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

[Calson]

I have considered the 180-600mm and it may be better than the 100-400mm + 1.4x TC. combo I am using at present. On paper the difference is between 560mm at f/8 versus 600mm at f/6.3 is trivial. In actual use though I have had problems with eye detect using the 400 f/4.5 + 1.4x TC on the Z9 and switched to using the 70-200mm f/2.8 lens instead. I can get eye detect with the 100-400mm lens but not with the 1.4x teleconverter attached.

As always one must take a trial and error approach and learn what works first hand.

An alternative to the 180-600mm lens that I have been considering is the Sigma 60-600mm f-mount lens with the FTZ adapter. I was hoping that they would release this lens with an S mount as Sigma had announced this last year.

 

[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.

Wish it wasn’t so complicated - too many options and things to consider. No easy answers!

 

[MotoPixel]

A little late to the party, but I'll weigh in here. I'm a 2-year convert from D850 and D500 to Z9 and Z8 and I still have a number of my F lenses, mostly those that don't exist in Z quite yet. The first Z lens I bought was the 24-120 as the 24-120 G version I had was my day to day lens on my D850 and it was the best performing example of that lens that have ever chanced to come across...and the Z version is head and shoulders above it, especially at the extremes or near macro. I sold my 24-70 2.8, 200-500 and a few other F-lenses as soon as I decided to sell the D850 and D500. Other than price, f2.8 specific use case, or perhaps size, if you're really challenged, I see no reason to consider the 24-70 over the 24-120...it's far more versatile. With a 14-30 (if you shoot UWA), 24-120 and 100-400, you've got 14-600< with substantial overlap, covered with 3 lenses, if you include shooting DX with the 100-400...and they're all outstanding lenses. For me, there was nothing complicated about it at all. If I have a situation where shallow DOF if desired, I have some fast F primes and 2.8 zooms I can pull out of the closet, but they're mostly gathering dust.

Cheers!

 

[LL4D500]

A little late to the party, but I'll weigh in here. I'm a 2-year convert from D850 and D500 to Z9 and Z8 and I still have a number of my F lenses, mostly those that don't exist in Z quite yet. The first Z lens I bought was the 24-120 as the 24-120 G version I had was my day to day lens on my D850 and it was the best performing example of that lens that have ever chanced to come across...and the Z version is head and shoulders above it, especially at the extremes or near macro. I sold my 24-70 2.8, 200-500 and a few other F-lenses as soon as I decided to sell the D850 and D500. Other than price, f2.8 specific use case, or perhaps size, if you're really challenged, I see no reason to consider the 24-70 over the 24-120...it's far more versatile. With a 14-30 (if you shoot UWA), 24-120 and 100-400, you've got 14-600< with substantial overlap, covered with 3 lenses, if you include shooting DX with the 100-400...and they're all outstanding lenses. For me, there was nothing complicated about it at all. If I have a situation where shallow DOF if desired, I have some fast F primes and 2.8 zooms I can pull out of the closet, but they're mostly gathering dust.

Cheers!

Glad you “joined the party”, as it is interesting to hear from photographers that have experience with the lenses in question and have undergone the same mental gymnastics going from 850/500 to Z8 or Z9. Appreciate your comments!

 

[Anjin San]

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!

When I got the 24-120 it immediately became my single lens travel and walking round lens unless size/weight/likely subjects came into play…both are outstanding. Whether to keep the F lenses or sell and buy Z lenses depends. The old ones will certainly take good images and mostly work better on the Z bodies than on F ones because of better AF, no f8 limit…but the Z lenses do have a couple of advantages that, budget allowing make them attractive. No adapter, generally smaller and lighter than F brothers, and generally sharper and faster focusing…part of that is the better AF in the Z bodies and part is the wider mount and newer design software which gets better optical design…and there are generally more buttons and control rings making them more configurable. Worth it? It was for me but then while I care how much it costs budget isn’t really a major concern…bang for the buck is but not really absolute dollars.

 

[MrFotoFool]

I sold all my F mount gear (and a Sony I used for a while) and bought a Z8 as my only camera currently. For all around lens I bought a used Z 24-70 f4 because people are selling them really cheap (mine was just over $400) and it was all I could afford. It is very sharp and light. If I had the money I would have gotten Z 24-120 f4 for increased range; people report it is just as sharp and maybe even a tad sharper than 24-70 f4. Someone posted you need f2.8 but unless you do astro photography or something where you NEED f2.8 then just get the f4. Get the 24-120 if you can afford it and if not pick up a cheap, used 24-70.

I also used D500 and 500PF for a while and it was great BUT I eventually sold it because I found a fixed lens too limiting. I need a zoom, which is why I replaced it for a while with Sony 200-600 and have now sold that and ordered a Nikon Z 180-600. If you also find you are often frustrated with not being able to zoom the 500PF then I suggest replacing it with the 180-600. On the other hand, if you do not need the zoom and always need the long lens for reach, then I would stick with the 500 and forget the 180-600.

 

[LL4D500]

I sold all my F mount gear (and a Sony I used for a while) and bought a Z8 as my only camera currently. For all around lens I bought a used Z 24-70 f4 because people are selling them really cheap (mine was just over $400) and it was all I could afford. It is very sharp and light. If I had the money I would have gotten Z 24-120 f4 for increased range; people report it is just as sharp and maybe even a tad sharper than 24-70 f4. Someone posted you need f2.8 but unless you do astro photography or something where you NEED f2.8 then just get the f4. Get the 24-120 if you can afford it and if not pick up a cheap, used 24-70.

I also used D500 and 500PF for a while and it was great BUT I eventually sold it because I found a fixed lens too limiting. I need a zoom, which is why I replaced it for a while with Sony 200-600 and have now sold that and ordered a Nikon Z 180-600. If you also find you are often frustrating with not being able to zoom the 500PF then I suggest replacing it with the 180-600. On the other hand, if you do not need the zoom and always need the long lens for reach, then I would stick with the 500 and forget the 180-600.

Thanks - this helps!

 

[LL4D500]

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?

Appreciate your perspective!

 

[Anjin San]

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.

Agrees…and if I’m only taking a single lens for travel or walking around…it and the Z8 or Z7II are the choice. But…it is bigger and heavier so depending on what else I’m taking…the 24-70/4 might fit in the bag better.

 

[Anjin San]

I have considered the 180-600mm and it may be better than the 100-400mm + 1.4x TC. combo I am using at present. On paper the difference is between 560mm at f/8 versus 600mm at f/6.3 is trivial. In actual use though I have had problems with eye detect using the 400 f/4.5 + 1.4x TC on the Z9 and switched to using the 70-200mm f/2.8 lens instead. I can get eye detect with the 100-400mm lens but not with the 1.4x teleconverter attached.

As always one must take a trial and error approach and learn what works first hand.

An alternative to the 180-600mm lens that I have been considering is the Sigma 60-600mm f-mount lens with the FTZ adapter. I was hoping that they would release this lens with an S mount as Sigma had announced this last year.

Ya know…I keep seeing comparisons from Steve and others that the 180-600 is ‘better’…and looking at the charts and at 2:1 in LR there are some slight differences. I can’t argue that…but there are other considerations…for one…better is always the enemy of good enough and if one’s output is mostly for the screen…the required down sampling masks the ‘better’ at 2:1. While I didn’t do any scientific comparison…I’ve compared the 100-400, 400/4.5 and the 600PF with the TCs on all 3 and I will admit…at 1:1 (I don’t bother with 2:1)…there re some differences in edge sharpness and all that…but then when the resulting PP image is downsampled to 1024 wide for screen display…and looking at the 8mages without paying attention to the lens/TC combo…sure, I can still see some much more minor differences…but with the bare lens or the 1.4 TC…the differences to me are more ‘just a little different’ than ‘better or worse’. So…at least for me…IQ is less 8mpirtant than other variables..size and weight matter more and although faster lenses are loswer ISO in your images and a bit better BG blur or bokeh…todays software can give perfectly fine results with NR or sharpening or BG blur or whatever…and if you can’t see the difference in the final image on the blog page…to me there’s zero advantage to spending 15K or carrying 7 pounds instead of 4 and having to carry the tripod as well…I’m 69 and in pretty decent shape being a boiler…but carrying an extra 7 pounds or whatever on the 5 mile hike just doesn’t make sense to me. Obviously everyone has different wants, needs, and physical limitations…but it seems to me that having the ‘best’ might be a little over rated for people that are hobbyists instead of pros. Either that…or my ability to judge better or worse final output is suspect I guess.

 

[Cameron T]

People usually chase better and better IQ in lenses, but my opinion is that (among modern lenses), most of them are more than good enough IQ wise. Especially as you mentioned when you downsample. I tend to post larger images (not super downsized, 50% or 75% exports), so it matters more to me, but even then, I can't justify 15k on the 600f4 when I could spend half that on the 800 6.3, or ~2.2k on the 180-600 and TC and get images that are nearly as good (especially with denoise options available).

 

[Anjin San]

People usually chase better and better IQ in lenses, but my opinion is that (among modern lenses), most of them are more than good enough IQ wise. Especially as you mentioned when you downsample. I tend to post larger images (not super downsized, 50% or 75% exports), so it matters more to me, but even then, I can't justify 15k on the 600f4 when I could spend half that on the 800 6.3, or ~2.2k on the 180-600 and TC and get images that are nearly as good (especially with denoise options available).

I could easily justify spending the 15K based on vudget…but from a size/weight/hike/utility standpoint it would make little difference in output images…so the bang for the buck there and ‘is it worth it’ question for me is no…at least until I win the apowerball and can afford a Sherpa everywhere I go since my bride steadfastedly refuses to be one. She’s willing to be the occasional substitute tripod…but Sherpa is completely out of the question.

 

[Lance B]

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.

My copy of the F mount 80-400 f4.5-5.6G VR was also a great lens, very sharp and I couldn't understand the negativity. However, I did sell it once I was fully entrenched in the Z system. I now have the Z 100-400 f4.5-5.6 and also the 180-600 f5.6-6.3 and I can tell you it is better than the F mount 80-400 f4.5-5.6G VR that I used to have. I am also considering getting the 24-120 f4 as a travel lens, even though I have the Z 24-70 f2.8. My travel combo would be the 14-24 f2.8 or 14-30 f4, the 24-120 f4 and the 180-600 if there are birds or wildlife. I would not be concerned about the slower f stop as it is only 1/3rd of a stop slower than the 80-400 at the long end and you gain 200mm! Higher ISO these days is easily "fixed" with the latest noise reduction software.

 

[LL4D500]

My copy of the F mount 80-400 f4.5-5.6G VR was also a great lens, very sharp and I couldn't understand the negativity. However, I did sell it once I was fully entrenched in the Z system. I now have the Z 100-400 f4.5-5.6 and also the 180-600 f5.6-6.3 and I can tell you it is better than the F mount 80-400 f4.5-5.6G VR that I used to have. I am also considering getting the 24-120 f4 as a travel lens, even though I have the Z 24-70 f2.8. My travel combo would be the 14-24 f2.8 or 14-30 f4, the 24-120 f4 and the 180-600 if there are birds or wildlife. I would not be concerned about the slower f stop as it is only 1/3rd of a stop slower than the 80-400 at the long end and you gain 200mm! Higher ISO these days is easily "fixed" with the latest noise reduction software.

You are kind of where I’m leaning, except I have a D500 crop for backup, plus 500PF and 70-200 2.8, which adds to the equation, PLUS, while doubtful, I could replace my D500 with another Z8!

 

[McStamp]

I like the 24-120 for walkaround and easy carrying when packing only the bare necessaries. The 180-600 I got rid of, as I didn't use this large range at all, but then it depends on all yr other glass and yr fav subjects. To start with Z I could recommend 24-120 and 100-400 and maybe get a TC 1.4. When it comes to selecting different lenses I find this a very individual choice, imho.

 

[wsr]

I have all the lenses you have talked about. I had the 180-600 for a week and sold it. I found it slow focus and not sharp at 600. To each his own opinion. I do love the 24-120 as a walk around and love it on a Z8.

 

[Patrick M]

Having rented the 100-400 & 1.4x for Svalbard last July, I went for the z180-600. More than 75% of my images were at 560mm and several DX crops. Also, I disliked the barrel extending in such wet conditions. The z160-600, while heavier, for my use, is easily sharp enough, plus it takes the Z converters.
i also swapped out my z24-70 f4 for the z24-120 f4. That extra reach made it my go anywhere. It was the the only lens I took on a cruise NY to Montreal last fall and all I needed. Wonderful lens.

 

[Ken Miracle]

As others have said Z24-120 f.4 is very light, focuses fast and is indeed very handy.

However when I am not doing my bird ID photography thing Z9 with Z800 or rarely Z180-600 I am photographing people at church.

Indoors at church in low light inside no flash can be used and need variable focal length. Also find variable focal length best outdoors for church events.

So for my non birding gigs I have changed form my Z9 with Z24-120 f/4 and second Z9 with Z70-200 f.2.8 to a one body and lens option:

Tamron 35-150 f/2-2.8 model A058Z. Far heavier than the Z24-120 f/4 but flat out amazing images indoors in horribly variable light indoors.

Also using it for quick shots from indoors through sliding glass doors of birds at feeder or on deck again variable focal length want and low light come into play.

 

[simplynature]

When I switched to mirrorless (Z9), I purchased the 24-120 for two reasons (weight savings & extended range). It was an S lens plus it had fantastic reviews, so I thought, Why not?. I AM NOT HAPPY WITH IT. I actually purchased the lens several months before I purchased the Z9 and the return window had closed before I got a chance to test it. For landscapes, my go-to aperture is usually f/11 or thereabouts. My lens is abysmally soft at anything over f/7.1 at 24mm & 60mm. At 120mm, f/8 is usable but just barely. I have talked with many people who own this lens and have only found one other person with the same issue. At f/5.6 my lens is very sharp (amazingly sharp!) but sharpness just drops like a rock shortly after that. I've never had a lens act like this before. So far, I've been focus stacking, and this works but it's a bit of a hassle. After the New Year, I plan on sending it back to Nikon Repair to see if they can determine a cause, but NPS cannot loan me another lens until after Jan. 7, as they are closed for Christmas.

The Zoom Barrel on mine is also much stiffer than any other Nikkor lens I've owned, but several of the people I've talked to said their barrels were much stiffer as well but their sharpness was still excellent.

Sorry to be a downer, but that's been my experience with the 24-120 so far. Hopefully, it can be repaired or recalibrated, or whatever because it's so small and light.

 

[ajrmd]

When I switched to mirrorless (Z9), I purchased the 24-120 for two reasons (weight savings & extended range). It was an S lens plus it had fantastic reviews, so I thought, Why not?. I AM NOT HAPPY WITH IT. I actually purchased the lens several months before I purchased the Z9 and the return window had closed before I got a chance to test it. For landscapes, my go-to aperture is usually f/11 or thereabouts. My lens is abysmally soft at anything over f/7.1 at 24mm & 60mm. At 120mm, f/8 is usable but just barely. I have talked with many people who own this lens and have only found one other person with the same issue. At f/5.6 my lens is very sharp (amazingly sharp!) but sharpness just drops like a rock shortly after that. I've never had a lens act like this before. So far, I've been focus stacking, and this works but it's a bit of a hassle. After the New Year, I plan on sending it back to Nikon Repair to see if they can determine a cause, but NPS cannot loan me another lens until after Jan. 7, as they are closed for Christmas.

The Zoom Barrel on mine is also much stiffer than any other Nikkor lens I've owned, but several of the people I've talked to said their barrels were much stiffer as well but their sharpness was still excellent.

Sorry to be a downer, but that's been my experience with the 24-120 so far. Hopefully, it can be repaired or recalibrated, or whatever because it's so small and light.

I'm sorry to hear that you are not happy with the lens. Interestingly, the more one looks at lens' sharpness these days, it is not unusual for the optical properties to decline at smaller apertures beyond f/8. It's difficult information to find as the manufacturers release the MTF's at (usually) optimal aperture. The 24-120 is a good walk around and all utility lens though I wouldn't select it to shoot landscapes where a high quality prime would be more appropriate.

 

[simplynature]

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.

I had the same results with my 80-400. It was basically a piece of junk. When to 200-500 came out I purchased it and LOVED it. When I switched to the Z9, I went with the 180-600. I love the shorter throw on the zoom on the 180-600 versus the 200-500, but I actually had a higher "keeper" percentage with the 200-500. I'm thinking that the changeover from the D500 w/ 200-500 to Z9 w/180-600 is just taking me a while to adjust and become as comfortable with as I was with my older system. Some have mentioned the megapixel difference between the Z9 & D500 as a possible culprit, but I often shoot the Z9 in DX mode so that shouldn't be factor (I assume).

 

[Nimi]

I'm sorry to hear that you are not happy with the lens. Interestingly, the more one looks at lens' sharpness these days, it is not unusual for the optical properties to decline at smaller apertures beyond f/8. It's difficult information to find as the manufacturers release the MTF's at (usually) optimal aperture. The 24-120 is a good walk around and all utility lens though I wouldn't select it to shoot landscapes where a high quality prime would be more appropriate.

I agree re the 24-120, but I wouldn't extend it to all zooms. The best landscape lens I use is the Z14-24/2.8S. Have not found a (native) prime that bests it. Generally, I think Nikon always put their best efforts towards the Holly 2.8 Trinity, the fast primes and the exotics. Maybe the PFs since the 500.

 

[Charles Loy]

@Nimi - you sure about the Z10-24 2.8S - does that lens exist?

 

[Nimi]

@Nimi - you sure about the Z10-24 2.8S - does that lens exist?

Oops, 14-24. Correcting the original and thanks for forcing me out of my drunken stupor .

 

[simplynature]

I'm sorry to hear that you are not happy with the lens. Interestingly, the more one looks at lens' sharpness these days, it is not unusual for the optical properties to decline at smaller apertures beyond f/8. It's difficult information to find as the manufacturers release the MTF's at (usually) optimal aperture. The 24-120 is a good walk around and all utility lens though I wouldn't select it to shoot landscapes where a high quality prime would be more appropriate.

Before I switched to the Z9, I shot landscapes with the Fuji GFX medium format system (had both the 50 & 100 MP bodies). The Fuji lenses were tack sharp, but using two different systems (Nikon for wildlife/birds, Fuji for landscapes) was driving me crazy. After going from D500 to the Z9 for wildlife I compared my F mount 24-70 versus the Fuji 32-64 & 45-100. Even with the FTZ convertor there was basically no visible difference up to a 48" wide print (versus the Fuji 50MP), and only a slight difference versus the Fuji 100MP. Based on those tests, I ended up selling my Fuji MF equipment and getting a 2nd Z9 and several other lenses. Using the 24-120 has certainly made me question my decision to sell the MF equipment, but I will eventually get this settled out, even if I have to get rid of the 24-120 & buy something. I hope Nikon can get the 24-120 issues settled, but I'll just wait and see.