Nikon 24-120 and Nikon 28-300

[Rosaroger]

Definitely, 28mm is closer to 24 than 35 so that's not a big difference but going beyond 121 to 300mm is huge if you need it. It's f5.6 at 300, I think the new Z28-400 is already f8 at 300.

Many thanks!

 

[Rosaroger]

I would love to take credit for the link, but that actually belongs to @fcotterill .

--Ken

Sorry, for my error.

 

[viper699]

I owned the 28-300 for my D5500. Was hoping it would be a great travel lens with some good reach.

It wasn’t good at all- it wasn’t sharp, it was not nearly as sharp as other F mount lenses I used, and those others were not pro level either.

I happily sold it and will never buy another ever again.

The z24-120 I own- wished it was longer though.

 

[Ado Wolf]

It's because of the mixed reviews on the 24-120mm F mount lens that I did not buy it when I acquired my D850. I bought instead the f1.8 24mm, 50mm and 85mm primes, but let's face it, they do offer great quality but limited flexibility.. particularly when travelling (need more space, heavier, and exposing sensor to the natural elements when changing lenses). After seeing that one of the photographers I follow on YouTube got one, I was motivated and bought one on the used market.

I can confirm it is less sharp than the Z version 24-120mm, however the quality of the G Version is more than good enough to make travel photos. I actually regret not having gotten one earlier! However, there seems to be quality variations with this lens (so some did get one that wasn't sharp).

The 24-120mm offers less focal length than the 28-300mm, but for me, 24mm is a must (28mm is not wide enough). With the D850, the 120mm becomes 180mm in DX crop mode.. so that covers most of my travel needs.

 

[Replytoken]

Sorry, for my error.

No worries. Just did not want to take credit for the post from @fcotterill .

--Ken

 

[Mal Paso]

I owned the 28-300 for my D5500. Was hoping it would be a great travel lens with some good reach.

It wasn’t good at all- it wasn’t sharp, it was not nearly as sharp as other F mount lenses I used, and those others were not pro level either.

I happily sold it and will never buy another ever again.

The z24-120 I own- wished it was longer though.

Might have been a bad copy. The lens is highly regarded by Ken Rockwell and numerous working photographers.

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

 

[viper699]

Might have been a bad copy. The lens is highly regarded by Ken Rockwell and numerous working photographers.

View attachment 108914

I KNOW ! I bought it because of Ken Rockwell hahah I was stunned when I started to use it. At the time I thought it was me. It wasn't a cheap lens either. I sold it when I moved into Z.

The range was just what I was looking for, and given it was a FF lens I bought it also for that reason, as I knew I'd get FF, likely a 8 series. OH well!

The 18-140mm DX lens for Nikon was excellent for my needs. If the 28-300 had been that sharp, I'd have never sold it. What a disappointment.

 

[fcotterill]

There's probably copy variation in the 28-300 G

Review: A controversial lens: the Nikon AFS 28-300/3.5-5.6 VR G

Image from Nikon USA. This lens is the full-frame equivalent of the very popular 18-200/3.5-5.6 DX VR; and like the DX equivalent, it’s an optic that seems to breed two kinds of people: blind…

blog.mingthein.com

"....Practically, what is this lens good for? What do I use it for? Basically, two things: it’s a Swiss army knife, for times when I know there’ll be plenty of light out, and I’m not aperture-limited; when I don’t know what I’m shooting or know that I’ll require a lot of perspectives; and finally, when I need telephoto reach. I shoot most of my work below 85mm, so this is a kind of emergency tool for when I need to go longer. It works, and having said all of the above, it is capable of delivering pretty good images – if you use it within its limitations. Just don’t try and shoot architecture in the dark hand-held with it."

 

[spamalot1950]

One obvious question: if you have your 200-500mm on your Z8, why would you need the extra reach of an 18-300mm on your D850? The 24-120mm makes a bit more sense to me. If you need to go wider, wouldn't it be easier to bring along the 14-24mm f/2.8 S or something similar?

 

[PeterM]

I owned and used both lenses on my D850, and liked them both. I thought that the 24-120 f4 was a little sharper, while the 28-300 was more versatile. Both make excellent travel and walk around lenses. Now that I have made the switch to Z-mount and sold most of my f-mount gear, I have their successors (Z24-120 f4 S and Z28-400 f4-8) and use them often, especially for travel and walk-around on my Z8. The Z-mount versions offer better image quality than did the F-mount, IMHO.

 

[thraxisp]

Thanks, I am looking forward to this trip.
I will be going to places with an opportunity to see birds and hopefully other wildlife. We will be going to Northern Norway and I would like to have the two cameras set up. The 24-120, I thought it will perfect for walking around cities an landscapes. I am also considering the Nikon 24-70 but I am carefully considering this one, it is more expensive, and there are more choices now available for the Nikon Z lenses.
I love my Nikon D850, definitely not ready to put it to rest yet.

I'm in a similar situation (probably going to the same places). I sold my 200-500mm F mount telephoto for a 100-400mm Z mount lens (about half the weight).

My goal is both scenery, and wildlife photography. To that end, my plan is to take a 24-200mm and 100-400mm lenses for my Z8. If I have space, I'll add a 180-600mm and teleconverters.

 

[macwalter]

I now have the z24-120 at Steve’s recommendation a while back. It is and excellent lens, sharp and versatile and as I have 2 z8s it’s often on a body although sometimes the second body will have the 100-400. My main body almost always has the 600pf with or without a tc.
when I had the d850 I had the 28-300 and it was a decent lens but not a sharp as the 24-120. Also at 300mm I have as yet to find a super zoom that will give me the IQ I want. If you are on a day trip and dont want to be too conspicuous it can serve as a versatile do everything lens and I took it to Africa along with the 500pf f mount which is a superb lens and one I still miss at times. This was before my move to mirrorless. I would say if you are gonna stay in both worlds camera wise. I would use the d850 for wide angle and more general photography due its less capable AF and frame rate and use the z body for wildlife, sell the 200-500 and buy the 180-600. For birds 400mm is not always enough. And zooms dont do as well with TCs although the z glass is better and I have used the z100-400 with the 1.4tc and gotten decent results in good light and not trying to shoot too far out.

 

[Rosaroger]

There's probably copy variation in the 28-300 G

Review: A controversial lens: the Nikon AFS 28-300/3.5-5.6 VR G

Image from Nikon USA. This lens is the full-frame equivalent of the very popular 18-200/3.5-5.6 DX VR; and like the DX equivalent, it’s an optic that seems to breed two kinds of people: blind…

blog.mingthein.com

"....Practically, what is this lens good for? What do I use it for? Basically, two things: it’s a Swiss army knife, for times when I know there’ll be plenty of light out, and I’m not aperture-limited; when I don’t know what I’m shooting or know that I’ll require a lot of perspectives; and finally, when I need telephoto reach. I shoot most of my work below 85mm, so this is a kind of emergency tool for when I need to go longer. It works, and having said all of the above, it is capable of delivering pretty good images – if you use it within its limitations. Just don’t try and shoot architecture in the dark hand-held with it."

Great article, many thanks

 

[Rosaroger]

One obvious question: if you have your 200-500mm on your Z8, why would you need the extra reach of an 18-300mm on your D850? The 24-120mm makes a bit more sense to me. If you need to go wider, wouldn't it be easier to bring along the 14-24mm f/2.8 S or something similar?

Yes, I know, the reason of my choice is to have a lens for street photography as well. We will be visiting cities as well, Stockholm, Copenhagen, Oslo and Bergen before embarking into more remote areas. What I am most concerned is about sharpness at 24 or 28 and middle range.

 

[Rosaroger]

I'm in a similar situation (probably going to the same places). I sold my 200-500mm F mount telephoto for a 100-400mm Z mount lens (about half the weight).

My goal is both scenery, and wildlife photography. To that end, my plan is to take a 24-200mm and 100-400mm lenses for my Z8. If I have space, I'll add a 180-600mm and teleconverters.

Thanks
yes, the z 100-400 sounds good but I’d like to have the lenses mounted on the cameras, I prefer not have to change them. It looks like a beautiful part of this world, looking forward to my trip.

 

[Rosaroger]

I owned and used both lenses on my D850, and liked them both. I thought that the 24-120 f4 was a little sharper, while the 28-300 was more versatile. Both make excellent travel and walk around lenses. Now that I have made the switch to Z-mount and sold most of my f-mount gear, I have their successors (Z24-120 f4 S and Z28-400 f4-8) and use them often, especially for travel and walk-around on my Z8. The Z-mount versions offer better image quality than did the F-mount, IMHO.

Many thanks

 

[Rosaroger]

Thanks
yes, the z 100-400 sounds good but I’d like to have the lenses mounted on the cameras, I prefer not have to change them. It looks like a beautiful part of this world, looking forward to my trip.

I now have the z24-120 at Steve’s recommendation a while back. It is and excellent lens, sharp and versatile and as I have 2 z8s it’s often on a body although sometimes the second body will have the 100-400. My main body almost always has the 600pf with or without a tc.
when I had the d850 I had the 28-300 and it was a decent lens but not a sharp as the 24-120. Also at 300mm I have as yet to find a super zoom that will give me the IQ I want. If you are on a day trip and dont want to be too conspicuous it can serve as a versatile do everything lens and I took it to Africa along with the 500pf f mount which is a superb lens and one I still miss at times. This was before my move to mirrorless. I would say if you are gonna stay in both worlds camera wise. I would use the d850 for wide angle and more general photography due its less capable AF and frame rate and use the z body for wildlife, sell the 200-500 and buy the 180-600. For birds 400mm is not always enough. And zooms dont do as well with TCs although the z glass is better and I have used the z100-400 with the 1.4tc and gotten decent results in good light and not trying to shoot too far out.

Thank you
I have the Z8 for about two months, I am still going through Steve’s book (many thanks Steve). Before embarking into new lenses I have tried the 200-500 and I like what I see! The only problem that I have found is fringing and I am unable to to get rid of it in Lightroom, it did not happen on the D850 and 200-500.

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

 

[Lee R]

I would get the 28-400 and use it on the Z8 and use your primes on the D850. That 28-400 is a nice lens, I have it. You can DX crop in to 600mm eq and it's sharpest in its center for that DX crop.

Honestly it's a monster of a travel combo for one lens/body.

I own the 24-120 G and the 28-400 is sharper through that range. The new Z super telephoto's are a level up over any of the DSLR lenses of this type. From 28-120 the 28-400 is also pretty close to the 24-120 in the center are as well, it's at it's strongest in that range.

I hear the 24-120z is a great sharp lens but I just never liked my 24-120G because it was not long enough and at 24-120 range I'd rather be using primes after dark and the 28-400 in good light.

The 28-400 and 24-120Z/28-300G are compared here: https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-z-28-400mm-f-4-8-vr/3

I think it's more than enough for any travel photography needs. Here's a few samples from my own travels with it on the Z8:

400mm

Nikon 28-400 by Lee Runge, on Flickr

Nikon 28-400 @ 400mm by Lee Runge, on Flickr

Nikon 28-400 by Lee Runge, on Flickr

Nikon 28-400 @ 75 meters by Lee Runge, on Flickr

28mm

High Desert Joshua Trees by Lee Runge, on Flickr

35mm

Joshua Tree by Lee Runge, on Flickr

 

[annetteACA]

If you don't have the Z24-120mm, I would get that and use it on the Z8 (if you have it, do the same) and use the 200-500mm on the D850 - the Z24-120mm is an amazing lens - at this point, I wouldn't buy new F mount lenses if you have the Z8 (I've had my Z8 for a year and it's becoming less and less often that I use my D850 and D500 - just too cumbersome having to carry the extra lenses and not being able to use Z lenses on the D850 and D500 - I kept my major F-mount lenses (14-24mm, 24-70mm f/2.8, 500PF) and use them with the adapter on the Z8

 

[feralgma]

I have the 28-300 for my D850 and it is my go-to lens for multipurpose walking around shooting. I love it. It's great for landscape, people shots, pets, sports that are close enough. Maybe I got a good copy, couldn't say since I only have the one. I use it quite a bit on family outings, camping trips, boating, etc. That said, I also carry the Z8 with either the 800mm or the 180-600 for birds.

 

[viper699]

There's probably copy variation in the 28-300 G

Review: A controversial lens: the Nikon AFS 28-300/3.5-5.6 VR G

Image from Nikon USA. This lens is the full-frame equivalent of the very popular 18-200/3.5-5.6 DX VR; and like the DX equivalent, it’s an optic that seems to breed two kinds of people: blind…

blog.mingthein.com

"....Practically, what is this lens good for? What do I use it for? Basically, two things: it’s a Swiss army knife, for times when I know there’ll be plenty of light out, and I’m not aperture-limited; when I don’t know what I’m shooting or know that I’ll require a lot of perspectives; and finally, when I need telephoto reach. I shoot most of my work below 85mm, so this is a kind of emergency tool for when I need to go longer. It works, and having said all of the above, it is capable of delivering pretty good images – if you use it within its limitations. Just don’t try and shoot architecture in the dark hand-held with it."

Def variation- so disappointing. It was the ideal focal range for travel etc for me.

 

[viper699]

I'm in a similar situation (probably going to the same places). I sold my 200-500mm F mount telephoto for a 100-400mm Z mount lens (about half the weight).

My goal is both scenery, and wildlife photography. To that end, my plan is to take a 24-200mm and 100-400mm lenses for my Z8. If I have space, I'll add a 180-600mm and teleconverters.

I had the 2-5, and like you sold it as I switched to Z mount. I’m glad I did! I went for the 180-600

For me 400 doesn’t have enough reach.

For the 186, it’s a great lens, but it’s heavy.

I’d get or rent the 600pf over the 186. It’s far lighter in mass, shorter too, and the IQ is excellent.

You already own 100-400. The 600PF is a perfect complement.

Met someone who uses the 24-200 over the 120, the guy loves that lens. I’ll be getting one.

 

[joe43]

When I have traveled with my D850 and other FX Nikon DSLRs, I used a Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5G ED VR Lens. It is small and light. If you currently do not own any of the lenses you are thinking of taking, you might want to add the 24-85mm to the list. If you already own the 24-120 f4, then I would ignore the 24-85mm suggestion.

My other favorite travel lens for a Nikon FX is the Nikon 70-200mm f4. It is smaller and lighter than the 70-200mm f2.8.

I have no experience with the 28-300mm.

For my Z9 I use the 24-120mm Z mount lens and love it.

 

[O]

Hi everyone
Just some comments, please, about Nikon lenses 24-120 and 28-300 (mixed reviews online)
I am going on a trip to Scandinavia next summer and I would like some comments on which is the best lens to take. It will be mounted on a Nikon D850. I am also taking the Nikon Z8 with the Nikon 200-500 on it. Thanks.

The 24-120 DSLR is handy and a little better in performance to a 28-300. The 24-120 in Z mount is considered excellent and very popular being superior to the DSLR version.

The 28-300 is an excellent all round do all lens, 0n a D850 or Z8 or Z9, if you’re a pixel peeper sensitive to the slightest CA, and corner sharpness rather than the subject and composition then look for something else, i love the 28-300 and use it a lot.

My copy is ok i have seen others slightly better but i am very happy with mine still.

I travel a lot and this image was a shot taken while i was sailing in Tasmania, it was hand held on a 16mp DF and delivered acceptable results, it’s how you use the lens that makes a big difference.

Tasmania and New Zealand compared to northern Oz offer stunning light, making many lenses perform better, even in the middle of a sunny day.

Because of the versatility i have been more than happy with the 28-300 on any camera, DF D850 D3X Z9 Z8.

The Z 28-400 is fractionally better but i am very happy with the 28-300 i have.

My travel kit is the Df or D850 28-300 and 50mm 1.4 Ziess, on the Z8 its the 28-300 and a 50mm 1.8S, i don't use the 24-120 DSLR while smaller lighter sharper i have sold it.
The image here in you can still see the fine rope hairs at least on the original image before down sizing, remember this is on a Df 16mp.

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

 

[Rosaroger]

If you don't have the Z24-120mm, I would get that and use it on the Z8 (if you have it, do the same) and use the 200-500mm on the D850 - the Z24-120mm is an amazing lens - at this point, I wouldn't buy new F mount lenses if you have the Z8 (I've had my Z8 for a year and it's becoming less and less often that I use my D850 and D500 - just too cumbersome having to carry the extra lenses and not being able to use Z lenses on the D850 and D500 - I kept my major F-mount lenses (14-24mm, 24-70mm f/2.8, 500PF) and use them with the adapter on the Z8

Thank you, this is certainly an option to consider.