24-70 or 24-120 and 180-600 Thoughts

[LL4D500]

Need some advice: Have 2 D500’s and just purchased a Z8, with FTC Adaptor II. Have no Z lenses.
Have a 16-80, 70-200 2.8, 80-400, and a 500 PF. Will keep one D500 for backup and likely sell one D500 and 16-80. Shoot primarily BIF, wildlife, Buffalo, sports.

Looking at either 24-70 f4 or 24-120 f4 for scenery/walk around. Also considering 180-600, but with lenses I have, (remembering DX), my current long lenses give me 100, 200, 300, 400, 500, 600 and 750. Really question what I’d have to gain. If I purchased 180-600, I would likely sell 80-400.
If one can figure what I’m saying, you are doing good. Appreciate feedback/recommendations. Thanks!

 

[Nimi]

Need some advice: Have 2 D500’s and just purchased a Z8, with FTC Adaptor II. Have no Z lenses.
Have a 16-80, 70-200 2.8, 80-400, and a 500 PF. Will keep one D500 for backup and likely sell one D500 and 16-80. Shoot primarily BIF, wildlife, Buffalo, sports.

Looking at either 24-70 f4 or 24-120 f4 for scenery/walk around. Also considering 180-600, but with lenses I have, (remembering DX), my current long lenses give me 200, 300, 400, 500, 600 and 750. Really question what I’d have to gain. If I purchased 180-600, I would likely sell 100-400.
If one can figure what I’m saying, you are doing good. Appreciate feedback/recommendations. Thanks!

Just re the 24-120. It's okay but I don't use it much. The other primes and 2.8 zooms I have all have higher IQ, so I typically use other glass. It's convenient, cheap and light but I don't love it. I'm actually surprised it's designated S, as it is nowhere near the quality of say 24-70/2.8. And yes, I tried three copies and they are all meh.

Many people here love it.

 

[LL4D500]

Just re the 24-120. It's okay but I don't use it much. The other primes and 2.8 zooms I have all have higher IQ, so I typically use other glass. It's convenient, cheap and light but I don't love it. I'm actually surprised it's designated S, as it is nowhere near the quality of say 24-70/2.8. And yes, I tried three copies and they are all meh.

Many people here love it.

Thanks, what are the advantages of the 2.8 vs 4.0? Heavier and a lot more $. Does have 2.8 vs 4 (impacts DoF), but don’t know that if that is necessary for my use -With high ISO capability of new lenses. Your thoughts?

 

[Nimi]

Thanks, what are the advantages of the 2.8 vs 4.0? Heavier and a lot more $. Does have 2.8 vs 4 (impacts DoF), but don’t know that if that is necessary for my use -With high ISO capability of new lenses. Your thoughts?

I don't know, for the Holy Trinity I only ever used 2.8. My work, both stills and video relies on dynamic range more than anything else, so I never rely on raising the ISO. Almost everything is shot is at native ISO, so I need all the aperture I can get.

 

[jhallettbc]

I recently got a Z9 and had no Z lenses. I decided on the 24-120 f4 as my first one, mainly after reading the review on Photography Life: https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-z-24-120mm-f-4-s. I am very happy with it and find that it is very sharp and consistent throughout the range.

A few years ago I had the 80-400 VR and was never very satisfied with it, especially at 400. From what I'ver read, you'd notice a huge improvement with the 180-600.

 

[LL4D500]

I recently got a Z9 and had no Z lenses. I decided on the 24-120 f4 as my first one, mainly after reading the review on Photography Life: https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-z-24-120mm-f-4-s. I am very happy with it and find that it is very sharp and consistent throughout the range.

A few years ago I had the 80-400 VR and was never very satisfied with it, especially at 400. From what I'ver read, you'd notice a huge improvement with the 180-600.

Thanks for your input. I must have gotten lucky with my 80-400, as a friend of mine has what was/is called “Best of Class” Cannon 100-400, and by his own admission, my lens is equal to it. In regard to the 180-600, I am concerned about added length in my Bataflae backpack and the slower f-stop.

 

[Steve W]

I always found the 24-70 range somewhat limiting for walk around, much prefer 24-120. Looks like you already have a lot of focal lengths covered, maybe consider a 1.4 tc to go with the 500 of.

 

[dabhand16]

@LL4D500

This might not be applicable to the Z8 as it is bigger and heavier than my Z6ii, but here is my 2 pence worth.........

When I got my Z6ii I first used it with my AF-S 24-70 f2.8 G lens with an FTZ and I got really good results. However I found that the handling was not so good. The FTZ puts the lens about 30mm further forward as you would expect and the combo was quite nose heavy, unlike when I used it with my D700/810 and 850. The AF-S 24-70 f2.8 G weighs about 900gms v the Z 24-40 f4 S 400 gms with the 24-120 f4 sitting in the middle at 600 gms IIRC. That 900gms + the FTZ really felt bad. Maybe in time I would have got used to it, but it was the excuse I need to get a Z mount lens for my new Z6ii! So I decided to get a Z mount 24-70 f4 (could not stretch to an f2.8 one), but was also open to a 24-120 f4.

Every comparison review between the 24-70 f4 and 24-120 f4 I looked at edged it to the 24-70, and at that time there were no 24-120 f4s in the UK, new or used! So that made my choice easy, but again, a new 24-70 f4 was £1050 then and out of my budget. So I looked for a used copy and found lots, presumably as the people who had the 24-70 f4 kit lens traded them in for the 24-120 f4s. The going rate was £419 for a mint one with 6 months warranty, but I found one from a small independent dealer boxed with all of the paperwork for £420 with 12 months warranty. I have to say that even if I had the funds to get a new one, at well under half price, I would not have bought a new one. I bet that if my used copy and a new one were put side by side you could not tell which was which. Do I miss the f2.8? Well yes. A bit. But the lighter weight and better feel does, for me, make up for it a lot.

Funnily enough, my AF-S 14-24mm f2.8 G does not feel so bad on the Z6ii + FTZ so I'll probably keep it, but I was thinking about trading it for a 15-30 f4 as the Z 24-70 f4 felt so good on the Z6ii.

 

[LL4D500]

@LL4D500

This might not be applicable to the Z8 as it is bigger and heavier than my Z6ii, but here is my 2 pence worth.........

When I got my Z6ii I first used it with my AF-S 24-70 f2.8 G lens with an FTZ and I got really good results. However I found that the handling was not so good. The FTZ puts the lens about 30mm further forward as you would expect and the combo was quite nose heavy, unlike when I used it with my D700/810 and 850. The AF-S 24-70 f2.8 G weighs about 900gms v the Z 24-40 f4 S 400 gms with the 24-120 f4 sitting in the middle at 600 gms IIRC. That 900gms + the FTZ really felt bad. Maybe in time I would have got used to it, but it was the excuse I need to get a Z mount lens for my new Z6ii! So I decided to get a Z mount 24-70 f4 (could not stretch to an f2.8 one), but was also open to a 24-120 f4.

Every comparison review between the 24-70 f4 and 24-120 f4 I looked at edged it to the 24-70, and at that time there were no 24-120 f4s in the UK, new or used! So that made my choice easy, but again, a new 24-70 f4 was £1050 then and out of my budget. So I looked for a used copy and found lots, presumably as the people who had the 24-70 f4 kit lens traded them in for the 24-120 f4s. The going rate was £419 for a mint one with 6 months warranty, but I found one from a small independent dealer boxed with all of the paperwork for £420 with 12 months warranty. I have to say that even if I had the funds to get a new one, at well under half price, I would not have bought a new one. I bet that if my used copy and a new one were put side by side you could not tell which was which. Do I miss the f2.8? Well yes. A bit. But the lighter weight and better feel does, for me, make up for it a lot.

Funnily enough, my AF-S 14-24mm f2.8 G does not feel so bad on the Z6ii + FTZ so I'll probably keep it, but I was thinking about trading it for a 15-30 f4 as the Z 24-70 f4 felt so good on the Z6ii.

Thank you very much! Regardless if I go with the 24-70 or 24-120, I will go with the Z version. Without using the FTZ adapter, how does that impact your recommendation?
Could continue to use my 16-80 on D500, if I want that combo to back up Z8 with 500PF or 80-400. If I get a 180-600, then my 80-400 will go. In the long run, if I have a 24-70 or 24-120, 70-200 2.8, 180-600, plus 500PF, I think I’d be set. Thanks!

 

[Nimi]

Need some advice: Have 2 D500’s and just purchased a Z8, with FTC Adaptor II. Have no Z lenses.
Have a 16-80, 70-200 2.8, 80-400, and a 500 PF. Will keep one D500 for backup and likely sell one D500 and 16-80. Shoot primarily BIF, wildlife, Buffalo, sports.

Looking at either 24-70 f4 or 24-120 f4 for scenery/walk around. Also considering 180-600, but with lenses I have, (remembering DX), my current long lenses give me 200, 300, 400, 500, 600 and 750. Really question what I’d have to gain. If I purchased 180-600, I would likely sell 80-400.
If one can figure what I’m saying, you are doing good. Appreciate feedback/recommendations. Thanks!

Another consideration. If you plan to run an F body as a true backup to a Z body, remember that the Z cannot and will never be able to be adapted to an F. So some overlap is probably a good thing.

 

[dabhand16]

Thank you very much! Regardless if I go with the 24-70 or 24-120, I will go with the Z version. Without using the FTZ adapter, how does that impact your recommendation?
Could continue to use my 16-80 on D500, if I want that combo to back up Z8 with 500PF or 80-400. If I get a 180-600, then my 80-400 will go. In the long run, if I have a 24-70 or 24-120, 70-200 2.8, 180-600, plus 500PF, I think I’d be set. Thanks!

I was not making a recommendation - just giving my experience moving to a Z mount. Since I got bitten by the vintage lens bug I don't use AF lenses much now, but When I do I carry the Z 24-70 f4 and my 70-200 E FL along with a couple of vintage primes. Shooting in the studio my go to lenses are a Viltrox 85mm f1.8 and the 70-200 E FL - and again, vintage primes, 58mm, 100mm and 135mm.

For a walk-about the 24-120 f4 does give a little more flexibility than the 24-70 f4, but the 24-200 has more flexibility. If you are not wanting the ultimate from a lens but just a very usable all-rounder that might fit the bill. That's why I don't make recommendations. Different people want different things from their kit.

 

[Geoff_G]

Just re the 24-120. It's okay but I don't use it much. The other primes and 2.8 zooms I have all have higher IQ, so I typically use other glass. It's convenient, cheap and light but I don't love it. I'm actually surprised it's designated S, as it is nowhere near the quality of say 24-70/2.8. And yes, I tried three copies and they are all meh.

Many people here love it.

Agreed, from my experience the Z 24-120 is much better than any F mount version but that 5:1 zoom range still has compromises. Before my switch to Z I sold my latest version of the 24-120 and picked up the 24-70/2.8E - and I'm glad I made that switch. I'm still using the z24-120 but there are times I wish I had chosen the z24-70/2.8 instead. But it does make a good travel lens for me..

 

[LL4D500]

I was not making a recommendation - just giving my experience moving to a Z mount. Since I got bitten by the vintage lens bug I don't use AF lenses much now, but When I do I carry the Z 24-70 f4 and my 70-200 E FL along with a couple of vintage primes. Shooting in the studio my go to lenses are a Viltrox 85mm f1.8 and the 70-200 E FL - and again, vintage primes, 58mm, 100mm and 135mm.

For a walk-about the 24-120 f4 does give a little more flexibility than the 24-70 f4, but the 24-200 has more flexibility. If you are not wanting the ultimate from a lens but just a very usable all-rounder that might fit the bill. That's why I don't make recommendations. Different people want different things from their kit.

Thank you for your thoughts. Think my focus is on 24-70 or 24-120 and not 24-200, as I have 70-200 f2.8. Lots of feedback - will be helpful in making decision. If I get one of the two Z’s, I’d still need to keep 16-80 for my D500 when I want a scenery lens to go with one of my long lenses on my Z8 (with backup long lens in backpack.

 

[joe43]

My situation was similar to yours when I got my Z9 last December. I got the 24-120mm f4 S instead of the z mount 24-70mms. And I got the 100-400mm S instead of the 70-200mm f2.8 S. For me I do not need Z mount f2.8 S lenses. Other options worth considering are the two z mount Tokina/Nikon lenses: 28-75mm and 70-180mm.

I use my other F mount lenses with the FTZii adapter.

 

[John Navitsky]

i’m not going to be any help

i have both the 24-120 and 24-70 2.8. the 24-120 is very light, focuses fast and is indeed very handy. i like it a lot.

however on my trips i often take the 24-70 instead. mostly because i tend to prefer faster glass for lower light situations

 

[John Navitsky]

i agree that if you have the 500pf you may not need the 180-600 although if you want a zoom and are considering selling your existing one it’s probably not a bad move

 

[LL4D500]

i agree that if you have the 500pf you may not need the 180-600 although if you want a zoom and are considering selling your existing one it’s probably not a bad move

Thanks!

 

[wotan1]

My personal experience is that I started out in mirrorless with the z7ii a while ago. I started small by getting a used 24-70 f4. At the time those were very available used because they were often bought as a kit lens and people later traded up.

The f4 is an easy carry. and perfectly satisfactory for light weight travel. While reportedly not as sharp as the f2.8 version the photos I have with it, especially on a large senor camera are more than adequate. With a zoom you don't normally end up cropping so even a 24mp sensor would be enough at this range. for all but extremely large prints.

I thought often about upgrading to the 24-70mm f2.8. In the end I decided to put the money instead into primes.

For less than the price of the 24-70 f2.8 I got the 85mm f1.8 and the 105mm f2.8 macro. The 85 is an incredibly sharp lens and highly regarded. The 105mm gets me excellent macro performance in a focal length that allows me some distance from the subject.

I have not evaluated or considered the 24-120.

Anyway those are my personal observations for what it is worth. Others have different priorities and may have different opinions.

 

[jhallettbc]

My situation was similar to yours when I got my Z9 last December. I got the 24-120mm f4 S instead of the z mount 24-70mms. And I got the 100-400mm S instead of the 70-200mm f2.8 S. For me I do not need Z mount f2.8 S lenses. Other options worth considering are the two z mount Tokina/Nikon lenses: 28-75mm and 70-180mm.

I use my other F mount lenses with the FTZii adapter.

I wasn't sure to whom the "your" referred but in any case, my thinking is exactly like yours. In addition to the Z24-120, I got the Z100-400 and sold my 70-200 FL E. I have kept4 F-mount lenses and will use them on the Z9 with the adaptor or on my D6 which I can't bear to part with.

 

[dorthzyx]

Like you I kept the d500 with a number of good lenses 18-300, 70-200, 150-500, 15, 20 ,85. can use them all with ftzII, with, the z9. My goals are the 180-600 (backordered for 4 months), and I will opt for the 70-180 and 28-75 2.8s when I can afford them. I have and really like the 24-70 f4 and 105 macro. Will probably sell the 24-70 when I get the 28-75. I also have the z50-250 which serves as a good walk around lens until I get the others. I will sell it when I get the others

 

[LL4D500]

My personal experience is that I started out in mirrorless with the z7ii a while ago. I started small by getting a used 24-70 f4. At the time those were very available used because they were often bought as a kit lens and people later traded up.

The f4 is an easy carry. and perfectly satisfactory for light weight travel. While reportedly not as sharp as the f2.8 version the photos I have with it, especially on a large senor camera are more than adequate. With a zoom you don't normally end up cropping so even a 24mp sensor would be enough at this range. for all but extremely large prints.

I thought often about upgrading to the 24-70mm f2.8. In the end I decided to put the money instead into primes.

For less than the price of the 24-70 f2.8 I got the 85mm f1.8 and the 105mm f2.8 macro. The 85 is an incredibly sharp lens and highly regarded. The 105mm gets me excellent macro performance in a focal length that allows me some distance from the subject.

I have not evaluated or considered the 24-120.

Anyway those are my personal observations for what it is worth. Others have different priorities and may have different opinions.

Thanks very much - a lot to consider! Doubt that I’d buy a second Z8, consequently my D500 will likely continue to be my backup. This has some implications as well. With the lenses I have, doubt I’d buy anything other than a Z. As long as I keep my D500, I’ve got my 16-80, although I am understanding that l isn’t very good with the Z8.

 

[Calson]

The Z 24-120mm is a big improvement over the f-mount version (at least with the one I used and quickly sold). The 500mm PF is a keeper and works very well with the FTZ adapter.

A real game changer is the internal optical stabilization of the Z9 and Z8 cameras that is more effective than VR lenses on a DSLR camera. This allows for shooting hand held and using much slower shutter speeds and as a result, much lower ISO settings.

The 100-400mm with the 1.4x is a good combination but I find its performance is on the edge of acceptable in terms of bird eye detection and the loss of one full f-stop does make a difference. I have switched to using the 70-200mm f/2.8 with a teleconverter as much as possible.

For me a concern was not wanting to carry 4 teleconverters and the FTZ adapter in the field. Two lenses I sold and now regret were the 500mm PF and the 28-300mm f/5.6 for which there is no comparable S lens available.

 

[Copernicron]

I have both the 24-70 f4 and the 24-120 f4. The 24-70 is a good lens in a small and light package. The 24-120 is my preferred lens because I find it to just be better optically and with a longer range. I generally use the 24-120 unless I really need the smaller size and weight of the 24-70 because space is at a premium. The 24-70 is also the lens I throw on my Z6 when I'm heading somewhere and want a camera with me just in case, like when I'm heading to the office.

 

[ajrmd]

Need some advice: Have 2 D500’s and just purchased a Z8, with FTC Adaptor II. Have no Z lenses.
Have a 16-80, 70-200 2.8, 80-400, and a 500 PF. Will keep one D500 for backup and likely sell one D500 and 16-80. Shoot primarily BIF, wildlife, Buffalo, sports.

Looking at either 24-70 f4 or 24-120 f4 for scenery/walk around. Also considering 180-600, but with lenses I have, (remembering DX), my current long lenses give me 200, 300, 400, 500, 600 and 750. Really question what I’d have to gain. If I purchased 180-600, I would likely sell 80-400.
If one can figure what I’m saying, you are doing good. Appreciate feedback/recommendations. Thanks!

I think you can answer the questions by taking stock in your current images and budget. Look at the most frequent FL's you shoot and you know your style best. Does a 24-120 make sense? It's a great all purpose, walk around lens with great utility, it's reasonably priced, and sized. Alternatively would the 35-105 f/2.8 be an option? While optically it's pretty good, the lens has some drawbacks, is more expensive, etc. If you need wider, and don't care about carrying more gear, does the mid-priced, trinity make sense (i.e., 17-28, 28-75, 70-180)? They're all f/2.8, reasonably priced and decent performers.

With respect to the 180-600, again it's really dependent on your style of shooting. For my WL/BIF, I am usually shooting long so the 800 f/6.3 was a no brainer and I've been ecstatic with the lens. The 186 was a natural choice for me as a secondary lens for closer/larger subjects. It focuses well, has great utility, is well balanced, and is priced competitively. Is it as optically good as the 600 f/6.3? No, it's not as sharp, doesn't have same acutance/contrast/coatings, though in my hands it provides better utility and value for my purposes. Sure, I considered owning the 400 f/4.5, 600 f/6.3 in addition to the 800 though this wasn't a practical solution in the field; I didn't want to mess around with changing lenses, swapping tc's, etc. Hope this helps?

 

[LL4D500]

The Z 24-120mm is a big improvement over the f-mount version (at least with the one I used and quickly sold). The 500mm PF is a keeper and works very well with the FTZ adapter.

A real game changer is the internal optical stabilization of the Z9 and Z8 cameras that is more effective than VR lenses on a DSLR camera. This allows for shooting hand held and using much slower shutter speeds and as a result, much lower ISO settings.

The 100-400mm with the 1.4x is a good combination but I find its performance is on the edge of acceptable in terms of bird eye detection and the loss of one full f-stop does make a difference. I have switched to using the 70-200mm f/2.8 with a teleconverter as much as possible.

For me a concern was not wanting to carry 4 teleconverters and the FTZ adapter in the field. Two lenses I sold and now regret were the 500mm PF and the 28-300mm f/5.6 for which there is no comparable S lens available.

Really like the selections you’ve made. Have you considered the 180-600 or do you not need that reach? How do you think the 180-600 compares (outside of obvious 400/600 difference) with 100-400?