hey Vahagan - I completely agree with you. The 24-70 f2.8 is superior in every way. Build, image quality, usability, and resale value. No argument for me. But as you say the 24-70 F4 S is available all day long on the buy and sell forums for $400. The 2.8 version is going as of today (Oct 20th, 2022) for $2099. Thats a 5x premium. With the high ISO capability of the current Z line of cameras, is it really worth a 5x premium? I can't recommend buying the 2.8 unless you are very serious about photography (as in you are going to spend greater then 4-5 ours a week using the lens) or you make money from your photography. If you are a beginner buy the f4 version used - learn the craft with that and put aside $100 dollars a month and buy the lens in cash after 2 years of photography. You might just find that you really don't need the level of performance this lens offers. After all the 24-70 F4 S Z lens is the greatest F4 24-70 anyone has ever made! Don't get me wrong - it doesn't stop me from coveting the lens thought 😍- keep up the good work brother! Oh and if you are going to buy the 24-70 F4 S new, DON"T. Buy the 24-120 F4 S lens instead. Its a much better lens for only a $100 more new !

Cranking out the reviews! Very nice Vahagn. I say get both of the lenses!

I've watched a few videos on the 24-70mm 2.8 lens and your video has help me decide to get it as soon as I'm able.. Thanks

Good talk about the 24-70mm F/2.8 lens, it sure look really good in video and still image.

Man I love that you have so much love for photography. Some people that do it as a business just leave it at that. But not you! It’s also something your passionate about! That Z 2.8 I bet is a son of a gun…

I just bought the 2.8 on sale, thanks for inspiring me with this video!!!!!!

Two thumbs up on another great video. I came across a used 24-70mm f/2.8 for a really good price and I don't regret the buy at all! I recently took that and two other lenses with me on a cruise to Central America and they didn't fail me (sharp images, I cut myself looking at them). Despite the weight of the f/2.8, me and the Z6 did great (gave my arms a workout). In my opinion, A+ results in low light situations.

I just got today the 24-70 F2.8 even if i have the 24-120 F4. The 300$ rebate was stimulating 😊 The 24-120 F4 will remain my main landscape and travel lens. The 24-70 F2.8 will become my delicious lens for events 😊

I have even older 28-70 f/2.8 F-mount one, fell in love with it instantly. Because of some features of an old glass it makes pretty special photos, also it looks gorgeous on bigger DSLR bodies. Cheers!

Awesome video ❤🙌🏼

Great video. Thanks

I have both and use both. The 2.8 is on my Z9 right now. Great review Vahagn. P.S. I still have my 24-70 2.8 E as well.

My 70-200 f2.8 Z just came in today and the quality is just o m g, 2.8s Z are indeed superior. (I have to brag here lol) Nice vid Vahagn, as always 🤝🏻

Hi, I am a bit late in responding (the video is 1 year old, haha), but I still want to share my experience. I got into photography 3 years ago and wasn't sure if it would be something long-term or not. I Bought the Z6II with the 24-70 f/4 kit lens. I was happy, but after 2 years, I noticed that my work started to require features and options the Z6 II couldn't support. Got the Z8 10 months ago, and 1 month ago, I bought the 24-70 f/2.8. I can only say: wow, what a difference. Three years ago, I wasn't ready to spend over 2k for that lens. Have no regret over that decision. But by the same token, I 100% AGREE THAT 2.8 IS A CHAMPION. The Z6 II and the f/4 lens found a great new owner: my wife, who got started in photography as well, prefers the lower weight of both camera and lens. Thanks for your views

For pros the 2.8 is worth it, but for most people the f/4 is more than enough IMO. One factor you didn't mention is the size and weight means you will carry it with you a lot more than a heavier lens and therefore get more good photos! I've always used the 2.8 like you, but I'm going to try hard to get used to f/4 with my Z6. My back ain't getting any younger!

Very Enlightning!!

I’ll be picking a 28mm f2.8 for real light and compact. I love and adore the 50mm f1.8 S and that will be my go to premium compact which I own but the 24-70 I’ll go for 2.8. Thanks for the video.

Always good to see the Z mount lenses. Make a good heads up for when I can go mirrorless waiting for the Z8. I have another thought for you. You know without a good computer and NAS storage archive one is extremely limited especially video. Perhaps a run through of your computer setup? To be a photographer one must achieve nerd mode and myself am building a creator PC so I can try to make videos on your level.

Thank you.

I got the 28-75 nikkor (tamron) 2.8 it's a beautiful lens as well

I have the 2.8 24-70 on the z7 and it is unbelievably sharp wide open. The Bokeh is maybe not the prettiest, but if you shoot at night or in low light, this is the lens you want.

I’m sure the 2.8 is amazing. But I got great shots of downtown Denver with the F4 a couple years ago. I would say it boils down to use case. And money you want to spend. The F4 is the best F4 lens I’ve ever used on any camera.

Nikkor Z 24-70 f2.8 all the way. I’ve had the F4 and the 24-120 and while there is nothing wrong with those, the 2.8 just renders deliciously.

I've actually gone backwards, and went with the 24-70 f4, whereas previously when I was on DSLRs I was using a 24-70 f2.8 and 70-200 f2.8, in addition to fast primes. Fast forward 10 years, I have a family and kid on the way, and I rarely stop down to 2.8, and given the high ISO capabilities of modern mirrorless bodies, f4 is super usable indoors now. In addition I found myself not needing the f2.8 for majority of my use cases, and if did need something fast, I still have my 35 and 85 primes to lean on. In my books, the impressive build and iq, compact size, price and weight difference made the f4 an easy choice. Either way, hats off to Nikon for giving us two fantastic options, and not forcing us to the pricier option for great quality.

I took your advice and bought this lens! I bought the Z 24-70/2.8 S

I own the f4 version and use it for landscapes, which anyway doesn’t require f2.8. For portraits I use 85 f/1.4, 50 Voigtlander f/1.2, 105 AIS, 135 AIS, 180 f 2.8 and the 70-200 Z f/2.8. Still do you believe I should change it to the 24-70 f/2.8 for this use case???

I'm sure I would like the f2.8 version but had a chance to buy the f4 version in like new condition for $325 so I jumped on it.

I have the f2.8 24-70mm and it pretty much close to a prime lens when it comes to the image quality.

Nikon has $300 off sale right now on the 2.8. I have the ancient G 2.8 version adapted to Z mount. Yes, tempted to buy it.

thank for video, but your sunglasses is awesome 😅, rayban or another brand?

For pros in work and portrait uses, definitely it is f2.8 . Nikon price it much more expensive for 1 stop difference for pros who dont mind to paid for their work to satisfy their customers but those enthusiasts photographers it depend on their styles. For landscapes photography, it is very difficult to see the difference as mostly shoot closed down to smaller stops. In the end as what you said both are very good lens to inspire individual own styles.

I recently got the Z 24-70 f4 for $400 with tax and free shipping in pristine condition from KEH photo, for an f4 lens I could not be happier. I also have the Z 50mm f1.2 and Sigma 105mm f1.4 Art, both those lenses are in a different league. But the Z 24-70 f4 is no slouch. The only reason this lens is called a kit lens is because Nikon included it with their first iteration of Z-mount cameras. It was a way to entice people to switch to the Z-mount system. So they included a sharp lens that people could use for family, friends, landscape and travel and still get great pictures. It was a way to get people to hopefully stay with the system and in the future add to the system.

Hello Vahagraphy, This is a difficult thing for any one just starting their journey in to photography. A lot would be on where they are in life? I to would allay say the f2.8 is the best and more flexible option. Even if you're on a tight budget, I would say save up and get the best. On a side issue I know Nikon are happy to have third partys make lenses which may be cheeper as well as give you OK results, But after years of photography starting in the 1970's I have just about alway found thoughts lenses lacking in some way. Now I will alway say to people and myself stick to OEM lenses where ever you cane. Keep well, keep safe and continue keep the chat

It's very interesting that many people rave about the 24-70 2.8 from any manufacturer, they are favorites for sure across different brands, not for me though. The only 24-70 I bought in my life was when I purchased the Sony SLT A99 accompanied by a Zeiss 24-70 2.8, I have a lot of respect for Zeiss lenses and I got a good deal on it because it was a brand new display piece. And while I still own it till today and I tried adapting it to my Z bodies, I am not particularly a fan. My beef with the 24-70 zoom range is that it's neither ultra wide nor long enough, I also don't find 2.8 particularly bright for shooting in low light. A 24-70 would replace 2 or 3 lenses for me personally (I mostly shoot around 20, 35, and 50) and I personally prefer the brighter 1.8 primes. Now, for a 24-120 things are a bit different where the zoom range in much more useful and carrying one around saves me from taking at least 4-5 lenses so it's worth the compromise on the darker aperture, plus it's a perfect travel lens. As we always say, it's a matter of use case, and this is how things work for me. I had banger offers on Z 24-70 both brand new and used but never felt compelled to get one. If I ever do, it'll be the last lens I purchase and strictly as a result of a GAS compulsion. I can see why it would be a good wedding lens though.

Bought Nikon 24-70mm f2.8 S lens for my nikon zfc. Waiting to get it soon. I do not know how that will work with Zfc but I hope will be good. Cause paid too much money for this lens.

I love the F4 but nobody is going to get my 2.8 S in this lifetime Awsome

Vahagn, at that price range it is better to go with 85mm 1.8 and 35mm 1.8, these are sharper, lighter, cover most of the focal length and cheaper than a single 24-70 2.8

F2.8s 24-70mm it's a good all-round. But the F4s 24-120 that's a better choice if you need that extra focal length for that price. Unless you really need that extra stop.

Going on my 35+ years of experience, the 24-120 would be my choice. I like the longer focal length.

For $1k more I would have liked to see some image comparison. I understand that the 2.8 is better built, but when it comes down to it what is the image quality like? Is it worth $1k more for 1 stop and how do they compare at other f stops?

What about old reliable G on a D850 vs. the Z 2.8 on the 9?

i think someone starting out should get a 50mm prime or the 28 to 75mm instead. a much cheaper option.

i wants z 24-70mm but cost was to high. also want F mount one but did not want to use any of gen FTZ so went out got 28-75mm one since need for volleyball or in side place that poor lighting

Would you recommend selling the 24-70 f2.8G and getting the 24-70 f4 z lens? Or keep the 2.8G and use it with the ftz?

I wish Nikon would consider adding the gold ring to their premium lenses plus change the black S to gold.

Hi Vahagan, I hope all is well . I was looking for a used 24-70 2.8 S lens. What would you consider a great price for a used copy? I took your advice and have been saving up. I figured buying used is worthwhile to reduce some of the expense.

I recently purchased 14-30 F4 lens and the 24-120 S lens. The 14-30 focuses better and faster than the 120 in low light. I am considering returning the 120 for a prime. What are your thoughts? I also was considering if I should save up for 24-70 2.8 S lens, but that is very expensive for an amateur. I am definitely keeping the 14-30 F4 which I got a deal on.

F2.8 all day.

I'm not sure if you do this, but I have a question. I have the Z50, 16-50mm, 50-250mm, and the 40mm f2. When I decide to invest in more gear, should I buy a Z6ii and have a full frame camera, or invest in the $2000 lens?

How much do both of those Z-Mount lenses cost Mr. Vahagraphy?

The 24-70 is such a meat and potatoes lens, so if it’s in your budget, you gotta get the 2.8. 🤟😎📷

The way I see it, Nikon changed its lens mount only occurs once (or twice for some) in our lifetimes, hence we should not miss this opportunity to reconfigure our lens collection. The holy trinity is getting long in the tooth and closing in using primes only in the good old days. Especially I'm not a pro that needs a set of journeyman tool, I find most of the Z lenses are boring (IMO, Canon wins this round with its RF lenses) and have to think outside the box in new Z lens purchases. This is putting aside budget and preference and instead re-configuring a new standard set of lenses that can replace the holy trinity for the years ahead. Thus the 24-70 f/2.8 or f/4 is a good lens to start with and the Canon RF 28-70 f/2 & Tamron 35-135 f/2-2.8 are showing the possibilities.

Really? the f2.8 is better than the f4? and is better in low light and more sharp? Dah!! 😂😄

All the 24-70mm Nikkors are fantastic lenses - I bought the 24-70 f2.8 and f4 Z versions. I wish I had bought the 24-70 f2.8 and the 24-120mm Z lenses instead... 🦘