for a while since I had a bunch of better lenses, but I bought this one with my Zf since it was more cost efficient (like 300-400 less than buying the lens on its own) and I think it is INCREDIBLY SHARP. I’m also not one of those people that only looks for bokeh. No doubt the 2.8 is better if that’s what you’re looking for, but it’s so much more expensive and honestly not worth it in my humble opinion
what focal length is the lens at when it is locked?
Where is that olympus video?
right now there are over 200 new and used F4 lenses on eBay I suspect the price of this lens on the used market will be down to 300-400 soon. I asked about trading to a Nikon Dealer for the 2.8F and was only offered 200. Its a handy lens for sure very Lightweight. The 2.8F I have is great but heavy
What is it with these guys complaining about build quality? I think this lens is better made than my old made in Japan F equivalents that are still current. Not only that but the optics are better too. This particular lens is compact too. They were expensive on release but not now, that's a fair criticism.
The S series 24-70mm f/2.8, per Nikon's roadmap will be released later this year. Can't wait!
The problem with the older 2.8G lens (And to an extent, the 2.8E f-mount lens) is they aren't as evenly sharp across the frame. So there is some merit to the f/4 S lens, especially those who travel and/or don't need or ever shoot at 2.8. I have the 2.8G lens, love it for portraits and whatever, but am also considering picking up the f/4 S version for travel and when I don't need 2.8 (still cheaper than the new 2.8 S lens they just came out with). Plus I wouldn't have to adapt the f/4 S as pointed out. And at the end of the day, it's the image that comes out of the camera that matters. You know the 85mm 1.8G and the 50mm 1.8G also feel cheap, but are wonderful lenses that give great results. So feel (build quality) is only part of the equation.
Not everyone who watched your videos are professional photographer ,, I would say that 99 percent of them are not .This lens is perfect for me , small . light and very good , it is the reason I bought the Z6 with this lens ...,.,
F4 lens are getting an hammering on RUclips these past few days.