Hello all, I have a Nikon Z S 14-24 2.8. Next is a Z 24-200 f4-6.3. Then the Nikon Z 100-400 f4.5-5.6. Larger lenses from there, all primes. I am heading across the country in September for 8 weeks. I am considering adding either the z 70-200 S 2.8 or the z 24-70 S 2.8. I am really torn between the two. I feel like the 24-200 f4-6.3 is my week lens. I can sell it or keep it. Any advise? Shooting landscape and a lot of wildlife.
Nikon 70-200 S 2.8 or Nikon S 24-70 2.8
- Thread starter Terry32
- Start date
If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).
Brian L
Well-known member
I own both and both are terrific lenses, among Nikons best. But, just to throw you a curveball, consider instead the 24-120 f4 S. It’s simply the most versatile lens in my bag. Since I bought it my great 24-70 2.8 has mostly stayed home. It’s also a great complement to my 70-200 2.8 which I often use with the 1.4x extender. The two lenses then give me 24 - 280mm combined range.
if you’re stuck on just one of your two choices, then go with the 70-200; because I know you’ll eventually get the 24-120.
if you’re stuck on just one of your two choices, then go with the 70-200; because I know you’ll eventually get the 24-120.
I wanted that lens, but I could not find one anywhere. They are back ordered with no time frame. You are correct and I would love to have it.
If you're used to the IQ of the 2.8s, the 24-120 may disappoint appoint you. Nowhere near the pop. Cheaper, lighter, sharp, more flexible range. But a compromise. I have the three 2.8s and the 24-120 and I don't recall the last time I used the latter.
I would suggest not getting the 70-200 f2.8 right now because you already have the 100-400. That is not denigrating at all the quality or value of the 70-200 but the 100-400 already covers most of its range and it will do better above 200 than the 70-200.. You did not specify what longer primes you may have but the 100-400 has been useful for many to fill in behind a quality long prime.
I would go for the 24-70mm f2.8 because it will give you the most notable upgrade in performance over what you have. Thom Hogan rates both the 24-70 2.8 and the 14-24 as exemplary lenses which is his highest rating which he only provides for lenses that really stand out from the crowd in quality. Other lenses in that category also include the super prime tc lenses and the 58mm Noct.
I originally used the 24-70 f4 which I understand is similar IQ to the 24-120 (which I have not used). WHen I got the 24-70mm f2.8 I was so impressed by the quality that I no longer use the f4 and will probably sell it.
The f2.8 24-70 is a larger lens but if you are used to shooting with lenses like the 100-400 it will not be burdensome,
On the other hand if convenience and portability are more important to you then many have recommended the 24-120. I have not used that lens so am not in hte position to offer useful comment.
I would go for the 24-70mm f2.8 because it will give you the most notable upgrade in performance over what you have. Thom Hogan rates both the 24-70 2.8 and the 14-24 as exemplary lenses which is his highest rating which he only provides for lenses that really stand out from the crowd in quality. Other lenses in that category also include the super prime tc lenses and the 58mm Noct.
I originally used the 24-70 f4 which I understand is similar IQ to the 24-120 (which I have not used). WHen I got the 24-70mm f2.8 I was so impressed by the quality that I no longer use the f4 and will probably sell it.
The f2.8 24-70 is a larger lens but if you are used to shooting with lenses like the 100-400 it will not be burdensome,
On the other hand if convenience and portability are more important to you then many have recommended the 24-120. I have not used that lens so am not in hte position to offer useful comment.
hef19898
Well-known member
I have yet to see a real world image where one of the holly trinity lenses beats a 24-120/4, or other similar lense. Those small differences in test lab are easily lost in real life. Not that those lenses are bad, far from it. But for travel, when a 14-24 and 100-400 already exist, the 70-200 doesn't make a lot of sense. The 24-70 would fill a gap, if 70 is long enough is a personal choice.
Otherwise, from my personal experience, a 50/1.8 and / or 35 or 85/1.8 would do the same thing. Or a 24-120, would even offer some overlap with the 100-400, which is nice.
Otherwise, from my personal experience, a 50/1.8 and / or 35 or 85/1.8 would do the same thing. Or a 24-120, would even offer some overlap with the 100-400, which is nice.
You ask a question regarding two lenses. For me, I will never be without my 70-200 2.8S lens. Works super with the TC 14x and 20x converters too (I do not use the 20x but have in the past). I have yet to buy that 24-70 2.8 Z, doubt I will as I don't need it. If you are ok with the 24-200 you own, use it, but it is a weak link in your set, the 24-120 f4 is better.
The advantage of high IQ lenses is that you can do more with them particularly when working with a higher megapixel camera. This particularly happens with wildlife/birds but it can also happen with wider angle lenses.
Last week I was out photographing a parade. I was using both my 24-70mm f2.8 and the 70-200mm f2.8. I took a lot of shots and there were a lot of colorful subjects. I am going to crop a few of those to get some interesting compositions. Having a more powerful IQ lens means those cropped shots are going to be more interesting.
That is why I prefer higher IQ lenses.
Last week I was out photographing a parade. I was using both my 24-70mm f2.8 and the 70-200mm f2.8. I took a lot of shots and there were a lot of colorful subjects. I am going to crop a few of those to get some interesting compositions. Having a more powerful IQ lens means those cropped shots are going to be more interesting.
That is why I prefer higher IQ lenses.
A 70-200 f2.8 has long been my favorite and most used lens (I have owned it in three systems over the last couple decades). Of course a 24-70 f2.8 is nice as well. I had one when I was F mount for my Nikon D850 but when I switched to Z8 last year I got the 24-70 f4 instead. This was mainly due to price (got a great deal used) but also size and weight. IN MY OPNION, you only need 2.8 for a lens like this if you do astro or indoor events (which I don't). Since I use it for landscape and architecture I am usually set to f8 or f11. Also, since a wider view inherintly has more depth of field, it is hard to get that soft background even at f2.8 with a 24-70. However, with a 70-200 f2.8 (especially at the 200 end) you will get a nice soft background. Also the Z 70-200 takes both 1.4x and 2x teleconverters very well. I can use the 2x to get a 140-400mm f5.6 zoom which negates the need for me to own the 100-400 zoom. You may find you could do this also and sell your 100-400 (especially if as you say you have larger primes).
DRM
Well-known member
I would ask myself two question. 1) When using the 24-200, where are most of the shots taken within that range; are they in the 24-70 mm range or are they in the 70-200 range? 2) Where within that range does the slow aperture of the 24-200 limit your photography the most?
Personally, I need a faster aperture in that 100-200 range than what the 100-400 provides, so the 100-400 is not a suitable replacement for the 70-200 f/2.8. But I’m shooting events and people with it, not landscapes. If I never needed f/2.8 or thereabouts in that 100-200 range, I’d just use the 100-400 for that stuff and go with the 24-70 f/2.8.
Personally, I need a faster aperture in that 100-200 range than what the 100-400 provides, so the 100-400 is not a suitable replacement for the 70-200 f/2.8. But I’m shooting events and people with it, not landscapes. If I never needed f/2.8 or thereabouts in that 100-200 range, I’d just use the 100-400 for that stuff and go with the 24-70 f/2.8.
Here is my thought on the Z24-70 2.8. I have the Z24-120 and am always impressed by how sharp it is. But I thought the 24-70 would be that much better. I did a bunch of comparisons in the camera store and I could not see the difference. Hef19898 above said "Those small differences in test lab are easily lost in real life" and I couldn't agree more. I thought I'd be crazy to settle for a shorter zoom range, a heavier lens, and much more expensse just to have one extra stop. I've never thought I need an extra stop of light with the 24-120 with my Z9 or Zf.
Thank you for all your input, I’m narrowing it down.
Hooligans Imagery
Michael H
The 24-120 is back in stock at BH.
Thanks for all the great advice, 24-120 ordered.
ccirelli
Well-known member
You'll love it, saw your post and this was going to be my suggestion to fit your use case above. Glad it became available in time!
O
Well-known member
If you have only one lens to chose then its the 70-200 F2.8 over the 24-70, the 70-200 will work very well with a TC.
Only an opinion