I've really enjoyed my F-mount 24-120 over the years. Your comparison has helped me decide to finally replace it with the Z-series 24-120. Thanks for another great video!
@@dicekolev5360 If it's a matter of personal preference, why are you denigrating people and saying their choice is cliche? Are you such a photo snob that other preferences are wrong? For you the 1.8 prime plus maybe one other is your personal preference, great, others prefer focal length flexibility so they only have to carry one lens. There is nothing wrong with either of those so maybe lighten up a bit.
Am I the only one who watches these reviews over and over because mine hasn’t arrived, when I ordered it months ago? Mine was ordered from B&H Nov 8th and still haven’t seen it…Bummer. Can’t wait!! Thanks for this review Hudson!
Thank you for this great review video on the 24-70 vs 24-120mm lenses. As you know, I have been waiting for my order to arrive. I was hoping for a ++, thumbs up on the lens. Sold my 24-70 kit lens when I ordered and been using the 24-120 f lens while I wait. Love the zoom range, Thank you again and safe travels.
The one of reason let's me stay with Nikon is the kit 24-120/4 VR F mount and 24-20/4 Z mount. I got one in March-2022 after sell 24-120/4 VR. 24-120/4 Z mount is best choice kit for my Z6. The image quality and weight is great with 1100$.
Thank you Hudson. This makes me excited about the 24-120 mm. The only thing is that I am still waiting for my copy. Ordered December 10, 2021, and still waiting from NikonUSA.
George, I am with you. Ordered on Oct 28, 2021. Still waiting. Since I foolishly dropped and broke my 24-70, I have been without this great range for months now. Sure would like to get back to my "go to" lens on my. Z6ii. REALLY tired of waiting but what can you do? Argh!
I really appreciated this video. The 24-70 f/4 was the first FF Z lens I purchased, and now having seen the 24-120 and its samples, I'm seriously considering upgrading later this year. There are a few other lenses I want first, but the 24-120 certainly looks like a keeper. Not many reviews I've seen do a direct comparison like this - so yes, Thank You.
@@gosman949 - I assume this is directed to @Hudson Henry Photography - I haven't sold mine yet. You may want to repost in the root (outside another users comment) to get his attention.
@@charlesdavis6371 no it was directed to you. I reread your comment and looks like you are "contemplating selling the f4. I know Hudson is coming out with a "how to sell lenses video" soon.
@@gosman949 - Ah, OK - My apologies then. I haven't sold the 24-70 yet, and if price is too low I probably won't sell it, and just get the 24-120 in addition to the 24-70. I will be selling off a lot of old gear this spring/early summer, and I'll go through KEH (or possibly Adorama) for that. And I'll certainly watch the "how to" video - I don't miss many of his actually, now that I've clicked the bell and said "All"
Just a quick query. In the sharpness tests the 24-120 is always a lighter shade than the 24-70. Was there any real colour difference. My 24-120 f mount on a ftz still gives good results especially with the long waits for pre orders.
Thanks for that Metadata information 👍 I didn't even know about it and now if I want to look through all my photos and see what I've mainly used for my best of the best photos I now know. So i salute you sir. Great content as always. Love your channel.
Super interested in this lens. Getting married in Europe this fall and were gonna do some traveling as well. Seems like a no brainer, I have the 35 and 85 primes for the Z mount but this seems like a great solution for long days out and 1 lens
Congratulations Geremy. We found out my wife was pregnant with our first kiddo while attending a wedding for a friend in Greece almost 7 years ago. :-) I think you'd love it. Hopefully you can get one by then. I have links for B&H (probably your best hope) at www.hudsonhenry.com/atslinks
Generally I use a printed grid I made in Excel for testing lenses. This seems to work well for general testing for sharpness across the frame, vignetting, and other potential optical problems. Of course I could modify mine perhaps to include grayscale for the purpose of contrast I guess, but I've found a simple square grid on an 8.5x11 sheet of paper works well (I just try to get it so that the page fills the frame, regardless of the focal length -- obviously easier when zooming in, versus at wide focal lengths, but it's been my go-to testing method and so far, have had good luck, it's cheap, and I can always print more. I even took this a step further and mounted one to a piece of foam board to ensure that it sits flat and isn't curved. The black lines on paper lines makes seeing sharpness loss and diffraction quite easy too. I have thought about modifying my chart to include diagonals and perhaps very fine lines (sort of like they have for some MTF charts to illustrate what each of the elements in an MTF chart stands for) to get more detailed info on finer detail. But for basic quick and dirty testing, a simple grid can be useful.
Thanks for doing the brick wall test and for advocating that for people who have new lenses. I actually use a large street map on a wall, but same principle. The Z lenses are pretty consistent across focal lengths but many others are not, and this test knowledge gives you a guide for what to do in various situations when you care about sharpness. Another concern though is sample variation. Just because a certain lens tests great for someone else doesn't mean your copy of it will be as good.
Thanks, Hudson, for this excellent and informative sharpness comparison! (I shoot landscapes with the 24-70 on my Z7, and am very pleased with its sharpness and detail rendition.) However, I too, am interested in the 24-120 as well. OK, so I've seen another RUclips tester who came to a somewhat opposite conclusion, which makes me wonder if the small differences in results comes down to sample variation? Thanks again!
Thanks for this great video Henry, love your videos as always. It definitely shows how good is this new lens even compared to such a good lens as the 24-70 f/4! Surprising results for a greater zoom lens as 24-120..amazing! It will be my next pick for my Z6II!
Just ordered a Z8 and looking at 24-120s and 24-70s for that. This video really helped me to make that decision. I'm gonna order the 24-120s. I also want to get a Z6 and may get that with the 24-70s or not. Not sure yet but looking forward to the Z8 and 24-120s for sure. BTW I do astrophotography for about the last year and have several ZWO dedicated cameras for that with 5 telescopes from f4.9 to f10. I mostly want to try my Redcat 51 (f4.9) with the Z8 for astro and terrain stills but prob mostly video. Great video, very helpful especially the brick wall stuff. (My home is all brick so maybe will try some of that too). Thanks and good day....CS!
Hi Hudson. I smiled when you made that comment about the heavy 24-70 2.8 Z lens. I just bought a Z9 and am buying Z lenses. I opted not to buy 24-70 Z (though it's not as heavy as my old 24-70 F mount) and instead bought 35mm 1.8 Z plus 24-120 f4 Z. I haven't really tried 24-120 yet but I love 35mm Z because it's so portable.
been playing with kit 24-70 lens since I got it and it really impressed me. nice sun star and very pleasant bokeh. very sharp BUT Im also very interested in upgrading to the 24-120 lens. just like 400g heavier but so much more useful and equally sharp
Thanks for this well done, practical review. I'm on a waiting list for the 24-120 at my local shop and will trade my 24-70 f/4 for it. Your video makes me want the wait to hurry up. Enjoy your upcoming travels and be safe.
To me, a 24-120 and a 50mm prime for low-light or if you want that that shallow DOF look is preferable to a 24-70 2.8. With that extra reach, maybe you don't get that smooth bokeh, but you do gain a considerable amount of background compression.
Great info here! Currently using an F mount 24-120, f4 on my Z7ii with the FTZ. In your opinion (which I respect), would it be worth the upgrade to go with the Z mount version? TIA!
I absolutely LOVE your channel. You are a wealth of information. I’d love to get your advice. I’m in the process of upgrading my gear. I have a very old Nikon D5000 with a Tamron 16-300mm lens. Neither one of these works for me anymore. They are not capable of capturing the quality of images that I want. They can get good images but not what I would call great images. I have been struggling to determine which mirrorless (or DSLR) Nikon to upgrade to (yes I want to stick with Nikon). I’m leaning heavily toward a Nikon z7ii and looking at the Tamron 18-400mm f/3.5-6.3 or the Tamron SP 150-600mm f/5-6.3. Quality of image, Portability and Budget are the biggest factors for me, with budget being the breaking point. This particular combo would be at my high end budget wise. I’m going to be doing quite a bit of travel (Alaska, switzerland, italy, etc.) over the next year or two and my focus is primarily wildlife and landscapes. Do you feel what I am looking at would be a good fit for what I’m wanting to do or do you have another suggestion.
Hey Hudson! I noticed in the video that you have a lot of great shots with the 24-70 f/4, and a few that weren’t as great with the 24-120, which I assume was because it was your first time shooting with it. However, it would be really helpful to hear your thoughts now, after two years of using both lenses, and whether you think it’s worth swapping my 24-70 for the 24-120, or if I should wait and invest in the 70-200 or 100-400 instead. I’ve seen other RUclips videos with contradictory opinions on sharpness, contrast and other factors, but for me, experience is the most reliable test. So, because of that and that for me you are the best, your opinion is really valuable to me! :)
24-120, 100-400 is the sweet combo I almost never leave home without. I ADORE the 24-120. It's sharp, it's versatile and it's got a great sunstar to boot. I shoot with it more than any other lens in the Z lineup these days. :-) Thanks so much for the kind words. Makes my morning.
@@HudsonHenryPhoto Thank you Hudson! I really appreciate your quick response! Perfect! Then the case is considered closed:) 100-400 is at the top of my list. Greetings from Greece!
Great video. Excited to get this new lens for my travels. Question on the brick wall test. What happens when you focus on the corner? There is a significant distance difference between the camera and the center of the wall and the camera and the corner. Could it be that the corners are out of focus?
Thank you! The 24-120 f4 is probably my next lens (on my Z6II), I have the old F mount 70-200 f4 and it's served me great for years. I have the Z 50mm 1.8 (which is amazing) but I want something a bit wider...really appreciate this review. Now to find $1700 (CDN), lol.
Another awesome vid brother! I too love the new 24-120. It is such a versatile lens and I like the extra 50mm paired with my new 100-400. Those paired with the 14-30 is pretty much the epic 3 lens landscape kit for me. Now to decide whether to upgrade my Z6 to Z6II or bite the bullet and get a Z7II. Not sure I need 45mp and can always pull out the D850 if I do. Thoughts?
I'd consider getting the money out of the 850 while you can... Try MPB.com and see if you can find a 7ii to swap it out for there. :-) That or just enjoy the 6ii until the 7ii replacement arrives with Z9 tech built in. It could be awhile, but the 6ii is a rad camera and you have spectacular glass for it that won't work on the 850. If you need more megapixels shoot panos. ;-)
One other question. Does the HB-97 lens hood for the 14-24 fit this lens? Would be nice to be able to use the same filters without getting a step up ring.
Great video as the f mount 24-120 is my versatile lens. Though I'm wondering how the new s lens compares to the f. I was in a quarry shooting a 400 foot wall and found that AF was more reliable if I zoomed in focused with my D850 then zoomed back to the shot I wanted. This is now a standard procedure with that lens after reviewing the photos that were trash because I just AF'ed and snapped at 24mm. This is just one itty bitty thing, as I just used this lens for a large portion of a wedding. Though knowing this still used this procedure for any wide angle group shots. Keep in mind that the quarry wall is stepped by about 15 feet about every 40 feet into the ground. Essentially this is the same test as the brick wall on a grand scale. Still waiting on the Z8 and will probably go 24-120 s as well.
I had the F mount. This new Z is head and shoulders better as is the AF accuracy of the Z system. You might be well served by calibrating yours. Focal is my preferred method. It made a big difference in the F mount system. It's not really needed with the Zs as they focus off the sensor.
All the brands are making fantastic cameras. What matters more with that choice is any background and familiarity you have with either brand. Relearning a new system is a big commitment. I'm Nikon guy in general because I love thier commitment to compatibility and the quality of thier lens design and ergonomics. It's very subjective though. Both cameras are fabulous.
I hope you could still guide me in my decision making. I do have the nikon 24-70 f4 lens. This coming June, we'll be having a trip to Vietnam and I'm planning to upgrade the said lens to the 24-120 f4 and bring along the 50 1.8 S for lowlight situations. Is the 24-120 f4 a substantial upgrade from 24-70 f4 lens?
Of course it makes sense to replace the 24-70/4 with the 24-120/4. I own the 24-70/2.8 and love it. I looked at the 24-120/4 but I decided that the very small increase in focal length I could do easily with some cropping. This would allow using 2.8 and getting the high quality results I have become used to. I don’t need 2 lenses in the same range - and I would never pick the slower lens if I owned 2. The Z9 with the 24-70/2.8 is so much smaller and lighter than my F mount equivalent … it is my smallest carry anywhere bag. If you don’t need to shoot at 2.8 then you shouldn’t be buying the 2.8 lens. Get one of the slower lenses and enjoy it.
I fully agree with you on personal tastes and needs. We all have differing opinions which makes life more interesting. I have to take issue with the 2.8 is always better argument though. It used to be true, but modern glass design and sensor performance have drastically changed that equation. In these days of insane ISO performance coupled with AI noise reduction, the need for 2.8 is virtually nill in zoom lenses for me. I do want fast apertures for low lit handheld, stars, bokeh and portraits at times, but I much prefer even faster primes for that purpose like my beloved 20 1.8 S, 105 1.4 AFS, the Voigtlander 50 1.0Z, and the razor sharp Micro 105 2.8 S MC With regard to the 24-70 or 120 range zooms. For me the image quality stopped down to F4 and beyond isn't significantly different between any of the 24-___ Z zooms. Sure the 24-70 2.8 gives you a couple of extra stops, but it's much larger and bulkier with less range than the 24-120. As someone who carries gear frequently on my back, that matters more to me than boosting the ISO a stop or grabbing the tripod. The 70-200 2.8 S vs 100-400 4 S were the same calculus for me. I sold the 70-200 once it sat unused on a shelf for 6 months after the 100-400 arrived. The 14-24 2.8 S vs 14-30 was a entirely different matter for me. The 14-24 is special at every aperture and differentiates itself in the way it renders color and contrast. Well worth the extra bulk and loss of range in my book. I'd personally love it more if it were smaller and F4 though. ;)
@@HudsonHenryPhoto Sorry, was not meaning to imply that 2.8 is always better. I shoot a lot at 2.8 in the 24-70 range, especially for weddings. The results really make the subject pop, which to me is a better quality of shot, not that it is a better image quality. I prefer using that lens, to buying and carrying around multiple primes and a zoom that cannot be used @ 2.8 … I can’t have people wait while I switch lenses. However, if I didn’t need/want that shallow DoF then I could get away with the slower zooms and save some money too. Thanks for all your advice … it has really helped me in my lens choices …
Great review and video of these lenses. Question, I heard you mention lens calibration on Z lenses. I thought Z lenses (and mirrorless cameras in general) don’t need calibration anymore due to it focusing off the sensor. Have you found that they still need calibration? Thanks again.
What do you think about the fact that the Nikon Z lenses get quite a bit of distortion correction in LR (or in camera if shooting JPEG)? I know this is true for the 24-70 f4 and I assume it is also true for the 24-120. I'm not sure how I feel about it. Purists would say there should be no software-based lens correction, but on the other hand why not take advantage of software correction? Heck, that's why iPhone photos look as good as they do. What is your feeling on the matter? Thanks. KQS
The corrections they apply are astoundingly good. It's taking great glass and honing it just a touch better. I can't imagine turning them off. I applaud the optical engineering team for working hand in hand with the software engineers. It's what's coming and I for one love it.
Ordered mine from B&H in mid-February and still waiting. No word on an ETA yet, that I can find and were near the end of March. Hope it gets here soon wanted it for winter wildlife here in Colorado. and while we will get winter days for a couple more months here, I'm hoping to get going with this lens before the snows end.
I'll be testing that in Death Valley and Joshua Tree soon. IT would be the first Nikon Z lens to have a nice star if that's true. I've kind of quit testing them from dissatisfaction. My Nisi Sunstar 15 and my old F mount 20 1.8 are the kings of sunstars in my bag. :-)
Thanks for another great video, Hudson! In the comparison video, the 120 seems like it has a significant advantage in contrast that accentuates the sharpest details. Can you comment on that?
I haven’t upgraded to the Z system yet. I just got a D850 last year and still learning all the aspects of it. I do enjoy your equipment reviews. I live in Central Washington and have traveled to many of the places you talk about, just didn’t have a good camera back then.
Hi John. The 850 is a fabulous camera. I used mine for years and enjoyed it. I do think the F mount system will start loosing value soon on the used market. The Z optics and shooting experience are just better, but keeping things in perspective, I think the D850 is the finest DSLR ever made. It likely will wear that crown forever. Bryce and Zion are both lovely, I've shot them and enjoyed them. I prefer running workshops in Moab where there is so much diversity of photographic opportunity from arches to canyonlands and the epic areas outside of both parks and proximity to such a fun town to stay in. That whole region is spectacular. I'm leaving in a couple of weeks for two of my other favorite southwest destinations: Death Valley and Joshua Tree. The west has so much to photograph, from the big volcanoes and wild coastlines to the north to the deserts and canyons of the south. :-)
Great video. I have the 24-120 F mount and will probably get the z equivalent Whe I get the Z9. One quick question, you mentionned you calibrated the z lenses. Did they need it and by how much? Thanks
for me there's too much of an overlay with the z 70-200 to warrant replacing the 24-70 with the 24-120. I accept its a very useful lens, but I'd probably mothball the 70-200. and I love it too much! Great review, and I love the use of brickwork to test against. I did a test of the 70-200 with and without the 2xTC, which now I'll have to do again!!
In my experience, there is very little need to calibrate AF on Nikon's mirrorless cameras. The center aperture sharpness testing is my go to tool in focal now. I only calibrated to be sure, but one lens was 0 and the other a negligible +1. That's how all the Z glass on Z bodies I've tried are. Dead on. It focuses off the sensor so that makes inherent sense. :)
I was looking to buy 24-120/4, but then I've got a TZE adapter and to my surprise all my e-mount lenses are working. So I've been using the Tamron 28-200/2.8-5.6 and it works perfectly. It's a sharp lens and even aperture-wise there isn't much difference. No reason to buy 24-120 anymore, cancelled my order.
It's pretty crazy what an amazing lens the 24-120 is in every condition and aperture, edge to edge. Backlight, low light, striaght into the sun... It blows away any of my older glass. All the new S lenses are like that though. I thought I'd use F glass on the FTZ too, but then I tried some new lenses. ;-)
I must say if you get the 24-70 f/4 as a kit, it's perhaps one of the best deals you can get (in the kit I think the lens only adds about $600, otherwise its $1000 separately). But even for $1000, it's still a great lens especially if you don't need the extra stop. You can save quite a bit if money by not getting the 2.8 (although the 2.8 is a better option for various reasons, but it also costs about $1400 more so you have to have a good reason to get it -- ie. you need 2.8 or you're really picky about your corners and you pixel peep). That being said, I really wish I didn't trade my f/4 in when I got the 2.8. I love the 2.8, but wish I just kept the f/4 instead of trading it and getting only $450 of trade value. And the even more sad thing is that I got the 24-200 later on as a single-lens for travel, but I almost would rather just have the f/4 24-70 again, and sell off the 24-200, as it's not that great beyond 135mm anyway, so it's only got a bit of FL advantage over the better f/4 24-70. Maybe if I can find someone to buy my 24-200 I can find a used 24-70 f/4 and break even or pocket a little cash in doing a "swap" like that....you do get convenience with the 24-200, and it's acceptably sharp up to about 135mm (so optically it's similar to the 24-70, minus the variable aperture, but the 24-70 f/.4 is just better).
And the 24-120 is just that much better and more versatile again. I totally agreed with you till the 24-120 released. Now that incredible lens is my workhorse. 14-24(or 30), 24-120, 100-400 and the 1.4 TC make one insane kit in a medium size camera insert.
Hudson, Any thoughts on keeping the 24-70 as a somewhat similar style zoom range (36-105) for your Z50? Obviously not as wide or long (or compact) as the two Z50 Kit lenses but for the trade value it might be worth keeping especially with the constant f/4 aperture. I'm considering a Z fc and migrating the 24-70 to that body or a Z50 as a walk around, one lens banger. Just thinking! And thank you for the videos including some of the On1 Plus series you've done.
Your very welcome. No I'd stick with the dx lenses made for that camera. They're epic on it anf have built in vr. Unlike the FX Z camera the 50 and Fc have no IBIS. The 24-70 has no VR and is bigger feeling than the 50-250 DX VR let alone the epic little 16-50 DX VR. Those dx lenses are awesome on the dx Z bodies.
I have had some issues with my 24-70 f4 with vignetting at f4 and low lighting. I see that the 24-120 may have the same issues. I'm loving my new Z 100-400 and look forward with your review of the lens.
Most lenses vignette wide open. Even the 2.8 S zooms and 1.8 primes do. It's usually cured stopping down a bit, but it's really easily fixed in post if needed. :)
@@HudsonHenryPhoto I would love to know how vignetting can be fixed post with Z lenses. Normally when importing into Lightroom, Lens Corrections profile will fix vignetting. This would always work well with my old Pentax lenses. But with Z lenses the profile is built into the lenses. This is the only complaint I've read and agree on, is that Nikon lens engineers, should leave the lens corrections up to the external software not the internal lens/camera software.
Gotta disagree there. I find they correct some very lens specific distortion as well as low level imperctions, but leave any heavy lifting, (like the vignetting as can be seen in my raw brick test images which have only those auto corrections applied) up to the user. The only corrective measures applied automatically are ones I'd never dream of turning off. Take a comparative look in unsupported software and you might find you agree. ;)
Wait till you try the new 24-120... ;-) The 500 PF and the 70-200 FL ED are the two best performing lenses I've used on the FTZ. They do give up performance to the newer S lenses though. They're just better across the board.
@@HudsonHenryPhoto Thanks. I have always loved the 24-120 and have the S model now. Nikon had a sale on the Z9 for $1000 off the refurbished. I'll have to try the 500PF on the FTZ. Where is an S line 500PF? Im using the 100-400 with a TC1.4 and its amazing
Question to the community: we are having a baby in March. Our first. Would you recommend these f/4 S class lenses for general picture taking of documenting baby/family life. All the real world examples are amazing nature, arch, and outdoor shots. Nothing really indoors. Either of these lenses are easily is in budget compared to the 2.8 S class lenses. Would rather get 2.8 but just so pricy and so heavy!! At this point, I would be willing to get a 28 mm F2.8 if they’re not going to cut it. I just switched from shooting F mount glass. 15 years with D3S/D700/D7100 and traded in all my bodies with the hope of staring over with simplicity in mind… and also all my primes (28/35/50/85/105/70-200) The only 2 lenses I currently have for my new Z7ii is 50 and 105.
Congratulations!! You're in for a great new adventure. Seems like mine were just being born, but they're 5 and 6 now. Crazy! The 24-120 and 100-400 are a stop slower, but unlike old F4 glass they're epic quality edge to edge wide open and so light and versatile. Instead of 800 ISO, you're using 1600. We're far from the film days. ISO performance in the z7ii sensor is better at 1600 than 400 on cameras from a decade ago. You're fine with the F4 zooms unless you specialize in headshots (but you have the 50 and 105 for that) or shoot lots of sideline night or indoor sports. I have a young family too and sold all my 2.8 zooms, except the 14-24 S the minute I had the 24-120 and 100-400. I even did an ATS video really early this year where I only took my Z50 with the 16-50 and 50-250 kit lenses with us on my family's Christmas Baja vacation. Even those slower lenses on that lesser sensor were more that enough for that trip. The technology has changed so much.
Hey! I want to thank you for taking time to reply; that means a lot! And the encouragement to make a purchase decision as I’m trying to avoid a massive shelf of lenses again 😂.
The general consensus I've seen is that the 24-120F4 is optically, marginally, better than the 24-70F4. I wonder if Nikon will discontinue the 24-70F4. Given that both lenses are fairly close in weight, size and price, it doesn't seem to make sense to produce both.
Looking closely at the brick wall shots from each that I compare late in this video, I'd say marginally better in the center, but significantly better at the corners across the aperture and focal range. It's also quite good out at 120 which is a real bonus. What really boggles me is them adding another lens, the 28-75 2.8 (non S) into the crowded normal zoom Z lineup. From my perspective the 24-70 2.8 S for those who need the extra stop for weddings or indoor sports and events and the 24-120 F4 S for everyone else should be the two to pick from. In spite of the above, and in defense of the 24-70 F4. It's a wonderful small package on the Z6/7iis and like all the Z Nikon lenses, it punches way above expectations. I've loved it the past 3 years.
The 24-120. :) no doubt about that. The 24-70 is only slightly less amazing, but far less versatile. The 28-75 doesnt interest me enough to test. 28 is not wide enough for me in a lens of that type and I prefer the S lens build quality. If I need a faster lens in the normal range for low lit hand held work, I reach for the epic little 50 1.8 and zoom with my feet.
I was never a great fan of the 24 - 120 f4 f lens as it was a bit soft at the edges. The z mount sounds like a great option to replace my 24 to 70, f4. I love my 24 - 200 z mount for knock around landscape as the extra length is perfect. Would love a 24 to 180 f4
Unless its for astro etc I dont care about a little softness in the edges. But I found the old G 24-120mm disappointing even in the centre of the image...
Hmmm mine sharpened right up in the middle by f5.6. I didn't like it for much below that. But f11 it was nice and sharp thoughout the frame on my 850. Perhaps I had a really good copy.
@@HudsonHenryPhoto Correct it did sharpen up when stopped down. Mine came as a kit on my d750. I just found i preferred the 70 to 200 and a 35 and 50 prime. That all changed with the z7, and i quickly dumped most of my f glass. The 24 to 200 z is my favorite walk around zoom, but this 24 - 120 looks amazing.
Totally agree. I.only used the old 24-120 as a knock around one lens kit. I'd hike with it in the middle of the day and move to my 14-24, 50 and 70-200 when the light got good. This lens is much much better than that. :)
Hi Hudson, Thanks for nice review. Based on your opinion and others it looks that this new Z lens will quickly become favorite lens of many Z users. I wonder, how do you set a switching point when you decide that you need a better lens to do a job? Tomek
That point is where a new lens can make it easier for me to create the kind of images I'm after. Sharper images across the frame at equivalent aperture and focal length + double the focal range makes this one a no brainer for me. :)
Very nice informative video But I have a doubt 21:20 In that 24-70 image look warm tone & 24-120 look slight cool tone . Is that pictures are taken at same time or different time.. Live from India 🇮🇳 ♥️
I wouldn't sell the 24-70F4S because I like to use it on my Z50 (36-95mm eq.) It is a best buy used, and half the price of the 24-120F4S which lacks VR for that nice 100mm (fail.) Besides, with the Z system I find myself spending less time at 200%. I know the quality is there, and it is good enough for most uses. Odd that Nikon only put one Fn button on it. I need one for subject tracking and one for playback. I'd have given up the display and the ring I don't use for a button; on ALL S lenses.
Hmmm, I think you can tell I loved my 24-70f4, but not on the Z50. The z50s 16-50 / 50-250 are such a crazy cool pair on that camera and fit it so well with built in VR. They're shockingly good. The 24-70, while great, also has no vr and not a single button. All the FX Z cameras have fabulous IBIS, so it bugs me not in the least that the short to normal FX S lenses don't have VR. My hope is that an aps-c body comes with IBIS, a deep buffer and 3D tracking... That would rock. Glad you love the 24-70. It's great. After testing the new lens, I just know I'll never use mine again. Someone else should be using it. :)
@@HudsonHenryPhotoI couldn't agree more about the kit lenses. I prefer the size and feel of the 24-70F4S. It is one of my best AF-C focusing lenses. The 70mm is really nice for almost macros, and I add Kenko tube/s for near 1:1 macros. I also pair it with the 85-S. It is difficult for non-NPS members to even get a 24-120 or 100-400. Wish I kept my 24-120F4S pre-order. I don't think Nikon would do it, but I'd gladly pay for a few DX "S" lenses. Especially a 22f2 "S" because the 20-S FX is just too bulky/long. Regardless, these are VERY exciting times when zoom lenses outperform or equal most primes.
I'll leave that to someone willing to carry that beast when these lighter ones are so sharp. For my work I don't need the stop wider aperture in this range, especially since I have my amazing little 50 1.8 S for low light handheld work. 24-70 is too long for night skies and too short for wildlife and the outdoor adventure sports I like to shoot. These f4s are plenty sharp stopped down a bit for my landscape and still life work. I'll keep the room in my bag for the fast ultra wide and long glass I need. :) That said, I've worked with the 24-70 2.8 S and it's F mount predessesors. It's better than them. It's amazing like the other 2.8 S trinity lenses. For indoor sports, wedding and event shooters I'm sure it's essential. I just personally have no need for that extra stop in its range and it's twice the size, weight and price.
@@HudsonHenryPhoto ok I'm digging your response on this. I'm mainly landscape and have the 14-24 2.8 and wanted this 24-120 and I think you have solidified my decision to get it.
Most people who know me know that I'm primarily an outdoor landscape and adventure photographer. I shoot indoors occasionally, but it's certainly not a passion.
@@HudsonHenryPhoto Im sorry but I believe it is an S lens also. Nikon Z roadmap lists it that way and that is what I have been seeing in other videos. It is weatherproofed, etc.
Your not disagreeing. The title of this video and my prior response both clearly state that each of them are S lenses. If you test them back to back, you'll keep the 24-120 unless price is the major determining factor.
No, my friend Rick was shooting with his Sony to test some Sony lenses. I shot with my Z7ii exclusively for this test. We were together and i merely showed Rick's camera to demonstrate how you set up and level the camera to do the test. I shot all the test shots used in this video with my Z7ii. It was right next to Rick's tripod on my tripod.
![FORTNITE CLASSICS IS BACK! Fortnite Item Shop [November 15th, 2024] (Fortnite Chapter 5)](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/RbQURbeFwqs/mqdefault.jpg)
I pre-ordered the 24-120 immediately when it was announced, sold my 24-70 4 and 24-200. The 24-120 hasn't left my Z6II since it arrived, love it!
Curious how long did it take to ship?
I've really enjoyed my F-mount 24-120 over the years. Your comparison has helped me decide to finally replace it with the Z-series 24-120. Thanks for another great video!
For something like a tourist trip to Europe where you could only carry 1-2 lenses,
the 24-120 will be a great all-in-one high quality lens.
@@dicekolev5360 If it's a matter of personal preference, why are you denigrating people and saying their choice is cliche? Are you such a photo snob that other preferences are wrong? For you the 1.8 prime plus maybe one other is your personal preference, great, others prefer focal length flexibility so they only have to carry one lens. There is nothing wrong with either of those so maybe lighten up a bit.
This is the video I’ve been waiting for.
Thanks, Hudson. Got my 24-120 S today. Taking it to London in a few weeks! Glad to see your video and how much you liked it.
Am I the only one who watches these reviews over and over because mine hasn’t arrived, when I ordered it months ago? Mine was ordered from B&H Nov 8th and still haven’t seen it…Bummer. Can’t wait!! Thanks for this review Hudson!
Sorry man. It will come eventually. Your not alone. I hear this response a lot... :(
Just waiting for mine. It’s been on pre order from B&H since Oct 28th. Hopefully by spring….
Thank you very much. Excellent video. Very nicely done.
Thank you - very helpful.
I've always considered the 24-120mm format to be better for video.
I'm going to take another look at the Z version...
Great comparison! 🙏 Just got my Z8 and while I’ve enjoyed the 24-70 from my Z6, I’m going to get the 24-120 for the Z8 as my walk around lens. 👍
Thank you for this great review video on the 24-70 vs 24-120mm lenses. As you know, I have been waiting for my order to arrive. I was hoping for a ++, thumbs up on the lens. Sold my 24-70 kit lens when I ordered and been using the 24-120 f lens while I wait. Love the zoom range, Thank you again and safe travels.
The one of reason let's me stay with Nikon is the kit 24-120/4 VR F mount and 24-20/4 Z mount. I got one in March-2022 after sell 24-120/4 VR. 24-120/4 Z mount is best choice kit for my Z6. The image quality and weight is great with 1100$.
Thank you Hudson. This makes me excited about the 24-120 mm. The only thing is that I am still waiting for my copy. Ordered December 10, 2021, and still waiting from NikonUSA.
George, I am with you. Ordered on Oct 28, 2021. Still waiting. Since I foolishly dropped and broke my 24-70, I have been without this great range for months now. Sure would like to get back to my "go to" lens on my. Z6ii. REALLY tired of waiting but what can you do? Argh!
I really appreciated this video. The 24-70 f/4 was the first FF Z lens I purchased, and now having seen the 24-120 and its samples, I'm seriously considering upgrading later this year. There are a few other lenses I want first, but the 24-120 certainly looks like a keeper. Not many reviews I've seen do a direct comparison like this - so yes, Thank You.
there seems to be a glut of 24-70 f/4s in the marketplace! Do you mind telling us how you sold your f/4?
@@gosman949 - I assume this is directed to @Hudson Henry Photography - I haven't sold mine yet. You may want to repost in the root (outside another users comment) to get his attention.
@@charlesdavis6371 no it was directed to you. I reread your comment and looks like you are "contemplating selling the f4. I know Hudson is coming out with a "how to sell lenses video" soon.
@@gosman949 - Ah, OK - My apologies then. I haven't sold the 24-70 yet, and if price is too low I probably won't sell it, and just get the 24-120 in addition to the 24-70. I will be selling off a lot of old gear this spring/early summer, and I'll go through KEH (or possibly Adorama) for that. And I'll certainly watch the "how to" video - I don't miss many of his actually, now that I've clicked the bell and said "All"
Just a quick query. In the sharpness tests the 24-120 is always a lighter shade than the 24-70. Was there any real colour difference. My 24-120 f mount on a ftz still gives good results especially with the long waits for pre orders.
Thanks for that Metadata information 👍 I didn't even know about it and now if I want to look through all my photos and see what I've mainly used for my best of the best photos I now know. So i salute you sir. Great content as always. Love your channel.
Thanks again for the clear comparison, was in doubt between the two but made my choice for the 24-120!
Super interested in this lens. Getting married in Europe this fall and were gonna do some traveling as well. Seems like a no brainer, I have the 35 and 85 primes for the Z mount but this seems like a great solution for long days out and 1 lens
Congratulations Geremy. We found out my wife was pregnant with our first kiddo while attending a wedding for a friend in Greece almost 7 years ago. :-) I think you'd love it. Hopefully you can get one by then. I have links for B&H (probably your best hope) at www.hudsonhenry.com/atslinks
Generally I use a printed grid I made in Excel for testing lenses. This seems to work well for general testing for sharpness across the frame, vignetting, and other potential optical problems. Of course I could modify mine perhaps to include grayscale for the purpose of contrast I guess, but I've found a simple square grid on an 8.5x11 sheet of paper works well (I just try to get it so that the page fills the frame, regardless of the focal length -- obviously easier when zooming in, versus at wide focal lengths, but it's been my go-to testing method and so far, have had good luck, it's cheap, and I can always print more. I even took this a step further and mounted one to a piece of foam board to ensure that it sits flat and isn't curved. The black lines on paper lines makes seeing sharpness loss and diffraction quite easy too. I have thought about modifying my chart to include diagonals and perhaps very fine lines (sort of like they have for some MTF charts to illustrate what each of the elements in an MTF chart stands for) to get more detailed info on finer detail. But for basic quick and dirty testing, a simple grid can be useful.
I prefer the texture of brick walls to a printed grid in all circumstances. More fun too. ;)
Thanks for doing the brick wall test and for advocating that for people who have new lenses. I actually use a large street map on a wall, but same principle. The Z lenses are pretty consistent across focal lengths but many others are not, and this test knowledge gives you a guide for what to do in various situations when you care about sharpness. Another concern though is sample variation. Just because a certain lens tests great for someone else doesn't mean your copy of it will be as good.
So true.
Bought this about three weeks ago…a-mazing lens. Love the range and it’s so light! 😎📸
Thanks, Hudson, for this excellent and informative sharpness comparison! (I shoot landscapes with the 24-70 on my Z7, and am very pleased with its sharpness and detail rendition.) However, I too, am interested in the 24-120 as well. OK, so I've seen another RUclips tester who came to a somewhat opposite conclusion, which makes me wonder if the small differences in results comes down to sample variation? Thanks again!
Thanks for this great video Henry, love your videos as always. It definitely shows how good is this new lens even compared to such a good lens as the 24-70 f/4! Surprising results for a greater zoom lens as 24-120..amazing! It will be my next pick for my Z6II!
Thanks Billy. First name is Hudson, but no big deal at all.
@@HudsonHenryPhoto THIS made me chuckle! With your name in either order, you're still the best photography youtuber out there.
I got the ZF kit with the 24-70. Love the lens but will be getting the 24-120 as it’s more useful for my daughters basketball games.
Just ordered a Z8 and looking at 24-120s and 24-70s for that. This video really helped me to make that decision. I'm gonna order the 24-120s. I also want to get a Z6 and may get that with the 24-70s or not. Not sure yet but looking forward to the Z8 and 24-120s for sure. BTW I do astrophotography for about the last year and have several ZWO dedicated cameras for that with 5 telescopes from f4.9 to f10. I mostly want to try my Redcat 51 (f4.9) with the Z8 for astro and terrain stills but prob mostly video.
Great video, very helpful especially the brick wall stuff. (My home is all brick so maybe will try some of that too).
Thanks and good day....CS!
Hi Hudson. I smiled when you made that comment about the heavy 24-70 2.8 Z lens. I just bought a Z9 and am buying Z lenses. I opted not to buy 24-70 Z (though it's not as heavy as my old 24-70 F mount) and instead bought 35mm 1.8 Z plus 24-120 f4 Z. I haven't really tried 24-120 yet but I love 35mm Z because it's so portable.
the 40mm is a revelation as well
Absolutely amazing Test ... really helps me out A LOT with my decision to sell my 24-70, buy a 24-120 and 100-400 and forget the rest :))
been playing with kit 24-70 lens since I got it and it really impressed me. nice sun star and very pleasant bokeh. very sharp BUT Im also very interested in upgrading to the 24-120 lens. just like 400g heavier but so much more useful and equally sharp
Much better sunstar too. :)
Thanks for this well done, practical review. I'm on a waiting list for the 24-120 at my local shop and will trade my 24-70 f/4 for it. Your video makes me want the wait to hurry up. Enjoy your upcoming travels and be safe.
To me, a 24-120 and a 50mm prime for low-light or if you want that that shallow DOF look is preferable to a 24-70 2.8. With that extra reach, maybe you don't get that smooth bokeh, but you do gain a considerable amount of background compression.
Mines on its way.....hope it arrives soon. Looks like a great lens. Nice video btw!
Danke Hudson! Ich liebe das Nikkor 24-120/4 S an meiner Nikon Z8! Auch die gleiche und kurze Naheinstellgrenze bei allen Brennweiten!
Great info here! Currently using an F mount 24-120, f4 on my Z7ii with the FTZ. In your opinion (which I respect), would it be worth the upgrade to go with the Z mount version? TIA!
Great review, thank you. Have you tried testing lenses under various lighting conditions?
Thank you, Hudson. That's good news on the new 24-120. Nice!
I absolutely LOVE your channel. You are a wealth of information. I’d love to get your advice. I’m in the process of upgrading my gear. I have a very old Nikon D5000 with a Tamron 16-300mm lens. Neither one of these works for me anymore. They are not capable of capturing the quality of images that I want. They can get good images but not what I would call great images. I have been struggling to determine which mirrorless (or DSLR) Nikon to upgrade to (yes I want to stick with Nikon). I’m leaning heavily toward a Nikon z7ii and looking at the Tamron 18-400mm f/3.5-6.3 or the Tamron SP 150-600mm f/5-6.3. Quality of image, Portability and Budget are the biggest factors for me, with budget being the breaking point. This particular combo would be at my high end budget wise. I’m going to be doing quite a bit of travel (Alaska, switzerland, italy, etc.) over the next year or two and my focus is primarily wildlife and landscapes. Do you feel what I am looking at would be a good fit for what I’m wanting to do or do you have another suggestion.
Hey Hudson! I noticed in the video that you have a lot of great shots with the 24-70 f/4, and a few that weren’t as great with the 24-120, which I assume was because it was your first time shooting with it. However, it would be really helpful to hear your thoughts now, after two years of using both lenses, and whether you think it’s worth swapping my 24-70 for the 24-120, or if I should wait and invest in the 70-200 or 100-400 instead. I’ve seen other RUclips videos with contradictory opinions on sharpness, contrast and other factors, but for me, experience is the most reliable test. So, because of that and that for me you are the best, your opinion is really valuable to me! :)
24-120, 100-400 is the sweet combo I almost never leave home without. I ADORE the 24-120. It's sharp, it's versatile and it's got a great sunstar to boot. I shoot with it more than any other lens in the Z lineup these days. :-) Thanks so much for the kind words. Makes my morning.
@@HudsonHenryPhoto Thank you Hudson! I really appreciate your quick response! Perfect! Then the case is considered closed:) 100-400 is at the top of my list.
Greetings from Greece!
Great video. Excited to get this new lens for my travels. Question on the brick wall test. What happens when you focus on the corner? There is a significant distance difference between the camera and the center of the wall and the camera and the corner. Could it be that the corners are out of focus?
Thank you! The 24-120 f4 is probably my next lens (on my Z6II), I have the old F mount 70-200 f4 and it's served me great for years. I have the Z 50mm 1.8 (which is amazing) but I want something a bit wider...really appreciate this review. Now to find $1700 (CDN), lol.
Another awesome vid brother! I too love the new 24-120. It is such a versatile lens and I like the extra 50mm paired with my new 100-400. Those paired with the 14-30 is pretty much the epic 3 lens landscape kit for me. Now to decide whether to upgrade my Z6 to Z6II or bite the bullet and get a Z7II. Not sure I need 45mp and can always pull out the D850 if I do. Thoughts?
I'd consider getting the money out of the 850 while you can... Try MPB.com and see if you can find a 7ii to swap it out for there. :-) That or just enjoy the 6ii until the 7ii replacement arrives with Z9 tech built in. It could be awhile, but the 6ii is a rad camera and you have spectacular glass for it that won't work on the 850. If you need more megapixels shoot panos. ;-)
Just waiting for mine to ship... hopefully... one day.
One other question. Does the HB-97 lens hood for the 14-24 fit this lens? Would be nice to be able to use the same filters without getting a step up ring.
Great video as the f mount 24-120 is my versatile lens. Though I'm wondering how the new s lens compares to the f. I was in a quarry shooting a 400 foot wall and found that AF was more reliable if I zoomed in focused with my D850 then zoomed back to the shot I wanted. This is now a standard procedure with that lens after reviewing the photos that were trash because I just AF'ed and snapped at 24mm. This is just one itty bitty thing, as I just used this lens for a large portion of a wedding. Though knowing this still used this procedure for any wide angle group shots.
Keep in mind that the quarry wall is stepped by about 15 feet about every 40 feet into the ground. Essentially this is the same test as the brick wall on a grand scale.
Still waiting on the Z8 and will probably go 24-120 s as well.
I had the F mount. This new Z is head and shoulders better as is the AF accuracy of the Z system. You might be well served by calibrating yours. Focal is my preferred method. It made a big difference in the F mount system. It's not really needed with the Zs as they focus off the sensor.
Great review, can you please suggest me between Nikon Zf and Canon R6ii.
All the brands are making fantastic cameras. What matters more with that choice is any background and familiarity you have with either brand. Relearning a new system is a big commitment. I'm Nikon guy in general because I love thier commitment to compatibility and the quality of thier lens design and ergonomics. It's very subjective though. Both cameras are fabulous.
I hope you could still guide me in my decision making. I do have the nikon 24-70 f4 lens. This coming June, we'll be having a trip to Vietnam and I'm planning to upgrade the said lens to the 24-120 f4 and bring along the 50 1.8 S for lowlight situations. Is the 24-120 f4 a substantial upgrade from 24-70 f4 lens?
Yes, but the 24-70 f4 is a shockingly good lens. The 24-120 is more versatile and maybe even a touch sharper, but both are wonderful.
Of course it makes sense to replace the 24-70/4 with the 24-120/4. I own the 24-70/2.8 and love it. I looked at the 24-120/4 but I decided that the very small increase in focal length I could do easily with some cropping. This would allow using 2.8 and getting the high quality results I have become used to. I don’t need 2 lenses in the same range - and I would never pick the slower lens if I owned 2.
The Z9 with the 24-70/2.8 is so much smaller and lighter than my F mount equivalent … it is my smallest carry anywhere bag. If you don’t need to shoot at 2.8 then you shouldn’t be buying the 2.8 lens. Get one of the slower lenses and enjoy it.
I fully agree with you on personal tastes and needs. We all have differing opinions which makes life more interesting. I have to take issue with the 2.8 is always better argument though. It used to be true, but modern glass design and sensor performance have drastically changed that equation. In these days of insane ISO performance coupled with AI noise reduction, the need for 2.8 is virtually nill in zoom lenses for me. I do want fast apertures for low lit handheld, stars, bokeh and portraits at times, but I much prefer even faster primes for that purpose like my beloved 20 1.8 S, 105 1.4 AFS, the Voigtlander 50 1.0Z, and the razor sharp Micro 105 2.8 S MC
With regard to the 24-70 or 120 range zooms. For me the image quality stopped down to F4 and beyond isn't significantly different between any of the 24-___ Z zooms. Sure the 24-70 2.8 gives you a couple of extra stops, but it's much larger and bulkier with less range than the 24-120. As someone who carries gear frequently on my back, that matters more to me than boosting the ISO a stop or grabbing the tripod.
The 70-200 2.8 S vs 100-400 4 S were the same calculus for me. I sold the 70-200 once it sat unused on a shelf for 6 months after the 100-400 arrived. The 14-24 2.8 S vs 14-30 was a entirely different matter for me. The 14-24 is special at every aperture and differentiates itself in the way it renders color and contrast. Well worth the extra bulk and loss of range in my book. I'd personally love it more if it were smaller and F4 though. ;)
@@HudsonHenryPhoto Sorry, was not meaning to imply that 2.8 is always better. I shoot a lot at 2.8 in the 24-70 range, especially for weddings. The results really make the subject pop, which to me is a better quality of shot, not that it is a better image quality. I prefer using that lens, to buying and carrying around multiple primes and a zoom that cannot be used @ 2.8 … I can’t have people wait while I switch lenses. However, if I didn’t need/want that shallow DoF then I could get away with the slower zooms and save some money too. Thanks for all your advice … it has really helped me in my lens choices …
Great review and video of these lenses. Question, I heard you mention lens calibration on Z lenses. I thought Z lenses (and mirrorless cameras in general) don’t need calibration anymore due to it focusing off the sensor. Have you found that they still need calibration? Thanks again.
I look forward to the answer to this, as I thought the same thing.
You're right. One of them suggested plus 1. Z lenses on Z bodiez are relatively perfect out of the box. I was just being anal to check. :)
What do you think about the fact that the Nikon Z lenses get quite a bit of distortion correction in LR (or in camera if shooting JPEG)? I know this is true for the 24-70 f4 and I assume it is also true for the 24-120. I'm not sure how I feel about it. Purists would say there should be no software-based lens correction, but on the other hand why not take advantage of software correction? Heck, that's why iPhone photos look as good as they do. What is your feeling on the matter? Thanks. KQS
The corrections they apply are astoundingly good. It's taking great glass and honing it just a touch better. I can't imagine turning them off. I applaud the optical engineering team for working hand in hand with the software engineers. It's what's coming and I for one love it.
I ordered the 24-120 lens about a month ago. Still waiting for it to ship.
Ordered mine from B&H in mid-February and still waiting. No word on an ETA yet, that I can find and were near the end of March. Hope it gets here soon wanted it for winter wildlife here in Colorado. and while we will get winter days for a couple more months here, I'm hoping to get going with this lens before the snows end.
I hope it comes soon.
13:56 Hudson showing off those guns!
Sweet , I can not wait till mine arrives, I would like to see some examples of the sun star capabilities I heard it is a good sunstar lens?
I'll be testing that in Death Valley and Joshua Tree soon. IT would be the first Nikon Z lens to have a nice star if that's true. I've kind of quit testing them from dissatisfaction. My Nisi Sunstar 15 and my old F mount 20 1.8 are the kings of sunstars in my bag. :-)
Nice channel, tx for test!
Great video!
Thank you.
Thanks for another great video, Hudson! In the comparison video, the 120 seems like it has a significant advantage in contrast that accentuates the sharpest details. Can you comment on that?
Do you ever travel to Bryce Canyon. Haven’t been there since the early 70’s but remember it as some of the most spectacular scenery in the West Coast.
I haven’t upgraded to the Z system yet. I just got a D850 last year and still learning all the aspects of it. I do enjoy your equipment reviews. I live in Central Washington and have traveled to many of the places you talk about, just didn’t have a good camera back then.
Hi John. The 850 is a fabulous camera. I used mine for years and enjoyed it. I do think the F mount system will start loosing value soon on the used market. The Z optics and shooting experience are just better, but keeping things in perspective, I think the D850 is the finest DSLR ever made. It likely will wear that crown forever.
Bryce and Zion are both lovely, I've shot them and enjoyed them. I prefer running workshops in Moab where there is so much diversity of photographic opportunity from arches to canyonlands and the epic areas outside of both parks and proximity to such a fun town to stay in. That whole region is spectacular. I'm leaving in a couple of weeks for two of my other favorite southwest destinations: Death Valley and Joshua Tree. The west has so much to photograph, from the big volcanoes and wild coastlines to the north to the deserts and canyons of the south. :-)
Great work as usual.
Great video. I have the 24-120 F mount and will probably get the z equivalent Whe I get the Z9. One quick question, you mentionned you calibrated the z lenses. Did they need it and by how much? Thanks
I did only to be anal about it. The 24-70 read plus 1. Negligible really. The Z lenses rarely read a need for calibration at all in my experience.
for me there's too much of an overlay with the z 70-200 to warrant replacing the 24-70 with the 24-120. I accept its a very useful lens, but I'd probably mothball the 70-200. and I love it too much!
Great review, and I love the use of brickwork to test against. I did a test of the 70-200 with and without the 2xTC, which now I'll have to do again!!
You'll be seeing mine soon. :)
Hi Hudson. I have several lenses. The longest is FX 100-400mm. Could you tell me if Focal Plus will do everything I need or do I need the Focal Pro.
In my experience, there is very little need to calibrate AF on Nikon's mirrorless cameras. The center aperture sharpness testing is my go to tool in focal now. I only calibrated to be sure, but one lens was 0 and the other a negligible +1. That's how all the Z glass on Z bodies I've tried are. Dead on. It focuses off the sensor so that makes inherent sense. :)
I was looking to buy 24-120/4, but then I've got a TZE adapter and to my surprise all my e-mount lenses are working. So I've been using the Tamron 28-200/2.8-5.6 and it works perfectly. It's a sharp lens and even aperture-wise there isn't much difference. No reason to buy 24-120 anymore, cancelled my order.
It's pretty crazy what an amazing lens the 24-120 is in every condition and aperture, edge to edge. Backlight, low light, striaght into the sun... It blows away any of my older glass. All the new S lenses are like that though. I thought I'd use F glass on the FTZ too, but then I tried some new lenses. ;-)
I must say if you get the 24-70 f/4 as a kit, it's perhaps one of the best deals you can get (in the kit I think the lens only adds about $600, otherwise its $1000 separately). But even for $1000, it's still a great lens especially if you don't need the extra stop. You can save quite a bit if money by not getting the 2.8 (although the 2.8 is a better option for various reasons, but it also costs about $1400 more so you have to have a good reason to get it -- ie. you need 2.8 or you're really picky about your corners and you pixel peep). That being said, I really wish I didn't trade my f/4 in when I got the 2.8. I love the 2.8, but wish I just kept the f/4 instead of trading it and getting only $450 of trade value. And the even more sad thing is that I got the 24-200 later on as a single-lens for travel, but I almost would rather just have the f/4 24-70 again, and sell off the 24-200, as it's not that great beyond 135mm anyway, so it's only got a bit of FL advantage over the better f/4 24-70. Maybe if I can find someone to buy my 24-200 I can find a used 24-70 f/4 and break even or pocket a little cash in doing a "swap" like that....you do get convenience with the 24-200, and it's acceptably sharp up to about 135mm (so optically it's similar to the 24-70, minus the variable aperture, but the 24-70 f/.4 is just better).
And the 24-120 is just that much better and more versatile again. I totally agreed with you till the 24-120 released. Now that incredible lens is my workhorse. 14-24(or 30), 24-120, 100-400 and the 1.4 TC make one insane kit in a medium size camera insert.
Hudson, Any thoughts on keeping the 24-70 as a somewhat similar style zoom range (36-105) for your Z50? Obviously not as wide or long (or compact) as the two Z50 Kit lenses but for the trade value it might be worth keeping especially with the constant f/4 aperture. I'm considering a Z fc and migrating the 24-70 to that body or a Z50 as a walk around, one lens banger. Just thinking!
And thank you for the videos including some of the On1 Plus series you've done.
Your very welcome. No I'd stick with the dx lenses made for that camera. They're epic on it anf have built in vr. Unlike the FX Z camera the 50 and Fc have no IBIS. The 24-70 has no VR and is bigger feeling than the 50-250 DX VR let alone the epic little 16-50 DX VR. Those dx lenses are awesome on the dx Z bodies.
@@HudsonHenryPhoto Great point about the VR and one that I had forgotten to consider. That's why I watch your videos. Thank you again!
I have had some issues with my 24-70 f4 with vignetting at f4 and low lighting. I see that the 24-120 may have the same issues. I'm loving my new Z 100-400 and look forward with your review of the lens.
Most lenses vignette wide open. Even the 2.8 S zooms and 1.8 primes do. It's usually cured stopping down a bit, but it's really easily fixed in post if needed. :)
@@HudsonHenryPhoto I would love to know how vignetting can be fixed post with Z lenses. Normally when importing into Lightroom, Lens Corrections profile will fix vignetting. This would always work well with my old Pentax lenses. But with Z lenses the profile is built into the lenses. This is the only complaint I've read and agree on, is that Nikon lens engineers, should leave the lens corrections up to the external software not the internal lens/camera software.
Gotta disagree there. I find they correct some very lens specific distortion as well as low level imperctions, but leave any heavy lifting, (like the vignetting as can be seen in my raw brick test images which have only those auto corrections applied) up to the user. The only corrective measures applied automatically are ones I'd never dream of turning off. Take a comparative look in unsupported software and you might find you agree. ;)
How do you find the performance of the 500 PF on the Z7II? I LOVE the 24-120 and use it on my D850 as well as my Z7II? Best all around
lens
Wait till you try the new 24-120... ;-) The 500 PF and the 70-200 FL ED are the two best performing lenses I've used on the FTZ. They do give up performance to the newer S lenses though. They're just better across the board.
@@HudsonHenryPhoto Thanks. I have always loved the 24-120 and have the S model now. Nikon had a sale on the Z9 for $1000 off the refurbished. I'll have to try the 500PF on the FTZ. Where is an S line 500PF? Im using the 100-400 with a TC1.4 and its amazing
Question to the community: we are having a baby in March. Our first. Would you recommend these f/4 S class lenses for general picture taking of documenting baby/family life. All the real world examples are amazing nature, arch, and outdoor shots. Nothing really indoors.
Either of these lenses are easily is in budget compared to the 2.8 S class lenses.
Would rather get 2.8 but just so pricy and so heavy!!
At this point, I would be willing to get a 28 mm F2.8 if they’re not going to cut it.
I just switched from shooting F mount glass. 15 years with D3S/D700/D7100 and traded in all my bodies with the hope of staring over with simplicity in mind… and also all my primes (28/35/50/85/105/70-200)
The only 2 lenses I currently have for my new Z7ii is 50 and 105.
Congratulations!! You're in for a great new adventure. Seems like mine were just being born, but they're 5 and 6 now. Crazy!
The 24-120 and 100-400 are a stop slower, but unlike old F4 glass they're epic quality edge to edge wide open and so light and versatile. Instead of 800 ISO, you're using 1600. We're far from the film days. ISO performance in the z7ii sensor is better at 1600 than 400 on cameras from a decade ago. You're fine with the F4 zooms unless you specialize in headshots (but you have the 50 and 105 for that) or shoot lots of sideline night or indoor sports.
I have a young family too and sold all my 2.8 zooms, except the 14-24 S the minute I had the 24-120 and 100-400. I even did an ATS video really early this year where I only took my Z50 with the 16-50 and 50-250 kit lenses with us on my family's Christmas Baja vacation. Even those slower lenses on that lesser sensor were more that enough for that trip. The technology has changed so much.
Hey! I want to thank you for taking time to reply; that means a lot!
And the encouragement to make a purchase decision as I’m trying to avoid a massive shelf of lenses again 😂.
The general consensus I've seen is that the 24-120F4 is optically, marginally, better than the 24-70F4. I wonder if Nikon will discontinue the 24-70F4. Given that both lenses are fairly close in weight, size and price, it doesn't seem to make sense to produce both.
Looking closely at the brick wall shots from each that I compare late in this video, I'd say marginally better in the center, but significantly better at the corners across the aperture and focal range. It's also quite good out at 120 which is a real bonus. What really boggles me is them adding another lens, the 28-75 2.8 (non S) into the crowded normal zoom Z lineup. From my perspective the 24-70 2.8 S for those who need the extra stop for weddings or indoor sports and events and the 24-120 F4 S for everyone else should be the two to pick from.
In spite of the above, and in defense of the 24-70 F4. It's a wonderful small package on the Z6/7iis and like all the Z Nikon lenses, it punches way above expectations. I've loved it the past 3 years.
Split between 24-70 f4 vs 28-75 f2.8
What do you recommend?
The 24-120. :) no doubt about that. The 24-70 is only slightly less amazing, but far less versatile. The 28-75 doesnt interest me enough to test. 28 is not wide enough for me in a lens of that type and I prefer the S lens build quality. If I need a faster lens in the normal range for low lit hand held work, I reach for the epic little 50 1.8 and zoom with my feet.
I was never a great fan of the 24 - 120 f4 f lens as it was a bit soft at the edges. The z mount sounds like a great option to replace my 24 to 70, f4. I love my 24 - 200 z mount for knock around landscape as the extra length is perfect. Would love a 24 to 180 f4
Unless its for astro etc I dont care about a little softness in the edges.
But I found the old G 24-120mm disappointing even in the centre of the image...
Hmmm mine sharpened right up in the middle by f5.6. I didn't like it for much below that. But f11 it was nice and sharp thoughout the frame on my 850. Perhaps I had a really good copy.
@@HudsonHenryPhoto Correct it did sharpen up when stopped down. Mine came as a kit on my d750. I just found i preferred the 70 to 200 and a 35 and 50 prime. That all changed with the z7, and i quickly dumped most of my f glass. The 24 to 200 z is my favorite walk around zoom, but this 24 - 120 looks amazing.
Totally agree. I.only used the old 24-120 as a knock around one lens kit. I'd hike with it in the middle of the day and move to my 14-24, 50 and 70-200 when the light got good. This lens is much much better than that. :)
Hi Hudson, Thanks for nice review. Based on your opinion and others it looks that this new Z lens will quickly become favorite lens of many Z users. I wonder, how do you set a switching point when you decide that you need a better lens to do a job?
Tomek
That point is where a new lens can make it easier for me to create the kind of images I'm after. Sharper images across the frame at equivalent aperture and focal length + double the focal range makes this one a no brainer for me. :)
Top review thank you
Looks like the 24-120 has less barrel distortion which is surprising
It's the better lens in every way. I use it more than any other these days (nearly 2 years on). It's the only zoom I'm packing to Australia Friday.
Just got my Z6ii and 24-70mm F4, loving it! Will put this one on my wish list...
It's a great lens. I loved mine.
Great video
Very nice informative video
But I have a doubt
21:20 In that 24-70 image look warm tone & 24-120 look slight cool tone . Is that pictures are taken at same time or different time..
Live from India 🇮🇳 ♥️
Yes just a white balance difference. Color rendition is fabulous with both lenses.
@@HudsonHenryPhoto thank you for your reply 🙏🏼
I thought that image was actually called brick shithouse for a while there LOL
Best video
I wouldn't sell the 24-70F4S because I like to use it on my Z50 (36-95mm eq.) It is a best buy used, and half the price of the 24-120F4S which lacks VR for that nice 100mm (fail.) Besides, with the Z system I find myself spending less time at 200%. I know the quality is there, and it is good enough for most uses. Odd that Nikon only put one Fn button on it. I need one for subject tracking and one for playback. I'd have given up the display and the ring I don't use for a button; on ALL S lenses.
Hmmm, I think you can tell I loved my 24-70f4, but not on the Z50. The z50s 16-50 / 50-250 are such a crazy cool pair on that camera and fit it so well with built in VR. They're shockingly good. The 24-70, while great, also has no vr and not a single button. All the FX Z cameras have fabulous IBIS, so it bugs me not in the least that the short to normal FX S lenses don't have VR. My hope is that an aps-c body comes with IBIS, a deep buffer and 3D tracking... That would rock.
Glad you love the 24-70. It's great. After testing the new lens, I just know I'll never use mine again. Someone else should be using it. :)
@@HudsonHenryPhotoI couldn't agree more about the kit lenses. I prefer the size and feel of the 24-70F4S. It is one of my best AF-C focusing lenses. The 70mm is really nice for almost macros, and I add Kenko tube/s for near 1:1 macros. I also pair it with the 85-S.
It is difficult for non-NPS members to even get a 24-120 or 100-400. Wish I kept my 24-120F4S pre-order.
I don't think Nikon would do it, but I'd gladly pay for a few DX "S" lenses. Especially a 22f2 "S" because the 20-S FX is just too bulky/long. Regardless, these are VERY exciting times when zoom lenses outperform or equal most primes.
Of course the next question is vs 24-70 2.8
I'll leave that to someone willing to carry that beast when these lighter ones are so sharp. For my work I don't need the stop wider aperture in this range, especially since I have my amazing little 50 1.8 S for low light handheld work. 24-70 is too long for night skies and too short for wildlife and the outdoor adventure sports I like to shoot. These f4s are plenty sharp stopped down a bit for my landscape and still life work. I'll keep the room in my bag for the fast ultra wide and long glass I need. :)
That said, I've worked with the 24-70 2.8 S and it's F mount predessesors. It's better than them. It's amazing like the other 2.8 S trinity lenses. For indoor sports, wedding and event shooters I'm sure it's essential. I just personally have no need for that extra stop in its range and it's twice the size, weight and price.
@@HudsonHenryPhoto ok I'm digging your response on this. I'm mainly landscape and have the 14-24 2.8 and wanted this 24-120 and I think you have solidified my decision to get it.
28-75 has been on sale for $200 off MULTIPLE times since release.. They missed on that lens it is over priced for what it brings to the table
I didn’t see any indoor pictures.
Most people who know me know that I'm primarily an outdoor landscape and adventure photographer. I shoot indoors occasionally, but it's certainly not a passion.
So confused. The 24-70 f4 is also an S lens? Correct?
Yep. That's even in this video's title. The 24-120 is a bit better and far more versatile, but the original little 24-70 F4 is a great lens too.
@@HudsonHenryPhoto Im sorry but I believe it is an S lens also. Nikon Z roadmap lists it that way and that is what I have been seeing in other videos. It is weatherproofed, etc.
Your not disagreeing. The title of this video and my prior response both clearly state that each of them are S lenses. If you test them back to back, you'll keep the 24-120 unless price is the major determining factor.
at 16:30 you shoot with sony not nikon Z7II
No, my friend Rick was shooting with his Sony to test some Sony lenses. I shot with my Z7ii exclusively for this test. We were together and i merely showed Rick's camera to demonstrate how you set up and level the camera to do the test. I shot all the test shots used in this video with my Z7ii. It was right next to Rick's tripod on my tripod.
@@HudsonHenryPhoto ah good 👍
The 24-70 f4 is also a S lens
True enough. And I've loved it till the 24-120 arrived.
Sorry a little less Talking get to the point much quicker.