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

[Nimi]

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.

I'm still straddling both systems (GFX100). My findings are that except the 110/2, Nikon's fast primes and a couple 2.8 zooms render as beautifully as any of the GFX lenses. Obviously not the same resolution and no way to tease out details in the shadows like the Fuji, but for anything up to 30x40, very very similar. The new 85/1.2 comes very close to the 110/2, so much that I am most likely leaving Fuji.

I don't think the 24-120 is of that quality, even when you get it fixed. As they like to say here, "it's very good for the money."

 

[simplynature]

I'm still straddling both systems (GFX100). My findings are that except the 110/2, Nikon's fast primes and a couple 2.8 zooms render as beautifully as any of the GFX lenses. Obviously not the same resolution and no way to tease out details in the shadows like the Fuji, but for anything up to 30x40, very very similar. The new 85/1.2 comes very close to the 110/2, so much that I am most likely leaving Fuji.

I don't think the 24-120 is of that quality, even when you get it fixed. As they like to say here, "it's very good for the money."

I was super impressed with the Fuji MF, but using two different systems was driving me nuts. I've shot Nikon for 40+ years and feel very comfortable with it, but it was still a very hard decision to drop the Fuji. The Fuji files were super nice and very easy to process. Before I went with Fuji I was using a D810 and (to me) those files were very difficult to process well, especially to get the color correct. I was worried about the Z9 perhaps having that issue but it's been very easy working the Z9 files., and there's been no issue at all with the color.

 

[Ken Miracle]

I was super impressed with the Fuji MF, but using two different systems was driving me nuts. I've shot Nikon for 40+ years and feel very comfortable with it, but it was still a very hard decision to drop the Fuji. The Fuji files were super nice and very easy to process. Before I went with Fuji I was using a D810 and (to me) those files were very difficult to process well, especially to get the color correct. I was worried about the Z9 perhaps having that issue but it's been very easy working the Z9 files., and there's been no issue at all with the color.

I found the same issues with the D810 but the D850 was significantly better. Z9 has been great. But I do far less landscape now than I used to.

 

[Nimi]

I was super impressed with the Fuji MF, but using two different systems was driving me nuts. I've shot Nikon for 40+ years and feel very comfortable with it, but it was still a very hard decision to drop the Fuji. The Fuji files were super nice and very easy to process. Before I went with Fuji I was using a D810 and (to me) those files were very difficult to process well, especially to get the color correct. I was worried about the Z9 perhaps having that issue but it's been very easy working the Z9 files., and there's been no issue at all with the color.

100%. I'm glad they went with a Bayer array on the 100. That, plus the 16-bit RAW and 12+ stops of dynamic range makes it super pliable. Colors are a little different than Nikon, but easily corrected.

 

[Johan Schmidt]

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.

Did you sell the f-mount 24-120 quickly or the z-mount?

 

[LL4D500]

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.

Appreciate your honesty!

 

[MikeInMI]

I would do the 24-120 over the 24 - 70. I have a 24-105 f/4 (Sony) and find that an incredibly versatile and useful lens. I like to minimize changing lenses in the field and so this works well.

 

[abc123brian]

I have both the 24-70mm F/4 and the 24-120mm F/4. They are both great lenses with similar IQ. I don’t do any scientific testing to compare them, seen some other who have. for me, the main difference is in size and focal length. The 24-70mm F/4 is a collapsible lens making it smaller to pack, it is lighter, and overall smaller. The range can be limiting which is why I opted to add the 24-120mm. The size is bigger and it’s heavier but still overall light and fairly small. The biggest advantage is the extra range. I paired it with the 100-400mm and it made a great two lens travel setup. I have also added the 180-600mm. I think the 24-120mm pairs really well with either of those two lenses. If I was starting over from scratch, I’d just go 24-120 and 180-600mm.

 

[O]

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.

Agree, I wouldn't go 24-70 F4 to many on the resale market, i find Its hard to beat the benefits of F2.8 24-70 glass especially when the light gets a little lower.
If you add a flash to a shoot things get really detailed and sharp, so the better the light even from a lens like F2.8, its a big step in the right direction.
The 24-120 F4 is a nice lens for what it does, it is handy light compact and sharp.
It reminds me of the 24-85 FX F3.5 F4.5 lens excellent also but nothing compared to a good F2.8 especially in not ideal conditions .
Its all down to what is important to you i guess.

F2.8 24-70 is a 2.92 magnification with F2.8 capacity
24-120 is a 5 to 1 magnification with F4 capacity ( a refined mirror less version of the 24-120 24-85 FX lens.
MTF charts are interesting.
45mp sensors can easily handle cropping enough to make up for the extra reach difference between 70-120 which is only 50mm.

Only an opinion

 

[Ken Miracle]

Agree, I wouldn't go 24-70 F4 to many on the resale market, i find Its hard to beat the benefits of F2.8 24-70 glass especially when the light gets a little lower.
If you add a flash to a shoot things get really detailed and sharp, so the better the light even from a lens like F2.8, its a big step in the right direction.
The 24-120 F4 is a nice lens for what it does, it is handy light compact and sharp.
It reminds me of the 24-85 FX F3.5 F4.5 lens excellent also but nothing compared to a good F2.8 especially in not ideal conditions .
Its all down to what is important to you i guess.

F2.8 24-70 is a 2.92 magnification with F2.8 capacity
24-120 is a 5 to 1 magnification with F4 capacity ( a refined mirror less version of the 24-120 24-85 FX lens.
MTF charts are interesting.
45mp sensors can easily handle cropping enough to make up for the extra reach difference between 70-120 which is only 50mm.

Only an opinion

Z24-120 very versatile and light ... amazing near macro capability and I found the image quality very good. As I noted earlier I seldom use a short variable focal length lens and when I do it is for people and usually indoors where I can not use flash and can not zoom with my feet all of the time.

As I noted that is why I got the amazing Z mount Tamron 35-150 f/2-2.8 model A058Z ... heavy as could be imagined with f/2-f/2.8

 

[O]

Z24-120 very versatile and light ... amazing near macro capability and I found the image quality very good. As I noted earlier I seldom use a short variable focal length lens and when I do it is for people and usually indoors where I can not use flash and can not zoom with my feet all of the time.

As I noted that is why I got the amazing Z mount Tamron 35-150 f/2-2.8 model A058Z ... heavy as could be imagined with f/2-f/2.8

The Tamron sounds interesting, i will have a look at it , thanks for the tip.

I have the FX 24-85 f3.5 - F4.5 G which for its generation is great even has VR, but if i use my SB 400 it transforms in to a very sharp versatile tool, as does any lens for that matter especially my 28-300 LOL.

I have two SB 400 units one since new, the other i picked up used for $50 AUD as i just love that tiny thing for what it does so so well.

Sometimes if i travel at short notice, i quickly grab my 28-300, Df yep the Df, it looks so cool LOL, a joy to use, large pixels D4 sensor, brilliant ISO performance, small light fits in my coat pocket, i take one spare battery, its small, the other pocket has the 28-300, i always pocket in my Tee Shirt the SB 400, it just rocks.

Yes the experts all say don't even mention the DF its so has been...well hey, may be so, it takes stunning images, is a joy to use, is so uncomplicated, and makes amazing Black and White photos, it depends on how you drive it, especially with a manual 50mm 1.4 Ziess. Yes the ZF is in pole position for now, but hey the DF does what I want and need beautifully.
If i don't have or take the SB 400 i take the 24-70 F2.8 G for the light gathering and F2.8 rendering.

Only an opinion

 

[Ken Miracle]

The Tamron sounds interesting, i will have a look at it , thanks for the tip.

I have the FX 24-85 f3.5 - F4.5 G which for its generation is great even has VR, but if i use my SB 400 it transforms in to a very sharp versatile tool, as does any lens for that matter especially my 28-300 LOL.

I have two SB 400 units one since new, the other i picked up used for $50 AUD as i just love that tiny thing for what it does so so well.

Sometimes if i travel at short notice, i quickly grab my 28-300, Df yep the Df, it looks so cool LOL, a joy to use, large pixels D4 sensor, brilliant ISO performance, small light fits in my coat pocket, i take one spare battery, its small, the other pocket has the 28-300, i always pocket in my Tee Shirt the SB 400, it just rocks.

Yes the experts all say don't even mention the DF its so has been...well hey, may be so, it takes stunning images, is a joy to use, is so uncomplicated, and makes amazing Black and White photos, it depends on how you drive it, especially with a manual 50mm 1.4 Ziess. Yes the ZF is in pole position for now, but hey the DF does what I want and need beautifully.
If i don't have or take the SB 400 i take the 24-70 F2.8 G for the light gathering and F2.8 rendering.

Only an opinion

I have 3 SB 700's and pocket wizard controlers etc. that have not been used in years. I got them when I was playing other types of photography and did a lare portrait project for my church. I do not use flash on birds and no longer do portraits and the people stuff I do for church is during services and events where I can not use flash so they sit in my dry cabinet w no batteries in them. DF before my time in photography so really do not think I ever saw one in real life.

 

[John Woodworth]

I shoot events. If I had to choose between the Z24-70f2.8S, Z24-70f4S or Z24-120f4S, it would be the f2.8. Why? Because it’s f2.8 and there is no way that the others can duplicate that. Focus isolation as just an essential tool. The extra stop in exposure is also good for reducing ISO, and hence obtaining better color rendition and dynamic range.

I have all three of the above. The optical quality is good to outstanding (for zooms). The 24-70 f2.8 is outstanding. The 24-120 is the best “walking around” lens. I use it for outdoor events when going light.

Both the 24-70 f2.8 and 24-120 f4 have programmable buttons. The 24-70 f4 has no programmable buttons…Hence, I never use it.

 

[O]

I have always abide by the principal, of time light and speed, and if they are in the right optimal combination you have a great chance for perfect exposure.
Light comes from the environment or artificial sources such as a type of flash or things like optimal glass. The rest follows.
My DF is considered old school and to most it is by today's standards, its a D600 carcass with a retro body on top and dials, but has a 16mp very high ISO D4 sensor, it can do what ever i want even limited to 5.5 FPS, its not savvy like the newer ZF, but does it take nice photos absolutely, my 50mm 1.4 Ziess is stunning as is my 24-70 F2.8 G.
It slows me down makes me think, draws out inspirations, encourages me to be creative with composition etc.
With the large pixels it really captures light and colour. The newer tech ZF is stunning and packed with features where basically you have to do nothing really LOL.
The Z6 and 7 III will be interesting.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

 

[Ken Miracle]

I have always abide by the principal, of time light and speed, and if they are in the right optimal combination you have a great chance for perfect exposure.
Light comes from the environment or artificial sources such as a type of flash or things like optimal glass. The rest follows.
My DF is considered old school and to most it is by today's standards, its a D600 carcass with a retro body on top and dials, but has a 16mp very high ISO D4 sensor, it can do what ever i want even limited to 5.5 FPS, its not savvy like the newer ZF, but does it take nice photos absolutely, my 50mm 1.4 Ziess is stunning as is my 24-70 F2.8 G.
It slows me down makes me think, draws out inspirations, encourages me to be creative with composition etc.
With the large pixels it really captures light and colour. The newer tech ZF is stunning and packed with features where basically you have to do nothing really LOL.
The Z6 and 7 III will be interesting.

View attachment 78185

View attachment 78183View attachment 78184

I have quite a few images on the wall or waiting to be replaced because they sold taken with the D4s ... so I get the benefits of that sensor.

 

[MLB01]

Any consideration of the Tamaron 150-500 Z mount lens? Brad Hill commented as a good option.

 

[O]

I have quite a few images on the wall or waiting to be replaced because they sold taken with the D4s ... so I get the benefits of that sensor.

Awesome to hear mate, good on you.

My friend still has his D4 and D4s, has no interest in changing, just loves it still, sometimes i get asked what do i think about the new cameras, and i reply, there just different tools LOL, i said are you happy with your photography, he replies, deliriously, i said that's priceless, then why care about newer gear, you are happy and even win awards nearly each month, you cant buy a photograph you make it.

I love the D850 files and enjoy the Z9 outcomes, but that doesn't mean i don't love the 16mp D4s D4, DF and incredibly the D3X files.

Happy New year, here is to peace and hopefully finally some sanity in the world.

Only an opinion

 

[Ken Miracle]

Any consideration of the Tamaron 150-500 Z mount lens? Brad Hill commented as a good option.

I had already received my Z180-600 when this was announced or I would have gone with it instead. I am a self confessed Tamron nut since the G2's were launched.

If this lens is anything like the Z mount Tamron 35-150 f/2-2.8 model A058Z I have it should be fantastic.

 

[simplynature]

I have quite a few images on the wall or waiting to be replaced because they sold taken with the D4s ... so I get the benefits of that sensor.

I understand, the D4s is/was an incredible camera. I still have lots of sales of images I took with my old D2x. Except for the noise limitations it had it was a fantastic camera. With todays software innovations I've reworked a lot of those images and they look better than ever.

 

[O]

I understand, the D4s is/was an incredible camera. I still have lots of sales of images I took with my old D2x. Except for the noise limitations it had it was a fantastic camera. With todays software innovations I've reworked a lot of those images and they look better than ever.

Fantastic, i still love so many of the works from my old friend the D3X, and i also have such wonderful memories form my D4 D4S.

 

[RichF]

The 24-120 is a very good lens. Is it up to the quality of 24-70 F/2.8? NO but it much lighter, has great range, cost considerably less. As a walk around lens, I can highly recommend it. If you want the absolute best and don't mind weight, cost, and limited range, then stick w/ the 24-70 F/2.8 or get a series of primes.

What trade off do you want? How are you going to use your images?

As far as the 24-70 F/4 - I would skip this lens and come with the 24-120 or the 24-70 F/2.8. The 24-70 has the limited range of the F/2.8 cousin but the IQ of the 24-120 without the extended range. IMO a bad trade off.

As far as the 180-600, what do you want? Convenience or best possible IQ. Very good to excellent lens, especially considering the price point but the as good as 400 and 600 F/2.8 primes. But then again only about 10% of the cost

 

[Nimi]

The 24-120 is a very good lens. Is it up to the quality of 24-70 F/2.8? NO but it much lighter, has great range, cost considerably less. As a walk around lens, I can highly recommend it. If you want the absolute best and don't mind weight, cost, and limited range, then stick w/ the 24-70 F/2.8 or get a series of primes.

What trade off do you want? How are you going to use your images?

As far as the 24-70 F/4 - I would skip this lens and come with the 24-120 or the 24-70 F/2.8. The 24-70 has the limited range of the F/2.8 cousin but the IQ of the 24-120 without the extended range. IMO a bad trade off.

As far as the 180-600, what do you want? Convenience or best possible IQ. Very good to excellent lens, especially considering the price point but the as good as 400 and 600 F/2.8 primes. But then again only about 10% of the cost

Excellent synopsys.

 

[RichF]

Excellent synopsys.

glad to share my thoughts (for what they are worth - my $0.02 is now only worth $0.001 after inflation )

 

[wotan1]

I generally love high IQ lenses. I already have the other two of the "holy trinity" primes.

I am grounded from spending more at this time by She Who Must Be Obeyed. I do have a couple of nice primes.

Right now most of what I am shooting is either in the superwide or long telephoto ranges and I don't really need a better mid range zoom. In this respect the 24-70 f4 has been more than adequate shooting on 47mp cameras.

I started in photography with an Exakta system which was all manual focus and all my lenses were primes. I got used to shooting that way and I haven't been all that addicted to zooms over the years.

Most of my photography these days is with Z primes at 400mm, 600mm and 800mm along with associated teleconverters. I highly doubt I am going to add a zoom lens to that potent mix.

 

[Anjin San]

The 24-120 is a very good lens. Is it up to the quality of 24-70 F/2.8? NO but it much lighter, has great range, cost considerably less. As a walk around lens, I can highly recommend it. If you want the absolute best and don't mind weight, cost, and limited range, then stick w/ the 24-70 F/2.8 or get a series of primes.

What trade off do you want? How are you going to use your images?

As far as the 24-70 F/4 - I would skip this lens and come with the 24-120 or the 24-70 F/2.8. The 24-70 has the limited range of the F/2.8 cousin but the IQ of the 24-120 without the extended range. IMO a bad trade off.

As far as the 180-600, what do you want? Convenience or best possible IQ. Very good to excellent lens, especially considering the price point but the as good as 400 and 600 F/2.8 primes. But then again only about 10% of the cost

What you see is undoubtedly true if one compares line charts and zooms in to 1:1 in LR…but for many purposes the differences are overblown IMO. 2.8 is important if having that aperture is important for one‘s needs…but as in many things better is the enemy of good enough. Depending on where the output goes…I think that if I gave anybody a shot of something with the 2.8 and the 4.0 lens at the same aperture in on screen resolution they would be hard pressed to tell which was which on screen…which frankly is where most output goes these days. Some gets printed and some is indoors action where aperture leads to better ISO of course. I haven’t tested the wide lenses but for the teles I have…70-200, 100-400, 400/4.5 and 600PF when taking shots in good to medium light and looking at screen output resolutions it’s mighty hard to see much difference nd what o do see is more just different than this one is clearly better. I can say that the 24-120 almost immediately replaced the 24-70/4 as my walking around I only want to carry a single lens gear on whatever body I’m carrying for a particular outing…and if fast AF and FPS aren’t a big deal that day but light is then that body is likely to be the Z7II over my more expensive and heavy pair of bodies…because for that day the Z7II is good enough. I’m not ever going to say that Iq isn’t important…but a lot of reviewers and posters think of it as the Holy Grail when in reality good enough is good enough. Is better better? Sometimes it is, but sometimes it isn’t for a variety of reasons.