I know this debate might roll some eyes, so I appreciate your indulgence.
I've never been a huge fan of the 24-70 focal length zoom, but there's no doubt about its versatility. I find 24mm just wide enough, and 70mm not quite long enough.
For my Z6II, I'm back to considering the best bang for the buck to complement my 70-200 f/2.8 and 50m f/1.8. The Z 24-70 f/2.8 S is obviously a great lens, and while fairly big and expensive, it is no doubt worth the money if it's used frequently. It is top of mind for me right now. But...
My use case: the 70-200 gets most of the work for indoor shooting, including sports and events. f/2.8 is the minimum aperture requirement for me, so NONE OF THE F/4 LENSES ARE UNDER CONSIDERATION (not that they aren't spectacular lenses, but I need at least f/2.8).
The f/1.8 primes are enticing, but I just can't get myself to pull the trigger. Since I have the Z 50mm f/1.8, I'm looking at the 20mm and 24mm Z primes.
Who has gone through this same deliberation and conclusively landed on a solution? The price of the 24-70 is the main factor for me, but it's also likely worth the investment since Z is the future for Nikon (for now).
Am I missing something by not considering the non-S primes, like the 40mm or 28mm f/2?
I sold 24-70/2.8 for the primes. I’m a big fan of 16-35/2.8 but Nikon doesn’t have such kind of lens. 14-24 too bulky. And does not versatile as it needs to be. And I have the same thoughts about 24-70: just wide enough and not quite long. So in the Nikon's line up I prefer primes.
The 24-70 f2.8S is a gorgeous lens and really the only option in that range for an f2.8. But if you need f2.8 or lower, want wider and longer, and don’t like the cost of the 24-70 f2.8S, I think you’ve answered your own question. The 1.8S primes will take you further but will of course be less convenient with lens swapping.
Although heavy, it will be interesting to see if Tamron comes out with a z-mount equivalent of this:
I originally had both the 24-70/2.8 & 70-200/2.8 S lenses. I also had the 24, 35, 50 & 85 1.8 primes. It seemed to me I was wasting my money having both 1.8 primes & a 2.8 zoom at least below 70mm. I sold the 24-70 & use the 24-200 for that zoom range & use primes for anything more critical. I did keep the 70-200 though as I don’t have any primes in that range except the 85. Mostly I wanted a do-all travel lens that I could supplement the primes in where needed. So that was my rationale.
urbanwild wrote:
The 24-70 f2.8S is a gorgeous lens and really the only option in that range for an f2.8. But if you need f2.8 or lower, want wider and longer, and don’t like the cost of the 24-70 f2.8S, I think you’ve answered your own question. The 1.8S primes will take you further but will of course be less convenient with lens swapping.
Although heavy, it will be interesting to see if Tamron comes out with a z-mount equivalent of this:
Thank you- I appreciate you commenting. That Tamron does look interesting.
I think the convenience of the 24-70 may ultimately win out... For the type of shooting I do, I think not having to switch lenses will be the most important factor. And it's not like the Z 24-70 is a compromise, other than not being f/1.8.
The cost might just fall within the "embrace the suck" category.
I have the Z primes, 24 f1.8, 35 f1.8, 50 f1.8, 50 f1.2 and 85 f1.8 and they are all superb. I also have the 24-70 f2.8S and it is also superb, idiotically good for a zoom, IMO. At f2.8+, the 24-70 basically matches the primes but if you need below f2.8, then get the primes. I rarely use the primes in the 24-70 range as the 24-70 is so good, but if I want to shoot below f2.8, then the primes are it. I do use the 50 f1.2 quite a lot as it is just stunning. I also think the 24 f1.8 and 35 f1.8 sre underrated, although they do get good reviews on Photography Life and Camera Labs.
Surprised no one has recommended the 24-120mm f/4S. If you can deal with the F/4 aperture, the image quality on this lens is stellar, even wide open. And the price is right compared to the f/2.8 zoom. I have been surprised by it a number of times now. I bought this as an intermediate measure until I could pick up the 24-70mm f/2.8S somewhere down the road, but I am not sure I will at this point.
It really is a fantastic zoom. Pricey for sure but I’m taking a 10-year approach and I also bought mine used….completely spotless but saved a lot of money. That may be your approach if you can wait for a good price and then you will be closer to having both primes and the zoom for a better price
Good luck - you can’t go wrong either way!
Fivesense wrote:
Thank you- I appreciate you commenting. That Tamron does look interesting.
I think the convenience of the 24-70 may ultimately win out... For the type of shooting I do, I think not having to switch lenses will be the most important factor. And it's not like the Z 24-70 is a compromise, other than not being f/1.8.
The cost might just fall within the "embrace the suck" category.
I can relate somewhat to your question. I had the 24-70 G when I had the D850 and sort of soured on the 24-70 zoom as I really wanted the option of the sub 2.8 aperture on command. It was not about resolution but depth of field. I solved the problem on the Z7/Z7II by using a 28 1.4 adapted (an absolutely stunning lens on a Z7) and the 50 1.8s on 2 bodies. I also use the 70-200s as well. With this setup (add in the 85 1.8s) I can run the table on about anything I need. I just am not interested in sub 28mm photography and find that 28 gets it done. With the Z7 I have no problem using DX mode and both the 28 and 50 look just fine in DX mode for most work. I understand the strength of the 24-70Z but would rather carry the 2 bodies. But if I was doing paid work for events then sure the 24-70 works. The 28 and 70-200 combo though on the Z is absolutely the best setup I have used. The 28 in DX mode is great so I have 28/42 and then the best 70 out there in the 70-200. With my feet I have it covered.
If you are only thinking one body then try to find a way to get up to the Z7II. The extra resolution makes the DX mode work. You just cannot pull that off with the 24MP bodies the same way. It really adds a lot of flexibility in this area. I have one of my function buttons set up for DX mode so I can switch easily during an event. The 50 1.8s looks really good at 75mm on the Z7 as well.
The Z 24-70/2.8 is a really nice lens; although I have some of the Z f/1.8 primes, I mostly use the 24-70/2.8 as it practical and I haven't found anything not to like about it. I also don't consider the f/4 zooms as I need my lenses to produce good results also in indoor available light.
The 24-70/2.8 is as good as primes in that range -- if you can live with that focal range and f2.8 maximum aperture...
For me, 28 to 105 is my sweet-spot all-around zoom range. Plus when I want fast apertures, I want faster than f2.8. Which will explain why I no longer own either 24-70 zoom and have replaced them with the 24-120 and carry a few faster primes in that same range. This philosophy has served me admirably.
So all that said, I realize the question is an either/or -- so to clarify in the interests of versatility in slight wide to slight tele optics, the either/or scenario does not work for me and I need both
gear-nut wrote:
The 24-70/2.8 is as good as primes in that range -- if you can live with that focal range and f2.8 maximum aperture...
For me, 28 to 105 is my sweet-spot all-around zoom range. Plus when I want fast apertures, I want faster than f2.8. Which will explain why I no longer own either 24-70 zoom and have replaced them with the 24-120 and carry a few faster primes in that same range. This philosophy has served me admirably.
So all that said, I realize the question is an either/or -- so to clarify in the interests of versatility in slight wide to slight tele optics, the either/or scenario does not work for me and I need both ...Show more →
This. F4 + Nikon IBIS is pretty good for most use cases, and when it's not, I'd want something faster than 2.8 anyways.
