Nikon Z 24-70mm f/4 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.
Excellent review, I’d definitely been waiting for this one and it certainly didn’t disappoint.
It’s a pity to see such high distortion (barrel AND pincushion) to be honest, while it does feel like Nikon cut corners it realistically would have been next to impossible to make a lens so small and correct it perfectly. I still feel that it should have been corrected better than this, 4% at 24mm is absurdly high, no matter how one looks at it. I wonder, with such high distortion, is the diagonal FOV at 24 mm of 84mm in raw files? Some camera manufacturers (both Panasonic and Olympus in their m43 lenses) have wider FOVs in their wide angle lenses which then become the appropriate ones when the software is done correcting for the usually huge distortion the lenses have. Say, the Oly 7-14 f/2.8 at 7mm in JPEG has a FOV of 113mm while in the raw files, due to the huge distortion it has, the FOV is closer to 120mm.
I do agree with you that both distortion and vignetting are not the worst at all, as they are easily correctable in post processing, so while I would of course rather not have either, I’d rather have them than high coma or chromatic aberrations.
Talking about coma for a second, yes, it’ll matter more in a practical way to those who want to do nighttime photography but a high (or low) coma directly affects the quality of the corners in a lens and I think it’s telling as the S 24-70 has quite good corner performance.
I don’t know which side of the fence I’m on that sunstar, I liked it quite a bit the first few times I saw it but a tad less ever since. Still, A good sunstar is an excellent thing to have with a lens such as this and it doesn’t even come with some absolutely hideous bokeh to boot, well done Nikon on that (I’m certain Chester had the same line of thinking).
Considering the sensible price (not exactly a given with all Nikon lenses) and how well it compares even to the 24-70 f/2.8, I’d say this lens is definitely a homerun hit for Nikon. I wish it was a 24-105 but I don’t think it’d be nearly as good in that case, especially at the longer length. All in all, a very good start for the new system, can’t wait to see how the S 14-30 performs myself. Cheers!
Thank you, Tomáš, that’s a good point about the field of view. In short, I don’t know how Nikon calculates it – factoring in the automatic distortion correction, or not. The archway photo example makes it pretty clear that the auto correction eliminates a lot of information in the corners, though, which is why I’m glad to be using software at the moment (Capture One) that doesn’t get rid of it by default.
There are so many tradeoffs in lens design, and it’s hard for manufacturers to pick the right ones. Correcting distortion in software can impact your composition and corner sharpness; vignetting correction will show more noise in the corners; low sharpness cannot really be corrected at all; mild chromatic aberration is pretty easy to correct or ignore, but high CA levels result in halos and discoloration that are not possible to remove. And so on!
To me, the tradeoffs that Nikon made with this lens are generally the right ones. I would rather have a 24-70mm focal length than 24-105mm, for example, since eventually I’m going to add a 70-200mm either way. And I don’t mind the vignetting/distortion tradeoff as much as I would mind a tradeoff in sharpness or lens weight. Of course, all photographers are going to have different preferences in this regard. Such is the reason for reviews like this in the first place, to lay it all out for people to come to their own conclusions.
As a long term Nikon DSLR shooter I was waiting a long time for Nikons mirrorless move and was until that in business for buying a Z6 with the 24-70mm f/4S. As Nikon launched the Z cameras the most disappointing fact was the kit lens. For a Pro body they should have launched it paired with a pro f/2.8 lens or at least with a good travel lens, like Canons 24-105mm f/4.
The second point next to the f-stop which disappoints me, was the teleskop principle Nikon has never used before in a Pro level lens.
cdn.photographylife.com/wp-co…m-f4-S.jpg
There is a reason they used it never before, is mechanically weak and only a matter of time when it start to have a play (like my old AF-S 24-120mm f/4) and start showing bad results in a part of the image. Very disappointing …
But the show must go on and unfortunately (for Nikon not so much for me) this lens sold me to Sony and now with a A7 III and the excellent Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 I got exactly what I was hoping from Nikon. Couldn’t be happier.
Max, I am actually quite happy that Nikon released the 24-70mm f/4 S instead of an f/2.8 lens (which is coming later this year). Considering how small and lightweight the Z6 and the Z7 are, I wouldn’t want to get started with heavy and impractical (for me) lenses. I have been shooting with the Canon EOS R for quite some time now and although their lenses are definitely excellent, they feel so much heavier compared to Nikon that they are almost a burden to carry. I think Nikon did the right thing my moving f/4 and f/1.8 lenses first and I am personally looking forward to seeing more similar lenses. I have already pre-ordered the 14-30mm f/4 S and I cannot wait to test it out later this year. If Nikon rolled out the 14-24mm f/2.8 S first, it would have been a real disappointment for me. I am personally done with heavy f/2.8 lenses that hurt my back and my hands when I use them. If I can get 90% of the performance from an f/4 lens, that’s what I am going to do. And the added bonus is that I don’t have to pay thousands of dollars for a single lens.
At the end of the day, one should choose a system based on their needs and the lenses that are offered. If you are happy with Sony, don’t look back, since it is a more mature system and the lenses offered are much more complete compared to Canon and Nikon mirrorless.
For me personally, I am very excited about what Canon and Nikon are doing in terms of lens development. Canon is going crazy with RF lenses for their mirrorless this year and Nikon will be releasing a few more. I am sure both companies won’t disappoint in the next few years. In 3-5 year time-frame, I am sure the ground will be more even and it will be a matter of brand preference. I have always been a Nikon guy and after shooting with pretty much every Sony camera, I just couldn’t get used to their ergonomics. I do not like unlabeled programmable buttons and the menu system where I struggle to find anything. That’s just not for me. Is it currently better than what Nikon and Canon have to offer feature-wise? Absolutely. But it is all a matter of time. Give it a few years and things will look very different. I am not in a rush, I don’t need the most capable system today, so I am willing to wait. The only system that is close to Nikon in terms of ergonomics and offers a more complete solution is Fuji, which is another system I own and happily use. But that’s me…
Nasim
I believe it is the 14-30mm f/4 S, that has been announced not a 14-24mm f/4
Patrick Kelley
Patrick, you are right of course, thanks for pointing it out :) I fixed the typo.
Nasim,
When shooting weddings, would you prefer the 24-70mm f/4 S over the f/2.8, too? I know that the Z6 (which I plan to buy) is an extraordinary low light camera with great IS, but ain’t f/4 too slow for weddings?
Thanks, Jo
Jo, the only option to shoot an f/2.8 on the Z6 at the moment is to use an F-mount lens with an adapter, which is not something I would want to do personally. Even when the f/2.8 version of the lens is released, it will be huge, heavy and pricey, so I am out for that one. If I were to shoot weddings professionally, of course f/2.8 zooms would translate to better quality, but why look for that in a 24-70mm wide to normal zoom range? If it was a 70-200mm, then it is a different story. I wouldn’t hesitate to use the 24-70mm f/4 S for weddings, but if I need a nice portrait, I would be switching to a 50mm f/1.8 or a 70-200mm f/2.8 instead…
Hope this helps!
Nasim,
Many thanks for your feedback! Now that the 24-70mm f/2.8 S is officially announced, does it still apply? ;-)
But seriously, as for the time being the 24-70mm f/4 S and the 50 f/1.8 seem to be one of a few useful combinations for wedding photographers. Or better wait for the 85 f/1.8 and use it in conjuction with the 35 f/1.8? (I guess you’re not a fan of adapting the 85 f/1.8 G to the Z6?)
Best regards, Jo
Jo, I guess I didn’t expect the 24-70mm f/2.8 announcement this soon :) Of course it looks amazing, that was a given considering it is Nikon! The 24-70mm f/4 S + 50mm f/1.8 S are amazing combos, but an 85mm is still going to be more desirable for portraiture. Nikon always ads its “special sauce” to 85mm lenses, they just give a different look to images. Personally, I would probably favor 35mm + 85mm rather than just one nifty fifty. If you don’t want to wait for the Z 85mm f/1.8 S, the 85mm f/1.8G works really well on the Z6 + FTZ and it is a combination you can use now, especially if you already own one. If you don’t own it, then don’t buy it – just get the 50mm f/1.8S instead.
Nasim, I do own the 85mm f/1.8G. So in your opinion, that lens in combination with the 35/1.8S should suffice for shooting a wedding? (I’m not a wedding photographer, my main interest are portraits.)
Jo, I think so – it would cover most of the needs in my opinion. 35mm would be good for tight shots and when group portraits are needed and the 85mm would work great as an all-purpose portrait lens.
Err…..well as a very seasoned photographer I would say f4 or 5.6 is ideal for general people shots at weddings…not f2.8. For bride and groom shots primes at f1.8 are nice.
Okay if you only have one lens then the 24 70 f2.8 is the one.
Max, it is all down to personal preferences really. Personally, I’m happier in the long run with a 24-70mm f/4 lens that is lighter, compared to a 24-105mm lens that is heavier (or an f/2.8 version), since eventually I’m going to get a 70-200mm lens anyway in either case – no use duplicating focal lengths, and little need for f/2.8 with my landscape photography. Of course, for the time being, a 24-105mm would be nice, since there currently is no way to go beyond 70mm with a native Z lens!
The dual telescoping design is indeed unusual in a pro-grade Nikon lens, although it’s not the only one. Depending on your definition of a “pro lens,” the current 24-120mm f/4 (gold ring) probably would count, and it has the same dual telescoping design. Plenty of other pro Nikon lenses have a single-barrel telescoping design, from the 24-70mm f/2.8 VR to the 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6. Although your underlying point is fair, that these lenses have more possible points of failure, especially if dropped or bumped while extended.
I bought the Z7 first but a week later traded it to the store for a Z6 with lenses for the difference in price. The smaller files suit my needs better, and gaining the great high ISO performance it is a better mate to my D850 and D800.
The 24-70 f/4 has become my favorite lens despite favoring primes. I have both a G and E version of the 24-70 2,8 and was always happy with both but one shot inside the store convinced me this little Z mount lens was special. Its corn to corner sharpness was obvious and having it in such a small compact lens is a real bonus. In have even used in studio portrait sessions where its color and contrast really shined.
For a walking around, travel or video lens, I can’t image a better value. In the 3 weeks since getting it, I have not used either of my other two 24-70s.
I will be anxious to read your thoughts on the 50 1.8. S lens, I have a number of 50-58 fast primes and none match this new one. It is the sharpest lens I think I’ve ever used and that includes some pretty pricy MF lenses.
I am waiting for the fast 85 to be released.
Regarding the focus by wire, I adapted to it very quickly and now think it is great. The variable rate combined with the excellent Focus peaking I am really enjoying my old MF like the 50 1.2. Although some panned the AF on the Z cameras before they were even released with 1.0 firmware, I have been very pleasantly surprised by theAF speed and accuracy. The peaking in MF is spot on. I tried the Sony peaking and it was not accurate and AF was better than what one could get with MF which was just off unless stopped down.
I usually shoot single frame and single point with all my cameras and the Z6 is certainly better focusing in low or any light than the D800 and as good as the excellent D850 for still subjects but tracking is better with the D850 which is the best I have used among any brands/models.
Absolutely, the 50mm f/1.8 is an awesome lens as well! Review coming soon.
AF accuracy on the Z cameras and lenses is actually great, maybe even the best available for AF-S. The problem is AF tracking when in AF-C mode, and the AF-C interface in general. It’s just not as smooth as on Nikon DSLRs, and it doesn’t have some popular options like D21 tracking. But I almost never use AF-C as a landscape photographer, so I’m not bothered by it. Even if I did, AF-C isn’t unusable, just not as good as on Nikon’s top DSLRs.
It’s easy for this more nuanced message – which is what most reviewers have been saying this whole time – to get lost when trying to assess “camera good” or “camera bad” for autofocus.
A good review als always, thanks! I really like my 24-70/4 for travelling, with its size and the little weight its optimal for journeys.
But: I really can’t wait for the Z version of the 70-200/2.8! My bread and butter lens…
Absolutely, that 70-200mm f/2.8 will be very exciting to see. I’m more excited about an f/4 version that (hopefully) will emerge one day, perhaps as one of the four unnamed lenses on Nikon’s roadmap in 2020. And I’m just a bit jealous that Panasonic has announced one already!
Spencer, the AF-P 70-300E is a nice substitute for the time being.
I would love to see the 70-200mm f/4 S as well, sooner than later! You are in good shape though, since Nikon is releasing the f/2.8 version first.
Another excellent review. The only optical flaw I’ve noticed (on two different copies of the lens) that bothers me even slightly is that if I have in the corners bare twigs against sky, chromatic aberrations remain plainly visible even at f/8 (and maybe beyond, but I’ve not used it at smaller apertures); the corners never really sharpen up either (a result of field curvature, presumably) if they’re not the point of focus and if the point of focus isn’t close. I can’t say the aberrations matter much (it’s an easy software fix), and I would notice the softer corners less if the rest of the image were so sharp. At the price it’s a remarkable bargain.
Even more so, though, is the 50mm 1.8 – at f/1.8 it’s astonishingly sharp and aberration-free even with distant focus with twigs-against-sky in corners, and a fantastic lens for using outdoors at night. I’ve seen people complain about its price online; I can only assume they haven’t tried it. This may sound nuts, but I was so impressed I added a Z7 to my Sony z7rIII just to be able to use that lens. This sort of optical near-perfection isn’t the only appeal a lens can have, of course (many of my favorite lenses are old mf lenses with all manner of flaws that actually enhance their “look”) but it’s rare in 50mm lenses and nice to have for when sharpness really matters. Anyway, I hope you’ll get around to reviewing it and its 35mm companion.
Simon, that’s an interesting point about image sharpness – how you would hardly notice the flaws if the rest of the lens weren’t so good! It’s true, field curvature can make it tricky to get perfect corner sharpness on this lens in certain circumstances, and might require stopping down a bit or focusing in a different spot to optimize it. It’s not worse field curvature than on other lenses, though (our sharpness measurements take field curvature into account, yet this lens still has sharper corners than comparable zooms).
It’s the same reason why I’d rather have a “uniformly medium” lens with fairly equal center/mid/corner sharpness versus a “center sharpness beast” that drops off in the corners – even if the drop-off is to medium levels. Lenses with even performance just result in more cohesive images.
Great review! I am enjoying the smallest, lightest 46MP camera – lens combo available
for landscape work. I want to share the fact
that when compared to my 50mm f1.8 Ai lens, the 24-70 f4 S looked good contrast wise, but the 40 year old 50mm beat it in sharpness quite noticeably, across the field, and absolutely killed it in the corners. My 28mm f2.8 also looked good in comparison, with approximately equivalent performance. So it is a great zoom, but the tiny, lightweight old primes are still usefull, and often more fun, especially on the Zs.
Great review Spencer.
The impressive centre sharpness is tempered somewhat by the huge drop-off at wide apertures when you move to the mid and corner frame, especially at wide-angle focal lengths. No doubt this is linked to the distortion compromise design. So what is critical, and apologies for asking this before, is to know how big the ‘Centre’ is on the Imatest machine? If Centre was defined as the middle third by height and width, then good sharpness would only exist in 1/9th of the whole frame. On the other hand, if Centre was defined as the middle 2/4rs by height and width, then good sharpness would be achieved in a more acceptable 1/4 of the whole frame. Ideally, I would like to see a sharpness map like the vignetting maps, otherwise there is a risk that lenses might be designed to be super sharp in just a tiny fraction of the frame to potentially cheat the tests, especially as people probably make decisions based on the Centre figure more than anything.
Thanks, glad you liked it!
Our sharpness numbers come from a small box (off-hand, I’d say about 1/25 of image height and width, although Nasim is the one who does these tests) taken at three locations in an image of a test chart: center, DX corner, and FX corner. All the boxes are the same size.
Sharpness maps would be great in theory, but there are some issues with them as well. Barring the issue of feasibility in the first place (again, Nasim is the one who would know that), they are harder to read and compare overall, and make the data more difficult to display. As it is, it’s easy to compare exact mid-frame sharpness numbers at 24mm f/5.6 and 50mm f/5.6, for example. If the graphs were color-based maps, or 3D plotted maps rendered as a 2D PNG, it would take a lot of squinting and subjective judgement to determine which of those is sharper. We’d also need an individual map for every focal length and aperture, leading to noticeably longer sections – a problem made even worse when comparing two different lenses side-by side. That’s not to say it can’t be done (DXO does such a thing), but that I don’t know if it would work as well in practice as well as it might seem at first.
Thank you for another useful and informative review. I very much look forward to your reviews.
I do have a few questions.
Is there a place on your website that explains what the Imatest numbers measure/mean? For example, are they measuring resolution in lines per mm or something like that? And do they reflect a particular focus distance? I am thinking of using this lens on a Z7 for landscape shots, so comparisons near infinity focus are particularly interesting.
Lastly, I am curious how the performance of this lens compares, at equivalent focal lengths and apertures, with the 50 and 35 Z mount primes and the 24 1.8 F mount prime. And at 70 mm with the F mount 70-200 f4 and f2.8 zooms.
Can we assume that the 24-70/4 S would hold up well to “DX” mode cropping on the Z7? (Thus turning the focal length into the usual 24-105 equivalent with 20MP images for the 70-105 range)
It wouldn’t turn the lens into another one, but yes, cropping is a good possibility with this lens due to the high level of resolving power it provides.
I’ve had no hesitation switching this lens to DX mode, thereby making it a 105mm (in DX mode I only shoot at the long end, of course). I’ve assigned the image area to the “I” button and find it easy to effectively create a 24-105mm zoom. I’m doing this on the Z6, so I presume it’s even more useful on the Z7. However, I am not a professional. OTOH, except in extremely low light, with a lot of noise, I cannot see how a client would notice the difference between this lens at 70mm in FF mode, and 105mm in DX mode; even more particularly, I presume, on the Z7. This is a great lens, and along with the Z 50mm f/1.8 S and/or the Z 35mm/f1.8 S, is likely all most Z shooters will ever need.
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.
Thanks for a very through review. I have a question on the coma issue with the milky way shot. You said the lens has practically zero coma, yet I see very elongated stars in the corner and whilst the stars don’t seem to have the UFO look of coma, what is causing these stars to have this shape.
Thanks, john
Hi Cox and Nasim,
I am mostly the travel/landscape shooter with current D750 with 16-35 f4 vr and 70-200 f4 vr. I tried nikon 24-120 f4 for standard zoom use for walk around but did not like it, too big for walk around and not as sharp as i expected. I had nikon 50 f1.8g but rarely used it, for street photography ( which actually i do not do much), or portrait which i prefer use the long end on my tele. Intend to tried nikon 35 mm f1.8 for low light on D750 but in the mean time, still manage ok with only the wide angle zoom and tele not feeling the lack of the focal lenght in between.
I am thinking of witching to z system very soon, of course will buy 14-30 f4, hopefully it will be great, and the future 70-200 f4 which has not announced yet but surely will come.
The think that the lens in medium range, i am still debating which lens i should get. since i think I should try the medium range more often. should buy this lens 24-70 f4, or just buy one of the prime like 35mm f1.8 s or 50 f1.8 s. All three lens the price not much difference. The 35mm f1.8 s seem better for focal lengh I prefer but too close to the 30mm of the end of the wide angle zoom lens. the 50mm not sure i like it or not, and the zoom if slow.
Any advice?
Personally, I’ve been using a three-lens system with the 14-24mm, 35mm, and 70-200mm f/4 Nikon F-mount lenses, until I recently switched to the Tamron 15-30mm f/2.8. I can definitely say that I miss the gap between 30mm and 70mm. The ideal spot between them in terms of angle of view would be something like 45mm. For that reason, if you’re angling toward a prime, I’d say the 50mm f/1.8 is the better bet than the 35mm f/1.8. Both are amazing lenses, but the 35mm is just too close to the 14-30mm f/4.
However, I know that for me personally the answer is the 24-70mm f/4 zoom. It does what I need with excellent image quality, and it’s only a bit heavier than the primes. If Nikon released a 45mm f/2.8 pancake lens, maybe I’d change my mind, but until then I’m not apologizing for covering the whole 14-200mm range with no gaps :)
Thank you, Spencer, for this detailed insight view. What concerns me though are the distortions (less the vignetting). Is it really a good way to go to fix them in-camera directly within the raw file? This must affect resolution and other image parameters. There is no such thing as a lossless transformation (here correction) of digitized analogue data.
And on the other side: What happened to the proud of the engineers to develop optical systems that are most accurate in image projection? Could you imagine Leica using such a technology?
I’d like to hear or read some comments about this in the future.
Cheers -jan
The distortions are not fixed in RAW – at least I see them massively when I look at the files in Capture One.
A lot of positive things already was said, I’m very disappointed about the silence about the inevitable color blobs at around 27 mm shooting towards the sun or in night situations.
And I’m waiting (not really, because it won’t happen) for an interesting lens which could interest owners of other brands to invest into Nikon Z.
The way I saw it: Good start, boring focal lengths come first, some in 3 different apertures, not as well thought as Canon’s additional function ring.
The way I see it: Not a single good reason to invest in Z instead of any other system – says me, the owner of Z7, 24-70 and 35. AF overly complicated, not too fast. LCD not fully articulated, but highly limited in movement – Canon shows how it can be done in a 1300 $ body. 24-70 comes with distortions and often ugly color blobs (admittedly only in a limited FL range).
I was going to give Nikon credit for stepping their toe into unknown waters. I should know better that Nikon will never blow me away like Canon’s 70-200/2.8 shorty or their much more versatile (to me) 24-105. At the end of the day, lightweight is useless, if I have to carry other heavy lenses to fill the gap. And in double meaning: Canon lenses are heavyweights in terms of performance and versatility, while I don’t think anybody perceives Nikon S lenses as a serious competition.
I feel my way with Z has come to a quick ending and I’m sure I won’t miss much if I abandon ship at this moment. I was thinking about the 14-30, but tend to skip it, and all the other dull glass coming after them. But I’m willing to see what the new firmware will bring. Not too much in the breathtaking sector, I’m afraid.
Hi Joachim,
“not fixed in RAW”, it seems you are right about that. But it does not really matter as a conversion (correction) must (should) be made.
I read about the blobs you refer to as caused by inner lens reflections and not by reflections between the sensor and the last element. There are some examples which show the the blob’s shape as a result of the shape of the aperture blades. Have you read about that as well?
Cheers, -jan
Fully agree about distortion. After all, it’s just a whee 24-70 – no ultimate challenge and has been done couple of times before. As Spencer already pointed out, sometimes it would be good to get not the already “corrected” picture, but being able to choose how far to correct (or not) the distortion would be the less bitter apple to bite.
Nikon CH confirmed my findings. Explanation was about the same, and I would accept it for a 200 $ lens, but for that one it keeps ruining shots irreparably. Okay, only in a very limited FL range, most time one gets away without blobs. But of 2 dozen lenses or more in my possession, I have to take a Sigma dp Merrrill or Quattro to provoke the same effect. No other lens-/ body combo I used the past 10 years got me such poor results in just this aspect.
Capture One doesn’t fix the distortions. To my knowledge, it is only Lightroom and Nikon’s own software that fix them. Capture One also doesn’t yet have the profile for the 24-70mm f/4, so the manual distortion corrections – though better than nothing – are not perfect, since they don’t take into account the slight waviness of this lens’s distortion.
I’ve seen you mention the internal reflections before, and I looked for them while testing this lens, but couldn’t find them. Can you attach or link to a photo with an example?
The Z system isn’t for everyone. Sounds like it isn’t working out for you as hoped, and you would be better off switching to the Canon or Panasonic system, or just back to a DSLR. Personally, having handled both this 24-70mm f/4 and the Canon EOS R with the 24-105mm f/4, I was surprised at how significantly smaller and lighter the Nikon combo felt. Performance wise, both lenses are excellent, although the sensor in the Nikon Z is better than the one in the EOS R. (Canon’s hopefully upcoming high-res mirrorless option may be a different story.) For the time being, the Nikon Z system is pretty much ideal for my needs.
Capture One still does not have a profile for this lens. Like others, I find that the inherent distortion remains strongly visible after processing. There have been two updates of CapOne 12 since this lens was released, neither of them with a profile for this increasingly popular lens. CapOne say they cannot forecast when they will profile it, and in the meantime suggest that I use the Generic Pincushion tool. This has had very variable results: sometimes good, sometimes awful. I wait in hope……
The outcome from Capture One is (normally) my reason to buy it at this price. Else than that, I tend to see the company as slow and lazy. The 24-70 is not the only profile missing in the Nikon section. Before the special Fuji version cam out, I waited one year to get support for compressed RAW.
Currently they push their overpriced style packages like hell, so less and less real brains into the still very poor DAM the very inconsequent catalogues, the still overly packed UI and some simple functionalities just drive me crazy. I don’t understand why it’s not possible to create a project or an album after hitting the import button. It goes on and on. I like the results, but working with the app is a pain at times.
My findings were mostly around 27mm and f/10: sojujo.smugmug.com/Tests…t/n-nHST7z I checked a lot of my other results, but could not reproduce it with other apertures or focal lengths. To get scientific about that I’d need to test it in more different conditions, but I don’t feel in the mood to run after Nikon’s design flaws. Others get paid for that… nothing to gain, and to me the lens selection we can currently choose form makes the Z only an acceptable system – if there were no DSLR Nikkor to choose from, the choice would be so poor.
Panasonic is as well interesting for me, that’s for sure, but doesn’t offer the same combination of lightweight and high resolution. Also, I don’t shop cameras on a monthly basis and Panasonic, Leica and Sigma were a bit too late with their announcement of their alliance. I was impatient because I waited too long for Nikon ML. My fault, I take it – and I learnt.
With their new lenses and also a professional ML body in the make, Canon takes the butter of Nikon’s toast.
Thanks for attaching this, Joachim, and sorry that I just now saw your comment. Very interesting tests. This looks like a combination between ordinary flaring and the “red dot” flare issue that Nasim has written about. Personally, the only one of those samples that bothers me is the first one, which almost looks like it was taken with a GoPro around the sun region. It’s not something I have seen in my own photography yet, but part of that has to do with different subjects we shoot. I can certainly see why this lens isn’t working for you, and I hope you find another option that is better for your needs soon.
Hi Spencer,
my workaround is, not to use FL 27-29 mm against the sunlight. Since Nikon confirmed my findings, I don’t think I got a lemon. And I don’t think my Sigma 24-105 Art on the FTZ adapter will show such results. But then, the “standard-zoom” concept remains strange to me – if Nikon would have offered the 85/1.8 right from the beginning, this and the 35 mm would have been my standard lenses – and no kit lens.
It’s hard to understand for me that Nikon throws in so many doublets on their roadmap but needs a lot of time to offers a wider spread of FL and apertures. And – at least for this kit lens – relies so heavily on software distortion compensation at the cost of resolution.
I really like the Z7 but the bag so far remains too empty when it comes to native lenses. There’s not even a macro lens on the roadmap. And before I’ll buy deeper into the system, I will keep my eye on your testings of the 14-30/4 and will watch:
Will that lens also rely heavily on software correction?
What Sigma comes out with a FF-Foveon body with L-mount
Which kind of Sigma lenses will come for L-mount and Z-mount (Nikon would be clever to open up Z-mount for Sigma on a reasonable basis. Nikon could still shine with lighter lenses…)
Thanks for the review.
I wonder how Imatest score values could change by enabling/disabling automatic distortion corrections. It could be interesting to compare MTF plots with the lens profile on and off.
I do not understand why anyone would want a lens that loses 40% of its sharpness at mid-frame at f4. Even if this is a kit lens, other manufacturers manage alot better at f4. For the benefit of those wanting to switch to mirrorless, it would have been interesting to see how this lens (24-70mm f/4) compares to the Nikon mirrorless competition. I realize that some adjustment might be necessary to compensate for sensor resolution and other factors. I am also curious how the IMATEST numbers translate to the DXOMARK and MTF acutance measurements. If for example a lens has 95% acutance for a 40 line pair at center, what IMATEST value would that represent? Thanks in advance for your reply.
I just bought the Z7 kit but here is my Question the 24-70 is filter size 72mm and the new 14-30 will be 82mm and I just bought a couple filters for my 24-70, Would it be safe to buy a ring so I can use those filters on the 14-30?
Thank you.
No, those filters are almost certain to vignette very heavily if used on the 14-30mm (indeed, blot out the corners completely). You can do it the opposite way – 82mm filters used on the 24-70mm – without a problem.
Great thanks I’ll go back to the shop and exchange my filters for 82mm and get the ring for the 72mm 24-70.
Spencer,
Will you review the 35mm 1.8S, too?
Thx, Jo
Same request – not many reviews on this lens!
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!
How long do you think it’s gonna be before Nikon gets around to a 100mm +- Macro?
The Nikon 24-70mmf4 has a better bokeh than Canon 24-105mm f4.
It’s a very interesting information.
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.
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.