This thread needs a bump I'm still in the process of selecting photos from the Sunshine Coast / Vancouver Island road trip we just finished. This lens stayed on the camera for the majority of the trip.
Strange DXO score, though. I think in DXO scheme of thing, 24-70/2.8S score the highest mainly because of significantly lower CA score than its competition but I am surprise that sharpness score again, is quite a bit lower than its competitor's best. However, in real world and according to a few other Imatest from other sites, sharpness does not seem to be any weaker than its competitor for sure.
Regardless, I love my 24-70/2.8S well enough that higher or lower DXO score does not mean anything much anyhow.
I already have 35 S, 50S and 24-70/4S otherwise I would het this lens in a heart beat! I would like to rent it someday.
Now i’m waiting 85 1.8S 😀. Superb pictures everyone!
umsl12 wrote:
Wait, should I sell all lenses that I’m having for this lens 😀?
I wouldn't. Get 85 and you have a set of fast primes 35/50/85 and 24-70 f4 for universal walk around.
Really though - depends, if you prefer zooms or primes. It might be post-purchase rationalization in my case - but this 2.8S feels super solid in all areas.
I am certainly keeping the F4 version for skiing, climbing etc but I just ordered the 24-70 2.8S for aerial work. I think the 2.8 on the Z7 and my 70-200 2.8FL on the D850 will be the perfect hi res combo for this type of work.
I'm sure they meant "best Nikon 24-70mm lens ever tested" because that bar is pretty low, and this new one is less sharp and has more vignetting than its competitors. Still, it's a nice departure from the f/4 zooms that Nikon intentionally designed to have very low resolution...
Did you read the article? That is NOT what they are implying. They LITERALLY say it is "The new benchmark for 24-70mm lenses"
It would be a dumb comment if they were referring solely to future Nikon lenses.
I think a lot of the 24-70/f4 S owners would also dispute your last comment. I'm curious if you've used these lenses? I have not, myself (being a prime guy). But I have been following their dedicated threads and what I've seen looks very impressive (albeit reduced and altered for the web)
dog rocket wrote:
I think a lot of the 24-70/f4 S owners would also dispute your last comment. I'm curious if you've used these lenses?
I have the 14-30F4 and 24-70F4 S lenses and find them to be among the best Nikon zooms I have ever used.
They are considerably more consistent in sharpness than others I have used but more impressive is the color, contrast and flare resistance. I relied greatly on the 17-35 and 14-24 2.8 lenses for quite awhile but these F4 S lenses take even the aforementioned up a notch all things carefully considered.
I tried a friend's 24-70 2.8S and was floored, it is truly a travel around the world with one lens kind of lens.
Let's separate two topics, the lens and why you may use/buy it.
I have seen other tests on youtube where they compared it to Sony, Canon and Nikon-F lenses with same 24-70/f2.8 and they found it to be the best overall package.
I had Z7 with /4 lens and used it as light travel lens which is great for most daylight/outdoor use.
I missed the f2.8 for indoor natural light, and not because it's sharper but because I need the extra speed.
I bought a Z7 because it gives you additional options to crop more and increase therefore focal length compared to Z6. The only drawback is the 1-stop less ISO sensitivity which I can gain back using f/2.8 instead of f/4. I most probably would not buy it if I would be an Z6 owner because the benefits weight less.
Of course, this is not true for all shots but for me it's more than 50% because of heavy indoor natural light needs. I used to switch to primes but disliked that I need to have multiple of them with me.
My f/2.8 S is now the sharpest zoom I ever owned, wide open and also stepped down. It gives me a stop more light/speed and less ISO so image quality improved. The difference to the f/1.8 primes is also smaller and I leave them often now at home.