Hey yes its finally here sorry for the delay in getting this video out but iv been using the 24-120 a lot so hopefully that is visible in the range of sample images I have I hope you find this first look video useful Let me know if you have any questions below ! thank you for watching !
@riccitalks Could you do a short video about the AF performance if the lens? I shoot events outdoors such as mountain bike and running events. I have the z24-120 on preorder.
it's really impressive that this lens even outperforms the 24-70 f4 a little bit across the range. Best standard zoom for landscape to pair with 14-30 and 100-400.
The Z-mount system has become amazing! Unfortunately I went for the E-mount system in 2018, but hope Nikon will hear about this and make me a Nikon ambassador and give me a Z9 for free :-)
We don't actually know that yet though. I don't think Ricci showed any corner performance comparisons. Given the longer zoom range, it's quite possible the 24-120 has worse corners than the 24-70/4. Of course it's also possible they're equal or better too. Either way, we'll soon find out.
just to be clear I didn’t leave them out for any other reason than time I will absolutely look at corners when I have a full production unit. The test shot I set up had nothing in the corners so I would of had nothing to show without making a new test set up. Also in general I always try and give a small in sight in a first look video with much more in-depth comparisons with the full test videos :) I actually thought that testing against the 24-200 was too much for a first look but added it in because I knew a lot of people would want to see it as soon as
@@RicciTalks thanks for the follow-up. I’ll edit my comment to remove any unfair insinuation about the 24-120’s corners. Looking forward to a full review of a production unit. And to be clear about my own biases, I actually have one on order instead of the 24-70/4. Not trying to be snarky about this lens.
Really looking forward to receiving this lens, I pre-ordered it immediately. I don't quite understand those that say "I can just get the 24-70 2.8 instead". The 2.8 is amazing but comparatively speaking, it's almost double the cost and doesn't offer same versatility of reaching 120mm. Thanks for another great vid Ricci!
Many thanks for this video, Ricci - I've been anxiously awaiting your valuable input since your earlier, quick-look video. No real surprises here, in terms of where you rank this lens among the z24-70 f/2.8, the z24-70 f/4, and the z24-200. Of course I expected it to be somewhat less sharp than the 2.8, and I was anticipating that it would be at least as sharp as the 24-70, and more sharp than the 24-200. That seems to be what you've concluded. When considering that the 2.8 is twice the price and 175g heavier than this new lens, the question between those two is whether the speed of the 2.8 is worth the significantly higher cost and noticeably more weight. It isn't for me. While I've been very pleased with the 24-70 f/4, over the 3 years I've had it I was a bit frustrated with its limited reach -and so the extra 50mm of reach (without any noticeable loss in quality) is what prompted me to order this new one on the day it was announced. Keep up the great work - it is most appreciated!
Thanks. I'm planning to buy a Z6II, (or maybe a Z6III, or Z8) next year when I can travel. Hopefully I can get this as a kit lens. Seems perfect for me as an amateur. I'll pick up a longer zoom as well, when they make something like a 70-300 variable aperture, which is cheaper and lighter than the 100-400.
I ended up getting the 24-200 and I have been very with it. It works well as my all around lens. And because of the size and weight I will typically take it on my trekking adventures when I am headed to a new place. Thank you for the review!
Yep, 24-120 is going in my kit bag, just having that extra reach makes the lens so much more versatile, combine it with a wide angle zoom and that covers 99% of my photography needs. Damn good video, thanks.
Excellent work, Ricci, thank you very much! This Z version of the Nikon's 24-120 "legendary" range is going to be the 3rd version that I'm going to have. I was really happy with my older versions, so I'm quite sure this is going to be a "must" lens for type of pictures I use to take.
Got a order in for the 24-120 and 100-400. With my old 16-35 f4, I don't need more, will be selling my 70-200 f mount. I will have 16-400 in 3 lenses at ~ F4 in very sharp top of the line lenses. Ohh we all need a 50mm f1.8!
Ricci, as always, your insight is keen on everything Z. Great review and comparison of the lenses. Tough choice for some, no brainer for others. To pull the trigger is just a matter of when. Thanks again for your no drama video bringing us news we can use. Keep up the great work you do. We all appreciate it!👍
Great review! I pre-ordered my Z 24-120 day one. I also own the Z 24-200. I see folks in comments saying they may trade in their 24-200s for this. I’m keeping mine - it’s my only long telephoto.
Hello. Do you end up needing to go beyond the 120 range more and end up needing to use your 24-200? Just wondering if the 120 range is sufficient. Thanks
@@popiemac4579 Since I’ve started doing more street photography I’ve haven’t needed the reach. For travel I do sometimes miss that added versatility, but I’ve adapted by moving around and being more purposeful with my shots. I am really looking forward to Nikon releasing a more affordable long telephoto that I can travel with. 👍🏾
I have the 24-70 f/4 and 24-200, so it's a tough choice. I think for me the slight improvement in optical quality isn't enough to prompt me to buy it. The only thing that slightly tempts me is the constant aperture at the telephoto end which means I can have a lower ISO when shooting handheld to get sharp photos as the slowest shutter speed I can handhold at (depending on subject movement of course, but let's assume static subjects).
Had the 24120 f/4 on a D800 for many years....absolutely without question was the very best lens I've ever owned! I rented all of the more expensive 2.8 as well as primes during the same period and KEPT coming back to the 24-120 as the king. ALL of my best photos were taken with that lens! I can't wait to get this Z version and enjoy the same range/better performance on these excellent Z cameras soon. Hurry up Nikon and ship this!
Thank for the review! I would like to have longer than 70mm, but I love the 24-70 f/2.8, and I think I'll stick with that as day-to-day lens. Weight is not an issue for me and I already have that lens, so this is not an easy choice - 70 @ 2.8 and 120 @ 4 likely look the same in terms of background separation, but still, 2.8 and sharper. I probably would choose a 24-105 @ 2.8 :)
Hi Ricci - thanks for this video - haven't seen much of anything about the performance of this lens. I have the 24-70 f/2.8 and it's fantastic, but I decided to order the 24-120 along with the 100-400. With those two and the TC's, I'll have a fairly compact travel kit that provides considerable range. Really looking forward to more Z9 videos, as I suspect it will be awhile before mine arrives! Happy Holidays!
I have the F mount 24 120 F4. Very versatile lens. It has some distortion, it vignettes, but easily fixed in lightroom. It's pretty sharp at F5.6 - F8 and overall picture quality is not bad at all. Never use it anymore since I got a 24 70 F2.8 VR.
How does focus breathing compare to 24-70F4 in other focal lengths? Is the 35cm nearest focusing distance on wide or on the long end? Ideally would be both. From your examples it’s already a lot better optically then the F counterpart, but would be good to see them side by side (lenses and examples) as to show how much the Z is better (I own the F version). Also my opinion is that 24-120 coupled with 50 1.8 makes quite a versatile and quality two lens kit (on which 14-30 can be added at a later time).
It was a somewhat easy choice for me. I just looked up the number of keepers I shot at f/2.8 with my F-mount 24-70mm in Lightroom and it was shockingly few. I've ordered mine however it is reassuring to see the performance at f/4 compared to the 24-70mm f/2.8 Z mount at f/4 in your tests. Thanks for doing this comparison.
@@skyrunr I shoot fashion and beauty where DoF is critical to get tack sharp results. Here’s a couple of examples why I rarely use f/2.8. If I am photographing a subject full-length at 70mm at a distance of 5 meters and focused on the face, I have less than 40 cm of sharpness in front - if the subject extends a leg forward or if I decide to shoot from a low angle, the legs will be out of focus. If I’m doing a close-up headshot for beauty at 120mm at distance of 1 meter, I have 5 cm in front of the point of focus - if the subject tilts their head I get eyes sharp but lips get soft. Only time I use f/2.8 is event photography in dark venues but I can always trade off with good high-ISO performance.
My daily driver lens on full frame cameras has been a 24-105 or 24-120 f4 for the last 10 years. I still use my 24-120 f4G VR with the FTZ on my Z5. This fills what seemed like a fairly blatant gap in the line since the Z-system was introduced. There was an F-mount. Sony, Canon, and Fujifilm all offer something nearly equivalent and have for some time. I am not pre-ordering this lens, but will eventually buy one, likely on the used market. Nikon is a great deal like one of the football teams I follow. Capable of brilliant moves, but manages to screw up just enough plays to drag defeat out of the jaws of victory.
Thank you. I had such a hard time telling the sharpness and contrast between f4 and f2.8 lenses. The only reason to get the 2.8 is the extra stop of light. I sold my 24-70 f2.8z for that reason.
This was the lens I have been waiting for as I find 24-70 too limiting on the long end . I used the Sigma Art 24-105 F4 on my D850. I bought the 24-200 in the interim and have been pleased with it. Now the question is whether its worth the cost of upgrading to this lens. I'm leaning yes at the moment.
@@walkingmeditation61 The 24-120F4S has beautiful sun stars, more corner sharpness, more pleasing bokeh, and other S qualities. The 24-200VR has more reach and VR. The 24-120F4S should have had VR! All Z lenses (or at least S lenses) should have VR, and it would be a great marketing tool as well. I think the average person would benefit more from VR than S quality. VR on a monopod is pretty awesome, and IMO a nicer compromise than no VR and lugging around ANY tripod.
@@walkingmeditation61 I was just pointing out that the sun-stars may be worth it to some users. It can match primes in this range and F4 and up which is kind of a big deal. I use VR on a monopod, but in sports mode. On a boat, train, bridge, shivering in the cold, or in the wind it still helps. I'm sold on all of the 24-xxx lenses. So much so that I can't justify owning a prime in that range, but I did get the 85-S.
I was hoping to learn if the 24-70 f4 has VR, but there was so much other information covered, you've helped me to make up my mind. It just happens that I can look up whether VR is available from Nikon's site.
Thanks for the video. I have pre-ordered the lens. I am likely to trade in my 24-70 f4 and 24-200 variable. With the 14-30mm f4 and the 24-120mm in my bag, I will be hoping Nikon rounds out the f4 trinity. For now, I may just throw a very light 200mm AIS lens in my bag, for when I need that extra reach, but want to go light…or maybe the F mount 70-200 f4 or F mount 70-200 f2.8 if weight is not an issue. I am glad to see the 24-120 is not an optical compromise vs the 24-70mm. I will be far more comfortable trading it in, knowing that.
Thank you for a very useful and helpful video. Two of the lenses I have our the 34-70 f4 and the 24-200. Thinking of selling the 24-70 and getting this. Decisions, decisions....
Great video ! First time I saw some real world photos (not just video) of this lens, for landscapes, portraits etc. Very impressive. I have 24-70 2.8 and also the 24-200, but might sell the non S lens to get this one. If I want more reach I can still go on DX mode on my Z7II and still have the quality and the f/4 advantage. Thanks again.
Super interested in this lens. Currently own the 35 and 85 primes (1.8S) and 14-30f4S. Traveling this autmn for my wedding and this lens just seems perfect
I have been waiting for this. Thank you very much. I have the 24-120 f4 F mount lens and it was the attached to my D750. It is a great lens. I have been using the 24-70 F4 S on my Z6, but I miss the extra reach. I have pre-ordered mine. I have to agree with you about the Z lenses. I have the 24 - 70, which is great lens. I also have the 24 - 200, and it has been a very pleasant surprise. Thank you again for your reviews.
I do portraits and used to use a 24-70 2.8 on a DX body. When that got stolen and I bought a Z6 with the kit 24-70, I definitely noticed how limiting the 24-70 was on a full frame body for my own purposes, so I've been eagerly waiting for the 24-105 Z glass for years. I have the 85mm, but while it's amazing if you have room, it's less so when indoors and movement is limited. Was pleasantly surprised when they announced the 24-120 because the extra 15mm on the long end is just icing on the cake. Pre-ordered it a few days after it was announced and look forward to testing it out.
@@KaybeCA I traded my 24-70 f4 in for the 24-120 f4 yesterday. I only got $210 for my trade in. But these 24-70s are a dime a dozen now on the market. Everyone is going to the latest and greatest 24-120. Got it at a tax free event at my local camera store.
If my kit wasn't quite so filled out, I'd grab this. I have the 24-200 and 50mm 1.8 in my every day walk around kit, and the 24-70mm 2.8 S when I'm working. It would be a fantastic kit with the Z6 or Z6 II for sure.
Very helpful - I have the 24-70 f4 but now wish I'd held out for the 24-120 as it would suit my portraiture work ... just that little bit of extra reach.
Amazing! Thanks Ricci - been waiting for this review for a month!! The human eye is designed to see minute differences in human faces. It's really a pet peeve when lens reviews don't put up portrait shots. Thank you for adding a few! Also I was hoping you would talk more about macro ability of this lens. You didn't say much but your photos said alot. The bolt shot and the front view of the crashed boat shot were stunning!
Anyone else notice how much cleaner/brighter the colours look on the 24-120? Sure, video compilation/compression for you tube makes this a lottery from this side of the screen, but from what I can see 24-120 has the best colour reproduction. Check out 4min 25 sec into vid of this great and hugely informative video by one of lifes natural communicators
Since I use this focal length of the lens on the red carpet I would like to see comparison at F4 and F5.6. My current lens I use F5.6. Also would like to know if the lens has focus breathing. Thank you.
I think it is easy forget that 120mm F4 is similar to an 80mm f2.8 lens on DX. Many of us have been shooting DX for several years D200/D300/D500/D7xxx. I think a used 24-70F4S paired with a 20-S and/or 85-S is the way to go. Then the 70-300E for now. Then again I could justify having the 24-70F4S (compact), 24-200VR (range), 24-120 (somewhere between both.) I'm glad you pointed out that the 24-70f2.8S is the same size. Size and storage are my primary reasons for going mirrorless. If only the 24-70f2.8S accepted the 2.x TC. I get why it doesn't and Nikon didn't, but I think they would sell more. The margin has to be pretty good on those TC's! :)
Great video Ricci. The 24-120 is the Lens I’ve been waiting for. I have the 24-70 f4 which is a little jewel, but I’d probably trade it in. I’d mostly use the 24-120 for portraits coupled with z 85 f1.8 and f 70-200 f4. Great job Nikon.
Thank you! I was looking forward to your review as I pre-ordered it on day one and glad to see that was a good decision. It was a no brainer for me as I don't own any 24-70mm versions as too limiting, and at half the price of the 2.8, makes perfect sense to add this as my main lens. (Perfect pair with the pre-ordered 100-400mm which I held out for instead of the 2.8 70-200mm). I will keep the 24-200 for those times I want just one lens when I'm out and have no idea what to expect - surprisingly good for what it is. So I will happily soon own the 'unholy trinity' with the 14-30, 24-120 and 100-400 along with a few key primes. My wife and wallet hope and pray that this is it.....;-)
I haven't got a z lens for my z5 at the minute. More into landscapes, would you say the 24-120 or the 24-200? Never make prints or anything just post online.
Thank you Ricci. I ordered it end of October. I have the Z24-70/2.8S as well and I’ll keep it because it’s great for indoor. In low light condition the AF is better at 2.8 than at 4. The new Z24-120 is going to be my new „every day“ and landscape lens. AND I have the Z24-200! It’s a great travel lens (outdoor at daytime it’s fast enough). My plan was, to sell the Z24-200 but I like it so much for travel, because it’s light and compact. (Maybe later I’m going to change it with the new 100-400/4.5-5.6) So I’m going to have all three at least for some time. It’s hard to decide and give a Z-lens away because they’re all so good 😊
I got it right after Christmas. I’m very happy with the lens. Of course the corners are a little more soft than at both 24-70. But you have to search for it. On normal photos I don’t see it. You have really to search for it (pixel peeping). I decided to keep my 24-200. And I wait now for the new Z200-600 (without S).Or I go with the 100-400. Depends on the price of the future 200-600.( I hope it’s not going to be higher than 2000€)
Hi Ricci, great video. I wonder if you still have the raw files for this comparison. It is hard to verify when you say the 24-120 is slightly sharper than the 24-200. I assume it is the compression algorithm used by TH-cam that does not allow us to see what you see. Just based in your videos, I see no difference between these two.
after switching from the 24-70 f/4 about a year and a half ago, this lens is still a revelation in function, practicality and image quality. sharp A.F. wide open across the whole focal range, very well controlled loca and flares, and reasonably good close focusing capability as an added bonus. I truly think this lens comes close to a "one and done" for the Z mount - it lives on my Z6 II almost all the time now.
Thanks for a good test, lots of useful comparisons, and so many helpful side by side shots. I can definitely see the appeal, although I don’t think I’m going for it myself, only because I am so happy with the 24-70 f4 and for anything beyond 70mm, I’d rather use the 70-200 S (such a stunning lens). Anyway it’s great to know that the image quality compares favorably to the 24-70 f2.8.
Thanks for sharing, think i will stick to the 24-70f4 and 24-200 if nikon ever send my new 24-200 back from recalibrating they only had it 70 days, twice as long as i had it, Ogwen Snowdonia looking good
I’ve been waiting for this video to confirm my plan to trade my 24-70 f4 lens for this one. It looks like more great Z mount glass. Thanks for posting this.
I feel it should be pointed out, just for practical purposes, that the 24-200 is a VR lens. That, combined with the in body stabilization has created a lot of keepers for me.
No doubt that the 24-120 is the lens I was looking for… but meantime I bought the 2.8… selling it to buy this one may not be a so smart move ! ($$)… what about the precision and contrats if you compare 24-70 2.8… crop to match the 120 mm? Thanks! And welcome back 😜
excellent review. my question is in YOUR OPINION and yes I accept it as your informed opinion is there benefit to be gained by changing from the Z 24-200 to this lens. As a single lens solution I love the reach of the 24-200 but at times really would like the larger aperture, your thoughts?
I think if you find urself in lowlight situations more often then the f4 can be an advantage If you shoot mostly in well lit situations then the 24-200 is soo good it’s a really tough decision If I had to choose I would probably go 24-120
@@RicciTalks thanks a bunch. as I can't afford the 70 200 2.8 I may look at saving for this lens as it would be of help in my low light work. thanks again and looking forward to seeing your next video
Thanks for the look at the 24-120. This is definitely what I need. Since you brought up the card speed tests, would like to see how the Delkin Power series of CFExpress cards perform in the Z9. Always enjoy your no nonsense videos. Keep up the great work.
@@RicciTalks thank you very much for the reply. Great appreciate your time and love the look of the 100-400mm but yes, sometimes you need a bit more reach. As you said, there never seems to be the perfect lens. 😂
Thanks for your presentation! I am getting the Nikon Z6ii very soon but cannot decide on my first Z lens? I mainly shoot landscapes and family. Firstly I am torn between a prime or zoom for landscapes like the Z 20mm, 24mm or even 35mm? Or 24-70F4s or 14-30F4S. Please advise if you would.
Just wanted to mention how NICE the sun-stars are on this lens. Also, as per Hudson Henry. ;) I REALLY wish it had VR though, as I also shoot with a Z50. I'll take VR with a monopod over no VR with a tripod all day long.
Merci pour la vidéo. J'ai revendu mon 24 70 F4S et j'ai réussi à avoir ce 24 120. (Je ne sais pas comment est le stock chez vous mais en France il est en rupture de stock partout). Quand je part en balade, c'est l'outil idéal. Je ne l'ai pas essayé en intérieur mais généralement j'utilise plutôt mon 50 1.8 ou mon sigma 24 1.4 qui sont très lumineux. Merci pour toutes vos vidéos. A bientôt
How is the close focus resolving? I have the Z 105 macro, but when taking nature shots curious if the 24-120 would be good enough and be a great all in one hiking lens. I generally don’t get super close with the 105 when shooting in the field. From what I understand the close focus at 120 makes it pretty solid pseudo-macro.
@@RicciTalks And it is much ligther than the very good 24-105 f4 Art Lens from Sigma (900g) that I have used a long time with my DSLR´s. I reserved a place in my bag for the next possibility of travelling around the beloved World.
@@RicciTalks I agree! The Z24-200 is a great lens. It’s way better than I expected. And at real photos you don’t look the way as you look at Test/review pictures. If you just see the picture it’s hard to say what lens you used.
Another 24-200 owner here. If I get a crappy photo with it - it's due to the photographer, not the lens. I really like the extra reach the 200 brings too.
Agreed. The 24 to 200 is the perfect landscape and street lens. The 24 to 120 is perfect for fashion where detail is important. The 70 200 is great for sports, events and wildlife, and the 24 to 70 is great for family, hiking and a night out. It's good to have all of them if you can afford it as it fills out the selection with options.
My experience with the 4/24-70 (several copies) is the corners are weak at 24mm even stopped down. I don’t require sharp corners at f/4 but I do by f/11. I am wondering if the 4/24-120, being a newer design, has improved in this regard. If so, I will definitely buy it. Unfortunately you only test at f/4. Any feedback on stopped down corners?
I'm now debating if I should trade in (or sell) my 24-200. Not that I don't use it, but after thinking about the zoom range, I don't shoot much in the extreme telephoto range (so around 200mm). However, I would be giving up in-lens VR, and the 24-120 has me on the fence because it doesn't have VR and I always felt that at longer FLs (like those above 50-70mm) that's where VR starts to show it's strengths over IBIS. But with increased sharpness at 120mm and having an aperture that is a full 1.3 stops faster at the long end, this may neutralize the fact the 24-120 doesn't have VR and the difference may not be noticeable in practice (with regard to shooting at slower shutter speeds in low-light) between the 24-200's VR but slower lens, and the 24-120 f/4 with a faster aperature but no VR. I'd say for those comparing the 24-70 f/2.8 and the 24-120, if you're shooting portraits, you may want the 24-70, but if you're not and you're shooting landscapes, the 24-120 might be a good choice IMO. Not to say that both can't be used for the other thing, but I could see where having a 24-120 for landscape would be beneficial. I'm not sure that it would be as useful for portraiture, although it could be.
Thank you Ricci for an interesting video on the 24-120. I'm sold! However one thing does bother me. I currently use the Z 24-70 F4 with the Lee85 filter system. These filters have a maximum diameter of 72mm. I notice that the 24-120 is 77mm and so to continue with the Lee85 I would need to use stepping down ring to 72mm. Do you know if this cause any vignetting? Thank you
Thanks Ricci another great video. Its a nice lens, and I love the Z Mount Lenses Nikon are knocking out, but for me, I prefer the 24-70 F2.8 as I'd rather have the flexibility with the aperture rather than the focal length - but this would be down to individual preference depending on what you are shooting. Keep knocking out the videos they are extremely helpful
I have been a long time fan of Nikon's 24-120mm lenses, and currently use the FX f4 version. I placed an order for the Z mount lens about a month ago and anticipate it arriving any day soon.
I thought I had everything I really wanted until I had a play with this one (thanks Ricci) I’m seriously considering trading my 24-70 2.8 for this, or trying to save for one, it feels so much better in my hand than the 24-70 f4 did that I had previously also much lighter and more compact than I had expected, a brilliant little lens!
Question I’m waiting for this lens a curiosity will I be able to use the tc x2 with it?? Thanks in advance for an answer love your very informative videos
It's a no brainer for me! Although I already have the 24-70 F4 I need the longer reach for my landscape photography. On many excursions to come, where weight is a criterium, I will take only this new 24-120mm with me.
Thank you Ricci for so many great detailed comparisons and reviews. My present F-mount kit with the D850 and 6 lenses contains the F 24-120 f/4. Although that lens is soft in the corners, it is my most used lens. How is the corner sharpness on this lens? I know that inevitably I'll be buying a Z mount camera when Nikon makes a Z8 with the articulating screen from the Z9. I'll buy into the Z system when the Z8 is sold as a kit with the Z 24-120 f/4.
How good is the autofocus performance in low light conditions compared to the Z 24-70 f2,8? Is f4 enough to shoot a wedding (autofocus performance) with the Z6 II wich seems to have a better autofocus performance in low light conditions than my D750. The focal lentgh 120 mm is so much better than 70 mm (much more versatile).
Hey
yes its finally here sorry for the delay in getting this video out but iv been using the 24-120 a lot so hopefully that is visible in the range of sample images I have
I hope you find this first look video useful
Let me know if you have any questions below !
thank you for watching !
Hi Ricci, thanks so much for this video, just curious what the edge sharpness falloff is like at 24mm vs the 24 - 70mm f4?
@riccitalks
Could you do a short video about the AF performance if the lens? I shoot events outdoors such as mountain bike and running events. I have the z24-120 on preorder.
So glad we have this channel thats sensible and no cheesy or annoying with nonsense…Thank you!
it's really impressive that this lens even outperforms the 24-70 f4 a little bit across the range. Best standard zoom for landscape to pair with 14-30 and 100-400.
The Z-mount system has become amazing! Unfortunately I went for the E-mount system in 2018, but hope Nikon will hear about this and make me a Nikon ambassador and give me a Z9 for free :-)
Yes, that creates a terrific f4 (ish) trinity with a nice long reach and helpful overlap.
We don't actually know that yet though. I don't think Ricci showed any corner performance comparisons. Given the longer zoom range, it's quite possible the 24-120 has worse corners than the 24-70/4. Of course it's also possible they're equal or better too. Either way, we'll soon find out.
just to be clear I didn’t leave them out for any other reason than time
I will absolutely look at corners when I have a full production unit.
The test shot I set up had nothing in the corners so I would of had nothing to show without making a new test set up.
Also in general I always try and give a small in sight in a first look video with much more in-depth comparisons with the full test videos :)
I actually thought that testing against the 24-200 was too much for a first look but added it in because I knew a lot of people would want to see it as soon as
@@RicciTalks thanks for the follow-up. I’ll edit my comment to remove any unfair insinuation about the 24-120’s corners. Looking forward to a full review of a production unit. And to be clear about my own biases, I actually have one on order instead of the 24-70/4. Not trying to be snarky about this lens.
your videos are better than all Nikon PR did all those years! Thank you so much!
Really looking forward to receiving this lens, I pre-ordered it immediately. I don't quite understand those that say "I can just get the 24-70 2.8 instead". The 2.8 is amazing but comparatively speaking, it's almost double the cost and doesn't offer same versatility of reaching 120mm.
Thanks for another great vid Ricci!
Thank you, Ricci, for all the great information, including this lens. I'm anxious to hear more about the 100-400! :)
Many thanks for this video, Ricci - I've been anxiously awaiting your valuable input since your earlier, quick-look video. No real surprises here, in terms of where you rank this lens among the z24-70 f/2.8, the z24-70 f/4, and the z24-200. Of course I expected it to be somewhat less sharp than the 2.8, and I was anticipating that it would be at least as sharp as the 24-70, and more sharp than the 24-200. That seems to be what you've concluded. When considering that the 2.8 is twice the price and 175g heavier than this new lens, the question between those two is whether the speed of the 2.8 is worth the significantly higher cost and noticeably more weight. It isn't for me. While I've been very pleased with the 24-70 f/4, over the 3 years I've had it I was a bit frustrated with its limited reach -and so the extra 50mm of reach (without any noticeable loss in quality) is what prompted me to order this new one on the day it was announced. Keep up the great work - it is most appreciated!
Yep the 24-70 2.8 remains the best lens in the range
The 24-120 however is very good and offers that extra focal length so will appeal to more users
@@RicciTalks How does the autofocus perform compare to the 24-70 f4 and f2.8?
I think on a tripod at f8 they would all be similar but that would require carrying a tripod and a lot of people don’t like doing so
Thanks. I'm planning to buy a Z6II, (or maybe a Z6III, or Z8) next year when I can travel. Hopefully I can get this as a kit lens. Seems perfect for me as an amateur. I'll pick up a longer zoom as well, when they make something like a 70-300 variable aperture, which is cheaper and lighter than the 100-400.
I ended up getting the 24-200 and I have been very with it. It works well as my all around lens. And because of the size and weight I will typically take it on my trekking adventures when I am headed to a new place. Thank you for the review!
Yep, 24-120 is going in my kit bag, just having that extra reach makes the lens so much more versatile, combine it with a wide angle zoom and that covers 99% of my photography needs. Damn good video, thanks.
Excellent work, Ricci, thank you very much!
This Z version of the Nikon's 24-120 "legendary" range is going to be the 3rd version that I'm going to have.
I was really happy with my older versions, so I'm quite sure this is going to be a "must" lens for type of pictures I use to take.
Got a order in for the 24-120 and 100-400. With my old 16-35 f4, I don't need more, will be selling my 70-200 f mount. I will have 16-400 in 3 lenses at ~ F4 in very sharp top of the line lenses. Ohh we all need a 50mm f1.8!
Everyone should have a Z 50 1.8 :D
Ricci, as always, your insight is keen on everything Z. Great review and comparison of the lenses. Tough choice for some, no brainer for others. To pull the trigger is just a matter of when. Thanks again for your no drama video bringing us news we can use. Keep up the great work you do. We all appreciate it!👍
Thanks a lot !
Thanks for the great review. UPS truck is on the way, I will get my 24-120 today
Brilliant lens, nice presentation. Thank you. I'll stick to my Z 24-70/2.8 for now. :)
Great pics Ricci, thanks for sharing, can't wait to get my hands on one. Cheers Matt
Any clue when these are landing in Melbs, Matt?
Thanks a lot Matt
@@geoffmaddock2655 Howdy Geoff, no ... but I think it is supposed to be this year :) Be great to have over the holidays.
Oh yes I forgot to mention, the sample photos are really nice, Ricci.
Looks like another Z winner and will pair nicely with my 14-30. Thanks for your work! Glad I pre-ordered on day 1.
Hi, like to know if you are happy with the perfornance of the 14-30. Thinking about buying it. Looks like a good lens with great wide-angle zoom!
It's been a great lens! Love it for street and cityscapes. And it's a very useful lens indoors.
@@RandyArellano thks!
Great review! I pre-ordered my Z 24-120 day one. I also own the Z 24-200. I see folks in comments saying they may trade in their 24-200s for this. I’m keeping mine - it’s my only long telephoto.
Hello. Do you end up needing to go beyond the 120 range more and end up needing to use your 24-200? Just wondering if the 120 range is sufficient. Thanks
@@popiemac4579 Since I’ve started doing more street photography I’ve haven’t needed the reach. For travel I do sometimes miss that added versatility, but I’ve adapted by moving around and being more purposeful with my shots. I am really looking forward to Nikon releasing a more affordable long telephoto that I can travel with. 👍🏾
@@GeoChild thanks for your insight
I am impressed with this lens but I am not surprised though.
And very nice photos too, Ricci. Thanks for sharing.
I have the 24-70 f/4 and 24-200, so it's a tough choice. I think for me the slight improvement in optical quality isn't enough to prompt me to buy it. The only thing that slightly tempts me is the constant aperture at the telephoto end which means I can have a lower ISO when shooting handheld to get sharp photos as the slowest shutter speed I can handhold at (depending on subject movement of course, but let's assume static subjects).
Agree. f/4 at 120mm is nothing to sniff at!
out of the two lenses you have which one would you prefer
@@rokn4935 If I had to keep only one, it would be the 24-200 because it's more useful to me.
Great test. I have the Nikon Z 24-120 and it is a great tool in my bag. The colors and sharpness. And did I say F4. On my Z 7ll . It is a great lens.
Had the 24120 f/4 on a D800 for many years....absolutely without question was the very best lens I've ever owned! I rented all of the more expensive 2.8 as well as primes during the same period and KEPT coming back to the 24-120 as the king. ALL of my best photos were taken with that lens! I can't wait to get this Z version and enjoy the same range/better performance on these excellent Z cameras soon. Hurry up Nikon and ship this!
and has your dream come true with this lens?
Thank for the review! I would like to have longer than 70mm, but I love the 24-70 f/2.8, and I think I'll stick with that as day-to-day lens. Weight is not an issue for me and I already have that lens, so this is not an easy choice - 70 @ 2.8 and 120 @ 4 likely look the same in terms of background separation, but still, 2.8 and sharper. I probably would choose a 24-105 @ 2.8 :)
Hi Ricci - thanks for this video - haven't seen much of anything about the performance of this lens. I have the 24-70 f/2.8 and it's fantastic, but I decided to order the 24-120 along with the 100-400. With those two and the TC's, I'll have a fairly compact travel kit that provides considerable range. Really looking forward to more Z9 videos, as I suspect it will be awhile before mine arrives! Happy Holidays!
I could probably get by with the 14-30F4S, the 85-S, ext. tubes (macro,) and 100-400S. I would probably leave the 85-S on a Z50 (~128mm) as well.
I have the F mount 24 120 F4. Very versatile lens. It has some distortion, it vignettes, but easily fixed in lightroom. It's pretty sharp at F5.6 - F8 and overall picture quality is not bad at all. Never use it anymore since I got a 24 70 F2.8 VR.
Top class video as always. Thank you Ricci.
How does focus breathing compare to 24-70F4 in other focal lengths? Is the 35cm nearest focusing distance on wide or on the long end? Ideally would be both.
From your examples it’s already a lot better optically then the F counterpart, but would be good to see them side by side (lenses and examples) as to show how much the Z is better (I own the F version). Also my opinion is that 24-120 coupled with 50 1.8 makes quite a versatile and quality two lens kit (on which 14-30 can be added at a later time).
It was a somewhat easy choice for me. I just looked up the number of keepers I shot at f/2.8 with my F-mount 24-70mm in Lightroom and it was shockingly few. I've ordered mine however it is reassuring to see the performance at f/4 compared to the 24-70mm f/2.8 Z mount at f/4 in your tests. Thanks for doing this comparison.
Small apertures can be a curse. Which camera body are you using, and what is your primary style of photography in use?
@@skyrunr I shoot fashion and beauty where DoF is critical to get tack sharp results. Here’s a couple of examples why I rarely use f/2.8. If I am photographing a subject full-length at 70mm at a distance of 5 meters and focused on the face, I have less than 40 cm of sharpness in front - if the subject extends a leg forward or if I decide to shoot from a low angle, the legs will be out of focus. If I’m doing a close-up headshot for beauty at 120mm at distance of 1 meter, I have 5 cm in front of the point of focus - if the subject tilts their head I get eyes sharp but lips get soft. Only time I use f/2.8 is event photography in dark venues but I can always trade off with good high-ISO performance.
My daily driver lens on full frame cameras has been a 24-105 or 24-120 f4 for the last 10 years. I still use my 24-120 f4G VR with the FTZ on my Z5. This fills what seemed like a fairly blatant gap in the line since the Z-system was introduced. There was an F-mount. Sony, Canon, and Fujifilm all offer something nearly equivalent and have for some time. I am not pre-ordering this lens, but will eventually buy one, likely on the used market.
Nikon is a great deal like one of the football teams I follow. Capable of brilliant moves, but manages to screw up just enough plays to drag defeat out of the jaws of victory.
Thank you. I had such a hard time telling the sharpness and contrast between f4 and f2.8 lenses. The only reason to get the 2.8 is the extra stop of light. I sold my 24-70 f2.8z for that reason.
This was the lens I have been waiting for as I find 24-70 too limiting on the long end . I used the Sigma Art 24-105 F4 on my D850. I bought the 24-200 in the interim and have been pleased with it. Now the question is whether its worth the cost of upgrading to this lens. I'm leaning yes at the moment.
@@walkingmeditation61 The 24-120F4S has beautiful sun stars, more corner sharpness, more pleasing bokeh, and other S qualities. The 24-200VR has more reach and VR. The 24-120F4S should have had VR! All Z lenses (or at least S lenses) should have VR, and it would be a great marketing tool as well. I think the average person would benefit more from VR than S quality. VR on a monopod is pretty awesome, and IMO a nicer compromise than no VR and lugging around ANY tripod.
@@walkingmeditation61 I was just pointing out that the sun-stars may be worth it to some users. It can match primes in this range and F4 and up which is kind of a big deal.
I use VR on a monopod, but in sports mode. On a boat, train, bridge, shivering in the cold, or in the wind it still helps. I'm sold on all of the 24-xxx lenses. So much so that I can't justify owning a prime in that range, but I did get the 85-S.
Thanks for the review. I have this lens, and the Z9 on preorder. Can't wait.
Thanks for watching!
I was hoping to learn if the 24-70 f4 has VR, but there was so much other information covered, you've helped me to make up my mind. It just happens that I can look up whether VR is available from Nikon's site.
Thanks for the video. I have pre-ordered the lens. I am likely to trade in my 24-70 f4 and 24-200 variable. With the 14-30mm f4 and the 24-120mm in my bag, I will be hoping Nikon rounds out the f4 trinity. For now, I may just throw a very light 200mm AIS lens in my bag, for when I need that extra reach, but want to go light…or maybe the F mount 70-200 f4 or F mount 70-200 f2.8 if weight is not an issue. I am glad to see the 24-120 is not an optical compromise vs the 24-70mm. I will be far more comfortable trading it in, knowing that.
As a beginner in photography and recently bought a z6ii, I am happy with my two lens combo: the 50mm 1.8 and this one. Love both of them!
Do you need a adapter to connect the lens? Also if you had to choose between the two which is better to get first
I'ved just bought this lens for my Z8. It's a brilliant all purpose lens, and is going to get a lot of use.
Thank you for a very useful and helpful video. Two of the lenses I have our the 34-70 f4 and the 24-200. Thinking of selling the 24-70 and getting this. Decisions, decisions....
Great video ! First time I saw some real world photos (not just video) of this lens, for landscapes, portraits etc. Very impressive. I have 24-70 2.8 and also the 24-200, but might sell the non S lens to get this one. If I want more reach I can still go on DX mode on my Z7II and still have the quality and the f/4 advantage. Thanks again.
Thanks for the very useful review and comparison to the other Nikon lenses! Very clear and well made video. Subscribed!
I don’t think you mentioned which part of the image you were comparing. Was it the centre, an edge or a corner?
Thanks for the review! What can you say about 28-75/2.8s?! Should I expect your comparison of 28-75/2.8s with other lenses?!
Super interested in this lens. Currently own the 35 and 85 primes (1.8S) and 14-30f4S. Traveling this autmn for my wedding and this lens just seems perfect
Would love this lens for travel, knocking about! If course I want it on a Zf full frame… mahalo nui loa for your work!
Man I love the tree at 7:52 !! Thank for the video. Y'all really outdid it with S glass.
I have been waiting for this. Thank you very much. I have the 24-120 f4 F mount lens and it was the attached to my D750. It is a great lens. I have been using the 24-70 F4 S on my Z6, but I miss the extra reach. I have pre-ordered mine. I have to agree with you about the Z lenses. I have the 24 - 70, which is great lens. I also have the 24 - 200, and it has been a very pleasant surprise. Thank you again for your reviews.
Thank you for watching them!
Thanks for making such videos Ricci.
Nikon need to seriously think about including 24-120 as a kit lens with every Fx mirrorless
I do portraits and used to use a 24-70 2.8 on a DX body. When that got stolen and I bought a Z6 with the kit 24-70, I definitely noticed how limiting the 24-70 was on a full frame body for my own purposes, so I've been eagerly waiting for the 24-105 Z glass for years. I have the 85mm, but while it's amazing if you have room, it's less so when indoors and movement is limited.
Was pleasantly surprised when they announced the 24-120 because the extra 15mm on the long end is just icing on the cake. Pre-ordered it a few days after it was announced and look forward to testing it out.
and how do you like it?
@@gosman949 So far so good. Got it around a month and a half ago.
@@KaybeCA I traded my 24-70 f4 in for the 24-120 f4 yesterday. I only got $210 for my trade in. But these 24-70s are a dime a dozen now on the market. Everyone is going to the latest and greatest 24-120. Got it at a tax free event at my local camera store.
@@gosman949 Nice! It's an obvious upgrade. That being said, the 24-70 F4 is still a great kit lens.
@@gosman949 I’m not lol
If my kit wasn't quite so filled out, I'd grab this. I have the 24-200 and 50mm 1.8 in my every day walk around kit, and the 24-70mm 2.8 S when I'm working. It would be a fantastic kit with the Z6 or Z6 II for sure.
I have mine on preorder the day it was announced and I'm hoping I can get my hands on it sometime soon. Thanks for the video as always!
Very helpful - I have the 24-70 f4 but now wish I'd held out for the 24-120 as it would suit my portraiture work ... just that little bit of extra reach.
Amazing! Thanks Ricci - been waiting for this review for a month!! The human eye is designed to see minute differences in human faces. It's really a pet peeve when lens reviews don't put up portrait shots. Thank you for adding a few! Also I was hoping you would talk more about macro ability of this lens. You didn't say much but your photos said alot. The bolt shot and the front view of the crashed boat shot were stunning!
@Ricci will you be letting us know where you think the 28-75 f2.8 ranks amongst these lenses, please?
Of course it is a very attractive option. If I buy one, what do I do with my F24-70/ 4 S?
Anyone else notice how much cleaner/brighter the colours look on the 24-120? Sure, video compilation/compression for you tube makes this a lottery from this side of the screen, but from what I can see 24-120 has the best colour reproduction. Check out 4min 25 sec into vid of this great and hugely informative video by one of lifes natural communicators
Since I use this focal length of the lens on the red carpet I would like to see comparison at F4 and F5.6. My current lens I use F5.6. Also would like to know if the lens has focus breathing. Thank you.
I think it is easy forget that 120mm F4 is similar to an 80mm f2.8 lens on DX. Many of us have been shooting DX for several years D200/D300/D500/D7xxx. I think a used 24-70F4S paired with a 20-S and/or 85-S is the way to go. Then the 70-300E for now.
Then again I could justify having the 24-70F4S (compact), 24-200VR (range), 24-120 (somewhere between both.) I'm glad you pointed out that the 24-70f2.8S is the same size. Size and storage are my primary reasons for going mirrorless. If only the 24-70f2.8S accepted the 2.x TC. I get why it doesn't and Nikon didn't, but I think they would sell more. The margin has to be pretty good on those TC's! :)
Great video Ricci. The 24-120 is the Lens I’ve been waiting for. I have the 24-70 f4 which is a little jewel, but I’d probably trade it in. I’d mostly use the 24-120 for portraits coupled with z 85 f1.8 and f 70-200 f4. Great job Nikon.
Hi Ricci, thank you again for this. I am glad I ordered it with the Z9. Did angelbird send you the XT Pro cards for the Z9?
Hey Ricci we appreciate your reviews. I wonder if you can check the new Z 28-75 2.8 please
Thanks for the review! Would love to see some samples of the close-focusing capabilities for product/food shots please.
Definitely want, but what do I do with my 24-70 f/4?
Hi Ricci, Have you tested it as a video lens yet? Nikon swears it is perfect for daylight video flexible use.
Thank you! I was looking forward to your review as I pre-ordered it on day one and glad to see that was a good decision. It was a no brainer for me as I don't own any 24-70mm versions as too limiting, and at half the price of the 2.8, makes perfect sense to add this as my main lens. (Perfect pair with the pre-ordered 100-400mm which I held out for instead of the 2.8 70-200mm). I will keep the 24-200 for those times I want just one lens when I'm out and have no idea what to expect - surprisingly good for what it is. So I will happily soon own the 'unholy trinity' with the 14-30, 24-120 and 100-400 along with a few key primes. My wife and wallet hope and pray that this is it.....;-)
Great stuff as always Ricci, thanks for sharing.👍👏👏👏
I haven't got a z lens for my z5 at the minute. More into landscapes, would you say the 24-120 or the 24-200? Never make prints or anything just post online.
Thank you Ricci. I ordered it end of October. I have the Z24-70/2.8S as well and I’ll keep it because it’s great for indoor. In low light condition the AF is better at 2.8 than at 4. The new Z24-120 is going to be my new „every day“ and landscape lens.
AND I have the Z24-200! It’s a great travel lens (outdoor at daytime it’s fast enough). My plan was, to sell the Z24-200 but I like it so much for travel, because it’s light and compact. (Maybe later I’m going to change it with the new 100-400/4.5-5.6) So I’m going to have all three at least for some time.
It’s hard to decide and give a Z-lens away because they’re all so good 😊
Just have all the lenses ;) haha
@@RicciTalks Of course you have! You work for Nikon. Lucky you!!!
I got it right after Christmas. I’m very happy with the lens. Of course the corners are a little more soft than at both 24-70. But you have to search for it. On normal photos I don’t see it. You have really to search for it (pixel peeping).
I decided to keep my 24-200. And I wait now for the new Z200-600 (without S).Or I go with the 100-400. Depends on the price of the future 200-600.( I hope it’s not going to be higher than 2000€)
Hi Ricci, how well would it work for wildlife photography and video, handheld using Z6II for safari’s using a bean bag from a car?
I think the z9 and 24_120 will be my go to combo with dx mode option record button feature
Hi Ricci, great video. I wonder if you still have the raw files for this comparison. It is hard to verify when you say the 24-120 is slightly sharper than the 24-200. I assume it is the compression algorithm used by TH-cam that does not allow us to see what you see. Just based in your videos, I see no difference between these two.
after switching from the 24-70 f/4 about a year and a half ago, this lens is still a revelation in function, practicality and image quality. sharp A.F. wide open across the whole focal range, very well controlled loca and flares, and reasonably good close focusing capability as an added bonus.
I truly think this lens comes close to a "one and done" for the Z mount - it lives on my Z6 II almost all the time now.
Thanks for a good test, lots of useful comparisons, and so many helpful side by side shots. I can definitely see the appeal, although I don’t think I’m going for it myself, only because I am so happy with the 24-70 f4 and for anything beyond 70mm, I’d rather use the 70-200 S (such a stunning lens). Anyway it’s great to know that the image quality compares favorably to the 24-70 f2.8.
Thanks for sharing, think i will stick to the 24-70f4 and 24-200 if nikon ever send my new 24-200 back from recalibrating they only had it 70 days, twice as long as i had it, Ogwen Snowdonia looking good
I’ve been waiting for this video to confirm my plan to trade my 24-70 f4 lens for this one. It looks like more great Z mount glass. Thanks for posting this.
I feel it should be pointed out, just for practical purposes, that the 24-200 is a VR lens. That, combined with the in body stabilization has created a lot of keepers for me.
yup, thats a point often overlooked by the casual reviewer.
No doubt that the 24-120 is the lens I was looking for… but meantime I bought the 2.8… selling it to buy this one may not be a so smart move ! ($$)… what about the precision and contrats if you compare 24-70 2.8… crop to match the 120 mm? Thanks! And welcome back 😜
excellent review. my question is in YOUR OPINION and yes I accept it as your informed opinion is there benefit to be gained by changing from the Z 24-200 to this lens. As a single lens solution I love the reach of the 24-200 but at times really would like the larger aperture, your thoughts?
I think if you find urself in lowlight situations more often then the f4 can be an advantage
If you shoot mostly in well lit situations then the 24-200 is soo good it’s a really tough decision
If I had to choose I would probably go 24-120
@@RicciTalks thanks a bunch. as I can't afford the 70 200 2.8 I may look at saving for this lens as it would be of help in my low light work. thanks again and looking forward to seeing your next video
Thanks for the look at the 24-120. This is definitely what I need. Since you brought up the card speed tests, would like to see how the Delkin Power series of CFExpress cards perform in the Z9. Always enjoy your no nonsense videos. Keep up the great work.
The power cards have a sustained write speed around 1,000 so they will be similar to the lexar cards I tested
Not as fast as the Delkin black cards
@@RicciTalks thank you very much for the reply. Great appreciate your time and love the look of the 100-400mm but yes, sometimes you need a bit more reach. As you said, there never seems to be the perfect lens. 😂
Thanks for your presentation! I am getting the Nikon Z6ii very soon but cannot decide on my first Z lens? I mainly shoot landscapes and family. Firstly I am torn between a prime or zoom for landscapes like the Z 20mm, 24mm or even 35mm? Or 24-70F4s or 14-30F4S. Please advise if you would.
Just wanted to mention how NICE the sun-stars are on this lens. Also, as per Hudson Henry. ;) I REALLY wish it had VR though, as I also shoot with a Z50. I'll take VR with a monopod over no VR with a tripod all day long.
Merci pour la vidéo. J'ai revendu mon 24 70 F4S et j'ai réussi à avoir ce 24 120. (Je ne sais pas comment est le stock chez vous mais en France il est en rupture de stock partout).
Quand je part en balade, c'est l'outil idéal. Je ne l'ai pas essayé en intérieur mais généralement j'utilise plutôt mon 50 1.8 ou mon sigma 24 1.4 qui sont très lumineux.
Merci pour toutes vos vidéos.
A bientôt
Anyone know when this will start shipping?
How is the close focus resolving? I have the Z 105 macro, but when taking nature shots curious if the 24-120 would be good enough and be a great all in one hiking lens. I generally don’t get super close with the 105 when shooting in the field. From what I understand the close focus at 120 makes it pretty solid pseudo-macro.
Long awaited Video and with the awaited conclusion, thanks a lot for your work.
Thank you for watching!
@@RicciTalks And it is much ligther than the very good 24-105 f4 Art Lens from Sigma (900g) that I have used a long time with my DSLR´s. I reserved a place in my bag for the next possibility of travelling around the beloved World.
I been waiting for this video 😀
Sorry it took so long 🤣
HI Ricci,
How does the 24-120 S compare with the 24-120mm AF-S & FTZ.
Ron
could you please do 1:1 comparison with Z 24-200mm superzoom incl. 2:1 closeups?
I think the difference in these lenses is quite thin. I'm very happy with my 24-200 with the range it gives me. Thanks, Ricci.
I think for a lot of people the 24-200 is more than enough it often gets over looked because of the f6.3
@@RicciTalks I agree! The Z24-200 is a great lens. It’s way better than I expected. And at real photos you don’t look the way as you look at Test/review pictures. If you just see the picture it’s hard to say what lens you used.
Another 24-200 owner here. If I get a crappy photo with it - it's due to the photographer, not the lens. I really like the extra reach the 200 brings too.
Agreed. The 24 to 200 is the perfect landscape and street lens. The 24 to 120 is perfect for fashion where detail is important. The 70 200 is great for sports, events and wildlife, and the 24 to 70 is great for family, hiking and a night out. It's good to have all of them if you can afford it as it fills out the selection with options.
My experience with the 4/24-70 (several copies) is the corners are weak at 24mm even stopped down. I don’t require sharp corners at f/4 but I do by f/11. I am wondering if the 4/24-120, being a newer design, has improved in this regard. If so, I will definitely buy it. Unfortunately you only test at f/4. Any feedback on stopped down corners?
I'm now debating if I should trade in (or sell) my 24-200. Not that I don't use it, but after thinking about the zoom range, I don't shoot much in the extreme telephoto range (so around 200mm). However, I would be giving up in-lens VR, and the 24-120 has me on the fence because it doesn't have VR and I always felt that at longer FLs (like those above 50-70mm) that's where VR starts to show it's strengths over IBIS. But with increased sharpness at 120mm and having an aperture that is a full 1.3 stops faster at the long end, this may neutralize the fact the 24-120 doesn't have VR and the difference may not be noticeable in practice (with regard to shooting at slower shutter speeds in low-light) between the 24-200's VR but slower lens, and the 24-120 f/4 with a faster aperature but no VR.
I'd say for those comparing the 24-70 f/2.8 and the 24-120, if you're shooting portraits, you may want the 24-70, but if you're not and you're shooting landscapes, the 24-120 might be a good choice IMO. Not to say that both can't be used for the other thing, but I could see where having a 24-120 for landscape would be beneficial. I'm not sure that it would be as useful for portraiture, although it could be.
Thank you Ricci for an interesting video on the 24-120. I'm sold! However one thing does bother me. I currently use the Z 24-70 F4 with the Lee85 filter system. These filters have a maximum diameter of 72mm. I notice that the 24-120 is 77mm and so to continue with the Lee85 I would need to use stepping down ring to 72mm. Do you know if this cause any vignetting? Thank you
Thanks Ricci another great video. Its a nice lens, and I love the Z Mount Lenses Nikon are knocking out, but for me, I prefer the 24-70 F2.8 as I'd rather have the flexibility with the aperture rather than the focal length - but this would be down to individual preference depending on what you are shooting. Keep knocking out the videos they are extremely helpful
I have been a long time fan of Nikon's 24-120mm lenses, and currently use the FX f4 version. I placed an order for the Z mount lens about a month ago and anticipate it arriving any day soon.
I thought I had everything I really wanted until I had a play with this one (thanks Ricci) I’m seriously considering trading my 24-70 2.8 for this, or trying to save for one, it feels so much better in my hand than the 24-70 f4 did that I had previously also much lighter and more compact than I had expected, a brilliant little lens!
Question I’m waiting for this lens a curiosity will I be able to use the tc x2 with it?? Thanks in advance for an answer love your very informative videos
It's a no brainer for me! Although I already have the 24-70 F4 I need the longer reach for my landscape photography. On many excursions to come, where weight is a criterium, I will take only this new 24-120mm with me.
Thank you Ricci for so many great detailed comparisons and reviews. My present F-mount kit with the D850 and 6 lenses contains the F 24-120 f/4. Although that lens is soft in the corners, it is my most used lens. How is the corner sharpness on this lens? I know that inevitably I'll be buying a Z mount camera when Nikon makes a Z8 with the articulating screen from the Z9. I'll buy into the Z system when the Z8 is sold as a kit with the Z 24-120 f/4.
Will look at corner sharpness when I get a full production unit soon
I’m also planning to buy 24-70 cuz I think it’s very convenient, can take it everywhere
Have you tried this on a Z50? Would seem to be a great walk around lens on a Z50 36-180 & F4
Thanks for the review. Quick question. Does 24-120mm f4 maintain focus as the focal length change?
How good is the autofocus performance in low light conditions compared to the Z 24-70 f2,8? Is f4 enough to shoot a wedding (autofocus performance) with the Z6 II wich seems to have a better autofocus performance in low light conditions than my D750. The focal lentgh 120 mm is so much better than 70 mm (much more versatile).