Let's start new thread for this lens with Ricci's review.
It looks like a winner, I really like background rendering at 120/f4, it's towards the end of video, where he's showing portrait shots.
My favorite flavor of EDC optics. I wish it had come out back in the beginning of the Z system. It will continue to be what I consider to be the most versatile zoom ranges they make.
What struck / surprised me is the small difference between the 4 24-xxx lenses. Of course the 24-70/2.8 is the best of the bunch (it better be), but even the 24-200 compared pretty well.
Chris Dees wrote:
What struck / surprised me is the small difference between the 4 24-xxx lenses. Of course the 24-70/2.8 is the best of the bunch (it better be), but even the 24-200 compared pretty well.
He was only comparing the image centers which all of the lenses do a very good job on. The larger differences will be seen at the edges and corners which is where the 24-70/2.8 excels compared to the others. In his longer reviews he usually does off axis comparisons as well.
That said, in general the Z lenses are so much improved over their F-mount equivalents that what might in the past be thought of as a compromise lens now crosses a “more than good enough” quality threshold for many people.
TooManyShots wrote:
Is only $1100. Not a bad deal for a S lens. 24-70 f2.8s is better but near $1k more.
isn't that always the way? having the so called best stuff doesn't necessarily make one automatically the best. the great philosophical conundrum of consumption or the appropriate tool for the job one does.
one can buy a f2.8 lens at 2x the price and then shoot at f5.6 85-90% of the time. Hmmm. this must that angst i have been told i bring upon some here
Thanks for posting the video. I’m taking a chance with preorders on this lens and the 100-400 as the new pair to replace my current F mount 24-70/2.8E and 70-200/2.8E (sometimes with 1.4x and 2x or dragging around the 200-500mm) for landscape work. Earlier this year I had the S 24-70/2.8 on a Z7 but the tele range is a bit short. I hope Ricci releases another video showing edge performance. If it’s clean at f8-f/11 I’ll be happy. Like sjms and others I found the F mount 24-120 an extremely useful range.
sjms wrote:
isn't that always the way? having the so called best stuff doesn't necessarily make one automatically the best. the great philosophical conundrum of consumption or the appropriate tool for the job one does.
one can buy a f2.8 lens at 2x the price and then shoot at f5.6 85-90% of the time. Hmmm. this must that angst i have been told i bring upon some here
I hope is better because I just got the f2.8s version few days ago. $1996 (Nikon $300 instant rebate) and no sales tax. F4 isn't all that exciting for me. Not even F2.8...but is alright...
sjms wrote:
isn't that always the way? having the so called best stuff doesn't necessarily make one automatically the best. the great philosophical conundrum of consumption or the appropriate tool for the job one does.
one can buy a f2.8 lens at 2x the price and then shoot at f5.6 85-90% of the time. Hmmm. this must that angst i have been told i bring upon some here
Not sure it a great philosophical debate. You get the 2.8 for the other 10-15% of shots. If you shoot above 4 all the time the others will do just fine. Choices are good.
I have the 24-120 preordered. Then the 2.8 went on sale for $300 off. So I picked up the 2.8 as the price became manageable, and the speed means more to me than the extra reach. For others, the extra reach may be more critical.
I've preordered the lens and hope Nikon can give us 70-200/4 S lens in the near future. I'm sure the 2.8 version is phenomenal but I have no need for its heft and bulk for my purpose.
The most excellent part about this discussion is not to decide which lens is better for each of us, but to enjoy the fact that people on this board are finally debating through the different options in the Z-line! It has felt slow to many people, but if one were to step back and consider the timeframe that this collection of excellent lenses have come out, I think it's a big pat on the back for Nikon and I hope they really come out of this transition in a strong way. Which Z lens can you say isn't a huge step up from its F-mount equivalent or isn't an excellent lens in general? Hopefully Nikon grabs a big marketshare again.
I bought a z 24-70 f/2.8 during the sale, and the return period is till end of January. It is a very sharp lens and I don't find it bulky or heavy at all. It feels great to handle and so far the only complaint I have is that it is not internal zoom. Would love a 24-70 f/2.8 internal zoom like the F mount. Z7ii, z 24-70 2.8 and z 70-200 2.8 are currently in my bag, along with the z 105 2.8 MC.
However, the 24-120 f/4 seems to be a wonderful alternative, for half the cost. One could be happy with it + a z 24 or 35mm f/1.8 for low light situations such as indoor gatherings. Along with a 100-400 or 500mm / 600mm of your choice, it could be the ideal traveling kit. I will decide by end of January if I am keeping the 24-70 2.8 or not.
urbanwild wrote:
The most excellent part about this discussion is not to decide which lens is better for each of us, but to enjoy the fact that people on this board are finally debating through the different options in the Z-line! It has felt slow to many people, but if one were to step back and consider the timeframe that this collection of excellent lenses have come out, I think it's a big pat on the back for Nikon and I hope they really come out of this transition in a strong way. Which Z lens can you say isn't a huge step up from its F-mount equivalent or isn't an excellent lens in general? Hopefully Nikon grabs a big marketshare again....Show more →
Excellent point, agreed! And I look forward to when we are able to debate the relative merits of 70-200/2.8, 70-200/4, 70-300/4-5.6 etc. (my copy of the most recent F mount 70-300 is shockingly good and wonderfully light for those who need to watch the ounces).
gdsf2 wrote:
Not sure it a great philosophical debate. You get the 2.8 for the other 10-15% of shots. If you shoot above 4 all the time the others will do just fine. Choices are good.
I have the 24-120 preordered. Then the 2.8 went on sale for $300 off. So I picked up the 2.8 as the price became manageable, and the speed means more to me than the extra reach. For others, the extra reach may be more critical.
Everything here turns into a great philosophical debate.😂
saaketham wrote:
I bought a z 24-70 f/2.8 during the sale, and the return period is till end of January. It is a very sharp lens and I don't find it bulky or heavy at all. It feels great to handle and so far the only complaint I have is that it is not internal zoom. Would love a 24-70 f/2.8 internal zoom like the F mount. Z7ii, z 24-70 2.8 and z 70-200 2.8 are currently in my bag, along with the z 105 2.8 MC.
However, the 24-120 f/4 seems to be a wonderful alternative, for half the cost. One could be happy with it + a z 24 or 35mm f/1.8 for low light situations such as indoor gatherings. Along with a 100-400 or 500mm / 600mm of your choice, it could be the ideal traveling kit. I will decide by end of January if I am keeping the 24-70 2.8 or not. ...Show more →
Nikon has to go fancy with the lens hood making it velvet. It should not take long before all the dust and lints getting on it...
Before coming to any conclusion, I'd really like to see:
1 - The 24-120 shot longer than 70mm. The MTF doesn't seem to indicate that it may be as good in that region, especially at 120mm
2 - A comparison between the 24-70 F2.8 and the 24-120 F4 stopped down a bit. As good as the 24-70 F2.8 is (and I do think it looks a bit sharper than the 24-120 wide open), it really shines when it's at 5.6!
I've got the 24-120S on pre-order as well, but for a slightly different use. Currently I have both of the 24-70 S lenses, and use the 2.8 for most field work, and the 4.0 for video work. I'm planning on replacing the 4.0 with the 24-120 for video work, with very occasional work as a single travel lens or ultra-light landscape kit.
As for the 100-400S, I have that on pre-order as well, but will be looking to see if it can replace the 70-200S completely.
Replacing the 70-200 is going to be a challenge
Here is where I do draw the line and will stay with the F mount till mine Al disappear or die. It’s already been well tested on the Z6 to my satisfaction.
If my Sig 120-300 behaves nicely on this Z9 I will smile.
F4 isn't all that exciting for me. Not even F2.8...but is alright...