Have you noticed that the first Z version of 24-70/2.8 (NIKKOR Z 24-70mm f/2.8 S) is already more than six years old? At first, I did not understand why its successor has already been released... After all, it's a great lens, and we just started using it. How could it possibly be improved? Then, as I read on the press release, it turned out that it has been improved in just about everything. The specifications seemed quite unbelievable, so I wanted to get my hands on one, as soon as possible, to try it out. Fortunately, thanks to Nikon Hungary and Fotoplus, I had the opportunity to do so before the world's first 24-70/2.8 with internal zoom hit the shelves. I got the 46th piece of the NIKKOR Z 24-70mm f/2.8 S II lens (which was a pre-release model, so it may not be 100% identical to the final product) for a week, which I was able to test right away in a real-life situation at the FIBA 3x3 Europe Cup in Denmark. Although this is not my primary lens for 3x3, I use it regularly, because when shooting under the basket, 24mm covers the area from the floor to the hoop, while 70mm is good for capturing actions in a distance. Although the court was set up in a beautiful place, at one of Copenhagen's iconic locations (Ofelia Plads), it was not ideal for photographers: in addition to the poor evening lighting, shiny metal railings spoiled the overall picture from every direction. Unfortunately, this meant that the 24-70mm range was less practical than planned.
However, I had absolutely no complaints about the lens, which has amazing technical parameters. First impressions are always important, and so far, only the NIKKOR Z 400mm f/2.8 TC VR S has made such a deep impression on me. At first glance, the 77 mm filter size stands out, which, despite being only 5 mm narrower, results in a visibly smaller barrel compared to its predecessor. When you pick it up, the weight of the lens (675 grams) feels unreal (especially compared to the 805 grams of the former version). This was achieved mainly by reducing the number of lens elements. Thanks to the internal zoom system, the barrel length is a constant 142 mm, which is roughly halfway between the 126-156 mm length of the previous generation. In terms of transport, I don't think that the 16 mm increase in minimum size is a problem at all (although not everyone agrees with this in videos and forums discussing the topic), as it should fit comfortably in any professional trolley or backpack. In the Think Tank Airport International V3.0 I use (which is a relatively standard size in the professional category), for example, there was still several centimetres of space left above the lens. In fact, due to the reduction in diameter, the lens space can be configured to be slightly smaller (unless someone puts it in the bag mounted onto the camera), so we can pack a bit wider/longer device into the next compartment of the bag.
Another noticeable change is the "absence" of the LCD display, which has been replaced by a second function button (with the same function as the first) that can be used conveniently when taking vertical shots. The lens also has a focus limiter and a third switch that can be used to set the custom control ring to clicking or clickless mode. In terms of external features, it is perhaps worth returning to the fixed-length barrel and internal zoom, as this design is completely new in this zoom range and offers a number of advantages. You can safely place anything in front of the lens without worrying about it getting in the way when zooming. With no extending or retracting parts, the lens sealing has undoubtedly been improved, which is an advantage in terms of weather resistance, and probably means that dust and moisture are less likely to get inside the lens. I admit thinking that the design would make the zoom ring smoother and easier to turn (similar to the NIKKOR Z 70-200mm f/2.8 VR S), but I didn't feel any difference compared to its predecessor. Probably (but this is just a guess on my part) it was not possible to achieve similar smoothness because other goals important in the world of videography taking priority. One example is eliminating the shift in the objective centre of gravity caused by zooming, but reducing focus breathing to near zero is also important when recording videos. I believe that achieving this (again, this is just my guess) probably requires moving multiple elements in different directions at the same time, which logically requires more complex mechanics and greater force to move it. However, it is also conceivable that this solution is necessary due to the need for more precise determination of the zoom position.
The manufacturer promises an autofocus that is up to five times faster and a 40% improvement in scan time at 70 millimetres. I admit, I had a little trouble understanding this, but in the end, I think I managed to figure it out. However, before I get bogged down in the maze of math and marketing, it's better to talk about the essentials, the real experience. After all, that's exactly why I had the lens with me. These few days have clearly proven that even in everyday work, the lens has become noticeably and decisively faster. In other words, we are not talking about an improvement that can only be verified under laboratory conditions with instrumental tests, but a real, tangible improvement that gives the photographer an advantage. The motor is lightning fast, and the focus adjustment is extremely precise. As incredible as it may seem, we are talking about a serious leap forward compared to its predecessor. Is this really a fivefold increase in speed? Probably only in certain cases. I feel that one of the big differences between the AF capabilities of the two lenses can be experienced when only a short distance needs to be traveled during focus adjustment. With the predecessor, there is a slower phase at the start of the focusing process, followed by a faster phase, until the target is reached. With the new lens, however, this "slower" phase is not noticeable (at least I certainly didn't notice it), as the lens element starts moving immediately and at full speed. This is probably due to the incorporation of more and more precise sensors. In other words, a fivefold increase in speed is likely to be achieved in terms of the entire focusing process if only minor corrections are required, whereas for average or longer journeys, it results in "only" a two- to threefold increase in speed. The quotation marks are not accidental, as even a twofold increase, halving the focusing time, is a huge leap forward. It is also worth mentioning that the speed of focusing does not only depend on the motor in the lens, so the top speed is only obtainable when it is used with a camera equipped with an EXPEED 7 processor. This does not seem to be a serious limitation when using a professional lens, as the manufacturer also equips the newer bodies in the lower categories (Zf, Z6III, Z5II, Z50II) with it, in addition to the Z9 and Z8.
It is often overlooked in lists of the most important developments, but I think it is definitely worth mentioning that the minimum focus distance of the lens has also been significantly reduced (between 24 and 33 centimetres, depending on the focal length), which allows for a maximum reproduction ratio of 0.32x (at 70 millimetres). In the previous version, this value was 0.22, which means we are talking about an improvement of nearly 50%! In my opinion, this is a particularly important upgrade, especially for those who like focusing on details.
Looking a little further ahead, or if you like, looking at the bigger picture, there is another particularly interesting and important aspect to this lens. It highlights the fact that video production is becoming increasingly popular and important, not only in everyday life, but also in Nikon's portfolio. We have already seen many other signs of this (the acquisition of RED, the release of the NIKKOR Z 28-135mm f/4 PZ video lens, and the announcement of the Nikon ZR a few days ago). What is interesting and, to me, a little surprising is that even with a lens that is considered a classic piece in professional photography, priority, or at least special attention, has been given to video requirements. As a photographer, for example, I would have been happier if the smoothness of the zoom ring mechanism had been closer to that of the NIKKOR Z 70-200mm f/2.8 VR S, rather than having the constant position of the centre of gravity. But clearly in most areas of consumer use, videos now play a greater role than photos, and Nikon is responding to this. It seems that the two segments are increasingly converging on the designing side (at least in case of lenses), but it is not inconceivable that the tables will soon turn, and the video segment will clearly prevail over the world of photo, even for a company like Nikon.
When I tried to summarize what has been said, I realized just how much work Nikon's engineers had put into this. Just to think that the improvements listed above (weight, size, internal zoom, AF performance, maximum reproduction ratio) are all significant advantages that are clearly noticeable in practice, not just something that can be verified by instrumental measurements. And I did not even mention the less conspicuous, but also important improvements, such as the increase in the number of diaphragm blades and the use of the latest coatings to minimize flare. Essentially, the new model has only advantages over its predecessor and there has been no regression in any area, no need to talk about compromises. I found these few days very convincing, so there is no question that our joint journey will continue.