Omg I miss u man. I used to watch you regularly. Randomly searched for a 24-70 lens reviews and you came up Man wow. So glad you still make content❤❤❤❤❤❤❤
Interesting results, I replaced my F mount 24-70 f/2.8 with the Z version and found it difficult to tell the difference when printed, the F mount seemed a little bit warmer. Even though I have the Z 24-70 f/2.8, I more frequently reach for the Z 24-120 f/4 when just out walking about. Even though it’s a stop slower, the background bokeh is still pleasing and for it’s price, it is a great value as well.
@@vision-gc4hy I don’t regret purchasing the f/2.8 at all, the extra stop is really appreciated in a lot of low light situations, and it’s IQ is as good or better as any zoom lens available on the market. Like the fantastic Z 70-200mm and Z 14-24 f/2.8’s, they are still my go to lenses in critical situations.
@@Interbeing_CDN I don't regret purchasing it. It's useful for events and portraits. BUT, I'm mostly throwing my camera in a backpack and commuting. Lots of walking around in an urban environment. I feel like I should be using it instead of the F4 version because I paid a mint for it. But the F4 is so small and compact, it wins as the commute lens.
I owned the 24-70 2.8 S and it is a lens lens with stunning rendition. I had the 85 1.8 S as well, but that lens never did it for me. The 24-70 2.8 S on the other hand just had it. Beautiful colors and beautiful bokeh. I would give that lens without hesitation a 10/10 score.
Nice to see the Z 24-70 f4.0 S did that well. My Z 9 arrived while I was on an extended trip and I didn't have a Z lens with me so I had the body shipped to me and bought one of those lenses because it was the only used Z mount lens at the local camera store. I was surprised at how good it seemed for such a relatively inexpensive lens and have been using it now for nine months. It's nice to see that it really is as good as I thought it was. Seeing how you can get them used for about US$400 it's a superb lens for the money.
Omg I miss u man. I used to watch you regularly. Randomly searched for a 24-70 lens reviews and you came up Man wow. So glad you still make content❤❤❤❤❤❤❤
Spectacular video. I really like this approach because all that can be found in youtube is just isolated opinions. I specially liked the section where you showed the autofocus speed.
Really interesting! Please, please, please make a similar test with the rest of the "trinity"! 14-24 vs the rest and 70-200 vs the rest. It will be even more interesting. Thanks for this video Matt
Just got my FIRst Nikon, the Z6 iii a few weeks ago so far with only one lens the 14-30 f4 for my real estate work. I'm looking at another versatile lens ideally f 2.8 at least Nikkor z, 3rd party or older F mount options. It's end of year 2024. Any suggestions at this point? Obviously, I'm looking at the 24-70 options as well as 35-150, etc.
This was interesting. Would have been nice to add the 28-75 as well, but I guess that's not technically a 24-70. I 'hate' that it's a price gouged Tamron, although I guess that was the deal to get a licence for Tamron Z lenses. It's a shame, as it means nikon users will pay a premium for the 70-180 as well, once that comes out. So with that in mind, I think a cool test would be comparing an adapted 28-75 (E to Z), vs the 'nikon' branded one. I have been considering that approach for the 70-180 for a while, but still not committed. Especially with used lenses (option for a KEH plug), the tamron + adapter would probably be a loooot cheaper than native.
Portrait photographs for testing the picture quality of 24-70mm lenses is not very reasonable to me ... I'd expected landscape and architecture photos and how they'd look near the edges. Your test would suit more for 85mm lenses 🙂
Exactly. The 24-70G is sharpish in the center but not in the mids or corners until stopped right down, so OK for portraits centered but not so much for other things. I had that lens for years and it was quite OK in real life shooting but no where near the Z lens from a technical point. I'm actually using a lot more F-mount lenses recently where I want character and"a loo" other than clinical perfection. I use them on my Z's and DSLRs...
since I had to learn the hard way that my old Sigma 24-70 wouldn't focus on my Z6, I got me the 28-75/2.8. Works really well, the "real" 24-70/2.8 is just way to expensive, and doing festivals & concerts, f4 is not enough for me
Occasionally you can find the F-mount 24-70 2.8E (VR) lens for as low as $1800 after some rebates from Nikon (usually during sales). If that's the case, you could pick that one up. Otherwise, you might as well spend the extra $200 if you don't already have a 24-70 and want a 2.8 lens, and get the 2.8 S lens (versus the VR F-mount lens). If you don't need 2.8, the f/4 S lens is very good too especailly for the money (although the 24-120 f/4 might be a better value overall). I wouild only get the F-mount VR version if you are upgrading from the 2.8G (non-VR) version AND you still have DSLR you are planning to use -- then it may make sense to get the 2.8E VR version, but otherwise, it doesn't make much sense over the 2.8 S Nikon Z version. One thing I have heard people say (although I never had two lenses side by side myself to compare) is that some people felt their F-mount lenses woulid AF faster on the Z cameras than they would on their DSLRs so that's something to consider. Assuming the same camera is used between the lens comparisons (I'm sure it is) this should still give a pretty good idea of the AF speed differences but it's something worth noting. Obviously, I don't think the F-mount performaned any worse on the Z which would be a letdown if they did. At worst, people said they didn't notice a difference and that may be the case (especially with the older F-mount lenses like the older 2.8G lens -- the non VR lens -- which may use an older AF motor design than the newer F-mount and the Z lenses.
This video mostly makes me feel good. I purchased a used Z6 and used 24-70 2.8G months back as a budget upgrade. I've been pleased with its results and at the time I got it even cheaper than the Z 24-70 f4. At times I wish for the f4 when the weight of the FTZ and 2.8 begin to get to me, but hey.....exercise!
Thanks for the vid. Since my primary use for this focal length range would be landscape & nature, I would of like to see how they handled sun glare. Not shooting directly into, (unless the sun star thing) but in general. Do you know if anyone is making extension tubes for the Z system as of yet?
Thanx for great vedio. I have the 24-70 tamron g2 . Which i have noticed that it needs focus calipration also it was used on z5 using ftz adaptor. Did you faced any issue like this before?
I was facing the same issue using my older dslr d7200. And i bought the z5 to overcome this issue as i heared that mirrorless cameras doen't need calipration
Hi Matt, it's too late to watch this video from the bunch, but i got a doubt to clear, i already own a 24-70 f2.8 and a 70-200 f2.8, first one is the ED regular one and the later one is the G2 one. Both are affected by fungus, and not giving any sharpness anymore! Would you suggest clean them and keep it to use or sell it and buy the new gen ones, budget matters! TIA @mattgranger And as usual, a very valuable content you have shared this time as well! Congrats!
For video I think that VR is a most since IBIS does some weird warping, that you might not notice in still images. In that regard the Z system hasn’t really any choice I think.
I will introduce the concept Ralph Gibson made, 'The Visual Signature' which actually refer to the focal length rather than how you visualize the view angel of the particular lens you are using. Nevertheless I do recognize differences between the Tamron and Sigma (especially) on one hand and the other four Nikkor lenses on the other hand, especially the S 2,8 lens. What I actually look for is how well pronounced the lenses create the conception of space and air in the picture. The Nikkor S 24-70 mm/2,8S is over all superior and the Sigma 24-70mm/2,8 the worst. I will not claim the differences are huge but they are visible though. This phenomenon has to do with the accuracy of the light refraction due to how well the lens is optically corrected of coarse. This is even more visible with Sigma lenses like 35 mm/1,4 Art and 85mm/1,4 Art.
No surprise there... The winner is definitely and obviously the Editor. I never thought Tamaron as a good lenses. To meny problems. Sigma can be occasionally o.k. but if u want to get it right u need a nikon brand 24-70. The z f4 s preformed horrible on the z6. They were Both sold in two month. I dislike the nikon f4 line.
Six 24-70 lenses compared, SAMPLE FILES: geni.us/2470s
The 5 Day Sale is NOW LIVE: geni.us/fivedaydeal - use this link for the free Bonus!
Omg I miss u man. I used to watch you regularly. Randomly searched for a 24-70 lens reviews and you came up
Man wow. So glad you still make content❤❤❤❤❤❤❤
Interesting results, I replaced my F mount 24-70 f/2.8 with the Z version and found it difficult to tell the difference when printed, the F mount seemed a little bit warmer. Even though I have the Z 24-70 f/2.8, I more frequently reach for the Z 24-120 f/4 when just out walking about. Even though it’s a stop slower, the background bokeh is still pleasing and for it’s price, it is a great value as well.
Me too. I feel kinda bad because I paid so much for the 2.8.
@@vision-gc4hy I don’t regret purchasing the f/2.8 at all, the extra stop is really appreciated in a lot of low light situations, and it’s IQ is as good or better as any zoom lens available on the market. Like the fantastic Z 70-200mm and Z 14-24 f/2.8’s, they are still my go to lenses in critical situations.
@@Interbeing_CDN I don't regret purchasing it. It's useful for events and portraits. BUT, I'm mostly throwing my camera in a backpack and commuting. Lots of walking around in an urban environment. I feel like I should be using it instead of the F4 version because I paid a mint for it. But the F4 is so small and compact, it wins as the commute lens.
The title should have read "Best...for Nikon Z"
To make it look less like a clickbait title
I owned the 24-70 2.8 S and it is a lens lens with stunning rendition. I had the 85 1.8 S as well, but that lens never did it for me. The 24-70 2.8 S on the other hand just had it. Beautiful colors and beautiful bokeh. I would give that lens without hesitation a 10/10 score.
Nice to see the Z 24-70 f4.0 S did that well. My Z 9 arrived while I was on an extended trip and I didn't have a Z lens with me so I had the body shipped to me and bought one of those lenses because it was the only used Z mount lens at the local camera store. I was surprised at how good it seemed for such a relatively inexpensive lens and have been using it now for nine months. It's nice to see that it really is as good as I thought it was.
Seeing how you can get them used for about US$400 it's a superb lens for the money.
Be nice if you included the 28-75mm Z-lens.
Omg I miss u man. I used to watch you regularly. Randomly searched for a 24-70 lens reviews and you came up
Man wow. So glad you still make content❤❤❤❤❤❤❤
Spectacular video.
I really like this approach because all that can be found in youtube is just isolated opinions.
I specially liked the section where you showed the autofocus speed.
About 85% of my travel photos has been shot on Tamron 24-70 2.8 (gen1). I recently purchase the G2 version and it feels so good in the hands.
Really interesting! Please, please, please make a similar test with the rest of the "trinity"! 14-24 vs the rest and 70-200 vs the rest. It will be even more interesting. Thanks for this video Matt
Just got my FIRst Nikon, the Z6 iii a few weeks ago so far with only one lens the 14-30 f4 for my real estate work. I'm looking at another versatile lens ideally f 2.8 at least Nikkor z, 3rd party or older F mount options. It's end of year 2024. Any suggestions at this point? Obviously, I'm looking at the 24-70 options as well as 35-150, etc.
This was interesting.
Would have been nice to add the 28-75 as well, but I guess that's not technically a 24-70.
I 'hate' that it's a price gouged Tamron, although I guess that was the deal to get a licence for Tamron Z lenses.
It's a shame, as it means nikon users will pay a premium for the 70-180 as well, once that comes out.
So with that in mind, I think a cool test would be comparing an adapted 28-75 (E to Z), vs the 'nikon' branded one. I have been considering that approach for the 70-180 for a while, but still not committed. Especially with used lenses (option for a KEH plug), the tamron + adapter would probably be a loooot cheaper than native.
Portrait photographs for testing the picture quality of 24-70mm lenses is not very reasonable to me ... I'd expected landscape and architecture photos and how they'd look near the edges. Your test would suit more for 85mm lenses 🙂
Exactly. The 24-70G is sharpish in the center but not in the mids or corners until stopped right down, so OK for portraits centered but not so much for other things. I had that lens for years and it was quite OK in real life shooting but no where near the Z lens from a technical point. I'm actually using a lot more F-mount lenses recently where I want character and"a loo" other than clinical perfection. I use them on my Z's and DSLRs...
awesome vid. any chance you'll get to try the z 24-120 f4? would love your thoughts on that and the z 24-200 and z 50-250 lenses.
since I had to learn the hard way that my old Sigma 24-70 wouldn't focus on my Z6, I got me the 28-75/2.8. Works really well, the "real" 24-70/2.8 is just way to expensive, and doing festivals & concerts, f4 is not enough for me
It would be really interesting to me how the 17-55 would compare to this lenses as Nikon never released a successor
I had that lens on my D80. Nikon pretty much abandoned pro DX lenses.
Really pertinent video Matt! Thank you very much!
Iv ended up with both nikon 24-70 none vr and vr ii , the image difference isnt noticeable used on tripods
Great timing for this video. Currently, looking at getting a lens upgrade.
Occasionally you can find the F-mount 24-70 2.8E (VR) lens for as low as $1800 after some rebates from Nikon (usually during sales). If that's the case, you could pick that one up. Otherwise, you might as well spend the extra $200 if you don't already have a 24-70 and want a 2.8 lens, and get the 2.8 S lens (versus the VR F-mount lens). If you don't need 2.8, the f/4 S lens is very good too especailly for the money (although the 24-120 f/4 might be a better value overall). I wouild only get the F-mount VR version if you are upgrading from the 2.8G (non-VR) version AND you still have DSLR you are planning to use -- then it may make sense to get the 2.8E VR version, but otherwise, it doesn't make much sense over the 2.8 S Nikon Z version.
One thing I have heard people say (although I never had two lenses side by side myself to compare) is that some people felt their F-mount lenses woulid AF faster on the Z cameras than they would on their DSLRs so that's something to consider. Assuming the same camera is used between the lens comparisons (I'm sure it is) this should still give a pretty good idea of the AF speed differences but it's something worth noting. Obviously, I don't think the F-mount performaned any worse on the Z which would be a letdown if they did. At worst, people said they didn't notice a difference and that may be the case (especially with the older F-mount lenses like the older 2.8G lens -- the non VR lens -- which may use an older AF motor design than the newer F-mount and the Z lenses.
Well, I'm glad I'm holding to my ED.
It's a little unwieldy on sony bodies but I'm really hoping for a z5 ii to have z9 af with dual SD.
Interesting results. It would be interesting to test this out with a Nikon Z6 for these lens. I think all are pretty good when using the Nikon Z9.
This video mostly makes me feel good. I purchased a used Z6 and used 24-70 2.8G months back as a budget upgrade. I've been pleased with its results and at the time I got it even cheaper than the Z 24-70 f4. At times I wish for the f4 when the weight of the FTZ and 2.8 begin to get to me, but hey.....exercise!
Thanks for the vid. Since my primary use for this focal length range would be landscape & nature, I would of like to see how they handled sun glare. Not shooting directly into, (unless the sun star thing) but in general. Do you know if anyone is making extension tubes for the Z system as of yet?
Thanx for great vedio. I have the 24-70 tamron g2 . Which i have noticed that it needs focus calipration also it was used on z5 using ftz adaptor. Did you faced any issue like this before?
I was facing the same issue using my older dslr d7200. And i bought the z5 to overcome this issue as i heared that mirrorless cameras doen't need calipration
I'll stick with my Nikon 24-70 f/2.8 G lens. Bought used for $750 USD. Works well with FTZ on Z6.
$7.50? wow
750
Leica SL 24-70 is a stunner - not to be forgotten
Awesome video Thanks 🌹🙏
so... which is which?
05:35
@@mattgranger thanks Matt, I've skipped AF comparison (not so important for me as bokeh and skin rendering); you make a great job
How about the 28-70 F2 AKA The 24-70 Destroyer?
? You mean the canon? It’s not a 24-70
@@mattgranger yeah but it can fit in this
Hi Matt, it's too late to watch this video from the bunch, but i got a doubt to clear, i already own a 24-70 f2.8 and a 70-200 f2.8, first one is the ED regular one and the later one is the G2 one. Both are affected by fungus, and not giving any sharpness anymore! Would you suggest clean them and keep it to use or sell it and buy the new gen ones, budget matters! TIA @mattgranger And as usual, a very valuable content you have shared this time as well! Congrats!
Am I stupid or he never addressed which lens are which.
For video I think that VR is a most since IBIS does some weird warping, that you might not notice in still images. In that regard the Z system hasn’t really any choice I think.
I will introduce the concept Ralph Gibson made, 'The Visual Signature' which actually refer to the focal length rather than how you visualize the view angel of the particular lens you are using. Nevertheless I do recognize differences between the Tamron and Sigma (especially) on one hand and the other four Nikkor lenses on the other hand, especially the S 2,8 lens. What I actually look for is how well pronounced the lenses create the conception of space and air in the picture. The Nikkor S 24-70 mm/2,8S is over all superior and the Sigma 24-70mm/2,8 the worst. I will not claim the differences are huge but they are visible though. This phenomenon has to do with the accuracy of the light refraction due to how well the lens is optically corrected of coarse. This is even more visible with Sigma lenses like 35 mm/1,4 Art and 85mm/1,4 Art.
No surprise there...
The winner is definitely and obviously the Editor.
I never thought Tamaron as a good lenses. To meny problems. Sigma can be occasionally o.k. but if u want to get it right u need a nikon brand 24-70.
The z f4 s preformed horrible on the z6. They were Both sold in two month. I dislike the nikon f4 line.
4