F2.8 vs F4 Lens | Can you REALLY tell the difference? 

Hope things are well and you're still out shooting! :)

have fun!

Yes definitely

@@simonpayne7994 YOU SAID IT ALL...a fast lens 1 stop down is sharp as piss :)

Lets play Spot the Pixel Peeper.

At the end of the day, if Nigel had to mark which photo was which to tell them apart then that pretty much says all that needs to be said. 'A good photographer will take a good photo no matter what equipment they use - Henri Cartier-Bresson'.

@@simonpayne7994 yep, that's what paraphrasing pretty much what I said. 👍

Did the same, but imho the 24-70 f4 is not nearly getting the love it deserves. It's getting treated like the ugly duckling of the Z lens lineup, which probably says a lot about the overall quality of the Nikkor Z lenses. But except for the increased focal range with the 24-120, the 24-70 f4 is a really great lens, not deserving of the (often disparaging) "kit lens" moniker. I'd rather call it a "deluxe kit" lens, which it really is.

Wishing him a speedy recovery.

That is good news - fingers crossed! 👍🏼👍🏼👍🏼👊🏻

Your zone? Son ?

This is really helpful, because I'm here wondering, why would it matter whether it's a 2.8 or a 4 when he's using f11 on the 2.8? So it's not just that the lens can let in more light, and that he's taking advantage of that with these photos, but it's that the lens itself is better, though as you mention, most people won't notice the difference. I'm still a student and trying to figure things out :)

@@L.Spencer I find that technique , correct lighting and good editing are more important than expensive lenses. I photograph weddings with the D750, 50mm 1.8 and 24-120 F4.

so true, same here......

astrophotography maybe

@@mere_mort4l nah I shoot fashion, portraits, and street

Mine finally arrived a month ago! Super happy with it. Too bad I've been working so much I only managed to take it for a spin once in that timeframe. As much as I like the 24-70 for its weight and IQ, for me the 24-120 means I never have to get a telephoto. 100-120mm is plenty long enough for me, but 70 makes me wish for something longer.

Yup, that covers it. If you use the f2.8 you never have to wonder which is better.

Switched from the 24-70 f/4 to the 24-120 f/4 and couldn't be happier. Aside from the obvious range extension, you get: - slightly higher sharpness especially at the wind end - higher max magnification ratio - an extra control ring and function button - standard, non-collapsible design (which I vastly prefer)

From what I've seen (at least from reviews and MTF charts), most modern lenses tend to be the sharpest around f/5.6 and lose sharpness starting around f/11.

2.8 is handy if you want to incorporate some astro, but could be better off having a separate dedicated lens for that.

I agree and actually took that lens out and shot with it but the video just got too complicated to include that. So left it all out. I would say the 24-70 F4 is marginally sharper.

And thats the lens i want as well. The 24-120. Although my 24-70 has came in handy. I most definitely want that thee other

I won't go near weddings or other events without my 2.8 lenses.

Loads on my channel or you could check out my Masterclass where I go into more detail...

It's silly. People came trying their worst to attack everything you said. Not hard to tell what's really on their motive. First, if you don't own both lenses at the same time but only judge from the detail in video or anything, you've got no credit to argue here. Your words maybe less stinky than a pile of shit that is about the usefulness and accountability of them. clean and crispy high frequency detail aren't just something you can "achieve in post". That immediately gives it away you're not arguing based any fact/evidence. When I first got the F4 lens I shot both lenses back to back. Same Z7II same tripod same composition at every FL with different aperture making series shots of distant cityscape. At equal amount of sharpening there is a consistant lead for the f2.8. What do you have here to defend that rather claim things you saw in the video? Or what? you buy a F4 lens and sharpen it past 100 "in post" to try to beat the 2.8? Of course you may have that. That is not comparison, that is silly workflow and your pathetic display of not being able to realize your place and trying to argue on something you completely have no idea about. The F4 is a very good lens. But my honest conclusion derived from my tests is that there is still a difference. If people can't take that, it is their own problem. Also, post doesn't adjust everything like magic. Investment bias? LUL why do I have people who can't even invest trying to question my results here? Next, wanna talk about large prints? Hah! even more stupid argument here! Guess what? the very RU-vidr here had made videos before comparing his Z5 and Z7 switching lenses and see if 24mp is good enough for making large prints, and guess what? the better lens always produce better prints no matter on whichever body. That is a slap to your [ "pixel peeping" is a nonsense issue even at his large print size]. Even though that was comparing to a lower end superzoom. But for these type of works you're mostly shooting smaller f-stops and that usually gives a chance for the lower end lens to catch up in terms of optical performance. The same goes for color rendering. I mean, everything I said are backed by my own tests of the copy I own. What do you even have? You attacked on everything claiming they're all in my head. But I could just see a repeating pattern here: It's actaully all in your head. You didn't argue a single thing based on any level comparison. It only gives me the impression you're one of those zombie like followers/consumer of contents that believes whatever the RU-vidr said in their video. I think I've wasted enough time on just another bot.