I think this is one of the great examples of what we see as photographers and what our clients will see. The cost of the 2.8 is so much more expensive than the f4, I’m not sure if the performance dictates getting the 2.8. Especially if you have other lens and primes to deal with low light.
I waited and waited for the 2.8 to launch for my Z6 but after 5 months of waiting and about 40 something paid gigs in that time frame where I used the 24-70f4 I’d have to say Nikon dropped the ball on this one. The F4 is an awesome lens. I’m sure the 2.8 is great but I really can’t justify the $2300 price tag. Obviously if they had made the 2.8 at launch that’s what I’d own but Nikon didn’t. All in all if you already have the F4, keep it and don’t look back or save the money from the upgrade and just get the 50mm 1.8 & the 35mm 1.8 if you really need to shoot below F4.
don't need an f 4, as any ND filter or the 2 x teleconvertor will drop the aperture to f 4 anyway ( 2 stops from f 2.8 is f 4), but most of us WANT the 2.8, if there isn't an f 4 around the price of the 2.8 WILL drop to reasonable levels, if an f 4 exists, a drop that far would be pointless ( steal the sales figures away from 2.8 version!).
@@andyvan5692 an f4 would cost half as much as the 2.8. A lot of us don't need the 2.8 or all the extra weight and size that goes along with it. An f4 that is the same quality as the 24-70 f4 would be amazing and sell by the boatload.
You can always adapt the F-mount version. Very sharp lens even adapted on the Z bodies. Nikon is working to get their key lenses out right now. Then they'll come in and fill in the gaps later (ie. they still need the macro lens, a telephoto zoom like a 100-400, and a few others, and then they can go back and do a 24-105 f/4 and 70-200 f/4).
@@HR-wd6cw I know. I just down own any other f mount lenses so I don’t own an f to z adapter and don’t really want to as it just makes the whole lens larger. Also the focus and sharpness on native mirrorless lenses is always better.
@@ivanrosas3512 I already sold the Z system and use Sony now. But the lens was fine. I had no problems with it, but have in mind I rarely shoot in low light and typically use primes when doing so.
I love the 24-70 f4 I’m surprised how similar the sharpness is. For what I’m doing I think I’m going to stick to the f4, as it is light and small and it keeps me shooting... Love your vids mate, keep it up!!!
really useful video, been thing of my lens plan. I think its worth getting the 24-70 f4 to have a lens with range, then to get a series of primes for DOF and sharpess, quality etc.
I’ve got the f4 and been thinking of getting the 2.8 but really not sure. I’m a wedding photographer and weight of the f4 is a real bonus if your carrying around all day! If I need faster glass I’ve got the 35, 50 and 85mm 1.8s lenses so speed isn’t an issue. I’ve got a 24-70 2.8 on my d810 and it’s not close to being as good as the z f4 version. Another thing is I really don’t like shooting at 2.8 as I find it a really bad depth of field, it’s neither deep or shallow, if that makes sense. The only time it’s really needed is in church but then you get the problem of getting bride and groom in focus so these days I’d rather either bump up the ISO and use f4 or use one of the 1.8’s and get a proper shallow depth of field. Think I might go for the 14-30 f4 and stick with the f4.
Great video! Nikon Z owners are going to be all over this comparison. You just answered the question burning in everyone's mind being how much better is the 2.8 over the 4.
We'll obviously the 2.8 at f4 will be sharper, I don't think anyone needed to watch the review to know that. The thing I'm concerned about is the build quality, as it appears the new 24-70mm 2.8 lens is not quite as well made as the 24-70mm 2.8E VR, which was quite a bit worse than the original G version. I'm not saying it's a crap or junk lens, but the original G version was made out of all metal. It's a shame that everything seems to be moving in the plastic direction. I know there are advantages to plastic, but I hate to see the build quality of the S lenses.
@@patricksmith2553 I would hope that a lens that cost $1300 more would perform better. The question wasn't if it was a better lens rather than how much better. Is it $1300 better? Or a person already owning the 24-70 4l better off using that money to get the 16-30 or the both primes.
@@JordanBrothersRacing I sold my f/4 a month ago in anticipation of the 2.8. Got the 2.8 yesterday, and though I obviously haven't been able to really put it through its paces yet, I HAVE spent a ton of time today thinking about returning the 2.8, and buying another f/4. The 2.8 is lovely.. but so was the f/4, and I don't really need the extra stop of light. I'm gonna spend some more time with it, but my initial reaction is that the f/4, for a third of the price seems like the way to go.
@@theshirtlessgamer8628 I've still got some time in my return window. I rented a f/4 which will be in my hands in a couple of days, and I'm gonna see how I feel. I still generally feel now, how I felt two weeks ago.. but I'm not 100% in on making the return yet
Great video; thank you. I have been able to replicate your results. I extended the analysis to include corners and extreme edges of the frames. Your results appear to hold up very well. Both lenses are very sharp in the corners, with the 2.8 version having an edge. While the results are clear on my monitor, particularly at 3:1, I doubt that they would be noticeable in the types of photographs that I typically take. So for me, the bigger difference will probably relate to the ability to use a lower ISO with the faster lens.
I watched a few of your reviews and must say. Very good job, it is helping me selecting which lenses I want over the next years using my newly aquired Z6. I own the 24-70 f4 which is as you show here a beast!
Greatly informative Ricci, thanks. I’m not sure at this point the marginal increase in picture quality, especially around f/8, will justify the price difference for me (plus bulk and weight). I’ll need to think about it some more.
I guess one way to look at this: Nikon gave us one heck of a deal on the F4 lens vs. the F2.8. Too often I have to shoot at F4 or smaller because the subject does not tolerate a very shallow depth of field. The extra light gathering of F2.8 is not doing me any favors. Even F4 can be a bit tight. Still, I watched your other videos where you compared the F4 and the F2.8 to the F mount 24-70mm and I suspected this would be a very close call. Still, I was impressed at the gains the F2.8 could achieve. If ever so small. Good work!
Obviously sharper AND more contrasty...at 100 percent! So yeah, for my job, the company can look forward to buying the 2.8. I'm at 70mm and 2.8 so often at my job, I really need that bonus sharpness. However, for personal travel, I'll take the f/4, thank you very much.
Well, is my bank balance going to take a hit for that nice shiny new f2.8 Z lens, no. I really cannot justify spending that much money on differences that are so small in normal use that they will almost be invisible unless I pixel peep. Also, I dont shoot enough portraits where that f2.8 shallow dof will be required, not sure what the bokeh will be like as that wasn't covered in the video. Photographers who shoot weddings, portraits and other subjects where a shallow dof is required will love this f2.8 variant of the Z24-70 but for me I will soldier on with the slightly worse image quality of the poor old 'kit' lens, and go on holiday instead. lol!! Thanks for the great video Ricci and for saving me some money.
I agree, in the mid-range I have the S 50 1.8 and 35 1.8 if the light drops too my for my 24-70 f/4, so I will skip the 2.8 24-70(already have the G and E 24-70 2.8 F mount and like the f/4 S better) and instead invest in a 70-200 S lens when it comes out. I tried a 70-200 f/4 F mount and was impressed by how that performed but my main use of the 70-200 is portraiture so will be very interested in an S version 2.8.
I think it would be interesting to see a comparison between the 24-70 2.8 and the 35 & 50 1.8 primes. Some people may be wondering if paying for the 2.8 would make more sense than paying for the 24-70 f4 plus the 2 primes for lower light situations.
@@chul9489 I wouldn't even get two primes per se... TBH the 24-70 4.0 Z lens is SHARP and the bokeh is JUST as good as a 50mm 1.8. I did tests and it actually looks better..so much that I want to return the 50mm 1.8 and get a 105mm 1.4 SIGMA or Nikon instead. The Z lenses are just too sharp and bokehtastic
dimitri teravanessian Jesus, so that can be really wired that an expensive large aperture prime lens performs similarly to the f4 zoom lens. What about the sharpness of 2470 f4, is it also as good as the 50 1.8?
@@chul9489 To be honest, for my Z6 body, the 24-70 4.0 is sharper than the 50 1.8. I can send you pictures if you want to see. Maybe because the 50mm 1.8 is F mount and not native to my Z mount. But 4.0 on Z is something else. Imagine the 24-70 2.8. Wow. But its 2300 dollars. Now I understand why.
Maybe that's why people referring bigger f stop lenses are faster lenses, not necessary sharper lenses anymore. Great review, such a pleasure owning the Z system while watching your video
Just bought the 24-70 2.8 and it is great! I hope you will do a comparison between the 24-70 2.8 and the 24, 35 and 50 mm 1.8 lenses. I really wonder how the zoom will do against the primes.
Just what I needed to know For the price, I don't think I will be getting the F/2.8 If I need Bokeh I will use my 85mm AI-s F/1.4 Legacy lens or my 135mm DF f/2 Thanks for taking the time to do this video
People seem to only associate fast lenses with shallow DOF. I think the ability to shoot at a lower ISO and get a significantly cleaner image (as shown in the above video) is more important than shallow DOF.
The 2.8 is sharper in the corners (not as noticeable on the Z6 as it is on the Z7 due to the higher resolution). But you have to zoom in a bit to see the sharpness differences. From normal viewing distances, it's not very ditinguishable. But the 2.8 is a sharper in the corners.
@@muhabbetkhan2703 The 2.8G (the older ED lens) is no match for the f/4. The f/4 comes out about equivalent to the latest F-mount 2.8E lens that has VR to put things into perspective. The 2.8 S lens just takes things up a notch in terms of sharpness.
Good test, however one suggestion/idea if I may. Sharpness is a thing but one thing that would be very useful is to understand how they perform in a real world, especially for color rendering and image feel.
Good to see how small the differences in resolution are. Other viewers/commenters pointed to edge & corner results and there was another commenter that states he reproduced your, Ricci, results with similar difference in the corners and edges of the frame. To me, the glare around the white D850 logo in the black surrounding gave the Z S f/4 away consistently. If that is not a digital artifact but an optical flaw, then I'd say that is where the biggest optical difference lies. F/4 to f/2.8 aside, I do find the additional features like the display on the f/2.8 make it more "professional". But it is bulkier and heavier. As I shoot primes only, a comparison with a fixed 24 and fixed 85 would add a lot of insight in how good these zooms are.
Excellent sharpness tests, thank you. Please compare bokeh quality. The f/2.8 has 9 blades vs f/4 7, I think. Moreover zooms are not known for their quality of bokeh. Does the f/2.8 substitute for a prime lens when it comes to bokeh?!
I'm on a smartphone and the difference is apparent immediately when zoomed in. That means people who crop heavily in post will want the 2.8. I think it's a much more professional lens and more expensive for a reason. Would clients actually notice the difference? Probably not. But the difference is there in my opinion. The f/4 is a kit lens and the f/2.8 is a pro lens and that's pretty much exactly how they positioned the pricing as well. You probably also wouldn't want to show up to pro shoots with the f/4 as it looks more like a plastic toy than a real lens, but again, my opinion.
Outstanding video Ricci! Very clear comparison between the two lenses. The picture quality on both are crisp and clear and sharp. Even on TH-cam video, the distinction between the two is visible and minimally different. I think your comparison will cause many to think hard about the f2.8 purchase if they already have the f4. When you do a future comparison on the 14-30 f2.8 and f4, I suspect it will reveal similar findings. Well done to Nikon for these amazingly sharp lenses and to you for the incredibly close comparison for the rest of us! Thank you!!! My question is, would you be able to show a video comparison between them on the Z6 at some point? Seeing the difference in picture quality would lead me to expect similar results on video although using a different camera body. Thoughts?
Will definitely be covering video on the 24-70mm F2.8 review and all of my video is done on a Z 6 so yeh I could thrown a comparison with the F4 into that video !
I just bought z6 with kit as a travel body to leave my 2.8s and pro bodies home. I cannot lie...the f4 blows me away and have no problem leaving my 24-70 2.8 home. I look forward to switching totally to z mount when more z bodies come out.
Obviously Nikon was telling the truth when she was advertising the z mount as the groundbreaking element of the new mirror less system. All Z lenses are extremely sharp and it seems that this has to do with the mount. To me there is a very small difference between those 2 lenses, and yes 2.8 is sharper, but the f4 (kit lens for some people) really rock... for half the money and weight. Ricci thank you, this video was an eye opener..
I have the 2.8 and am very satisfied in all respects. Having said this, I ask Mr. Ricci if he has done any tests with the 2.8 to ascertain how much the diaphragm can be closed in this lens without incurring diffraction. Thanks in advance for your kind reply. PS Ricci is a very common Italian surname in the City of Siena.
When will 24-105 get launched ?waiting to buy a new Z fullframe body with it. 24-105 may not be the most demanding lens among the Z users but its the most preferable lens for new buyers as a standard go to lens. Being n Sline lens
Z 24-70 f4 очень резкий по центру, но не очень по краям на открытой. Поэтому как раньше F mount 24-70 f2.8 был шикарным объективом и давал отличную картинку сравнимую с качественным фиксом по всему полю кадра, так и сейчас нужно брать z 24-70 f2.8 если занимаетесь фото для коммерции.
The 2.8 is MUCH sharper. Noticeable in real life and after editing? NO. BUT it is still the brighter and better lens (not in my scope by the way, I shoot primes).
Hello, Ricci, thanks for another instructive comparison. Just to share one thought prompted by your reference to turning the lights off and the necessary adjustments to ISO; throughout the comparisons I felt there was something happening here other than sharpness, namely clarity and light. In those images where you gave the 2.8 the sharpness advantage I found the image was brighter and the lettering, e.g. D850 was simply brighter and thus clearer rather than sharper. I'm not a professional and sit and your feet but would be interested in a comment from you. Sharpness is usually determined / interpreted by the human eye on the edges of objects and because of the variations in eyesight must remain subjective. Are there more objective criteria? Thanks and stay well, Gerry.
Hi nice review, so now I am more confused, if the difference is not much should I go ahead and get the f4 kit lens rather than exchanging it for f2.8 instead.
The F4 is so good you might not need the Pro level F2.8 as much as you think. The F4 is so sharp across the entire sensor you just can’t do much better
The one stop advantage at higher ISOs made a significant difference. Anyone who often encounters low light situations while shooting in natural light will have a big advantage with the faster lens.
Awesome vid. I was so confused which lens to get, since i am moving to mirrorless..being a landscape photographer..i think the f4 will suffice. Since i own the f2.8 already for dslr.
Love your reviews! Just traded my f4 for the new F2.8 yesterday! The F2.8 is considerable bigger and heavier than the F4, so I am happy to hear it is also considerable sharper. I have only taken a few pics of my daughter inside at 70 mm f/2.8, but so far I am very happy with the quality of the new lens!
Great video Ricci, as you say what drives people one way or another is unlikely to be IQ (until the 70MP cameras arrive!), it'll be the real world use case/style and how close to the edge of the optical envelop you really need to come. 👍
To me the colors look different. At first I thought it might be a difference in white balance, but I think what I'm actually seeing is more chromatic aberration on the f/4 lens. The white "D850" text looks cooler/more purple fringed in the f/4 images.
Very interesting. How does the bokeh compare? High quality bokeh is a challenge for a zoom design, often it is the more expensive model that has creamier bokeh even at the same apertures.
Useful review and clear comparison images, thank you Ricci. However, difficult to conclude that the differences are down to sharpness alone - I get the impression (albeit via TH-cam) that the 2.8 has better contrast and is slightly brighter throughout the aperture range. Contrast versus sharpness - would be great to have a quantitative measure! I wonder whether using a subject with a larger tonal range might be useful - the camera body is close to monochrome and sharpness is colour dependant.
Hi, i bought a Z6, but i dont have Full frame lenses, but i have 2 opcions for lens, the 24-70 Z f4 or 24-70 2.8 of the f series, witch one should I buy?
Great video! I'm not sure is it a thing, but I also noticed that there was some kind of color casting on the white letters on the f4 version. Not actually sure how to name this. I think it is kinda flash light glare on the white text. Maybe compare with constant light source would show sligtly different results. For me, on my display that unplaisent effect was more noticeble than difference in sharpness.
The F/4 is slightly warmer, brownish, the F/2.8 seems more neutral. Are both depicted at the same LR default, does LR at the time have a profile for the F/4 that has been on the market a bit longer? Or do they have a tint difference, really (would not surprise me.)
I have just purchased a 24-70 f4 s lens for my Z6 , but haven’t had time to use it yet. I also have a 24-70 f2.8 fx lens which actually works better on my Z6 then my Nikon D810 , as the G lens can use the in body image stabilisation of the Z6 as the lens didn’t have VR it is more likely to suffer camera shake on the D810 . I would like to see a review of the Nikon 24-70 2.8 fx against the 24-70 2.8 s lens
The price difference makes f/4 even more amazing... I had a 2.8, and is a great lens... Buuut only when zooming in so much like in the video.... For normal photography I think you wont see any difference whats so ever, maybe tiny edge sharpness. And yes, maybe the 2.8 version will last longer, but if you take care for your equipment than you are good to go even with f4... I sold a 2.8 version and bought a 24-70 f/4 and a Nikon D500 with a 35mm 1.8... The difference in images on my Z7II is the same honestly, but now I have another great body with good lens.... So its a no brainer for me at least.. If money was no object or if I was a pro than clearly a 2.8 would be my choice, but for a person who just loves photography f4 is more than enough and capable of producing stunning images...
Kit lens costs 500$/€ if you but it with body, it is no brainer, F2.8 is reserved for full time photographers, difrence is minimal, the rest are way better off with kit lens + 35 or 50 F1.8
Jep as i hoped. The 2.8 is sharper but im not buying it! The f4 is more then sharp enough for my daily use and i rarely shoot f4. I will be shooting alot with the 2.8 because im going to rent it for events . Thanks for an other great video the extra ISO comparison did it for me!
Is it me or did I notice a difference in the white color. The f2.8 whites looked more true to white. The f4 appeared to me to have an ever so slight red hue. Is that possible?
How do they seem to feel in terms of relative build quality? With F-mount lenses at least, the f/2.8 zooms are typically built like tanks whereas slower lenses tend to trade durability for lighter weight.
With this little difference, I am going for f/4 for 1/4th price and 1/2 weight. If one day I become that great photographer for whom that little difference would really matter, then I would switch..
Iove the F4 which I have, I do note that at 24mm and 70mm it is not extremely sharp but best sharpness I've seen for a zoom in it's class. I have this on my Z7, and notice that my 14-30 f4 is sharper, as you say Ricci at normal viewing distances the difference is negligible. i just picked up the 50mm 1.8s and oh wow , I'm saving and patiently waiting for the 100-400 and the 20mm 1.8s and then I'm done !
Excellent video, may I play devil's advocate and suggest the f4 may be a bad or less than average sample, the same could equally apply to the f2.8 lens, obviously we can't ever be sure one way or another, what is very encouraging is that we can have such a small and light 24-70 f4 which offers excellent performance and for the price it's quite remarkable!
Hey love your videos - for the comparisons between the high end/cheaper lenses it would be great if you could take pictures with each of the lenses in difference scenarios - e.g. landscape, portrait, sports, wildlife, etc, and in different lighting conditions to see what the best picture you can get out of each lens in each scenario. It's obviously a lot more work to do this but given the significant price difference its hard to really know what shots you're going to miss with an f4 vs an f2.8. The comparison above is brilliant but I would love to see the differences in some real scenarios rather than on a camera frame, and in particular to then highlight the conditions where the f4 can no longer keep up with the f2.8 - and obviously this is a factor of how well the sensor can handle high iso's so perhaps include use with a Z6 and Z7 - and I am assuming the Z6 low light performance will be slightly better than the Z7. Thanks again for taking the time.
Did you had to crank up your iso on the f4 to match the exposure of the 2.8? And if so is it that much more noise in the image. I'm just concerned about shooting indoor ambient in low light for events. Sharpness is not much of an issue for me but the noise would be
For me, based on what I could see over the internet, the f2.8 was the clear winner. BUT! Is the F4 good enough? It is a close call, but for professional work I choose the f2.8. Base on what I see over the internet.
I have reviewed most videos and can't find a comparison about 24-70 f4 with S mount and f2.8 with F mount. I am not sure which one is better to short portraits. Maybe give me some suggestions.
Thank you. I really appreciate your reviews. It has not altered my need to save for the 24-70 2.8, but I am happy to see they are very close in day to day shooting. I was a bit curious about corner to corner performance of the 2.8. Is it similar to the f4 version?
Nice comparison, Ricci! As a landscape and product STILLS X-T3 shooter (no video), I have been debating on selling my Fuji kit (reluctantly), and moving into FF, specifically the Nikon Z7. Since I shoot 99% tripod-mounted, neither IBIS nor video interests me. So, my question is, for large print output (around 24"x 36" prints), how much of an improvement in terms of image sharpness, detail rendition, dynamic range, base ISO performance, etc., would I see over the already excellent X-T3? Thanks!
Manu thanks for you video extremely interesting to me! I am changing from DSLR ti mirrorless camera and a would like to have clearly in mind wich lens suit best for me , i Will probably get Z6+ 24-200 thanks !
yo ricci. trying to decide between a 24 - 70 f4 z mount, or a used 24 - 120 f4 af-s with an adapter. any thoughts?i feel like for that focal range, af speed isnt particularly a high priority. does the old kit lens optics hold up? especially considering it can be had for $420 used?
Love your vids, thank you! Question: should the shots be aligned to the front of the lenses rather than camera body? It seems some shots are closer to the subject, thus rendering it slightly larger. I think that would mean that the closer lens is getting more pixels to render the same D850 logo. I could be mistaken, just a thought. Thanks again and keep up the great work!
I think this is one of the great examples of what we see as photographers and what our clients will see. The cost of the 2.8 is so much more expensive than the f4, I’m not sure if the performance dictates getting the 2.8. Especially if you have other lens and primes to deal with low light.
Thanks Ricci i got the f4 kit with the z6 I don’t need the2.8. Please keep up the good work
I waited and waited for the 2.8 to launch for my Z6 but after 5 months of waiting and about 40 something paid gigs in that time frame where I used the 24-70f4 I’d have to say Nikon dropped the ball on this one. The F4 is an awesome lens. I’m sure the 2.8 is great but I really can’t justify the $2300 price tag. Obviously if they had made the 2.8 at launch that’s what I’d own but Nikon didn’t. All in all if you already have the F4, keep it and don’t look back or save the money from the upgrade and just get the 50mm 1.8 & the 35mm 1.8 if you really need to shoot below F4.
The f/4 is so nice I'm actually a bit bummed I don't see a 70-200 f/4 on the roadmap.
don't need an f 4, as any ND filter or the 2 x teleconvertor will drop the aperture to f 4 anyway ( 2 stops from f 2.8 is f 4), but most of us WANT the 2.8, if there isn't an f 4 around the price of the 2.8 WILL drop to reasonable levels, if an f 4 exists, a drop that far would be pointless ( steal the sales figures away from 2.8 version!).
@@andyvan5692 an f4 would cost half as much as the 2.8. A lot of us don't need the 2.8 or all the extra weight and size that goes along with it. An f4 that is the same quality as the 24-70 f4 would be amazing and sell by the boatload.
@@andyvan5692 f/2.8 to f/4 is one stop.
You can always adapt the F-mount version. Very sharp lens even adapted on the Z bodies. Nikon is working to get their key lenses out right now. Then they'll come in and fill in the gaps later (ie. they still need the macro lens, a telephoto zoom like a 100-400, and a few others, and then they can go back and do a 24-105 f/4 and 70-200 f/4).
@@HR-wd6cw I know. I just down own any other f mount lenses so I don’t own an f to z adapter and don’t really want to as it just makes the whole lens larger. Also the focus and sharpness on native mirrorless lenses is always better.
I bought the f/4 version on discount with the camera. The price difference was huge, compared to the 2.8 version. Literally 4 to 1. Insane...
Do you have any problem with the iso at f4?
@@ivanrosas3512 I already sold the Z system and use Sony now. But the lens was fine. I had no problems with it, but have in mind I rarely shoot in low light and typically use primes when doing so.
I love the 24-70 f4 I’m surprised how similar the sharpness is. For what I’m doing I think I’m going to stick to the f4, as it is light and small and it keeps me shooting... Love your vids mate, keep it up!!!
Thanks a lot !
really useful video, been thing of my lens plan. I think its worth getting the 24-70 f4 to have a lens with range, then to get a series of primes for DOF and sharpess, quality etc.
I’ve got the f4 and been thinking of getting the 2.8 but really not sure. I’m a wedding photographer and weight of the f4 is a real bonus if your carrying around all day! If I need faster glass I’ve got the 35, 50 and 85mm 1.8s lenses so speed isn’t an issue. I’ve got a 24-70 2.8 on my d810 and it’s not close to being as good as the z f4 version. Another thing is I really don’t like shooting at 2.8 as I find it a really bad depth of field, it’s neither deep or shallow, if that makes sense. The only time it’s really needed is in church but then you get the problem of getting bride and groom in focus so these days I’d rather either bump up the ISO and use f4 or use one of the 1.8’s and get a proper shallow depth of field. Think I might go for the 14-30 f4 and stick with the f4.
Great video! Nikon Z owners are going to be all over this comparison. You just answered the question burning in everyone's mind being how much better is the 2.8 over the 4.
We'll obviously the 2.8 at f4 will be sharper, I don't think anyone needed to watch the review to know that. The thing I'm concerned about is the build quality, as it appears the new 24-70mm 2.8 lens is not quite as well made as the 24-70mm 2.8E VR, which was quite a bit worse than the original G version. I'm not saying it's a crap or junk lens, but the original G version was made out of all metal. It's a shame that everything seems to be moving in the plastic direction. I know there are advantages to plastic, but I hate to see the build quality of the S lenses.
@@patricksmith2553 I would hope that a lens that cost $1300 more would perform better. The question wasn't if it was a better lens rather than how much better. Is it $1300 better? Or a person already owning the 24-70 4l better off using that money to get the 16-30 or the both primes.
@@JordanBrothersRacing I sold my f/4 a month ago in anticipation of the 2.8. Got the 2.8 yesterday, and though I obviously haven't been able to really put it through its paces yet, I HAVE spent a ton of time today thinking about returning the 2.8, and buying another f/4. The 2.8 is lovely.. but so was the f/4, and I don't really need the extra stop of light. I'm gonna spend some more time with it, but my initial reaction is that the f/4, for a third of the price seems like the way to go.
TizOnly1 after two weeks do you still feel this way? :)
@@theshirtlessgamer8628 I've still got some time in my return window. I rented a f/4 which will be in my hands in a couple of days, and I'm gonna see how I feel.
I still generally feel now, how I felt two weeks ago.. but I'm not 100% in on making the return yet
Great video; thank you. I have been able to replicate your results. I extended the analysis to include corners and extreme edges of the frames. Your results appear to hold up very well. Both lenses are very sharp in the corners, with the 2.8 version having an edge. While the results are clear on my monitor, particularly at 3:1, I doubt that they would be noticeable in the types of photographs that I typically take. So for me, the bigger difference will probably relate to the ability to use a lower ISO with the faster lens.
Thanks!
Thank you for sharing this with us!
This is one of the best review videos I’ve seen on TH-cam. Straight to the point with perfect examples. Phenomenal work! Subbed!
Yes. Very straight forward to point. Not like the others videos talking a lot with pointless conclusion.
Looks like the F4 has better contrast in some shots to me
I watched a few of your reviews and must say. Very good job, it is helping me selecting which lenses I want over the next years using my newly aquired Z6. I own the 24-70 f4 which is as you show here a beast!
As a landscape photographer. Who hikes miles to each location and lives in the f8-f14 range. Clear win for f4.
Greatly informative Ricci, thanks. I’m not sure at this point the marginal increase in picture quality, especially around f/8, will justify the price difference for me (plus bulk and weight). I’ll need to think about it some more.
It's been 10 months now, and I'm curious. What did you decide/which one did you buy?
Subtle? At 3:47 the 2.8 was way more crisp and contrast as well as tac sharp. I have to say, the 2.8 hands down, the better lens. Excellent video.
I guess one way to look at this: Nikon gave us one heck of a deal on the F4 lens vs. the F2.8. Too often I have to shoot at F4 or smaller because the subject does not tolerate a very shallow depth of field. The extra light gathering of F2.8 is not doing me any favors. Even F4 can be a bit tight. Still, I watched your other videos where you compared the F4 and the F2.8 to the F mount 24-70mm and I suspected this would be a very close call. Still, I was impressed at the gains the F2.8 could achieve. If ever so small. Good work!
Thanks for watching !
Seems to me that that Nikkor Z 24-70 F4 would blow away the F mount 2.8 lens too.
I prefer 2,8, the weight is not a problem for me!
You’re dreaming. The Nikon F Mount 24-70mm f/2.8 non VR kicks ass all over the Z Mount.
Obviously sharper AND more contrasty...at 100 percent! So yeah, for my job, the company can look forward to buying the 2.8. I'm at 70mm and 2.8 so often at my job, I really need that bonus sharpness. However, for personal travel, I'll take the f/4, thank you very much.
Just got my Z6 and your videos are so helpful to me.
Well, is my bank balance going to take a hit for that nice shiny new f2.8 Z lens, no.
I really cannot justify spending that much money on differences that are so small in normal use that they will almost be invisible unless I pixel peep. Also, I dont shoot enough portraits where that f2.8 shallow dof will be required, not sure what the bokeh will be like as that wasn't covered in the video.
Photographers who shoot weddings, portraits and other subjects where a shallow dof is required will love this f2.8 variant of the Z24-70 but for me I will soldier on with the slightly worse image quality of the poor old 'kit' lens, and go on holiday instead. lol!!
Thanks for the great video Ricci and for saving me some money.
I agree 👍
I agree, in the mid-range I have the S 50 1.8 and 35 1.8 if the light drops too my for my 24-70 f/4, so I will skip the 2.8 24-70(already have the G and E 24-70 2.8 F mount and like the f/4 S better) and instead invest in a 70-200 S lens when it comes out. I tried a 70-200 f/4 F mount and was impressed by how that performed but my main use of the 70-200 is portraiture so will be very interested in an S version 2.8.
Well, I've shot two weddings with the 24-70 f4, 50mm 1.8, and Tamron G2 70-200 2.8. Worked well, got fantastic pics.
So what I'm hearing here is that this is the best kit lens of all time, ESPECIALLY for studio work where you'll probably be at f11+ anyway
Yes. I grabbed one after passing up with by new body. Should have just bought it as a kit.
I think it would be interesting to see a comparison between the 24-70 2.8 and the 35 & 50 1.8 primes. Some people may be wondering if paying for the 2.8 would make more sense than paying for the 24-70 f4 plus the 2 primes for lower light situations.
100% the 24-70 f4 with 2 primes.
dimitri teravanessian why bro
@@chul9489 I wouldn't even get two primes per se... TBH the 24-70 4.0 Z lens is SHARP and the bokeh is JUST as good as a 50mm 1.8. I did tests and it actually looks better..so much that I want to return the 50mm 1.8 and get a 105mm 1.4 SIGMA or Nikon instead. The Z lenses are just too sharp and bokehtastic
dimitri teravanessian Jesus, so that can be really wired that an expensive large aperture prime lens performs similarly to the f4 zoom lens. What about the sharpness of 2470 f4, is it also as good as the 50 1.8?
@@chul9489 To be honest, for my Z6 body, the 24-70 4.0 is sharper than the 50 1.8. I can send you pictures if you want to see. Maybe because the 50mm 1.8 is F mount and not native to my Z mount. But 4.0 on Z is something else. Imagine the 24-70 2.8. Wow. But its 2300 dollars. Now I understand why.
Thanks so much! This comparison helps me feel much better about keeping to the kit lens for now.
Hah...same way I feel ;)
Maybe that's why people referring bigger f stop lenses are faster lenses, not necessary sharper lenses anymore. Great review, such a pleasure owning the Z system while watching your video
Thanks for watching !
Oh man you saved me some $$$$. While I would love to get the 2.8 one day you proved the f4 is more than capable.
Here in Berlin is 09.30 pm and i am very happy about the video. Thanks for it. 🙂🙂🙂🙂🥇🏆🏆👍
Thanks for watching !
Looking forward to your next videos Ricci, I hope you do more!
That's how a quick comparative review should be done. Thanks!
Just bought the 24-70 2.8 and it is great! I hope you will do a comparison between the 24-70 2.8 and the 24, 35 and 50 mm 1.8 lenses. I really wonder how the zoom will do against the primes.
Just what I needed to know
For the price, I don't think I will be getting the F/2.8
If I need Bokeh I will use my 85mm AI-s F/1.4 Legacy lens or my 135mm DF f/2
Thanks for taking the time to do this video
People seem to only associate fast lenses with shallow DOF. I think the ability to shoot at a lower ISO and get a significantly cleaner image (as shown in the above video) is more important than shallow DOF.
A very detailed & professional comparison + it is easy to understand, thank you!
GREAT COMPARISON JOB. Lets you really see the quality differences between lenses. Thanks Ricci. Thanks to you I know which one to CHOOSE !!!
What about corners??
exactly. I asked that too.
@@gosman949 I think he should compare f2.8 S with f2.8 g, if comparing centers only !
The 2.8 is sharper in the corners (not as noticeable on the Z6 as it is on the Z7 due to the higher resolution). But you have to zoom in a bit to see the sharpness differences. From normal viewing distances, it's not very ditinguishable. But the 2.8 is a sharper in the corners.
@@muhabbetkhan2703 The 2.8G (the older ED lens) is no match for the f/4. The f/4 comes out about equivalent to the latest F-mount 2.8E lens that has VR to put things into perspective. The 2.8 S lens just takes things up a notch in terms of sharpness.
Their square.
Great comparison. I don't know how you get access to all the Nikon gear, your videos are really helpful.
Good test, however one suggestion/idea if I may. Sharpness is a thing but one thing that would be very useful is to understand how they perform in a real world, especially for color rendering and image feel.
Good to see how small the differences in resolution are. Other viewers/commenters pointed to edge & corner results and there was another commenter that states he reproduced your, Ricci, results with similar difference in the corners and edges of the frame. To me, the glare around the white D850 logo in the black surrounding gave the Z S f/4 away consistently. If that is not a digital artifact but an optical flaw, then I'd say that is where the biggest optical difference lies.
F/4 to f/2.8 aside, I do find the additional features like the display on the f/2.8 make it more "professional". But it is bulkier and heavier.
As I shoot primes only, a comparison with a fixed 24 and fixed 85 would add a lot of insight in how good these zooms are.
honestly the difference between these two lenses is tiny, I keep my f/4 and my money for the future z 70-200 2.8 😍😍 I can’t wait for this one !!
Excellent sharpness tests, thank you. Please compare bokeh quality. The f/2.8 has 9 blades vs f/4 7, I think. Moreover zooms are not known for their quality of bokeh. Does the f/2.8 substitute for a prime lens when it comes to bokeh?!
I'm on a smartphone and the difference is apparent immediately when zoomed in. That means people who crop heavily in post will want the 2.8. I think it's a much more professional lens and more expensive for a reason.
Would clients actually notice the difference? Probably not. But the difference is there in my opinion. The f/4 is a kit lens and the f/2.8 is a pro lens and that's pretty much exactly how they positioned the pricing as well.
You probably also wouldn't want to show up to pro shoots with the f/4 as it looks more like a plastic toy than a real lens, but again, my opinion.
It's a pretty good opinion.
Outstanding video Ricci! Very clear comparison between the two lenses. The picture quality on both are crisp and clear and sharp. Even on TH-cam video, the distinction between the two is visible and minimally different. I think your comparison will cause many to think hard about the f2.8 purchase if they already have the f4. When you do a future comparison on the 14-30 f2.8 and f4, I suspect it will reveal similar findings. Well done to Nikon for these amazingly sharp lenses and to you for the incredibly close comparison for the rest of us! Thank you!!!
My question is, would you be able to show a video comparison between them on the Z6 at some point? Seeing the difference in picture quality would lead me to expect similar results on video although using a different camera body. Thoughts?
Will definitely be covering video on the 24-70mm F2.8 review and all of my video is done on a Z 6 so yeh I could thrown a comparison with the F4 into that video !
I just bought z6 with kit as a travel body to leave my 2.8s and pro bodies home. I cannot lie...the f4 blows me away and have no problem leaving my 24-70 2.8 home. I look forward to switching totally to z mount when more z bodies come out.
Great video. Thanks for making them. It’d be really interesting to see the 24-70 vs the Nikkor primes in their respective focal lengths.
So like the Z 24-70 vs F mount 24mm f1.4 prime ?
Also, the f/4’s images were warmer.
Obviously Nikon was telling the truth when she was advertising the z mount as the groundbreaking element of the new mirror less system. All Z lenses are extremely sharp and it seems that this has to do with the mount. To me there is a very small difference between those 2 lenses, and yes 2.8 is sharper, but the f4 (kit lens for some people) really rock... for half the money and weight. Ricci thank you, this video was an eye opener..
I have the 2.8 and am very satisfied in all respects. Having said this, I ask Mr. Ricci if he has done any tests with the 2.8 to ascertain how much the diaphragm can be closed in this lens without incurring diffraction. Thanks in advance for your kind reply. PS Ricci is a very common Italian surname in the City of Siena.
Incredible results, and thank you very many !!
When will 24-105 get launched ?waiting to buy a new Z fullframe body with it. 24-105 may not be the most demanding lens among the Z users but its the most preferable lens for new buyers as a standard go to lens. Being n Sline lens
Z 24-70 f4 очень резкий по центру, но не очень по краям на открытой.
Поэтому как раньше F mount 24-70 f2.8 был шикарным объективом и давал отличную картинку сравнимую с качественным фиксом по всему полю кадра, так и сейчас нужно брать z 24-70 f2.8 если занимаетесь фото для коммерции.
That autofocus in your video is killing it! Really good! What are the settings?
This
I want to know too, And im wondering which camera profile he is using
The 2.8 is MUCH sharper. Noticeable in real life and after editing? NO. BUT it is still the brighter and better lens (not in my scope by the way, I shoot primes).
Hi! Did you also compare corner sharpness? Maybe the f4 can catch up in this regard…
greetings, Stephan
Hello, Ricci, thanks for another instructive comparison. Just to share one thought prompted by your reference to turning the lights off and the necessary adjustments to ISO; throughout the comparisons I felt there was something happening here other than sharpness, namely clarity and light. In those images where you gave the 2.8 the sharpness advantage I found the image was brighter and the lettering, e.g. D850 was simply brighter and thus clearer rather than sharper. I'm not a professional and sit and your feet but would be interested in a comment from you. Sharpness is usually determined / interpreted by the human eye on the edges of objects and because of the variations in eyesight must remain subjective. Are there more objective criteria? Thanks and stay well, Gerry.
Hi nice review, so now I am more confused, if the difference is not much should I go ahead and get the f4 kit lens rather than exchanging it for f2.8 instead.
I'm on the same dilema, i own the 24-70mm F4 but want the 2.8 🤔
Hi ricci. Im trying to make my mind Can u pls compare both in backlight situation n low light AF performance? Which one do suggest for weddings?
Would have been really nice to see the kit lens as f2.8-3.5 or f4 at the tele end instead of constant f4.
The F4 is so good you might not need the Pro level F2.8 as much as you think. The F4 is so sharp across the entire sensor you just can’t do much better
The one stop advantage at higher ISOs made a significant difference. Anyone who often encounters low light situations while shooting in natural light will have a big advantage with the faster lens.
Awesome vid. I was so confused which lens to get, since i am moving to mirrorless..being a landscape photographer..i think the f4 will suffice. Since i own the f2.8 already for dslr.
Love your reviews! Just traded my f4 for the new F2.8 yesterday! The F2.8 is considerable bigger and heavier than the F4, so I am happy to hear it is also considerable sharper. I have only taken a few pics of my daughter inside at 70 mm f/2.8, but so far I am very happy with the quality of the new lens!
Thank you for watching ! Great to hear you like it ! It produces some truly amazing pictures.
How’d you trade it? That’s awesome.
Great video Ricci, as you say what drives people one way or another is unlikely to be IQ (until the 70MP cameras arrive!), it'll be the real world use case/style and how close to the edge of the optical envelop you really need to come. 👍
To me the colors look different. At first I thought it might be a difference in white balance, but I think what I'm actually seeing is more chromatic aberration on the f/4 lens. The white "D850" text looks cooler/more purple fringed in the f/4 images.
Very interesting. How does the bokeh compare? High quality bokeh is a challenge for a zoom design, often it is the more expensive model that has creamier bokeh even at the same apertures.
Useful review and clear comparison images, thank you Ricci. However, difficult to conclude that the differences are down to sharpness alone - I get the impression (albeit via TH-cam) that the 2.8 has better contrast and is slightly brighter throughout the aperture range. Contrast versus sharpness - would be great to have a quantitative measure! I wonder whether using a subject with a larger tonal range might be useful - the camera body is close to monochrome and sharpness is colour dependant.
Many thanks for this awesome comparison! Do you have any update on 58/0.95? When will it be on sale?
Hi, i bought a Z6, but i dont have Full frame lenses, but i have 2 opcions for lens, the 24-70 Z f4 or 24-70 2.8 of the f series, witch one should I buy?
I prefer the 24-70 F4 over the Fmount 24-70 2.8
The Z 24-70 f2.8 being the best of the lot
@@RicciTalks thanks Ricci!
Great video! I'm not sure is it a thing, but I also noticed that there was some kind of color casting on the white letters on the f4 version. Not actually sure how to name this. I think it is kinda flash light glare on the white text. Maybe compare with constant light source would show sligtly different results. For me, on my display that unplaisent effect was more noticeble than difference in sharpness.
Hi, thanks for the video. What I miss is the difference in the depth of field. That is what makes the difference for me. Do you have data on that?
The F/4 is slightly warmer, brownish, the F/2.8 seems more neutral. Are both depicted at the same LR default, does LR at the time have a profile for the F/4 that has been on the market a bit longer? Or do they have a tint difference, really (would not surprise me.)
When are we going to get a new video Ricci? I’ve been loving your Nikon Z videos, but it’s been over a month since you posted a new one.
Yeah, this guy is so good.
In the next few days...
been travelling for a few weeks and spent a lot of time with my Z6 and Z7
Ricci Talks - Excellent.
I have just purchased a 24-70 f4 s lens for my Z6 , but haven’t had time to use it yet. I also have a 24-70 f2.8 fx lens which actually works better on my Z6 then my Nikon D810 , as the G lens can use the in body image stabilisation of the Z6 as the lens didn’t have VR it is more likely to suffer camera shake on the D810 .
I would like to see a review of the Nikon 24-70 2.8 fx against the 24-70 2.8 s lens
The price difference makes f/4 even more amazing...
I had a 2.8, and is a great lens... Buuut only when zooming in so much like in the video.... For normal photography I think you wont see any difference whats so ever, maybe tiny edge sharpness.
And yes, maybe the 2.8 version will last longer, but if you take care for your equipment than you are good to go even with f4...
I sold a 2.8 version and bought a 24-70 f/4 and a Nikon D500 with a 35mm 1.8...
The difference in images on my Z7II is the same honestly, but now I have another great body with good lens....
So its a no brainer for me at least..
If money was no object or if I was a pro than clearly a 2.8 would be my choice, but for a person who just loves photography f4 is more than enough and capable of producing stunning images...
Kit lens costs 500$/€ if you but it with body, it is no brainer, F2.8 is reserved for full time photographers, difrence is minimal, the rest are way better off with kit lens + 35 or 50 F1.8
Full time photographer here and I’ve been using the F4 for about 5 months now and haven’t looked back.
Thank you so much your tests. are the best, straight forward and very technical
Great review. Not sure if I missed itinerary your review but is the f4 just a bit (but noticeably) wider at 24mm than the f2.8?
Jep as i hoped. The 2.8 is sharper but im not buying it! The f4 is more then sharp enough for my daily use and i rarely shoot f4. I will be shooting alot with the 2.8 because im going to rent it for events . Thanks for an other great video the extra ISO comparison did it for me!
Is it me or did I notice a difference in the white color. The f2.8 whites looked more true to white. The f4 appeared to me to have an ever so slight red hue. Is that possible?
How do they seem to feel in terms of relative build quality? With F-mount lenses at least, the f/2.8 zooms are typically built like tanks whereas slower lenses tend to trade durability for lighter weight.
Do you think the 2.8 is worth the extra cost? I shoot as an enthusiast, not a pro.
With this little difference, I am going for f/4 for 1/4th price and 1/2 weight. If one day I become that great photographer for whom that little difference would really matter, then I would switch..
I miss you on TH-cam Ricci!!!
Iove the F4 which I have, I do note that at 24mm and 70mm it is not extremely sharp but best sharpness I've seen for a zoom in it's class. I have this on my Z7, and notice that my 14-30 f4 is sharper, as you say Ricci at normal viewing distances the difference is negligible.
i just picked up the 50mm 1.8s and oh wow , I'm saving and patiently waiting for the 100-400 and the 20mm 1.8s and then I'm done !
Why oh why use a test image with no detail except in the center?
Excellent video, may I play devil's advocate and suggest the f4 may be a bad or less than average sample, the same could equally apply to the f2.8 lens, obviously we can't ever be sure one way or another, what is very encouraging is that we can have such a small and light 24-70 f4 which offers excellent performance and for the price it's quite remarkable!
That is always a possibility however I have access to many copies of both lenses and the results are all the same.
Just wondering are the barrels of the lens, both outside and the inside which moves in and out made up of metal or plastic? By the way nice review.
Great video Ricci! One question - how did the edge sharpness compare between the two lenses? Similar results?
Hey love your videos - for the comparisons between the high end/cheaper lenses it would be great if you could take pictures with each of the lenses in difference scenarios - e.g. landscape, portrait, sports, wildlife, etc, and in different lighting conditions to see what the best picture you can get out of each lens in each scenario. It's obviously a lot more work to do this but given the significant price difference its hard to really know what shots you're going to miss with an f4 vs an f2.8. The comparison above is brilliant but I would love to see the differences in some real scenarios rather than on a camera frame, and in particular to then highlight the conditions where the f4 can no longer keep up with the f2.8 - and obviously this is a factor of how well the sensor can handle high iso's so perhaps include use with a Z6 and Z7 - and I am assuming the Z6 low light performance will be slightly better than the Z7. Thanks again for taking the time.
Did you had to crank up your iso on the f4 to match the exposure of the 2.8? And if so is it that much more noise in the image. I'm just concerned about shooting indoor ambient in low light for events. Sharpness is not much of an issue for me but the noise would be
thanks for the great video, can you post raw files?
For me, based on what I could see over the internet, the f2.8 was the clear winner. BUT! Is the F4 good enough? It is a close call, but for professional work I choose the f2.8. Base on what I see over the internet.
It's a nice critical analysis by you.
I have reviewed most videos and can't find a comparison about 24-70 f4 with S mount and f2.8 with F mount. I am not sure which one is better to short portraits. Maybe give me some suggestions.
Thank you. I really appreciate your reviews. It has not altered my need to save for the 24-70 2.8, but I am happy to see they are very close in day to day shooting. I was a bit curious about corner to corner performance of the 2.8. Is it similar to the f4 version?
Nice comparison, Ricci! As a landscape and product STILLS X-T3 shooter (no video), I have been debating on selling my Fuji kit (reluctantly), and moving into FF, specifically the Nikon Z7. Since I shoot 99% tripod-mounted, neither IBIS nor video interests me. So, my question is, for large print output (around 24"x 36" prints), how much of an improvement in terms of image sharpness, detail rendition, dynamic range, base ISO performance, etc., would I see over the already excellent X-T3? Thanks!
Thanks for posting this. Wish you'd test edge & corner sharpness.
Manu thanks for you video extremely interesting to me!
I am changing from DSLR ti mirrorless camera and a would like to have clearly in mind wich lens suit best for me , i Will probably get Z6+ 24-200 thanks !
yo ricci. trying to decide between a 24 - 70 f4 z mount, or a used 24 - 120 f4 af-s with an adapter. any thoughts?i feel like for that focal range, af speed isnt particularly a high priority. does the old kit lens optics hold up? especially considering it can be had for $420 used?
Hi Ricci, thanks for the video. What about the edges? Did you check it out?
ditto
Love your vids, thank you! Question: should the shots be aligned to the front of the lenses rather than camera body? It seems some shots are closer to the subject, thus rendering it slightly larger. I think that would mean that the closer lens is getting more pixels to render the same D850 logo. I could be mistaken, just a thought. Thanks again and keep up the great work!
Always helpful. Thank you!
I have the Z f4. Stunning lens
Thanks! Did you take a look at corner sharpness?