I have a Nikon Z7 camera 24-70 f/4: Would the 24-70 f/2.8 be a better choice for this camera? Strickly a vacation lens.

howardg

Would the 24-70 f/2.8 be a better choice for this camera? Strickly a vacation lens.

kufengler Loc: Meridian, Idaho 83646

I would go with the 24-70 f/2.8 II myself, the f/2.8 is a superior optically, but the f/4 isn't far behind from what read. The f/4 costs less, is somewhat smaller and lighter so for "Strictly a vacation lens" it may be the choice.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

You might consider this summary comment from Rockwell's review of the f/2.8 release:

"This is the standard pro zoom [the Nikon 24-70/2.8 Z] for Nikon's Z System. The Z 24-70mm f/4 S takes the same pictures, but isn't as tough or as fast for low light, lacks some of the glitzy features and costs less than half as much. This f/2.8 lens is for people who have earned and deserve the very best of everything."

KR's examples from the f/4 are certainly eye-popping (he has several at the top of this page): https://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/mirrorless/lenses/24-70mm-f4.htm

ecobin Loc: Paoli, PA

You might rent the f/2.8 and decide for yourself whether it's worth it. Let us know if you do and your comparison.

DavidPine Loc: Fredericksburg, TX

howardg wrote:

Would the 24-70 f/2.8 be a better choice for this camera? Strickly a vacation lens.

It's a good lens. For a walk around lens I would probably opt for the 24-120.

chasgroh Loc: Buena Park, CA

...I own the f4 version and see no reason to upgrade to f2.8 (sure, it's faster but I haven't run into a situation yet where my FF Z6 has an uncorrectable noise problem, and it's *plenty* sharp...) Now, if I had unlimited funds, sure...but I have the 70-200 f2.8 on order so my lens acquisitions are on hold for quite awhile, lol...

Hammer Loc: London UK

I believe that there is a comparison on Youtube by Ricci Talks . Believe the conclusion was that there was slightly more detail in the shadows , barely noticeable . However , there is the extra stop of light of course . I mugged myself and purchased the f2.8 !

Robert1 Loc: Davie, FL

I second the FF 24-120 f 4.0 as the best walk-around Nikon lens.
But if you're fixated on a 24-70 the f 2.8 would be more versatile in speed and low light capabilities. Best bet is to rent the f 2.8 from lensrentals.com and you'll find out for sure.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

howardg wrote:

Would the 24-70 f/2.8 be a better choice for this camera? Strickly a vacation lens.

On vacation it's all about the weight.

Bill_de Loc: US

howardg wrote:

Would the 24-70 f/2.8 be a better choice for this camera? Strickly a vacation lens.

I have the 24-70 F/4.0 on a Z6 and find it to be extremely sharp. While I have and enjoy F/2.8 lenses all the way to 400mm for my DSLRs, my Z cameras are for a lighter, smaller kit, ideal for your intended use.

---

Rayban

I have a Z6 and I traded in my F4 for the F2.8 and have not regretted it.

The F4 is good but the 2.8 is noticeably better.

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

I have the f/4 on my Z7 and I’m very happy with it. Maybe someday I’ll want the f/2.8 but there’s too much other glass I want to make it a priority. Next up will be the 85mm f/18

IDguy Loc: Idaho

Robert1 wrote:

I second the FF 24-120 f 4.0 as the best walk-around Nikon lens.
But if you're fixated on a 24-70 the f 2.8 would be more versatile in speed and low light capabilities. Best bet is to rent the f 2.8 from lensrentals.com and you'll find out for sure.

The 24-120 isn’t best for a Z camera. You need to add the FTZ adapter to use it.

Nikon has a new 24-200 Z mount. It has good reviews already. I’ll be ordering one soon.

After I try it I might send my f4 24-70 down the road. And maybe even my FX 70-300.

You don’t need f2.8 with the Zs because their high ISO performance is awesome. The f4 is much lighter.

mikeroetex Loc: Lafayette, LA

IDguy wrote:

The 24-120 isn’t best for a Z camera. You need to add the FTZ adapter to use it.

Nikon has a new 24-200 Z mount. It has good reviews already. I’ll be ordering one soon.

After I try it I might send my f4 24-70 down the road. And maybe even my FX 70-300.

You don’t need f2.8 with the Zs because their high ISO performance is awesome. The f4 is much lighter.

I agree with these IDguy. I have the same 24-70 on a Z7 and a Z6 for low light that handles 25600 ISO (body was cheaper than a f2.8 lens). The Z7 will handle up to about 10000 ISO and still have acceptable images. I wouldn't worry about one fstop. Most of my vacation shots are f8 to f13 anyway, especially any landscape shots.

Don't look at this from a DSLR perspective. The tech on these cameras give you a wide latitude.

Robert1 Loc: Davie, FL

IDguy wrote:

The 24-120 isn’t best for a Z camera. You need to add the FTZ adapter to use it.

Nikon has a new 24-200 Z mount. It has good reviews already. I’ll be ordering one soon.

After I try it I might send my f4 24-70 down the road. And maybe even my FX 70-300.

You don’t need f2.8 with the Zs because their high ISO performance is awesome. The f4 is much lighter.

you are right, after a while reading i just forgot that it was a Z camera. My bad.