saaketham wrote:
Anyone sell or return this lens in favor of the less expensive z 24-70/120 options?
I am debating whether to keep it or get the 24-120 f/4 or 24-70 f/4 for much less $.
Thanks in advance.
Not I. The f2.8 is a lens I'll keep for a very long time. I sold the f4 version which I loved for its size, but at the end of the day, f2.8 really comes in handy. I sold the previous 24-120 happily for the 24-70 f2.8 and I can't see myself doing that roundtrip again, even with the Z version being an improved model. The 24-120 is perfect for those who only want one lens that can do most things reasonably well (especially if 2.8 isn't needed), but for those serious enough to have a little lens collection, I don't see the benefits of this lens.
I have the 24-200 for hikes, kayaking and the light walk-around where IQ is of less importance to me. While not a perfect lens, it fills this niche perfectly. For all other uses, I like the f2.8 in that range.
saaketham wrote:
Anyone sell or return this lens in favor of the less expensive z 24-70/120 options?
I am debating whether to keep it or get the 24-120 f/4 or 24-70 f/4 for much less $.
Thanks in advance.
I won't.
You never know
* when you will need f/2.8 to create "depth" in an image, even when posting on social media
* when your background is so cluttered that you need to use depth of field so that people know what the image is about
* when you will have sharp black on white contrasts and don't have time to fix in post because you need to use the image straight out of the camera.
* when your background is such that it would amplify any faults in the rendering of out-of-focus areas.
The image shows how the 24-70mm f/2.8 S handles all of these issues.
Anyone have the front section start to wiggle a bit? Mine started getting a bit loose about 6 months after I got it but now it seems a tad worse. I will send it in soon I guess...
Ai_Print wrote:
Anyone have the front section start to wiggle a bit? Mine started getting a bit loose about 6 months after I got it but now it seems a tad worse. I will send it in soon I guess...
So far, no. Mine is solid and it seems the same as when I bought it.
Ai_Print wrote:
Anyone have the front section start to wiggle a bit? Mine started getting a bit loose about 6 months after I got it but now it seems a tad worse. I will send it in soon I guess...
Same thing happened to mine, drove me nuts walking around with it. Wiggle wiggle, wiggle wiggle
Thought I'd throw another image out here from my session last week with another editing question if I can (similar to my 200mm f2 thread post). I took an image that I almost threw away and stumbled upon an edit that I'm really gravitating towards (below). However, the reflection on the water is not what I wanted and my attempts to edit were unsuccessful. Curious what others would do here: leave it as is, obscure it a bit more or
Removing it altogether with frequency separation was on my mind but it would look odd to not have a reflection.
Photo Info
Camera Nikon NIKON Z 6_2
Lens NIKKOR Z 24-70mm f/2.8 S
Focal Length 33.5 mm (33.0 mm in 35mm)
Aperture f/5
Exposure Time 0.0125s (1/80)
ISO 100
Lighting AD600Pro with Glow EZ Lock ARC Curved Strip Softbox (16"x60")
Photo Info
Camera Nikon NIKON Z 6_2
Lens NIKKOR Z 24-70mm f/2.8 S
Focal Length 42.0 mm (42.0 mm in 35mm)
Aperture f/5
Exposure Time 0.025s (1/40)
ISO 100
Lighting AD600Pro with Glow EZ Lock ARC Curved Strip Softbox (16"x60")
My problem with the previous 24-70/2.8 zooms is that the primes in this FL are normally so good and the zooms are OK and hard to jump to the 24-70 when you have a couple primes and movable feet
This has been my quandary since my recent foray into the Z series. I've traditionally gone the "easy" route with f/2.8 zooms, but now that I have (2 of) the Z f/1.8 primes (24mm and 50mm) I'm beginning to think I might use my feet more as needed.
If the Z primes weren't so good the Z 24-70 f/2.8 would be on my Z6II right now. The images in this thread solidify that for me.
Perhaps I'll get the 24-70 soon; for now, I'm going to see how well I can do with the primes and the 70-200. I got the 70-200 because I wanted the extra reach for sports and events, particularly indoors.
I tend to use 24-70/2.8 more when I travel where I dont have room for all my beloved prime lenses
When I can bring all the prime lenses I need, the zooms stay at home.
Lance B wrote:
I haven't added to this thread for a while. Some of these shots may have been shown on camera threads and not the 24-70 f2.8S lens thread.
Those are incredible shots Lance! They're all great but the 3D pop on #4 is my favourite. I hadn't thought of using a polarizer inside before. Is that listed in error or is there an advantage to using it inside?
urbanwild wrote:
Those are incredible shots Lance! They're all great but the 3D pop on #4 is my favourite. I hadn't thought of using a polarizer inside before. Is that listed in error or is there an advantage to using it inside?
Well done yet again
Thank you very much, Urbanwild. Much appreciated!
I didn't use a polarizer in the church photo, that was just me copy pasting the camera and lens from the previous image and forgetting to remove the polarizer from that description.
Thank you for pointing it out, I shall remove the reference!
Lance B wrote:
I haven't added to this thread for a while. Some of these shots may have been shown on camera threads and not the 24-70 f2.8S lens thread.
Absolutely stunning series, and yes, the #4 is an amazing capture. Beautifully composed with impeccable technique and Post work. Thank you for the post.
akul wrote:
Absolutely stunning series, and yes, the #4 is an amazing capture. Beautifully composed with impeccable technique and Post work. Thank you for the post.
