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.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.
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")."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.
There are really two main drivers of this behavior: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!