p.2 #1 · Nikon 24-70 2.8 Z vs Nikon 24-70 2.8 Z II Optically the same?
If you were getting a used zoom as your primary lens for a Z camera, would you go 24-70 f/2.8 or 24-120 f/4. I'm assuming I'll keep my 58mm f/1.4G for explicit portrait work, but use a high quality zoom for about everything else. I know from reading that you love the 24-120 f/4, but honestly the cost difference on the used market is not SO wildly different now that people are unloading their V1s of the 24-70mm. I mostly do environmental portrait/documentary style work and love working close to subjects.
p.2 #2 · Nikon 24-70 2.8 Z vs Nikon 24-70 2.8 Z II Optically the same?
loganme wrote:
If you were getting a used zoom as your primary lens for a Z camera, would you go 24-70 f/2.8 or 24-120 f/4. I'm assuming I'll keep my 58mm f/1.4G for explicit portrait work, but use a high quality zoom for about everything else. I know from reading that you love the 24-120 f/4, but honestly the cost difference on the used market is not SO wildly different now that people are unloading their V1s of the 24-70mm. I mostly do environmental portrait/documentary style work and love working close to subjects.
Compared to the first 24-70 f/2.8, the 24-120 has the upside of having better reproduction ratio, less weight, and a normal 77mm filter thread. Range and speed differences aside, of course.
The new 24-70 f/2.8 closes the gap on reproduction ratio, weight, and filter size, and it's internal zoom. So it's a classic decision of money and speed vs. range.
p.2 #3 · Nikon 24-70 2.8 Z vs Nikon 24-70 2.8 Z II Optically the same?
I have V1 and rented V2 just to do side by side comparison. I tested both at various focal lengths, apertures and distances, always keeping camera on tripod and taking pictures within 10-15 minutes to avoid change of ambient light.
My conclusion is that V2 is much lighter and when I mean light, it is really noticeable when you hold it. Sharpness and bokeh wise couldn't find much differences.
I have a plenty of samples that I can share. Question, how do I embed the photos from my google/amazon photo? Every time I add it shows up as a link, not as a photo.
p.2 #11 · Nikon 24-70 2.8 Z vs Nikon 24-70 2.8 Z II Optically the same?
Cliff L. wrote:
It's funny how so many people were acclaiming the original version as the greatest zoom lens ever created, and now people are dropping them like hot potatoes...
Got to have the latest and greatest, musicians are the same way, I have a whole drawer full of trumpet mouthpieces.
p.2 #14 · Nikon 24-70 2.8 Z vs Nikon 24-70 2.8 Z II Optically the same?
ekam wrote:
It was the benchmark for any 24-70 2.8 from any manufacturer.
Or at least it was until Sony brought out the second version of their 24-70mm f2.8 GM zoom.
My Sony FE 24-70mm f2.8 GM II was noticeably better than my Nikkor Z 24-70mm f2.8S. My hope is, as I stated previously, that Nikon at least caught up with Sony again.
p.2 #15 · Nikon 24-70 2.8 Z vs Nikon 24-70 2.8 Z II Optically the same?
Cliff L. wrote:
Or at least it was until Sony brought out the second version of their 24-70mm f2.8 GM zoom.
My Sony FE 24-70mm f2.8 GM II was noticeably better than my Nikkor Z 24-70mm f2.8S. My hope is, as I stated previously, that Nikon at least caught up with Sony again.
Not my experience, I found the 24-70/II to be disappointing. My 24-120/4 performed better in almost all respects that mattered to me. Actually one of the reasons I consolidated onto Z.
p.2 #16 · Nikon 24-70 2.8 Z vs Nikon 24-70 2.8 Z II Optically the same?
Alistair1 wrote:
Not my experience, I found the 24-70/II to be disappointing. My 24-120/4 performed better in almost all respects that mattered to me. Actually one of the reasons I consolidated onto Z.
Actually, now that you mention it, my Z 24-120mm f4 was also better than my Z 24-70mm f2.8. I guess Nikon has as much of a problem with inconsistent quality control as Sony does.
p.2 #17 · Nikon 24-70 2.8 Z vs Nikon 24-70 2.8 Z II Optically the same?
Zoom lenses have higher variability in image quality across samples but to be honest I've never run into Nikon lenses where I would have run into this type of a problem; I've used a number of lenses in two or more copies over the years and I just haven't run into it. Lensrentals have interesting analysis of sample variability in their blog.
While I think most of the variability reported in forums is actually observer variability more than lens sample variability, I have no reason not to believe that sample variability especially in zooms does exist. I just haven't run into such samples that I would have had reason for concern.
Cliff L. wrote:
Actually, now that you mention it, my Z 24-120mm f4 was also better than my Z 24-70mm f2.8. I guess Nikon has as much of a problem with inconsistent quality control as Sony does.
p.2 #18 · Nikon 24-70 2.8 Z vs Nikon 24-70 2.8 Z II Optically the same?
I'd suggest that rather than the two lenses being optically the same, they're optically similar while having substantially different designs with the Mk.II lens having a substantially different set of design parameters.
I did have an opportunity to shoot with the Mk.II, but personally found that while the lens was generally excellent and an improvement on the Mk.I lens in weight, AF speed (very slightly), flare resistance, and perhaps with the tiniest improvement in bokeh, to my eye it wasn't quite as sharp as the Mk.I lens in the DX image circle area (much as found by Thomas on the CameraLabs site).
As the result, for my use of this type of lens and my shooting style of often putting important subject matter right at the area where I prefer the Mk.I to the Mk.II, I've decided to stick with the Mk.I lens that I know and love.
Same thing with the 70-200 for me - although there are substantial changes with the new Mk II, for my use the Mk.I does everything I need of it and is a well-known and understood lens, so with the Mk.I I will remain.
p.2 #19 · Nikon 24-70 2.8 Z vs Nikon 24-70 2.8 Z II Optically the same?
I found the version II giving better Microcontrast and sharpness than version 1 , especially at 70 mm.
To be honest , I find canon rf 24-70/2.8 still the best 24-70/2.8 lens on the market.
p.2 #20 · Nikon 24-70 2.8 Z vs Nikon 24-70 2.8 Z II Optically the same?
MTF charts are available though. Both are exceptional, but looks like Mk2 is slightly better in the off-center areas on the wider end. Almost identical at 70mm. While the charts are theoretical and real-life performance deviates due to manufacturing tolerances, nevertheless they offer a strong evidence that, sorry guys, whoever is seeing "better microcontrast" is imagining it. The MTF differences are too small to be detectable in a web-published JPEG image. What you're seeing is either a sample variation, or the optical placebo
