Z 24-70mm F4 produces nice bohke

Joined
Nov 3, 2018
Messages
139
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
The depiction of out-of-focus bohke is excellent, considering this is a zoom lens. It is as good as a macro lens. I used my Z7 with Z 24-70mm F4 at F4, ISO64, shutter 1/350 - 1/500. Both JPEG straight from the camera.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Mar 20, 2017
Messages
1,224
Location
Central Ohio
Real Name
Andrew
In all honesty, the Z24-70/4 lens is way better than most people might think.

I rarely need more than f/4 and if i do need faster apertures, that is why I have my prime lenses. Given the MTF charts Nikon has released, sharpness between both Z24-70's is so close, that I think that Nikon will have a hard time getting people to adopt the f/2.8 version for quite some time.
 
Joined
Dec 30, 2015
Messages
100
Location
Kent, United Kingdom
In all honesty, the Z24-70/4 lens is way better than most people might think.

I rarely need more than f/4 and if i do need faster apertures, that is why I have my prime lenses. Given the MTF charts Nikon has released, sharpness between both Z24-70's is so close, that I think that Nikon will have a hard time getting people to adopt the f/2.8 version for quite some time.
I totally agree with the comments about the quality of the '24-70 kit' lens, it is an exceptional lens and sits on my camera 90% of the time. I have some AF primes and some aged MF primes to play around with if I need something faster but f/4 is normally good enough.
 

Butlerkid

Cafe Ambassador
Moderator
Joined
Apr 8, 2008
Messages
20,917
Location
Rutledge, Tennessee
Real Name
Karen
Actually, for me, the backgrounds in these images look very busy and distracting. But my only experience is FF and DX camera bodies. But I certainly would hesitate to buy the 24-70 f4 if subject isolation was important (and to me it is...).
 
Joined
Nov 3, 2018
Messages
139
Well, as for the background, this was the best I could do with f/4 wide-open.... Nikon may be saying ... "I told you, you'd better get a Z 24-70/f2.8 in a hurry!"
 
Joined
Jul 25, 2017
Messages
955
Location
Pittsburgh, PA
Real Name
Ian
I've gotta say, the last image is the only one with ok looking bokeh, as images 1-3 do not substantiate your claim (and let's not confuse bokeh with DoF, as they are not the same thing).

Don't get me wrong, the 24-70 f/4 is a great lens, but it's not a "cream machine" when it comes to the bokeh.
 
Joined
Nov 3, 2018
Messages
139
"Bokhe", I think, is the term referring to the depiction of the area which is outside of the DOF.
By the way, I showed two pictures for each of the two shots; the original and a 50% zoom.
 
Joined
Jul 25, 2017
Messages
955
Location
Pittsburgh, PA
Real Name
Ian
"Bokhe", I think, is the term referring to the depiction of the area which is outside of the DOF.
By the way, I showed two pictures for each of the two shots; the original and a 50% zoom.
Yes, I'm well aware of the definition of bokeh (which is why I said "let's not confuse bokeh with DoF, as they are not the same thing").

The quality of the OOF areas isn't great. Specular highlights have a strong outline, and the interior isn't smooth. Busy backgrounds such as branches have hard edges on them. Etc. But again, this isn't an f/1.4 prime lens. It's an f/4 zoom lens, and it's a damn good one.
 
Joined
Mar 4, 2005
Messages
15,224
Location
Los Angeles, USA
What I don't get with lens manufacturers nowadays (now that there are mirrorless cameras), is that no one wants to make AF lenses that are similar to RF glass with that rich creamy, artsy style OOF rendering. Everyone wants to future proof for 100mp FF sensors! I get so bored with critical sharpness, because even a cheap 50mm 1.8 lens is sharp. Most lenses perform adequately enough, it really comes down to the photographers. There are no modern lenses that interest me anymore, outside of maybe PF telephoto glass. Everything else has been done.

Heck I don't even like how modern movies are filmed. Everything is so sharp with HD, it's like they boosted unsharp mask by like 200! Considering the footage is digital, maybe they should tone down the details a bit in post! :eek:
 
Joined
Jul 25, 2017
Messages
955
Location
Pittsburgh, PA
Real Name
Ian
What I don't get with lens manufacturers nowadays (now that there are mirrorless cameras), is that no one wants to make AF lenses that are similar to RF glass with that rich creamy, artsy style OOF rendering. Everyone wants to future proof for 100mp FF sensors! I get so bored with critical sharpness, because even a cheap 50mm 1.8 lens is sharp. Most lenses perform adequately enough, it really comes down to the photographers. There are no modern lenses that interest me anymore, outside of maybe PF telephoto glass. Everything else has been done.

Heck I don't even like how modern movies are filmed. Everything is so sharp with HD, it's like they boosted unsharp mask by like 200! Considering the footage is digital, maybe they should tone down the details a bit in post! :eek:
There are really two main drivers of this behavior:
  • A focus on data-driven results (i.e. quantifiable results vs. qualitative results)
  • Catering to your modern-day "reviewers" (both YouTube and online).
Regarding quantifiable vs. qualitative, people like knowing that the money they spend gets them as good of a product as possible. What's the easiest way to judge this? NUMBERS! We see it in camera bodies with things like dynamic range, and we see it in lenses with things like MTF results. It's much easier to look at a number and say "A > B" than it is to look and judge something based on color science or focus transition. Those qualitative attributes are difficult to describe and compare, unlike quantitative results which are not.

Just because a Canon EOS R has worse dynamic range performance than an A7III or Z6, doesn't make it a bad camera. The same goes for a lens like the Nikon 58/1.4 G. On paper, it's an absolutely terrible lens. But talk to people that shoot with it regularly, and more times than not they'll tell you that there's just something "special" about it that keeps them coming back.

As for the "reviewers", as the number of camera stores continue to shrink and decline, more and more people are reliant upon reviews to help them spend their money (whether it be purchasing an item, or spending a few hundred bucks to rent it for the weekend). These reviewers default back to using quantitative assessment methods (see two paragraphs above this one), because it allows them to compare a new item to one they may've reviewed years ago.


Trust me, I get it. Nikon has some of this great "qualitative" glass in lenses like the 58/1.4 G, 85/1.4 G, etc. However, if Nikon kept making glass like that all people would hear about is how "Nikon's lenses aren't as sharp as Canon/Sony/Sigma", and people wouldn't buy it. It's an unfortunate reality in the camera market today, but it is what it is...
 

Latest posts

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