Lance B
Offline
Upload & Sell: On
|
 Re: Z7 24-70 for landscape vs Sony? | |
OwlsEyes wrote:
billsnature wrote:
OwlsEyes wrote:
All of these lenses are so good that I can't imagine why someone would switch systems to shoot one 24-70mm lens over another.
It might make sense to make a shift if one company had multiple unique (and needed) lenses not available in the other, or if the camera's ergonomics/sensor/AF etc... didn't meet one's needs. However, to switch because one 24-70 f2.8 is marginally better than another just does not make sense to me.
I doubt that anyone could tell the difference between two 30" prints of the same subject shot at the same time with the Z7 and 24-70 f/2.8S vs a Sony A7RIII and 24-70 f2.8GM... hey, but maybe I'm wrong...
I largely agree with the statement you have made here, but not sure I would hold up the 24-70 GM as a benchmark.
I recently bought a D500 and a 500mm PF because there is no Sony equivalent to the 500mm PF. It even outclasses the Sony 200-600 as a unique and valuable tool. It is the potential value of adding a full frame Nikon to go with the 500mm PF that sparked my interest in the Z7.
That leads to the question of does Nikon have a better landscape tool? The Sony 24-70 GM did not impress me. The Sony 24-105 is better than the Nikon 24-120VR or the Canon 24-105 or 24-70 f4, and in my mind the 24-70 GM. Leaves me wondering if the hype around Nikon Z lenses is real or not. If real, a system that had Sony for 12mm to 35mm and Nikon for 24-70 + 85mm would work as I normally carry two bodies anyway (A7R III and A7R IV).
The question remains... Real or hype? Clearly the best Nikon has ever offered, but is it better than Sony zooms?
This site gives it glowing review and compares it to Tokina and other Nikon lenses but not the Sony's
https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-z-24-70mm-f2-8-s
Hello Bill,
Your original question makes perfect sense in the context that you decided to buy a 500PF + D500. This supports my point... that is, a system switch makes sense to someone who is seeking a piece of kit that is unique to only one manufacturer. Here, Nikon has two things that neither Canon nor Sony produce... a "pro-spec" DX camera and the 500PF.
I know a number of people who went the other way for similar reasons... the Sony A9I or A9II are the most affordable pro-spec full frame bodies with best in mirrorless class (and possibly best in class) AF. Combined with the 200-600 zoom w/ complete weather sealing and internal zooming design, this a piece of kit unique to one manufacturer and might prompt a system change.
Now back to your point... My wife and I shoot Nikons w/ a mix of DSLRs and Mirrorless. I own the 500PF among other pro lenses. Should you be interested in moving to Nikon for their mirrorless landscape capabilities, I'll offer you the following rationale.
1. The Z7/Z6 is a pleasure to use with a logical lay out and menu system that matches other Nikon cameras.
2. The bodies are weather sealed
3. The AF is as good as any other system (save the A9-series), and is accurate.
4. Both 24-70mm lenses are crazy share w/ the 24-70 f/2.8 being exceptional.
5. The 70-200 f/2.8S is even sharper than the 70-200 f2.8E and the F-mount E-lens was considered best in class.
6. The 14-30 is compact, sharp stopped down, and takes an 82mm thread... thus no need for a large & bulky filter kit.
I like the Z-bodies so much that I am contemplating the purchase of another Z-body to replace one of our three D500's.
I own the Z7 and all of the Z primes and all of the Z zooms except the 70-200 f2.8S (not yet!) and the 20 f1.8S. Of the points above:
1) completely agree. I just love using my Z7
2) thats true
3) I cannot confirm how the Z7 stacks up to other systems other than being able to compare it to my Nikon DSLR's. The Z7 for all AF duties is almost on par with my D850 except for AF tracking, but then there are few cameras that can keep up with the D850. The Z7 is very accurate for AF due to no AF fine tune requirements. Also, I get a few % more crisper shots from my Z7 probably due to a few things like no AF fine tune requirements, IBIS, no DSLR mirror slap and EFCS. I only use my D850 for tracking birds now, my Z7 handles all other duties with aplomb. I have sold all my F mounts under 70mm as I have them in Z mounts for use on my Z7. However, I still use longer lenses on my Z7 only going to my D850 for tracking birds with long lenses.
4) I have the 24-70 f2.8S and as Bruce (Owleyes) states, the 24-70 is crazy sharp and it is crazy sharp wide open! It is a bag of primes in a lens. I only use the primes when I need wider then f2.8.
5) Agreed. According to the consensus so far as there are no real reviews yet.
6) Agreed. Love it. Amazing lens considering it's very diminutive size.
As for whether the Z mount is hype. When taken in context as a comparison to the F mount, it's hard to argue that it is hype when all the Z mounts measure up and are all quite a bit better than their F mount counterparts, IMO. I have owned the Nikon 24 f1.4G, 35 f1.4G and 85 f1.4G and the Z mounts are sharper, sharper wide open and sharper across the frame, arguably mostly better bokeh and all with negligible CA and better coma. Yes, you could probably get lens results from F mount as good, but they would be much larger, heavier and more costly due to the probable use of more exotic glass to control CA etc.
Is all this worth switching to Nikon? Only you can ascertain that as it depends on what you value and how much money you are willing to throw at the change over. For me, I bailed out of F mount lenses where there is a Z mount equivalent and will continue to do so where they show better performance than their F mount counterparts which they all have so far and I am sure they will do so in the future. There is no such thing as a hard and fast rule as to "is it worth it" as that varies from person to person, circumstance to circumstance. For me it is worth it.
|
