New gear... your thoughts? Which lens do you prefer as f2.8? 70-200 or the 24-70

[Skye.prf]

If you have the choice (and a limited budget!), based on the type of photography like city, traveling, landscape...excluding portraits... you go with the 70-200 at 2.8, or the 24-70 at 2.8 (and the next 24-105 at F4. My Z7ii already ordered... my first thought is going with the new 70-200s and the new TC 2.0 (or 1.4), wait to have an all-around 24-105... I have my 500PF for wildlife.

 

[wild-pics]

If you have the choice (and a limited budget!), based on the type of photography like city, traveling, landscape...excluding portraits... you go with the 70-200 at 2.8, or the 24-70 at 2.8 (and the next 24-105 at F4. My Z7ii already ordered... my first thought is going with the new 70-200s and the new TC 2.0 (or 1.4), wait to have an all-around 24-105... I have my 500PF for wildlife.

For all general travel, Landscapes, multi day treks and technical climbs I use the Z 24-70 S F/4 kit lens with the Z7. For its price when combined in a kit it delivers excellent IQ. I only use the 70-200 S around my home or when taking a walk around the harbour. I would not consider the 70-200 S a travel lens, lens and Z7 weighs 2.3 kg.

 

[JP Onstwedder]

Like Patrick I stick with the very good 24-70/4 and added the 70-200/2.8. Apart from availability (I bought my Z7 two years ago), my reason was that I don't shoot wide angle wide open that often, so the f/4 aperture is fast enough for me. It's mostly a cityscape/landscape lens for me and certainly at 5.6-8 it's really good. The 70-200 for me is about detail and subject isolation so the faster aperture is really nice to have. Plus: there is no native Z mount option at that focal length and my 70-200/4 on the FTZ has never impressed me (although it's great on a D500!). I don't mind the weight, but if you want to travel light, the 70-300 F mount lens is a good option. At least according to Thom Hogan!

 

[Skye.prf]

I had the 14-30 s and the 24-70 s f4 for my last trip... I used my 14-30 way more than expected!. As good as the 24-70 f4. As I sold my Z6 just before it dropped in value with my 24-70, I kept my 14-30, my adaptor. I ordered the new Z7 II, the 70-200 with the TC2... I will wait for the next 24-105s hoping that it will be as good as the 24-70... but... will it be compact enough for travel?... I am not impressed by the 300pf and the 500 pf with the adaptor... AF is accurate... but quite slow... thanks for your replies!

 

[Ado Wolf]

The 24-70 is a better all rounder for Travel, City and landscapes (on FF, not wide enough on DX).
The 70-200 is better suited for portraits or landscape closeups (to isolate certain scenes).

 

[Andy Work]

I believe the 24-70mm would be more versatile.

 

[JANuser]

24-70 for sure, it might not hit every check box, but it is a good all around focal length that does the job a lot of the time for what you are asking for. 70-200 is also very useful, but to have 70mm as the widest range for landscapes would be somewhat limiting.

 

[joe43]

I would consider lenses that are NOT f2.8, to save money and weight. I know that some of you are shouting "heresy".

Here's why. With more modern digital bodies, if I am in low to lower light situations I just increase my ISO and shoot wide open at f 3.x or f4. The sensor handles it pretty well. And if the image is too noisy, just buy a good software package to get rid of it. As long as the image quality of the lens is OK why pay big bucks for one stop of light or a faster lens?

Exceptions might be when you must have wide apertures like f1.4. f1.8 for portraits/background control; or for special nature/sports situations where a 400 f2.8 or a 300mm f2.8 might be needed.

Look at the nikon 500mm lenses: AF-S 500mm f4 E/FL ED VR for $10,300 vs the AF-S 500mm E PF ED VR f5.6 for $3,300. That's a $7000 difference. That is a huge price for one stop of light or possibly "better" blurred backgrounds or something else.

My 70-200mm f4 Nikon lens gets more use than my 70-200mm f2.8 Nikon lens.

Enter data in your depth of field apps and see if there are any meaningful DOF gains for the distances you normally shoot between f2.8 lenses lenses with smaller apertures. The lens world is changing as it adapts to cameras with "better" sensors.

My normal lens on my Nikon full frame sensor body . a D 850, is a Nikon 24-85mm f3.5 -4.5 G lens.

 

[Strodav]

24-70mm f/2.8 then start looking for a couple of less expensive primes to fill in the gaps until you can afford the trinity.

 

[EricBowles]

The Z 70-200 f/2.8 is in a different league. I'm very willing to use it wide open to f/3.5. These are from this past weekend. The separation from the backgrounds is almost 3D like.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.