Video showing Z lens is sharper than F equivalent

MrFotoFool

The video above from Nikon user Ricci proves the Z 24-70 f2.8 is MUCH sharper than the F 24-70 f2.8 at large apertures. Near the end he states he tried three different copies of the F mount plus different FTZ adaptors and the results were the same. (For the record I still use the F 24-70 f2.8, but after seeing this I am eagerly awaiting a Z8 body to be announced so I can make the switch).

mhedges

Ricci's videos are great. He has a similar one on the 105 MC, and several other Z lenses too I'm sure.

PB_PM

Meh, the old F-mount works more than good enough for me. Sure the new Z is great, still don't see a need to get it. Ricci works for Nikon, so I always take what he says with that in mind.

WestEndFoto

MrFotoFool said:

The video above from Nikon user Ricci proves the Z 24-70 f2.8 is MUCH sharper than the F 24-70 f2.8 at large apertures. Near the end he states he tried three different copies of the F mount plus different FTZ adaptors and the results were the same. (For the record I still use the F 24-70 f2.8, but after seeing this I am eagerly awaiting a Z8 body to be announced so I can make the switch).

This does not surprise me. I own this lens, plus the 14-24 2.8 and 70-200 2.8E in f-mount.

I was shocked at how good the 70-200 2.8E was. It was a significant improvement on the 70-200 2.8G VRII on several levels. For the 24-70 2.8E there was an improvement over the predecessor, but it was not as startling. Better across the frame performance. The main reason to buy it was the introduction of VR.

So given that the 70-200 2.8S is better than the 70-200 2.8E, but only by a little bit, that result did not surprise me. However, given that the 24-70 2.8E did not have the excellence that the 70-200 2.8E had, it comes as no surprise to me that the Z-mount is such a significant improvment.

WestEndFoto

PB_PM said:

Meh, the old F-mount works more than good enough for me. Sure the new Z is great, still don't see a need to get it. Ricci works for Nikon, so I always take what he says with that in mind.

Well, I share your conclusion, but for a different reason. For me, if I really want great IQ, I will use a prime.

One question I have, is what are you suggesting when you say:

Ricci works for Nikon, so I always take what he says with that in mind.

PB_PM

WestEndFoto said:

One question I have, is what are you suggesting when you say:

Ricci works for Nikon, so I always take what he says with that in mind.

I wouldn't expect a Nikon employee to say anything truly negative about the companies products, he wouldn't have his job for long. That's what I mean. Do I think he is simply someone put on YouTube by Nikon's marketing department because he is a good speaker? I wouldn't put it past them to try that, but I don't believe that to be case with Ricci. I just take what he says and compare it to what others are saying, if the vast majority disagree with what Ricci says, I do consider it a little suspect. Not his entire channel, just individual comments.

mhedges

PB_PM said:

I wouldn't expect a Nikon employee to say anything truly negative about the companies products, he wouldn't have his job for long. That's what I mean. Do I think he is simply someone put on YouTube by Nikon's marketing department because he is a good speaker? I wouldn't put it past them to try that, but I don't believe that to be case with Ricci. I just take what he says and compare it to what others are saying, if the vast majority disagree with what Ricci says, I do consider it a little suspect. Not his entire channel, just individual comments.

That's why I like his approach to just show comparison images and let the viewer make up their own mind.

Searcy

If he's saying the Nikon Z 24-70 2.8 is better than the Nikon F24-70 2.8 isn't he saying something negative about the company?

Since the 24-70 is where I live, one of the first things I did after getting the Z6 was trade my 24-70 2.8 VR F mount for the 24-70 2.8 Z mount. The Z mount lens was a very noticeably better lens.

Capt_Spaulding

How do they compare when operating in their native environments?

Z7 with Z mount lens v D850 with F mount glass.

Ton14

With my Nikon D7200, the Nikon D600, the Nikon D810, the f/1.8 prime lenses, the 105mm f/2.8, the 24-70mm f/2.8, the 70-200mm f/2.8 VR II and the 70-200mm f/4 VR I have been taking good photos for about 5 years.

At the moment I am editing a large selection of them again with Capture one and Pure RAW, because the new software has a huge impact on photos. Even photos from my D70, some of which I am editing now, come out much better.

Last year I took the Nikon D600 twice and looked at the lenses again in their own environment, where of course just good pictures came out, especially pictures that I could make with good daylight were as they should be. Unfortunately, for many photos I do not have this nice daylight and that is where the biggest step of the Nikon Z is for me.

The most important advantages of the Z series over the F series for me: I really don't miss the huge blows of the mirror, kilos less weight to carry around, better image quality with the native Z lenses, built-in WiFi and Bluetooth connections. HDR for greater dynamic range I don't need anymore, because there is more then enough now.

The only F lens with the FTZ adapter that I still use on the Nikon Z is the 70-200 f/4, which will also be retired this year when the 70-200 f/2.8mm Z arrives.

Finally, at the moment I have about € 9,000.- worth of high quality Nikon Z stuff, with which you can really make pro quality pictures.

PB_PM

Searcy said:

If he's saying the Nikon Z 24-70 2.8 is better than the Nikon F24-70 2.8 isn't he saying something negative about the company?

How is that saying something negative about the company? It's just saying one is sharper than the other. Of course Nikon wants people who own the older one to buy a new one.

spraynpray

Searcy said:

If he's saying the Nikon Z 24-70 2.8 is better than the Nikon F24-70 2.8 isn't he saying something negative about the company?

Since the 24-70 is where I live, one of the first things I did after getting the Z6 was trade my 24-70 2.8 VR F mount for the 24-70 2.8 Z mount. The Z mount lens was a very noticeably better lens.

No, that's progress.

Looking at the comparison, I am reminded about my recent issues with my eye glasses. I had Zeiss lenses initially and didn't like them. I think they are over-hyped and found them inferior. The in-focus sweet spot was smaller than the Essilor lenses I ended up with. The perceived sharpness of the Zeiss lenses smacks you in the face, but then when you really look closely and think about it, The contrast of their coatings is their USP I think. After a short while I found the unnatural contrast very tiring to my eyes and am happy with the best Essilor lenses instead.

I recount that, because I think there is a parallel with the new Z lenses. We all know that the physical design of mirrorless gives an advantage, but I think they have changed their coating recipe to increase contrast too. Am I imagining it?

mhedges

spraynpray said:

I recount that, because I think there is a parallel with the new Z lenses. We all know that the physical design of mirrorless gives an advantage, but I think they have changed their coating recipe to increase contrast too. Am I imagining it?

If you are then I am too. I absolutely think the Z lenses give better contrast especially in backlight.

WestEndFoto

They do. This is apparent to me based on my 1.8 and 1.2 primes.

Pistnbroke

I often look at these comparisons and can see no difference.On this occasion, I thought it just looks like better contrast but thought best to keep my mouth shut .
Now others have said it I agree...Contrast is better with Z