I might have an older one that hasn't disappointed me yet until my trip to Mt Rainier a few weeks ago. All of my photos are blurry except for the middle of the frame. I was shooting tripod or 1/1000s when handheld so it's not a user issue. I have a Nikon D850.
This is the 2nd of your videos I’ve watched B2B. I’m a hand held panoramic fan too and I’m using the D850 and waiting on my Z7 II to arrive: from your other video I’m planning on buying the 24-200. I’m finding your reviews very useful ~ thank you
Thank you for sharing! Your photos are amazing! My favorite lens when using my Nikons D750 and D800, was Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8. Now I have to buy the Z lens version to use it on my brand new Nikon Z6II. Sending positive energies to you from São Paulo, Brazil!
I have purchased the 85 1.2 and the 50 mm 1.2 and since I had a 24 to 70 F4 I did not think it was necessary to buy the 24 to 70 2.8 but after your review and others I have taken the plunge and I think it arrives tomorrow.
I currently have the Z 50mm f1.2 and I’m considering trading in my Z 24mm f1.8 for this zoom. The 24mm is a nice lens but I keep hearing great things about the f2.8 standard zoom.
We are in the process of changing out our studio space so we haven’t made any videos in awhile, but one of the next videos up is my full landscape photography kit… but I can say that the 24-70 is no longer part of it because of the 24-120
Great Video, I enjoyed the real life samples! Just the music was super annoying, either remove it entirely or choose something less obtrusive and tune it down a lot👍
I’ve finally decided to get the Z7ii however, the lens selection is where I am on the fence. I am between two options, 24-70 f2.8 vs 20, 50, 85 f1.8s. So simply once zoom lens vs 3 primes specially that the prices of the two selections are very similar. What are your thoughts?
That’s tough!! For me it would come down to if you want to shoot Astro or not. The 20 1.8 is a killer Astro lens and would be worth the prime set up. You could also do the 24-200 and the 20 for the same price as the 24-70 ( plus or minus a little). That’s actually the Nikon kit I’m considering moving forward
I shoot a Nikon Z 7ii and all the 1.8S primes plus the 2.8S macro lens. Shooting Nikon since some 45 years, their robustness, sharp lenses and support network were the decisive factor. To a professional, the brand was attractive as Nikon did no entry (price) cameras for decades. My recurring rant was twofold: (i) chromatic aberration (CA), (ii) differences in color tone (tint) between lenses. My 1.4G lenses did not silence the CA complaint and leading up to the Z system, I commented in all sorts of places of the rumor mill that absence of CA was more important to me than a hair more sharpness. These prayers got answered to great satisfaction. In the past, I felt that zoomlenses weren't good enough optically. Henri Cartier-Bresson would say that "sharpness is a bourgeois concept", maybe, but he shot excellent Leica primes and a fine grain B&W film (his statement is pejorative from an upperclass guy who went to art school to in his eyes narrow minded citizens with zero appreciation for art). Well, the zooms were slower in max aperture, gave a lot of bulk and weight and would look more intimidating to a posing model. Using primes only taught me what each lens does and I can walk a landscape, site location, studio and now know what perspective which lens gives from what point of view, including the angle. The photo is in my head before I take it. This is important with film when you cannot really spray and pray, or with 8" x 10" when setting up the camera to look at its matte glass and make the tilt/shift/swing/etc corrections takes significant time. It helps with reportage to stand in place A, see a shot from place B, walk there while mounting the proper lens, and making the shot. So, the "S" class Z zoom lenses are really good and have taken away the recurring rant of the past too. They are about as sharp as the primes and the difference in that is not worth any fuss. But they are still bigger and heavier and will impact my ability to see photos in my brain. In the case of most shoots I bring two cameras, each with a prime so I do not have to swap lenses. Provided I have done some reconnaissance to the location and know what I can expect. Yes, the 24-70/2.8S is incredibly good, and the 85/1.8S is about the sharpest lens "out there" (to the point you want skin smoothing software that maintains a healthy natural look ...) Or, it depends. And is a matter of taste, I guess.
@@jpdj2715 What a deep response. Many thanks and much appreciated though it’s a bit late as I got the 24-70 2.8 already. I wish this was posted earlier
@@mahdiali6732 - thank you for letting me know. "My pleasure". Well, you bought an awesome lens with that and have to swap lenses less than I have, which also means less sensor cleaning. My country's Nikon Service Center (where I go for sensor cleaning) is nearby, but prevention of dirt in the camera is even better ;) . Don't mourn this acquisition, and come back to YT comment sections when, after, you have shot 10,000 conscious individual shots as that is the number you need, to train your brain to see the 2D image of the 3D world. That's really the number, there are no shortcuts, and science predicts we cannot be predictably good below 9,950. JFDI - Just Fotographically Do It and persistence and focus build the talent you hope to find here, but will not.
Yes! This lens and the z system are great for weddings. You should check out this channel for lots of videos on shooting weddings with the z system th-cam.com/users/TaylorJacksonPhoto
I have noticed no difference using a lens with the display vs not. While by its very nature it does have to use some battery power, my guess is that it is a tiny, tiny amount. Interestingly I have found the display more useful on both the 14-24 and 70-200, but it’s still nice to have on the 24-70
Thank you so much! On Nikon I use auto WB 99% of the time. I shoot raw as well so I change in post but I find Nikon does a great job in auto for white balance
I primarily shoot raw. If I shoot JPEG, it's next to raw so as to be able to hand out images in short time after the shoot - raw needs post processing. So what about WB? Well, to a raw file, the WB is just a number that tells, e.g., Lightroom Classic (LrC) how to open the raw file. With that I am saying that the WB number does not impact the exposure data recorded from the camera's scanning of the sensor and the AD conversion (the sensor is colorblind and analog, but "sees" the entire humanly visible spectrum). So, if we only shoot raw, then especially the auto-WB number might as well be forgotten. Because, the camera needs to run its AI to analyze your frame and decide what WB light avails at that scene. Imagine a model in a red dress in a white corridor, or a bride in a beautiful multi-coloured dress with dominating gold, yellow, reds and browns. For the camera to guess what the WB of the light in these scenes might have been is really difficult as the camera does not generally see the light source but the reflection from the subject instead. This may be academically exciting if you study that branch of AI called "computer vision" in research university, but in today's every-day's photographer's life, it probably means latency at the moment you press the shutter release. And if it does not add latency then it adds energy consumption from processing, so I keep my camera at "Cloudy" all the time. This causes LrC (or Nikon NX Studio) to open my raw files as if that had been the light. Shots at sunset actually look like they got shot at sunset. And shots midday in summer look rather blue like the real world. But JPEG shots may show an exaggeration of these effects and you would need to help the camera with that as you have little headroom for correction in post with them (other than generating new JPEGs in post). At my latitude on this globe, "cloudy" also works out well too with flash photography with Nikon SB800/910. I do shoot reference shots on location or in studio of my color reference card (X-Rite's ColorChecker Passport) and these reference shots are associated with a sequence in the same light with the same lens and settings. Using these reference shots to generate color correction profiles specific to camera+lens+light+location combinations, applying such a profile in LrC makes everything very neutral (an an ideal start to apply your artistic varnish over them). But, shoot JPEG or MPEG and you need to be careful. Personally, in such cases, I would still measure WB with a reference grey card and set that in the camera. Again, minding the light in reality and how to reflect that in our shots may be very important. If you are in direct sunlight at sunset and adjust WB to that, the sunset effect is lost. Note that shadows are terribly blue at that, which they already are at sunset because the red light is not refracted as much in the atmosphere whereas the shorter wavelength blue light is refracted almost at 90 degrees, it seems, and dominates the shade for that - meaning that lowering the WB makes the shade even more blue. There's not a lot of deep problem solving in here, just a few heuristics and being on guard. That all said, Nikon's AI behind the auto WB is pretty good. Note that the (color, rendition, in-camera raw processing) profiles can have big impact on JPEG/MPEG shots in the first place and you really need to experiment with them. Some YT sources have mentioned that having a flat or neutral in-camera camera profile resulted in different (less) sharpening of their "raw" shots. Such a statement is a question mark to me and it may only apply to the raw-ish movie format, not stills (the jury is out and I'm on the fence here). I shoot stills, and own and shoot Nikon Z 7ii with all the 1.8S primes plus the 2.8S macro lens (after I owned the Z 7 from FW version 2..3.1) and have been a Nikon single digit F and D shooter with prime primes since about 45 years, next to Hasselblad 500 series and 8" x 10" large format film.
![เปิดบ้าน นาราเครปกระเทย 1 ไร่ ขายขาดทุนหลัก10ล้าน เอามาใช้หนี้!!! l [Nickynachat]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/0jz84VFWVP4/mqdefault.jpg)
Have you used this lens? What do you think about a 24-70 for landscape?
I might have an older one that hasn't disappointed me yet until my trip to Mt Rainier a few weeks ago. All of my photos are blurry except for the middle of the frame. I was shooting tripod or 1/1000s when handheld so it's not a user issue. I have a Nikon D850.
I use my 14-30 f4 , 24-70 S f2.8 and 70-200 f2.8 S lens for Landscapes
Got to use the z7 and the 24-70 at a wedding recently and didn’t mind it as a Sony user
This is the 2nd of your videos I’ve watched B2B. I’m a hand held panoramic fan too and I’m using the D850 and waiting on my Z7 II to arrive: from your other video I’m planning on buying the 24-200. I’m finding your reviews very useful ~ thank you
The first picture that you showed with the sunset is my favorite. It looks so beautiful.
Thanks So much!
Thank you for sharing! Your photos are amazing! My favorite lens when using my Nikons D750 and D800, was Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8. Now I have to buy the Z lens version to use it on my brand new Nikon Z6II. Sending positive energies to you from São Paulo, Brazil!
I have purchased the 85 1.2 and the 50 mm 1.2 and since I had a 24 to 70 F4 I did not think it was necessary to buy the 24 to 70 2.8 but after your review and others I have taken the plunge and I think it arrives tomorrow.
I currently have the Z 50mm f1.2 and I’m considering trading in my Z 24mm f1.8 for this zoom. The 24mm is a nice lens but I keep hearing great things about the f2.8 standard zoom.
I don’t have experience with the 24 1.8 but I have hard time thinking you would be disappointed with the results of the 24-70
You know I usually FF through intro music on TH-cam videos, but I really dig your sharp guitar riff intro.
I had a F mount 24-70 nikon and ditched it for the Sigma Art. Now with my new z7ii I’m thinking of going back to the Nikon
In your experience, would you go for the 28mm f/2.8 lens or 28mm-75mm f/2.8 lens. I have a z5 with a 50mm f/1.8 lens
How would this compare to new 24-120mm in your opinion?
So I now have the 24-120 and can say that the 24-120 is just as sharp. It’s good enough I’m actually in the process of selling the 24-70
@@summitbidhave you done any comparisons? Is the edge sharpness pretty decent when stopped down?
What is your current landscape kit? Did you help the 24-70mm?
We are in the process of changing out our studio space so we haven’t made any videos in awhile, but one of the next videos up is my full landscape photography kit… but I can say that the 24-70 is no longer part of it because of the 24-120
Great Video, I enjoyed the real life samples! Just the music was super annoying, either remove it entirely or choose something less obtrusive and tune it down a lot👍
At 11:38 you should show us your process for the pano stitch
Great images. Love it. I have been considering 24-70 mm Z lens, but haven't pull the trigger as I mostly shoot portraits.
I’ve finally decided to get the Z7ii however, the lens selection is where I am on the fence. I am between two options, 24-70 f2.8 vs 20, 50, 85 f1.8s. So simply once zoom lens vs 3 primes specially that the prices of the two selections are very similar. What are your thoughts?
That’s tough!! For me it would come down to if you want to shoot Astro or not. The 20 1.8 is a killer Astro lens and would be worth the prime set up. You could also do the 24-200 and the 20 for the same price as the 24-70 ( plus or minus a little). That’s actually the Nikon kit I’m considering moving forward
I shoot a Nikon Z 7ii and all the 1.8S primes plus the 2.8S macro lens. Shooting Nikon since some 45 years, their robustness, sharp lenses and support network were the decisive factor. To a professional, the brand was attractive as Nikon did no entry (price) cameras for decades. My recurring rant was twofold: (i) chromatic aberration (CA), (ii) differences in color tone (tint) between lenses. My 1.4G lenses did not silence the CA complaint and leading up to the Z system, I commented in all sorts of places of the rumor mill that absence of CA was more important to me than a hair more sharpness. These prayers got answered to great satisfaction. In the past, I felt that zoomlenses weren't good enough optically. Henri Cartier-Bresson would say that "sharpness is a bourgeois concept", maybe, but he shot excellent Leica primes and a fine grain B&W film (his statement is pejorative from an upperclass guy who went to art school to in his eyes narrow minded citizens with zero appreciation for art).
Well, the zooms were slower in max aperture, gave a lot of bulk and weight and would look more intimidating to a posing model.
Using primes only taught me what each lens does and I can walk a landscape, site location, studio and now know what perspective which lens gives from what point of view, including the angle. The photo is in my head before I take it. This is important with film when you cannot really spray and pray, or with 8" x 10" when setting up the camera to look at its matte glass and make the tilt/shift/swing/etc corrections takes significant time. It helps with reportage to stand in place A, see a shot from place B, walk there while mounting the proper lens, and making the shot.
So, the "S" class Z zoom lenses are really good and have taken away the recurring rant of the past too. They are about as sharp as the primes and the difference in that is not worth any fuss. But they are still bigger and heavier and will impact my ability to see photos in my brain.
In the case of most shoots I bring two cameras, each with a prime so I do not have to swap lenses. Provided I have done some reconnaissance to the location and know what I can expect. Yes, the 24-70/2.8S is incredibly good, and the 85/1.8S is about the sharpest lens "out there" (to the point you want skin smoothing software that maintains a healthy natural look ...)
Or, it depends. And is a matter of taste, I guess.
@@jpdj2715 What a deep response. Many thanks and much appreciated though it’s a bit late as I got the 24-70 2.8 already. I wish this was posted earlier
@@mahdiali6732 - thank you for letting me know. "My pleasure". Well, you bought an awesome lens with that and have to swap lenses less than I have, which also means less sensor cleaning. My country's Nikon Service Center (where I go for sensor cleaning) is nearby, but prevention of dirt in the camera is even better ;) .
Don't mourn this acquisition, and come back to YT comment sections when, after, you have shot 10,000 conscious individual shots as that is the number you need, to train your brain to see the 2D image of the 3D world. That's really the number, there are no shortcuts, and science predicts we cannot be predictably good below 9,950. JFDI - Just Fotographically Do It and persistence and focus build the talent you hope to find here, but will not.
@@jpdj2715 in 2019 I shot more than 20,000 shots 😁
Brilliant 24-70 review, thanks for sharing
My fav Z Lens
It is good for hybrid weddings?
Yes! This lens and the z system are great for weddings. You should check out this channel for lots of videos on shooting weddings with the z system th-cam.com/users/TaylorJacksonPhoto
Do you know if that display on the lens would use more of your battery?
I have noticed no difference using a lens with the display vs not. While by its very nature it does have to use some battery power, my guess is that it is a tiny, tiny amount. Interestingly I have found the display more useful on both the 14-24 and 70-200, but it’s still nice to have on the 24-70
It is the new 24-120 lens for me! Please review it.
Love your images, what setting do you use for White balance?
Thank you so much! On Nikon I use auto WB 99% of the time. I shoot raw as well so I change in post but I find Nikon does a great job in auto for white balance
I primarily shoot raw. If I shoot JPEG, it's next to raw so as to be able to hand out images in short time after the shoot - raw needs post processing. So what about WB? Well, to a raw file, the WB is just a number that tells, e.g., Lightroom Classic (LrC) how to open the raw file. With that I am saying that the WB number does not impact the exposure data recorded from the camera's scanning of the sensor and the AD conversion (the sensor is colorblind and analog, but "sees" the entire humanly visible spectrum). So, if we only shoot raw, then especially the auto-WB number might as well be forgotten. Because, the camera needs to run its AI to analyze your frame and decide what WB light avails at that scene. Imagine a model in a red dress in a white corridor, or a bride in a beautiful multi-coloured dress with dominating gold, yellow, reds and browns. For the camera to guess what the WB of the light in these scenes might have been is really difficult as the camera does not generally see the light source but the reflection from the subject instead. This may be academically exciting if you study that branch of AI called "computer vision" in research university, but in today's every-day's photographer's life, it probably means latency at the moment you press the shutter release. And if it does not add latency then it adds energy consumption from processing, so I keep my camera at "Cloudy" all the time. This causes LrC (or Nikon NX Studio) to open my raw files as if that had been the light. Shots at sunset actually look like they got shot at sunset. And shots midday in summer look rather blue like the real world. But JPEG shots may show an exaggeration of these effects and you would need to help the camera with that as you have little headroom for correction in post with them (other than generating new JPEGs in post). At my latitude on this globe, "cloudy" also works out well too with flash photography with Nikon SB800/910. I do shoot reference shots on location or in studio of my color reference card (X-Rite's ColorChecker Passport) and these reference shots are associated with a sequence in the same light with the same lens and settings. Using these reference shots to generate color correction profiles specific to camera+lens+light+location combinations, applying such a profile in LrC makes everything very neutral (an an ideal start to apply your artistic varnish over them).
But, shoot JPEG or MPEG and you need to be careful. Personally, in such cases, I would still measure WB with a reference grey card and set that in the camera. Again, minding the light in reality and how to reflect that in our shots may be very important. If you are in direct sunlight at sunset and adjust WB to that, the sunset effect is lost. Note that shadows are terribly blue at that, which they already are at sunset because the red light is not refracted as much in the atmosphere whereas the shorter wavelength blue light is refracted almost at 90 degrees, it seems, and dominates the shade for that - meaning that lowering the WB makes the shade even more blue. There's not a lot of deep problem solving in here, just a few heuristics and being on guard. That all said, Nikon's AI behind the auto WB is pretty good. Note that the (color, rendition, in-camera raw processing) profiles can have big impact on JPEG/MPEG shots in the first place and you really need to experiment with them. Some YT sources have mentioned that having a flat or neutral in-camera camera profile resulted in different (less) sharpening of their "raw" shots. Such a statement is a question mark to me and it may only apply to the raw-ish movie format, not stills (the jury is out and I'm on the fence here). I shoot stills, and own and shoot Nikon Z 7ii with all the 1.8S primes plus the 2.8S macro lens (after I owned the Z 7 from FW version 2..3.1) and have been a Nikon single digit F and D shooter with prime primes since about 45 years, next to Hasselblad 500 series and 8" x 10" large format film.
@@jpdj2715 Thanks for detail explanation. Thank you!
Unfortunately l find the 2.8’s a little expensive but that coz they are a great lens.
Great videos, you have a new sub tks
nice pics
👍🏾🙏🏾
Sounds like you need a 24 to 120!