Thank you for a great review. I am very happy with this lens and have felt frustrated seeing some reviewers knocking it for being an F4 lens or that it has a lesser range than 24-105 and for being collapsible. I don’t understand any of these critiques at all. This lens is much smaller and lighter than competing lenses while offering superlative performance. From my own use I notice that it is optically better than any F mount zoom. It’s a damn near perfect travel lens. The only lens I can think of that comes close is the Fujifilm 18-55 f2.8/4 which is excellent but not as good, since it does not have weather sealing, is a variable aperture lens and is less sharp and has less nice bokeh than this Nikkor lens.
Truly a lens that re-defines what a “kit lens” can be. As has been mentioned in the comments I also do not understand why I would want a larger and heavier 24-105 when I will carry a 70-200? I guess it’s for those who only buys a zoom lens and maybe a fast prime and then calls it a day. Very pleased Nikon is thinking this through from from a real system perspective.
I also see critique agains digital correction which in my opinion is absolute madness. Must be some sort of purist mindset although that doesn’t make sense either since the image is generated digitally in a digital camera. Thanks to digital correction we will see performance from the fully digital Z system that the hybrid F system could only dream of.
Here we are a year later. I’m just waiting for the credit from selling ALL my DX lenses to hit my account then I’ll get the Z 6. These have been truly interesting comments on a great review. As an amateur, I’m torn between the f2.8 or the f4. As a GAS geek, the f2.8 screams to me, but when the brain kicks in, then I realise that the f4 is the one to get. I’d be interested to hear now from those that had the f4 and f2.8 what their current thoughts are. Thank you
Hey Patrick, unless you absolutely need f/2.8 for the conditions you shoot, the f/4 version is a much more practical choice. Far smaller and lighter, negligible sharpness differences (especially on the Z6 rather than Z7) and much less expensive. You can’t go wrong either way, but my impression – as someone who has used both – is if you don’t instantly know you need the f/2.8 version, you shouldn’t get it.
Jim Nelson
March 4, 2020 11:20 am
I have this lens mounted on a Z6. I also have the 24-70 mm f/2.8 (older, non-VR version) mounted on a D750. I have taken these to numerous events/locations and shot them interchangeably. Mounted on a tripod for set pieces, the difference is not as great as I expected. They both show some softness in the extreme corners at f/4. When I shoot hand held, there is no comparison. The Z6 IBIS makes a lot of difference, noticeably high percentage of tack sharp images and the weight difference is a hugh plus. For landscapes, 24 mm was good but not great on either lens. The issue was the corners. I’ve ordered the 20 mm F/1.8 S hoping the corners are better for the wide landscapes.
Update. I shot a two model, 10 different looks session for a designer. Switched every 3 or 4 shots between the 24-70 F/4 S on a Z6 and a 24-70 F/2.8 G on a D750. The designer picked 28 images from a quick jpeg export gallery for detailed editing – 23 of the 28 were shot with the Z6 – 24-70 F/4.
That’s awesome, Jim! I’ve really enjoyed using the 24-70mm f/4 over the past year and a half. Great lens, IBIS is stellar, and wonderful size/weight. Frankly, I wish Nikon would make an F-mount equivalent for all the non-Z users!
Marc
January 17, 2020 11:25 pm
One year later, do you still use the lens and do you have new insights you can share?
I have two specific questions.
One, how good is the distortion correction in Capture One with the lens profile, is it perfectly usable for critical images like seascapes/horizon, or are there weaknesses at certain focal lengths?
Two, I wonder why Thom Hogan (sansmirror.com) reports focus shift at higher f numbers whereas you couldn’t find any. How do you evaluate focus shift?
Thanks you.
John Brewton
August 11, 2019 1:32 pm
My comments refer to all S lenses. For me the manual focus “focus-by-wire” system is a joke, especially for street shooting. It is much too finicky, overly sensitive and the narrow focus ring can be difficult to locate in the heat of the moment. By the time you have dialed in focus the moment has surely passed. IMO, Nikon needs a fix (firmware?) to allow more travel in the focus ring instead of too quickly jumping in and out of focus. Thank goodness we can still use the old manual focus F mount lenses.
Michael Luu
July 23, 2019 10:05 am
Is the corrected FOV at 24mm still a true 24mm? The 14-30mm is actually wider than 14mm uncorrected so that when the file is correct it’s still a true 14mm FOV. Is that true of the 24-70 F4? Or is the corrected FOV at 24mm closer to 25 or 26mm?
The corrected view is still 24mm by my impression. Perhaps just the slightest bit longer, like 24.5 at most.
pepou
May 4, 2019 4:02 am
The Nikon 24-70mmf4 has a better bokeh than Canon 24-105mm f4. It’s a very interesting information.
leo
April 5, 2019 11:52 pm
How long do you think it’s gonna be before Nikon gets around to a 100mm +- Macro?
William Daniels
April 5, 2019 5:30 pm
Nice review, Spencer. I’m using the f/4 28-70 with the Z6 and am appalled at the distortion, even after correction in Lightroom (Built-in Lens Profile applied”!). I’ve tried playing around in the “Transform” panel in Lr, with limited success. I’m discouraged from sharing the images with the client. Fortunately, the Z6 was my back-up. Thanks in advance for any insight!
Jo
March 10, 2019 3:11 am
Spencer, Will you review the 35mm 1.8S, too? Thx, Jo
Thank you for a great review. I am very happy with this lens and have felt frustrated seeing some reviewers knocking it for being an F4 lens or that it has a lesser range than 24-105 and for being collapsible. I don’t understand any of these critiques at all. This lens is much smaller and lighter than competing lenses while offering superlative performance. From my own use I notice that it is optically better than any F mount zoom. It’s a damn near perfect travel lens. The only lens I can think of that comes close is the Fujifilm 18-55 f2.8/4 which is excellent but not as good, since it does not have weather sealing, is a variable aperture lens and is less sharp and has less nice bokeh than this Nikkor lens.
Truly a lens that re-defines what a “kit lens” can be. As has been mentioned in the comments I also do not understand why I would want a larger and heavier 24-105 when I will carry a 70-200? I guess it’s for those who only buys a zoom lens and maybe a fast prime and then calls it a day. Very pleased Nikon is thinking this through from from a real system perspective.
I also see critique agains digital correction which in my opinion is absolute madness. Must be some sort of purist mindset although that doesn’t make sense either since the image is generated digitally in a digital camera. Thanks to digital correction we will see performance from the fully digital Z system that the hybrid F system could only dream of.
Very thoughtful and intelligent comment.
Here we are a year later. I’m just waiting for the credit from selling ALL my DX lenses to hit my account then I’ll get the Z 6. These have been truly interesting comments on a great review. As an amateur, I’m torn between the f2.8 or the f4. As a GAS geek, the f2.8 screams to me, but when the brain kicks in, then I realise that the f4 is the one to get. I’d be interested to hear now from those that had the f4 and f2.8 what their current thoughts are. Thank you
Patrick M
Hey Patrick, unless you absolutely need f/2.8 for the conditions you shoot, the f/4 version is a much more practical choice. Far smaller and lighter, negligible sharpness differences (especially on the Z6 rather than Z7) and much less expensive. You can’t go wrong either way, but my impression – as someone who has used both – is if you don’t instantly know you need the f/2.8 version, you shouldn’t get it.
I have this lens mounted on a Z6. I also have the 24-70 mm f/2.8 (older, non-VR version) mounted on a D750. I have taken these to numerous events/locations and shot them interchangeably. Mounted on a tripod for set pieces, the difference is not as great as I expected. They both show some softness in the extreme corners at f/4. When I shoot hand held, there is no comparison. The Z6 IBIS makes a lot of difference, noticeably high percentage of tack sharp images and the weight difference is a hugh plus. For landscapes, 24 mm was good but not great on either lens. The issue was the corners. I’ve ordered the 20 mm F/1.8 S hoping the corners are better for the wide landscapes.
Update. I shot a two model, 10 different looks session for a designer. Switched every 3 or 4 shots between the 24-70 F/4 S on a Z6 and a 24-70 F/2.8 G on a D750. The designer picked 28 images from a quick jpeg export gallery for detailed editing – 23 of the 28 were shot with the Z6 – 24-70 F/4.
That’s awesome, Jim! I’ve really enjoyed using the 24-70mm f/4 over the past year and a half. Great lens, IBIS is stellar, and wonderful size/weight. Frankly, I wish Nikon would make an F-mount equivalent for all the non-Z users!
One year later, do you still use the lens and do you have new insights you can share?
I have two specific questions.
One, how good is the distortion correction in Capture One with the lens profile, is it perfectly usable for critical images like seascapes/horizon, or are there weaknesses at certain focal lengths?
Two, I wonder why Thom Hogan (sansmirror.com) reports focus shift at higher f numbers whereas you couldn’t find any. How do you evaluate focus shift?
Thanks you.
My comments refer to all S lenses. For me the manual focus “focus-by-wire” system is a joke, especially for street shooting. It is much too finicky, overly sensitive and the narrow focus ring can be difficult to locate in the heat of the moment. By the time you have dialed in focus the moment has surely passed. IMO, Nikon needs a fix (firmware?) to allow more travel in the focus ring instead of too quickly jumping in and out of focus.
Thank goodness we can still use the old manual focus F mount lenses.
Is the corrected FOV at 24mm still a true 24mm? The 14-30mm is actually wider than 14mm uncorrected so that when the file is correct it’s still a true 14mm FOV. Is that true of the 24-70 F4? Or is the corrected FOV at 24mm closer to 25 or 26mm?
The corrected view is still 24mm by my impression. Perhaps just the slightest bit longer, like 24.5 at most.
The Nikon 24-70mmf4 has a better bokeh than Canon 24-105mm f4.
It’s a very interesting information.
How long do you think it’s gonna be before Nikon gets around to a 100mm +- Macro?
Nice review, Spencer. I’m using the f/4 28-70 with the Z6 and am appalled at the distortion, even after correction in Lightroom (Built-in Lens Profile applied”!). I’ve tried playing around in the “Transform” panel in Lr, with limited success. I’m discouraged from sharing the images with the client. Fortunately, the Z6 was my back-up. Thanks in advance for any insight!
Spencer,
Will you review the 35mm 1.8S, too?
Thx, Jo
Same request – not many reviews on this lens!