I use both the f/4 and the 2.8 version of the 24-70 S on a Z6. This camera is used primarily for event and full length portraits. For closer portraits, I have the 85 mm f/1.8 S. This kit replaced an aging D750 with the 24-70 F/2.8 G and 85 mm f/1.8. Why? I’m 70 years old. The difference in weight and the IBIS made the keeper rate for hand held shots much higher and I can shoot for much longer without fatigue. Bonus! I live in Washington state. Every landscape venue is uphill. The Z-6 and F/2.8 24-70 takes amazingingly sharp lanscapse pictures. Compared to carrying my D850 with a f/2.8 zoom, it is not even close. Have I given up on DSLRs. Not at all. I have a D850 with a 105 mm F/1.4 E. Mounted on a good tripod, I get the best detail of anything I have tried for designer fashion shoots. The someday Z8 will have to be just flat amazing to beat the D850 and the 105 mm. The D850 is still my preferred camera for wildlife and birds. I have no regrets for the money spent to get the Z6 and 24-70 mm F/2.8 S.
Karl Balian
July 25, 2020 9:04 pm
You cannot stop progress and innovation. Without the Z series Nikon would be dead already – Bravo for Nikon for still being in the game.
autofocusross
November 3, 2019 5:09 am
Is it just me? I feel the hamster wheel of forever catching up will never end. I have images from my D810 shot in great light AND in poor light, plus some backlit, all in Crete, two months ago, and on the 24 – 120mm F/4 Nikkor. When pixel peeped at 100%, they are honestly frighteningly sharp and beautiful. At what point are we meant to stop blowing thousands on gear? It seems the lens, last week, that was amazing, brilliant, and the pick of the bunch, is suddenly relegated to third rate and only good for a paperweight now. Nikon may be transitioning to mirrorless but they won’t be dragging me along – only the death of my camera will force me to consider it – so let’s hope they made the D810 properly!
People are always complaining,like children, and their only art is to complain.Gear syndrome is one of the many reasons that makes people complain.I am still quite happy with my Nikon 14-24 and D850 and the results are printable(after editing,cropping,and post processing),even on 42 inches paper.Now I hear over the internet infamous Youtube channels,websites,and the like that Nikon 14-24 is outdated,showing it age,and should be dumped in favor of third party rivals.I took my friend’s Sigma 14-24 and tested in field.It is true that on paper and in the lab,Nikon 14-24 may not be on par with Sigma,but in practice the results are almost identical with little differences.The same goes with nikon 24-70 G version versus VR version.Unless you have to use it for landscape,especially in 24 mm,wide open,you don’t need to dump G version in favor of VR version.I still love my G version on my D850. In mirrorless realm,unless Nikon releases fully grown up bodies that may take three generations to come,moving to that realm does not necessarily make anybody a unicorn!
You are so right. I am still using a 20mp. D500 as my “main camera” and I deliver 30 x 40″ and 20 x 30″ prints to clients all the time. I bet you can guess how many complaints I have received about sharpness…yes, you win….as expected…the answer is 0. I will move to the Z at some point. The advantages of mirror-less are pretty obvious and when the Z cameras are ready for action / wildlife and my camera’s are on their last legs, I will happily switch. Until then, my existing equipment (including lenses) works fine thank you.
autofusross, If the Nikkor 24-120mm is good enough for a lot of Adam Gibbs’ work (Landscape Photographer of The Year last year), then you’d have to reckon it’s more than good enough for most everybody else.
I have D850 with Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8 ED VR and Z7 with S-line 24-70mm f/2.8. What I can tell you is that you would probably be hard pushed to see any real differences in sharpness, even at 100% magnification. Might see some difference in favor of the S-line lens wide open, but not elsewhere. On the other hand the S-line lens is smaller and 300g lighter and has smoother, more pleasing overall bokeh. It also has better resistance to flare in strongly backlit situations. So, yes it represents an incremental improvement over its f-mount ancestors. Overall improvement in lens performance, size and weight is something that should be viewed positively I think. The future holds promise :-)
autofocusross, I agree with you. The difference between an ordinary consumer lens and a state of the art pro lens is generally much bigger than between two incarnations or versions of the pro lens. So if you are already close to the maximum of image performance with your actual lens there is not much sense for most of us, to buy the next generation of the same class of lens. That said, I still use the AF-S 80-200mm f/2.8 and for optical reasons there was never a reason to upgrade to one of the newer AF-S 70-200mm f/2.8. Not even VR makes the difference as it is of no real advantage if you shoot moving objects. That is why I still stay with my AF-S 17-35mm f/2.8 as there is no other Nikon lens with the same focal range and the same open aperture. Of course, if you are into (low light) landscape or architecture photography you’d buy that lens which is as sharp in the corners and the edges wide open as it can be. The hamster wheel keeps the companies and their development compartment alive and I for my part am glad I occasionally can buy used gear of great quality at a reasonable price second hand. I filled some gaps in my lens line-up this way. Lenses which I probably wouldn’t have bought new, such as a used Nikon AIS 16mm f/2.8 fisheye, introduced 1979, for less than a third of the price than the newest one (which, from 1993, is quite old too btw). Cheers! -jan
If you are happy with your current gear than this is no issue, you cannot stop progress and innovation, are you suggesting Nikon just stops and dies? Because without the Z series it would be dead already.
Steven Hyatt
July 13, 2020 11:32 am
Thanks for doing all this Nasim! I get so much useful information from this site. I’m curious, knowing everything you do after all these tests, are you personally using the 2.8 or 4 version?
Roy McLaren
November 2, 2019 10:31 am
Nasim, regarding your comments in bokeh section are you specifically referring to the quality of specular highlights or the quality of the out of focus region in general? I got this lens last week and one of my first observations was that quality of out of focus region was in my opinion very good for a 24-70mm zoom. Really quite pleasing, smooth and buttery and a distinct step up from the Nikkor 24-70mm ED VR. I have yet to take shots with out of focus specular highlights on the other hand…
Roy, I’m specifically referring to the quality of specular highlights…
sukesh
April 2, 2021 3:48 pm
Hi all,
I bought a refurbished lens and while focusing, it is making noise even in medium light in indoors and it is a bit difficult to focus. I tried with my 85mm 1.8 prime and I didn’t notice focusing noise/issues with the same light, same aperture and shutter speed settings. Could you please let me know if anyone experienced focusing issues earlier with this lens?
Alex
January 2, 2021 1:35 pm
I’ve bought tue 24-70 f/2.8 S lens last week. It is excellent optically and feels nice, but I have two issues: 1. Bulid quality – there is an audible wobble of the extending barrel at any focal length. I’ve checked at the store and all of their 3 copies did the same. Aside from the “rattle,” there is little visible movement. It is VERY annoying for me. It feels like you have a loose lens hood 2. Flare is considerable if you shoot into the sun, wherever the sun is in the frame. I am aware there must be flare in situation like this, but it seems more than my Samyang 12m f/2 on my Fuji X-H1
I’d love to see feedback on the wobble and flare issues.
Young
September 10, 2020 11:30 am
Nasim, if possible, could you do a comparison between Nikon Z 24-70 F2.8, Canon RF 24-70 F2.8 and Sony GM 24-70 F2.8 ?
Carlos Manuel da Silva André Viana
September 1, 2020 6:45 pm
Did you test the autofocus in video? How does it compare to the f4 version?
I use both the f/4 and the 2.8 version of the 24-70 S on a Z6. This camera is used primarily for event and full length portraits. For closer portraits, I have the 85 mm f/1.8 S. This kit replaced an aging D750 with the 24-70 F/2.8 G and 85 mm f/1.8. Why? I’m 70 years old. The difference in weight and the IBIS made the keeper rate for hand held shots much higher and I can shoot for much longer without fatigue. Bonus! I live in Washington state. Every landscape venue is uphill. The Z-6 and F/2.8 24-70 takes amazingingly sharp lanscapse pictures. Compared to carrying my D850 with a f/2.8 zoom, it is not even close. Have I given up on DSLRs. Not at all. I have a D850 with a 105 mm F/1.4 E. Mounted on a good tripod, I get the best detail of anything I have tried for designer fashion shoots. The someday Z8 will have to be just flat amazing to beat the D850 and the 105 mm. The D850 is still my preferred camera for wildlife and birds. I have no regrets for the money spent to get the Z6 and 24-70 mm F/2.8 S.
You cannot stop progress and innovation. Without the Z series Nikon would be dead already – Bravo for Nikon for still being in the game.
Is it just me? I feel the hamster wheel of forever catching up will never end. I have images from my D810 shot in great light AND in poor light, plus some backlit, all in Crete, two months ago, and on the 24 – 120mm F/4 Nikkor. When pixel peeped at 100%, they are honestly frighteningly sharp and beautiful. At what point are we meant to stop blowing thousands on gear? It seems the lens, last week, that was amazing, brilliant, and the pick of the bunch, is suddenly relegated to third rate and only good for a paperweight now. Nikon may be transitioning to mirrorless but they won’t be dragging me along – only the death of my camera will force me to consider it – so let’s hope they made the D810 properly!
People are always complaining,like children, and their only art is to complain.Gear syndrome is one of the many reasons that makes people complain.I am still quite happy with my Nikon 14-24 and D850 and the results are printable(after editing,cropping,and post processing),even on 42 inches paper.Now I hear over the internet infamous Youtube channels,websites,and the like that Nikon 14-24 is outdated,showing it age,and should be dumped in favor of third party rivals.I took my friend’s Sigma 14-24 and tested in field.It is true that on paper and in the lab,Nikon 14-24 may not be on par with Sigma,but in practice the results are almost identical with little differences.The same goes with nikon 24-70 G version versus VR version.Unless you have to use it for landscape,especially in 24 mm,wide open,you don’t need to dump G version in favor of VR version.I still love my G version on my D850.
In mirrorless realm,unless Nikon releases fully grown up bodies that may take three generations to come,moving to that realm does not necessarily make anybody a unicorn!
You are so right. I am still using a 20mp. D500 as my “main camera” and I deliver 30 x 40″ and 20 x 30″ prints to clients all the time. I bet you can guess how many complaints I have received about sharpness…yes, you win….as expected…the answer is 0.
I will move to the Z at some point. The advantages of mirror-less are pretty obvious and when the Z cameras are ready for action / wildlife and my camera’s are on their last legs, I will happily switch. Until then, my existing equipment (including lenses) works fine thank you.
I still have my box brownie and I’m sticking with it.
autofusross, If the Nikkor 24-120mm is good enough for a lot of Adam Gibbs’ work (Landscape Photographer of The Year last year), then you’d have to reckon it’s more than good enough for most everybody else.
I have D850 with Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8 ED VR and Z7 with S-line 24-70mm f/2.8. What I can tell you is that you would probably be hard pushed to see any real differences in sharpness, even at 100% magnification. Might see some difference in favor of the S-line lens wide open, but not elsewhere. On the other hand the S-line lens is smaller and 300g lighter and has smoother, more pleasing overall bokeh. It also has better resistance to flare in strongly backlit situations. So, yes it represents an incremental improvement over its f-mount ancestors. Overall improvement in lens performance, size and weight is something that should be viewed positively I think. The future holds promise :-)
autofocusross, I agree with you. The difference between an ordinary consumer lens and a state of the art pro lens is generally much bigger than between two incarnations or versions of the pro lens. So if you are already close to the maximum of image performance with your actual lens there is not much sense for most of us, to buy the next generation of the same class of lens. That said, I still use the AF-S 80-200mm f/2.8 and for optical reasons there was never a reason to upgrade to one of the newer AF-S 70-200mm f/2.8. Not even VR makes the difference as it is of no real advantage if you shoot moving objects. That is why I still stay with my AF-S 17-35mm f/2.8 as there is no other Nikon lens with the same focal range and the same open aperture.
Of course, if you are into (low light) landscape or architecture photography you’d buy that lens which is as sharp in the corners and the edges wide open as it can be.
The hamster wheel keeps the companies and their development compartment alive and I for my part am glad I occasionally can buy used gear of great quality at a reasonable price second hand. I filled some gaps in my lens line-up this way. Lenses which I probably wouldn’t have bought new, such as a used Nikon AIS 16mm f/2.8 fisheye, introduced 1979, for less than a third of the price than the newest one (which, from 1993, is quite old too btw).
Cheers! -jan
If you are happy with your current gear than this is no issue, you cannot stop progress and innovation, are you suggesting Nikon just stops and dies? Because without the Z series it would be dead already.
Thanks for doing all this Nasim! I get so much useful information from this site. I’m curious, knowing everything you do after all these tests, are you personally using the 2.8 or 4 version?
Nasim, regarding your comments in bokeh section are you specifically referring to the quality of specular highlights or the quality of the out of focus region in general? I got this lens last week and one of my first observations was that quality of out of focus region was in my opinion very good for a 24-70mm zoom. Really quite pleasing, smooth and buttery and a distinct step up from the Nikkor 24-70mm ED VR. I have yet to take shots with out of focus specular highlights on the other hand…
Roy, I’m specifically referring to the quality of specular highlights…
Hi all,
I bought a refurbished lens and while focusing, it is making noise even in medium light in indoors and it is a bit difficult to focus. I tried with my 85mm 1.8 prime and I didn’t notice focusing noise/issues with the same light, same aperture and shutter speed settings. Could you please let me know if anyone experienced focusing issues earlier with this lens?
I’ve bought tue 24-70 f/2.8 S lens last week. It is excellent optically and feels nice, but I have two issues:
1. Bulid quality – there is an audible wobble of the extending barrel at any focal length. I’ve checked at the store and all of their 3 copies did the same. Aside from the “rattle,” there is little visible movement. It is VERY annoying for me. It feels like you have a loose lens hood
2. Flare is considerable if you shoot into the sun, wherever the sun is in the frame. I am aware there must be flare in situation like this, but it seems more than my Samyang 12m f/2 on my Fuji X-H1
I’d love to see feedback on the wobble and flare issues.
Nasim, if possible, could you do a comparison between Nikon Z 24-70 F2.8, Canon RF 24-70 F2.8 and Sony GM 24-70 F2.8
?
Did you test the autofocus in video? How does it compare to the f4 version?
photographylife.com/lens-…8;sort=asc
on this menu, the FULL REVIEW link for this lens is wrong… it goes me to nikon usa site
Fixed! Thanks for letting me know.