I'll share with you what a photographer friend of mine shared with me when I once scrutinized the grain in an photograph that I took. What he said to me single handedly changed the way I approach photography from that day forward. He said "I believe anyone who insists of studying the grain of an image instead of appreciating its content, is missing the point of a photograph". In other words, if it's a good photograph, it will stand on its own and no one will be scrutinizing its sharpness. If it's a poorly composed photograph, no amount of sharpness will make it better. It's an important lesson to learn. Some of the most memorable photos in the world aren't optically perfect because it's not the sharpness that made it a great photograph. It’s the story it tells.

@joegrossinger3381

Жыл бұрын

Yes, that is a great excuse for grainy out of focus images. Times have changed and tastes along with it. If your camera consistently misses the focus then toss it and move to a brand that knows how to make their cameras focus.

@ThePurpleHarpoon

Жыл бұрын

What about grainy focused images?

@AndrewBenbow

Жыл бұрын

@@joegrossinger3381 “Sharpness is a bourgeois concept” is a favorite quote by Henri Cartier-Bresson AND "There is nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept." Ansel Adams. 😉😉😉

@EdwardMartinsPhotography

Жыл бұрын

Then why bother with FF at all? (A rhetorical question, I agree with what your saying.)

@jamesjoyce5962

Жыл бұрын

iPhone is the way

As someone who's shot Nikon for over a decade professionally, I thought I'd throw a few thoughts having used all three lenses! Right now the 24-120 has earned a place in my daily bag, it's a really great choice for the versatility (now obviously I do shoot wildlife so the extra reach is handy) Wide open or stopped down (as used most of the time) it's excellent on a Z9 and has produced some of my favourite images of the last few months. The extra reach is super, especially if you want one lens for landscapes and nature photography, perfect if you do also like shooting panoramics. The 24-70 2.8 is a great workhorse of lens as you say, for events etc, but in reality you buy it to use it at 2.8. My old 24-70 2.8 G is still in my kit for when I "need it", although usually if I want fast glass I'll take the primes. The 24-70 f4 is great, optically excellent and easily the best value, would I swap back to it from the 24-120 just to save 100g, no way. If you're making an image that needs "perfect corner sharpness" you won't be at f4/f5.6 anyway so at f8-11 the 24/120 is for almost all purposes excellent and the versatility for when the light shows up/subject shows up and you want that composition a bit tighter, those 50mm, well they are worth their weight in gold (add the DX crop functionality and well you've got 180mm)! Great vids as always Cheers (from another Tom)

@dragoro3033

Жыл бұрын

Just getting my first so this is really REALLY helpful when trying to budget for the camera AND lense. Thank yoh!!

@PETERFRITZPHOTO

Жыл бұрын

Great advice, Tom.

@agataWKW

9 ай бұрын

Thanks for so informative comment! I bought z7ii and used my F f 2.8 lenses with it till now, but it’s a high time to switch to Z lenses and I am totally lost with of these 3 I should buy. So the video and your comment are super helpful to me! I will buy 24-120 as a bit more reach is important for me and as someone commented earlier, the sharpness on the corners is not the most important factor.

I don't want you to do gear reviews regularly, but this was fun, I excitedly watched the whole thing. I can't wait to hear/see more about this trip.

The 24-70/4S is the only one from these 3 that work well in infrared. Also, there are a lot of used ones on the market for far less money since it's a kit lens.

Tom, you could make watching lawn bowling, curling, grass growing and paint drying fun and interesting. As always my favourite photography channel. The only one I refuse to miss.

The 24-70 f/4 is a no-brainer when you can get it for only an extra 400 quid as a package deal with the Z7ii. I picked that lens to go on my trip-of-a-lifetime Inca trail trek to Machu Picchu and was not disappointed by its performance.

Love the banter between you and Gavin. It might not have been "scientific" (which is where the magazines and professional reviewers come in), but you showed us some real world images and the output the three lenses produce. For most photographers how a lens performs in the field matters most, along with weight and price.

Thanks for the extra validation! I had made the same comparison and same conclusion when i purchased mine. That 24-70 f4 lens makes some GORGEOUS images

Not only informative but also entertaining. Well done Thomas.

Love your videos, just natural and with humour. Great job!

Very nice. I look forward to your extended field testing.

Stunning tech review Mr H! Turning it into a beer ad makes it only better👌

Your gear reviews are great! You say what works for you and give trustworthy information and opinions. I am glad you like the Nikon gear and hopefully more photographers will purchase and love using Nikon, because it is a great camera system.

I use 24-120mm f4 and 20mm f1.8 on my Z7 for hiking (by now around 1000km with that setup), 20mm for wide angle generally but also specifically for low light (only carry a tiny tripod) and astro, I can't cover 14-20mm but the f1.8 and stellar sharpness make up for that. What I love about the Z7 + 24-120 is that I can easily crop down to 20MP getting an equivalent of 185mm vocal length and when cropping the soft corners are of no concern.

That book toss 😂

I am glad you made the same decision, Thomas! Because I hadn't had opportunity to test these lens in advance.

The Nikon 24-120mm F4 is my go to for product photography and portraits, plus weddings. Love the extra range. However I use a second body with a 85mm f1.8 when I want softer background for portraits.

Glad you came to a conclusion, hope your new lenses and camera serve you well on your adventures. I like your videos, no matter what, because of your honesty. I think oooh it's Wednesday, Thomas Heaton, will have a video out.

Made same choice for the same reasons with Canon mirrorless a while back: main kit - 14-35 f/4, 24-105 f/4 and 70-200 f/4. Also have the 24-240 for those only one lens moments. Nice to see the pros willing to consider these alternatives too.

Great comparisons. I shoot Astro so I upgraded my F mount to the Z : 14-24 2.8, 24-70 2.8 and kept my F 70-200 and plan to pick up the 100-400 to finsh out the bag. Add in the 85 1.8 and Macro 105 and I'm complete. All great lenses and all will do you well.

at f8-11, most modern lenses should perform the same sharpness wise. So for landscape, just pick the lightest lenses as weight makes a much bigger difference in whether you will have the motivation to get the image in the first place 😂

@Chrismzeller

Жыл бұрын

Yes exactly the value of the wider aperture lenses are when you shoot them wide open both in the ability to shoot in low light wide open and in quality at their widest f4-5.6

@echt114

7 күн бұрын

I wish that were true. He even noted in the video at 13:02 that the upper right corner of the 24-120 was "much softer." That's been my experience with many lenses - it gets too mushy on the edges/corners even at f/8-f/11. Then there's sample variation. Buying lenses is truly a pain in the ass if you really care about the quality across the whole frame. A lens should be tested thoroughly as soon as you get it, and NOT with the kind of pics he used. You need the whole frame to be composed of detail that's close to the focus point. But I do agree that you often don't have to get the big 2.8 zooms if you're needing high quality at f/8.

I have the 24-70 and have done for four years, I love it mate. Glad that you do too. Enjoy..

Fun video, Tom - especially Gavin’s anti-promo! I bought Canon’s RF 24-70 2.8 a few months back to match up with my 100-500. With a 50mm 1.8, it’s perfect for me. If I start actually walking or hiking (instead of only driving) to my locations, I’ll have to rethink my life choices, because those two lenses - plus the drone, and all the other sh*t - are bloody heavy.

I typically use the longer end of my 24-104 to isolate a subject from the background, in which case softness around the corners is a bonus!

This is fun. Good work. I adore my 24-120

The 24-120mm has been a favorite since my D3 days. Now, the Z mount is even sharper at all focal lengths. I did hold on the my f/mount 14-24mm f/2.8 when I moved to the Z9, it's just awesome.

Thanks, great comparison. And welcome to our world of retail purchasing. I returned my first copy of the 24-120 for the reasons you stated as it underperformed the 24-70 f2.8. Later on I tried it again as money and wanting more reach came into play again and the second copy almost 8 months later was sharp as can be all around. (Sold my f2.8). That and my 100-400 are it. And I can't say for certain, but I'm betting that you'll keep the 7ii as I had the 8 for a day last week and can't justify the weight, the extra money, or all the bells and whistles I wouldn't use. I'd rather wait for a possible Z 7iii or similar and maybe get same improved AF, processor, flippy screen and maybe even more MP. Good luck and enjoy your trip.

Really enjoyed the video. remembering younger you a couple of years back when you started to think about leaving canon und mentioned how horrible gear videos are... and then came the beer commercial. just perfect.

When I switched from DX to a Z7ii, I wanted the equiv of my 17-70, so the 24-120 F4 won, and it's my go to lens besides a 200-500 when I need some reach. Fantastic quality, didn't completely break the bank! Can't fault it.

I had the 24-120 F4 for a weeks shooting and returned it as i felt it lacked contrast over 100mm and was slightly soft at the edges, I am the proud owner of the 24-70 F2.8 and love using it and the results it gives, I keep my lenses over 10 years so need to be happy with them for the long term

I just got the Z8. Upgraded from the D850. I’m blown away. The focus system!!!!! What I understand it’s way above the 7? I know your landscape, however when the bird/animal/person comes into prospect. The eye tracking is something I could NEVER give up. Thanks for the channel

Beautifully explained. All doubts cleared. No need to opt for 24-70 2.8 for double the price. But my choice is now 24-120 with more reach n reasonably priced. Well done Thomas

Decisions, decisions and “how much is it”! Interesting and another good update on the buying frustrations/decisions/options. I opted for Nikon Z7II for landscape, I did have a go at weddings years back using film but that was a nightmare, especially the family dynamics. Lens I opted for 24-200 & 14-30 and kept my 200-500 beast, mainly all down to cost & availability plus 100-400 wasn’t out. 👍👏

Straight spit out my supper when I saw you toss Gavin’s book. Y’all are so entertaining! 🤣🤣🤣

Excellent comparison Thomas.

I feel the same. Love my 24-70/4 for the IQ and compact size and weight.

Hey Thomas, I’m glad you’re going to have a proper amount of time with the Nikon Z8 on an awesome photo excursion. I am sure for the most part you don’t need it. However, you may find it helpful with any sunset and sunrise shots with low lighting. Also, the improved focus accuracy will help you have a more well-rounded camera in case there is any wildlife. Whether you buy it or the z7II you will always have wonderful shots. I look forward to seeing you out on a new photography excursion.

Good video! My kit right now is a Z7, 14-30 f4, 24-120 f4 and the 100-400, for nature and wildlife. I'm waiting for my Z8 which will be used mostly for wildlife. I absolutely LOVE the 24-120, it stays on the camera about 80% of the time and the best walk about lens I've ever used (I've been at it for at least 40 years, formerly as a photojournalist). I like having the continuous range of 14mm all the way to 400mm in such a lightweight kit, my back thanks me every day. So much different than the photojournalist kit: 2 dslrs, 17-35 f2.8 on one shoulder, 70-200 f2.8 on the other, a great kit, but unnecessary for what I do now. After 40 years, NOW is the best time to be a photographer!

Good choice Tom. I own this lens for to same reasons as you. Yes it is absolutely the best choice of for landscapes. The weight, the size and the quality are stunning for this price. You will have a lot of fun and good quality images of your trip.

This 24-70f4 is remarkable value, can be had for £500 in as new condition. Looking forward to hearing more about your upcoming trip Tom.👏😀👍

I’m not surprised. I got the lens with my D7 in Jan 2019. I’m just blown away with it. I see no need for the extra weight of the other lens. If I need to zoom to 100 mm I crop in post. Im told the other two lenses make nicer sunstars. You might want to check that as you have all three - if that is important. I look forward to the video from the trip some time in the future.

When you shot Canon, you used an unstabilized EF 70-200 F/4L and got great results with it. I shoot Canon mirrorless now and my main lens is the RF 24-105 F/4L. I don't need F/2.8 and the extra 35mm at the long end are really handy. I think you're gonna love that Z8 even if it's more camera than you really need.

totally agree. wise choice and interestingly we used the same evaluation techniques

The random moment when you chuck the photo book really made the video for me.

Getting cheeky with Gavin two videos in a row…😂 I have the 24-120, it’s my favourite lens right now, I really want the 100-400 but man that price tag. The versatility of the 24-120 is awesome. 📸😎

Well I do a lot of portraits and I use DXO with lens profiles to develop my RAW files so the 24-120 was an easy choice. I have the 100-400 as well. As I sometimes do fast moving things like racing cars, planes and birds the Z8 is also an easy choice.

Another riveting video, very informative. Be sure and keep the book you tossed to the side, it will make good kindling for starting a fire on a cold winter evening.

As a wide angle junkie, the 14-30mm/4 was what sold me on the Z system. So light and tiny. Good infrared performance, too. The 24-70mm/4 is another great infrared performer and can be found used for cheap. I dropped mine and put a big dent in it so now I can't really sell it. Still works perfectly. But I'd take the versatility of the 24-120mm/4 over the 24-70mm/4. In fact, I went all the way to the 24-200 for versatility, and use the 50mm/1.8 and 105mm/2.8 when I need contrast and edge sharpness.

I couldn’t agree more and for your photography this is the perfect kit. I think the only areas where you might get more from the Z8 are for star gazing and auroras etc plus the portrait option with the rear screen but that’s about it. I’ve just bought a like new 24-70 2.8 for 1,700 so thought this was a good option for me but i need this for event photography and the extra stop of light and additional depth of field is important for me. However, the F4 for landscape is perfect so a great choice and well worth saving the money 👍

Somehow you manage to even make this content entertaining, and I don't even shoot Nikon! I love your honesty in this kind of video. and I even find your humour hits! Keep doin what you do Thomas, I will never miss a video!

@roc7035

Жыл бұрын

I was actually going to say the exact same thing. 😋

@nomadcompany

Жыл бұрын

i was going to say the exact opposite......

Thomas, I love this video. I find it entertaining to see you experiment with various brands, and I have to admit that my favourite moment was when you presented the beer. This is authentic, and let's face it, I completely agree and accept any form of advertising you choose to include in your videos. I can only say that the amount of love and effort you put into your videos is amazing because I have a channel of my own and have been inspired by your content for the past few months. You have the right to entertain us in any way you choose, and hopefully you will earn enough money to do so for many years. We must always take advice from the experts, they say. That's what I'm trying to do as I look up to you. Cheers!✌

Perfect timing. Have a milestone birthday coming up and these 3 lenses were on the wishlist. Also the Z 105 macro.

14-30mm f4, 24-120mm f4 and 100-400mm are the perfect landscape set up. Add a 24-200mm for the casual lightweight hiking set up and you’re done.

Thankyou Thomas Heaton I was slightly kicking myself when they brought the 24-120 f4 out as I have the 24-70 f4 and knowing how good these new Z lenses are I thought it would be just as good but with more reach, but if I sold my 24-70 f4 I wouldn't have got even half the money for 24-120. So now after watching this video I feel a lot happier about my 24-70 f4 😁

I'm enjoying your video's more and more! :) Keep up the good work!

If we take out the pixel peeping for a second, personally I find the 24-120 f/4 to be probably the most versatile. Yes the 24-70 2.8 is the sharpest of the three (but again, we aren't really pixel peeping) and the 24-70 f/4 is the cheapest (especially if bought used) but I feel that the 24-120 gives the most range and is almost a single lens solution for most landscape photography shooting. I would think most of th time, most people will be at f/5.6 or higher and since it covers the range of 24-70, but perhaps doesn't have the speed of the 2.8, it's a good balance, and the price is affordable (you could buy two 24-120's for the price of a single new 24-70 2.8 when not on sale). Heck, for the price of a 24-70 2.8 you could buy both the 24-120 f/4 and a new 70-200 f/4G F-mount lens probably (slightly over but close enough) and you'd have a very useful range for landscape from 24 to 200mm with great image quality. But my vote would be for the 24-120. I actually sold my 24-70 f/4 to get the 2.8, but since getting the 24-120 I honestly don't use the 2.8 much anymore except for specific things relating to landscape, but if I'm hiking, or only want to take one lens, it's the 24-120.

I started with the 24-70 f4 and now have switched to the 24-120 f4. Aside from sharpness, one consideration for me was sunstars. The 24-120 produces much more pleasing sunstars with clean, pointed spikes than the 24-70. That’s more important to my landscape photography than marginal corner sharpness. I also liked the 77mm filter size and longer reach (pairs well with the 100-400). It also just feels built better and more “premium” in the hand - not a huge fan of the twist to unlock on the 24-70.

@cianmcliam1

Жыл бұрын

The sunstars were important to me too, I went from the Tamron 24-70 G2 lens to the Nikon 24-70 F4 and was dissapointed at the poor sunstars it makes. Except at F4 for some weird reason! The 24-120 F4 has much more pleasing sunstars, even better than the Tamron. The Nikon 24-70 2.8 G lens was absolutely abysmal for sunstars as well, as was the 17-35 2.8 that made up the other half of my landscape kit. The 24-120 is a joy to use.

The 24-120 was my pick. I came from a 24-70 f2.8 and 70-200 f4 combo and thought about just dropping the 24-70 f2.8 f mount for the 24-70 f4 z mount. I then really started to think about what I wanted in my bag and realized that the 24-120 could eliminate the need to carry my 70-200 f4 when I am really weight restricted without restricting my focal length choices AS much. Now yes 120 vs 200 is a difference but it is a difference that is much easier to swallow than 70 vs 200 if I had only gone with the 24-70 f4. Having the option to consolidate from 2 lenses to 1 is far and away more of a weight savings than any change between lenses could have gotten me so I am more than happy with the slight IQ sacrifice of the 24-120. I still have the 70-200 if I really want to shoot that last 80mm but it has been going out less and less.

@PETERFRITZPHOTO

Жыл бұрын

Sounds smart to me. Plus, you can always crop in for that last 80mm.

Best lens comparison video out there! :)

Very helpful! Thanks!

Having just bought into the Z system only a couple of weeks ago I found it very interesting, and entertaining. Nice timing! I also remembered that when you first got the Z7ii you said it was loaned, and I recently started to wonder whether whoever had lent it to you had forgotten all about it....

Great video! Thank bro!

That's a great video you have save me testing my new gear this week I've purchased a Z7 ll with 24- 70 F4 and the 24 -200 mm.

My unsolicited two pence: the sensor cover on the Z8 makes it great for landscape. I also assign metering to the Fn 3 on the back so most of the non-exposure functions are on the left side of the camera. And, I just learned about the recall camera settings feature, which I set up on Fn 2 in case an interesting bird or critter crosses my path. Plus, it seems to me that the Z8 will get more firmware updates than the Z7ii.

@ThatNorma

Жыл бұрын

the sensor shield is not that much of an issue on the z6/z7 and mark2 versions. Theres a workaround and its better than nothing, turn the camera on, remove the battery and take out your lens. When u do so the sensor shield will be deployed and u can safely swap lenses without risk of getting the sensor dirty. battery in, camera back on , press the shutter and it opens again

@andhib

8 ай бұрын

@@ThatNorma err... that's not a 'sensor shield' on the Z6/7, it's the mechanical shutter and I’m pretty sure your shutter is a lot more delicate than the sensor.

This wasn't tedious - it was actually quite entertaining! I think it was quite clear from the get-go which lens would be the choice, but maybe I'm biased as a m43 user … 😁

As a landscape photographer, most often, I differentiate my subject from “background” scenery with vignetting or with sharpness. So, even when a lens is sharp around the edges, I most often blur the edges so that my main subject gets more attention. So, for me, the 24-120mm lens (along with the 14-30mm and the 100-400mm) finds its way into my camera bag as a part of my 3 lens selection.

Opening the can of beer over those lenses and spilling a bit of foam. Priceless.

Still owning both 24-120 F4 and 24-70 2.8 my assessment is similar. They're really close when you stop down and want corner sharpness. Yours definitely is subjected to sample variation. My 24-120 F4 is as close as it can get to the 24-70. I do notice a difference through extensive starring and peeping. It mainly lies in the high frequencies and contrast, meaning more micro details clarity. But that is not what most lanndscape fine art photographers are after these days anyway. So my 24-70 2.8 is my weapon of choice. At stopped down aperture it produces image more like a prime lens to my eyes. Plus, 2.8 is gonna prove itself versatile if my trips bring me to places where I just cant setup a tripod on scene. The only real caveat people have to watch out with these mid range zooms from Nikon is that they're notoriously heavy in vignetting, just like old counter parts.

Thanks for this video. I am going to make the switch from the D810 to Z7ii. I needed this info.

Interesting and entertaining as always. I bought the Z 24-120mm f4 S when I purchased my Z7ii, and while the Z7ii moved out to make room for a Z9 and later joined by a Z8, the Z 24-120mm remains the lens that's on the camera for hikes, travel, other outdoor uses and the grab-and-go situations that life presents. I do have a need for low light capabilities in shooting lots of movement photos at indoor dog shows where I normally use the Z 70-200mm f2.8 S lens, and I think about getting the Z 24-70mm f2.8 S to add wide-angle capabilities for those situations. But the Z 24-70 f4 doesn't really fit my use case as the Z 24-120mm f4 is remarkable and just as sharp in the center where it matters to me and is perfectly fine for wide-angle and movement outdoors.

this was by far the funniest video you've made to date. the bit about gavin's book was hilarious.

Thomas, Thank you for sparing us the image by image zooming in pixel peeping. (We can’t see the differences on KZread anyway). I’ve gotta make this same choice soon myself.

Without doubt the 24-70mm f/4 will be my lens, and indeed I've got a really similar one for my Sony cameras. Anyway, great video as always Thomas. Have a nice day!

I think you made the right choice. For cost, weight, size and image quality it seems like a great option for Nikon shooters.

The 24-120mm is interesting as I've not noticed any issues with my lens. The biggest advantage for me was the extra focal length which made it much more usable for me. I have a 70-200mm, but doing event photography found myself constantly switching lenses to get that little bit closer when using the 24-70mm. The 24-120mm solved it.

@CC3GROUNDZERO

8 ай бұрын

The 24-120 f4 isn't quite as sharp in the corners as the 24-70 f4. So you're trading money and corner sharpness for a measly 50mm more reach. Not a smart deal imho, but obviously the one Nikon would like us to make, seeing how they're aggressively marketing the 24-120 on all their affiliated channels across KZread!

@marcinsmolinski903

5 ай бұрын

@@CC3GROUNDZERO but at center is sharp, so the subject will be sharp and at the end the result will be better because of the greater focal length and no need for crop.

@CC3GROUNDZERO

5 ай бұрын

@@marcinsmolinski903 I rarely if ever place my subject at the center of the image.

🤣 This video was awesome. Yes, doing these comparisons are a pain so thankful that you did it for me. I am just switching from Fuji back to Nikon (I think, I am getting my Zf in a couple of days) so it was great to see the comparison. Since I got the 24-70mm lens as a kit lens I even got it for half the price that it usually costs so happy with my decision. I just subscribed too.... English humor is always a plus.

Great review!!

After seeing your conclusions on your loaner 24-120 twice now, I'm inclined to think your copy has some issues. It's THE no brainer choice of these 3 for a traveling landscape photographer, provided you get a good copy. The price and weight increase over the 24-70/4 is marginal and you get 100+% more focal range.

@cianmcliam1

Жыл бұрын

I agree Scott. I've used the 24-70 F4 since I got the original Z7 and I have the 24-120 F4 S for about seven months. I still have both because the 24-70 is used on gimbals. In my brick wall and real world tests, the 24-120 has a little bit more contrast and is sharper than the 24-70 by a very small but noticeable amount. I think there may be a bit of sample variation, Hudson Henry's tests are pretty much identical to what I am seeing, the 24-120 is sharper. PhotographyLife on the other hand seem to be getting similar results to Thomas here.

@scotttucker9613

Жыл бұрын

@@cianmcliam1 Z lenses certainly aren't immune to sample variation, I had to return my first Z 100-400 for a much sharper second copy.

@NORTRONGAMES

Жыл бұрын

Yea you are right. Cuz I use the same 24-120 and it's absolutely amazing.

@CC3GROUNDZERO

8 ай бұрын

Interesting then that every single comparison of the 24-120 vs the 24-70 f4 done by not-Nikon-affiliated channels has found the exact same difference in corner sharpness. Maybe Nikon just wants to upsell us by putting up a massive marketing hype around the 24-120, have you considered that?

Fun review!

I have the 24-120 f/4, the 24-70 2.8, the 70-200 2.8 and, for wide stuff and astro, the 20mm 1.8. All great lenses. My wife bought me the 24-120 for Christmas as a “travel lens”. What’s interesting is, since then, it’s been glued to the camera most of the time; and mostly at the expense of the 24-70 2.8. These days for landscapes I interchange between the 24-120 and the 70-200, the latter most often with the 1.4x extender attached (the Z mount extenders suffer almost nil loss of image quality IMO). So with two lenses, I have 24-280mm fully covered. It’s a no brainer for me. The 24-120 has become my most used lens.

Thankyou Thomas, Just the comparisons I needed. Recently scored a Z6II with the 24-70 f4 and having for a long time used 24-120 or equiv. find the 70 bit frustrating for my "general" use. Value your views so thanks again.Cheers.

The color rendition of the 2.8 lens in your images is superior. I have the 24-70 f4 and it is my "Go To" lens all day.

@USGrant21st

3 ай бұрын

I tested all those lenses, there is no difference in color, it's very neutral. Any difference in color you see is an artifact of this experiment, more likely just an AWB. There isn't perceptible difference in contrast either. When it comes to resolution they are very close, there are weaknesses and strengths but they are not easily perceivable. Don't rely on random potentially misfocused images. Poorly executed testing is the explanation of any differences you notice.

Fantastic reviews love 10/10

I don't shoot Nikon, and my kit is pretty settled (although I did have to talk myself out of a lens purchase earlier this year 😂). I still enjoyed the video, and appreciated the timeliness of the sponsorship!

There is always a compromise, suit whatever works best for you. When it comes to quality and light sensitivity I really like primes. I'd pick 2 or 3 focal lengths I know I would use the most (28 and 50mm, and maybe an additional 20mm or 85/105 ish) and buy those who deliver the best bang for the buck. Additionally I'd keep one zoom for flexibility, I'd recon that would be the 24-120 in this case. I would also consider buying the FTZ II adapter, which opens up a huge range of (used) lenses. Older primes with an F-mount which still are good to todays standards, go away for bargain prizes these days. I keep the compatibility with my F100 and F3's with older lenses - which would mean this is an extra option for you to explore (and yes, the Epson V850 can pull some quality out of those 35mm negatives, albeit somewhat "artistic" due to film grain). Buying the fastest glass is not always the most sensible for my wallet and my back. Given I soly shoot for pleasure I really want to keep it that way - keeping stuff simple helps a lot.

This was the first video I have seen of yours and was thoroughly entertained. When you proposed the comparison I said to myself, the 24-70 f/4 is the practical winner, the 2.8 is better for limited space portrait shots and the 24-120 would be the most practical travel and casual shooting. I had the 24-70 f4 as long as I have had my Z6, in the first batch received by my camera store because it was bundled as a kit. I had 18 best Nikkor lenses for my D850 and D800 in the range of 14mm to 200mm. I have the 24-70 2.8 in F mount so I assumed with the include FTZ that would be my mid range lens and maybe keep the f/4 z version for tourism, light walking around causual shooting. After pretty compete testing, the f4 beat the 2.8 in lack of CA, and corner to corner sharpness and color. That surprised but adding the 50 1.8 and 85 1.8 as low weight travel primes, until I tested agains my Sigma ART 85 and 50 1.4, although in the center of the frame both did very well towards the corners the S lenses were clearly better but the biggest difference was CA, undetectable in both S lenses, and behavior when having a light source in the frame, such as portrait against the setting sun at the beach. All the F mount lense had problems with that with flare, but none of the S lenses did. The Sigma ART lenses had more pleasant out of focus rendering in static tests but in real world shooting such as a portrait session outdoors the overall blur was creamier and smoother. My wide angle zoom that gets lots of work is the F mounth 15-30 2.8 Tamron G2. I still have my Nikkor 14-24 but since getting the Tamron, at 1/2 the price is just better in every criteria such as very effect VR, less distortion in the corners, sharper over the full width of the frame, color, flare, and feel/handling My main subjects are portraits, head shots, actor portfolios, ballet, opera and other commercial applictions and my personal shooting is street, clubs, landscape. For my applications the Z family is the best but I do not shoot birds in flight or sports. From my experience the often complained about AF of the z bodies have not been experienced and have a higher keeper rate in location or studio work better than even my D850. The S lenses alone justify the brand choice. The 85 1.2 is in a class by itself.

@ Thomas Heaton - Wow Thomas! I haven’t seen such an entertaining gear content in a while , not many people managed to engage my attention like you have . ( Chris N and Kai did but that’s about it ) Entertaining, informative , practical . Carry on .

Very useful review - I have had the 24-70 f/4 since I purchased my Z6 a number of years ago, and I have always been happy with it. I am glad to know there are minimal differences between the f/4 and 2.8. I was looking at the 24-120mm, and I am glad to know your results, with the lack of sharpness in the longer focal lengths, as I am trying to decide on what lens to add with my Zf that I recently got.

I enjoyed the comarison session Thom! ( I must be nerd) Tony Northrup would be proud of you :) LOL!

Hi Thomas, I like your practically relevant comparison without letting viewers pixel-peep, because I was also eyeing the 24-120 f4. What I would have liked even more is a comparison of the 24-70 sharpness at 70mm and then cropped in to the equivalents of 85mm, 100mm or 105mm, and 120 mm, with the native 24-120 images. Because that is what will happen at the long end where the composition calls for the narrower view than the zoom ring can deliver: you will crop. I also must say, that being able to evaluate the composition by zooming in to it instead of just planning to crop in post would be a clear advantage for me. (Although I learned the hard way, that after zooming in to the favorite composition I should typically zoom out a bit before taking the shot, because even on a tripod my composition is often not perfectly levelled and I need to rotate or I want to keystone correct or I only understand on the computer that the wider composition is better or I could have used more pixels close the edge for cloning things out. A topic on itself.)

For landscape, a Z7 will do everything that a Z7ii will do and you can pick them up for very little. You might save enough to buy a 14-30 f4 to go with your 100-400. This will give you amazing range with just three lenses.

Enjoyable video. I do think the 24-70 f4 is a brilliant lens. I love mine. The other thing to remember is that if you are buying a new Z7ii, you could probably buy it in kit with the 24-70 f4 - thus reducing the price considerably from the £950 list price! The cheapest price I can see online currently for the Z7ii is £2549. The cheapest I've found the Z7ii kit with the 24-70 f4 is £2959 - thus making the cost of the 24-70 f4 just £410!

I shoot now for two years landscape with the z24-70/4 as well and I find it to be a fantastic lens! In germany this lens is used extremly cheap. I think you can buy one for 350€.

I have just bought a mint boxed 24-70 f4 used for £320 . These lenses are crazy good value used . I bought it as a lighter walk around lens to save weight . I still have my 24-70 f2.8 but to be honest I usually pick up the f4 . It’s just lighter and more than good enough 👍

I don't particularly like 24-70 range. In my experience it's the most uninteresting focal range. I use wide angle a lot, 16-35 is really the most useful range, sometimes I need telephoto. When I need 24-70 range it likely means I'm indoors and a prime would work better.

I have the 14-30 and 24-70 f4 to go with my Z7, amazing gear. Nikon are doing a great job with the Z’s on quality and price.

Hope you had the time to visit the Longyearbyen brewery :-) ... I just took the Z9 + 100-400 and Z7ii + 24-120 for the trip to Svalbard. Great combination for travel, landscape and wildlife. Kind regards, Guy.

Much appreciated video!

Tom, Thanks for the discussion on the lenses. I must confess that I own all of the lenses you have tested along with the wide angle lenses. Don't ask how I happen to own these lenses, it's a long story. Anyway you are correct with your analysis of the three you tested, except that my 24-120 seems to work very well at the longer ranges. I tend to use the f 2.8 version when I shoot people, which is not often but I do. What's even harder is to decide which wide lens to use. The 14-24 f 2.8 is a terrific lens and I bought it of astro photography. However the 14-30 is a lot handier and I use it when I travel. My main travel kit is the 14-30 plus the 24-120, unless I am going to photograph wildlife. Then I take the 14-30 plus the 24-120 and the 100-400. I am anxious to hear what you decide to purchase. A wise blogger once said "you marry your lens, and you lease your camera" This is why I haven't sold any of the lenses I have purchased. I have never regretted purchasing a lens, but have regretted selling one. In fact on several occasions, I went back and rebought lenses that I have sold. I am very interested in your evaluation of the Z8. I am giving serious consideration to purchasing one. Hope you enjoy your trip to Svalbard.

You know, I hate how obsessed with things that don't even matter. Story is King. Use what you have to its Strengths and stop fussing over what you don't have. Take what you got and be creative with it!