Z6 and 24-70 2.8 G

So I think im about ready to pull the trigger on a Z6, but im wondering if I should get the 24-70 S lens with it since there will be a discount bought together, but I have the 24-70 2.8G already, would it be better to get the S lens or will the G be just as good?

Go for it, provided you sell your G version.

I have all of those. The Z mount 24-70mm/f2.8 S is supposed to be even a bit better optically and is smaller and lighter. I would rather not use the F mount 24-70 because the FTZ pushes the lens further out, making it super front heavy.

 

If you don’t have to have f2.8, the Z mount 24-70mm/f4 S is very good also and much smaller.

It would be the 24-70mm/f4S , I have no plans to sell my D750 so I would keep the G lens for that.

You won't regret getting the S lens. I'm still amazed at how good it is and what a nice package the two are together.

There are two different Z-mount 24-70mm lenses, both the higher-end S line. One is f4 which is usually referred to as the "kit lens"; the other is f2.8. When you purchase it as a kit, the 24-70mm/f4 S only adds an additional $600 to the package. Getting the f4 is pretty much a no brainer. It is a compact, versatile lens that is also very good.

 

Initially I thought the OP was referring to the f2.8 S version.

the 24-70mm/f4S

If this is the route to go, remember to install the firmware upgrade after you got it. It fixes a bug and makes a practical difference.

 

Initially I thought the OP was referring to the f2.8 S version.

I initially thought OP was wondering if he should get the F4 kit lens or the F2.8 S lens. OP can always use the G lens on Z6 with the FZ adapter - without having to buy the kit lens.

Mary, as I posted earlier, the Z6 and Z7 are relatively small bodies. Meanwhile the 24-70mm/f2.8 AF-S is a pretty big and heavy lens. The newer E version with VR is even worse. When you put one of those on a FTZ, it becomes a very front heavy set up.

Shun now I remember you mentioned that the S version is smaller. I am terrible, I just put my big lenses right on small camera bodies. LOL.

I have always held the 24-70/2.8 AFS with my left hand at roughly the balance point. It's still heavy, but front heavy is not the issue. My Sony 24-70/2.8 is just as large and heavy as the Nikon version, and the camera is half the weight of my D3. The same principal applies.

 

Nikon has traditionally given f/4 zoom lenses the second-class treatment. If you wanted the best optical and mechanical quality, you booked the f/2.8 version. If that has changed, the more power to Nikon. Trust, but verify!

Nikon has traditionally given f/4 zoom lenses the second-class treatment. If you wanted the best optical and mechanical quality, you booked the f/2.8 version. If that has changed, the more power to Nikon. Trust, but verify!

That is not necessarily the case. For example, my 70-200mm/f4 AF-S VR is every bit as good as my f2.8 versions, but it is smaller and lighter since it is f4. The 24-120mm/f4 AF-S VR has no f2.8 equivalent, but since it is a 5x zoom, it does have some optical compromises in favor of the convenience from a wider zoom range.

 

I actually have the F-mount 24-70mm/f2.8 E AF-S VR and both the Z-mount 24-70mm/f2.8 S and f4 S. The f4 kit lens is still very good optically, but its construction is more consumer grade. I have some concerns about it "collapsible" design as the lens can get very short when not in use, as I wonder how durable it is in the long run. I use the f4 a lot more often than the f2.8, especially on trips, mainly because of its convenient and compact size. Jim Kasson, who uses both Sony and Nikon mirrorless and some Nikon DSLRs, has done extensive testing between the two Z-mount versions:

 

Nikon 24-70/2.8, 24-70/4 on Z7 — 24 mm

 

The new 24-70/2.8 is an excellent lens, but my takeaway from this particular test is how good the kit lens is.

Nikon has traditionally given f/4 zoom lenses the second-class treatment. If you wanted the best optical and mechanical quality, you booked the f/2.8 version. If that has changed, the more power to Nikon. Trust, but verify!

 

It's fairly common across manufacturers: many optical aberrations scale with relative aperture, so a design that produces an acceptable outcome at f/4 may drop off significantly at f/2.8 (likewise the f/1.4 glass vs f/1.8). There's a trade-off for what people expect to pay, and if all of Nikon's f/4 designs were three times the price of Canon's despite the same headline figure, it would be brave to rely on people being willing to pay the difference. I balked at the (non-bundled) cost (and size) of the 24-120 f/4 compared with the f/3.5-5.6 version for a while; many a quizzical eyebrow was raised at the cost of the 58mm f/1.4 (the new one - the Noct-Nikkors have always been exclusive), and it's mostly been the halo established by the Zeiss brand and, belatedly, by Sigma's Art branding that has justified the premium for their parts - or not premium, if you go by what Nikon charge for an 85mm. The 70-200 f/4 is decent, partly I suspect because the 70-200 f/2.8 VR2 was getting on a bit - but the 70-200 f/2.8 FL (and some third party f/2.8 glass) is better.

 

I, too, would quite like to see some more lenses with more modest apertures but better corrections, as technology allows. Leica has been doing it, but then they've always charged for optical excellence, at least since the dSLRs ate the bulk of the market. Maybe the f/4 zooms and 50mm f/1.8 are a sign that Nikon have changed philosophy for the Z series, although they also have to justify why the mount is "better" - I don't know whether they could have made the 50mm f/1.8 design for an F mount, but the Tamron 35mm and Sigma 40mm are both very good. Of course, Nikon still have the f/0.95 and Canon their 85mm f/1.2 RF if you still want to pay for optics. It probably helps that the Z series itself isn't aiming at the end of the market which would traditionally receive an 18-55, and we've yet to see most of the non-S-line lenses. (This didn't stop Nikon bundling the 24-120 variable aperture with the D700 for a while, but I imagine that when the reviews came in they had shelves of the things to give away...)

Traditionally, Nikon f/2.8 zoom lenses outperformed their slower versions in every way, optically and mechanically. Canon broke the ice by introducing high performance f/4 L lenses, but Nikon has been slow to follow. Neither Canon nor Nikon seem to have taken prime lenses seriously until quite recently, largely due to the popularity of mirrorless cameras.

 

As you say, it is easier to design an f/4 zoom lens than an f/2.8 of the same optical quality. More elements are required, along with the mechanical structure to make best use of those elements. Consequently the size, weight and cost tends to increase exponentially with lens speed. The disparity also occurs in prime lenses, but between the common f/2 versus f/1.4 and faster varieties, at least if you want corner-to-corner sharpness, wide open. That last bit is where mirrorless cameras have changed the paradigm of lens design. Fast lenses are more than a marketing gimmick. There has to be meat in the sandwich.