MLB01
Member
Trying to decide between these two lenses for travel, hiking and landscapes. Currently own a Nikon Z6ii and the 200-500 lens. Eventually would like to upgrade from the 200-500. Anyone have any expereience with either of these lenses.
Nikon Z 24-120 S vs Nikon Z 24-200
- Thread starter MLB01
- Start date
If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).
John Navitsky
Well-known member
i had the same dilemma and opted for the 24-120 since it’s faster at 120 than the 24-200 is. no regret, it has fast af, is light and sharp. a very useful focal length
BlueGil21
New member
I sold the 24-200 for the 24-120.
Pros for the 24-200:
Pros for the 24-120:
Both produce clean sharp images. The 24-200 became slow too quickly for me, f/6.3 by 85mm. Main difference with sharpness is outside of center. IMO the 24-120 is the best midrange zoom on market. Go for it if you don’t need the extra reach. Go for the 24-200 if you want the smallest weight/size and will usually have good light.
Pros for the 24-200:
- Size/weight
- VR allows you to get some really slow handheld shots
- Extra reach
- Very Good IQ
Pros for the 24-120:
- Faster and more confident af
- Constant f/4
- S line build quality
- Superlative IQ, takes it up a notch and has a special rendering.
- Close focusing ability
Both produce clean sharp images. The 24-200 became slow too quickly for me, f/6.3 by 85mm. Main difference with sharpness is outside of center. IMO the 24-120 is the best midrange zoom on market. Go for it if you don’t need the extra reach. Go for the 24-200 if you want the smallest weight/size and will usually have good light.
personally, I'd get the z 200-600 which I bet will be the F 200-500 replacement. However, with the amount of interest, and that its not even announced yet, you could be a couple of years away.
I have the z70-200 with the 2x teleconverter that works well for me. I know other =s love the 100-400 which can also use the two Z teleconverters - and that might be a good alternative for you.
I had a trip last year when the somewhat heavy trinity of z f2.8's wasn't an option, so I got the z 24-200. Its a lovely light travel lens, and IQ is rather good, but not as good as S lenses. Posting to social media, then its perfect. It can't take the Z teleconverters.
MLB01
Member
Is not having VR on the 24-120 a disadvantage, eventhough the Z seires has IBIS system? 120 to 200 is that significant regarding reach?
VR isn't deemed necessary on the lenses with shorter focal lengths because in camera IBIS is good enough - there's no heavy weight of lens to worry about.
The focal range of 120 - 200 IS critical to those of us shooting wildlife at the extreme ie 200mm even 400mm with the 2XTC as any movement at all in the lens can mar the image.
If you're shooting landscape then you're probably on a tripod anyway. I do use both the z 24-70 and 70-200 as walkabout lenses, but its heavy. 24-70 500g , 24-120 630g, 70-200 805g
that makes a difference , although your 200-500 weighs in at a whopping 2300g !
The focal range of 120 - 200 IS critical to those of us shooting wildlife at the extreme ie 200mm even 400mm with the 2XTC as any movement at all in the lens can mar the image.
If you're shooting landscape then you're probably on a tripod anyway. I do use both the z 24-70 and 70-200 as walkabout lenses, but its heavy. 24-70 500g , 24-120 630g, 70-200 805g
that makes a difference , although your 200-500 weighs in at a whopping 2300g !
Nikon Nikkor Z 24-70mm F4 S vs Nikon Nikkor Z 24-120mm F4 S Detailed Comparison
Read our detailed comparison of the Nikon Nikkor Z 24-70mm F4 S vs Nikon Nikkor Z 24-120mm F4 S to find out their strengths and weaknesses, and decide which one to choose.
cameradecision.com
BlueGil21
New member
I find IBIS works well w/ 24-120 and haven’t been missing VR. The VR can give additional stability but I think VR is more important at 200mm. Read through cameralabs review of the 24-120. The review contains a comparison of 120mm and 200mm.
Cameralab’s review
Cameralab’s review
Bennvdm
Active member
Check out Mark Dumbleton’s work. South African photographer that moved to z6 ii, z 14-30 & z 24-200 for his work in last 18 months. He likes to hike to remote areas, so weight reduction was a serious consideration. No issue with quality for landscapes as will stop down lens anyways to around f11. He used to shoot with D850 and f 14-24 2.8, 24-120 f4 & 70-200 f4
Edit: z 24-120 is more geared to event or wedding photography in my view. I only have the z 24-70 f4 & z 24-200, so cannot directly compare to z 24-120. For travel, you might need a fast small prime for interiors, but new 28mm appears small & good for that use. I plan to get the z 14-30 when budget allows.
If nikon releases a light z 70-200 f4, the ideal travel high quality setup might be z f4 trinity Ie Z14-30, z24-70 f4, z 70-200 f4
www.markdumbleton.com
Also check out his new youtube channel that he recently started with - I enjoy, but includes local Namibian desert landscapes
Edit: z 24-120 is more geared to event or wedding photography in my view. I only have the z 24-70 f4 & z 24-200, so cannot directly compare to z 24-120. For travel, you might need a fast small prime for interiors, but new 28mm appears small & good for that use. I plan to get the z 14-30 when budget allows.
If nikon releases a light z 70-200 f4, the ideal travel high quality setup might be z f4 trinity Ie Z14-30, z24-70 f4, z 70-200 f4
Mark Dumbleton | Wildlife & Landscape Photography
African wilderness landscape and wildlife photography from Southern Africa and Kenya.
www.markdumbleton.com
Also check out his new youtube channel that he recently started with - I enjoy, but includes local Namibian desert landscapes
Last edited:
Chris K
Well-known member
I have the 24-200, and the worst I'll say is it can get a little mushy in the extreme corners. It's not horrible; I've happily used worse (hello, 17-40L!). But if you're expecting a typical Z lens performance of perfect edge-to-edge, you'll be disappointed.
Figure that if you put tree branches in the corner that are in-focus, they'll be a bit gauzy. If you have something without much detail or even a slight bit outside the DOF, it's not an issue. I'd only be careful if you're planning to make a large landscape print.
What I was most concerned about when I bought the 24-200 was reports and samples of CA in the corners. I have not experienced that with my sample, which is a relief. I hate fixing CA in post, as even if you manage to fix it perfectly, it costs you resolution. I have lots of test shots of branches-against-sky that show minimal or no CA.
Everything else about the lens is good. It's lightweight, solid, focuses quickly and quietly, and doesn't have any particular issues with flare or veiling.
I don't know if the 24-200 or 24-120 is the better choice. I bought the 24-200 because I have a 24-70/2.8 that I love, so I preferred the extra range over a bit more aperture and sharpness. My 24-200 comes along for the ride when I'm shooting macro (105MC) or wildlife (500PF).
Figure that if you put tree branches in the corner that are in-focus, they'll be a bit gauzy. If you have something without much detail or even a slight bit outside the DOF, it's not an issue. I'd only be careful if you're planning to make a large landscape print.
What I was most concerned about when I bought the 24-200 was reports and samples of CA in the corners. I have not experienced that with my sample, which is a relief. I hate fixing CA in post, as even if you manage to fix it perfectly, it costs you resolution. I have lots of test shots of branches-against-sky that show minimal or no CA.
Everything else about the lens is good. It's lightweight, solid, focuses quickly and quietly, and doesn't have any particular issues with flare or veiling.
I don't know if the 24-200 or 24-120 is the better choice. I bought the 24-200 because I have a 24-70/2.8 that I love, so I preferred the extra range over a bit more aperture and sharpness. My 24-200 comes along for the ride when I'm shooting macro (105MC) or wildlife (500PF).
I've got the 24-200 and it's fine. I've seen several comparison reviews and some say there's not much IQ difference besides the different aperture and some say both are good but the 24-120 is slightly better either overall or in the corners. OTOH, the longer one is clearly more flexible if you are traveling or walking around and want an all in one single lens kit. That's what I got my 24-200 for…with the 24-70/f4 and the 100-400 (not to mention the 70-200 that doesn't get out of the house much as it's not really a wildlife lens IMO) I don't really miss the loss of the 70-100 range in my reachability index. Also depends on where your output goes…mine is almost exclusively screen and with high MP bodies and noise reduction software and sharpening software there isn't much difference at final image comparison…pixel peeping shows more than final output does…and even when there's a difference to me it's more aperture/DoF related than anything else. I would take the 24-70 and 100-400 for dedicated photo trips but for travel where you're mostly taking blog photos and I was there photos the flexibility of a single do it all lens is pretty nice. I would probably still take my Z7II on non photo specific travel over the Z9 coming tomorrow as well…because for non photo oriented travel flexibility and weight outweighs…(see what I did there)…any slight loss in IQ…and for those sort of shots the stuff in the corners usually doesn't matter as much anyway.
Calson
Well-known member
The 24-200mm is better for travel and for video with its range. It will require higher ISO settings and will hinder autofocus performance as it is letting in less than half as much light to the autofocus sensors. I opted for the 24-120mm f/4 but also have kept the f-mount 28-300mm f/5.6 lens as no S verions is on the drawing board.
For Europe and China the 28-300mm along with a 14-24mm f/2.8 made an excellent combination.
For Europe and China the 28-300mm along with a 14-24mm f/2.8 made an excellent combination.
Had the same decision struggle and opted for the 24-120 for all the comparison reasons listed above. Got it about two months ago and it is a great lens. Much of my photography is macro and close up. The 24-120 can get in quite close and produces great images in the close up shooting. This lens, my 105 S macro and eventually the 100-400 will be my basic kit for my Z6ll.
My thoughts exactly…unless the trip has a significant photo purpose for which I would take more gear the 24-200 and 14-30 are fine and relatively light…and TBH for a trip like that I would probably take the 7IIi instead of the 9 for weight and everything will go in the belt pack purposes. Phoro oriented trips…that’s a whole ‘nother thing. I’m still wondering if one of those inexpensive sets of AF and AE extension tubes is a better economic case than a dedicated macro lens…I don’t do macOS much so a slight reduction in IQ if there is actually one might not be a bid deal compared to the cost and weight of carrying a seldom used lens.
MLB01
Member
Thanks everyone for all great input, still undecided, seems I cannot go wrong with either lens. Being new to photography and enjoy learning the art of taking good images, by no means do they have to be at or near professional expectations, maybe the modest choice would be purchasing the 24-200. I do not think I could see any huge differences in image quality between the two lens considering the lens and camera are going to be in the hands of a beginner. Lack of quality images probbaly 99% ot the time will be due to my own lack of expereince. In the hands of most experienced members in this forum, they could probably tell a difference in thier images between the these two lenses. In the hands of an beginner, myself, beween the 24-200 and 24-120 lenses, my technique will be a bigger factor in quality images than either one of these lenses. Thoughts?
Roy
Well-known member
If you really need the 200mm then get the 24-200.
Otherwise although not perfect the 24-120mm is the superior lens...
This was interesting ...
www.briandandridge-photo.co.uk
The 24-200 Range - Brian Dandridge
This is a set of photos taken to compare the Z7ii with the Z24-200 f4-f6.3 lens against the Z9 with the Z24-70 f2.8 & the Z70-200 f2.8.
www.briandandridge-photo.co.uk
MLB01
Member
MLB01
Member
Thank you, Maybe just me, but not seeing any pictures being Superior to another, better maybe, Superior posted by another member, No.This was interesting ...
The 24-200 Range - Brian Dandridge
This is a set of photos taken to compare the Z7ii with the Z24-200 f4-f6.3 lens against the Z9 with the Z24-70 f2.8 & the Z70-200 f2.8.
“ better” is always relative and differs from person to person.
In terms of better glass, then for Nikon Z lenses, the S are superior to non-S simply because they’re made better, and so the Z 24-120mm S is superior to the z 24-200mm as the latter isn’t an S.
Referencing the comparisons from the link in #17, I was surprised how similar the pairs were. It was hard for me to decide in some cases which lens was used. I guess that shows that even the non S lenses are quite good quality.
I have the Z24-120 and it is a great lens a favorite of a friend who owns a camera store and it is his grab for anything not wildlife walking, driving around lens. Frequently Z24-120 on his and my Z6II when longer lenses like my Z800pf or Z100-400 are on our Z9's.
O
Well-known member
IF Low light is a challenge, 24-120 is a better for traveling.
That said the Z6II has ISO capabilities to 12800 iso is a huge asset.
80mm is not a lot to miss, take a couple of steps forward and you're done.
The 24-120 has a 5:1 magnification ratio so light gathering is better.
The 28-200 has a 8.33:1 magnification ratio.........so its performance is obvious if light is important to you.
Simple, I mean I travel with a 28-300 as I like the 300mm reach and happy to trade off some speed and performance........
My self I would take the 24-120, or the 28-300 as it has more meaningful reach worth compromising for, 24-200 isn't enough of a difference in reach.
abc123brian
Well-known member
I went with the 24-120mm S. I have not used the 24-200mm, but I did look at it in the local camera store when I picked up my 24-120mm. It is a bit smaller and seems decently built. I have heard the 24-200mm is better than you would expect, but with the high resolution bodies like the Z7ii, you can see some softness in the upper end. For the convenience, I don’t think that would be much concern and it doesn’t sound like it’s any issue with the 24MP bodies like the Z6. There were a few reasons I opted for the 24-120mm instead, but they might not apply to your situation. First, I decided the 24-120mm and 100-400mm would be a fantastic, decently light, two lens travel setup for landscapes and wildlife that compliment each other well and decided to purchase the, both at the same time. The 24-120mm is reviewed as being very comparable to the 24-70mm F/4 S which I am very happy with the IQ where the 24-200mm is said to be good, but not quite as good, so for me, the 24-200mm wouldn’t replace my 24-70mm for landscapes where the 24-120mm could. Lastly, I bought a Z9 with the intention of using it for video as well so the constant aperture is an advantage over variable aperture.
If you are looking for a very good one lens setup, the. 24-200mm is probably the better choice. I knew I needed at least two lenses on most travel so the 24-120 and 100-400 were the better option for me. Since you have the 200-500mm, the 24-200mm would give you a two lens travel setup with full coverage, just a little heavier with the weight of the 200-500.
If you are looking for a very good one lens setup, the. 24-200mm is probably the better choice. I knew I needed at least two lenses on most travel so the 24-120 and 100-400 were the better option for me. Since you have the 200-500mm, the 24-200mm would give you a two lens travel setup with full coverage, just a little heavier with the weight of the 200-500.
For use with my Z9, I have the 24-120 and the 100-400. That is a great combination for wildlife photography, with 1.4X and 2X TCs when I need them.
I also just added the 800mm PF for extra reach. I think that is a great lens, and easy to use hand held.
But I did also get the Z 24-200 for 2 reasons. When I am doing blind or hide photography, I can attach that lens to my Z7ii, put it on a beanbag and do slow motion video at the same time that I am shooting still images. When I am doing non-wildlife photography, such as a trip to Disneyworld with my grandkids or maybe a trip to Paris, the Z7ii + the 24-200 makes a great very light weight combination.
I also just added the 800mm PF for extra reach. I think that is a great lens, and easy to use hand held.
But I did also get the Z 24-200 for 2 reasons. When I am doing blind or hide photography, I can attach that lens to my Z7ii, put it on a beanbag and do slow motion video at the same time that I am shooting still images. When I am doing non-wildlife photography, such as a trip to Disneyworld with my grandkids or maybe a trip to Paris, the Z7ii + the 24-200 makes a great very light weight combination.
MLB01
Member
Thanks again for everyone taking time and providing their input. I am probably going to purchase the 24-120 as I am planning to sell the 200-500 and put toward purchase of the 100-400 or a similiar Z lens.
Also, I have never purchased camera equipment online, purcahsed my current set up from a local camera store ( Johnson PhotoImaging Bradenton FL) I recently moved and there are no local camera stores. Any suggestions on online camera stores? I know of B&H and Adorama but any experience purchasing from Roberts in Indy? Any difference in customer service with B&H vs Adorama?
Also, I have never purchased camera equipment online, purcahsed my current set up from a local camera store ( Johnson PhotoImaging Bradenton FL) I recently moved and there are no local camera stores. Any suggestions on online camera stores? I know of B&H and Adorama but any experience purchasing from Roberts in Indy? Any difference in customer service with B&H vs Adorama?