24-120mm f4S Nikkor

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).

fcotterill

fcotterill

Well-known member
Member's gallery
Last edited:
Member's gallery
I really like the range because I liked the 16-80 on my D7500. My Z6II and 24-70 F4 is new to me but I sometimes wish I had more reach than that lens.

I haven't watched any reviews on the 24-120 yet but I'll be interested at some point. My only reservation with it is that it's quite a bit larger than the 24-70 F4.
 
Member's gallery
The ideal zoom for landscapes and much more. All purpose almost.
Versatility for landscapes is the primary reason I plan to buy this zoom.


Excellent quality, assuming they have got their testing right: " This is a remarkably high level of performance, and it is worth noting that our MTF50 graph had to be extended to accommodate some of the higher figures, the first time that this has happened with any lens. ..."

www.ephotozine.com

Nikkor Z 24-120mm F/4 S Lens Review

John Riley has been shooting with the Nikkor Z 24-120mm F/4 S lens on the very capable Nikon Z7 II camera body to find out how good its performance is.
www.ephotozine.com www.ephotozine.com

At 24mm, central sharpness is outstanding from f/4 to f/11, excellent at f/16 and very good at f/22. The edges are excellent from f/4 to f/8, very good at f/11 and f/16 and only soften at f/22.

At 35mm, central sharpness is again outstanding from f/4 through to f/11, very good at f/16 and good at f/22. The edges are excellent from f/4 to f/11, very good at f/16 and good at f/22.

At 70mm, central sharpness is outstanding at f/4, excellent from f/5.6 to f/11, very good at f/16 and good at f/22. The edges are excellent from f/4 to f/11, very good at f/16 and good at f/22.

At 120mm, central sharpness is excellent from f/4 to f/11, very good at f/16 and good at f/22. The edges are excellent from f/4 to f/11, very good at f/16 and good at f/22.

This is a remarkably high level of performance, and it is worth noting that our MTF50 graph had to be extended to accommodate some of the higher figures, the first time that this has happened with any lens.

Also
 
Last edited:
Looks like a winner on paper, and the price is reasonable. Nice range for landscape on full frame.
 
Member's gallery
Well i had some good fortune and snagged one locally without any preorder necessary. My wife and I travel full-time and Tucson has a local Nikon dealer. I called with mild hopes and luckily only 4 of the 5 they received we're already bought.

The 24-70 f4 is a nice lens but I enjoyed the range of the 16-80 on my D7500. I'm selling all of my DX gear soon and I got my refurbished Z 6II/24-70 combo for a great price so my loss on the 24-70 should be minimal. It will be nice not having to switch to the 70-300 so soon or often.

I plan on taking some photos soon and I'll give my impressions. So far obviously it's built well and like reviews say the zoom ring is stiff but not stiff, just nice. So far I'm going to try the function button to switch between jpeg and RAW which should come in handy on hikes.

PXL_20220127_212058086.PORTRAIT.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
 
Member's gallery
Like the range better than the 24-70 F4 but not as smaller.

For me the choice is the 24-120 or 24-200. I decided the quality (or expected quality) and constant F4 is most important to me.
 
Member's gallery
RichF said:
Like the range better than the 24-70 F4 but not as smaller.

For me the choice is the 24-120 or 24-200. I decided the quality (or expected quality) and constant F4 is most important to me.
Click to expand...

Yeah I like the size of the 24-70 but I was willing to trade the size penalty for range.

I had a 18-140 and never feel in love with that lens. It seemed at it's best in full sunlight and because it packed some coatings I was never wowed by the images. It seems like the 24-200 is Z mount version of the 18-140 as far as optical quality goes. Nigel Danson just did a review of the 24-120 and voiced the opinion that the 24-200 was lacking for his use and that the 24-120 was better.
 
Member's gallery
Member's gallery
Ado Wolf said:
I only wonder why it lacks VR ?
I mean sure there is IBIS... but it's not as good as built in VR.
I too find the range for an all-in-one lens quite appealing.
Click to expand...

Honestly I'm not sure if VR is really necessary even at 120mm. I would suggest to someone that the lack of VR shouldn't stop them from buying it. I'm already liking the extra 50mm of reach.
 
Member's gallery
Mr. Goodkat said:
Well i had some good fortune and snagged one locally without any preorder necessary. My wife and I travel full-time and Tucson has a local Nikon dealer. I called with mild hopes and luckily only 4 of the 5 they received we're already bought.

The 24-70 f4 is a nice lens but I enjoyed the range of the 16-80 on my D7500. I'm selling all of my DX gear soon and I got my refurbished Z 6II/24-70 combo for a great price so my loss on the 24-70 should be minimal. It will be nice not having to switch to the 70-300 so soon or often.

I plan on taking some photos soon and I'll give my impressions. So far obviously it's built well and like reviews say the zoom ring is stiff but not stiff, just nice. So far I'm going to try the function button to switch between jpeg and RAW which should come in handy on hikes.

View attachment 31460
Click to expand...

Cameralabs also liked the lens: https://www.cameralabs.com/nikon-z-24-120mm-f4-s-review/

I have to admit I am a bit jealous. I have had this lens on order since early November (it will be my first native Z lens on the Z6II). There is no local store that carries it. Enjoy and let us know what you think.

Best.
 
Member's gallery
Mr. Goodkat said:
Honestly I'm not sure if VR is really necessary even at 120mm. I would suggest to someone that the lack of VR shouldn't stop them from buying it. I'm already liking the extra 50mm of reach.
Click to expand...

I think that is the reason, I remember in one of Ricci's videos he mentions in lens VR is not required at the 120mm end.

I think I will get one of these lenses at some stage, however in no rush as it feels like a lens that would go on the discount sales that Nikon run twice a year. I will wait for it to have a few $ savings.
 
Member's gallery
I have the 24-70/f4 and the 70-200…and the 100-400 on order. Will only carry one of the longer ones on an outing depending on whether length or faster glass is needed…and if length then not having the 70-100 range covered is not much loss. I’m trying to get myself down to just 2 lenses for hike involved outings…and depending on how I like the 100-400 with the TCs my 500PF use might go down…or else I will just marry it to my D7500 and suck it up and carry 2 bodies.
 
Member's gallery
John Navitsky said:
@Neil Laubenthal one thing to consider is the 24-120 (instead of the 24-70) would make the 24-120 + 100-400 a two lens kit covering a lot.

i have the 24-70 2.8s, but i ordered a 24-120 because i think it will be very "handy"
Click to expand...
I thought bout that as well…but the 24-120 is bigger and heavier so it’s less of an everyday carry or light travel lens for me…but there’s a lot of validity in the longer short lens range as well. Might end up with one anyway…ya never know…will have to see how much I miss the 70-120 range and see.
 
Member's gallery
Neil Laubenthal said:
I thought bout that as well…but the 24-120 is bigger and heavier so it’s less of an everyday carry or light travel lens for me…but there’s a lot of validity in the longer short lens range as well. Might end up with one anyway…ya never know…will have to see how much I miss the 70-120 range and see.
Click to expand...
Time for Nikon to make a 70-200 F/4 . The have the F/2.8 trinity. What about the lighter version? They have 2 lenses already (14-30 F/4 and 24-70 F/4)
 
  • Like
Reactions: PKW
Member's gallery
The 24-120 and 100-400 would be a great combo but ultimately I can't afford it right now; I wish I could. I thought about possibilities of selling my 70-300 and 200-500 to fund the 100-400 but that would still make me about $1k short of doing so. It would be nice to not need a FTZ adapter and go from two long lenses to one but it's no big deal. I'm happy with the 70-300 and 200-500 for now.
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
JanH said:
Cameralabs also liked the lens: https://www.cameralabs.com/nikon-z-24-120mm-f4-s-review/

I have to admit I am a bit jealous. I have had this lens on order since early November (it will be my first native Z lens on the Z6II). There is no local store that carries it. Enjoy and let us know what you think.

Best.
Click to expand...

It was complete and utter luck as I almost didn't call the shop at thinking there is no way that they'll have one.

I hope you get it soon and I think you'll be happy you got it. Over the past two months I bought the Z 50 1.8 and a used 14-30 F4 from KEH and I highly recommend those two as well.


Ad Astra said:
I think that is the reason, I remember in one of Ricci's videos he mentions in lens VR is not required at the 120mm end.

I think I will get one of these lenses at some stage, however in no rush as it feels like a lens that would go on the discount sales that Nikon run twice a year. I will wait for it to have a few $ savings.
Click to expand...

I wasn't in a rush and went back and forth about buying it since it was announced. Since we travel full-time getting things can be a pain so getting one locally was a good opportunity to simplify things. But if you can hold out for a good sale then that's all the better.
 
Member's gallery
Mr. Goodkat said:
Honestly I'm not sure if VR is really necessary even at 120mm. I would suggest to someone that the lack of VR shouldn't stop them from buying it. I'm already liking the extra 50mm of reach.
Click to expand...
I guess when shooting during the day, VR is not as important as when shooting sunrises and sunsets (handheld). I once used the 24-70 F4 (no VR) on my Z50 and noticed that some photos were actually not as sharp (motion blur). Maybe the IBIS does offer enough stabilisation that no VR is required.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top