Nikon 24-70/2.8 S is shipping

Joined
Jul 25, 2017
Messages
939
Location
Pittsburgh, PA
Real Name
Ian
True, but have they worked out the AF on the Z6 yet? I haven't been following it very closely, it's safer that way. I just keep in my mind those early reviews about AF issues and no one gets hurt. :D
I've shot ice hockey and college T&F with the Z6, and the Z6 held up just fine.

The initial "reviewers" were either smoking meth when they tested the Z6, or had some other reason to make the remarks they did about the AF performance. In the ~6 months of ownership I've had mine, AF has not once been an issue.
 
Joined
Apr 30, 2005
Messages
3,599
Location
Massachusetts
Real Name
David
I've shot ice hockey and college T&F with the Z6, and the Z6 held up just fine.

The initial "reviewers" were either smoking meth when they tested the Z6, or had some other reason to make the remarks they did about the AF performance. In the ~6 months of ownership I've had mine, AF has not once been an issue.
Do I need to put you on ignore?

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 
Joined
Oct 8, 2018
Messages
302
Location
SE Michigan
Real Name
Chris
I shot with the 2.8 24-70 and it was awesome. There was a hands on event with reps at my local camera shop. In my limited time with it, I’d say it seems a touch sharper at wide open compared to the f4 and I know mathematically it’s impossible but I swear the dof is just a touch larger at the same apertures then the f4 version. I love the lens and will probably swap over to that. The programmable button and oled screen is probably my favorite thing. You can program infinity and have access at a touch which is cool.
 
Joined
Feb 26, 2006
Messages
343
Location
Austria
Nasim Mansurov (photographylife.com) has tested the lens:
Nikon Z 24-70mm f/2.8 S: The Best 24-70mm Zoom on the Market

"So far, I have tested most 24-70mm f/2.8 lenses on the market, including Sony 24-70mm f/2.8 GM and Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM, and I can tell you that no other lens has shown this level of performance yet "

"If this is what Nikon is going to do with all of its upcoming Z mount lenses, then we are looking at a very promising future for the Nikon Z system."
 
Joined
Feb 26, 2006
Messages
343
Location
Austria
BTW, a stunning lens!
I cant post any pictures but my wife does weddings and the sharpness is incredible vs the old F 24-70. Can't wait for the 70-200/2.8
 
Joined
Oct 22, 2006
Messages
719
Location
Berkshire, England
Now this has been out for quite a while I'm interested to hear if anyone swapped from the f4 version to the f2.8 and regretted it. I'm feeling like I want to trade my f4 for the 2.8 as it feels odd going from the 2.8 on my D750 to an F4. Sometimes I wish I had that extra light or shallow dof. But I don't have a wide angle for my z right now, so unsure if I trade up to the 24-70/2.8 or get the 14-30. So looking for some more recent feedback on the 24-70/2.8 :)
 
Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
132
Location
NC, USA
Real Name
Aaron
The 24-70 2.8S is an amazing lens, and frankly has ruined my expectations of other lenses. I used to be perfectly happy with G primes, Sigma, Tamron, etc., but none live up to the 2.8S. As soon as the 14-24 and 70-200 2.8S lenses are available, I’m swapping the rest of my kit for them!
 
Joined
Jan 13, 2006
Messages
4,125
Location
Columbia, Maryland
Real Name
Walter Rowe
The 24-70 2.8S is an amazing lens, and frankly has ruined my expectations of other lenses. I used to be perfectly happy with G primes, Sigma, Tamron, etc., but none live up to the 2.8S. As soon as the 14-24 and 70-200 2.8S lenses are available, I’m swapping the rest of my kit for them!
I am in the same boat. At some point I anticipate replacing my F-mount 70-200/2.8 with the Z-mount 70-200/2.8. I have the Z-mount 24-70/4 S and still on the fence about getting the Z-mount 24-70/2.8 S. While I am sure the f/2.8 is spectacular, I like the light weight and size of the f/4, especially for travel and walk-around.
 
Joined
Oct 22, 2006
Messages
719
Location
Berkshire, England
This is exactly where I'm at right now Walter. The weight of the f4 is a great plus. But I wonder if I would be less likely to carry the 50 and 35 around as well so overall my carry weight would be less in some cases.
 
Joined
Dec 7, 2005
Messages
375
Location
MN, USA
This is exactly where I'm at right now Walter. The weight of the f4 is a great plus. But I wonder if I would be less likely to carry the 50 and 35 around as well so overall my carry weight would be less in some cases.
In the US, the 24-70 2.8 will apparently have a rebate in a couple days. By all reports, the 2.8S is an exceptional lens and I'm sorely tempted. It is hard to believe that it would replace the 50Z.
 
Joined
Jul 25, 2017
Messages
939
Location
Pittsburgh, PA
Real Name
Ian
The big thing I struggle with regarding the 24-70/2.8 (beyond the size & weight) is the price relative to the 24-70/4.

Can the f/2.8 lens justify its additional $1,700 over the f/4 when purchased in a kit? Given how good the f/4 lens performs, for me, the answer is “no”. Add in the fact that the f/4 lens collapses down for travel, and it makes it an even more resounding “no”.

Nikon hit a real home run with the 24-70 f/4 IMO, as it’s a fantastic lens.
 
Joined
Jan 22, 2019
Messages
1,069
Location
St. Charles, IL
Real Name
Andy
While I am sure the f/2.8 is spectacular, I like the light weight and size of the f/4, especially for travel and walk-around.
Nikon hit a real home run with the 24-70 f/4 IMO, as it’s a fantastic lens.
I agree. For my shooting needs, f/2.8 is much more valuable in the 70-200 than in the normal range. If I really need subject isolation or faster shutter speeds at the shorter focal lengths, I reach for a prime. Perhaps I'd feel differently if I shot more ambient light indoor events.
 
Joined
Mar 4, 2005
Messages
15,076
Location
Los Angeles, USA
The big thing I struggle with regarding the 24-70/2.8 (beyond the size & weight) is the price relative to the 24-70/4.

Can the f/2.8 lens justify its additional $1,700 over the f/4 when purchased in a kit? Given how good the f/4 lens performs, for me, the answer is “no”. Add in the fact that the f/4 lens collapses down for travel, and it makes it an even more resounding “no”.

Nikon hit a real home run with the 24-70 f/4 IMO, as it’s a fantastic lens.
The thing with the 24-70mm 2.8 lenses is that they serve a very specific need in certain scenarios, like shooting under the hoop at an NBA game. I think the difference between 2.8 and f4 differ enough in instances like blurring out the crowd. Plus if you're a pro, the cost will eventually pay itself off in a few shoots. I also noticed the Z version cost $100 less than the F-mount 24-70mm VR. I have no doubt Nikon will have a pro Z body announcement coming up in a few months, probably with the D6. Nikon probably just wanted to roll out the Z50 first for the holidays.
 
Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Nikon Cafe is a fan site and not associated with Nikon Corporation.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Copyright © 2005-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom