Out of the gate let me state that for my style of photography, it has always been about ultimate image quality. It's why I moved from 35mm film, to medium format film and ultimately large format film and dealt with film holders and ground-glass focus; it's why I waded into the depths of medium format digital as soon as it became viable; and that quest remained through digital DSLR's coming of age. But along with higher resolution DSLR's and 100% pixel view in Photoshop, it became readily apparent --and pretty quickly-- that lenses mattered. And quite a bit. Some of my historical favorites no longer cut the mustard so to speak... And ergo, we get to zooms vs primes. Within just the last few generations of high resolution DSLRs, we've seen landmark prime lens improvements from from virtually every major company, and then a huge new market for 3rd party lens producers like Zeiss and Sigma, all to satisfy our quest for ultimate image quality. Some of the highest end zooms got pretty darn good, and many nearly approaching primes for their ability to deliver IQ, at least stopped down a little. But never have the best zooms truly equalled, let alone beat the best primes.
Well, the Nikon Z lenses have changed that, or at least pushed far enough into prime territory I felt it warranted discussion Below is a U-tube from a guy called Ricci that does a pretty great job of comparing Nikon Z primes to the 24-70 zooms -- the 24/1.8, 35/1.8, 50/1.8 and 85/1.8 to the 24-70/2.8, wide open then at the same apertures stopped down. I give him an A+ for presenting real-life, well-captured comparisons and sharing them realtime. I deduct 2 points because he uses LightRoom ( ), and I deduct another 2 points in his second video comparing the 24-70/4 to the 24-70/2.8 where he had the f4 lens ever so slightly back-focused compared the f2.8 lens -- but nonetheless, the comp was enlightening. But I'll add back 2 points for the way he lays out and presents, and then lets you draw your own conclusions. This vid is about 30 minutes, but well worth it. The second video that compares the to 2 24-70's is shorter -- and pay attention to the slight back-focus -- it almost neutralizes the tiny differences between those two lenses.
First vid:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hpb...G5MM2ur08KnY7yAwS5B0k6s2TF72QCIyYUFxOaAlX4MPs
Second vid:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUWFUYRRPTs
In conclusion, I currently do own the 24-70/4 and the 50/1.8, and I may well add the 24-70 2.8 Zoom when I get my second body. I may possibly also add the 85/1.8, or perhaps the 105 macro instead of the 85 -- *or* possibly just go with the 70-200/2.8 when it finally hits, as my gut says it will be as good wide open as the macro or 85 at f2.8
Well, the Nikon Z lenses have changed that, or at least pushed far enough into prime territory I felt it warranted discussion Below is a U-tube from a guy called Ricci that does a pretty great job of comparing Nikon Z primes to the 24-70 zooms -- the 24/1.8, 35/1.8, 50/1.8 and 85/1.8 to the 24-70/2.8, wide open then at the same apertures stopped down. I give him an A+ for presenting real-life, well-captured comparisons and sharing them realtime. I deduct 2 points because he uses LightRoom ( ), and I deduct another 2 points in his second video comparing the 24-70/4 to the 24-70/2.8 where he had the f4 lens ever so slightly back-focused compared the f2.8 lens -- but nonetheless, the comp was enlightening. But I'll add back 2 points for the way he lays out and presents, and then lets you draw your own conclusions. This vid is about 30 minutes, but well worth it. The second video that compares the to 2 24-70's is shorter -- and pay attention to the slight back-focus -- it almost neutralizes the tiny differences between those two lenses.
First vid:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hpb...G5MM2ur08KnY7yAwS5B0k6s2TF72QCIyYUFxOaAlX4MPs
Second vid:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUWFUYRRPTs
In conclusion, I currently do own the 24-70/4 and the 50/1.8, and I may well add the 24-70 2.8 Zoom when I get my second body. I may possibly also add the 85/1.8, or perhaps the 105 macro instead of the 85 -- *or* possibly just go with the 70-200/2.8 when it finally hits, as my gut says it will be as good wide open as the macro or 85 at f2.8
Last edited: