3 years later... i like that you showed the actual AF speed differences. it actually shows the differences which are significant (but not huge like many seem to think)
JASON!!! Great video. I am thankful for this video. I am buying the Z7 2 and 24 to 200 lens.........I hope I am doing the right thing. I had rge Sony 7 R and it does not work any more. I only do ravel casual photography....AM I DOING the right thing. G
Nice review. As a landscape photographer this seems like a great lens that costs a heck of a lot less than a 24-70 and 70-200 combined with the bonus of not needing to switch out lenses in the field which I always hate.
It's an excellent lens if you want to carry a single zoom. It's weakest between 24-35mm, so I usually pair it with my 14-30mm if I want to go really wide. But yes, it's quite a bit better than my 24-120mm/4.
I'm so tired of constantly switching between my 24-120 and 70-200, not to mention all the weight combined with my D810. I really like the idea of having one lens to cover that entire range, then maybe just get the 14-30 for wide.
Agreed... but in the meantime I have really enjoyed using this lens as an all-purpose performer. In many cases, it takes the place of my 70-200/4 (it's smaller, and doesn't require the FTZ adapter). I'll be all over the 24-105, but no sign of it so far!
Good comparison, thanks for the video. I had a D610 then D750 with the 24-120 and I loved the combo but I was always slightly wary about using it at 120mm as it wasn't always that sharp. I switched to an Olympus EM-1 mk2 with the 12-100 F4 lens last year and it's an incredible combo - the stabilisation and sharpness are superb-however the IQ from Micro 4/3rds just won't cut it for what I want from my landscapes unfortunately. So I'm thinking of switching back to a Z7 and 24-200 and I think I won't need any other lenses - this combo will be perfect for hiking and pretty much everything except astro (even that will be possible though) and it'll be about the same size and weight as the Olympus kit. Now if only the Z7 had a fully articulating screen I'd be really happy but you can't have everything I suppose.
Honestly, if you have the budget, get the 24-120. Even on a lower-res D750, I never found the 24-120 VR to be all that sharp (compared to other lenses in its class). It may have been sharper than say a 28-300 but it isn't as sharp as my 24-200 on my Z bodies (both a Z6 and Z7). I mean if you have the 24-120 and don't mind the downsides, by all means, keep using it. But if you're starting out from scratch and don't own either, I'd get the 24-200. Even though you can get a used 24-120 cheap these days (maybe $400 used). The advantage of the 24-120 (but doesn't outweigh the sharpness loss IMO) is the fixed f/4 aperture. So beyond about 70m, you have about a 1-stop advantage with the 24-120. But with the high-ISO performance on these cameras (the Z's) I don't think an extra stop is going to be a huge deal unless you're having to shoot beyond ISO 3200. And this benefit might be negated by the fact that if you have to do NR in post, the image is not as sharp to begin with and noise reduction involves blurring the image slightly, so you'd be blurring an already slightly-blurred (or not as sharp) image. As a walk-around lens in good light, the 24-120 can be a great option, or if you have a Z50 you can have an equivalent 36-180 lens (although I might be still inclined to use a Z 50-250 kit zoom instead). Me personally, since you have to use the FTZ to use the 24-120 on the Z bodies, there isn't much of a benefit, unless you already own the lens. Because the FTZ adds additional bulk that you don't get with the native 24-200 lens. Plus there is also the opportunity to run into a problem with the FTZ (malfunctions for example) that could mean you're not taking pictures that day. Not very likely with a native lens attached directly to the body (I'd say if you are going to rely on adapted lenses, have more than one FTZ Adapter available in case one does act up).
Straighforward comparison. The 70-200 has about 3x zoom while the 24-240 is like 8x zoom. Therefore, the 70-200 will be noticeably sharper wide open. At f8 it we be still sharper but most likely you could barely tell the difference. At f8 any decent lens is sharp.
the 70-200/4 is a great lens, but the comparison isn't quite the same as you have other factors to consider, including size/weight, and the use of the FTZ adapter adding to kit size. At f/8 and above, the 24-200mm performs quite well and I plan to use it in situations where changing lenses isn't ideal.
Thanks for your comparison. I’d love to see some photos with people. I did notice more chromatic aboration w 24-200mm in your samples. Would you say that is true?
Hi Karen- Yes, I do believe there is a little more axial CA in the 24-200mm, which I was easily able to remove in LR using the manual color fringing tool. I'll try to get some people pix to share on my website: www.luminescentphoto.com
I pre-ordered the 24-200 as soon as it was available for pre-order in February. I cancelled that pre-order last week, and I have no plans to purchase it when it does become available . Ive had the 24-120 f4 for two years now, and based on experience, this comparison, and other comparisons I have seen (notably Ricci's comparision) I just see no reason to replace it with the 24-200. Your test shots in this comparison are all full sun perfect conditions of still objects. No portraits of people or animals, less than perfect lighting conditions, and so forth. This is not putting a lens through its paces. I will agree that the 24-120 f4 is not the sharpest lens that Nikon has ever produced. But overall the 24-120 f4 is pretty fantastic for what it is, and easily better than the 24-200. I will wait for the Z 24-105 f4 instead.
I've used both lenses and I completely disagree with your assessment, the 24-120 pales in comparison to the 24-200, especially at the longer focal lengths. I don't post every boring test shot because they are, well, boring. But I stand by my review.
@@JasonOdellPhoto Thank you for this review. My pre-order is cancelled, and I feel better about cancelling it after having seen this review (and others). That's what we all hope for when watching reviews on YT. Its to help us make decisions. You helped me make mine. For half the price in used pristine condition you can get the 24-120 f4 and just adapt it. Lots of lenses are good from 24-70mm, so take your pick. From 70mm to about 130mm or so, however, thats where the pickings are slim if you want quality. Thats where the 24-120 and its constant f4 is going to easily beat the Z 24-200 in overall IQ. Above that, 130mm or so, you have a choice. Its either you are going after high quality images or any old picture will do. The Z 50-250 is currently available for 1/3 the price, has more reach, has VR, weighs less, and is slightly smaller. IQ is basically the same beyond 130mm equivalent vs the Z 24-200. Either lens fills the need of everyday shooting photos. No reason to pick the 24-200 over the combination of 24-120 and Z 50-250 which saves you a couple hundred bucks while getting better pictures. I have not purchased the Z 50-250 yet. Waiting for the used market to have them, or just get it eventually in a kit. $150 tops.
@@KungPowEnterFist "Thats where the 24-120 and its constant f4 is going to easily beat the Z 24-200 in overall IQ." Except it doesn't, and that's what my images clearly demonstrated. The 24-200mm absolutely is superior at the midrange to long focal lengths, even wide-open. Combine that with better AF, better VR, and smaller size/weight, and you can see why I put it in my kit.
3 years later...
i like that you showed the actual AF speed differences. it actually shows the differences which are significant (but not huge like many seem to think)
JASON!!! Great video. I am thankful for this video. I am buying the Z7 2 and 24 to 200 lens.........I hope I am doing the right thing. I had rge Sony 7 R and it does not work any more. I only do ravel casual photography....AM I DOING the right thing. G
Great comparison review Jason, well done.
Nice review. As a landscape photographer this seems like a great lens that costs a heck of a lot less than a 24-70 and 70-200 combined with the bonus of not needing to switch out lenses in the field which I always hate.
It's an excellent lens if you want to carry a single zoom. It's weakest between 24-35mm, so I usually pair it with my 14-30mm if I want to go really wide. But yes, it's quite a bit better than my 24-120mm/4.
Excellent review! I used to have the 24-120 f4. Such a great lens.
Love mine too!
I'm so tired of constantly switching between my 24-120 and 70-200, not to mention all the weight combined with my D810. I really like the idea of having one lens to cover that entire range, then maybe just get the 14-30 for wide.
Very tempting but I think I will wait and see what the 24-105 is like and hope Tamron or Sigma come out with a z mount 100-400.
Agreed... but in the meantime I have really enjoyed using this lens as an all-purpose performer. In many cases, it takes the place of my 70-200/4 (it's smaller, and doesn't require the FTZ adapter). I'll be all over the 24-105, but no sign of it so far!
Good comparison, thanks for the video. I had a D610 then D750 with the 24-120 and I loved the combo but I was always slightly wary about using it at 120mm as it wasn't always that sharp. I switched to an Olympus EM-1 mk2 with the 12-100 F4 lens last year and it's an incredible combo - the stabilisation and sharpness are superb-however the IQ from Micro 4/3rds just won't cut it for what I want from my landscapes unfortunately. So I'm thinking of switching back to a Z7 and 24-200 and I think I won't need any other lenses - this combo will be perfect for hiking and pretty much everything except astro (even that will be possible though) and it'll be about the same size and weight as the Olympus kit. Now if only the Z7 had a fully articulating screen I'd be really happy but you can't have everything I suppose.
Very helpful info. I've preordered to replace 28-300 on my Z6 and I really want to like it.
It’s really quite nice. I’m very pleased with my order. So much lighter than the 28-300!
Great comparison, but I am missing the comparison of 24-200 @6.3 vs the 24-120 @6.3 at 120 mm. Thanks.
Honestly, if you have the budget, get the 24-120. Even on a lower-res D750, I never found the 24-120 VR to be all that sharp (compared to other lenses in its class). It may have been sharper than say a 28-300 but it isn't as sharp as my 24-200 on my Z bodies (both a Z6 and Z7). I mean if you have the 24-120 and don't mind the downsides, by all means, keep using it. But if you're starting out from scratch and don't own either, I'd get the 24-200. Even though you can get a used 24-120 cheap these days (maybe $400 used). The advantage of the 24-120 (but doesn't outweigh the sharpness loss IMO) is the fixed f/4 aperture. So beyond about 70m, you have about a 1-stop advantage with the 24-120. But with the high-ISO performance on these cameras (the Z's) I don't think an extra stop is going to be a huge deal unless you're having to shoot beyond ISO 3200. And this benefit might be negated by the fact that if you have to do NR in post, the image is not as sharp to begin with and noise reduction involves blurring the image slightly, so you'd be blurring an already slightly-blurred (or not as sharp) image. As a walk-around lens in good light, the 24-120 can be a great option, or if you have a Z50 you can have an equivalent 36-180 lens (although I might be still inclined to use a Z 50-250 kit zoom instead).
Me personally, since you have to use the FTZ to use the 24-120 on the Z bodies, there isn't much of a benefit, unless you already own the lens. Because the FTZ adds additional bulk that you don't get with the native 24-200 lens. Plus there is also the opportunity to run into a problem with the FTZ (malfunctions for example) that could mean you're not taking pictures that day. Not very likely with a native lens attached directly to the body (I'd say if you are going to rely on adapted lenses, have more than one FTZ Adapter available in case one does act up).
Thank you, I have a z7 , maybe I should buy z24-200 like what you said
Still waiting on Adorama to ship mine. I can hardly wait. Thanks for review.
Hope you enjoy it!
Hi Janet, did u ever get your lens yet?
Thank you for this helpful review. How does the 24-200 compare to the 70-200 f4, particularly at f8 and above for landscapes?
Straighforward comparison. The 70-200 has about 3x zoom while the 24-240 is like 8x zoom. Therefore, the 70-200 will be noticeably sharper wide open. At f8 it we be still sharper but most likely you could barely tell the difference. At f8 any decent lens is sharp.
the 70-200/4 is a great lens, but the comparison isn't quite the same as you have other factors to consider, including size/weight, and the use of the FTZ adapter adding to kit size. At f/8 and above, the 24-200mm performs quite well and I plan to use it in situations where changing lenses isn't ideal.
You've got a new subscriber👏🏻
Thanks for your comparison. I’d love to see some photos with people. I did notice more chromatic aboration w 24-200mm in your samples. Would you say that is true?
Hi Karen- Yes, I do believe there is a little more axial CA in the 24-200mm, which I was easily able to remove in LR using the manual color fringing tool. I'll try to get some people pix to share on my website: www.luminescentphoto.com
Good review. What happened at 19:04?
Did you use the FTZ adaptor for the 24-120?
A very helpful comparison.
Hi, how's the AF with these lenses on the Z camera when in video mode?
With the Z mount lens, AF is SILENT. That's huge for video.
you said that the 24-120 was softer at 120mm, but it was at f4. The 24-200 was at 6.3. That's the difference.
Both lenses were shot wide-open. The difference is not from depth of field... the 24-200mm was simply sharper across the frame when used wide-open.
@@JasonOdellPhoto a direct comparison can only take place at the same aperture.
“Wide open” is arbitrary.
Of course f4 won’t be as sharp as f6.3.
your voice narration sounds like sal from khan academy. feel like you are about to start teaching me some calculus.
I haven't had calculus since 1990!
I pre-ordered the 24-200 as soon as it was available for pre-order in February. I cancelled that pre-order last week, and I have no plans to purchase it when it does become available . Ive had the 24-120 f4 for two years now, and based on experience, this comparison, and other comparisons I have seen (notably Ricci's comparision) I just see no reason to replace it with the 24-200. Your test shots in this comparison are all full sun perfect conditions of still objects. No portraits of people or animals, less than perfect lighting conditions, and so forth. This is not putting a lens through its paces. I will agree that the 24-120 f4 is not the sharpest lens that Nikon has ever produced. But overall the 24-120 f4 is pretty fantastic for what it is, and easily better than the 24-200. I will wait for the Z 24-105 f4 instead.
I have both and in my testing the 24-200 is sharper - I'm selling my 24-120mm
Easily better???????
I've used both lenses and I completely disagree with your assessment, the 24-120 pales in comparison to the 24-200, especially at the longer focal lengths. I don't post every boring test shot because they are, well, boring. But I stand by my review.
@@JasonOdellPhoto Thank you for this review. My pre-order is cancelled, and I feel better about cancelling it after having seen this review (and others). That's what we all hope for when watching reviews on YT. Its to help us make decisions. You helped me make mine. For half the price in used pristine condition you can get the 24-120 f4 and just adapt it. Lots of lenses are good from 24-70mm, so take your pick. From 70mm to about 130mm or so, however, thats where the pickings are slim if you want quality. Thats where the 24-120 and its constant f4 is going to easily beat the Z 24-200 in overall IQ. Above that, 130mm or so, you have a choice. Its either you are going after high quality images or any old picture will do. The Z 50-250 is currently available for 1/3 the price, has more reach, has VR, weighs less, and is slightly smaller. IQ is basically the same beyond 130mm equivalent vs the Z 24-200. Either lens fills the need of everyday shooting photos. No reason to pick the 24-200 over the combination of 24-120 and Z 50-250 which saves you a couple hundred bucks while getting better pictures. I have not purchased the Z 50-250 yet. Waiting for the used market to have them, or just get it eventually in a kit. $150 tops.
@@KungPowEnterFist "Thats where the 24-120 and its constant f4 is going to easily beat the Z 24-200 in overall IQ." Except it doesn't, and that's what my images clearly demonstrated. The 24-200mm absolutely is superior at the midrange to long focal lengths, even wide-open. Combine that with better AF, better VR, and smaller size/weight, and you can see why I put it in my kit.
Both lenses were mounted to the Z7 when taking these photos?
Yes. I used the FTZ adapter