I have both lenes. I bought the 24-200 when it came out in 2020 and used it extensively. Next I bought the 24-120 f/4 this year (because of the hype). As per your video, I see a small enhancement in detail, but the f4 helps with night phtography. I was going to sell the 24-200 last month, but at the last moment changed my mind and decided to keep both. I will use the 24-200 as a walk around lens when travelling light, and 24-120 for specific landscape or low ISO shoots. 24-200 was too good to let go, even after I bought the 24-120. That's my personal opinion.
I had this lens for a magazine review but I I liked it so much that I bought it. Now I want to share my personal experience. I photographed a heron that was far away with this lens at 200 mm. After cropping I managed only a 1 MP file. I ran it through LR Enhance and made it into a 2 MP file. Did NR with Topaz De Noise and sharpened it in LR and printed it 10 x 10. So 1 MP as 10x 10 print. That is equivalent to a 60 in print for full 24 MP. And it looks quite nice! The 24-200 is a very underrated lens IMHO. I have no doubt that there are better lenses but it is good enough for many of us for most purposes. Thanks for your review - very objective.
I have both! I got the 24-200 when I first bought my Z5. I wanted a lens with great range for when I go on all day sessions outdoors. I got the 24-120 from Nikon USA as a refurb for $699. For my needs I don't have any issues with sharpness on either lens. Actually every Nikon Z lens I have works great. Now I have two Z5's and the 24-120 is my studio camera/lens combo. Enjoyed hearing your insights on the two lenses....
You should always think twice before selling lenses. I compared the two and they are nearly identical at the same settings. You are basically trading aperture for range, nothing more.
I was choosing between these two and ended up with the 24-120 because I can use it for paid work without compromise. Of course I could use the 24-200 for work too, but the output looks slightly less professional to me and I'm a but picky with such things when it comes to my business. With the added sharpness I also feel comfortable cropping a bit to achieve longer reach.
When I started with the z-system,the 24-200 was the only one available..... later, Nikon came with the 24-120mm,;as soon as possible I changed for this, because I rarely use the range of 200mm.... and quality is just great for the 24-120mm/f4. Thanks for the vid🙂
I would never buy 24-120mm f/4 lens. It's neither long enough in many common situations outdoors, nor fast enough in many common situations indoors. It's neither here nor there, it's handicapped in most cases, I can't think of any situation where it would have been a good choice. I have 24-200 for outdoors and 28-75/2.8 for indoors. I also have adapted Tamron 20-40/2.8, which is great option for many indoors situations.
@@fotowalo that's a silly argument. When you are shooting indoors, in many situations your ISO already very high at f/2.8. I have max ISO set at 51200, which still has a chance to come clean with DXO, which I sometimes hit. Having a stop slower lens will ruin half of the pictures. Not even mentioning bokeh if you are going to shoot portraits.
Love your review. I have both lenses as well and will keep both of them. I am a portrait and event professional. I have found the 24-200mm a stellar performer in outdoor situations. After purchasing the the 24-120mm I found it to be superior. The light gathering capability of this lens is understated. The 24-120mm's t-stop advantage of nearly a third in your examples were evident. The 24-120mm should only be compared to prime lenses or the 24-70 f2.8. Nikon made the 24-200mm and the 24-120mm lenses for different consumers. When I'm shooting in a non professional arena where a mega zoom lens would be appropriate then the 24-200mm is the tool of choice. When I'm shooting professionally and primes are appropriate then the 24-120mm is the tool of choice. If I had to choose only one in both seneros...definitely the 24-120mm.
I have the 24-200 and use it maybe 50% of the time. It was my 28-300 replacement. I also have the 28-75. For now I am covered and happy with the results.
I have them both, and have taken some really nice photos with both of them. That being said, if I'm heading out for a day shoot (on vacation, walking around, etc) my reflexes always go for the 24-120. It's just so darned sharp and dependable and the extra speed has been worth it to me. I remember the first time I took the 24-200 on a woodsy hike and had to shoot at f6.3 I was thinking "I wish I had the F4 of the 24-120".. that kinda set the stage for the future. I've even toyed with selling the 24-200 because now I only grab it if I think I need the extra reach, but it turns out that in the cases that I need extra reach, I need a lot more than 200!
I had the 24-70mm, which is a serious lens for little money, my camera supplier gave me a very good trade in for the 24-120mm. The 24-120mm is one of the BEST Nikon lenses I have owned, I shoot mainly landscapes and occasionally need up to 200mm. So I purchased the AF-S 70-200mm f4 which gets rave reviews and it has not disappointed, it's light and relatively small with better sharpness than the f2.8.
I purchased the 24 to 200 as my primary lens because of its versility. I am very satisfied with its performance. I have recently purchased the 100 to 400 mm lens. Both lenses are used on a Z5.
I'm an beginner architectural and interior photographer. I owns nikkor z 14-30 wide angle lense. Now want to go for zoom lens but 24-120 is bit expensive for me can i go for 24-200 in architecture photography i have no requirement of lower aperture f 6.3 is fine for me but i just worried about low light interior shoot. Please share your experience.
It was helpful. I had the 24-120/4G for my SLR. I was surprised at what an awesome lens it is. I'm not surprised to see that it out-resolves the 24-200 here. When I need telephoto, I often find that 200 mm isn't enough. The result is that I will probably get a telephoto zoom lens anyway for those times when I may need it, and keep the 24-120 for the ever-important walk-around lens. In a pinch, I just crank the resolution up, zoom to 120 and crop in later. The resolving power comes to my rescue when I just need to stretch to get to 200. I thought that might've been a good comparison for this video: On the left, we have a shot from the 24-120 @ f/4, cropped down to a 200 mm field of view. In the other side, you would have the 24-200 @ f/6.3, un-cropped. Which looks better? (both hand-held) This hits several factors at once: Does the extra resolution of the 24-120 make up for its lack of telephoto chops? Does the VR in the 24-200 result in noticeably better telephoto shots when hand-held? Is the extra noise by losing 1.5 stops of ISO help drag the 24-200 back down to the 24-120's level? I'd like to see a 70-300 f/4 VR (non-S) from Nikon. It would probably end up being about the same size as the 70-200/2.8 S, but be more affordable and have an extra 50% reach in the telephoto end. At 85 - 105 mm and f/4, it would make a decent portrait lens. This would be the 2nd lens in a two-lens rig. These f/6.3 lenses are kind of starting a bad pattern. One thing that brought me back to FF was that we can get noticeable subject separation even with slow lenses. (where slow = f/5.6) We start to lose the subject separation that full frame is known for when we accept these ultra-slow zooms. I really like your videos. One suggestion for improvement is to just cut the introduction down a bit and cut to the chase.
I tried a 24-200 as a replacement for my 28-300 when I switched over to the Z Mount. Overall, it performed well, better than the 28-300, as the 28-300 was always soft above 200mm, and also had some serious Purple Fringing at the edge. However I didn't care for the high F Stop, and the need to use High ISO values, so I returned it and got the 24-120 S, which has proven to be a very good lens, sharp and decent focus speed. I still might get another 24-200, simply as a Walk-around Lens, when in good light. However, the 120 -200mm range is covered by my 70-200 2.8 FL, and above that, my 200-500mm 5.6, is fairly Decent I did a photoshoot the other day, and used the 24-120 S in -26 degree(not counting wind chill). It rattled off about 500 frames in 23 minutes(I shoot single frames, not the what the Camera can do in a Burst) without a hiccup
I chose both actually. In reality, the 24-200 was out before the 24-120 so I bought it first, but later (more recently) picked up the 24-120. They're sort of different lenses though.... the 24-120 is more of a hybrid standard zoom/tele lens, whereas the 24-200 is more of a travel zoom, and as such, the 24-120 has a bit more premium optics and the fixed aperture, but also costs a bit more (it's really a filler for the 24-120mm range to compete with the 24-105's out there, which are also in the same class). The 24-200 has cheaper optics and a variable aperture, but both have their place in the bag. I use the 24-200 when I'm doing travel (I also bring the 24-120 but the 24-200 is my go-to lens if I'm going to be walking through a city or village, for example, because of its flexibility). If I'm Hiking, then I will take my wide angle (14-30) and the 24-120 as I generally never really need 200mm when shooting landscapes, and if I do, I use my 70-200. So I have both, and for the time being, will keep both. The 24-120 is shorter, but has the fixed aperture and more premium optics and coats, whereas the 24-200 has the focal range convenience and VR over the 24-120, but at the cost of image quality on the long end, so it's really not a competition here. You pick the tool you need for the task at hand.
Thank you for watching. I have both and am keeping both as well. I think there is a place for both of these lenses. But if I had to pick one, it would be the 24-120.
I got the 24-200 with my Z5 in spring 2021. I’ve been very happy with it, but found I needed to be at f9 most of the time for best results. The 24-120 matches it at f4 and the extra close focus is definitely something I’m using. I’m probably selling my 24-200. The extra light gathering and closer focus are winning against the extra reach.
I'm an beginner architectural and interior photographer. I owns nikkor z 14-30 wide angle lense. Now want to go for zoom lens but 24-120 is bit expensive for me can i go for 24-200 in architecture photography i have no requirement of lower aperture f 6.3 is fine for me but i just worried about low light interior shoot. Please share your experience. I have z5 body
@@jaypatel1679 I haven’t done any architectural shooting, but the vr and ibis gives a 2-3 stop advantage in lower light. The 24-200 would be perfectly fine, especially on a tripod. The only thing to watch out for is 24mm is the weakest focal length for the lens, the extreme corners never really sharpen up at any aperture. I also use the Z5 and have no issues with iso’s below 1600, plus the newest ai noise reduction works great when needed.
Have the 24-200mm and are quite happy with it. Got it for 700 bucks so a lot cheaper than the 24-120mm. But using manual focus primes such as my Voigtlander and Zeiss lenses is also perfect with focus peaking.
The f 24-120mm was my go-to lens on my d610 for yrs -when I went to the z6 I continued to use it with the FTZ adapter. After test driving the Z 24 -120mm I decided to trade-up to the Z lens , as I found the Z’s autofocus was quicker to lock in and hold focus. Reviewing my photo-library I also found that rarely do I ever shoot at the higher focal lengths of the 120, so the extra length of the 200mm is not a factor for me.
I appreciate the extra reach of the 24-200. I use it for daily, family vac, birds. They are close lens. As for any lens, it’s subjective to your needs.
Red is hot, blue is cold, and green is in the middle. Two images with grass and leaves, same camera, same aperture, but the 24-120 produces an image slightly brighter and warmer; green leaning towards yellow, while the darker image from the 24-200 is darker, and cooler/bluer. I'll take the 24-120 any day: smaller, constant aperture, sharper and warmer. Good review; it shows the kind of thing that makes our choice easy.
Thank you Joe. Great video. I actually own both lenses. I tend to use the 24-120 for indoor events and family activities. If I am traveling and want to reduce my kit, I take the 24-200 for my go to "travel lens". If I would only own one, I would probably go with the 24-200 for the extra reach and ability to only need one lens for walk around photography.
I think the same way here. Daytime walk around lens is the 24-200 - but if I had to choose one I think I would go with the 24-120 for the extra sharpness and the f/4 across the entire zoom.
I'm an beginner architectural and interior photographer. I owns nikkor z 14-30 wide angle lense. Now want to go for zoom lens but 24-120 is bit expensive for me can i go for 24-200 in architecture photography i have no requirement of lower aperture f 6.3 is fine for me but i just worried about low light interior shoot. Please share your experience.
I have both. Purchased the 120 first. Was having some issues getting a difficult video of Australian gum tree leaves from a distance (24mm) , just seemed slightly out of focus / mushy at leaves edge against brilliant blue sky. Bought the 200 and yes it is softer but calmed that lighting for a better image on the eye. I am still learning however seems to me the 200 is more tolerant lense whereas the 120 is a better sharper lens but you need to know what you are doing.
The true test of image quality between 24-120mm and 24-200mm is the fine details of fabric and cloth in the jacket of the Grogu doll. The shorter lens does have a bit better better finer quality but not by much. The 24-120mm F4 is also a constant F4 lens. So to the buyer, the question remains the end use of the lens. For pro photos in studio or shorter distances the shorter focal lens might be the best choice, or for travel and longer reach the 24-200mm lens would be ideal. I already have a 24-120mm in FX for my D750, so I am getting 24-200mm for my Z5. Thanks for review and comparisons. This really helps. I mostly want the lens for video so the longer reach and VR attracts me for long zooms.
Joe, I had a 24-70 f2.8 and sold it if favour of the 24-120 and have had no regrets. I really love the constant f4, and the longer reach compared to the 24-70, and don't miss the extra stop of light. The 24-120 basically lives on my Z7ii, in the last couple of months I've taken a few thousand pics, we've been to the Middle East (Turkey, Egypt and Jordan) and most recently Norway so plenty of photos and apart from a few shots with the 100-400 and the 14-30 (maybe 1-2 percent) the rest were taken with the 24-120. In my mind Nikon has produced a stellar lens. Never gave the 24-200 and consideration, mainly because it's not an 'S' lens and also because it drops to f6.3 very quickly, as you mentioned.🏔🛳📷✈
Grant I also have the 24-120 and the 100-400. Looks like you didn't use the 100-400 very often. I don't use mine either. Did it travel well? It is a pretty large lens.
@@gosman949 Jay, didn't use the 100-400 a great deal, mainly for close-ups (extra detail, highlighting a particular 'feature' rather than cropping) and panoramas. Yes, it's a heavy-ish lens and about the same size as the 70-200 and having had one of those for a few years (no longer) it's similar. I tend not to worry about the weight, I'm not hiking miles through the scrub or bush and every chance I get I put the bag down. Along with the 100-400 and the 24-120 I also had a 14-30 and a 1.4 T/C so I reckon I got the perfect combination of lenses, a really good wide angle, a brilliant 'walk-around and something with a bit of reach. Happy days thanks to Mr Nikon!
i have the 24 to 70 2.8s which is my primary lens but i also have the 24 to 200 as a on the go sweeper lens. i like the 24 to 200 for versatility cause i never know what im going to get a shot of when im not able to haul a camera bag and tripod around. i havent tried the 24 to 120 but sometime i just need the extra range. great informative video! maybe i'll change my mind in the future lol
Thought about this for ages- and thanks for your review. Went with the 24-120 in the end, and love it. To be fair I always have the D500 with 60-600 with me, so the quality- which you can see- of the 24-120 outweighed the focal length loss compared to the 24-200.
I hate having to impromptu change lenses, hoping the moment doesn't pass in the meantime while I'm out shooting, so I got the 24-200mm, and bundled with my Z5 it was only $600. I have the 50mm f/1.8 S for when I need extra sharpness or low light capabilities.
The 24-200 is great on a family trip, or a daytime party. The ability to be versatile and have that 200 mm reach is nice. Plus the VR. But the 24-120 is a really great lens. Thanks for watching!
really great the 24-200 to use in day to day shoot.Specially during the day. Bokeh above 120 mm to 200mm is really good. And you can photograph on DX mode and take advantage of more range. For me is really sharp and focus fast. The price is great for that range for me. And I bought a 40 mm 1.8 with the difference fo the 24-120
I've owned both: I don't rate the 24-200mm, but love the 24-120mm. It's incredibly versatile and the IQ is excellent, whereas I couldn't say the same about the 24-200mm.
I've owned it 24-200 sold it and recently got the 24-120 very very happy with it the other one was good but not as good as for 24-120 My main reason was the weather sealing when you have to use it you have to use it
@@ShutterSpeak I'm confused. What's the difference between the 24-200's "Extensively sealed to keep dust and moisture out, especially around all moving parts of the lens barrel, for worry-free durability." and the 24-120's "robust weather-sealing"?
I do most landscape. I like the 24-120 f 4 very much. Is fast focus and sharp. In addition, I use a 20mm f 1,8 and a 24 mm f 3,5 Tilt and Shift for wider view. Also, a 70-200mm f 2,8 with tele converter. When I have a lot to walk, I take the shift and the 24-120 f4. .
I just have to go with the 24-120. I'd love to have that extra range but that f6.3 maximum aperture on the 250 is just a deal breaker for me. I'm a full time professional shooter that just switched from the Sony system back to Nikon for the Z series. I still have some Nikon glass I can adapt so I'm trying to strategically add some Z lenses and the 24-120 provides me with the best option between the two. Thanks for the comparison.
Update: I went with the 24-120 and its become my workhorse lens for everything from location portraits to events to weddings. It takes care of about 80% of my needs. Great lens.
nice video ! I have the 24-200 I'd consider the 24-120 as well for the slight upgrade in resolving power and constant aperture along with my 14-30 f4 it's all I need for travel. I'm curious if the difference in sharpness between the 24-70 F2.8 and 24-120 F4 is as obvious as it is between the 24-200 and 24-120? When I stop down my 24-200 to F8 you get maximum sharpness your test was at F6.3 I'm curious if you left the 24-120 at 6.3 and the 24-200 at F8 if it would resolve closer?
I'm an beginner architectural and interior photographer. I owns nikkor z 14-30 wide angle lense. Now want to go for zoom lens but 24-120 is bit expensive for me can i go for 24-200 in architecture photography i have no requirement of lower aperture f 6.3 is fine for me but i just worried about low light interior shoot. Please share your experience.
The 24-200mm is CONSIDERABLY cheaper used than the 24-120mm for a number of reasons, including the number that are on the market and its origional lower price.
I'm an beginner architectural and interior photographer. I owns nikkor z 14-30 wide angle lense. Now want to go for zoom lens but 24-120 is bit expensive for me can i go for 24-200 in architecture photography i have no requirement of lower aperture f 6.3 is fine for me but i just worried about low light interior shoot. Please share your experience.
I'm still using the F-mount 24-120 f4 on my DSLR. When I switch to the Z system, I'd go with the 24-120 once again. If I need a little extra reach, I would simply crop in a bit.
I shoot with a z50, so I am not sure neither one can supplant the 50-250mm DX (kit) lens especially since the aperture (max) is at 5.6 at 200mm on that lens - not sure how the sharpness compares, but a DX sensor is certainly more forgiving that a FF Z7 or Z9 would be. I would be curious to see a comparison, however, between the 24-200 and the 50-250 DX on a DX sensor.
Thanks for the video! Definitely comes down to your use of the lenses, so no right or wrong. One thing I was wondering: I know you are being very careful to compare apples to apples (thank you - so many people don't do that!), but in the macro example, wouldn't it be fair to point out that the 24-200 still has 80mm more of zoom that could help compensate for the difference in distance? I know you have to back it up slightly as you zoom in to catch focus, but (from my calculations looking at the specs) it's less than 1.5 inches. Still wouldn't be quite as close as the 24-120 so that lens IS the winner, but you can get closer than what you are showing (right?). Thanks again!
Hi Joe, Love your videos. I have the Nikon AF-S 18-200mm F/3.5-5.6G ED DX VR lens which I have been using for the last 8 years on my Nikon D series camera. I recently switched to the Nikon Z5 camera and have bought the FTZ adapter and can use this lens on my Z5 though I am aware its a cropped DX lens and so doesnt use the full frame capabilities. Apart from this issue, is there any other reason why I shouldnt continue to use this lens and should invest in the new Nikon 24-200 or the 24-120 Z mount lens. Any advise would be appreciated. Thanks.
I've got a f 24-85mm and a 18-200mmDX for my old DX D200. The 24-85mm lens is far superior in photographic quality to the 18-200mm. The 85mm in the DX is roughly equivalent is the 120mm full frame and if anything, being a crop sensor camera, the 24mm wasn't low enough. So I purchased a 11-16mm to counter that. I didn't miss the higher mm at all. I used that lens all the time. I've only just migrated to the Z cameras. I purchased the 24-200mm lens, but at the time I wondered about the 24-120mm. I now wished I had bought the 24-120mm straight out.
I don't think there is a right or wrong choice - it is simply what you intend to use it for most. For me, travel I would take the 24-200, walk around my local area, the 24-120.
Thanks Joseph. As somebody who needs vibration reduction, I think any slight increase in the sharpness of the 24-120 would be overshadowed by camera shake. It would for me anyway. I'm thinking that if you were comparing handheld, real-world images from these two lenses, you wouldn't see any advantage to the 24-120 as concerns sharpness. You have to look awfully hard to see any difference with the tripod shots. The fixed aperture of the 24-120 is a better reason for choosing that lens. I agree, the 24-200 is awfully slow. So in my mind, the relative sharpness of the two lenses is insignificant. The choice is between speed on the one hand, and VR on the other. Those factors will have more influence on the relative image quality of the two lenses, at least for hand-held shooting. I'm puzzled why Nikon didn't put VR in the 24-120. It's not like it's a "fast" lens either.
I hear you - it is an individual choice for sure. However, with the VR - since this was shot daytime, the in-lens VR would not have played a part. The camera has in body stabilization but that works with either lens. The shutter speed never dropped low enough for VR to play a part. I think the 24-200 has it as the aperture is smaller at f/6.3 - thus a slower lens.
Who cares about VR on a short lens? IBIS is much better and built into the camera. VR was added because it is really needed at 200mm. S lenses are better weather sealed, better F mount lenses. S lenses have a faster silent focusing system which is very welcome with video or action. S lenses are far less CA S lenses handle light sources in the frame a lot better, in fact better than top F lenses S means better low light performance at the mid-long end S lenses have better MTF charts so corner resolving power is expected to be better, and in practice it really is. S lenses have lower geometric distortion None S lenses are lower cost. For casual shooting on vacation outdoors, the longer 24-200 might be better than carrying your 70-200 2.8 on a plane The cheaper 24-70 S f'/4 was the first general-purpose S lens out when the Z platform was introduced so it was packaged as a kit lens for one option for new buyers. That little lens was denigrated for being only a kit lens but as people used it, myself included, my much more expensive 24-70 2.8G F mount lens stopped being used except on my backup camera D850. From corner to corner the color, resolution, distortion, CA was really better on the kit lens than the $2000 F mount. As the lens road map got filled in and the performance of the S primes such as 50 1.8 and 75 1.8 caused a lot of loyal Nikon shooters to switch to Z bodies. My D850 and D800 sit in the bag or on the shelf now unless the Z6 is used for video. As a travel lens, 24-200 is good, but for everything else, even pro portrait or commercial photography the S lenses are worth the difference. They all are better than missing the shot, however.
Hi Joseph,, I have watched all of Your videos and enjoy the way You think :) :) I am wondering about a couple of things I am looking at getting a couple of Flashpoint evolve 200... I have a couple of SB800 and transmitter but they are a bit convoluted in their menu ,, I am wondering if the Flashpoint is a bit more easy to use (I will also pickup a transmitter) and are they standing up (not breaking) to Your usage??? I an looking to take advantage of the cyber monday sale,, can I use your link to buy from adorama??? ThankYou for the great videos :) :)
Honestly no - they are similar to Nikon. I moved away from Godox/ Flashpoint in favor of Westcott as the quality is better and the flash and transmitter use very clear and easy to understand menus. Check out the FJ80 II flash -- amzn.to/3gNi1D0
I think I like the quality of the 24-120 even if it's quite subtle. But I like reach. I'm not sure what I would need 200mm for tbh. Usually I'm at 600+ if I need to go long. What do others shoot in the 120-200 range? Can you get wildlife shots with some cropping or do you use it for long range street and architecture for example. If I'm not using my Telephoto lenses I'm usually using a 24-90 or something. My lust for a do it all lens is saying get the 24-200 but I dunno 😃
@@ShutterSpeak yeah my most used lens up to now is the Olympus 12-45. That's a decent range I feel. But having just bought a Z5 I am looking at both these lenses. I'm thinking , will I really need the extra reach of the 24-200. I suppose the first time I see a squirrel or a close by heron I'll be wishing I could zoom to 200mm.
I am still running the D7100 with the 16-85 DX (equivalent to the 24-120 on FX), and it is such a usefull range. While the 17-55 f/2.8 (~25-70) is, for me, too short on both ends, I hardly ever missed the extra range above that limit. So would I ever take the step to upgrade to full frame Z (still an internal battle against myself), I would certainly prefer the similar but constant aperture, against that old DX lens much improved 24-120.
Hi, thx a lot. could you answer the question as in if you go for 24-120, and want complementary range here is my recommendation. I guess i am looking for my starter kit, it will be 24120, but then where to go for the longer range? Stay within NIKON, or move to adaptor and sigma/tamron... hope that makes sens
Personally, I feel that you can not get better image quality than with a Nikon Z lens. So it is a balance between budget and image quality. In other words, it is a personal choice.
Only comparing close focus is not a fair comparison. These are going to be used generally by most folks for landscape and more distant subjects. It is a little bit like comparing the cargo capacity of passenger vehicles ... that's not the point of them.
I own both lenses for my Z8 and Z9. Realisticly, the 24-120mm f4 seems like it is always on one camera or the other whereas the 24-200mm tends to sit on the shelf because I have several other lenses to choose from. In a way it's a shame, because the 24-200mm is a very nice lens if you can deal with the light limitations and a slight drop in resolution.
Were these comparisons shot on a tripod? Just wondering if the VR on the 24-200 would be sharper than the 24-120 when hand held at lower shutter speeds?
Most people who have both use the 24-120 and leave the 24-200 at home. The 24-200 needs VR to compensate for the long end. The most used lens I won is the 24-120.
@@ShutterSpeak Thanks for your excellent video doing the comparisons, but I decided to go with the 24-200 today based on the insane price I was able to get it for. I already have the 24-70 f4 and the 20, so I’m going to use the 24-200 for travel, realizing it has some limitations.
Hi Joseph, can you share the files for comparison? Although you say the 24-120 is sharper, I dont see what you see. In my eyes, the sharpness difference between these 2 lenses is zero. It is maybe youtube that does not show it? Looks to me that the real difference is built quality and the convenience of having a little more light thanks to a constant aperture of f4. In my z6 with low light capability, I can offset the lack of light. And lets not forget that the 24-200 has VR whereas the 24-120 does not. So unless the sharpness difference is significant I would stick with the 24-200.
I have the kit 24-70 F4S, and a old Tamron 70-300(with FTZ ring), with a cheap little 40F2, Im very happy already. I will consider replace the old Tamron with some new 3rd party 70-200 or 70-300 as I recently find I got many good photo by around 200mm.
The 24-200 is good for birds and sports and travel, the weight is almost the same, and 200 mm is very good for portraits, much more bokeh at 200 compar the 24-120, at 120 mm, if i need light i prefer the 28 75 2,8 for indors
The 24-200 closest macro distance is at 200mm not at 120mm, and the bokeh at 200mm is much smoother than a 120 at f4. Also if you're going to do sharpness tests to be fair do it inside.
It's a personal decision... do you need the reach? From my research, the image quality isn't as good as either of these two but still, it is a Z lens and image quality is always excellent even at it's poorest. So unless you really look, you may never notice a difference.
My Z6 came with a Z 24-70 f4 / S. Good lens. I just ordered the Z 24-120 f4 / S for my Z6ii mainly, for the extra reach. I'm sure the 24-200 is a great travel lens for most. That variable F stop is just not for me. I own most of the Nikon Z prime lenses, great quality, EXPEN$IVE glass. (Thanks for posting your video.)
Really. REALLY hard to see the differences. I mean you have to want to see the differences. I wonder how it would have looked stopped down to F8. I think the 24-200 is the unicorn landscape lens potentially.
No vr on the 24-120 S but with IBIS in the Z full frame bodies, you’ll be totally fine. I had the 24-200, great lens but I sold it (and my 24-70 4) the day the 24-120 was announced.
The 24-120 is the main reason I'm strongly considering the Z system. I shoot M43 currently and I love the combination of versatility, sharpness, and weather sealing of the Olympus 12-100 (24-200 equiv.). But as a landscape shooter I am looking for more resolution and DR in FF cameras. I don't want to give up the versatility though, so the 24-120 is the best lens I have found that has a great combination of IQ, focal range, size/portability, price, and weather sealing. The Tamron 35-150 for E-mount is close but it's a huge, pricey lens and I know I would miss the wide end. Based on my usage the 24-120 would stay on my lens a vast majority of the time.
Doesn't surprise me, I'm only buying "S" glass for nothing else for future proofing my investment. All so as you climb the mega-pixel ladder you want the best glass you can get.
Neither. I never shot zoomlenses (except when I shot movie film). So my Z 7ii sees all the 1.8S prime lenses plus the 105S macro next to it. In the past this was motivated by zoomlenses not being good enough. That doesn't hold longer today with the Nikon S zoomlenses. Compared to the Hasselblad Zeiss lenses that I shot professionally, my problem with the F glass was in two things (1) chromatic aberration, and (2) tint differences. The Z system solves both, at least when you stick to S class glass. In the video, it seemed like the 24-200 had a bit of a yellow shift compared to the neutral looking 24-120. The reason I stuck to primes is simple. I need to maintain the perspective awareness in my brain by using discrete numbers and zooming on foot. I generally only need one or two primes for a shoot. As one uses two cameras on paid jobs this means there are no lens swaps.
will be getting a z kit with the 24-70 f4....got a deal Used Mint cond, I had z6ii with 24-70 in the past, hates how short the 70 was...I like idea of New or used z24-120 then E-bay the 24-70. much better for not so much $$ either.
![ARGENTINA vs. PERÚ [1-0] | RESUMEN | ELIMINATORIAS SUDAMERICANAS | FECHA 12](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/xtI25ENDDSY/mqdefault.jpg)
Leaning toward 24-200 for travel/events/family and then carrying a prime 40 or 50mm for low light or a nicer portrait.
I have both lenes. I bought the 24-200 when it came out in 2020 and used it extensively. Next I bought the 24-120 f/4 this year (because of the hype). As per your video, I see a small enhancement in detail, but the f4 helps with night phtography. I was going to sell the 24-200 last month, but at the last moment changed my mind and decided to keep both. I will use the 24-200 as a walk around lens when travelling light, and 24-120 for specific landscape or low ISO shoots. 24-200 was too good to let go, even after I bought the 24-120. That's my personal opinion.
I think you made a good choice. There is a place for both of these lenses for many photographers.
I had this lens for a magazine review but I I liked it so much that I bought it. Now I want to share my personal experience. I photographed a heron that was far away with this lens at 200 mm. After cropping I managed only a 1 MP file. I ran it through LR Enhance and made it into a 2 MP file. Did NR with Topaz De Noise and sharpened it in LR and printed it 10 x 10. So 1 MP as 10x 10 print. That is equivalent to a 60 in print for full 24 MP. And it looks quite nice! The 24-200 is a very underrated lens IMHO. I have no doubt that there are better lenses but it is good enough for many of us for most purposes. Thanks for your review - very objective.
Thanks for sharing your experience!
I have both! I got the 24-200 when I first bought my Z5. I wanted a lens with great range for when I go on all day sessions outdoors. I got the 24-120 from Nikon USA as a refurb for $699. For my needs I don't have any issues with sharpness on either lens. Actually every Nikon Z lens I have works great. Now I have two Z5's and the 24-120 is my studio camera/lens combo. Enjoyed hearing your insights on the two lenses....
Owned both. Sold the 24-200. Didn’t think twice.
Thanks for watching!
Can you elaborate on why?
@@schm147 image quality alone. But the variable aperture was also not for me.
You should always think twice before selling lenses. I compared the two and they are nearly identical at the same settings. You are basically trading aperture for range, nothing more.
I was choosing between these two and ended up with the 24-120 because I can use it for paid work without compromise. Of course I could use the 24-200 for work too, but the output looks slightly less professional to me and I'm a but picky with such things when it comes to my business. With the added sharpness I also feel comfortable cropping a bit to achieve longer reach.
When I started with the z-system,the 24-200 was the only one available..... later, Nikon came with the 24-120mm,;as soon as possible I changed for this, because I rarely use the range of 200mm.... and quality is just great for the 24-120mm/f4. Thanks for the vid🙂
Thanks for commenting. I agree - I think the 24-120 may be my most often used lens now for personal work.
I would never buy 24-120mm f/4 lens. It's neither long enough in many common situations outdoors, nor fast enough in many common situations indoors. It's neither here nor there, it's handicapped in most cases, I can't think of any situation where it would have been a good choice. I have 24-200 for outdoors and 28-75/2.8 for indoors. I also have adapted Tamron 20-40/2.8, which is great option for many indoors situations.
@@ElementaryWatson-123 also ob 1 Blende Unterschied, den Unterschied ausmacht. Geh von 100 ISO auf 200 ISO und gut ist.
@@fotowalo that's a silly argument. When you are shooting indoors, in many situations your ISO already very high at f/2.8. I have max ISO set at 51200, which still has a chance to come clean with DXO, which I sometimes hit. Having a stop slower lens will ruin half of the pictures. Not even mentioning bokeh if you are going to shoot portraits.
@@ElementaryWatson-123 Danke für das Kompliment.
Love your review. I have both lenses as well and will keep both of them. I am a portrait and event professional. I have found the 24-200mm a stellar performer in outdoor situations. After purchasing the the 24-120mm I found it to be superior. The light gathering capability of this lens is understated. The 24-120mm's t-stop advantage of nearly a third in your examples were evident. The 24-120mm should only be compared to prime lenses or the 24-70 f2.8. Nikon made the 24-200mm and the 24-120mm lenses for different consumers. When I'm shooting in a non professional arena where a mega zoom lens would be appropriate then the 24-200mm is the tool of choice. When I'm shooting professionally and primes are appropriate then the 24-120mm is the tool of choice. If I had to choose only one in both seneros...definitely the 24-120mm.
Thank you for watching!
Thank you for watching!
Proud owner of the 24-200 for about a year, but now I would still take the 24-120! The price difference is not negligible!
I have the 24-200 and use it maybe 50% of the time. It was my 28-300 replacement. I also have the 28-75. For now I am covered and happy with the results.
Thank you for watching!
Hello how is the 28 75 ? Thanks
I have them both, and have taken some really nice photos with both of them. That being said, if I'm heading out for a day shoot (on vacation, walking around, etc) my reflexes always go for the 24-120. It's just so darned sharp and dependable and the extra speed has been worth it to me. I remember the first time I took the 24-200 on a woodsy hike and had to shoot at f6.3 I was thinking "I wish I had the F4 of the 24-120".. that kinda set the stage for the future. I've even toyed with selling the 24-200 because now I only grab it if I think I need the extra reach, but it turns out that in the cases that I need extra reach, I need a lot more than 200!
I found your insight especially useful, thanks.
I had the 24-70mm, which is a serious lens for little money, my camera supplier gave me a very good trade in for the 24-120mm.
The 24-120mm is one of the BEST Nikon lenses I have owned, I shoot mainly landscapes and occasionally need up to 200mm. So I purchased the AF-S 70-200mm f4 which gets rave reviews and
it has not disappointed, it's light and relatively small with better sharpness than the f2.8.
I purchased the 24 to 200 as my primary lens because of its versility. I am very satisfied with its performance. I have recently purchased the 100 to 400 mm lens. Both lenses are used on a Z5.
I'm an beginner architectural and interior photographer. I owns nikkor z 14-30 wide angle lense. Now want to go for zoom lens but 24-120 is bit expensive for me can i go for 24-200 in architecture photography i have no requirement of lower aperture f 6.3 is fine for me but i just worried about low light interior shoot. Please share your experience.
It was helpful. I had the 24-120/4G for my SLR. I was surprised at what an awesome lens it is. I'm not surprised to see that it out-resolves the 24-200 here.
When I need telephoto, I often find that 200 mm isn't enough. The result is that I will probably get a telephoto zoom lens anyway for those times when I may need it, and keep the 24-120 for the ever-important walk-around lens. In a pinch, I just crank the resolution up, zoom to 120 and crop in later. The resolving power comes to my rescue when I just need to stretch to get to 200. I thought that might've been a good comparison for this video: On the left, we have a shot from the 24-120 @ f/4, cropped down to a 200 mm field of view. In the other side, you would have the 24-200 @ f/6.3, un-cropped. Which looks better? (both hand-held) This hits several factors at once: Does the extra resolution of the 24-120 make up for its lack of telephoto chops? Does the VR in the 24-200 result in noticeably better telephoto shots when hand-held? Is the extra noise by losing 1.5 stops of ISO help drag the 24-200 back down to the 24-120's level?
I'd like to see a 70-300 f/4 VR (non-S) from Nikon. It would probably end up being about the same size as the 70-200/2.8 S, but be more affordable and have an extra 50% reach in the telephoto end. At 85 - 105 mm and f/4, it would make a decent portrait lens. This would be the 2nd lens in a two-lens rig.
These f/6.3 lenses are kind of starting a bad pattern. One thing that brought me back to FF was that we can get noticeable subject separation even with slow lenses. (where slow = f/5.6) We start to lose the subject separation that full frame is known for when we accept these ultra-slow zooms.
I really like your videos. One suggestion for improvement is to just cut the introduction down a bit and cut to the chase.
Thank you for watching.
I tried a 24-200 as a replacement for my 28-300 when I switched over to the Z Mount. Overall, it performed well, better than the 28-300, as the 28-300 was always soft above 200mm, and also had some serious Purple Fringing at the edge. However I didn't care for the high F Stop, and the need to use High ISO values, so I returned it and got the 24-120 S, which has proven to be a very good lens, sharp and decent focus speed. I still might get another 24-200, simply as a Walk-around Lens, when in good light. However, the 120 -200mm range is covered by my 70-200 2.8 FL, and above that, my 200-500mm 5.6, is fairly Decent
I did a photoshoot the other day, and used the 24-120 S in -26 degree(not counting wind chill). It rattled off about 500 frames in 23 minutes(I shoot single frames, not the what the Camera can do in a Burst) without a hiccup
This is very helpful information. Thank you.
I chose both actually. In reality, the 24-200 was out before the 24-120 so I bought it first, but later (more recently) picked up the 24-120. They're sort of different lenses though.... the 24-120 is more of a hybrid standard zoom/tele lens, whereas the 24-200 is more of a travel zoom, and as such, the 24-120 has a bit more premium optics and the fixed aperture, but also costs a bit more (it's really a filler for the 24-120mm range to compete with the 24-105's out there, which are also in the same class). The 24-200 has cheaper optics and a variable aperture, but both have their place in the bag. I
use the 24-200 when I'm doing travel (I also bring the 24-120 but the 24-200 is my go-to lens if I'm going to be walking through a city or village, for example, because of its flexibility). If I'm Hiking, then I will take my wide angle (14-30) and the 24-120 as I generally never really need 200mm when shooting landscapes, and if I do, I use my 70-200. So I have both, and for the time being, will keep both. The 24-120 is shorter, but has the fixed aperture and more premium optics and coats, whereas the 24-200 has the focal range convenience and VR over the 24-120, but at the cost of image quality on the long end, so it's really not a competition here. You pick the tool you need for the task at hand.
Thank you for watching. I have both and am keeping both as well. I think there is a place for both of these lenses. But if I had to pick one, it would be the 24-120.
Same as JJ Westgate. Did give it a bit of thought though before ditching the 24-200, but no regrets.
Thanks for watching. Great choice sticking with the 24-120 i think.
I’m glad I got the 24-120 then. Just got my first Z camera today!
Congratulations and thanks for watching!
I got the 24-200 with my Z5 in spring 2021. I’ve been very happy with it, but found I needed to be at f9 most of the time for best results. The 24-120 matches it at f4 and the extra close focus is definitely something I’m using. I’m probably selling my 24-200. The extra light gathering and closer focus are winning against the extra reach.
I'm an beginner architectural and interior photographer. I owns nikkor z 14-30 wide angle lense. Now want to go for zoom lens but 24-120 is bit expensive for me can i go for 24-200 in architecture photography i have no requirement of lower aperture f 6.3 is fine for me but i just worried about low light interior shoot. Please share your experience. I have z5 body
@@jaypatel1679 I haven’t done any architectural shooting, but the vr and ibis gives a 2-3 stop advantage in lower light. The 24-200 would be perfectly fine, especially on a tripod. The only thing to watch out for is 24mm is the weakest focal length for the lens, the extreme corners never really sharpen up at any aperture. I also use the Z5 and have no issues with iso’s below 1600, plus the newest ai noise reduction works great when needed.
@@samo81 thank you so much for your insightful review 😀
Have the 24-200mm and are quite happy with it. Got it for 700 bucks so a lot cheaper than the 24-120mm. But using manual focus primes such as my Voigtlander and Zeiss lenses is also perfect with focus peaking.
The f 24-120mm was my go-to lens on my d610 for yrs -when I went to the z6 I continued to use it with the FTZ adapter. After test driving the Z 24 -120mm I decided to trade-up to the Z lens , as I found the Z’s autofocus was quicker to lock in and hold focus. Reviewing my photo-library I also found that rarely do I ever shoot at the higher focal lengths of the 120, so the extra length of the 200mm is not a factor for me.
I chose 24-200 for reach and the build in VR, even if its not the sharpest z mount lens
Having the VR is a plus for sure. It is a great walk around lens.
I appreciate the extra reach of the 24-200. I use it for daily, family vac, birds. They are close lens. As for any lens, it’s subjective to your needs.
Red is hot, blue is cold, and green is in the middle. Two images with grass and leaves, same camera, same aperture, but the 24-120 produces an image slightly brighter and warmer; green leaning towards yellow, while the darker image from the 24-200 is darker, and cooler/bluer. I'll take the 24-120 any day: smaller, constant aperture, sharper and warmer. Good review; it shows the kind of thing that makes our choice easy.
Thank you Joe. Great video. I actually own both lenses. I tend to use the 24-120 for indoor events and family activities. If I am traveling and want to reduce my kit, I take the 24-200 for my go to "travel lens". If I would only own one, I would probably go with the 24-200 for the extra reach and ability to only need one lens for walk around photography.
I think the same way here. Daytime walk around lens is the 24-200 - but if I had to choose one I think I would go with the 24-120 for the extra sharpness and the f/4 across the entire zoom.
I'm an beginner architectural and interior photographer. I owns nikkor z 14-30 wide angle lense. Now want to go for zoom lens but 24-120 is bit expensive for me can i go for 24-200 in architecture photography i have no requirement of lower aperture f 6.3 is fine for me but i just worried about low light interior shoot. Please share your experience.
@@jaypatel1679if you're into architecture. Get a tripod for interior shots.
I have both. Purchased the 120 first.
Was having some issues getting a difficult video of Australian gum tree leaves from a distance (24mm) , just seemed slightly out of focus / mushy at leaves edge against brilliant blue sky.
Bought the 200 and yes it is softer but calmed that lighting for a better image on the eye.
I am still learning however seems to me the 200 is more tolerant lense whereas the 120 is a better sharper lens but you need to know what you are doing.
The true test of image quality between 24-120mm and 24-200mm is the fine details of fabric and cloth in the jacket of the Grogu doll. The shorter lens does have a bit better better finer quality but not by much. The 24-120mm F4 is also a constant F4 lens. So to the buyer, the question remains the end use of the lens. For pro photos in studio or shorter distances the shorter focal lens might be the best choice, or for travel and longer reach the 24-200mm lens would be ideal. I already have a 24-120mm in FX for my D750, so I am getting 24-200mm for my Z5. Thanks for review and comparisons. This really helps. I mostly want the lens for video so the longer reach and VR attracts me for long zooms.
Joe, I had a 24-70 f2.8 and sold it if favour of the 24-120 and have had no regrets. I really love the constant f4, and the longer reach compared to the 24-70, and don't miss the extra stop of light. The 24-120 basically lives on my Z7ii, in the last couple of months I've taken a few thousand pics, we've been to the Middle East (Turkey, Egypt and Jordan) and most recently Norway so plenty of photos and apart from a few shots with the 100-400 and the 14-30 (maybe 1-2 percent) the rest were taken with the 24-120. In my mind Nikon has produced a stellar lens. Never gave the 24-200 and consideration, mainly because it's not an 'S' lens and also because it drops to f6.3 very quickly, as you mentioned.🏔🛳📷✈
Yes - if you need the extra reach it is great. Otherwise the 24-120 is a great choice. Thanks for watching.
Grant I also have the 24-120 and the 100-400. Looks like you didn't use the 100-400 very often. I don't use mine either. Did it travel well? It is a pretty large lens.
@@gosman949 Jay, didn't use the 100-400 a great deal, mainly for close-ups (extra detail, highlighting a particular 'feature' rather than cropping) and panoramas. Yes, it's a heavy-ish lens and about the same size as the 70-200 and having had one of those for a few years (no longer) it's similar. I tend not to worry about the weight, I'm not hiking miles through the scrub or bush and every chance I get I put the bag down. Along with the 100-400 and the 24-120 I also had a 14-30 and a 1.4 T/C so I reckon I got the perfect combination of lenses, a really good wide angle, a brilliant 'walk-around and something with a bit of reach. Happy days thanks to Mr Nikon!
i have the 24 to 70 2.8s which is my primary lens but i also have the 24 to 200 as a on the go sweeper lens. i like the 24 to 200 for versatility cause i never know what im going to get a shot of when im not able to haul a camera bag and tripod around. i havent tried the 24 to 120 but sometime i just need the extra range. great informative video! maybe i'll change my mind in the future lol
Thought about this for ages- and thanks for your review. Went with the 24-120 in the end, and love it. To be fair I always have the D500 with 60-600 with me, so the quality- which you can see- of the 24-120 outweighed the focal length loss compared to the 24-200.
I hate having to impromptu change lenses, hoping the moment doesn't pass in the meantime while I'm out shooting, so I got the 24-200mm, and bundled with my Z5 it was only $600. I have the 50mm f/1.8 S for when I need extra sharpness or low light capabilities.
I have had both. I kept the 24-120, but I can see the argument for the 24-200.
The 24-200 is great on a family trip, or a daytime party. The ability to be versatile and have that 200 mm reach is nice. Plus the VR. But the 24-120 is a really great lens. Thanks for watching!
@@ShutterSpeak The 24-200 is good for birds and sports
I have both. I use the 24-200 for lightweight travel.
really great the 24-200 to use in day to day shoot.Specially during the day. Bokeh above 120 mm to 200mm is really good. And you can photograph on DX mode and take advantage of more range. For me is really sharp and focus fast. The price is great for that range for me. And I bought a 40 mm 1.8 with the difference fo the 24-120
I've owned both: I don't rate the 24-200mm, but love the 24-120mm. It's incredibly versatile and the IQ is excellent, whereas I couldn't say the same about the 24-200mm.
Thanks for watching and giving your thoughts :-)
I use the 24-200 95% of the time, but I'd love to add the 24-120 to my kit. I didn't see price drops this week from top retailers. I've been looking.
Thanks for sharing!
I've owned it 24-200 sold it and recently got the 24-120 very very happy with it the other one was good but not as good as for 24-120
My main reason was the weather sealing when you have to use it you have to use it
Yes - that is true - weather sealing can be vital. Great lens. Thanks for watching!
The 24-200 is weather sealed though.
@@grahamlyth7363 Dust and moisture according to Nikon.
@@ShutterSpeak I'm confused. What's the difference between the 24-200's "Extensively sealed to keep dust and moisture out, especially around all moving parts of the lens barrel, for worry-free durability." and the 24-120's "robust weather-sealing"?
I do most landscape. I like the 24-120 f 4 very much. Is fast focus and sharp. In addition, I use a 20mm f 1,8 and a 24 mm f 3,5 Tilt and Shift for wider view. Also, a 70-200mm f 2,8 with tele converter. When I have a lot to walk, I take the shift and the 24-120 f4.
.
I just have to go with the 24-120. I'd love to have that extra range but that f6.3 maximum aperture on the 250 is just a deal breaker for me. I'm a full time professional shooter that just switched from the Sony system back to Nikon for the Z series. I still have some Nikon glass I can adapt so I'm trying to strategically add some Z lenses and the 24-120 provides me with the best option between the two. Thanks for the comparison.
Thank you for watching.
Update: I went with the 24-120 and its become my workhorse lens for everything from location portraits to events to weddings. It takes care of about 80% of my needs. Great lens.
nice video ! I have the 24-200 I'd consider the 24-120 as well for the slight upgrade in resolving power and constant aperture along with my 14-30 f4 it's all I need for travel. I'm curious if the difference in sharpness between the 24-70 F2.8 and 24-120 F4 is as obvious as it is between the 24-200 and 24-120? When I stop down my 24-200 to F8 you get maximum sharpness your test was at F6.3 I'm curious if you left the 24-120 at 6.3 and the 24-200 at F8 if it would resolve closer?
I'm an beginner architectural and interior photographer. I owns nikkor z 14-30 wide angle lense. Now want to go for zoom lens but 24-120 is bit expensive for me can i go for 24-200 in architecture photography i have no requirement of lower aperture f 6.3 is fine for me but i just worried about low light interior shoot. Please share your experience.
@@jaypatel1679 24-200 is just fine I have nothing negative to say about it
@@walkingmeditation61 thanks you so much for your response
The 24-200mm is CONSIDERABLY cheaper used than the 24-120mm for a number of reasons, including the number that are on the market and its origional lower price.
I’ve owned both lenses. I prefer the F4 all the way through 24-120 is my choice. Saved 24-200 for use with my ZFC.
I'm an beginner architectural and interior photographer. I owns nikkor z 14-30 wide angle lense. Now want to go for zoom lens but 24-120 is bit expensive for me can i go for 24-200 in architecture photography i have no requirement of lower aperture f 6.3 is fine for me but i just worried about low light interior shoot. Please share your experience.
I would stick with the 14-30 for real estate - that's the perfect lens for it.
I'm still using the F-mount 24-120 f4 on my DSLR. When I switch to the Z system, I'd go with the 24-120 once again. If I need a little extra reach, I would simply crop in a bit.
Thank you Joe for this. From my point of view, if long hikes is your thing, then the 24-200 is irreplaceable.
Yes - I think for daytime usage or the need for versatility during the day make it a great choice. Also it is light which I like.
I shoot with a z50, so I am not sure neither one can supplant the 50-250mm DX (kit) lens especially since the aperture (max) is at 5.6 at 200mm on that lens - not sure how the sharpness compares, but a DX sensor is certainly more forgiving that a FF Z7 or Z9 would be. I would be curious to see a comparison, however, between the 24-200 and the 50-250 DX on a DX sensor.
Thanks for watching - yes - I agree that would be a interesting comparison.
Thanks for the video! Definitely comes down to your use of the lenses, so no right or wrong. One thing I was wondering: I know you are being very careful to compare apples to apples (thank you - so many people don't do that!), but in the macro example, wouldn't it be fair to point out that the 24-200 still has 80mm more of zoom that could help compensate for the difference in distance? I know you have to back it up slightly as you zoom in to catch focus, but (from my calculations looking at the specs) it's less than 1.5 inches. Still wouldn't be quite as close as the 24-120 so that lens IS the winner, but you can get closer than what you are showing (right?). Thanks again!
Honestly with macro the 1.5 inches makes a noticiable difference in magnification at close range ion the short end. Thanks for watching!!
Hi Joe, Love your videos. I have the Nikon AF-S 18-200mm F/3.5-5.6G ED DX VR lens which I have been using for the last 8 years on my Nikon D series camera. I recently switched to the Nikon Z5 camera and have bought the FTZ adapter and can use this lens on my Z5 though I am aware its a cropped DX lens and so doesnt use the full frame capabilities. Apart from this issue, is there any other reason why I shouldnt continue to use this lens and should invest in the new Nikon 24-200 or the 24-120 Z mount lens. Any advise would be appreciated. Thanks.
I've got a f 24-85mm and a 18-200mmDX for my old DX D200. The 24-85mm lens is far superior in photographic quality to the 18-200mm. The 85mm in the DX is roughly equivalent is the 120mm full frame and if anything, being a crop sensor camera, the 24mm wasn't low enough. So I purchased a 11-16mm to counter that. I didn't miss the higher mm at all. I used that lens all the time. I've only just migrated to the Z cameras. I purchased the 24-200mm lens, but at the time I wondered about the 24-120mm. I now wished I had bought the 24-120mm straight out.
I don't think there is a right or wrong choice - it is simply what you intend to use it for most. For me, travel I would take the 24-200, walk around my local area, the 24-120.
I own the 24-70mm 2.8 and 24-120mm f4 s. The 24-70 is such a fantastic lens, leaving the 24-105mm a bit behind.
Thanks Joseph. As somebody who needs vibration reduction, I think any slight increase in the sharpness of the 24-120 would be overshadowed by camera shake. It would for me anyway. I'm thinking that if you were comparing handheld, real-world images from these two lenses, you wouldn't see any advantage to the 24-120 as concerns sharpness. You have to look awfully hard to see any difference with the tripod shots. The fixed aperture of the 24-120 is a better reason for choosing that lens. I agree, the 24-200 is awfully slow. So in my mind, the relative sharpness of the two lenses is insignificant. The choice is between speed on the one hand, and VR on the other. Those factors will have more influence on the relative image quality of the two lenses, at least for hand-held shooting. I'm puzzled why Nikon didn't put VR in the 24-120. It's not like it's a "fast" lens either.
I hear you - it is an individual choice for sure. However, with the VR - since this was shot daytime, the in-lens VR would not have played a part. The camera has in body stabilization but that works with either lens. The shutter speed never dropped low enough for VR to play a part. I think the 24-200 has it as the aperture is smaller at f/6.3 - thus a slower lens.
@@ShutterSpeak Agreed. I think that's why they included it with the 24-200.
Who cares about VR on a short lens? IBIS is much better and built into the camera. VR was added because it is really needed at 200mm.
S lenses are better weather sealed, better F mount lenses.
S lenses have a faster silent focusing system which is very welcome with video or action.
S lenses are far less CA
S lenses handle light sources in the frame a lot better, in fact better than top F lenses
S means better low light performance at the mid-long end
S lenses have better MTF charts so corner resolving power is expected to be better, and in practice it really is.
S lenses have lower geometric distortion
None S lenses are lower cost. For casual shooting on vacation outdoors, the longer 24-200 might be better than carrying your 70-200 2.8 on a plane
The cheaper 24-70 S f'/4 was the first general-purpose S lens out when the Z platform was introduced so it was packaged as a kit lens for one option for new buyers. That little lens was denigrated for being only a kit lens but as people used it, myself included, my much more expensive 24-70 2.8G F mount lens stopped being used except on my backup camera D850. From corner to corner the color, resolution, distortion, CA was really better on the kit lens than the $2000 F mount. As the lens road map got filled in and the performance of the S primes such as 50 1.8 and 75 1.8 caused a lot of loyal Nikon shooters to switch to Z bodies. My D850 and D800 sit in the bag or on the shelf now unless the Z6 is used for video.
As a travel lens, 24-200 is good, but for everything else, even pro portrait or commercial photography the S lenses are worth the difference. They all are better than missing the shot, however.
Hi Joseph,, I have watched all of Your videos and enjoy the way You think :) :) I am wondering about a couple of things I am looking at getting a couple of Flashpoint evolve 200... I have a couple of SB800 and transmitter but they are a bit convoluted in their menu ,, I am wondering if the Flashpoint is a bit more easy to use (I will also pickup a transmitter) and are they standing up (not breaking) to Your usage??? I an looking to take advantage of the cyber monday sale,, can I use your link to buy from adorama??? ThankYou for the great videos :) :)
Honestly no - they are similar to Nikon. I moved away from Godox/ Flashpoint in favor of Westcott as the quality is better and the flash and transmitter use very clear and easy to understand menus. Check out the FJ80 II flash -- amzn.to/3gNi1D0
Oh and thank you for watching!!!!!
I think I like the quality of the 24-120 even if it's quite subtle.
But I like reach.
I'm not sure what I would need 200mm for tbh. Usually I'm at 600+ if I need to go long.
What do others shoot in the 120-200 range?
Can you get wildlife shots with some cropping or do you use it for long range street and architecture for example.
If I'm not using my Telephoto lenses I'm usually using a 24-90 or something.
My lust for a do it all lens is saying get the 24-200 but I dunno 😃
For me the 24-120 is my go to walk around, vacation, travel lens. Really I have found it can do almost everything I need in those situations.
@@ShutterSpeak yeah my most used lens up to now is the Olympus 12-45. That's a decent range I feel.
But having just bought a Z5 I am looking at both these lenses.
I'm thinking , will I really need the extra reach of the 24-200.
I suppose the first time I see a squirrel or a close by heron I'll be wishing I could zoom to 200mm.
I am still running the D7100 with the 16-85 DX (equivalent to the 24-120 on FX), and it is such a usefull range. While the 17-55 f/2.8 (~25-70) is, for me, too short on both ends, I hardly ever missed the extra range above that limit.
So would I ever take the step to upgrade to full frame Z (still an internal battle against myself), I would certainly prefer the similar but constant aperture, against that old DX lens much improved 24-120.
Thanks for sharing
Used to use that combo as well. 16-85 is the best DX mid range zoom.
Update: GAS was stronger than me... Upgraded to Z7II and 24-120, added the pancake for convenience. Basically the same, most usefull range.
Hi, thx a lot. could you answer the question as in if you go for 24-120, and want complementary range here is my recommendation.
I guess i am looking for my starter kit, it will be 24120, but then where to go for the longer range? Stay within NIKON, or move to adaptor and sigma/tamron...
hope that makes sens
Personally, I feel that you can not get better image quality than with a Nikon Z lens. So it is a balance between budget and image quality. In other words, it is a personal choice.
Hi. Is the 24-120 suitable for Nikon Z50? Both dont have stabilisation so I am affraid to have not sharp images … What do yoi think?
Only comparing close focus is not a fair comparison. These are going to be used generally by most folks for landscape and more distant subjects. It is a little bit like comparing the cargo capacity of passenger vehicles ... that's not the point of them.
I own both lenses for my Z8 and Z9. Realisticly, the 24-120mm f4 seems like it is always on one camera or the other whereas the 24-200mm tends to sit on the shelf because I have several other lenses to choose from. In a way it's a shame, because the 24-200mm is a very nice lens if you can deal with the light limitations and a slight drop in resolution.
Were these comparisons shot on a tripod? Just wondering if the VR on the 24-200 would be sharper than the 24-120 when hand held at lower shutter speeds?
Most people who have both use the 24-120 and leave the 24-200 at home. The 24-200 needs VR to compensate for the long end. The most used lens I won is the 24-120.
@@ShutterSpeak Thanks for your excellent video doing the comparisons, but I decided to go with the 24-200 today based on the insane price I was able to get it for. I already have the 24-70 f4 and the 20, so I’m going to use the 24-200 for travel, realizing it has some limitations.
Hi Joseph, can you share the files for comparison? Although you say the 24-120 is sharper, I dont see what you see. In my eyes, the sharpness difference between these 2 lenses is zero. It is maybe youtube that does not show it?
Looks to me that the real difference is built quality and the convenience of having a little more light thanks to a constant aperture of f4. In my z6 with low light capability, I can offset the lack of light. And lets not forget that the 24-200 has VR whereas the 24-120 does not. So unless the sharpness difference is significant I would stick with the 24-200.
Look at the 5:24 mark of the video - look at the texture in the clothing. The 24-120 is noticeably sharper in the fine detail areas.
I have the kit 24-70 F4S, and a old Tamron 70-300(with FTZ ring), with a cheap little 40F2, Im very happy already. I will consider replace the old Tamron with some new 3rd party 70-200 or 70-300 as I recently find I got many good photo by around 200mm.
The 24-200 is good for birds and sports and travel, the weight is almost the same, and 200 mm is very good for portraits, much more bokeh at 200 compar the 24-120, at 120 mm, if i need light i prefer the 28 75 2,8 for indors
The 24-200 closest macro distance is at 200mm not at 120mm, and the bokeh at 200mm is much smoother than a 120 at f4. Also if you're going to do sharpness tests to be fair do it inside.
For a fair price comparison one should also consider the sale price of the 24-200mm.
How about nikkor 28-400mm now?
It's a personal decision... do you need the reach? From my research, the image quality isn't as good as either of these two but still, it is a Z lens and image quality is always excellent even at it's poorest. So unless you really look, you may never notice a difference.
For sure 24-120mm F4 💞
anyone shoot video with the 24-120 S?
I wish Tamron, Sigma or Samyang also made a lens with a focal length of 24-200 but with a bigger aperture like f/2.0-2.8
Not going to happen - as I understand it, they can only produce focal lengths that are not he same as what Nikon currently offers.
@@ShutterSpeak What about the 20-200mm f/2.0-2.8?
Joseph Nuzzo !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Nice Comparo !
The 24-120 f/4 blows the 24-200 f/6.3 out of the water. A more "fair" battle would have been a 24-70 f/4 S vs the 24-120 f/4 S.
Not the same market for people looking for a lens. People looking at those lenses want reach beyond 70 mm
Thanks, Subcribed!
My Z6 came with a Z 24-70 f4 / S. Good lens. I just ordered the Z 24-120 f4 / S for my Z6ii mainly, for the extra reach.
I'm sure the 24-200 is a great travel lens for most. That variable F stop is just not for me.
I own most of the Nikon Z prime lenses, great quality, EXPEN$IVE glass.
(Thanks for posting your video.)
Yes - the lenses are expensive - hopefully we will start to see some Sigma lenses soon as well as some more by Tamron.
@@ShutterSpeak My main reason for choosing Nikon was their glass/lenses.
They are high priced, but worth it.
24-120 its in a different league as the 24-70 f2.8 S lens is in a different league to the 24-120 .. anything above a 3 x zoom I dont touch
Thank you for watching!
I have the 24-200 it’s a great land scape lens it’s all most as sharp as my 70-200 2:8 s
Really. REALLY hard to see the differences. I mean you have to want to see the differences. I wonder how it would have looked stopped down to F8. I think the 24-200 is the unicorn landscape lens potentially.
Keep in mind these videos are highly compressed. So if you can see it in the video - then it is a noticeable difference.
I'm leaning toward the 24-120, did you say that it does not have VR?
No vr on the 24-120 S but with IBIS in the Z full frame bodies, you’ll be totally fine. I had the 24-200, great lens but I sold it (and my 24-70 4) the day the 24-120 was announced.
As Criag C said - no vr on that one but you do have IBIS. Thank you for watching!
Have not used 24/120 but l do own the 24/200 for the versatility but l don't use it anymore the image quality is the worst Z lens l own.
I was surprised that there was a visible difference in sharpness. That I did not expect. Thanks for watching.
If 24-200mm zoom to 120mm will what F? surely 24-120mm zoom to 120mm still a F4
I believe he said in the video that the 24-200mm at 70mm (and beyond) is already limited to f/6.3
The 24-120 is the main reason I'm strongly considering the Z system. I shoot M43 currently and I love the combination of versatility, sharpness, and weather sealing of the Olympus 12-100 (24-200 equiv.). But as a landscape shooter I am looking for more resolution and DR in FF cameras. I don't want to give up the versatility though, so the 24-120 is the best lens I have found that has a great combination of IQ, focal range, size/portability, price, and weather sealing. The Tamron 35-150 for E-mount is close but it's a huge, pricey lens and I know I would miss the wide end. Based on my usage the 24-120 would stay on my lens a vast majority of the time.
A combo of the 24-120 and 100-400 for the Z system would be pretty killer, albeit the latter is quite pricey.
@@nickcarneyphotography +14-30
Doesn't surprise me, I'm only buying "S" glass for nothing else for future proofing my investment. All so as you climb the mega-pixel ladder you want the best glass you can get.
None. I prefer 24-70/4 if i must choose zoom cheap and good. If any lens ok. I prefer 35 and 50/85 and 20
Thanks.
You're welcome!
24-120
24 120
Those so called "fine details" may be what professionals call Micro Contrast.
24-200 any day, the 24-120 might be a hair sharper and have less CA at the wide end but it's not worth trading the extra focal range for that.
Comparaison 24 70 et 24 200 nikon
24-120은 VR이 없어서, 아쉬움 하지만 구경이 넓어서 고화소에 대응될꺼라고 생각되고, 인물 사진에 사용되기에 좋을 것 같음.
Agreed. Thank you for watching and commenting.
24-200 one lens only for travel
Great program!
Neither. I never shot zoomlenses (except when I shot movie film). So my Z 7ii sees all the 1.8S prime lenses plus the 105S macro next to it. In the past this was motivated by zoomlenses not being good enough. That doesn't hold longer today with the Nikon S zoomlenses.
Compared to the Hasselblad Zeiss lenses that I shot professionally, my problem with the F glass was in two things (1) chromatic aberration, and (2) tint differences. The Z system solves both, at least when you stick to S class glass.
In the video, it seemed like the 24-200 had a bit of a yellow shift compared to the neutral looking 24-120.
The reason I stuck to primes is simple. I need to maintain the perspective awareness in my brain by using discrete numbers and zooming on foot. I generally only need one or two primes for a shoot. As one uses two cameras on paid jobs this means there are no lens swaps.
Z 24-120 alla grende.
👍🏾🙏🏾
Thanks for watching
will be getting a z kit with the 24-70 f4....got a deal Used Mint cond, I had z6ii with 24-70 in the past, hates how short the 70 was...I like idea of New or used z24-120 then E-bay the 24-70. much better for not so much $$ either.
I prefer 24-120.