I recently sold my Z 24-200 and picked up a 24-120 F4 S to replace it and have been pleased so far. Paired with the 14-30 F4 I've got a kit that covers most of my landscape needs. I will eventually add a 100-400 I think but need to save up for a bit for that lens. In the meantime I will use my Sigma 100-400 + FTZ to cover that range.
I have purchased my Z7ii a couple of years ago as my first Mirrorless. I’ve been shooting most of the time with my old F-mount lenses and even purchased a couple of new as well as used lenses for my work (the F-mount market offered some great deals). Not so long ago I finally decided to purchase my first Z-mount lens and after a thorough research I went for the 24-120/f4. Needless to say, it is my favourite lens. It covers the most of what I need and it only comes off when I need wider lens or an open aperture. I can definitely see the advantages of the Z-mount… I need to start saving for more Z-mount glass 😊
I trade in my 24-70/f4 and since end of December I enjoyed the 24-120/f4, overall it is a perfect choice and has quality I didn’t expect, the real winner of your fantastic test, which I followed with greatest respect. Thank you so much, best comparison I saw so far😘
Thanks for the massive time investment, and it has helped me decide what to do when my z9 arrives. The angle I’m taking is that the 24-120 compliments the 100-400 really well. I was going to go for the 24-70 f2.8 and 70-200f2.8, but the slight loss in image quality seems to be a small price to pay for the extra versatility for approximately the same cost of the pairings
This is exactly what I've done Peter. I have both the 24-120 and the 100-400 in hand and they are no-compromise travel and walk about options. I'm so thrilled with both of these lenses.
@@kbrkr great - thanks for the reassurance. I sold my medium format outfit a few years back, as I couldn’t see a future in film. I’m very excited by this new landscape!
Thanks Matt for this great, professional comparison. You put a lot of energy in it! I have the Z24-70/2.8S and the Z24-120/4S. Now the 24-120 is my every day lens. I use the 24-70/2.8 for low light (indoor and outdoor if I want to avoid a tripod) Greeting from cold Germany.
Honestly, the Z 24-120 f4 may be the only lens you need actually? unless you need to shoot astro. This Z 24-120 is way way better then its f mount sibling. Even at sunset, this lens is simply astonishing! One should and test out the Zeiss 15mm Milvus Distagon, connect it with the FTZ2 and stick it to your Z body and trust me...the results, especially the colours will make you melt
I have the Z7 with the 24-70mm f4 for landscapes and its such a beautiful lens. Light, nice contrast and obviously ridiculously sharp. I'm sure when printing 30×45 with all these lenses they would be indistinguishable. Only when you zoom into a million % on an 8k monitor would a pixel peeping nerd be able to spot any difference.
I recently got rid of my 24-70 f4 s lens for the 28-75 2.8. Main reason why did this was low light focusing accuracy and speed. Not everyone talks about the cameras ability to auto focus quickly in low light with f4 lenses. Especially when doing event photography when you don’t have the ability to slow down
So much to take in. Great video. Really happy with my 24-70 2.8. I’d have been happy with any of these lenses. I print big from time to time and am mostly interested in the story. They all tell a similar story. Thanks for putting this together Matt. Certainly going to watch this a few more times.
I have the Z 24-70/2.8 S since 2019 on a Z6 but if I was starting over, I'd definitely have a very close look at the Z 24-120/4 S as an alternative. All the 24 zooms are fabulous but am not impressed with the (re-badged Tamron?) 28-75/2.8.
Unfortunately Nikon massively screwed up the manufacturing piece on the 24-120 as there are still people waiting for their copy 2, 3, and even 4 months later after ordering! So if sigma, tamron and tokina are quick enough they could potentially teach Nikon a hard to swallow manufacturing lesson!
@@youknowitstrue3403 that’s not a Nikon problem, it’s a worldwide issue due to covid. Just try to get a PS5… Sigma, Tamron, etc have not even expressed openly that they are developing anything for the Z mount. Only Voigtländer recently (besides Chinese manufacturers and a couple more toy lenses) has presented a Z50 35mm. There’s still a long away to go I am afraid.
Very interesting video of lens comparison. With my Z6II, which I acquired about a year ago, your video demonstrates that the 24-70 F4 S lens is still a capable lens for my needs and available budget. Thank you for your great videos.
I've been eyeing the 28-75mm since its announcement, if I could save 50% on the cost and only lose 10% of quality, I think it justifies.. thanks again for the great vid!
@@MattIrwinPhotography exactly! beggar can't be chooser. if I can't pay for the f/2.8, I shouldn't be complaining about edge sharpness. your vid seal the deal for me :)
It looked too soft for my tastes. If you have a FTZ, I'd consider an f mount instead. Also, the difference between 24 & 28mm is a lot. The Z 24-70/4 is considered to be an excellent lens. It just seems a pity fitting a soft lens on a Z series camera. Your choice of course.
@@paulbusby2013 28-75 does look soft in this test. I just bought this lens and I think mine is sharper. If I can see pores on a subject's face at f2.8 in 100% in the third of the image (not center), I think I can say that this glass is absolutely satisfactory. For landscape I have 14-30 f4 anyway, so softness in the corners is irrelevant to me. I guess it all depends what you expect and need the lens for.
Thanks, I needed that. Was leaning towards the 24-120 Z and this sealed the deal. Interesting that a couple of people have commented about only needing the 24-120 and the 100-400 Z.
The duo covers most of the focal lengths commonly used; add the teleconverter and you’ve got virtually every possibility(assuming the 100-400 is compatible)😉🙂
And the 40mm f/2 is probably about the cost of a nice filter for the 100-400. What you can do with a Z6 ii, the 40, the 24-120 f/4, and the AI denoise tools…equipment cost is not the barrier to incredible quality.
I agree with what you see, Matt, since the images speak for themselves. The quality of the f/4 Z-mount lenses has impressed me since I got into the Z system, and I'm surprised that so many people dismissed them as "kit lenses" and sold them. I prefer the "trinity" lenses too, but it's also great to be able to carry the f/4 versions as a lighter-weight backpack kit. Thanks for taking the time to do these comparisons! :)
I have the Z7 with the 24-70mm f4 for landscapes and its such a beautiful lens. Light, nice contrast and obviously ridiculously sharp. I'm sure when printing 30×45 with all these lenses they would be indistinguishable. Only when you zoom into a million % on an 8k monitor would a pixel peeping nerd be able to spot any difference.
I don’t disagree with your commentary. That sentiment means the used price must be nice. And remember there are demands where f/4 is just not as good as f/2.8. Shooting indoor sports is one. I plan to keep the f/4 “kit” for daytime activities. The heavy, expensive f/2.8 can be reserved for indoor events.
I have the 24-120mm S Line. I am extremely happy with it. If I need speed, I will use any of my fabulous S Line primes, or my F mount f2.8 zooms. I am often shootng on a tripod, so I am fine with f4 lenses most of the time. I am very tempted to trade in both my 24-70mm S Line and 24-200mm Z .
Matt this is a cracking video, possibly your best yet. It's clear how much effort went into it. Also clear that despite your reputation as a Nikon man there's no bias to be seen. If I could just point out one inaccuracy I believe you made, at 22:48 when you point out that the 28-75 appears to be the softest, I think in that case it's actually due to the decreased depth of field from the 28mm compared to the 24mm. While it does appear to be the softest of the bunch, I don't think that's the culprit in that instance.
Fantastic review Matt. A LOT of lenses with relatively extensive testing in a short time. Now I'm even more happy with my 24-70 f/4 - although that 24-120 is really tempting. (and I'd go for it if I didn't already have the 24-200). Your review makes me loose interest in the 28-75, but it's great to see all these compared. Really appreciate you doing this - TY.
The 24-70 f2.8 is the winner. Also, I would add the 28-75 f2.8 has very different characteristics from the other 3 Nikon lenses, like the bokeh and focusing, that it does seem to work more like a Tamron.
Awesome and much thanks for this comparison vid. You're definitely on it and so far the only one that I follow who has done such a comparison. Best regards, Matt. 😀
Hi Matt, As you did, I also noticed that there is more image that can be captured if you use the unconstrained crop tool. I found the reason for this……..in Capture One you can click on the lens tool that opens the camera lens corrections tab. When you import the images from the 24-70 F4 Capture One defaults the distortion slider to 100. It is the distortion correction applied automaticallynupon import that sacrifices some field of view. I set the distortion control slider to zero as default so that I see the entire image captured and I can then decide if I want to sacrifice some of the image to correct the distortion or if having the entire field of view for a landscape is more important. It isn’t a lens field of view issue, once you set the distortion to zero you should see the same field of view for all 24 mm lenses.
hmhm, 28-75 f/2.8 or 24-70 f/4 … I bought the 28-75 . I don't use it for landscapes. I use it for editorial, somtimes portraits and documentation. And for that, it is a good lens. Okay, the 24-70f/2.8 is better. But more than twice the price. If you need a lens for travel and landscapes: go for the 24-70 f/4! If you got the money and want to carry a heavy lens: go for the 24-70 f/2.8. If you want a lightweight lens for lowlight, documentation or events and don't want to spend 3000€: crap the 28-75 f/2.8. I have additional a 24mm f1.8 which I use for landscapes. That is e better combination for me.
I returned my 28-75. The 24mm corners never get anywhere near the 2.8/24-70 even stopped right down. I think there may also be field curvature or something messing with depth of field. And then the overall rendering, it lacks the dimensionality and sparkle of the 2.8/24-70. It may only be an extra 5% but I can see it and I miss not having it. I feel the cost and weight saving of this new (old?) Tamron derived lens is just not worth it. The 2.8/24-70 really sings and I trust it totally to deliver whatever the conditions. It’s a true world class lens. I would take any of the 1.8 primes over the 28-75 if I wanted something cheaper or lighter.
Hi Matt, a month late here but was happy to see how the 24-120 compared and I've had it on order since mid-February, and still waiting with no ETA yet here in Colorado and it's the 20th of March. Hope it won't be a lot longer, winter days here will last until April/May and really love getting winter wildlife and landscapes. Cheers and thank you for the effort you put in testing these lenses!
Excellent video! I pre-ordered the 24-120 F/4 s lens to compliment my newly arrived 100-400s lens. This pair will be my standard travel kit, both using the 77mm filter, unless I need to travel light. The 24-120 is the most versatile lens due to its reach.
@@MattIrwinPhotography I just received it and only tested it briefly in the house. I will give it a test drive and give you a report later. One thing that I know already is that it is sharp!
I'd speculate that Capture One does the crop of each lens when correcting for distortion. The two f4 lenses do seem to be more prone to barrel/pincushion at their respective focal lengths, so the amount of crop required to correct for that does seem to necessitate a wider field of view. Just my thoughts. That 24-120 f/4 S is on my shortlist for a travel zoom this year, fantastic image quality all around. Thanks again for the deep dive comparison, cheers Matt.
I picked up a copy of the 24-70 2.8 S just before the 28-75 was announced, and was hoping I hadn’t made a mistake buying the more expensive optic. The new lens doesn’t look bad, and I was fairly happy with that range back with the AF-D 28-70, but honestly the rendering of the S lens is so amazing. I’m happy I sprang for the best image quality, and if I want a lightweight alternative I still have the f4 version.
I’m really surprised at how well the 24-120mm performed. But my mother always told me I must have more money than brains and all these years later that’s still true, so I will almost always buy the most expensive lens.
The more I see of the 24-120mm the more I regret not preordering it. 24-120mm and the 100-400mm with a teleconverter is a huge focal range and small kit for travel. Great video as always. The old F version of the 24-70mm didn't win in any of your side by sides but still an all-time favorite that I miss. Had some special character.
I've been almost exclusively shooting wildlife since COVID screwed up life, but threw the Z 24-70 2.8 on the Z9 for no other reason than to have a shorter lens on it while I was tinkering with menus, etc while sitting on the couch. The image quality produced by that pair of gear is crazy good, indeed, and that was just reviewing throw away shots. Has abnormally warmed up here (above freezing instead of -30C stuff) so going to do a bit of urban street shooting with the lens, if for no other reason than to 'prove' to myself I need to get rid of my f mount 70-200 and replace it with the Z version as I did with the other 2 holy trinity lenses :) Thanks for the comparison of lenses work. Cheers!
Personally I found the 24-120 f4 to be the best all-around lens from these four. It's not necessarily the sharpest (as the 24-70 2.8 is probably the sharpest) but it's a good balance of price, image quality and weight. The 24-70 f/4 is also very good, but it comes up a bit short, especailly if you're looking for a travel lens. The 28-75 gives you a stop more than the 24-70 f/4 and the 24-120 but at the cost of some image quality perhaps, and it's range is similar to that of the 24-70 f/4. So I'd honestly rank them from best to worst: 24-70 2.8, 24-120 (mainly because it has the extra 50mm reach), 24-70 f/4 and then lastly the 28-75. But at the end of the day, it depends on your budget and your needs. I would not hesitate to use the first three for pretty much anything I do (I own the 24-70 2.8 and the 24-120 but wouldn't hesitate to the use the 24-70 f/4 as I had that lens -- sold it to get the 2.8 version). I'm sure the 28-75 is OK for those looking for a fast lens on a budget, but I think there are some compromises of course and that comes in the form of image quality usually.
Thanks for this Matt! I just picked up the Z 24-70 F2.8 and I mostly chose that because I was offered a last minute job, needed something quick and it was the only thing available in my area. I was contemplating returning it for one of these other lenses but based on this test I'll hang onto it rather than eat the restocking fee and purchasing another lens. Thanks again!
Thank you as always for this comparison! I'm receiving my Z24-120 f4 any day now and it was a toss up between that and the 24-70 f2.8 as I have the Z 70-200mm f2.8 which I love. All things said, I'm now very happy I ordered the 24-120mm and will enjoy spending less. Will be a great partner with the 70-200!
I have the 24-70 F4 S and the 24-200 along with a few primes. 24-70 is sharper than the 24-200 and a fantastic studio portrait lens. 24-120 seems to have a slight edge in sharpness over the 20-70 F4 in some reviews but it is miniscule. The benefit is the extended 120 length if you need this day to day. 20-70 is also slightly more versatile in my opinion over the 20-120 due to weight however weight is down to the users preference. For me the 24-200 is excellent for what it is. It is superior when comparing older lenses. In addition to focal length it has VR and it's brilliant. I use it on both my Z6 and Z50. Pretty sure it would be excellent on the Z7 as well in crop. The little Z50 and the 24-200 are great for breaks away giving you a 35 to 300 range if that suits your style of photography. If you need a super sharp lens for travel and would happily compromise the 200 focal length then the 24-120 could be for you. If I bought the 20-120 I don't think it would replace the 24-200? My travel combo is 24-200 and 50 F1.8.
WRT the angle of view in the shot, it does change with focus distance. These ;lenses are rated at 24mm (eg) at infinity. Any focus breathing that occurs may reduce the angle of view closer to MFD. Great review of the 5 lenses - very useful. Maybe your best comparo yet.
The 2.8S presenting as if it has a narrower angle than the f/4 lenses, may be caused by in-camera optical corrections that in turn may lead to a crop being applied. I add that Nikon is always very precise with their data, so if they label as 24 it should be 24. Then the finicky question is if their was focus breathing, as the lenses did not seem to be at infinity. The Z/S glass has minimal focus breathing but how much differs between lens models. For a lens with a fixed element arrangement, specifications as well as optimizations in the design are made for the lens set at infinity. From that position, focusing closer by makes the focal length linger, the angle of view narrower and it raises the f-number. As per Laws of Physics. A prime that has no focus breathing is actually a zoom-lens that maintains, at different distance settings, angle of view (and consequently its f-number will not change).
All of these lenses are optically great. The key consideration should be on the focal range and the max aperture required to suit your photography. Simple, not the absolute sharpness.
Thanks for doing this Matt, I was really curious how the 24-120 and the 28-75 compared due to the 2.8/4 and non-S vs S lens. I’m still leaning toward the 24-120, it just seems so versatile.
@@MattIrwinPhotography - I'd think twice about buying the f2.8 if I was starting over myself. It's also a lot cheaper so the saving could go towards another lens.
The cropping in C1 happens when you have chosen an export recipe, goto export and choose or create an export recipe with jpg full resolution. Second option to verify is the Lens Correction, I usually set it to Manufacturer Profile and then the Distortion slider all to the left, copy paste that option to all pictures selected.
Great video. Is the reason for the different width of view at 24mm down to Capture One, in the lens correction tab and having the hide distorted area option selected. The 24-120mm being a new lens Capture One may not have correction data so nothing in hidden. I could be completely wrong
See if you can tell a difference if you turn off “ hide distorted areas”. I notice that when C1 uses its own lens profile versus the manufacturer profile it displays the corrected image when that is turned on. My guess is that Nikon makes distortion corrections in camera for the Manufacturer profile and therefore that data is not recorded in the NEF file for Capture One to display.
Hello Matt, So good to see these lenses been used. I know it may be just youtube but they all look very good. I know I hear the 24mm-70mm F2.8 and nice to see it doing well. I have the F 24mm-70mm f2.8 I did use it for a while with the FTz but yes it work as well as ever but it dose make the camera front heavy. just a bit on my Z7ii. So I am happy with the 24mm-70mm f2.8 Z mount. Keep well, keep safe and or videos please.
Great video! Thank you for sharing your valuable opinion on these lenses. I like the build quality, IQ and range of 24-120f4 lens but it was launched too late. I had bought 24-200f4-6.3 for traveling. Can’t decide whether I should buy 24-120f4 for better IQ and build quality.
Thank you Matt, good job! Perhaps shooting at 28mm would make the images easier to compare. I also slightly miss the Nikkor Z 24-200 f4-6.3, which is also a good lens.
Red Bull I shoot the 24-200 as well, it was the sixth lens, but I made an error with it, and only worked it out halfway through the edit, so I decided to remove it rather than confuse things ... I will do something similar again, comparing all my lenses that are 24mm and I will get the 24-200 right next time. And I will be able to include the 14-24 and ill get a copy of the 24mm prime ... I think it will end up being 7 lenses ... might melt my brain :)
I have that same scoot… so glad I went with the Max and not the smaller models. I also shoot Nikon Z (and F). Seesh you have great taste in things. LOLOL cheers!
Epic job Matt!👏🏾 I already had a predetermined biased opinion as I have already invested in the Z 24-70 F2.8 S, even though It is still boxed waiting for my Z9 to arrive!😂
Thank you for this great video. I'm looking for a replacement for my Tamron 28-70 f2.8 G2 with FTZ as it's heavy and unwieldy on longer trips. My favorite has always been the 24-120. And your video has now taken away my remaining doubts. Thank you and greetings from Germany.
A very interesting video, thanks. I already have the 24-70f2.8 and the 70-200f2.8, however, as I will be doing some travelling later this year - all being well, I am tempted to get the 24-120f4 and the 100-400f4-5.6 to give a good spread without too much weight to lug around.
And wouldn't it be a better solution to buy: TELECONVERTER WITH TC-2.0x., to which you can connect the lens you already have 70-200 2.8, obtaining: 140-400 and at the same time with a better constant light 2.8 ?
@@pawelkarczewski2922 You may note my post was over a year ago. I did get the Z 2xTC and used it with the Z 70-200 f/2.8, but when the TC is attached it is no longer a 2.8 lens. I think, if memory serves, it took it to an f/4.5. Today I have the Z 1.4xTC and the Z 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 but didn't keep the 2xTC
So assuming 2xTC we lose light from 2.8 to 4.5? How about the 100-400 4.5-5.6 lens? what is the light assuming 2xTC? And one more question: does it make sense to buy 1.4TC if you have 2xTC?@@SwanSycorax
@@pawelkarczewski2922 You didn't read my previous answer. I didn't keep the 2xTC. For me, it took too much light out and also softened the image. The 1.4xTC takes less light, has virtually no impact on the sharpness of the image and takes the 100-400 (Which, as i said, I DID buy) out to 560mm making it an even more useful lens.
I misunderstood your earlier answer. This means that bigger is not always better. In this case, 2xTC, if it takes too much light and the photo loses focus, it falls out for me. Now I understand why you use 1.4xTC, it zooms less but the image is sharp and gives more light. Thank you for the explanations because I would probably buy 2xTC first ...@@SwanSycorax
Matt... i love your videos, but this one... is all we DSLR shooters need. Prooved 2070 f4 is worth of money. One suggestionm plz upscale volume a bit...
Hey Matt, love your enthusiasm and this video was practically made for me as I am traveling and want a good 24-70 or something similar. I want to like the 28-75 more, sad it doesn't quite keep up. Do you think on a OG Z6 I would notice much? I am a bit of peeper
I just traded in my 24-70 f4 for the 24-120 (still waiting for it). Thanks for reassuring me I did the right thing. I also own the 24-70 F2.8 S and the 24-200 Z, but I think that the 24-120 will stick on my Z6 II most of the time when traveling. Still not sure what to do with the 24-200... Let's see if the 120mm range will be enough.
Thinking of selling mine since getting the 24-120. The IQ is outstanding! Not sure how much I'll miss the extra 80mm. Fortunately I bought the 24-200 used.
Nice video. I bought the 28-75 because it fit my budget for 90% of what I do with that 2.8 which is handy in the low-light. Curious now how sharp the 28-75 @ F4 is going to look if all aps were the same :) Low the pixel peeping though, I think anyone would be happy with any of these lenses.
Nice to see, that the Z9 has the option to show nothing but the live-view on the back screen without any camera infos. Please Nikon, give us that option on the original Z6 also - please. Please please please.
The very best article on this subject! I went with the 24-120 but was keeping my f mount 2.8 24-70. Now I’m questioning sin I really don’t need an extra stop. Next question is will the Z 14-30 really replace my f mount 2.8 14-24? Any plans to cover that?
I shoot the 24-200 as well, it was the sixth lens, but I made an error with it, and only worked it out halfway through the edit, so I decided to remove it rather than confuse things ... I will do something similar again, comparing all my lenses that are 24mm and I will get the 24-200 right next time. And I will be able to include the 14-24 and ill get a copy of the 24mm prime ... I think it will end up being 7 lenses ... might melt my brain :)
Great video as always Matt! I saw today that Nikon is revising Q4 financial guidance up, looks like they are having a good quarter. Are you going to do a video or segment on your “in the news” video about that upward guidance revision? I always like to hear your thoughts!
Thanks for the real world share Matt and what a bugger of a job you have! The comparison was very relevant for me as I'm still shooting F Mount and was pleased to see the obvious quality of the S-Line 24-70 2.8, which will be my go to lens choice in this focal range when I finally switch to mirrorless. I do lots of night sky photography with my trusty F mount 24-70 2.8 and that extra stop over the F4's coupled with sharpness, rendering from the S-Line etc, well, there's nothing more to say really! Thanks again Matt, love your vids.
Yep it was there I shoot the 24-200 as well, it was the sixth lens, but I made an error with it, and only worked it out halfway through the edit, so I decided to remove it rather than confuse things ... I will do something similar again, comparing all my lenses that are 24mm and I will get the 24-200 right next time. And I will be able to include the 14-24 and ill get a copy of the 24mm prime ... I think it will end up being 7 lenses ...
@Matt sometimes when you look at the patents before the lenses release you see that the manufacturers bend the rules a little. Focal length according to patent= 24.8-67.8 for the f/2.8 so your actually losing quite a bit of the total reach. I guess the F4's have indeed a wider design, haven't looked up their patent though, but your shots at the wide end prove it. Wouldn't surprise me if it was the same for the long end, making it even more compelling. I did see this earlier at Canon patents, but they where way easier to read. The Nikon f2.8 one is quite the book.
i noticed that for 24-120/4 S around those flag poles the ambient got rendered blue-ish? while other 4 were rendering green-ish? why is that? i got a Z7ii 24-120/4 S and it's working great and i haven't noticed that kind of color shift yet.
I recently sold my Z 24-200 and picked up a 24-120 F4 S to replace it and have been pleased so far. Paired with the 14-30 F4 I've got a kit that covers most of my landscape needs. I will eventually add a 100-400 I think but need to save up for a bit for that lens. In the meantime I will use my Sigma 100-400 + FTZ to cover that range.
Thanks Matt. I am new to mirrorless and have decided before this to go with the 24-120. This does confirm I made the right decision.
I have purchased my Z7ii a couple of years ago as my first Mirrorless. I’ve been shooting most of the time with my old F-mount lenses and even purchased a couple of new as well as used lenses for my work (the F-mount market offered some great deals). Not so long ago I finally decided to purchase my first Z-mount lens and after a thorough research I went for the 24-120/f4. Needless to say, it is my favourite lens. It covers the most of what I need and it only comes off when I need wider lens or an open aperture. I can definitely see the advantages of the Z-mount… I need to start saving for more Z-mount glass 😊
I trade in my 24-70/f4 and since end of December I enjoyed the 24-120/f4, overall it is a perfect choice and has quality I didn’t expect, the real winner of your fantastic test, which I followed with greatest respect. Thank you so much, best comparison I saw so far😘
Thanks for the massive time investment, and it has helped me decide what to do when my z9 arrives. The angle I’m taking is that the 24-120 compliments the 100-400 really well. I was going to go for the 24-70 f2.8 and 70-200f2.8, but the slight loss in image quality seems to be a small price to pay for the extra versatility for approximately the same cost of the pairings
This is exactly what I've done Peter. I have both the 24-120 and the 100-400 in hand and they are no-compromise travel and walk about options. I'm so thrilled with both of these lenses.
@@kbrkr great - thanks for the reassurance. I sold my medium format outfit a few years back, as I couldn’t see a future in film. I’m very excited by this new landscape!
The Z9 is a joy, and those 2 lenses sound like a great travel kit :)
Thanks Matt for this great, professional comparison. You put a lot of energy in it!
I have the Z24-70/2.8S and the Z24-120/4S. Now the 24-120 is my every day lens.
I use the 24-70/2.8 for low light (indoor and outdoor if I want to avoid a tripod)
Greeting from cold Germany.
Honestly, the Z 24-120 f4 may be the only lens you need actually? unless you need to shoot astro. This Z 24-120 is way way better then its f mount sibling. Even at sunset, this lens is simply astonishing!
One should and test out the Zeiss 15mm Milvus Distagon, connect it with the FTZ2 and stick it to your Z body and trust me...the results, especially the colours will make you melt
I have the Z7 with the 24-70mm f4 for landscapes and its such a beautiful lens. Light, nice contrast and obviously ridiculously sharp. I'm sure when printing 30×45 with all these lenses they would be indistinguishable. Only when you zoom into a million % on an 8k monitor would a pixel peeping nerd be able to spot any difference.
Just purchased the 24-120 f4. I'm going to enjoy this video. Thanks again Matt!
I think it is a really great lens. Fab all rounder
I recently got rid of my 24-70 f4 s lens for the 28-75 2.8. Main reason why did this was low light focusing accuracy and speed. Not everyone talks about the cameras ability to auto focus quickly in low light with f4 lenses. Especially when doing event photography when you don’t have the ability to slow down
How does it compare so far? I really need a 2.8 for events in low light as well..
I'm struggling a bit with 24-200 in lowlight, I don't know why, but on the old dslr I didn't have any problems even in the darkest darkness!
Did the focus assist light from the body or the flash not help?
@@tushaardaiboo4004 it is a night and day difference for low light conditions
@@stjepanjina I don’t use those as I am often in a fast paced environment or shooting too far away
So much to take in. Great video. Really happy with my 24-70 2.8. I’d have been happy with any of these lenses. I print big from time to time and am mostly interested in the story. They all tell a similar story. Thanks for putting this together Matt. Certainly going to watch this a few more times.
Joe thanks so much for all your support capturing me capturing the world in this video and others. 😀🎥🙌
The 24-120mm seems to be the “sweet spot”… tempting, very tempting… not expecting it to compete with the 24-70mm versions so well :)
Yeah it comes across very strong ... I am very impressed :)
I have the Z 24-70/2.8 S since 2019 on a Z6 but if I was starting over, I'd definitely have a very close look at the Z 24-120/4 S as an alternative. All the 24 zooms are fabulous but am not impressed with the (re-badged Tamron?) 28-75/2.8.
Unfortunately Nikon massively screwed up the manufacturing piece on the 24-120 as there are still people waiting for their copy 2, 3, and even 4 months later after ordering! So if sigma, tamron and tokina are quick enough they could potentially teach Nikon a hard to swallow manufacturing lesson!
@@youknowitstrue3403 that’s not a Nikon problem, it’s a worldwide issue due to covid. Just try to get a PS5…
Sigma, Tamron, etc have not even expressed openly that they are developing anything for the Z mount. Only Voigtländer recently (besides Chinese manufacturers and a couple more toy lenses) has presented a Z50 35mm. There’s still a long away to go I am afraid.
@@youknowitstrue3403 also this lens only came out 2 months ago, so I don't think they are 4 months behind ...
Really appreciate the effort and sharing! It helps a lot when picking lenses.
I took 24-200, thrilled! Thanks for the test!
22:29 Colours seem to be more vibrant on the old F mount lense
Very interesting video of lens comparison. With my Z6II, which I acquired about a year ago, your video demonstrates that the 24-70 F4 S lens is still a capable lens for my needs and available budget. Thank you for your great videos.
I'm of the same opinion!
These 2 F4 lenses rock !!! :)
I've been eyeing the 28-75mm since its announcement, if I could save 50% on the cost and only lose 10% of quality, I think it justifies.. thanks again for the great vid!
The reality is without pixel peeping the all look fabulous 😀👍🚀📷
@@MattIrwinPhotography exactly! beggar can't be chooser. if I can't pay for the f/2.8, I shouldn't be complaining about edge sharpness. your vid seal the deal for me :)
I`ve had mine for a week and if you don`t photograph a brick wall it`s wonderful!
It looked too soft for my tastes. If you have a FTZ, I'd consider an f mount instead. Also, the difference between 24 & 28mm is a lot. The Z 24-70/4 is considered to be an excellent lens. It just seems a pity fitting a soft lens on a Z series camera. Your choice of course.
@@paulbusby2013 28-75 does look soft in this test. I just bought this lens and I think mine is sharper. If I can see pores on a subject's face at f2.8 in 100% in the third of the image (not center), I think I can say that this glass is absolutely satisfactory. For landscape I have 14-30 f4 anyway, so softness in the corners is irrelevant to me. I guess it all depends what you expect and need the lens for.
Thanks, I needed that. Was leaning towards the 24-120 Z and this sealed the deal. Interesting that a couple of people have commented about only needing the 24-120 and the 100-400 Z.
The duo covers most of the focal lengths commonly used; add the teleconverter and you’ve got virtually every possibility(assuming the 100-400 is compatible)😉🙂
Yep like Philip said a lot is covered with 2 lenses, pretty epic !!!
True, just throw a prime in-between for better low light stuff and you will be fine with that setup.
And the 40mm f/2 is probably about the cost of a nice filter for the 100-400. What you can do with a Z6 ii, the 40, the 24-120 f/4, and the AI denoise tools…equipment cost is not the barrier to incredible quality.
I’ve been waiting for a comparison like this. First class!
Glad you liked it! Cheers Matt
I agree with what you see, Matt, since the images speak for themselves. The quality of the f/4 Z-mount lenses has impressed me since I got into the Z system, and I'm surprised that so many people dismissed them as "kit lenses" and sold them. I prefer the "trinity" lenses too, but it's also great to be able to carry the f/4 versions as a lighter-weight backpack kit. Thanks for taking the time to do these comparisons! :)
The f/4's are impressive :)
I have the Z7 with the 24-70mm f4 for landscapes and its such a beautiful lens. Light, nice contrast and obviously ridiculously sharp. I'm sure when printing 30×45 with all these lenses they would be indistinguishable. Only when you zoom into a million % on an 8k monitor would a pixel peeping nerd be able to spot any difference.
@@mrsusan893 After seeing some of Deb Sandidge's work, I bought the 14-30 f/4, which is also really nice. :)
I don’t disagree with your commentary. That sentiment means the used price must be nice. And remember there are demands where f/4 is just not as good as f/2.8. Shooting indoor sports is one. I plan to keep the f/4 “kit” for daytime activities. The heavy, expensive f/2.8 can be reserved for indoor events.
I have the 24-120mm S Line. I am extremely happy with it. If I need speed, I will use any of my fabulous S Line primes, or my F mount f2.8 zooms. I am often shootng on a tripod, so I am fine with f4 lenses most of the time. I am very tempted to trade in both my 24-70mm S Line and 24-200mm Z .
Matt this is a cracking video, possibly your best yet. It's clear how much effort went into it. Also clear that despite your reputation as a Nikon man there's no bias to be seen.
If I could just point out one inaccuracy I believe you made, at 22:48 when you point out that the 28-75 appears to be the softest, I think in that case it's actually due to the decreased depth of field from the 28mm compared to the 24mm. While it does appear to be the softest of the bunch, I don't think that's the culprit in that instance.
It'd be more fair to compare both at 28mm and f4.
Have been really looking forward to this!
Fantastic review Matt. A LOT of lenses with relatively extensive testing in a short time. Now I'm even more happy with my 24-70 f/4 - although that 24-120 is really tempting. (and I'd go for it if I didn't already have the 24-200). Your review makes me loose interest in the 28-75, but it's great to see all these compared. Really appreciate you doing this - TY.
The 24-70 f2.8 is the winner. Also, I would add the 28-75 f2.8 has very different characteristics from the other 3 Nikon lenses, like the bokeh and focusing, that it does seem to work more like a Tamron.
Matt, one of your finest videos yet. Very well done and immensely valuable comparison. Thank you for doing this, it answered so many of my questions.
Cheers it was a big video, but I really enjoyed making it :) Glad it answers so many questions. Matt
Brilliant comparisons which are very helpful. Thanks.
Awesome and much thanks for this comparison vid. You're definitely on it and so far the only one that I follow who has done such a comparison. Best regards, Matt. 😀
I’m on a wait list for the 24-120. This confirms it will be worth the wait. Thanks for such a thorough test.
Hi Matt, As you did, I also noticed that there is more image that can be captured if you use the unconstrained crop tool. I found the reason for this……..in Capture One you can click on the lens tool that opens the camera lens corrections tab. When you import the images from the 24-70 F4 Capture One defaults the distortion slider to 100. It is the distortion correction applied automaticallynupon import that sacrifices some field of view. I set the distortion control slider to zero as default so that I see the entire image captured and I can then decide if I want to sacrifice some of the image to correct the distortion or if having the entire field of view for a landscape is more important. It isn’t a lens field of view issue, once you set the distortion to zero you should see the same field of view for all 24 mm lenses.
hmhm, 28-75 f/2.8 or 24-70 f/4 …
I bought the 28-75 . I don't use it for landscapes. I use it for editorial, somtimes portraits and documentation.
And for that, it is a good lens. Okay, the 24-70f/2.8 is better. But more than twice the price.
If you need a lens for travel and landscapes: go for the 24-70 f/4! If you got the money and want to carry a heavy lens: go for the 24-70 f/2.8.
If you want a lightweight lens for lowlight, documentation or events and don't want to spend 3000€: crap the 28-75 f/2.8.
I have additional a 24mm f1.8 which I use for landscapes. That is e better combination for me.
I returned my 28-75. The 24mm corners never get anywhere near the 2.8/24-70 even stopped right down. I think there may also be field curvature or something messing with depth of field. And then the overall rendering, it lacks the dimensionality and sparkle of the 2.8/24-70. It may only be an extra 5% but I can see it and I miss not having it. I feel the cost and weight saving of this new (old?) Tamron derived lens is just not worth it. The 2.8/24-70 really sings and I trust it totally to deliver whatever the conditions. It’s a true world class lens. I would take any of the 1.8 primes over the 28-75 if I wanted something cheaper or lighter.
Hi Matt, a month late here but was happy to see how the 24-120 compared and I've had it on order since mid-February, and still waiting with no ETA yet here in Colorado and it's the 20th of March. Hope it won't be a lot longer, winter days here will last until April/May and really love getting winter wildlife and landscapes. Cheers and thank you for the effort you put in testing these lenses!
Excellent video! I pre-ordered the 24-120 F/4 s lens to compliment my newly arrived 100-400s lens. This pair will be my standard travel kit, both using the 77mm filter, unless I need to travel light. The 24-120 is the most versatile lens due to its reach.
Great call Stan. Sounds like a few people are taking that path. 😀 tell me more about the 100-400?
@@MattIrwinPhotography I just received it and only tested it briefly in the house. I will give it a test drive and give you a report later. One thing that I know already is that it is sharp!
I can’t wait to hear. Thanks Stan. 🚀👍
Thank you Matt, Well Done, Excellent comparison
Glad you liked it!
Excellent analysis. I've been trying to decide which of those lenses I should buy. This video definitely helped me decide.
I'd speculate that Capture One does the crop of each lens when correcting for distortion. The two f4 lenses do seem to be more prone to barrel/pincushion at their respective focal lengths, so the amount of crop required to correct for that does seem to necessitate a wider field of view. Just my thoughts. That 24-120 f/4 S is on my shortlist for a travel zoom this year, fantastic image quality all around. Thanks again for the deep dive comparison, cheers Matt.
Excellent comparison Matt, thanks! Really thorough and informative. I'm completely loving the 24-120, it's easily now my favorite zoom lens 😎👏🏻
I picked up a copy of the 24-70 2.8 S just before the 28-75 was announced, and was hoping I hadn’t made a mistake buying the more expensive optic. The new lens doesn’t look bad, and I was fairly happy with that range back with the AF-D 28-70, but honestly the rendering of the S lens is so amazing. I’m happy I sprang for the best image quality, and if I want a lightweight alternative I still have the f4 version.
I’m really surprised at how well the 24-120mm performed. But my mother always told me I must have more money than brains and all these years later that’s still true, so I will almost always buy the most expensive lens.
Yep I am a bit like that too Joe :)
Great review, thank you for me, saving money by getting a wider angle ...
Thanks for comparing the lenses. I didn't think that 24-120/4 S would show good results. 24-70 F/2.8 with ftz adapter is a good bundle
The more I see of the 24-120mm the more I regret not preordering it. 24-120mm and the 100-400mm with a teleconverter is a huge focal range and small kit for travel. Great video as always. The old F version of the 24-70mm didn't win in any of your side by sides but still an all-time favorite that I miss. Had some special character.
I've been almost exclusively shooting wildlife since COVID screwed up life, but threw the Z 24-70 2.8 on the Z9 for no other reason than to have a shorter lens on it while I was tinkering with menus, etc while sitting on the couch. The image quality produced by that pair of gear is crazy good, indeed, and that was just reviewing throw away shots. Has abnormally warmed up here (above freezing instead of -30C stuff) so going to do a bit of urban street shooting with the lens, if for no other reason than to 'prove' to myself I need to get rid of my f mount 70-200 and replace it with the Z version as I did with the other 2 holy trinity lenses :) Thanks for the comparison of lenses work. Cheers!
Having shot a lot with a 17-70 on dx and a 28-105 on fx, the 24-120 seems to be in my own personal sweet spot! Great that it performs so well.
Great video, really enjoyed that. Thank you for taking the time to put it together.
Our pleasure!
Personally I found the 24-120 f4 to be the best all-around lens from these four. It's not necessarily the sharpest (as the 24-70 2.8 is probably the sharpest) but it's a good balance of price, image quality and weight. The 24-70 f/4 is also very good, but it comes up a bit short, especailly if you're looking for a travel lens. The 28-75 gives you a stop more than the 24-70 f/4 and the 24-120 but at the cost of some image quality perhaps, and it's range is similar to that of the 24-70 f/4. So I'd honestly rank them from best to worst: 24-70 2.8, 24-120 (mainly because it has the extra 50mm reach), 24-70 f/4 and then lastly the 28-75. But at the end of the day, it depends on your budget and your needs. I would not hesitate to use the first three for pretty much anything I do (I own the 24-70 2.8 and the 24-120 but wouldn't hesitate to the use the 24-70 f/4 as I had that lens -- sold it to get the 2.8 version). I'm sure the 28-75 is OK for those looking for a fast lens on a budget, but I think there are some compromises of course and that comes in the form of image quality usually.
Thanks for this Matt! I just picked up the Z 24-70 F2.8 and I mostly chose that because I was offered a last minute job, needed something quick and it was the only thing available in my area. I was contemplating returning it for one of these other lenses but based on this test I'll hang onto it rather than eat the restocking fee and purchasing another lens. Thanks again!
Thank you as always for this comparison! I'm receiving my Z24-120 f4 any day now and it was a toss up between that and the 24-70 f2.8 as I have the Z 70-200mm f2.8 which I love. All things said, I'm now very happy I ordered the 24-120mm and will enjoy spending less. Will be a great partner with the 70-200!
Kept my 24->120 f4 that I used with My Nikon D810 for so long... new 24->120 S on backorder constantly
Really would like to see the 24-120 F4 vs. the 24-200. As I would think many would be flip flopping between the two as general travel lens decision.
I have the 24-70 F4 S and the 24-200 along with a few primes. 24-70 is sharper than the 24-200 and a fantastic studio portrait lens. 24-120 seems to have a slight edge in sharpness over the 20-70 F4 in some reviews but it is miniscule. The benefit is the extended 120 length if you need this day to day. 20-70 is also slightly more versatile in my opinion over the 20-120 due to weight however weight is down to the users preference. For me the 24-200 is excellent for what it is. It is superior when comparing older lenses. In addition to focal length it has VR and it's brilliant. I use it on both my Z6 and Z50. Pretty sure it would be excellent on the Z7 as well in crop. The little Z50 and the 24-200 are great for breaks away giving you a 35 to 300 range if that suits your style of photography. If you need a super sharp lens for travel and would happily compromise the 200 focal length then the 24-120 could be for you. If I bought the 20-120 I don't think it would replace the 24-200? My travel combo is 24-200 and 50 F1.8.
Really very interesting results. Thank you for making this video. It has really helped me understand myself. :-)
WRT the angle of view in the shot, it does change with focus distance. These ;lenses are rated at 24mm (eg) at infinity. Any focus breathing that occurs may reduce the angle of view closer to MFD. Great review of the 5 lenses - very useful. Maybe your best comparo yet.
Thanks Geoff :) I am wanting to go again with the 14-24 and 24 1.8 prime, perhaps if you are still willing I could add the 14-30 f4? Cheers Matt :)
The 2.8S presenting as if it has a narrower angle than the f/4 lenses, may be caused by in-camera optical corrections that in turn may lead to a crop being applied. I add that Nikon is always very precise with their data, so if they label as 24 it should be 24. Then the finicky question is if their was focus breathing, as the lenses did not seem to be at infinity. The Z/S glass has minimal focus breathing but how much differs between lens models. For a lens with a fixed element arrangement, specifications as well as optimizations in the design are made for the lens set at infinity. From that position, focusing closer by makes the focal length linger, the angle of view narrower and it raises the f-number. As per Laws of Physics.
A prime that has no focus breathing is actually a zoom-lens that maintains, at different distance settings, angle of view (and consequently its f-number will not change).
Matt later in the video shows turning lens correction off in Nikon NX Studio
All of these lenses are optically great. The key consideration should be on the focal range and the max aperture required to suit your photography. Simple, not the absolute sharpness.
Thanks for doing this Matt, I was really curious how the 24-120 and the 28-75 compared due to the 2.8/4 and non-S vs S lens. I’m still leaning toward the 24-120, it just seems so versatile.
Yep I lean that way too, as using 1 stop higher ISO is not much of a penalty ... and then only negative might be slight less bokeh ...
@@MattIrwinPhotography - I'd think twice about buying the f2.8 if I was starting over myself. It's also a lot cheaper so the saving could go towards another lens.
The cropping in C1 happens when you have chosen an export recipe, goto export and choose or create an export recipe with jpg full resolution. Second option to verify is the Lens Correction, I usually set it to Manufacturer Profile and then the Distortion slider all to the left, copy paste that option to all pictures selected.
Great video. Is the reason for the different width of view at 24mm down to Capture One, in the lens correction tab and having the hide distorted area option selected. The 24-120mm being a new lens Capture One may not have correction data so nothing in hidden. I could be completely wrong
The 24-120 is a unicorn 😄 Will definitely pick one up when I get a Z camera.
Yep I agree it is a very solid allrounder, not enough people talking about it :)
I ordered the 24-120 about a month ago. Looking forward to its arrival but I’m not holding my breath. Guessing that I could be waiting a long time.
See if you can tell a difference if you turn off “ hide distorted areas”. I notice that when C1 uses its own lens profile versus the manufacturer profile it displays the corrected image when that is turned on. My guess is that Nikon makes distortion corrections in camera for the Manufacturer profile and therefore that data is not recorded in the NEF file for Capture One to display.
Hello Matt, So good to see these lenses been used. I know it may be just youtube but they all look very good. I know I hear the 24mm-70mm F2.8 and nice to see it doing well. I have the F 24mm-70mm f2.8 I did use it for a while with the FTz but yes it work as well as ever but it dose make the camera front heavy. just a bit on my Z7ii. So I am happy with the 24mm-70mm f2.8 Z mount. Keep well, keep safe and or videos please.
It was great night out and much thanks to Joe for all of his work and support in helping me shoot this episode 😀
Great video! Thank you for sharing your valuable opinion on these lenses. I like the build quality, IQ and range of 24-120f4 lens but it was launched too late. I had bought 24-200f4-6.3 for traveling. Can’t decide whether I should buy 24-120f4 for better IQ and build quality.
Thank you Matt, good job! Perhaps shooting at 28mm would make the images easier to compare. I also slightly miss the Nikkor Z 24-200 f4-6.3, which is also a good lens.
Red Bull I shoot the 24-200 as well, it was the sixth lens, but I made an error with it, and only worked it out halfway through the edit, so I decided to remove it rather than confuse things ... I will do something similar again, comparing all my lenses that are 24mm and I will get the 24-200 right next time. And I will be able to include the 14-24 and ill get a copy of the 24mm prime ... I think it will end up being 7 lenses ... might melt my brain :)
I have that same scoot… so glad I went with the Max and not the smaller models. I also shoot Nikon Z (and F). Seesh you have great taste in things. LOLOL cheers!
I do a lot of landscape and critter photography. The lens I want to look at is the 18mm to 140mm - not available here but available in the USA.
Epic job Matt!👏🏾 I already had a predetermined biased opinion as I have already invested in the Z 24-70 F2.8 S, even though It is still boxed waiting for my Z9 to arrive!😂
LOVE IT !!!!
Distortion control also not done in NLog -- important to note - Great video thank you Matt !
Can’t find the 24-120 f4 yet in the US. Holding out to pair it with a Nikon Z6 or Z6ii.
Thank you for this great video. I'm looking for a replacement for my Tamron 28-70 f2.8 G2 with FTZ as it's heavy and unwieldy on longer trips.
My favorite has always been the 24-120. And your video has now taken away my remaining doubts.
Thank you and greetings from Germany.
I just love to see you using focus assist light Matt! 😉😂🤣 nice vid btw
A very interesting video, thanks. I already have the 24-70f2.8 and the 70-200f2.8, however, as I will be doing some travelling later this year - all being well, I am tempted to get the 24-120f4 and the 100-400f4-5.6 to give a good spread without too much weight to lug around.
And wouldn't it be a better solution to buy: TELECONVERTER WITH TC-2.0x., to which you can connect the lens you already have 70-200 2.8, obtaining: 140-400 and at the same time with a better constant light 2.8 ?
@@pawelkarczewski2922 You may note my post was over a year ago. I did get the Z 2xTC and used it with the Z 70-200 f/2.8, but when the TC is attached it is no longer a 2.8 lens. I think, if memory serves, it took it to an f/4.5. Today I have the Z 1.4xTC and the Z 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 but didn't keep the 2xTC
So assuming 2xTC we lose light from 2.8 to 4.5?
How about the 100-400 4.5-5.6 lens? what is the light assuming 2xTC?
And one more question: does it make sense to buy 1.4TC if you have 2xTC?@@SwanSycorax
@@pawelkarczewski2922 You didn't read my previous answer. I didn't keep the 2xTC. For me, it took too much light out and also softened the image. The 1.4xTC takes less light, has virtually no impact on the sharpness of the image and takes the 100-400 (Which, as i said, I DID buy) out to 560mm making it an even more useful lens.
I misunderstood your earlier answer. This means that bigger is not always better. In this case, 2xTC, if it takes too much light and the photo loses focus, it falls out for me. Now I understand why you use 1.4xTC, it zooms less but the image is sharp and gives more light. Thank you for the explanations because I would probably buy 2xTC first ...@@SwanSycorax
I’m wondering how the newer plastic S lenses will work after 5 or 10 years of heavy use vs the old F metal one made in Japan. 😊
Thanks for the nice comparison . 24-120 might be the one
Great stuff Matt. Thank you
Matt... i love your videos, but this one... is all we DSLR shooters need. Prooved 2070 f4 is worth of money.
One suggestionm plz upscale volume a bit...
For me, I’m thinking I want the 24-70/4S only because I can get it used for $400 and I already own the 24-200 and 70-200/2.8S
Hey Matt, love your enthusiasm and this video was practically made for me as I am traveling and want a good 24-70 or something similar. I want to like the 28-75 more, sad it doesn't quite keep up. Do you think on a OG Z6 I would notice much? I am a bit of peeper
Thanks for putting this together...but I'd love to see the 24-200 in this comparison.
Another excellent presentation 👏
I just traded in my 24-70 f4 for the 24-120 (still waiting for it). Thanks for reassuring me I did the right thing. I also own the 24-70 F2.8 S and the 24-200 Z, but I think that the 24-120 will stick on my Z6 II most of the time when traveling. Still not sure what to do with the 24-200... Let's see if the 120mm range will be enough.
Thinking of selling mine since getting the 24-120. The IQ is outstanding! Not sure how much I'll miss the extra 80mm. Fortunately I bought the 24-200 used.
Have a plan to put 24-120 into my bag.
It is a lovely lens, very useful :)
@@MattIrwinPhotography Yes,sir.
Nice video. I bought the 28-75 because it fit my budget for 90% of what I do with that 2.8 which is handy in the low-light. Curious now how sharp the 28-75 @ F4 is going to look if all aps were the same :) Low the pixel peeping though, I think anyone would be happy with any of these lenses.
how is the sharpness with the lens in your experience
@@lifeisabruhmoment6167 no complaints. I think all the new F2.8’s are fantastic if you don’t have an S lens budget.
I would have liked shooting with 28-75 to be done at F4. The corners would have been sharper? (Sorry for the quality of my English)
Great video Matt thanks , I have the 24-70mm f4 s and think I might have to upgrade to the 24-120mm thanks mate for your honest opinion and time 😊👍
Great video! I'd love to see a sunstar comparison too.
Noted! :)
Nice to see, that the Z9 has the option to show nothing but the live-view on the back screen without any camera infos. Please Nikon, give us that option on the original Z6 also - please. Please please please.
The very best article on this subject! I went with the 24-120 but was keeping my f mount 2.8 24-70. Now I’m questioning sin I really don’t need an extra stop. Next question is will the Z 14-30 really replace my f mount 2.8 14-24? Any plans to cover that?
I shoot the 24-200 as well, it was the sixth lens, but I made an error with it, and only worked it out halfway through the edit, so I decided to remove it rather than confuse things ... I will do something similar again, comparing all my lenses that are 24mm and I will get the 24-200 right next time. And I will be able to include the 14-24 and ill get a copy of the 24mm prime ... I think it will end up being 7 lenses ... might melt my brain :)
Looks like at 0:46 seconds those lenses where about to tip over- my heart started racing!
Fantastic video. Thank hoy.
Glad you enjoyed it Debra, cheers Matt
I like your videos Matt - im new fan 😊
Congrats🤗
Great video as always Matt! I saw today that Nikon is revising Q4 financial guidance up, looks like they are having a good quarter. Are you going to do a video or segment on your “in the news” video about that upward guidance revision? I always like to hear your thoughts!
I love my Z 24-120mm 4.0
which body are you on Frank?
@@MattIrwinPhotography Z9 😁 I got this camera 3 weeks ago. The lens last week. I'm still in the testing phase. 👍👍
Thanks for the real world share Matt and what a bugger of a job you have! The comparison was very relevant for me as I'm still shooting F Mount and was pleased to see the obvious quality of the S-Line 24-70 2.8, which will be my go to lens choice in this focal range when I finally switch to mirrorless. I do lots of night sky photography with my trusty F mount 24-70 2.8 and that extra stop over the F4's coupled with sharpness, rendering from the S-Line etc, well, there's nothing more to say really! Thanks again Matt, love your vids.
Thanks Stuart :)
it could complete the checkout adding the Z 24-200 !! it was missing
Yep it was there I shoot the 24-200 as well, it was the sixth lens, but I made an error with it, and only worked it out halfway through the edit, so I decided to remove it rather than confuse things ... I will do something similar again, comparing all my lenses that are 24mm and I will get the 24-200 right next time. And I will be able to include the 14-24 and ill get a copy of the 24mm prime ... I think it will end up being 7 lenses ...
Great review Matt. Looks like the 28-75 f2.8 is more tamron than nikon
@Matt sometimes when you look at the patents before the lenses release you see that the manufacturers bend the rules a little. Focal length according to patent= 24.8-67.8 for the f/2.8 so your actually losing quite a bit of the total reach. I guess the F4's have indeed a wider design, haven't looked up their patent though, but your shots at the wide end prove it. Wouldn't surprise me if it was the same for the long end, making it even more compelling. I did see this earlier at Canon patents, but they where way easier to read. The Nikon f2.8 one is quite the book.
Thank You for your rewievs !Which do You recomend for lowlight event/concert photography? 15-30 f4 s or 17-28 f2.8?
Thank you Matt!
i noticed that for 24-120/4 S around those flag poles the ambient got rendered blue-ish? while other 4 were rendering green-ish? why is that? i got a Z7ii 24-120/4 S and it's working great and i haven't noticed that kind of color shift yet.
With the recent Tamron partnership announcement, is there any chance of a 35-150mm f/2-2.8 lens coming out for Nikon Z-mount?