Table of Contents
Nikon Z 24-70mm f/2.8 S
Reader Interactions
Reader Comments
Comment Policy: Although our team at Photography Life encourages all readers to actively participate in discussions, we reserve the right to delete / modify any content that does not comply with our Code of Conduct, or do not meet the high editorial standards of the published material.
Good review! I’m really curious to see how well the upcoming 70-200mm f/2.8S stacks up to the E and G siblings on the F mount. Hopefully just as well as this lens in comparison.
That’s exactly what I’m thinking at the moment !
I hope we can get a less heavy version of the 70-200.
Aaron, I expect it to be as breathtaking as the Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8 S. I really hope Nikon does something special for the 70-200mm to make it lighter, smaller and much sharper!
Exciting times indeed!
Thanks for the review,
How AF speed is compared to the ultrafast 2.8E by comparison?
Lazaros, it is faster, quieter and much more responsive.
Very nice objective review Nasim. In some respects I wish I had waited for this lens for my Z6 & Z7 but for the price versus image superiority improvement with the f2.8 (which for my 72 year old eyes was really hard to discern) I’ll stick with the smaller and very capable f4.0 version. I know you will understand.
Ralph, I am actually on the same boat. I love my super compact 24-70mm f/4 S and I am going to keep using it, along with the amazing 14-30mm f/4 S. Now I need a 70-200mm f/4 S, which isn’t even in the timeline, which sucks! As much as I want to avoid purchasing the 70-200mm f/2.8 S, I guess I will have no choice for the next few years.
Totally agree with the love for especially the 14-30Z. As for the 70-200mm f2.8 S well I’m sure your eventual review will be outstanding but it will also be pricey of course. Till then I have been most impressed with the Tamron 70-200mm 2.8 G2 with the FTZ adapter on both the Z6 & 7 – I don’t think I will even tempt myself with the Nikon.
Slightly off topic. I too, have found the 14-30/4 to be a very good lens indeed. It’s also a brilliant traveling companion for the 24-40/4. A number of reviewers, however, suggest that either it is not as good as the other S series lenses, and/or that there is a high level of sample variation due to de-centering.
Any thoughts/experiences?
Typo: 24-70/4
Agree completely with these statements. At my age size matters so I’m sticking with the f4 version. I, too, hope for a 70-200 f4S as I really need a 70-200 for my Z7. Right now I hope the to-be-released f2.8 isn’t too heavy. I find my 70-200 f4 with adapter to be size wise, almost unmanageable – not to mention it has to be fine tuned to work on the Z which was never a problem with the D810.
Currently he best compact telephoto zoom for the Z7 is the 70-300 f4.5-5.6. It is a little long with the adapter. The lens image quality is great and reasonably priced.
I do agree, on the Z6 it behaves better as the 70-200mm f/4 of the F-Mount (which was awesome on the D750)
Fai come me, anello FTX e 70-200 f4 versione 2009…
Nice review Nasim – thanks for compiling it. Question I guess is do you think it’s worth upgrading for a landscape photographer who also dabbles in family portraits? A one-lens does all type approach. On the fence here as the f4 is very capable but that 2.8 is on a different level
Paul, if you do portraits and want to use a single lens, then the 24-70mm f/2.8 S is worth it. However, my recommendation for portraiture would be to use a fast prime like the 50mm f/1.8 S, or the newly released 85mm f/1.8 S – those are much better for portraiture.
If family portraits involves capturing pictures of one’s own children in the moment then I would recommend an f/2.8 zoom. Zooming saved me precious seconds and f/2.8 brought good enough subject isolation – and better low light capability in dimly lit environments. This was with a camera in the 20MP range. Maybe with a 40+MP camera this is less of an issue (with more room for cropping)? I wonder about Nasim’s experience on the matter :)
Nice review Nasim. It seems to me that the 24-70/4 is fairly good value then (at least in a kit) since its performance is only a smidgen lower than the Sf2.8 version. Your analysis shows the f2.8 is a bit sharper in the corners, so I have to ask my old chestnut question again – what is the definition of the corners? Are we talking about the last 5% of the frame, which wouldn’t really bother most people (would be vignetted and out of focus normally anyway), or are we talking about the outer 20-30%, which could be an issue?
Burghclerebilly, the corners are measured using the two edges of a square that is located towards the edges of the frame. Please take a look at this image for reference. So it is not the very edge of the frame, it is a little bit higher.
Personally, I am very happy with the performance of my Nikon 24-70mm f/4 S, and I especially like that it is a small and light lens, which makes it perfect to travel with. If I needed to get the best results I can get, I would get the 24-70mm f/2.8 S, since it is a level above in performance.
Great review (as always). Quick correction: In the lens comparison section, where you’re comparing to the Tokina, you consistently refer to the Tokina as the “Tamron,” especially in the 35mm and above paragraphs.
Thank you for letting me know Paul, I fixed those typos. With so many lenses in comparison, I got a bit distracted while writing the text :)
Just bought the 24-70mm f2.8 with a nice 13% discount. I did some quick, rough comparisons between two f2.8 and my original f4 zooms.
The f4 is within shouting distance from the f2.8. The f2.8 is clearly better, but f4 would do for travel photography just fine.
More disturbing was the difference between the two f2.8 that I compared. One of them seemed descenteted… Glad that my dealer allowed me to test two copies before buying.
So happy with the Nikon Z that I am dumping all my Sony equipment. Not much, an A7Riii and about 6 lenses, but anyway. I will replace some of the primes with the 2.8 zooms…
Woops, this was meant to be in the main discussion thread…
Hi Dan,
Can you talk a bit why for you, the Nikon Z is better than your Sony A7riii experience, particular for landscapes.
I am getting ready to do an upgrade of camera (from a6300 + a half dozen primes)) to an a7 rii/iii. (ability for large prints being one of the reasons, and less workarounds). While not in the Nikon camp, i am really attracted to the weather sealing of the Z7. Again, without direct nikon experience (at least in the last 30 years), from what i have read, there seems to be better lenses for the sony e-mount, although more expensive. Sample pics i have seen online for the 24-70 f4 show bad corner sharpness at all apertures, which makes me question (for my usages), if that i was to start with on the Nikon Z system if better to use primes. At this moment the price f the 2.8 is a non-starter.
In short, anything you would like to share is appreciated.
Thanks
Is it just me or is anyone else very unimpressed by the sample pics? They look soft, underexposed or both. Not a single one impresses and they look like they could have been taken by a 6 megapixel D100 from 2002. Why does picture quality go down as lens quality goes up?
Paul, what is your viewing environment for the images? I would recommend to open the images up separately on new browser screen, or download them and view on your photo app. When the images are downscaled (automatically) by our server, they are ran through an algorithm to make them much smaller in size, so that it makes the page load faster. As a result, some details might appear mushy / soft.
I would also like to add that some of the images were post-processed by me (mostly portraits / events), while others were post-processed by Spencer. Spencer uses different editing techniques and his images are typically on the darker side, as that’s his style of processing.
In regards to the overall quality of sample images, if they don’t appear good, that’s a failure on our end – not a failure of the lens. I am planning to take another copy of the lens with me in my upcoming trips to produce more sample images, so that we have more variety for the review.
The rendering of this optic did not convince me either. It reminds me the rendering of the 24 f/1.8: this lense is made to succeed easily in the test benches. The best improvement for Nikon in this mirrorless new range is the color rendering : as good as Canon and far better than “Sony colors”
It’s an awful lot of money for what it is.
For landscapes I’d want performance at 24 and 35mm at f8 and f11. The other aspect is wide open at 70mm. In neither of those do the bar charts suggest that it’s stunningly good for the money compared to the f4 version.
It’s good that you pros are enjoying this. As a budget-wise amateur, I’m content to have a D610, 18-35, 50/1.8 and 70-200/f4 (3 of those bought used) all for the price of just this lens.
Nasim, is a review on Z 85 F1.8 coming soon? Other sites say it is a fabulous lens. I have a Z6 and use the F-mount 85 F1.8 with FTZ but I am considering the new Z lens.
@Niko My 85m 1.8Z arrived about two weeks ago and i love it. Sharpness is great at 1.8, improves to wonderful at 2.8. And I love how the focus ring feels to operate.
Haven’t gotten a chance to do much portraits with it yet. Did some landscape tests with it, also took it out for astro on my tracker the other night and found that coma is gone by f2.8.
Niko, I just received the Z 85mm f/1.8 S two days ago. Haven’t taken it out for a test yet, but I am planning to do that in the next few weeks. I expect it to be as good as the other primes we have seen so far, which is top notch.
I am waiting for your review on Z 85/1.8. Your reviews and those of your team here were the main deciding factor for me (along with Thom Hogan’s ones) to move to Z6 from my D5600 which I liked a lot but wanted to go to FF for some time. I have Z 24-70 F4 that came as a kit, and also the new Z lenses 35, 50 and 14-30. The Z 24-70 F2.8 is not for me because it is much too expensive, too big and too heavy for me, and I am just an enthusiast, not pro. Moreover, I am more than happy with the F4 lens, which is quite good even in almost complete darkness. I do have a few FF primes and they perform quite well with FTZ, but after some shootout of my F and Z 50/1.8 lenses, and also my F and Z 35/1.8 lenses I have no doubts that the Z lenses are something different. By the way, my new Z 14-30 lens is incredibly sharp, I really do not understand the mixed reviews about it. That said, the Z 85/1.8 is not a cheap lens (a bit cheaper than the Z 35/1.8, though) and also my old F 85/1.8 is quite fine for me. I am sure you will compare the Z and F 85/1.8 lenses and your conclusions will be very important for people like me. Last but not least: many thanks for your very professional, balanced, objective and well explained reviews. They make the difference for many of us, even if we do not drop a comment every time. Such reviews are not easily found in some other popular blogs.
Nasim,
This lens is not the first Nikon lens to use two separate AF drive units. The Nikon Z 35mm f/1.8 S also uses two AF drive units.
Nasim – are the MTF tests done on files that have the automatic distortion corrections applied (e.g. jpegs or RAWS processed in Lightroom or Capture One), or as you mention with the distortion graphs, through DCRAW to bypass the auto-corrections?
David, I only measure true RAW files, which are never corrected. Dcraw is used for RAW conversion.
Ah, that (along with the explanation in this review that the corners you measure are not quite the far corners) may explain why the corners on my 24-70 f4 in Capture One and Lightroom are way more fuzzy that your MTF charts suggest – it seems that the distortion correction in those RAW converters has a lot of heavy lifting to do in those corners, causing fuzziness. Not an issue in most cases, but it is in some, such as architecture.
How does the 24-70 f2.8 lens compare – right in those extreme corners, in C1 or LR?
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…
Wow! Dearer than the Sony GM equivalent…. Another myth busted. So over hearing about how expensive Sony lenses are.
And as for “Sony colours”. Are you telling me the Sony sensor in the Z7 prodcues dramatically different colour than the Sony sensor in the A7III or A7IV. I mean, you can’t be referring to the JPEG’s can you, which are heavily processed in-camera for the instant gratification brigade.
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
I think 100-400 f4 is going to be at the same level of 70-200E so it will be the compact landscape lens we want.
An f4 lens in this range will be large, heavy and expensive. I would rather get an f4.5-5.6, preferably with a nice bokeh.
What is the point of buying the Z 24-70mm 2.8 s, if it is going to be used on a Z6 that has an AA filter?
I just used the 24-70 f2.8 S for a 2 hours shoot and it really impressed me over my old 24-70 f2.8 G. As reviewed by others, the lens is very sharp with the corners better compared to the older 24-70 f2.8 G and the reduction of weight is welcomed. AF is very smooth and fast.
Also very impressive to me was the ability to program the L-Fn button on the lens to show me the Playback (and this means my fingers never have to leave the lens to try and press the Playback button on the top left hand side of the body) and also to program the 3rd ring on the lens to change aperture (this is so retro – just like the old manual focus lens of old).
My only complaint is the width of the lens. With a 82mm filter size, it feels quite fat and it takes some getting used too with my small hands. The older 24-70 f2.8G was slimmer and easier to hold and turn the zoom. I highly recommend this Z lens (and the Z6!) despite the price as it makes my DSLR and F-mount lens feel old and limited by comparison.
Nasim, you mention the new multi-focus system on the 2.8.
Does the f4 S lens have that?
Do you perceive any focus speed difference between these two lenses? I’m on the fence of going back to the snap af of the dSLR (D780) and f2.8 G, but don’t want to uproot my Z6 without giving the 2.8 S a chance.
Darek, yes, you can feel differences in AF performance between the two lenses – the f/2.8 is definitely snappier. Another thing to keep in mind, the 24-70mm f/2.8 S is a completely different level of performance compared to f/2.8G, which is only sharp in the center.