One difference I have discovered is how big a focus step is between S-lens and non-S lens. I have S-lenses 70-200 f/2,8, 105 f/2,8 and 24-70 f/4 and non-S 24-200 Ff/4-6.3. I have used them for focus stacking and found that the S 70-200 and 105 has three times as many focus steps compared with the 24-200. The 24-70 comes in in the middle between these lenses. That means that the 70-200 (and 105) can focus more accurate than the 24-200. I don't know how much impact it has when taking one single shot, but when doing focus stacking I sometimes has to take 20 frames from beginning to end while with another lens it takes only 7 shots to shift focus the same length. But I cannot help that pictures taken with my 70-200 or 105 feels better than pictures taken with my 24-200. So I do agree with you. S-lenses are better but it's hard to pinpoint exactly what the differences are.
Thanks for the video. Personally, I think the best S line that I have used is the 50mm F1.8. The 85mm F1.8 is by far my favorite portrait lens, but I think the 50mm is an ever so slightly better lens. The 24-120 F4 is my favorite over all S line lens that I personally own. I also own the 20mm F1.8 S lens, but I keep going back and forth as to keeping that lens or swapping it out for the 14-30 F4. I agree with you that all of them are incredible lenses. I look back at some of my images from 20 or 30 years ago with older Nikon F glass, and in my opinion, most can't stand up to the new S lenses. The newer 85 for example is a superior lens to the F mount as is the 50mm. The only thing stopping me from saying that the Nikon 50mm S lens is my favorite 50mm of all time would be the new Voigtlander 50mm F2 APO lens, which if you want character in a lens, just wow. I've done some comparisons using both 50mm's and even though you can't go wrong with the Nikon, if you don't mind manual focus, then I lean towards the Voigtlander, but it's darn close. I also have the Nikon 24-200 which was my overall favorite new Nikon lens until the 24-120 F4 arrived. I think in the end, I'm going end up with either the 20mm or the 14-30 F4, the 24-120, the 85 and one of the 50's (Voigtlander or Nikon) and the Tamron 70-300 and leaving it that for many years of shooting. I shoot landscapes, portraits, grandkids and grandkids sports and the occasional wildlife. I once shot a lot of high school and even pro sports than I do now, so its why I don't own the new 70-200 or even the 100-400. I couldn't justify the cost. If was still being paid to shoot sports the 70-200 would be a no brainer. I considered the 24-70 F2.8 S lens, but the 24-120 F4 seems to suit me just fine. Thanks again.
@@Muffins-lx8xd From what I've heard the 24-70 does have better image quality overall, but for me using it mostly for landscapes at F8 and F10, I'll sacrifice the slight quality difference at those apertures for the longer reach.
IMO the place you see the biggest differences will be primarily in the corners in most cases. The S-line lenses tend to hold up a bit better than the non-S lenses, although the non-S lenses are still good lenses for the price in many cases. It's just more of a question of if you want to pay more for that extra bit of sharpness or not. I've even tested the 17-28 against my trusty 14-30 and while the 14-30 does edge out the 17-28 in some places, the non-S lens (the 17-28) does hold up quite well, given it's a bit cheaper and faster. It's not like it used to be back in the day (say 10+ years ago) where there was a very good difference between pro/premium glass and the entry-level kit lenses for example. That's not really much of the case anymore, at least with modern cameras systems (exception might be Sony where they still bundle their 16-50 with even their newest APSC cameras, and that lens is known in the industry to not be all that great, and is an old lens from about 10 years ago). Comparing a 24-50 and a 24-70 f/4 is another example (aside from aperture differences at 50mm) they are close.
Useful video, but I think it would have been 100x more useful if you had shown a few non S images next to a S image and argue and show the difference. that is, as you seem to have a few of both S and non S, it feel like a wasted opportunity to make the video more tangible than just abscract words as "artistry". very good video overall.
Well at the beginning you asked the question if we can the difference between the 14-30 and the 17-28. I was waiting the whole video for sample shots... 🙂
I enjoy the 24-200 for broad daylight but when I purchased the 70-200 the quality was unmistakable. That being said every lens has it's unique characteristics that make it special in their own right. I can barely tell the difference between my 70-200 with the 1.4X tele vs the 400 f4.5. Now we just need a Z8...
I have used the 24-70 2.8S and 70-200 2.8 S lenses for a few years now, and they are outstanding! I recently purchased the trinity 17-28, 28-75, and the new 70-180 2.8 non-S line lenses. They don't have quite the pop of the S-line lenses, but they are very good. I use these when weight and bulk are an important priority, for long events, travel, etc. The 70-180 can also be used with the 1.4x and 2x Z mount teleconverters.
The non S lines are plenty sharp enough for me. The micro contrast setting is also in the picture profile settings. I have the kit lens which is somewhat sharp, however can result in overexposure in auto ISO. The advantage of the S line to my opinion, is the option of low F stop, F2.8 such as 24-70mm. The 28-75mm f2.8 offers fast speed at modest price. The 24-120mm f4 is plenty sharp and versatile for many needs such as product photos and realty. Ultra wide is usually needed for interior realty. Is the S line worth it, yes, to some who want it, sharp at wide option low F stop. To me, the mid range and non S are all I need.
I do model photography and the 40mm is the lens I prefer on my Z50 for location work. Even though it is a full frame lens, like on my Z5, I prefer the 40mm. Two reasons, on the Z50 and my Z30 the lens is basically a short tele (40mmx1.5=60mm) and VERY lightweight for location shoot and grab!
I have used quite a few S line lenses now. Current line up : 14-24 2.8 with 24-120 and 35mm 1.8 and for the longer end I have that 24-200 although I plan to swap it for the 100-400 in due time. I had the 50 1.8 and I do miss its image quality so might get that back.
I shoot inside, a large church sanctuary, low light most of the time and I need to shoot from the balcony. Can you recommend a lens for me in the 400 to 600 range? I own a Nikon 70-180 2.8 and I love it. I just need more distance but I am limited in my budget. I would appreciate your thoughts and give me some suggestions.
I mean 400mm f2.8 does exist but it’d be total overkill for your situation. I’d just stick with the 70-180 and move around if you can. You could put on a 2x tele converter which would get you a 140-360mm but it’d be at 5.6. So if I was in your situation I’d stick to the 70-180mm.
While I use the 24-120 the most for day to day photography, I find the 14-30 has a "pop" that the 24-120 seems to lack. Maybe that has to do with the subjects that make me switch to the 14-30, but whatever it is, I find when looking through my photos it is ones taken on the 14-30 make me pause more often. I recently added the 35mm f/1.8 and it is at another level altogether. I sort of feel Nikon needs to split their line-up into three tiers: non-S, S-line, and Pro (or gold ring) to which I think the S-line f/2.8 and the f/1.2 primes (and new 135mm f/1.8 Plena) should be added. Saying the 24-120 and 24-70 f/2.8 are both S-line is not entirely realistic. In the end, everyone has something that will fit their needs and expectations (if not budget) so that is something to celebrate.
I've had the 85mm 1.2 for 4 months now and it's easily the best lens I've ever owned - even coming from the 85mm 1.4g, this lens blows me away every time I use it.
S lenses seem to have more contrast. I’m not sure about “micro contrast” which may have something to do with how light hits the sensor. The newer gold ring Nikkors had nano coating. The new Z S lenses have both Nano and Arneo coatings. I think it’s reasonable to assume those coatings reduce internal reflections resulting in higher contrast.
Great video; question; returned NIKKOR Z 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR S ($2700) recently when the Nikkor z 28-400 f4- f8 VR (NON S, half the size, weight, and cost) was announced the next day. For me, the higher weight of the S Lens was a disadvantage. Will there be any obvious tradeoff in image quality or ease of focus for the newer non S version?
My two favorite S-line lenses are the z24-70 f/2.8 and the z85 f/1.8 hands down. But I've ordered the z600 f/6.4 S and the z400 f/4.5 prime S-line is in the future. They are of the best quality because of the optics.
I love all my Z lenses, but one diffence I noticed between my 24-70 f/4 S lens and my 24-200 non S lens is when I take a shot with trees against the sky. The 24-200 has issues with green fringing while the 24-70 handles it much better.
The first 3 mins were just rambling without any substance. S line has better weather sealing and quality control. Non S line are very good. I have both lines. Bottom line, buy lenses based on your needs and budget, and don’t be discouraged by a non S Line lens. Btw, Old Nikkor lenses with gold ring indicate there is ED glass element in the lenses. Not a separate line. Initially only available for focal length longer than 180mm. Later on cheaper manufacture cost if ED glass were used in other focal length.
I think almost all the Nikon lenses have ED glass now. The 200-500 doesn’t have a gold ring but has ED glass. They must have changed later to use the gold ring to indicate upper end lenses.
for all intents and purposes S line is the gold ring in Z-Mount. Only a few telephoto lenses, would say the super telephoto to be exact bear the ring, and I guess only for brand recognition in the field and events (like white for Canon and gray for Sony).
@@Willymaze that is reasonable, but it is a bit of inconsistent branding from Nikon. in the F line, you see gold ring portrait lenses, and gold ring telephotos, why then not include gold ring Z 50 1.2 or Z 85 1.2?
Sometimes the difference is not optical but the quality of non optical component uses as electronics and motors. This involves also Qc bringing the mean time to failure of the lenses more higher. You talk about optics but not the electronics and motors as you have not open those lenses checking the components used. Many times the difference is there.
all the z lens's are so amazing, honestly. The holy trinity produce an amazing 3d pop to the images its hard to explain. I love the 2.8 and 1.8 primes..
I feel gone are the days of the super cheap junk kit lenses. Even the lenses sold as “kits” are pretty good. Plus with superior Z mount it might be easier for Nikon to make quality lenses for less money.
Die Qualität der S.Linsen ist sehr viel besser im Vergleich zu früheren Produkten, weil die Frontlinse im Verhältnis zum Empfängermedium sehr viel grüsser ist. Einfacher ausgedrückt, es treffen mehr senklrechte, als schräge Strahlen auf den Empfänger . Diese sind viel leichter zu korrigieren als die obliquen Randstrahlen.
I don’t find any characters in Nikon z mount lenses honestly. They are sharp and well corrected in general and the S-lines are technically excellent in most cases. But characters?
lol the irony of using the word budget lens and Nikon in the same sentence. they have some of the most overpriced lenses out there.. they only have expensive and ultra expensive. they DO NOT have budget lenses :)
I have a D5100 and now I'm buying the Z6 ii and I will just pick up a FTZ ii so I can use the F lens on the z. I'm just debating on weather I should wait for the z 6 iii
The new Z lenses are technically very well corrected. So we'll corrected, I think they are starting to lose some character. I miss] gorgeous gold ring aesthetics. These flat black plastic looking lenses are hard to love. Don't get me wrong, they are nice, but it's hard to upgrade from some F mounts.
Useless video, you are clueless. All talk, no images to back up your words. You don’t even say the actual reason why they are s-line….. better weather sealing, more features, and better coatings and optical construction to reduce aberrations snd improve edge sharpness.
One difference I have discovered is how big a focus step is between S-lens and non-S lens. I have S-lenses 70-200 f/2,8, 105 f/2,8 and 24-70 f/4 and non-S 24-200 Ff/4-6.3.
I have used them for focus stacking and found that the S 70-200 and 105 has three times as many focus steps compared with the 24-200. The 24-70 comes in in the middle between these lenses.
That means that the 70-200 (and 105) can focus more accurate than the 24-200. I don't know how much impact it has when taking one single shot, but when doing focus stacking I sometimes has to take 20 frames from beginning to end while with another lens it takes only 7 shots to shift focus the same length.
But I cannot help that pictures taken with my 70-200 or 105 feels better than pictures taken with my 24-200. So I do agree with you. S-lenses are better but it's hard to pinpoint exactly what the differences are.
Thanks for the video. Personally, I think the best S line that I have used is the 50mm F1.8. The 85mm F1.8 is by far my favorite portrait lens, but I think the 50mm is an ever so slightly better lens. The 24-120 F4 is my favorite over all S line lens that I personally own. I also own the 20mm F1.8 S lens, but I keep going back and forth as to keeping that lens or swapping it out for the 14-30 F4. I agree with you that all of them are incredible lenses. I look back at some of my images from 20 or 30 years ago with older Nikon F glass, and in my opinion, most can't stand up to the new S lenses. The newer 85 for example is a superior lens to the F mount as is the 50mm. The only thing stopping me from saying that the Nikon 50mm S lens is my favorite 50mm of all time would be the new Voigtlander 50mm F2 APO lens, which if you want character in a lens, just wow. I've done some comparisons using both 50mm's and even though you can't go wrong with the Nikon, if you don't mind manual focus, then I lean towards the Voigtlander, but it's darn close. I also have the Nikon 24-200 which was my overall favorite new Nikon lens until the 24-120 F4 arrived. I think in the end, I'm going end up with either the 20mm or the 14-30 F4, the 24-120, the 85 and one of the 50's (Voigtlander or Nikon) and the Tamron 70-300 and leaving it that for many years of shooting. I shoot landscapes, portraits, grandkids and grandkids sports and the occasional wildlife. I once shot a lot of high school and even pro sports than I do now, so its why I don't own the new 70-200 or even the 100-400. I couldn't justify the cost. If was still being paid to shoot sports the 70-200 would be a no brainer. I considered the 24-70 F2.8 S lens, but the 24-120 F4 seems to suit me just fine. Thanks again.
Just beautiful description. Totally agree. Cheers
Try the 24-70 2.8S, image quality will make your 24-120 look like a cheap Chinese toy
@@Muffins-lx8xd From what I've heard the 24-70 does have better image quality overall, but for me using it mostly for landscapes at F8 and F10, I'll sacrifice the slight quality difference at those apertures for the longer reach.
IMO the place you see the biggest differences will be primarily in the corners in most cases. The S-line lenses tend to hold up a bit better than the non-S lenses, although the non-S lenses are still good lenses for the price in many cases. It's just more of a question of if you want to pay more for that extra bit of sharpness or not. I've even tested the 17-28 against my trusty 14-30 and while the 14-30 does edge out the 17-28 in some places, the non-S lens (the 17-28) does hold up quite well, given it's a bit cheaper and faster. It's not like it used to be back in the day (say 10+ years ago) where there was a very good difference between pro/premium glass and the entry-level kit lenses for example. That's not really much of the case anymore, at least with modern cameras systems (exception might be Sony where they still bundle their 16-50 with even their newest APSC cameras, and that lens is known in the industry to not be all that great, and is an old lens from about 10 years ago). Comparing a 24-50 and a 24-70 f/4 is another example (aside from aperture differences at 50mm) they are close.
Very true!
Useful video, but I think it would have been 100x more useful if you had shown a few non S images next to a S image and argue and show the difference. that is, as you seem to have a few of both S and non S, it feel like a wasted opportunity to make the video more tangible than just abscract words as "artistry". very good video overall.
Well at the beginning you asked the question if we can the difference between the 14-30 and the 17-28. I was waiting the whole video for sample shots... 🙂
I enjoy the 24-200 for broad daylight but when I purchased the 70-200 the quality was unmistakable. That being said every lens has it's unique characteristics that make it special in their own right. I can barely tell the difference between my 70-200 with the 1.4X tele vs the 400 f4.5.
Now we just need a Z8...
I have used the 24-70 2.8S and 70-200 2.8 S lenses for a few years now, and they are outstanding! I recently purchased the trinity 17-28, 28-75, and the new 70-180 2.8 non-S line lenses. They don't have quite the pop of the S-line lenses, but they are very good. I use these when weight and bulk are an important priority, for long events, travel, etc. The 70-180 can also be used with the 1.4x and 2x Z mount teleconverters.
The non S lines are plenty sharp enough for me. The micro contrast setting is also in the picture profile settings. I have the kit lens which is somewhat sharp, however can result in overexposure in auto ISO. The advantage of the S line to my opinion, is the option of low F stop, F2.8 such as 24-70mm. The 28-75mm f2.8 offers fast speed at modest price. The 24-120mm f4 is plenty sharp and versatile for many needs such as product photos and realty. Ultra wide is usually needed for interior realty. Is the S line worth it, yes, to some who want it, sharp at wide option low F stop. To me, the mid range and non S are all I need.
I have questions
Is 40mm f 2 is good for wedding shoot?
I do model photography and the 40mm is the lens I prefer on my Z50 for location work. Even though it is a full frame lens, like on my Z5, I prefer the 40mm. Two reasons, on the Z50 and my Z30 the lens is basically a short tele (40mmx1.5=60mm) and VERY lightweight for location shoot and grab!
I have the 35MM and the 24-70 mm S lenses but the one that I like the most is the 100-400mm it's perfect for birdwatching and sports photography
I have used quite a few S line lenses now. Current line up : 14-24 2.8 with 24-120 and 35mm 1.8 and for the longer end I have that 24-200 although I plan to swap it for the 100-400 in due time. I had the 50 1.8 and I do miss its image quality so might get that back.
I shoot inside, a large church sanctuary, low light most of the time and I need to shoot from the balcony. Can you recommend a lens for me in the 400 to 600 range? I own a Nikon 70-180 2.8 and I love it. I just need more distance but I am limited in my budget. I would appreciate your thoughts and give me some suggestions.
I mean 400mm f2.8 does exist but it’d be total overkill for your situation. I’d just stick with the 70-180 and move around if you can. You could put on a 2x tele converter which would get you a 140-360mm but it’d be at 5.6. So if I was in your situation I’d stick to the 70-180mm.
Thank you for your input. I may check into the 2x tele converter also. this 70-180 is a great lens. @@TheProjectPhotography
Your (that I allso own) with Z7, Z8, Z9 in DX Mode gets a 105-270mm and stais f2.8
I love my 50mm f/1.8 S, but I have to say that the 28mm f/2.8 is my favorite to use day to day. It lives on my Z5!
While I use the 24-120 the most for day to day photography, I find the 14-30 has a "pop" that the 24-120 seems to lack. Maybe that has to do with the subjects that make me switch to the 14-30, but whatever it is, I find when looking through my photos it is ones taken on the 14-30 make me pause more often. I recently added the 35mm f/1.8 and it is at another level altogether. I sort of feel Nikon needs to split their line-up into three tiers: non-S, S-line, and Pro (or gold ring) to which I think the S-line f/2.8 and the f/1.2 primes (and new 135mm f/1.8 Plena) should be added. Saying the 24-120 and 24-70 f/2.8 are both S-line is not entirely realistic. In the end, everyone has something that will fit their needs and expectations (if not budget) so that is something to celebrate.
I've had the 85mm 1.2 for 4 months now and it's easily the best lens I've ever owned - even coming from the 85mm 1.4g, this lens blows me away every time I use it.
S lenses seem to have more contrast. I’m not sure about “micro contrast” which may have something to do with how light hits the sensor. The newer gold ring Nikkors had nano coating. The new Z S lenses have both Nano and Arneo coatings. I think it’s reasonable to assume those coatings reduce internal reflections resulting in higher contrast.
...got into mirrorless just couple of days ago with the Z8, Plena and the ZTF ll. Next the 50 1.2 and after that the 70-200.
Great video; question; returned NIKKOR Z 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR S ($2700) recently when the Nikkor z 28-400 f4- f8 VR (NON S, half the size, weight, and cost) was announced the next day. For me, the higher weight of the S Lens was a disadvantage. Will there be any obvious tradeoff in image quality or ease of focus for the newer non S version?
My two favorite S-line lenses are the z24-70 f/2.8 and the z85 f/1.8 hands down. But I've ordered the z600 f/6.4 S and the z400 f/4.5 prime S-line is in the future. They are of the best quality because of the optics.
Great review, thankyou for taking the time.
Please make video on new prime f1 4 with s type prime lens in nikon
I love all my Z lenses, but one diffence I noticed between my 24-70 f/4 S lens and my 24-200 non S lens is when I take a shot with trees against the sky. The 24-200 has issues with green fringing while the 24-70 handles it much better.
I have the 24-200 and this is indeed true. 24-120 doesn’t have the fringing issue.
The first 3 mins were just rambling without any substance.
S line has better weather sealing and quality control.
Non S line are very good.
I have both lines. Bottom line, buy lenses based on your needs and budget, and don’t be discouraged by a non S Line lens.
Btw,
Old Nikkor lenses with gold ring indicate there is ED glass element in the lenses. Not a separate line. Initially only available for focal length longer than 180mm. Later on cheaper manufacture cost if ED glass were used in other focal length.
I think almost all the Nikon lenses have ED glass now. The 200-500 doesn’t have a gold ring but has ED glass. They must have changed later to use the gold ring to indicate upper end lenses.
small correction, S and gold ring are not the same. case in point, there are S lenses with the gold ring and S lenses without the gold ring.
for all intents and purposes S line is the gold ring in Z-Mount. Only a few telephoto lenses, would say the super telephoto to be exact bear the ring, and I guess only for brand recognition in the field and events (like white for Canon and gray for Sony).
@@Willymaze that is reasonable, but it is a bit of inconsistent branding from Nikon. in the F line, you see gold ring portrait lenses, and gold ring telephotos, why then not include gold ring Z 50 1.2 or Z 85 1.2?
Sometimes the difference is not optical but the quality of non optical component uses as electronics and motors. This involves also Qc bringing the mean time to failure of the lenses more higher. You talk about optics but not the electronics and motors as you have not open those lenses checking the components used. Many times the difference is there.
I have the 24-70 f4, 50mm f1.8 and 24-70 f4 S lenses. Hard to say my favorite. Maybe the 50.
The 28mm f2.8 is NOT an incredible lens. I bought one based on this sort of talk. Very disappointing and now in the trade in draw.
all the z lens's are so amazing, honestly. The holy trinity produce an amazing 3d pop to the images its hard to explain. I love the 2.8 and 1.8 primes..
I feel gone are the days of the super cheap junk kit lenses. Even the lenses sold as “kits” are pretty good. Plus with superior Z mount it might be easier for Nikon to make quality lenses for less money.
Die Qualität der S.Linsen ist sehr viel besser im Vergleich zu früheren Produkten, weil die Frontlinse im Verhältnis zum Empfängermedium sehr viel grüsser ist. Einfacher ausgedrückt, es treffen mehr senklrechte, als schräge Strahlen auf den Empfänger . Diese sind viel leichter zu korrigieren als die obliquen Randstrahlen.
I don’t find any characters in Nikon z mount lenses honestly. They are sharp and well corrected in general and the S-lines are technically excellent in most cases. But characters?
My god! You’re on your own here. Which have you used ?
So a 2500 dollar or euro lens is 'better' than a 1000 dollar or euro lens? Unbelievable! I'm shocked.
lol the irony of using the word budget lens and Nikon in the same sentence. they have some of the most overpriced lenses out there.. they only have expensive and ultra expensive. they DO NOT have budget lenses :)
I have a D5100 and now I'm buying the Z6 ii and I will just pick up a FTZ ii so I can use the F lens on the z. I'm just debating on weather I should wait for the z 6 iii
The new Z lenses are technically very well corrected. So we'll corrected, I think they are starting to lose some character. I miss] gorgeous gold ring aesthetics. These flat black plastic looking lenses are hard to love. Don't get me wrong, they are nice, but it's hard to upgrade from some F mounts.
Useless video, you are clueless. All talk, no images to back up your words.
You don’t even say the actual reason why they are s-line….. better weather sealing, more features, and better coatings and optical construction to reduce aberrations snd improve edge sharpness.
too much waffle lost the point