Thanks for a solid review and comparison. I recently exchanged the Z 24-70 f/4 for the f/2.8 for multiple reasons: 1) I use it often in low-light conditions, and the 2.8 is simply stronger at that than the 4. Secondly, I like the feel and weight better. I initially used the 24-70 f/4 on the Z6 II body, which was a nice combination. But now that I am using the Z8, this 2.8 feels better balanced with the camera. Built quality: it feels (and probably ois) stronger
andy
March 5, 2024 11:51 am
“You won’t be able to meaningfully beat this lens in sharpness unless you use a prime lens.” of course if 24-70G nicely removed from the comparison.
The sharpness comparison is not consistent. It doesn’t make any sense comparing different lenes results made on the sensors with different resolution 36Mpix G, E vs 45Mpix for Z. If you would take Nikkor E or G lens install it via FTZ adapter on Z7 and read results from imatest then it would be real lens comparison, but it seems it’s not in your interest.
All right, I added the 24-70mm f/2.8G to the comparison. I’m not sure what you were expecting for a lens from 2007, but it’s a little below average in sharpness among the lenses tested here.
By the way, none of the lenses in this review were tested on a 36 MP sensor, I don’t know what gave you that impression. We tested all the lenses in this review on Nikon’s 45 megapixel sensor, and all the sharpness results are 100% consistent and comparable. What you describe as a “real lens comparison” is precisely how we do things. We test F-Mount lenses either on the Z7 via the FTZ adapter, or on the D850, which gives the same Imatest results.
I clearly remember an answer from Nasim on one of the reader’s comment he left in one of the F-mount lenses review. There was info that you (photographylife.com) used D810 with imatest. Unfortunately I don’t remember in which specific lens review I saw that comment. It’s so many of them here and it was quite long time ago. If this not true, I take my words back and asking for apology. I would advise you to write an article about methodology and equipment you use to test lenses (old, new lenses, different systems, etc). It will clarify all these type of questions, and uncertainties.
Sure thing Andy, you’re probably remembering right. Before the D850 came out, we tested everything on the D810. After that, Nasim retested a bunch of lenses on the D850 (and now Z7) so that all of our reviews would be comparable again. There are still a small number of old lenses that we never retested on the 45MP sensor – in those lens reviews, the charts look totally different. All the lenses shown in this review were tested on the 45MP sensor, though.
I’ll work on an article that talks about our methodology, but the basic situation is that every full-frame lens tested on Photography Life is comparable to one another, including across brands. The rare exceptions are those older lenses with different looking test charts.
Mark
March 5, 2024 7:52 am
Can I please ask about the numerical figures given for sharpness. Is there an article that explains what these mean? Can you compare the numbers on this site between manufacturers or sensor sizes? For example, could you directly compare results for Nikon FF with Fujifilm APS-C lenses? Or is it more subtle than that? Thank you.
Hi Mark, the numbers in our tests are measured line widths per picture height. It’s a measure that changes with camera sensor size, so you can’t really compare the full-frame values against APS-C values, although you could multiply the APS-C numbers by 1.5 to get approximately what the lens “would” be on a full-frame sensor with the same pixel density.
As for comparing cross brand, we put a lot of effort into making sure that all full-frame test results are fully comparable across brands. Our Nikon, Canon, and Sony lens reviews can be compared without issue. Here’s the article explaining more about what these numbers mean and how we ensured they would be comparable across brands: photographylife.com/our-c…e-to-nikon
That’s really helpful, thank you very much Spencer. I really enjoy reading the website and viewing the beautiful photographs. I’m considering a switch from my d750 to a fuji system to save weight and bulk, so interested to understand exactly where I may be compromising, hence my question. Much appreciated.
Per Erik Langaanes
March 2, 2024 9:12 am
You let out the 24-70/2.8G in the comparition. For me it is the lens to have espescially for family pictures. It is sharper in the center than the 24-70/2.8Z at 70mm, and the bokeh is better in my opinion than the other zoom lenses through the hole zoom range. Though it has some weak sides, it is a keeper for me.
Not sure why you’re getting downvoted, the Z 24-120mm f/4 is a great lens throughout the zoom range.
Laurence Goode
November 22, 2023 9:30 am
What’s amazing about your lens review is how accurate to my ( & others ) experience it is. Perhaps the most accurate and precise review I have ever seen.
My experience, as stated is as yours. However, the flaws of the lens you discuss do rise to the level of deal breaker. I have generally stopped using the lens for many things. For regardless of how good it’s better features are, they do not outweigh the negatives.
First problem for me, and for my clients whom also saw and rejected this too, is the heinous distortion at 24mm. It always looks bad. Could almost ( well maybe not ) live with this. Secondly, the long end the performance fall off includes many hazy images under many light sources. Definite lack of contrast, image cohesion, and what looks like a soft, faded, mushy image. Slight, but definitely noticeable. And an absolute deal breaker.
Next, there is often a very slight blue violet cast, very slight, but irritating none the less under several lighting circumstances.
Finally, a complaint that could be leveled at all Z and latter F mount lenses, is complex sombrero or wave distortion running through the image. Am told by scientists that this is due to the way modern lenses are made. In this particular case, noticeable at all focal lengths.
I would dump the lens, except – for me – I bought it specifically only for use at 35mm-50mm, to eliminate carrying around two lenses under combat like conditions, and in that range, it is very good. I would say it excels there, with positives outweighing the negatives. The lack of bulk on the street makes the lens extremely valuable for me. Just was hoping good at all lengths. Eh, what can you do.
In fact, was asked to photograph the combat at a major manufacture’s Black Friday sale tomorrow, where I will be hit, knocked around, perhaps beaten on, etc. And for this purpose, the lens is spectacular.
I don’t feel this lens is up to most tasks, but if you have a very specific, admittedly narrow needs, l like mine are for me, than perhaps something like this is a must.
What on earth are you omitting from your photography workflow such that you produce images having “heinous distortion at 24mm” and “often a very slight blue violet cast, very slight, but irritating none the less under several lighting circumstances” (rhetorical question).
I use the Sony GM 24-70 F2.8 II with my Z8 via an adapter ring and I sold my Nikon S 24-70 F2.8. The reason is simple: it is really better in all areas and especially more homogeneous in terms of sharpness and for lightness too. For the moment I’m keeping both systems and when Nikon releases a new S 24-70 F2.8, if it is as good and compact as the Sony, I will buy it without hesitation.
Ashish
June 23, 2023 10:46 pm
How does this lens compare to Sony 24-70 2.8 GM II?
Certainly no contest in terms of weight – the Sony is much lighter according to specifications. I am curious about performance. I have had this lens for 3+ years now, and perhaps it is time Nikon came up with an improved version, especially with reduced weight like Sony did in going from their GMI to GMII.
This is maybe the only lens in the trinity that can be improved (besides weight reduction, which is always a plus), but it’s still a great lens. They have a few other lenses to produce before they start the reruns! If I had a say in it, which I certainly do not.
Katerina
April 26, 2023 12:02 am
Excellent review as always! Stunning images too. Thank you
Dear Spencer,
Thanks for a solid review and comparison. I recently exchanged the Z 24-70 f/4 for the f/2.8 for multiple reasons: 1) I use it often in low-light conditions, and the 2.8 is simply stronger at that than the 4.
Secondly, I like the feel and weight better. I initially used the 24-70 f/4 on the Z6 II body, which was a nice combination. But now that I am using the Z8, this 2.8 feels better balanced with the camera.
Built quality: it feels (and probably ois) stronger
“You won’t be able to meaningfully beat this lens in sharpness unless you use a prime lens.” of course if 24-70G nicely removed from the comparison.
The sharpness comparison is not consistent. It doesn’t make any sense comparing different lenes results made on the sensors with different resolution 36Mpix G, E vs 45Mpix for Z.
If you would take Nikkor E or G lens install it via FTZ adapter on Z7 and read results from imatest then it would be real lens comparison, but it seems it’s not in your interest.
All right, I added the 24-70mm f/2.8G to the comparison. I’m not sure what you were expecting for a lens from 2007, but it’s a little below average in sharpness among the lenses tested here.
By the way, none of the lenses in this review were tested on a 36 MP sensor, I don’t know what gave you that impression. We tested all the lenses in this review on Nikon’s 45 megapixel sensor, and all the sharpness results are 100% consistent and comparable. What you describe as a “real lens comparison” is precisely how we do things. We test F-Mount lenses either on the Z7 via the FTZ adapter, or on the D850, which gives the same Imatest results.
I clearly remember an answer from Nasim on one of the reader’s comment he left in one of the F-mount lenses review. There was info that you (photographylife.com) used D810 with imatest. Unfortunately I don’t remember in which specific lens review I saw that comment. It’s so many of them here and it was quite long time ago.
If this not true, I take my words back and asking for apology.
I would advise you to write an article about methodology and equipment you use to test lenses (old, new lenses, different systems, etc). It will clarify all these type of questions, and uncertainties.
Sure thing Andy, you’re probably remembering right. Before the D850 came out, we tested everything on the D810. After that, Nasim retested a bunch of lenses on the D850 (and now Z7) so that all of our reviews would be comparable again. There are still a small number of old lenses that we never retested on the 45MP sensor – in those lens reviews, the charts look totally different. All the lenses shown in this review were tested on the 45MP sensor, though.
I’ll work on an article that talks about our methodology, but the basic situation is that every full-frame lens tested on Photography Life is comparable to one another, including across brands. The rare exceptions are those older lenses with different looking test charts.
Can I please ask about the numerical figures given for sharpness. Is there an article that explains what these mean? Can you compare the numbers on this site between manufacturers or sensor sizes? For example, could you directly compare results for Nikon FF with Fujifilm APS-C lenses? Or is it more subtle than that? Thank you.
Hi Mark, the numbers in our tests are measured line widths per picture height. It’s a measure that changes with camera sensor size, so you can’t really compare the full-frame values against APS-C values, although you could multiply the APS-C numbers by 1.5 to get approximately what the lens “would” be on a full-frame sensor with the same pixel density.
As for comparing cross brand, we put a lot of effort into making sure that all full-frame test results are fully comparable across brands. Our Nikon, Canon, and Sony lens reviews can be compared without issue. Here’s the article explaining more about what these numbers mean and how we ensured they would be comparable across brands: photographylife.com/our-c…e-to-nikon
That’s really helpful, thank you very much Spencer. I really enjoy reading the website and viewing the beautiful photographs. I’m considering a switch from my d750 to a fuji system to save weight and bulk, so interested to understand exactly where I may be compromising, hence my question. Much appreciated.
You let out the 24-70/2.8G in the comparition. For me it is the lens to have espescially for family pictures. It is sharper in the center than the 24-70/2.8Z at 70mm, and the bokeh is better in my opinion than the other zoom lenses through the hole zoom range. Though it has some weak sides, it is a keeper for me.
I just added it to the comparison!
Great comparison! I love the Z24-120. incredible sharpness for this zoom range.
Not sure why you’re getting downvoted, the Z 24-120mm f/4 is a great lens throughout the zoom range.
What’s amazing about your lens review is how accurate to my ( & others ) experience it is. Perhaps the most accurate and precise review I have ever seen.
My experience, as stated is as yours. However, the flaws of the lens you discuss do rise to the level of deal breaker. I have generally stopped using the lens for many things. For regardless of how good it’s better features are, they do not outweigh the negatives.
First problem for me, and for my clients whom also saw and rejected this too, is the heinous distortion at 24mm. It always looks bad. Could almost ( well maybe not ) live with this. Secondly, the long end the performance fall off includes many hazy images under many light sources. Definite lack of contrast, image cohesion, and what looks like a soft, faded, mushy image. Slight, but definitely noticeable. And an absolute deal breaker.
Next, there is often a very slight blue violet cast, very slight, but irritating none the less under several lighting circumstances.
Finally, a complaint that could be leveled at all Z and latter F mount lenses, is complex sombrero or wave distortion running through the image. Am told by scientists that this is due to the way modern lenses are made. In this particular case, noticeable at all focal lengths.
I would dump the lens, except – for me – I bought it specifically only for use at 35mm-50mm, to eliminate carrying around two lenses under combat like conditions, and in that range, it is very good. I would say it excels there, with positives outweighing the negatives. The lack of bulk on the street makes the lens extremely valuable for me. Just was hoping good at all lengths. Eh, what can you do.
In fact, was asked to photograph the combat at a major manufacture’s Black Friday sale tomorrow, where I will be hit, knocked around, perhaps beaten on, etc. And for this purpose, the lens is spectacular.
I don’t feel this lens is up to most tasks, but if you have a very specific, admittedly narrow needs, l like mine are for me, than perhaps something like this is a must.
Blah blah blah
What on earth are you omitting from your photography workflow such that you produce images having “heinous distortion at 24mm” and “often a very slight blue violet cast, very slight, but irritating none the less under several lighting circumstances” (rhetorical question).
Many thanks for providing entertainment 🤣
I use the Sony GM 24-70 F2.8 II with my Z8 via an adapter ring and I sold my Nikon S 24-70 F2.8.
The reason is simple: it is really better in all areas and especially more homogeneous in terms of sharpness and for lightness too. For the moment I’m keeping both systems and when Nikon releases a new S 24-70 F2.8, if it is as good and compact as the Sony, I will buy it without hesitation.
How does this lens compare to Sony 24-70 2.8 GM II?
Certainly no contest in terms of weight – the Sony is much lighter according to specifications. I am curious about performance. I have had this lens for 3+ years now, and perhaps it is time Nikon came up with an improved version, especially with reduced weight like Sony did in going from their GMI to GMII.
This is maybe the only lens in the trinity that can be improved (besides weight reduction, which is always a plus), but it’s still a great lens. They have a few other lenses to produce before they start the reruns! If I had a say in it, which I certainly do not.
Excellent review as always! Stunning images too. Thank you
Thank you Katerina! We were lucky to visit some beautiful places around the world with this lens. Looking back, this is a great lens indeed.