24-70 or 24-120 and 180-600 Thoughts

[Nimi]

What you see is undoubtedly true if one compares line charts and zooms in to 1:1 in LR…but for many purposes the differences are overblown IMO. 2.8 is important if having that aperture is important for one‘s needs…but as in many things better is the enemy of good enough. Depending on where the output goes…I think that if I gave anybody a shot of something with the 2.8 and the 4.0 lens at the same aperture in on screen resolution they would be hard pressed to tell which was which on screen…which frankly is where most output goes these days. Some gets printed and some is indoors action where aperture leads to better ISO of course. I haven’t tested the wide lenses but for the teles I have…70-200, 100-400, 400/4.5 and 600PF when taking shots in good to medium light and looking at screen output resolutions it’s mighty hard to see much difference nd what o do see is more just different than this one is clearly better. I can say that the 24-120 almost immediately replaced the 24-70/4 as my walking around I only want to carry a single lens gear on whatever body I’m carrying for a particular outing…and if fast AF and FPS aren’t a big deal that day but light is then that body is likely to be the Z7II over my more expensive and heavy pair of bodies…because for that day the Z7II is good enough. I’m not ever going to say that Iq isn’t important…but a lot of reviewers and posters think of it as the Holy Grail when in reality good enough is good enough. Is better better? Sometimes it is, but sometimes it isn’t for a variety of reasons.

Not my experience. My editor (and I) pick up the difference between shots I take on the 24-70 2.8 and the 24-120 immediately. At identical iris and focal length, the transition from focus to out of focus is completely different, the background, especially highlights are completely different, the contrast is different, the color is different. Most of this is due to coatings and type of glass which are simply different. The aperture is the least important difference for me, shooting outdoors in daylight. I also think that because the 24-70 is such an important professional lens, they go over and beyond on flaring, distortions, etc.

 

[Anjin San]

Not my experience. My editor (and I) pick up the difference between shots I take on the 24-70 2.8 and the 24-120 immediately. At identical iris and focal length, the transition from focus to out of focus is completely different, the background, especially highlights are completely different, the contrast is different, the color is different. Most of this is due to coatings and type of glass which are simply different. The aperture is the least important difference for me, shooting outdoors in daylight. I also think that because the 24-70 is such an important professional lens, they go over and beyond on flaring, distortions, etc.

Ok then…if you and editor can see the difference…and it makes a difference when the image is printed/on the screen/whatever…and you're happy to carry the bigger heavier lens I'm not going to tell you that you're wrong. But since you have an editor…I presume you're a pro making money at it…so your needs are different from other's needs. I wasn't intending to denigrate the faster lens…obviously it costs more and there has to be something for that extra cost that people are willing to pay for…but my basic point is that better is still the enemy of good enough but that good enough varies.

 

[Nimi]

Ok then…if you and editor can see the difference…and it makes a difference when the image is printed/on the screen/whatever…and you're happy to carry the bigger heavier lens I'm not going to tell you that you're wrong. But since you have an editor…I presume you're a pro making money at it…so your needs are different from other's needs. I wasn't intending to denigrate the faster lens…obviously it costs more and there has to be something for that extra cost that people are willing to pay for…but my basic point is that better is still the enemy of good enough but that good enough varies.

For some realms, "good enough" is "best IQ, no compromises." My point, which I think nicely coexists with yours, is that when you need the absolute best, you go to the best equipment which are fast primes; big, fast readout sensors and in some cases fast zooms. I think it's not just pros, some guys here would schlep their long 4.0s for miles to get that shot.

The 2.8 zooms are unique and better and not much more inconvenient than the 4.0s. I bought the 24-120 thinking it'd be good enough, but alas I always pick up the 24-70.

Still no such thing as free lunch.

 

[Ken Miracle]

For some realms, "good enough" is "best IQ, no compromises." My point, which I think nicely coexists with yours, is that when you need the absolute best, you go to the best equipment which are fast primes; big, fast readout sensors and in some cases fast zooms. I think it's not just pros, some guys here would schlep their long 4.0s for miles to get that shot.

The 2.8 zooms are unique and better and not much more inconvenient than the 4.0s. I bought the 24-120 thinking it'd be good enough, but alas I always pick up the 24-70.

Still no such thing as free lunch.

I resemble that remark .. hauled my 600 f/4E around (used a custom built carrier that I put together with MR Jan Gear and Think Tank racing harness and speed belt) still looking for that free lunch but at least logistically and price wise the Z800 PF is a half off lunch

 

[Nimi]

I resemble that remark .. hauled my 600 f/4E around (used a custom built carrier that I put together with MR Jan Gear and Think Tank racing harness and speed belt) still looking for that free lunch but at least logistically and price wise the Z800 PF is a half off lunch

If I was in the market for anything longer than 300mm, I'd absolutely go for those PFs.

 

[O]

I find lenses and cameras are all just tools, like a carpenter or mechanic its how they are used to do the best job that mostly counts.

Often its a choice what tool we choose, often you may not have a choice and have to use what you have at the time, in those situations skill sets matter more than anything as does light, we all know your best camera and lens is the one you have at that moment LOL and Your absolute best friend always is LIGHT.

Sharpness more so comes from YOU and how you use your best friend-tool, being LIGHT.

I always come back to the sobering point,
since the beginning its all been about just the right combination of time light and speed.

Manufacturers design and offer to sell us hundreds of different lens and camera options,
fundamentally always to in some way to enhance or work around new and improved options of time light and speed.

I mean if we wrote down the number of lenses we have bought used sold bought and sold or still have, its been a progression in many ways but fundamentally improve or enhancing the optional combination or means of using time light and speed LOL.

My 28-300 is more than good enough to do most or many things really well and has delivered some incredible results, By comparison my 70-200 FL on the other hand exceeds expectations by a long way, micro detail, micro contrast micro sharpness, very low iso needs, amazing back grounds, speed light tolerance and delivers a WOW to boot, it is by far my favorite choice and lens considering.

Equally i love my 24-85 FX F3.5-F4.5 i bought years ago, light small compact, easy to walk around with or hike with, but if i had the choice i would prefer my 24-70 F2.8 G, but when i grab the 24-85 i know and accept that its good enough for what i intend doing.

I have my tool kit below to mention a few items, are they the best, its not the way to look at it, the workhorses are all F2.8 which complements my best friend, LIGHT.

A tweak left or right in Post does wonders, and in a blind test IF the editor or publisher web host Instagram or judge or customer cant tell if its a Z lens a G Lens or a D lens, a Z9, D850, D4s, D3X then that's interesting.

Over 55% of website traffic comes from mobile devices. 92.3% of internet users access the internet using a mobile phone.

Almost 70 percent of the digital video content audience in the United States was reported to watch videos on their smartphones.
95% over general public don't look at the optical detail, women stay on a page on average for 4.5 seconds men 9 seconds, nor does the mass public have the skill sets or interest to care, in the world of digital cocaine, browsing speed is the driver.

If your doing Video then you need to play in a different game.

So is what i have good enough ? for now ?

14-24 F2.8G
24-70 F2.8 G
70-200 F2.8 FL
300 F2.8 G VR II
If i sold the above for current AUD market prices it would = $6500, that said if the tools deliver 95% of what the Z replacements would especially if the viewing in n the Net ?
In answer to is it good enough, so far for what i do, absolutely in spades, the is always need versus desire.

I find some of the Tamron glass really cuts the muster very well, and going forward i feel we will see more and more reskinned Nikon products over Tamron content.
for myself the 24-70 in Tamron is a brilliant lens, i love the Nikon 70-200 FL, the 14-24 is a bullet proof paparazzi lens and just meets all the needs perfectly.

F2.8 F4 primes are my always preferred choice if possible.

200-500 F5.6
28-300 G
24-85 G
50mm 1.4 Ziess
100mm F2 Ziess macro, set at infinity is even does sports action if your distance is right LOL.

D850
Z9
50mm 1.8S

I rent mostly anything else i need, lenses or cameras.

This merry go round goes on for ever it seems.

 

[O]

If I was in the market for anything longer than 300mm, I'd absolutely go for those PFs.

Agree with that, my 300 F2.8 VR II is my preferd limit and weight size, hence i keept that and sold of the 600 F4, now i just rent any exostics anyway.
We live in a digital cocane world, i just love F2.8 or F4 pimes for all the reaosn we know of.

 

[Anjin San]

For some realms, "good enough" is "best IQ, no compromises." My point, which I think nicely coexists with yours, is that when you need the absolute best, you go to the best equipment which are fast primes; big, fast readout sensors and in some cases fast zooms. I think it's not just pros, some guys here would schlep their long 4.0s for miles to get that shot.

Oh…agree with that. Good enough for a pro and good enough for an ‘I want the best’ amateur and good enough for an ‘ I want it to look good on the blog and not kill myself with weight compromise“ amateur are ll different. As I’ve said before…in a perfect world I would just buy all the 2.8 and 4.0 lenses and pay for a Sherpa…but paying that much doesn’t make sense for my needs even if I cheated out on the Sherpa…but my bride has repeatedly and steadfastly refused to be one. She’s willing to pull it out of my backpack and be the third hand for lens swaps…but carry it, nah. Fortunately…she refuses to hike with me past 4 miles in a day…but even at that distance if I was s helping say a 600TC I would have at most one other light lens with me.

 

[MatthewK]

If I was in the market for anything longer than 300mm, I'd absolutely go for those PFs.

100% right there with you, as that’s the choice I’ve made for myself when it comes to the big glass vs. light weight selection. Had the f/4 glass, made the decision that I’m ok sacrificing some of those benefits for a more maneuverable package, and have been happier ever since.

Heck, there’s been friction as of late thanks to the 600PF, as now my 800PF is the “heavy” lens that’s not seeing as much use anymore!