ilkka_nissila
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.1 #19 · Nikon 24-70 2.8 Z vs Nikon 24-70 2.8 Z II Optically the same? | |
I do think that many people who get a new lens right after launch may not necessarily need it but have the money and like to buy new stuff and talk about it online.
In the case of the 24-70/2.8, however, from my perspective, this is the most important lens in the whole lineup and spending money on it is justified because it alone covers for 80% of my needs for paid work and a lot of the hobby activity as well. I don't have the new version, however, as I have the previous one which is really good and so I don't feel pressure to buy the new version.
I do think for many users the new version can be a significant improvement and save time and help avoid frustration. Why? If you can use it on a gimbal without rebalancing after focal length changes, and not stressing the motors, it makes the gimbal camera setup much more versatile and easier to use. With the gimbal that I have I basically have to use fixed focal length lenses because the 24-70 is a bit too heavy on my main camera and if I wanted to use the zoom while it is on the gimbal, a time-consuming rebalancing operation would have to be performed after each change in focal length. This would be a major pain and is avoided by using the new zoom because of its internal zoom design. A second scenario involves panoramic photography. In externally zooming lenses if you use a panoramic rail you have to adjust the camera's position on the rail each time you change the focal length. With an internally zooming lens this may or may not be the case; I'm hoping actually that it would reduce or eliminate this need to make adjustments, saving a great deal of time for those who do a lot of stitched panoramics. Finally, the 77 mm filter thread is used on several other lenses including the 70-200/2.8, as well as the 24, 45, and 85 mm PC-E Nikkors. Having a shared filter thread size is very helpful in managing equiment and keeping the bag contents concise. I imagine for a lot of users these factors come into play influencing the purchase decision. There are also other features such as the faster focusing motor. Anyway, despite these factors in favor of the new lens, I have not bought it and have no short-term plans to buy one, but I do feel it is not the dumbest product to spend money one.
Edit: I just realized my panoramic rail might not be long enough for the new lens. This would be an additional cost to cover if it turns out to be the case. But generally I would be very happy if I didn't have to deal with 82 mm filters. Having many different filter sizes makes me do everything possible to avoid using filters in the first place, and a 77 mm standard would work for me for the majority of situations where I'd want to use a filter.
Ripolini wrote:
Cliff probably meant that the new product (car, lens, camera) does not necessarily suit our needs better, since in most cases that item will allow us to do exactly the same things we did before, and very often not even better. The new item often gives us the illusion of satisfying our needs. Compulsive buying and marketing play a predominant role in this.
In the specific case of the 24-70/2.8 S II, it is true that a 77 mm filter, internal zoom/focus, and lower weight can be practical advantages. However, it is also true that the lens is longer, which is inconvenient: there is a greater risk of bumping into things with the camera hanging around your neck, and it takes up more space in your bag. Certainly, no one will take better photos with the new S II version than with the previous one. Simply because if we always needed the latest and greatest product to improve our images, or even just to have fun, it would mean that we would have to change job (if we are professionals) or hobby (if we are amateurs).
Consumerism has nothing to do with creativity. And photography should be, first and foremost, a creative activity.
...Show more →
|
