Nikon Z 24-70 f2.8 S vs Z 28-75
May 14, 2022 07:31:40 #
fstoprookie wrote:
Well It looks like you have the low end covered. I... (show quote)
Hi rookie. This is not a knock on your photography. I went to your website and you definately know what you are doing excellent photos. I have a question though. You said you shot t 1/125 to show some movement. I always thought with the arm movement and ball movement that was plenty of movement. Thanks and BE SAFE!!
Tom
May 14, 2022 22:18:39 #
Chicago312
Loc: Western suburb, Chicago
Mac wrote:
The 24-70mm lacks 5mm on the long end and is an S Line lens, the 28-75mm lacks 4mm on the short end and is not an S Line lens. Consider what’s more important to YOU and don’t worry about what’s important to anybody else.
Mac - thanks. That is so true. Just curious if anyone has had experience with both lenses and their thoughts.
May 14, 2022 22:54:10 #
Chicago312
Loc: Western suburb, Chicago
billnikon wrote:
You say you like sports, but have no lenses for that, or plans for a lens for that. The current Z 100-400 would be my choice but Nikon should be coming out with a 200-600 later this year.
The 24-70 or 28-70 will be paper weights if you add the 24-120. So, if you are going with the 24-120 why bother with the other two. One stop is not that big of deal.
The 24-70 or 28-70 will be paper weights if you add the 24-120. So, if you are going with the 24-120 why bother with the other two. One stop is not that big of deal.
Bill - my apologies, I forgot to mention that I already have lenses (f-mount) for sports - 70-200 f2.8, 300 f2.8.
I’m certainly interested in finding out more of the 200-600 lens.
I have the f-mount 24-120 f4 (and plan to change to the Z mount). I do find that the f4 is potentially limiting in those low light settings (gyms, night-time festivals, etc) where shutter speed is a priority. I agree, during the day, for most subjects, f4 isn’t much different than f2.8, especially at the wider angles.
May 14, 2022 23:11:50 #
Chicago312
Loc: Western suburb, Chicago
tshift wrote:
I don't think you would be happy with short lens f... (show quote)
Hi Tom,
You’re probably right re: short lens & sports, but I was thinking mostly for those b-ball shots under the hoop; also plan to use the lens for other low light settings and video.
Stephen
May 14, 2022 23:17:40 #
If you are only shooting basketball & volleyball lenses like 24-70 f2.8, & F4 should work just fine IMHO
May 15, 2022 05:16:40 #
billnikon
Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont
Chicago312 wrote:
Bill - my apologies, I forgot to mention that I al... (show quote)
With today's camera's capable of such high ISO settings, a 2.8 lens is no longer necessary for indoor sports, an f4 lens is more than capable. I shot professional basketball games with an D4s and a 200-400 f4 lens with no issues. You can too.
May 15, 2022 11:43:30 #
Chicago312 wrote:
Hi Tom,
You’re probably right re: short lens & sports, but I was thinking mostly for those b-ball shots under the hoop; also plan to use the lens for other low light settings and video.
Stephen
You’re probably right re: short lens & sports, but I was thinking mostly for those b-ball shots under the hoop; also plan to use the lens for other low light settings and video.
Stephen
I shoot with a 85mm f/1.8 vertical under the basket and that does real well. Also my 80-200mm f/2.8 is real good for shooting close to basket. Thanks BE SAFE!!
Tom
May 15, 2022 16:23:12 #
LDB415 wrote:
You already hit on it. 4mm wider on the wide end is significantly greater and potentially useful than 5mm longer on the long end. YMMV. Good luck with your decision.
May 16, 2022 15:44:21 #
Chicago312
Loc: Western suburb, Chicago
larryepage wrote:
These lenses differ in important ways far beyond their focal length boundaries. If those differences are not apparent or important to you, I would suggest making the less expensive choice.
But be sure that whatever you choose will do the job you ask of it. I'm working right now with a drill team mother who is struggling to come to grips with the fact that she needs a longer lens to do what she wants to do.
But be sure that whatever you choose will do the job you ask of it. I'm working right now with a drill team mother who is struggling to come to grips with the fact that she needs a longer lens to do what she wants to do.
Thanks, Larry - still trying to decide, but probably go with the cheaper option as the differences between the lenses don't really matter much to me and my type of work/activity.
May 16, 2022 15:47:41 #
Chicago312
Loc: Western suburb, Chicago
1grumpybear wrote:
Are you asking about Nikon Z mirrorless lens. I own both 24-70 2.8 lens for the D6 and the 24-70 2.8 Z lens for my Z9. I use for indoor sports. The D6 is now my backup for the Z9. I would rent the lens and compare the results. I buy the body to accomplish what I want and lens for the quality I am looking for.
I agree - lens for quality, body for the job.
May 16, 2022 15:50:10 #
Chicago312
Loc: Western suburb, Chicago
Real Nikon Lover wrote:
When I switched to full frame I focused on purchas... (show quote)
Thanks Jim - I agree, not likely I would be disappointed with a f2.8. Just trying to decide which one - only because I haven't won the lottery yet...
May 16, 2022 15:58:20 #
Chicago312
Loc: Western suburb, Chicago
fstoprookie wrote:
Well It looks like you have the low end covered. I... (show quote)
These are amazing shots at 1/125. I have the f-mount 24-120 f4, but hope to upgrade to the Z version (for video purposes). I have used it for indoor track, but not basketball or volley ball. I have a 70-200 f2.8 and 300 f2.8 for sports and I like the focus speed of both lenses shot wide open - whether indoor/outdoor.
Would love to get the new Z 400 f2.8, but I don't have $14,000 laying around. The 100-400 does sound intriguing though - what's good for wildlife photography is usually good for sports.
May 16, 2022 16:04:45 #
Chicago312
Loc: Western suburb, Chicago
Grahame wrote:
I'm presently also pondering which of the two versions for the Z to purchase as I've found my Nikon Z 24-70 f/4.0 will not get me adequately blurred backgrounds for serious portrait work. Although great in every other respect for me.
I came across this review https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vm5-AjIdwBQ of the Nikon 28-75mm f/2.8 which I consider pretty balanced and fair so may be of some help to you.
I came across this review https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vm5-AjIdwBQ of the Nikon 28-75mm f/2.8 which I consider pretty balanced and fair so may be of some help to you.
Thanks Grahame. I watched the video - definitely informative. While I don't do portrait work regularly, I do agree, when I'm asked to shoot portraits, that f2.8 gives one better bokeh and a better end result. I always choose my 70-200 f2.8 over my 24-120 f4 for any photoshoots that I do.
While I plan to keep a 24-120 f4 for general/travel photos/video, I do think the f2.8 has its place - especially for low light and whenever one is looking for that shallow depth of field.
May 16, 2022 16:06:22 #
Chicago312
Loc: Western suburb, Chicago
cjc2 wrote:
As an owner of the 24-70/2.8 S lens, I can tell you it's a stellar performer. YMMV. Best of luck.
Thanks - I'm certainly not surprised given all of the reviews online. I just have to decide if it's worth the extra cost/weight for me.
May 16, 2022 16:09:54 #
Chicago312
Loc: Western suburb, Chicago
SueScott wrote:
The current edition of NPhoto gave the Z28-75 2.8 lens a 5/5 in its review. I bought one several months ago mainly for use when shooting events at our church b/c my Z70-200 wasn't wide enough at the short end and I needed a bit more reach than the Z24-70 provided. I've found it to be very capable and have used it quite a bit as a general purpose walkaround lens.
Thanks Sue - it sounds like this lens has worked out quite well for you. I am certainly considering this one over the 24-70 f2.8 if it works just as well - especially given cost/weight.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.