Author Topic: 24-70 f4 vs. f2.8 (Z6/7)  (Read 290 times)

RobOK

  • NG Supporter
  • **
  • Posts: 241
  • You ARE NikonGear
    • My gallery
24-70 f4 vs. f2.8 (Z6/7)
« on: April 20, 2020, 16:50:31 »
I have never owned a 2.8 zoom. There, I admitted it.

On my Df and D750, i have used the 24-120 F4 and with the Z i have the 24-70 f4.

Could someone compare the 24-70 f2.8 vs the f4 for the Z native lenses? The main comparison I know is in USD -- the 2.8 is more than 2X in price! I know this is a personal choice of value, but interested in anyone that has both, or gone through similar decision on their DSLR lens choices. What is the size/weight/handling differences? (i can look up the weights, i mean more perception when mounted on the Z6)

Thanks!

Mike G

  • NG Member
  • *
  • Posts: 251
  • You ARE NikonGear
Re: 24-70 f4 vs. f2.8 (Z6/7)
« Reply #1 on: April 20, 2020, 16:59:51 »
Try “Ricci Talks” on you tube, he works for the U.K. Nikon School

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC-idGD_pRr67UcXou0_hfuQ
Nikon Z7, 24-70mm f4, 14-30, 35, 50,  85.

Roland Vink

  • NG Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1190
  • Nikon Nerd from New Zealand
    • Nikon Database
Re: 24-70 f4 vs. f2.8 (Z6/7)
« Reply #2 on: April 20, 2020, 21:31:35 »
No experience with either lens, but reviews suggest the f/2.8 zoom is slightly sharper (at wider apertures) and the dedicated custom ring can be useful too. On the other hand the f/4 zoom is also an excellent lens and is considerably smaller, lighter and cheaper, and can focus closer.

Bill De Jager

  • NG Supporter
  • **
  • Posts: 444
Re: 24-70 f4 vs. f2.8 (Z6/7)
« Reply #3 on: April 21, 2020, 01:57:44 »
I own both (the f/4 via a Z6 kit and the f/2.8 via a sale).  I started out with the f/4 and liked it a lot for field use, with the caveat that I like having wider apertures available. (I'd been spoiled by the f/1.8 primes I'd been using on my D750 on previous trips).  I haven't posted the f/4 photos here yet.

Then I got the f/2.8 and took a lot of photos, none of which I've posted here yet.  This is my first f/2.8 midrange autofocus zoom.  The image quality is excellent, having f/2.8 available is wonderful, but the lens is much larger and heavier aside from the high price.

I really comes down to the very old photographic tradeoff of technical capability vs. size, weight, and cost.  Both lenses have excellent image quality for their class, with some calling the f/2.8 the best in its class.  The f/2.8 is reputed to be 'better' than the f/4, though I haven't tried to compare the lenses directly.

I think the real issue is, do you want a smaller, lighter, more practical lens, of excellent quality for its class, that costs nothing because you already have it?
Or do you want to spend a lot of money on a lens that's even better, that gives you more control of depth of field (and light, under marginal lighting conditions), but which is heavy and bulky?

For me the choice of an f/2.8 midrange zoom was always somewhat unattractive due to cost, size, weight, and optical compromises (the last up through the G version).  Why would I want to lug around that big lens, after paying over $2K for it, when I really want even wider apertures and better corners, as well as a longer long end?

On the other hand, my set of three f/1.8 primes*, however nice the available apertures, always involved some photographic friction caused by lens changes.  Also, foot zooming doesn't always work in a landscape.

The 24-70 f/2.8 Z finally broke down my resistance and I sprang for it.  It's rewarded me nicely around the neighborhood though I haven't gone on any trips with it yet.  I may use it as my standard lens on some future trips because I've found I really like having f/2.8 and not having to change lenses. I think I can manage the extra size and weight when placed on a Z6.

Oh, tradeoffs....

In the end only you can answer your question.  I hope my thoughts will help yours to gel.  I'll try to post some photos taken with each lens shortly, but again I don't have any direct comparisons or even anything similar.

*Nikon 24/1.8 AFS, Tamron 45/1.8, Nikon 85/1.8 AFS.

John Geerts

  • NG Supporter
  • **
  • Posts: 6422
  • Photojournalist in Tilburg, Netherlands
    • Fotoverhalen
Re: 24-70 f4 vs. f2.8 (Z6/7)
« Reply #4 on: April 21, 2020, 07:02:50 »
It all boils down to Brightness, Depth of Focus and Bokeh.  (= part of image quality). So I you prefer a lighter lens and save some money, go for the F/4. If you value image-quality, go for the F/2.8


RobOK

  • NG Supporter
  • **
  • Posts: 241
  • You ARE NikonGear
    • My gallery
Re: 24-70 f4 vs. f2.8 (Z6/7)
« Reply #5 on: April 21, 2020, 14:36:02 »

I really comes down to the very old photographic tradeoff of technical capability vs. size, weight, and cost.  Both lenses have excellent image quality for their class, with some calling the f/2.8 the best in its class.  The f/2.8 is reputed to be 'better' than the f/4, though I haven't tried to compare the lenses directly.

I think the real issue is, do you want a smaller, lighter, more practical lens, of excellent quality for its class, that costs nothing because you already have it?
Or do you want to spend a lot of money on a lens that's even better, that gives you more control of depth of field (and light, under marginal lighting conditions), but which is heavy and bulky?

For me the choice of an f/2.8 midrange zoom was always somewhat unattractive due to cost, size, weight, and optical compromises (the last up through the G version).  Why would I want to lug around that big lens, after paying over $2K for it, when I really want even wider apertures and better corners, as well as a longer long end?

On the other hand, my set of three f/1.8 primes*, however nice the available apertures, always involved some photographic friction caused by lens changes.  Also, foot zooming doesn't always work in a landscape.


Yes, of course, you nailed it Bill. I am torn with enjoying thin depth of field on my primes with the convenience of the zooms.

Everyone talks about Nikons 2.8 zooms with such awe, even religious fervor, haha, that it makes me lust after it. And that is really all it is. I am blessed to have an amazing set of gear (even simply counting my Z6 setup) that photographers past and present would die for, so I have to be grateful for what i have and make more use of it!

Thank you for posting!