Hey Everyone ! I hope you find this video useful! I was certainly surprised how well the 24-70mm F4S faired in the centre of the frame compared to primes lenses. I was certainly expecting the Primes to be noticeably better. Let me know what you think. Hope you are all staying safe !
Thanks for working on this one. I'm sure many more people are using the Z 24-70 4.0 S than the Z 24-70 2.8 S and might have thought that somehow it was not "good enough" compared to the S prime lenses. Nonsense and this video confirms the 24-70 4.0 is first-class and worth consideration as a first-choice lens in every case. Somehow, I assumed that to be the case, but nonetheless, I have the Z 35 1.8 S and Z 50 1.8 S because they are 1.8. When I am shooting in low light, I appreciate the extra F stops. Otherwise, for my style, I actually prefer a wider DOF, and your tests confirm that 4.0 can have advantages in that, and sharpness, as well. The Z 24-70 4.0 S is no slouch. Considering that the Z 24-70 2.8 S is more than twice the price and almost twice the weight, the 4.0 is the one for me to use in most cases.
I use the 24-70 Z F4 professionally and I've never had a client complain it doesn't look professional enough. In this vid he only stops it down to F5.6, which is only one stop down from wide open. When you go to F8-F11, the corners get pretty damn sharp. The whole frame is sharp as a tack.
The 50mm 1.8 is amazing. The 24-70 f4 is very good. I think having these two is the best combination. When you need the fast aperture, you use the 50. When you need flexibility and small size, you use the 24-70. That's what I hope to have one day paired with the Z6.
Those were exactly the first two lenses I got for the Z6 (24-70 came as a kit-lens, and the 50mm was massively discounted). Regarding the 50mm, I'm still wondering how Nikon is planing to justify the 50mm f/1.2.
Another great video! Yes, fact is that this so called “kit” lens is one of the best value/money lenses ever made from any brand, period. Especially when bought in a kit together with a Z body, something like $400 cost for the lens, which is a real steal! And it’s so compact and light... what an amazing lens!
@@RicciTalks Thanks a lot for the videos great job Ricci! lot of people may have the kit lenses 24-70 4 s but the Z 24-200 4.6.6.3 will be an option this could be a great comparison
When I carried a 5D Mark II every day, I found I needed the 24-105L for general shooting and the 35L for low light and shallow depth of field. I can't imagine this being too much different for the Z6 and 24-70/4. I'd pack a fast prime, too.
While the 24-70mm 2.8 S is probably the best 24-70mm 2.8 out there, for many Nikon Z shooters, it is not looking like a great value, especially when the 24-70mm f4 S is sooooo good! And if you're going to spend more than 2000 dollars for a new lens, I would say keep the 24-70mm f4 and get the Nikon Z 70-200mm 2.8 S, it is only a little bit more expensive than the 24-70mm 2.8 S anyway. Great video! I'm a Z50 shooter and I'm saving up to get the 24-70mm f4 S next!
Yet again, the best, most useful lens comparisons on RUclips! The 24-70 f/4 in my kit is the most used lens, second, comes the 85 1.8 then 50 1.8 and 24-70 2.8 S. I have the 35 and 24 S primes also but they get used less. The only reason the spectacular 24-70 2.8 S is not used more is I have gotten used to having such a light carry-it-everywhere sling bag with the f/4 zoom plus 1 or 2 primes, usually the 85 plus an SB900 and flash controller. I have shoot commercial fashion and full-length studio sessions and that little zoom was never suspected by the art director. The F mount 2.8 version would not pass overly picky art directors who want to zoom to 300% to reveal stitching or misplaced strand of hair on a dress. The 2,8 S zoom is better than any F prime I have. I have high hopes and expectations for the 70-200 2.8 S but with the lockdown and lack of income for 2 months, it will take a while to save for one. After using that f/4 zoom a year and a half, it is THE indispensable lens, If I could only have 1 lens since it is smaller and light enough to never be a problem traveling with it. One thing I never noticed before was the difference in magnification factor, at each FL it appeared to be 10% longer FL.
Thanks for that really useful video, you've just saved me about a grand. I've got the 24-70 f4 (on a Z6) and have always thought it was a superbly versatile lens with great image quality. After your last video about the primes versus the 24-70 f2.8 I bought the 50mm f1.8 and it's incredible. It's not just the sharpness but the the images (local wodland) almost look 3D. So on that basis I was considering the 24mm as well but now I don't think the extra couple of stops are worth paying almost a grand for as I wouldn't trade in due the versitility of the 24-70. However, that may change when the 24-200 comes out and I may consider that for a walk-around lens and the 24 f1.8 for specific work. I would look forward to a similar test of primes versus the 24-200. Once again, many thanks.
Thank you again Ricci, for your lens (and camera) comparison methods. The results of this one surprised me too. Sincerely appreciated, since this sort of comparison would be difficult or impossible without owning the lenses. Take care, and stay safe!
Excellent review. This shows just how good the zoom lens really is! In most situations’ The primes will beat the zoom in low light situations but the zoom is as good is most other situations!
Most people sort the 24-70 f4 S in the same category as other manufacturers kitlens... Though it's simply not the case, it's an f4 lena that competes with top primes. Sony Fuji Fanboys tend to forget it.
Very good video. Your methodology is so easy to follow and practical. I’m pleasantly surprised how relatively sharp the f/4 24-70 Z is compared to the primes. I still remember the 1970s when zooms were a huge quality compromise.
A video that I didn't know I needed but was actually extremely useful. Thanks Ricci! This has actually made me stop considering the 24mm 1.8, and is also making me think that the 14-30 f4 would be a better choice than the 20mm 1.8 I've been eyeing up. Hopefully a comparison of the wide angles will be up next.
Recalling some of your earlier comparisons with F mount lenses where the Z's did some serious bum kicking; mainly in the corners. In this comparison it was like watching an Olympic race and we had to see the photo finish to determine the winner. After seeing this, I am wondering what all the hubbub is for the 50 since the 24-70mm really did hang right in there. I do own the 85mm f/1.8, wanting a longer focal length and a bokeh producing f stop (I consider it my feather weight option to my Sigma 105mm f/1.4 - which is a great lens - but what a hand grenade!). For 95% of my shooting I'm at at least f/5.6, if not a bit more, so this comparison saved me a bunch of money. Thanks!
Hi Ricci, thanks for the video. Good to see the comparison. Are you likely to do a similar video comparing the new Z 24-120mm s with the equivalent primes?
very useful. I certainly dont see enough difference in performance to justify buying a range of primes. The only tangible benefit to me would be having a f1.8 option. I would like that for portraiture so either the 85 or the 50mm prime might be worthwhile but very impressed with the performance of the 24-70 - excellent do all lens.
Wow, I was really surprised how well the 24-70mm F4 does against the prime lens. I have the 24-70mm F4 and have been considering a 50mm prime, that's probably what I'll end up purchasing, every video I've seen about that 50mm has been positive, thanks for your very informative videos, I always learn something from you, thanks...
I got the 50mm around $500US last year and you can see the difference vs 24-70 (on a Z6). Its great for using to take pano shots but it is a pain to hike with both of them and a long zoom. But its hard to take the 50mm off the camera.. :-) Loved NZ!! hiked around Queenstown few years ago was amazing, (routeburn, milford) hope to come back that way once the craziness is over..
@@coltoncyr2283 RUclips compression. The 50, all the S lenses are remarkably free of CA/color fringing, better than any lenses from any make I have used.
I swear, I get a thought in my head and think man, I wish somebody would compare the 24-70 f4 to the primes... boom Ricci Talks has a video. You da man! Thanks!
Great review. Very helpful. Thank you very much! I recently bought a Z5 with the 24-70/f4 and I've been wondering how well the zoom stands up to the primes. I too am surprised how well the zoom did. If you compare the weight and cost of the primes to the zoom, you get 1705 grams and $3,280 for the primes and 500 grams and $600 (kit) or $1,000 for the zoom. It seems to me that for general purpose advanced amateur use on a budget, the Z 24-70/f4 does surprising well, especially if you stop it down to 5.6. But for special purpose or professional use, I'd want at least a couple of primes and the Z 24-70/f2.8 or possibly the Z 24-120/f4. Agreed?
I've used the fantastic 50 and 85mm and they feel more like a F1.4, maybe the 85 slightly less than the superb Sigma 85 F1.4 (on Sony) hopefully we see 3rd party lenses in Nikon soon. Thank you for your review, I will get the 24 to 70.
I like the comparison vid, but your comparison only stops the 24-70 down one stop to F5.6. You really should have taken it to at least F8 so the 24-70 gets at least 2 stops down as this would have improved the corners. Going to F11 would have been nice, too, as that can sometimes also improve corners, depending on the lens. When we're using the 24-70 F4 for landscape, cars etc, we're usually stopped down more than F5.6.
Hey ricci talks! I am a portrait photograoher and have a z6. Sold my 85mm 1.8 g to either get the new 85 or the nikon 105mm 1.4. Can you make a video addressing the differences and how the adapter affects its performance if any! Please there is nobody that has this video and you already have this lenses! Like if you wanR this video! Love your video man you are great!
Unless you need the 105 FL, try the 85 1.8 S. I have the 85 1.4G, 85 1.8G and Sigma 1.4 ART. The only one that comes close is the much heavier and bulkier Sigma in the very center of the frame but move from the center and the S 1.8 pulls far ahead. The S is also much cleaner in CA and color fringing so edges are a lot sharper. I do not miss the 1.4 added sensitivity but if a 1.2 S is released and did not cost a kidney or house, I would be interested in that.
I would love to see a comparison of the Z 24-70 F4, with the Z dx 16-50 on a Z50. Everybody is saying that the 16-50 is so sharp, but that would give us a reverence.
Hi Ricci. First let me thank you for such a comprehensive and detailed comparison between these Nikkor S lenses and the 24-70 f/4 Nikkor S. Though I do have prior experience with Nikon, and currently using Fuji's X-T3 (with some stellar Fujinon XF lenses), I was strongly considering going the Z7 route, but just concerned with Nikkor S lens availability, as I shoot primarily wide (24, 35), macro/micro (80), and occasional short telephoto (200-300), am also considering the Sony a7Rlll. I know the Sony System has some quite good optics in those ranges, but not sure about Nikon's roadmap availability (and obviously unknown image quality) of, say, the Nikkor S 105 Micro, and how that would compare to the known stellar Sony 90 f/2.8 Macro G OSS lens. That said, I do love the ergos and body sealing of the Z7. But at the end of the day, I'm most concerned about image sharpness and detail retention when printing large. I'm thinking both systems would satisfy in that regard, but please correct me if I'm wrong. Thank you sir!
The Z -system is still a young system it has to start somewhere so eventually the lenses you want will be available.... the one think I would say is that every S lens so far has been pretty impressive so I have no doubts the 105mm macro will be able to compete if not be one of the best 105mm lenses you can buy. But only time will tell.
@@RicciTalks I understand, RIcci. I just have to be patient, in waiting for the 105 f/2.8 Micro-Nikkor S. It would be most interesting to see it tested against the known ultra-sharp Sony 90 f/2.8 Macro G! (The only reason I mention the Sony 90 Macro is that another reviewer said that it was almost twice as sharp as the also ultra-sharp Fujinon XF80 f/2.8 Macro, which I have rather extensive experience with, and why I found that statement a bit hard to digest.) Thank you!
@@stevelink21 The sony is sharp in the center but with the tiny mount none of them are good across the frame. The Nikon will absolutely be better corner to corner. Any current S lenses are better in that regard. Surely Sony, if they stay in the market, will change mounts, they are on their 3rd now and it is very profitable to change mounts. The shortest flange distance and flange diameter assure that Nikon S lenses will have an advantage. A bonus is that they are all more reasonably priced.
Hi Ricci - what would be amazing, is if you took a comparable Sony lens - and compared the image quality on that sided to side with Z glass. I have done so myself, and the Z series lenses (Primes) are far superior to the Sony primes that I have tested - I compared the Sony FE 1.4 G master lens ($1600 Lens) with the 24MM Z series lens and the Z series lens was sharper, corner to corner. I was amazed - there are so many people not sure of the Z series glass because they are F1.8 thinking they are "Value" lenses, but that's not the case. They outperform the far more expensive variants from other manufacturers. I think doing that would actually gain you a large number of subscribers, because people seem to love FACTUAL head to head comparisons - and you'll know how to set up that test properly and fairly, as you're far more methodical and intelligent then most individuals that simply "review" cameras products on youtube.
It’s definitely something Iv thought about doing...but I also feel like lots of people would just think it’s biased and false no matter how clear and concise I make it
@@RicciTalks Yes Ricci I completely understand. I agree with that assessment - it would be nice if people were more factually driven, but unfortunately that's not usually the case in my experience as well. The only way to do anything like that possibly, would be to do a collaboration with another youtube channel that uses the Sony system - having them actually bring their camera so both of you can have a look. Great content Ricci, keep it up - you've got a long term subscriber here.
I was a little surprised by the light transmissions at the same F stop from the primes and the 24-70mm. Highlights were certainly peaking on the primes and not so much on the zoom. It would be nice to see a 20mm 1.8 and 24mm 1.8 and 35mm vs the 14-30mm F/4 S as well! Thanks for the helpful content, I currently have the 24-70 F/4, 50mm 1.8 and the 85mm 1.8. I still have the classic 35mm F/1.4 AIS that is fun to use on my Z6 so I was hesitant to upgrade on the wide angle and I think the 14-30mm F/4 or the 20mm F/1.8 may be all I need to cover the wide end. 🤔
I know you asked him but I would take either the 35mm or 50mm 1.8 for product photography only because I've run into a lot of companies that wanted their things on a dark background and it saved me to have that extra light going into the aperture plus the ability to have better sharpness when stopped down or wide open to highlight the product. A lot of the food photography I've done has been in the restaurants and as you know they usually don't have the best lighting due to ambience, it just pays out to have a prime for those.
@@wheeliehunter6937 you are right, I made the same conclusion and went for the 35 1.8 and I bought also the 85 only because ... Well because it's so nice 🤣
hi ricci, i don't miss any of your video , since i am z6 owner.. however would like to know why not compare prime and zoom lens with different lighting conditions, instead of different apertures?? wouldn't that be a lot more helpful for us?? at least couple of shots showing the difference would be really great for general audience like us
Good evening, thank you so much for doing these videos. I have a Z7 for photographing Artwork and I have been using a Nikon 60mm AF macro D 2.8 and recently discovered that I may be not getting the maximum image quality through the lens due to the high megapixel of the Z7. Not too sure if you have one of these lenses but it would be interesting to see if the 50mm 1.8 Z is better? I was wondering if it would be possible to send me a high resolution picture with the Z 50mm 1.8 which I may be able to replicate at my studio to compare the image quality? Obviously I will be happy to send the my picture back if you want to use for anything. Thank you David
Hi Ricci, Nice comparison video, show some interesting conclusions. One think I would like to see is a comparison of these lenses stop down and when and where refraction shows is head? Keep well and safe.
Looking through the comments and no ones talk nothing about Nikon D6 from these pictures! @Ricci Talks when you will make a review to D6? Comparison with D5/D850/Z7 ???
i wish the review include some out door picture in different lighting condition, with this kind of review it's very misleading how the lens will perform in real world picture, for example, I found the 24-70 F4 S produces some pretty crazy flare when the sun is anywhere in the picture, but review like this will never show. but the issue does affect the real world picture a lot. so this review shows the kit lens is " almost as good" as those primes but in reality is a day and night different.
Real shame there are no plans for a 70 - 200 f4 to go with the 24 - 70. It’s an obvious gap for those that don’t need the f2.8 or don’t fancy the weight or price. Before I switched to Nikon I really liked the canon f4l 70 -200 and used this range a lot.
Hi, Thx for the useful review! Quick question, I hope you can help me; I'm shooting houses, interiors and exteriors. For now I'm using my z6 with the 14-30mm f4, but I want to buy a new lens. Witch one should you choose? The z 24-70mm F4s or the z 24-70mm F2.8s? Thx for helping me out :)!
Dubbeldinges don’t really think the 2.8 is worth the money/weight when the 4 is so good. There was a comparison video I seem to remember, I’m sure if you look at Ricci’s channel you’ll find it. Such a marginal difference. I have the f4 and shoot landscape and I won’t bother upgrading.
I have both the 2.8 and f.4. The 2.8 is probably the best zoom on the market by any brand....but I mostly shoot with the f/4 version because it is very hard to tell the difference, and it is so light and small. I have even done studio fashion shoots with very picky art directors with the f/4 and the results were great. For your interiors, where you are likely compositing/blending multiple shots and window fill, you are shooting smaller than f/4 anyway on a tripod so I would get the f/4, faster return on investment, and less weight.
@@jaspergoodall3206 Ok thx! What about the Nikon Z 24-200mm f:4.5-6.3 VR? I get a lot more of range? I'm not which one to shoose, the 24-70 f4 or 24-200mm f4.5/6.3
@@stanspb763 Ok thx! What about the Nikon Z 24-200mm f:4.5-6.3 VR? I get a lot more of range? I'm not which one to shoose, the 24-70 f4 or 24-200mm f4.5/6.3
@@dubbeldinges Well, the 24-200 may well be my next lens purchase and I believe Ricci was very impressed by its sharpness given the massive zoom range. Thing is the aperture is a bit limiting, but that depends on what you mostly shoot. I almost exclusively use a tripod for landscapes so I'm not SO fussed about having very fast lenses or a shallow depth of field but if you want hand held low light or are bothered about Bokeh 6.3 on the long end is a little limiting. Having said that, if you are on a budget or you want maximum portability (the 24-200 is tiny for what it is) it looks like a great lens. I would of course love to own the 70-200 2.8, but I just don't have the money, besides it looks massive. Ask yourself - do I need a telephoto for what I shoot 90% of the time, if the answer is no, buy the 24-70 f4. Ask yourself, do I want a lens for travel that is light and is one do-it-all lens?, buy the 24-200. Hope that helps
I’m just about to pull the trigger on a z7 at this late stage. Not much news on the horizon from Nikon though which is frustrating in light of all this Canon news.
Corrections make it similar, turn corrections off and we can see a huge difference in all ways, like sharpness, distortions, XA, coma, fall off, etc. Does it matter? Yep, because human eyes very sensitive, you can see 10% better images, but this 10% make a huge impact. Sharpness overrated thought.
Wow the "kit" lens is underrated. Nikon lenses are just great, but comes with a bruise in the wallet! I wish they opened their Mount to third parties. Biggest downfall.
Great work again Ricci thank you for your time for making a great content Would love to see 24-70 f4 v 2.8 Just to see whether we can justify the price difference
Hey Everyone !
I hope you find this video useful!
I was certainly surprised how well the 24-70mm F4S faired in the centre of the frame compared to primes lenses. I was certainly expecting the Primes to be noticeably better. Let me know what you think.
Hope you are all staying safe !
Hey,
very informative Video. How about the Z 70-200 2.8 vs the 85mm? Is it as good as the 24-70 2.8? Love your videos and thx.
Curious to see how the 24-70 will perform on a Z50 and how it will stand up against these prime lenses.
Thanks for working on this one. I'm sure many more people are using the Z 24-70 4.0 S than the Z 24-70 2.8 S and might have thought that somehow it was not "good enough" compared to the S prime lenses. Nonsense and this video confirms the 24-70 4.0 is first-class and worth consideration as a first-choice lens in every case. Somehow, I assumed that to be the case, but nonetheless, I have the Z 35 1.8 S and Z 50 1.8 S because they are 1.8. When I am shooting in low light, I appreciate the extra F stops. Otherwise, for my style, I actually prefer a wider DOF, and your tests confirm that 4.0 can have advantages in that, and sharpness, as well. The Z 24-70 4.0 S is no slouch. Considering that the Z 24-70 2.8 S is more than twice the price and almost twice the weight, the 4.0 is the one for me to use in most cases.
Is the 35mm 1.8 s. good?
@@sottosopra4769 yes.
I use the 24-70 Z F4 professionally and I've never had a client complain it doesn't look professional enough. In this vid he only stops it down to F5.6, which is only one stop down from wide open. When you go to F8-F11, the corners get pretty damn sharp. The whole frame is sharp as a tack.
The 50mm 1.8 is amazing. The 24-70 f4 is very good. I think having these two is the best combination. When you need the fast aperture, you use the 50. When you need flexibility and small size, you use the 24-70. That's what I hope to have one day paired with the Z6.
Those were exactly the first two lenses I got for the Z6 (24-70 came as a kit-lens, and the 50mm was massively discounted). Regarding the 50mm, I'm still wondering how Nikon is planing to justify the 50mm f/1.2.
@@romanpul the same way they justify the 24-70 2.8
Another great video! Yes, fact is that this so called “kit” lens is one of the best value/money lenses ever made from any brand, period. Especially when bought in a kit together with a Z body, something like $400 cost for the lens, which is a real steal! And it’s so compact and light... what an amazing lens!
Thank you for the useful review!
And I'm really interested in the coming lens 24-200 , would you make a detailed review about it?
Working on that
@@RicciTalks Thanks a lot for the videos great job Ricci! lot of people may have the kit lenses 24-70 4 s but the Z 24-200 4.6.6.3 will be an option this could be a great comparison
Thanks Ricci, another great video! Given how good the Z primes, it is remarkable how the Z zooms compare so favourably.
When I carried a 5D Mark II every day, I found I needed the 24-105L for general shooting and the 35L for low light and shallow depth of field. I can't imagine this being too much different for the Z6 and 24-70/4. I'd pack a fast prime, too.
While the 24-70mm 2.8 S is probably the best 24-70mm 2.8 out there, for many Nikon Z shooters, it is not looking like a great value, especially when the 24-70mm f4 S is sooooo good!
And if you're going to spend more than 2000 dollars for a new lens, I would say keep the 24-70mm f4 and get the Nikon Z 70-200mm 2.8 S, it is only a little bit more expensive than the 24-70mm 2.8 S anyway.
Great video! I'm a Z50 shooter and I'm saving up to get the 24-70mm f4 S next!
Yet again, the best, most useful lens comparisons on RUclips! The 24-70 f/4 in my kit is the most used lens, second, comes the 85 1.8 then 50 1.8 and 24-70 2.8 S. I have the 35 and 24 S primes also but they get used less. The only reason the spectacular 24-70 2.8 S is not used more is I have gotten used to having such a light carry-it-everywhere sling bag with the f/4 zoom plus 1 or 2 primes, usually the 85 plus an SB900 and flash controller. I have shoot commercial fashion and full-length studio sessions and that little zoom was never suspected by the art director. The F mount 2.8 version would not pass overly picky art directors who want to zoom to 300% to reveal stitching or misplaced strand of hair on a dress. The 2,8 S zoom is better than any F prime I have. I have high hopes and expectations for the 70-200 2.8 S but with the lockdown and lack of income for 2 months, it will take a while to save for one. After using that f/4 zoom a year and a half, it is THE indispensable lens, If I could only have 1 lens since it is smaller and light enough to never be a problem traveling with it.
One thing I never noticed before was the difference in magnification factor, at each FL it appeared to be 10% longer FL.
Thanks for that really useful video, you've just saved me about a grand. I've got the 24-70 f4 (on a Z6) and have always thought it was a superbly versatile lens with great image quality. After your last video about the primes versus the 24-70 f2.8 I bought the 50mm f1.8 and it's incredible. It's not just the sharpness but the the images (local wodland) almost look 3D. So on that basis I was considering the 24mm as well but now I don't think the extra couple of stops are worth paying almost a grand for as I wouldn't trade in due the versitility of the 24-70. However, that may change when the 24-200 comes out and I may consider that for a walk-around lens and the 24 f1.8 for specific work. I would look forward to a similar test of primes versus the 24-200. Once again, many thanks.
Thank you again Ricci, for your lens (and camera) comparison methods. The results of this one surprised me too. Sincerely appreciated, since this sort of comparison would be difficult or impossible without owning the lenses. Take care, and stay safe!
Thanks A lot for watching !
Excellent review. This shows just how good the zoom lens really is! In most situations’ The primes will beat the zoom in low light situations but the zoom is as good is most other situations!
Great for an everyday lens ! Primes are great for those special or difficult shots
Hi Ricci, I hope you bring the 20mm vs the 14-30mm next!
Yes!
Working on it !
Please :)
Most people sort the 24-70 f4 S in the same category as other manufacturers kitlens... Though it's simply not the case, it's an f4 lena that competes with top primes.
Sony Fuji Fanboys tend to forget it.
Very good video. Your methodology is so easy to follow and practical. I’m pleasantly surprised how relatively sharp the f/4 24-70 Z is compared to the primes. I still remember the 1970s when zooms were a huge quality compromise.
A video that I didn't know I needed but was actually extremely useful. Thanks Ricci! This has actually made me stop considering the 24mm 1.8, and is also making me think that the 14-30 f4 would be a better choice than the 20mm 1.8 I've been eyeing up. Hopefully a comparison of the wide angles will be up next.
Yeh I’m working on 20mm vs 14-30mm
Thank you! I like my 24-70S - except the bokeh.
Recalling some of your earlier comparisons with F mount lenses where the Z's did some serious bum kicking; mainly in the corners. In this comparison it was like watching an Olympic race and we had to see the photo finish to determine the winner. After seeing this, I am wondering what all the hubbub is for the 50 since the 24-70mm really did hang right in there.
I do own the 85mm f/1.8, wanting a longer focal length and a bokeh producing f stop (I consider it my feather weight option to my Sigma 105mm f/1.4 - which is a great lens - but what a hand grenade!).
For 95% of my shooting I'm at at least f/5.6, if not a bit more, so this comparison saved me a bunch of money. Thanks!
Hi Ricci, thanks for the video. Good to see the comparison.
Are you likely to do a similar video comparing the new Z 24-120mm s with the equivalent primes?
What a great, informative review. Just what I and I'm sure, other owners of the Z series cameras were wanting to know. Many thanks.
very useful. I certainly dont see enough difference in performance to justify buying a range of primes. The only tangible benefit to me would be having a f1.8 option. I would like that for portraiture so either the 85 or the 50mm prime might be worthwhile but very impressed with the performance of the 24-70 - excellent do all lens.
Wow, I was really surprised how well the 24-70mm F4 does against the prime lens.
I have the 24-70mm F4 and have been considering a 50mm prime, that's probably what I'll end up purchasing, every video I've seen about that 50mm has been positive, thanks for your very informative videos, I always learn something from you, thanks...
I got the 50mm around $500US last year and you can see the difference vs 24-70 (on a Z6). Its great for using to take pano shots but it is a pain to hike with both of them and a long zoom. But its hard to take the 50mm off the camera.. :-) Loved NZ!! hiked around Queenstown few years ago was amazing, (routeburn, milford) hope to come back that way once the craziness is over..
The 50 at 1.8 looked messed up. I wonder if that was just his test lens. The coloring fringing was horrible!
@@coltoncyr2283 RUclips compression. The 50, all the S lenses are remarkably free of CA/color fringing, better than any lenses from any make I have used.
I swear, I get a thought in my head and think man, I wish somebody would compare the 24-70 f4 to the primes... boom Ricci Talks has a video. You da man! Thanks!
Great review. Very helpful. Thank you very much!
I recently bought a Z5 with the 24-70/f4 and I've been wondering how well the zoom stands up to the primes.
I too am surprised how well the zoom did.
If you compare the weight and cost of the primes to the zoom, you get 1705 grams and $3,280 for the primes and 500 grams and $600 (kit) or $1,000 for the zoom. It seems to me that for general purpose advanced amateur use on a budget, the Z 24-70/f4 does surprising well, especially if you stop it down to 5.6. But for special purpose or professional use, I'd want at least a couple of primes and the Z 24-70/f2.8 or possibly the Z 24-120/f4. Agreed?
I own the 14-30mm, the 50mm and the 85mm. I‘m looking forward to a (90mm or 105mm) macro-lens for the Z mount.
There’s a 105 macro on the way
Ricci Talks Great! I hope I can afford it 😀😀
Quite remarkable for what is not an expensive zoom. Thanks for sharing this Ricci, appreciated. Keep safe. Cheers.
I was really surprised myself I knew the F4 was good but not this good!
I've used the fantastic 50 and 85mm and they feel more like a F1.4, maybe the 85 slightly less than the superb Sigma 85 F1.4 (on Sony) hopefully we see 3rd party lenses in Nikon soon.
Thank you for your review, I will get the 24 to 70.
waiting your comparison of Z 24-200 F/4-6.3 thanks
What I'm surprised by is that there is a such consistency between the S lenses, no lens is significantly softer than the other.
Can you also do a comparison between 14-30mm F4 S vs the 20mm F1.8S and 24mm 1.8s?
Is it just me or are the colours much brighter on the 24 1.8 S than the 24 - 70 F4?
I like the comparison vid, but your comparison only stops the 24-70 down one stop to F5.6. You really should have taken it to at least F8 so the 24-70 gets at least 2 stops down as this would have improved the corners. Going to F11 would have been nice, too, as that can sometimes also improve corners, depending on the lens. When we're using the 24-70 F4 for landscape, cars etc, we're usually stopped down more than F5.6.
Great video, I wonder how would the primes holds up with the 24-70 f2.8?
I have a video on that too
@@RicciTalks I realized this after I commented
Hey ricci talks! I am a portrait photograoher and have a z6. Sold my 85mm 1.8 g to either get the new 85 or the nikon 105mm 1.4. Can you make a video addressing the differences and how the adapter affects its performance if any! Please there is nobody that has this video and you already have this lenses! Like if you wanR this video!
Love your video man you are great!
Unless you need the 105 FL, try the 85 1.8 S. I have the 85 1.4G, 85 1.8G and Sigma 1.4 ART. The only one that comes close is the much heavier and bulkier Sigma in the very center of the frame but move from the center and the S 1.8 pulls far ahead. The S is also much cleaner in CA and color fringing so edges are a lot sharper. I do not miss the 1.4 added sensitivity but if a 1.2 S is released and did not cost a kidney or house, I would be interested in that.
I would love to see a comparison of the Z 24-70 F4, with the Z dx 16-50 on a Z50. Everybody is saying that the 16-50 is so sharp, but that would give us a reverence.
Hi Ricci. First let me thank you for such a comprehensive and detailed comparison between these Nikkor S lenses and the 24-70 f/4 Nikkor S. Though I do have prior experience with Nikon, and currently using Fuji's X-T3 (with some stellar Fujinon XF lenses), I was strongly considering going the Z7 route, but just concerned with Nikkor S lens availability, as I shoot primarily wide (24, 35), macro/micro (80), and occasional short telephoto (200-300), am also considering the Sony a7Rlll. I know the Sony System has some quite good optics in those ranges, but not sure about Nikon's roadmap availability (and obviously unknown image quality) of, say, the Nikkor S 105 Micro, and how that would compare to the known stellar Sony 90 f/2.8 Macro G OSS lens. That said, I do love the ergos and body sealing of the Z7. But at the end of the day, I'm most concerned about image sharpness and detail retention when printing large. I'm thinking both systems would satisfy in that regard, but please correct me if I'm wrong. Thank you sir!
The Z -system is still a young system it has to start somewhere so eventually the lenses you want will be available.... the one think I would say is that every S lens so far has been pretty impressive so I have no doubts the 105mm macro will be able to compete if not be one of the best 105mm lenses you can buy. But only time will tell.
@@RicciTalks I understand, RIcci. I just have to be patient, in waiting for the 105 f/2.8 Micro-Nikkor S. It would be most interesting to see it tested against the known ultra-sharp Sony 90 f/2.8 Macro G! (The only reason I mention the Sony 90 Macro is that another reviewer said that it was almost twice as sharp as the also ultra-sharp Fujinon XF80 f/2.8 Macro, which I have rather extensive experience with, and why I found that statement a bit hard to digest.) Thank you!
@@stevelink21 The sony is sharp in the center but with the tiny mount none of them are good across the frame. The Nikon will absolutely be better corner to corner. Any current S lenses are better in that regard. Surely Sony, if they stay in the market, will change mounts, they are on their 3rd now and it is very profitable to change mounts. The shortest flange distance and flange diameter assure that Nikon S lenses will have an advantage. A bonus is that they are all more reasonably priced.
Hi Ricci - what would be amazing, is if you took a comparable Sony lens - and compared the image quality on that sided to side with Z glass. I have done so myself, and the Z series lenses (Primes) are far superior to the Sony primes that I have tested - I compared the Sony FE 1.4 G master lens ($1600 Lens) with the 24MM Z series lens and the Z series lens was sharper, corner to corner. I was amazed - there are so many people not sure of the Z series glass because they are F1.8 thinking they are "Value" lenses, but that's not the case. They outperform the far more expensive variants from other manufacturers. I think doing that would actually gain you a large number of subscribers, because people seem to love FACTUAL head to head comparisons - and you'll know how to set up that test properly and fairly, as you're far more methodical and intelligent then most individuals that simply "review" cameras products on youtube.
It’s definitely something Iv thought about doing...but I also feel like lots of people would just think it’s biased and false no matter how clear and concise I make it
@@RicciTalks Yes Ricci I completely understand. I agree with that assessment - it would be nice if people were more factually driven, but unfortunately that's not usually the case in my experience as well. The only way to do anything like that possibly, would be to do a collaboration with another youtube channel that uses the Sony system - having them actually bring their camera so both of you can have a look. Great content Ricci, keep it up - you've got a long term subscriber here.
I was a little surprised by the light transmissions at the same F stop from the primes and the 24-70mm. Highlights were certainly peaking on the primes and not so much on the zoom.
It would be nice to see a 20mm 1.8 and 24mm 1.8 and 35mm vs the 14-30mm F/4 S as well!
Thanks for the helpful content, I currently have the 24-70 F/4, 50mm 1.8 and the 85mm 1.8. I still have the classic 35mm F/1.4 AIS that is fun to use on my Z6 so I was hesitant to upgrade on the wide angle and I think the 14-30mm F/4 or the 20mm F/1.8 may be all I need to cover the wide end. 🤔
Thanks a lot dude. Which of those prime would you choose to take product photography vs the 24-70 ? (Such as food photography or jewelry photography)
I know you asked him but I would take either the 35mm or 50mm 1.8 for product photography only because I've run into a lot of companies that wanted their things on a dark background and it saved me to have that extra light going into the aperture plus the ability to have better sharpness when stopped down or wide open to highlight the product. A lot of the food photography I've done has been in the restaurants and as you know they usually don't have the best lighting due to ambience, it just pays out to have a prime for those.
@@wheeliehunter6937 you are right, I made the same conclusion and went for the 35 1.8 and I bought also the 85 only because ... Well because it's so nice 🤣
hi ricci, i don't miss any of your video , since i am z6 owner.. however would like to know why not compare prime and zoom lens with different lighting conditions, instead of different apertures?? wouldn't that be a lot more helpful for us?? at least couple of shots showing the difference would be really great for general audience like us
@Kafala indeed low light should be taken in to consideration
Good evening, thank you so much for doing these videos. I have a Z7 for photographing Artwork and I have been using a Nikon 60mm AF macro D 2.8 and recently discovered that I may be not getting the maximum image quality through the lens due to the high megapixel of the Z7. Not too sure if you have one of these lenses but it would be interesting to see if the 50mm 1.8 Z is better? I was wondering if it would be possible to send me a high resolution picture with the Z 50mm 1.8 which I may be able to replicate at my studio to compare the image quality? Obviously I will be happy to send the my picture back if you want to use for anything. Thank you David
Hi Ricci, Nice comparison video, show some interesting conclusions. One think I would like to see is a comparison of these lenses stop down and when and where refraction shows is head? Keep well and safe.
Looking through the comments and no ones talk nothing about Nikon D6 from these pictures! @Ricci Talks when you will make a review to D6? Comparison with D5/D850/Z7 ???
Hey Ricci, so is it safe to say that the 24-70 2.8 is just as good as those prime lenses?
“Anybody seen Richie...” sorry for the Seagal quote buddy, I hope you are doing ok. Looking forward to that 14-30mm vs 20mm review :)
What is beter for video
the 24-70 f4 or the 35mm?
i wish the review include some out door picture in different lighting condition, with this kind of review it's very misleading how the lens will perform in real world picture, for example, I found the 24-70 F4 S produces some pretty crazy flare when the sun is anywhere in the picture, but review like this will never show. but the issue does affect the real world picture a lot. so this review shows the kit lens is " almost as good" as those primes but in reality is a day and night different.
was a z comparison ever done with the Nikon Z 70-200 versus z 85s and z 105s?
Real shame there are no plans for a 70 - 200 f4 to go with the 24 - 70. It’s an obvious gap for those that don’t need the f2.8 or don’t fancy the weight or price. Before I switched to Nikon I really liked the canon f4l 70 -200 and used this range a lot.
Ok, I love you. Thanks for all u work bro.
U save my money and my time with your channel.
thanks for your honest/hard work .
You did not check corner performance with the 24 at 1.8, this would have been great for a complete reference
Thx from France, another great video.
Hi,
Thx for the useful review!
Quick question, I hope you can help me;
I'm shooting houses, interiors and exteriors. For now I'm using my z6 with the 14-30mm f4, but I want to buy a new lens.
Witch one should you choose? The z 24-70mm F4s or the z 24-70mm F2.8s?
Thx for helping me out :)!
Dubbeldinges don’t really think the 2.8 is worth the money/weight when the 4 is so good. There was a comparison video I seem to remember, I’m sure if you look at Ricci’s channel you’ll find it. Such a marginal difference. I have the f4 and shoot landscape and I won’t bother upgrading.
I have both the 2.8 and f.4. The 2.8 is probably the best zoom on the market by any brand....but I mostly shoot with the f/4 version because it is very hard to tell the difference, and it is so light and small. I have even done studio fashion shoots with very picky art directors with the f/4 and the results were great. For your interiors, where you are likely compositing/blending multiple shots and window fill, you are shooting smaller than f/4 anyway on a tripod so I would get the f/4, faster return on investment, and less weight.
@@jaspergoodall3206 Ok thx! What about the Nikon Z 24-200mm f:4.5-6.3 VR? I get a lot more of range? I'm not which one to shoose, the 24-70 f4 or 24-200mm f4.5/6.3
@@stanspb763 Ok thx! What about the Nikon Z 24-200mm f:4.5-6.3 VR? I get a lot more of range? I'm not which one to shoose, the 24-70 f4 or 24-200mm f4.5/6.3
@@dubbeldinges Well, the 24-200 may well be my next lens purchase and I believe Ricci was very impressed by its sharpness given the massive zoom range. Thing is the aperture is a bit limiting, but that depends on what you mostly shoot. I almost exclusively use a tripod for landscapes so I'm not SO fussed about having very fast lenses or a shallow depth of field but if you want hand held low light or are bothered about Bokeh 6.3 on the long end is a little limiting. Having said that, if you are on a budget or you want maximum portability (the 24-200 is tiny for what it is) it looks like a great lens. I would of course love to own the 70-200 2.8, but I just don't have the money, besides it looks massive.
Ask yourself - do I need a telephoto for what I shoot 90% of the time, if the answer is no, buy the 24-70 f4. Ask yourself, do I want a lens for travel that is light and is one do-it-all lens?, buy the 24-200.
Hope that helps
I’m just about to pull the trigger on a z7 at this late stage. Not much news on the horizon from Nikon though which is frustrating in light of all this Canon news.
Why no full review yet for the 70-200 s 🤔
For me, primes are the way to go because of low light capability!
Really good review. This really gave very good perspective on my choices. A big thumbs up. ;-)
Brilliant as usual and quality information
Thank you !
So the 24-70 is great and plenty for most unless you need the extra light capturing or are a bokeh collector 🙃
Thank you very informative.
Nice video,
What do u think about
Beter take 2 primes 50 and 85mm or
24-70 s f4 + 85m
Or
24-70 s f4 + 50m?
Or all 3?
That was super helpful
Love your videos and your shirt!
Thanks a lot !
Another great comparison.
Thanks !
Personally I’d have compared at F8 where most lenses are at optimal sharpness across the frame, rather than 5.6.
Great Video...Ricci
was looking for this vid! thank u so much
Thank you for watching !
Thank you Ricci 👌
Corrections make it similar, turn corrections off and we can see a huge difference in all ways, like sharpness, distortions, XA, coma, fall off, etc. Does it matter? Yep, because human eyes very sensitive, you can see 10% better images, but this 10% make a huge impact. Sharpness overrated thought.
Wow the "kit" lens is underrated. Nikon lenses are just great, but comes with a bruise in the wallet! I wish they opened their Mount to third parties. Biggest downfall.
Until you shoot this lens against some sun light you will find out it's not the case at all.
thanks :)
Gotta catch em all^^
The 24-70 is a couple percent darker
Great work again Ricci thank you for your time for making a great content
Would love to see 24-70 f4 v 2.8
Just to see whether we can justify the price difference
I think that comparison has already been done.
ruclips.net/video/ZUWFUYRRPTs/видео.html
Z lenses are undeniably good. But why do they made them to look as flat black holes? They all look ugly as hell 😂