I agree with Konstatin. Nikon camera w/24-70mm 2.8 and another camera with the prime 85mm f1.8, but I would also include a prime 20mm f1.8 for wider shots.
I truly enjoy the "Heck" Out of you guys!!! You both have developed a relatable connection that makes me wanna check in no matter where I am traveling. So informative while super engaging with us. I must admit that I truly love my 2.8 version!!! Thank you all for the wonderful real world reviews of both tremendous lenses.
Both of these Z lenses are SO good. I'll even say the f/4 is easily the best "kit" lens currently available, from any manufacturer. "Worth the extra cost" is really all about use case. My general approach is a conservative one - if you're shooting professionally, it's probably best to invest in 2.8 glass - 24-70 and 70-200 specifically. Weddings, events, photojournalism etc. Thanks for the informative vid!
The 24-70 f/2.8 is fantastic. Damn sharp. I think I might eventually get a 24-200 to supplement it, but I don't see enough weight savings from just between the two 24-70 to make it worthwhile.
I love the f4 and would always use it for travel and street photography and with the Z6 high ISO and IBIS I don’t think the 1 stop difference matters too much for most, but I guess money no object I would also get the f2.8, cos I like it and 105 Z has made me love having the extra control ring. Don’t look like you guys shot this recently.
Thanks, loved the discussion and seeing you out of the studio. I got the Z 7ii body and the 14-30 f4 and 24-200 to start off. I decided to splurge for the 24-70 2.8 as I seem to be taking the vast majority of my shots so far in that range, and I prefer it to changing a lot of primes. I'm still waiting on the MC 105mm here in the U.S. so that is one prime I'll definitely use. If I got the f4 in a kit I wouldn't have the set up I have now, but this is where it's developing. It's only money......
Nice review. I shoot in a portrait studio at f/8. I have a nice 24-70 f2.8 F mount lens which weighs a ton but I'll probably keep forever. But I'm starting to get arthritis in my right hand and I like how light in weight the Z6 ii and 24-70s feels and how easy it is to move around.
Brings back childhood memories. I grew up really close to there in New Addington, and my first part time job while at school was in the Selsdon Tesco's.
Sorry, I think you’re wrong here, yes the more expensive lens may stop down further but that’s really where the comparisons end. There’s been many side by side tests done on these two lenses and the differences are pixel peeping similar. An event photographer may want that 2.8 aperture for low light but having used both myself the f4 isn’t a big problem and frankly not worth the crazy price.
The other day I bought myself a good Nikon Z6II, 24-80, f8 camera in Kiev, before that I sold my Nikon D780, Nikon Z6II with a 24-80 lens, I like f4 better, besides, it is much lighter than my former camera. Like for the video.
the f 4 is a great lens, and better to save the money, and use this zoom as an "all rounder", you main spend is better spent on a prime, 50,105, etc. and use THIS for the 1.8 or 2.8 apature, give the best bokeh, and is a lot lighter than equivalent zoom lens; I made the same decision with the recently released 105, made it my choice over the more expensive 70-200, just depends what you shoot, but best to keep a zoom to use for everyday, and use the prime for 'trips' that you plan a scene to shoot, or as a backup for when the light gets low, simpler to carry in ones kit bag/backpack.
Exceedingly interesting - I only use my f4 for travel (and now considering possibly the 24-200 for travel, if I can travel more !). The f2.8 is a must (from my point of view) for pro work, along with the 70-200mm f2.8 (as the newly acquired Z version !!). Still wondering about the Z 14-24 and justification over having my 14-30, for occasional use - the steep upgrade cost is the only thing holding me back ! Always appreciate your views
Hey this segment was great! I really like the fact that you guys are out in the field with the equipment in your hands posting images to show what you're talkin about. And yes you're both way ahead of me photographically. But it made for a very interesting segment! Also the way you broke down the equipment 4 uses and needs, was very insightful. But it needs to be said sadly Tillie stole the show.
Great vid . Thank you . You have both mastered your technique and camera . With your comparison of the pic of the brown leaf for example , no client would ever be able to decide that one pic was better than the other , or suited its purpose more . Subject pin sharp , background superbly out of focus . What more could a client want ? So , it`s a draw !!! Penalty shoot out time !!!
I found that on my Canon Dslr setup, my most used lens was the 24-70 2.8 II. I do woodland landscape photography, this range is very well suited for all kinds of landscape photography I think and indeed a travel lens, but I wouldn't categorize it that way. It's a pro lens after all, I'm slowly saving for the 24-70 2.8 S. (bought a Z7II + 50 1.8 S).
Hello both, How nice to see a not aggressive review of both lenses. I have got a friend in to the Nikon system with a Z5 and the 24mm-200mm as her first lens, I think she loving it. Me I went for the 24mm-70mm F2.8 to par with my Z7ii, It so much lighter the my old 24mm-70mm f2.8 (First version pre VR) Much shaper, lighter and well balanced not have to have the FTz. Thank you. Keep well, keep save and still have fun...
I keep trying to talk myself into needing the 2.8 but I fear if I do my 3 primes won’t get used or I will want that 1.8 and not use the 2.8 as much.. but if you only want to bring one Len’s with you whether it’s travelling or for an event there isn’t anything better
Very nice presentation of the trade-offs. Thank you. In other systems I’ve gone with the f/2.8 and now that I am setting up a Nikon kit I’ve chosen the f/2.8 but it’s on its way still. Did wonder about the new 24-120/4 S though. Have you had a chance to add that to your comparison.
Always a pleasure to watch your videos, keep up the good work! For some reason I do see the difference between the resulting images of the two lenses. F2.8 is seemingly more contrasty and I like colours more. Maybe I am imagining things, and I m not sure I could tell the difference if I had to compare two results side by side, but still. And yes it's not much bigger than f4 one. Btw Same thing is with the 50/1.2 - for me (putting aside obvious advantage of 1.2 aperture) colours, contrast and "character" of the resulting images are better then 50/1.8. So yes - for me the pro line is better and totally worth buying
I have both 4 and 2.8. and the 2.8 is far far far superior. Selling 4.0 now...and the pricetag on 2.8 is not that heavy looking at what it can do. It is worth every single penny. I also have 50 1.8 and was planning to get 35 but now 2.8 is mounted all the time to my Z6. So primes are good but 24 70 2.8 is way better choice. Next will be 105 MC
"Far" is definitely not true. It's slightly better (VERY slightly) for far away details (like for landscape) at F/2.8 vs F/4, but on close shots, you actually can't tell the difference. And if you open less, like you do for landscape, at F/11 there's no visible difference between the two. The ONLY reason to choose the f/2.8 to me would be the bokeh. But I understand people need some justification to fork out 2.5k instead of 1K ;)
I like your discussion about how to select lenses. Your conclusion is also nice. Can you do an episode with Z 24-200 with the 85 f/1.8 in combination. Would that be a good idea for one who is not a professional?
For shooting in the woods, the difference is probably negligible - fo event photography it is significant not just because of the shallower DOF, but perhaps more importantly for keeping the ISO down in low light environments - this is a key reason that F/4 lenses are no 'professional' for event shooting - its not so much the IQ - clearly the IQ on the F/4 is excellent - it is the light capturing ability in low light.
Question Do you think the price is justifiable? What do you think will be the price when there are more third party lenses exists in the world? Will they retain the price or drop it to a more justified price?
Good morning, great interesting video! I'm kindly asking You an idea... I bought a small great z50 travellig camera with z16-50 kit lens... Ftz adapter with prime FF lenses is quite bulky... Honestly it work fine but I was trying to improved the shooting performance with a z 24-70 f4, (36-105) but i'not quite sure of the investment... Looking at the MTF curves (imaging nikon) , they seems quite similar... So... Thank You in avance, cheers, Angelo from Italy
I use the 24-70 f4 for event shooting. The reason I chose it over the 2.8 is the weight and price difference. My event photos are only going on social media, and are only for my own jewelry business. I have the 105mm macro for product shots and a viltrox 85mm 1.8 for model wearing jewellery shots. If I was a wedding photographer then sure the 2.8 would make sense. I would suggest that people buy the best quality lense for what they shoot the most. Unless you are just a gear whore, you can usually get by with 3rd party primes for occasional use.
I agree with Konstatin. Nikon camera w/24-70mm 2.8 and another camera with the prime 85mm f1.8, but I would also include a prime 20mm f1.8 for wider shots.
I truly enjoy the "Heck" Out of you guys!!! You both have developed a relatable connection that makes me wanna check in no matter where I am traveling. So informative while super engaging with us. I must admit that I truly love my 2.8 version!!! Thank you all for the wonderful real world reviews of both tremendous lenses.
Both of these Z lenses are SO good. I'll even say the f/4 is easily the best "kit" lens currently available, from any manufacturer. "Worth the extra cost" is really all about use case. My general approach is a conservative one - if you're shooting professionally, it's probably best to invest in 2.8 glass - 24-70 and 70-200 specifically. Weddings, events, photojournalism etc. Thanks for the informative vid!
The 24-70 f/2.8 is fantastic. Damn sharp. I think I might eventually get a 24-200 to supplement it, but I don't see enough weight savings from just between the two 24-70 to make it worthwhile.
Love the way you compared the two lenses. And, the best part being your smile/laughter to start with. 👌
I'm looking forward to another practical comparison, i.e. between 14-30 f/4 and 14-24 f/2.8.
Yes me too. That’s a comparison I’d like to see also.
I love the f4 and would always use it for travel and street photography and with the Z6 high ISO and IBIS I don’t think the 1 stop difference matters too much for most, but I guess money no object I would also get the f2.8, cos I like it and 105 Z has made me love having the extra control ring. Don’t look like you guys shot this recently.
Thanks, loved the discussion and seeing you out of the studio. I got the Z 7ii body and the 14-30 f4 and 24-200 to start off. I decided to splurge for the 24-70 2.8 as I seem to be taking the vast majority of my shots so far in that range, and I prefer it to changing a lot of primes. I'm still waiting on the MC 105mm here in the U.S. so that is one prime I'll definitely use. If I got the f4 in a kit I wouldn't have the set up I have now, but this is where it's developing. It's only money......
Nice review. I shoot in a portrait studio at f/8. I have a nice 24-70 f2.8 F mount lens which weighs a ton but I'll probably keep forever. But I'm starting to get arthritis in my right hand and I like how light in weight the Z6 ii and 24-70s feels and how easy it is to move around.
Cool video - my local woods!!
Brings back childhood memories. I grew up really close to there in New Addington, and my first part time job while at school was in the Selsdon Tesco's.
Sorry, I think you’re wrong here, yes the more expensive lens may stop down further but that’s really where the comparisons end. There’s been many side by side tests done on these two lenses and the differences are pixel peeping similar. An event photographer may want that 2.8 aperture for low light but having used both myself the f4 isn’t a big problem and frankly not worth the crazy price.
The other day I bought myself a good Nikon Z6II, 24-80, f8 camera in Kiev, before that I sold my Nikon D780, Nikon Z6II with a 24-80 lens, I like f4 better, besides, it is much lighter than my former camera. Like for the video.
the f 4 is a great lens, and better to save the money, and use this zoom as an "all rounder", you main spend is better spent on a prime, 50,105, etc. and use THIS for the 1.8 or 2.8 apature, give the best bokeh, and is a lot lighter than equivalent zoom lens; I made the same decision with the recently released 105, made it my choice over the more expensive 70-200, just depends what you shoot, but best to keep a zoom to use for everyday, and use the prime for 'trips' that you plan a scene to shoot, or as a backup for when the light gets low, simpler to carry in ones kit bag/backpack.
Exceedingly interesting - I only use my f4 for travel (and now considering possibly the 24-200 for travel, if I can travel more !). The f2.8 is a must (from my point of view) for pro work, along with the 70-200mm f2.8 (as the newly acquired Z version !!). Still wondering about the Z 14-24 and justification over having my 14-30, for occasional use - the steep upgrade cost is the only thing holding me back !
Always appreciate your views
Hey this segment was great! I really like the fact that you guys are out in the field with the equipment in your hands posting images to show what you're talkin about. And yes you're both way ahead of me photographically. But it made for a very interesting segment! Also the way you broke down the equipment 4 uses and needs, was very insightful. But it needs to be said sadly Tillie stole the show.
Great vid . Thank you . You have both mastered your technique and camera . With your comparison of the pic of the brown leaf for example , no client would ever be able to decide that one pic was better than the other , or suited its purpose more . Subject pin sharp , background superbly out of focus . What more could a client want ? So , it`s a draw !!! Penalty shoot out time !!!
Need to tell us what backpacks you guys use, and why they are so full for a single lens comparison😬.
He's wearing an Osprey, not sure about the other bag
I found that on my Canon Dslr setup, my most used lens was the 24-70 2.8 II. I do woodland landscape photography, this range is very well suited for all kinds of landscape photography I think and indeed a travel lens, but I wouldn't categorize it that way. It's a pro lens after all, I'm slowly saving for the 24-70 2.8 S. (bought a Z7II + 50 1.8 S).
Hello both, How nice to see a not aggressive review of both lenses. I have got a friend in to the Nikon system with a Z5 and the 24mm-200mm as her first lens, I think she loving it. Me I went for the 24mm-70mm F2.8 to par with my Z7ii, It so much lighter the my old 24mm-70mm f2.8 (First version pre VR) Much shaper, lighter and well balanced not have to have the FTz. Thank you. Keep well, keep save and still have fun...
I keep trying to talk myself into needing the 2.8 but I fear if I do my 3 primes won’t get used or I will want that 1.8 and not use the 2.8 as much.. but if you only want to bring one Len’s with you whether it’s travelling or for an event there isn’t anything better
Very nice presentation of the trade-offs. Thank you. In other systems I’ve gone with the f/2.8 and now that I am setting up a Nikon kit I’ve chosen the f/2.8 but it’s on its way still. Did wonder about the new 24-120/4 S though. Have you had a chance to add that to your comparison.
Always a pleasure to watch your videos, keep up the good work! For some reason I do see the difference between the resulting images of the two lenses. F2.8 is seemingly more contrasty and I like colours more. Maybe I am imagining things, and I m not sure I could tell the difference if I had to compare two results side by side, but still. And yes it's not much bigger than f4 one. Btw Same thing is with the 50/1.2 - for me (putting aside obvious advantage of 1.2 aperture) colours, contrast and "character" of the resulting images are better then 50/1.8. So yes - for me the pro line is better and totally worth buying
I have both 4 and 2.8. and the 2.8 is far far far superior. Selling 4.0 now...and the pricetag on 2.8 is not that heavy looking at what it can do. It is worth every single penny. I also have 50 1.8 and was planning to get 35 but now 2.8 is mounted all the time to my Z6. So primes are good but 24 70 2.8 is way better choice. Next will be 105 MC
"Far" is definitely not true. It's slightly better (VERY slightly) for far away details (like for landscape) at F/2.8 vs F/4, but on close shots, you actually can't tell the difference. And if you open less, like you do for landscape, at F/11 there's no visible difference between the two.
The ONLY reason to choose the f/2.8 to me would be the bokeh.
But I understand people need some justification to fork out 2.5k instead of 1K ;)
I like your discussion about how to select lenses. Your conclusion is also nice. Can you do an episode with Z 24-200 with the 85 f/1.8 in combination. Would that be a good idea for one who is not a professional?
actually 24-70 F4 has closer focus distance than 24-70 F2.8
great animal photography!!, love it.
For shooting in the woods, the difference is probably negligible - fo event photography it is significant not just because of the shallower DOF, but perhaps more importantly for keeping the ISO down in low light environments - this is a key reason that F/4 lenses are no 'professional' for event shooting - its not so much the IQ - clearly the IQ on the F/4 is excellent - it is the light capturing ability in low light.
That’s great ,loved the debate
Can the 24-70 f/4 really be compared to Sony G/ Canon L lenses in optics?
What gimbal did you use with the z50? it looked good an compact!
I have the F2.8 Version >>What a Beast >>OPTICS OPTICS
Question
Do you think the price is justifiable? What do you think will be the price when there are more third party lenses exists in the world?
Will they retain the price or drop it to a more justified price?
You didn’t convince me the 2.8 is worth it.
Excellent
👍👍👍👍👍 Out and about!!
what is your vloging setup
Good morning, great interesting video! I'm kindly asking You an idea... I bought a small great z50 travellig camera with z16-50 kit lens... Ftz adapter with prime FF lenses is quite bulky... Honestly it work fine but I was trying to improved the shooting performance with a z 24-70 f4, (36-105) but i'not quite sure of the investment... Looking at the MTF curves (imaging nikon) , they seems quite similar... So... Thank You in avance, cheers, Angelo from Italy
I'd like to have it compared to 24-50
Down jacket? In August!?
England!
What a lovely soprano! (Someone else made this comment but it was deleted. So here's mine.)
I use the 24-70 f4 for event shooting. The reason I chose it over the 2.8 is the weight and price difference. My event photos are only going on social media, and are only for my own jewelry business. I have the 105mm macro for product shots and a viltrox 85mm 1.8 for model wearing jewellery shots. If I was a wedding photographer then sure the 2.8 would make sense. I would suggest that people buy the best quality lense for what they shoot the most. Unless you are just a gear whore, you can usually get by with 3rd party primes for occasional use.
Would you use that with the zfc??
I have Nikon Zfc and bought Nikon 24-70 f2.8 S lens. Waiting to take it. I will check how they work together. I hope that will be good...
Definetly F/4 S. The F/2.8 is a waste of money
Wtf they’re both good 😂 aight ima get the cheaper one then 🤣
Video in the forest is rubbish :( A lot of compression artifacts and flicking picture.
It's hard to watch it.
Check the date, it was Covid days. Forest was the only option