24-70 Lens | F/4 or F/2 8? 

Thanks for the awesome video. I wish you good luck as a youtuber

You cover DOF, but in low light you really want to have the F/2.8

Everything you say is true, but there is something to the new 24-70 2.8 S for the Z mount that supersedes normal analysis. It is a very special lens and probably the best 24-70 on the market - certainly one of the very best. It is true that the F/4 24-70 S lens is also incredible for its size and price point, but it is not the 2.8. You might say that the F/4 is a great lens, but that the 2.8 is a unicorn. You really need to use the 2.8 for a few shoots, and you will see that it is a cut above - not just because it is faster but also in the character of the images it produces. This all said, the f/4 remains a great lens - so if size, weight and price are the primary factors by all means go with the F/4, but if all around excellence is the priority the 2.8 cannot be re3placed - and the F mount 24-70 2.8 does NOT compare to the new S line version - the S line version is simply a cut above - maybe 2 or 3 cuts above - and also smaller and lighter than the F mount version.

Good subject! I own the F mount version and rented both the Z 2.8 and 4.0 for separate trips into tWyoming/Montana and then Yosemite. For landscapes the Z 2.8 on the Z7ii rendered spectacular photos with sharpness/detail and rich color unlike the other 2. I took 2800 photos most with the Z 24-70 2.8, it delivered. Upon returning home I rented the Z 4.0 to see if the lighter and lower cost version delivered compared to the F mount 2.8 and the Z 2.8. My experience for landscapes was no. The Z 2.8 was quicker to use in diminishing light with easier to compose DOF and sharpness across varying light/textures/color. While It’s possible that I did not have the best copy given it was a rental the Z 2.8 was the best with both Z lenses out pacing the F Mount. Another note is that the F mount is not as fast and accurate ti use as the native lens, the difference immediately stood out. I just returned from the Redwoods and could again see the F mount 2.8 fall short. While I primarily used the 14-30 F4 the difference in sharpness and color was there. I had bought to try the Z 14-24 2.8 to see if it would exceed the 14-30 4.0 version and did not see a compelling reason to keep it. The benefits would have been for astro and cleaner sunstars. I think how one uses each piece of equipment will deliver different results for them.

F4 is cheaper, lighter n even better than more expensive heavy 2.8 . I think we have got to be more practical now

I got a Z6ii with the 24-70 f4 lens earlier this summer. I took that kit with me on a 5 day backpacking trip in Wyoming. I found the f4 lens to be fantastic. We got too much fire haze most days but got one fairly clear day to make a good evaluation. I do own the older AF-S 24-70 f2.8, too, but it’s way too heavy for hiking. Sadly, I wasn’t aware of the auto/manual focus switch on the lens and accidentally switched it to manual sometime on the first day, so was forced to manual focus until I figured that out on the last day 😂

When comparing sharpness, don’t forget the f2 .8 lens will be sharper when you stop it down to f4. But good point, the new S version of the 24-70 f4 can be picked up relatively cheaply. Definitely a bargain. I’m still on the fence though. I have the the F mount lens you were using, and I’m okay using the adapter. Of course, the other advantage is that I get that extra stop off the light when shooting natural light portraits at sunset.

Once you go to a native z mount its hard to revert back to adapted lenses of the same or similar type. Convenience, ergonomics and pairing make it hard to beat. I think 2.8 if you really need the extra light for low light situations but in reality the iso performance is good enough on the z cameras to compensate.

Understand but think it is wrong comparisons, the 2.8 lens was designed for completely different cameras (on a D850 for example the lens takes amazing pictures (and of course better in low light). If you had compared it to the new S 2.8 lens, you would definitely see a big difference.

I want to buy a lens because it has a reasonable price f/4 24-70 Kimertz5, I use it for the video. Will I get an isolation to shoot a teaser video for the groom and details, or not because the lens that came with the kimra has no isolation at all, and this thing bothers me, even if it is another lens, the important thing is that it has insulation for any lens that advises me and a reasonable price?

There wasn't much difference in backgrounds blur - Im surprised, I certainly could work with that S lens.

Great video BILL! I have the “kit” 24-70 f4 and the 24-70 2.8 S lens, the 2.8 is better, but the f4 version is damn good. I only have both because I got the f4 with my Z6ll for $500 and that was my first lens so it made sense at the time. I will eventually sell my 24-70 f4 when Nikon releases the 24-105 f4 as I don’t need two 24-70’s. I won’t be happy to see my 24-70 f4 go, it is small and is really a fantastic lens. The one thing I hate about that lens is you have to turn the lens and click it on, i understand y they did that, to make the lens smaller in your bag, and it is small, but it’s really annoying.

I have the 24-105 f4 I used adapted into my Canon RP and that's my go to flexible walk about lens. When I need to get some more shallow DOF or more light I swap to the awesome RF 35 f1.8. This kit (RP + 35mm) actually fits into a tiny Disney World camera I bought for my basically point and shoot Canon PowerShot S3 camera in 2009. My 70-200 is f4 as well (the older EF one...), and I think it's also better balanced with the RP than a big f2.8 would be. Just rented the EF 100-400 for a month to shoot horse jumping competitions and while that lens is amazing, I've ordered myself the Tamron 100-400 for 1/3 the price and about 1 lb lighter... For the hobbiest doing paid gigs on the side I think 95% in quality and versatility for 50% or less of the investment just makes more sense...

F4 is definitely sharper. I just went from sigma 2.8 70-200 to a canon rf f4 70-200. I found myself not using the sigma much because of the weight and I hated hiking with it. I’ve been thinking about doing the same with my 24-70. The way I see it, if I were a pro portrait shooter I’d probably go with a big prime. For the photography I mostly do f4 is more than enough.

No brainer, the F4 is better...thanks for this one, I was in doubt about this two lenses but now I know for sure that the F4 is the one to buy.👍🏻

Super interesting comparison. I totally thought there would be more of a difference. I think the extra clarity with the new f/4 lens is more beneficial than the very slightly more blurred background with the f/2.8 lens. I shoot Canon, so the 24-70mm f/4 has both IS and a macro mode, so seeing your comparison made it clear that the added features available on an f/4 lens (in addition to it being smaller) makes the most sense for me. Thanks for making this!

Since I like shooting at night and may need faster shutter speed, the 2.8 or a 1.8 prime are preferred

I agree that the Z lens is slightly sharper but not dramatically; in addition, I prefer the skin tones with the Z lens.

I've already been a fan of f4 zooms and faster primes. I have 20f2.8, 28f2.8, 35f2, 50f1.4, 85f1.8. and 135. I skipped the 24 because I don't shoot at 24 where a zoom won't do. 28/35 are great for walk around with nothing else. I wish Canon would make an f4.0 24-70 /28/80 or even better a 20-50 f4.

Would have loved to see this comparison in low light, considering the f4 but wondering if it’s enough for weddings in low light situations.

I have the RF 24-105 F4. The diff I notice the most is with bokeh ball sizes. And in any case, I could consider making up the difference in post with luminary ai or PS. I love the conveniences of F4, so I deal with the limitations.

Nice comparison. I'm curious to see the same comparison in low light.

Interesting comparison. Maybe use the money to upgrade your computer instead? Those fans sounded like they were taking off!