Re: Nikon 24-70 2.8 Z vs Nikon 24-70 2.8 Z II Optically the same?
The optical formula is completely different and contains a record low number of elements for such a top quality lens. Only 14 vs 20 in the new Sony mkII.
The camera labs review confirms that there are some optical differences, the mkII has a better bokeh (in particular background), is sharper in the extreme corners (but a bit less so in the APS-C area), has very low LoCA (it can be said to be apochromatic) and super low coma.
But the main differences are related to video, the new lens is parafocal, has a constant center of gravity and of course a significantly improved AF (quieter and faster).
For me the video aspects were a good reason to upgrade.
Re: Nikon 24-70 2.8 Z vs Nikon 24-70 2.8 Z II Optically the same?
The optical formula is completely different and contains a record low number of elements for such a top quality lens. Only 14 vs 20 in the new Sony mkII.
The camera labs review confirms that there are some optical differences, the mkII has a better bokeh (in particular background), is sharper in the extreme corners (but a bit less so in the APS-C area), has very low LoCA (it can be said to be apochromatic) and super low coma.
But the main differences are related to video, the new lens is parafocal, has a constant center of gravity and of course a significantly improved AF (quite and faster).
For me the video aspects were a good reason to upgrade.
Cheers,
Bernard
Jan 27, 2026 at 07:42 PM
Previous versions of bernardl's message #16975579 « Nikon 24-70 2.8 Z vs Nikon 24-70 2.8 Z II Optically the same? »
