Optical Performance vs. Photographic Usefulness: In Defense of the “Kit Lens”
I’ve found some interesting things after spending a lot of time with Nikon’s 24–70mm f/4 S lens:
Aperture: I don’t really care for the look of the image—both photo and video—when it’s stopped down much past f/5.6. For photography, I keep it wide open as often as possible.
Sharpness: For photos, it does not appear as sharp to me as my older 24–70mm f/2.8G ED F-mount lens, even though performance charts may say otherwise.
Color: The f/4 lens comes off as more saturated to me, and not necessarily in a good way.
That probably doesn’t sound like the beginning of an endorsement.
But after thousands of photos and hours of video, I have a place for this lens in my bag—and not just as the lightweight package I need sometimes.
Sometimes I put it on my camera as an act of defiance.
Sometimes I leave my external monitor off, walk into a media scrum—typically with my dog leash around my waist and Ko at foot—and bask in the glare of “professional” photographers looking down their noses at my little kit lens.
And that gets to something I think is much more interesting than whether one lens is sharper than another.
Here are some random photos can you tell the difference in lenses?
Optical Performance vs. Photographic Usefulness
There is a difference between optical performance and photographic usefulness.
Optical performance can be measured. Sharpness, corner resolution, chromatic aberration, distortion, contrast, flare resistance, autofocus performance—there are plenty of ways to determine how successfully a lens reproduces an image.
Photographic usefulness is different.
It asks whether that lens helps you make the image you’re trying to make.
Those two things overlap, but they are not the same.
How a lens performs on an optical chart is only one part of how the final image will look. Aperture selection, exposure, composition, lighting, and choices made in post—whether adding grain or making other creative adjustments—all influence the final result.
Something identified as a weakness in an optical test can even become photographically useful. Lower contrast or softer rendering wide open, for example, may be exactly what a particular image calls for.
This is where optical performance and photographic usefulness begin to separate. A lens becoming sharper, more contrasty, and increasingly corrected as it evolves does not automatically mean every photograph made with it becomes better. It simply gives the photographer a different starting point.
Ultimately, the value of those characteristics depends on what you choose to do with them.
Nikon 24–70mm Lens Comparison
| Spec | f/2.8G | f/4 S | f/2.8 S | f/2.8 S II |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mount | F | Z | Z | Z |
| Introduced | 2007 | 2018 | 2019 | 2025 |
| Maximum aperture | f/2.8 | f/4 | f/2.8 | f/2.8 |
| Weight | 900g | 500g | 805g | 675g |
| Filter size | 77mm | 72mm | 82mm | 77mm |
| Elements / groups | 15 / 11 | 14 / 11 | 17 / 15 | 14 / 10 |
| Aperture blades | 9 | 7 | 9 | 11 |
| Minimum focus | 0.38m | 0.30m | 0.38m | 0.24–0.33m |
| Max. reproduction | 0.27× | 0.30× | 0.22× | 0.32× |
| AF system | SWM | STM | STM | VCM |
| Zoom design | Extending | Extending / collapsible | Extending | Internal |
Specifications give us one comparison. Rendering gives us another.
The following isn’t intended to be a laboratory measurement. It is a relative comparison of the characteristics of these four generations of Nikon 24–70mm lenses, with 10 representing the strongest technical performance.
Relative Optical Performance
| f/2.8G | f/4 S | f/2.8 S | f/2.8 S II | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Center resolution | 8.5 | 9 | 9.5 | 10 |
| Edge / corner resolution | 7 | 8.5 | 9.5 | 10 |
| Wide-open contrast | 7.5 | 9 | 9.5 | 10 |
| CA correction | 7 | 9 | 9.5 | 10 |
| Flare resistance | 7.5 | 9 | 9.5 | 10 |
| Bokeh | 8 | 8 | 9 | 9.5 |
| AF performance | 7 | 8.5 | 9 | 10 |
| Video AF | 6 | 9 | 9 | 10 |
| Handling / weight | 6.5 | 10 | 8 | 9.5 |
Relative ratings are provided for comparison and are not standardized laboratory measurements. See Notes & Sources below.
On paper, the progression seems obvious.
Newer is better.
Except photography isn’t made on paper.
Perceived Sharpness
One thing I’ve found particularly interesting is the difference between measured resolution and perceived sharpness.
My 24–70mm f/4 S does not appear as sharp to me photographically as my much older 24–70mm f/2.8G ED.
That doesn’t necessarily mean the f/4 resolves less detail under controlled testing. Modern lens correction, contrast, color rendering, sharpening, aperture and processing all contribute to what we ultimately perceive as sharpness.
But when I actually use the lenses and edit the resulting photographs, I prefer the apparent sharpness of the G.
My Real-World G vs. f/4 S Comparison
| Characteristic | f/2.8G ED | f/4 S |
|---|---|---|
| Perceived sharpness | Higher | Lower |
| Color rendering | More neutral | More saturated |
| Contrast response | Natural / controllable | More aggressive |
| Preferred aperture | Application dependent | f/4–f/5.6 |
| Rendering past f/5.6 | Still attractive | I generally dislike it |
| Still photography | Preferred | Situational |
| Motion | Good | Excellent |
| Size / weight | Large, especially with FTZ | Excellent |
| Overall rendering | Familiar, flexible | Distinctive |
| Role in my bag | Workhorse | Lightweight / creative / motion |
That chart is far more useful to me than a resolution chart because it is based on how I actually make photographs.
Someone else may reach completely different conclusions.
And that’s the point.
Responsibility, Only After Testing
In photography, there can be justification for just about any piece of gear.
Responsibility, only after testing.
Not reading articles. Not looking at MTF charts. Not watching someone photograph a brick wall on YouTube.
Tested by yourself, the way you shoot and the way you edit.
With that, I can not only justify the use of a “meager” f/4 kit lens in a professional setting, I can produce a better result with it than people around me using considerably more expensive setups.
That doesn’t mean the f/4 is secretly a better lens.
It means I know what it does.
I know where I like it. I know where I don’t. I know what happens to the image at f/4, what happens around f/5.6, and that I generally don’t like where it goes after that. I know how its color responds to the way I build contrast in post. I know what it gives me for motion. And I know what carrying a 500-gram lens instead of a massive professional setup allows me to do physically.
Those things have photographic value even if none of them improve an MTF chart.
Better Gear
This is also why I don’t buy the argument that gear doesn’t matter.
Of course gear matters.
A faster autofocus system can improve your chances of capturing a moving subject. Better glass can give you more resolution, better flare resistance or cleaner performance in difficult light. A faster aperture can give you another stop when you actually need it. Better stabilization can let you make a shot that otherwise wouldn’t exist.
But none of those things creates the photograph.
The photographer still has to understand what the tool does and, more importantly, recognize when its characteristics are useful.
Sometimes technical perfection is exactly what the photograph needs.
Sometimes chromatic aberration makes it better.
Sometimes lower contrast makes it better.
Sometimes the expensive f/2.8 professional zoom is the right lens.
And sometimes I want to walk into the media scrum with my little f/4 kit lens and my dog.
Gear can’t make you great. It can make great work better.
The Right Tool for the Story
At RDUB Creative, gear is part of the process, not the point. We create commercial photography and motion for outdoor, lifestyle, and product brands, choosing the tools and techniques that best serve the story, the brand, and where the final work will live.
From location photography and motion to product launches, campaigns, branded content, and digital strategy, the goal is always the same: make great creative and make sure it works.
Have a project in mind? Get in touch with RDUB Creative to talk commercial photography, motion, and creative production.
Notes & Sources
Lens specifications are based on published Nikon product information. Relative optical-performance ratings are editorial comparisons informed by manufacturer specifications and published optical testing and are intended to illustrate the general performance differences between lens generations rather than represent standardized laboratory measurements.
Observations regarding perceived sharpness, color rendering, aperture preference, and real-world photographic or motion performance are based on my own experience using the lenses and reflect my personal shooting and editing workflow.