I have the 24-70f4 and the 24-70 f2.8 but since getting the 24-120 it is the one I grab first. I didn’t expect to be getting all three but the 24-120 really helps with extra reach when I want just one lens to walk around with. I also like that I can focus a little closer for my flower photography. Very unexpected but excellent lens.
@@alfredconqueror4422 Extension tubes can be used on almost any lens. Although they are only f4 those lenses should have plenty of light for extension tubes...🦘
with in body camera stabilization, you won't really need those :) the cameras have them now. Unless you're exceeding 200mm, you won't really need a chonky vr mechanism in the lens. I found this out myself with my Z9 and the 24-120 F4 s that i rent from time to time
24-70/2,8 for work and 24-50 for hiking. Excellent combination. And I'm still thinking about getting 24-120 as well, fortunately for family budget it's still out of stock :D
Have found the 24-70 f4 to be a great lens but I collected my Z 24-120 from GoW and having reviewed the take from my first shoot with it yesterday, I can safely say I am blown away, so sharp everywhere, no noticeable vignetting and such a useful range. Will be a game changer, not least for travel Photography. Off out for another play with it shortly.
Hi Guys, love you both. I have a 24-200 which came in a kit with a Z5. The Z5 has now become a Zf. I miss the Z5 handling but love Zf touchy feely niceness. I also have a 28-75. I love both of the lenses and for me as a Club and Family photographer, they do a great job.
I’ve been using the 24-200 as my standard walk-around lens for over a year and the only con in my opinion is it’s variable max aperture which quickly drops to f/6.3 as soon as you start to zoom out. Would have picked the 24-120 if it was available back then even at the much higher price. VR on the 24-200 makes up for it’s only con👍😄
Only lens I am missing is the 24-70 f4 but the 28-75 and the 24-120 made up for it. I still use the 24-200. Tamron 24-70 2.8 is a F mount but fantastic and heavy. I like the 28-75 the best because of the weight. All of these lenses are great! Stay Safe and Keep Smiling! Cheers!
I chose 24-120/4s. ...It's my go-to walk around lens with its extra reach. It's sharpness and non-focus breathing a must for video. And that's great for near macro as well.
Very good comparison. For me I dedicde for 24-120/4. I started with 24-70/4 kit. I owned the 24-70/2.8 later on and I tested 28-75/2.8 for a while. For me I can say 24-120 is the best choice. Quality is very close if not the same than 24-70/2.8, but less heavy and smaller with a very good minimum close distance. 28-75/2.8 for my it's a step down in comparison with the other mentinoed lenses, but good option for portrait photographers. Thank you Becky and Konstantin for the video. Greatings from Germany. Kai.
I found the 24-70 f4 to be an excellent performer when I picked it up with the Z6. It was sharp and worked quite well out of the box, for video I loved that there was no focus breathing. The 28-70 f2.8 replaced the f4 and while heavier, I have got some good video from handholding it and it allows shooting in lower light. I’m now considering the 24-120 f4 as my main travel lens for the extra reach. From what I’ve seen online and read on Nikon’s site, the focus breathing should be better than the 2.8 for videos and the sharpness is up there with the 2.8. I’m glad they did this instead of the 24-105 they had planned. I will add that I do miss the lighter weight and performance of the 24-70 f/4. It’s too bad they didn’t make a 24-200 in a f/3.5-4.5, it would be a bit bulkier but would make for an excellent all,purpose lens, if it was on par with the 24-120 f/4. I’m wondering if Tokina is going to jump into the Z lens game anytime soon, maybe they could bring forth a 24-200 f/3.5-4.5. I’ve been happy with their lens on the F mount, would love to see some great stuff from them soon.
When I go mirrorless (still loving my D500/D850), I have the F 24-70 2.8 so I am going to start with the 24-120 for hiking when the focus is landscape not wildlife. The extra range makes sense. I could carry that one and my 500PF and then I'm covered for "most" landscape and wildlife without too much weight
Thank you, Grays, for the review. I have a few Z-S lenses, among them the 24-70 / 2.8 S which I have used for 1.5 years. I have been very happy with its performance in image quality throughout the focal range. The image quality is especially noticeable when I zoom in on and crop an image that I have made wide open. Also, I like the extra bit of the light the f / 2.8 gives me at end of day as natural light dims and before I have to crank up the ISO and / or switch over to flash. I do not own any of the other lenses in this review to compare, so it's only my experience with this one of the lenses that I can comment on. It suits most of my people-street photography purposes, although as other people have commented it is a hefty lens. I like the reviews of the 24-120 and am thinking it's time to start saving my $ to buy one. Often, I wish I had a little bit more reach than what my 24-70 gives me. Thank you to all of you who have commented on your experience and tests of one or more of these lenses.
I will most likely get the 24-120 + 100-400 combo with a 105 MC, just to simplify my kit from 7 lenses down to 3 on a Z6 II/III from a D7200, 24-400 in 2 lenses for travel and hiking will be a plus, Love the channel, it really helps when taking the next step. Love from Sweden!
Hello Both, I bought the 24-70 f2.8 and I am very happy with what it produces. It is defiantly better than my old F mount 24-70 f2.8 quicker, lighter and just feel easer to use. Whether that is becouse it's still a newish lens or not? as to all the other lenses in the range not a clue. Keep well, keep save and find some time for fun?
The 24-120 f4 is my go to lens. beautifully sharp and a great range. not a pro so no need for the 24-70 f2.8. had gotten the 24-70 f4 with the camera but never picked it up after having the 24-120. thanks
Sold my 24-70 f4 to get the f2.8S. But then I added the Z 24-120 f4S. That is my go to lens for travel and one lens solution. If I travel, I can see taking my 14-30, 24-120, and 100-400 Nikon Z lenses in my bag.
Had the 24-70 f4 now 24-70 f2.8 got 24-200 for walk about, it's OK, no need for 24-120, as I have that focal length covered. I'm really covered for most with trinity zooms. Got the 24-200 for weight walking around.
I have had the 24-70 f/4 and the 24-120. Quality was identical, but the extra reach of the 24-120 won me over for not only travel but to be the default lens always on my Z6.
Hi! I need to replace my Nikon Z 24-200mm lens. I took it out on hike trip and bump the lens against a tree, just a tap, and not it is inops. I need replace it, and I am lean toward the 24-120mm. The picture quality was so-so on the 24-200. And in most of the landscape photo, I need went above 85mm, so think 24-120mm would be the best choice. I don't need a super zoom lens.
I didn’t see the z 24 1.8 in your list. I appreciate it’s a prime but it might be interesting. I’m very happy with mine, it doesn’t get that much use apart from on dance floors at weddings, I’ve never shot a brick wall with it however. 😉
Loved the vid, my choice may be the 24-120 f4 as its becoming quite beloved by many reviewers. As for future video can you look into all the 1.8 z prime lenses and compare? The 20mm 1.8 and 50mm 1.8 are amazing but I don’t know to much about the other 3 and like your thoughts on them.
I'm agreeing with Dave Walker - I have a 24-70 f2.8 and whilst it's a magnificent lens, 70mm is a bit short for a lot of subjects, so I purchased a 24-120 and even though it's f4 it is very impressive and the extra reach makes it a far more useful lens for both stills and video than the 24-70. It's great wide open at f4 and the minimum focus is superb. I find I'm leaving the 24-70 f2.8 out of my bag and the 24-120 has taken it's place. I'm not brave enough to sell my 2.8 but it isn't getting a lot of use since I got the 24-120.
Great video, as always! Becky, I LOVE your shirt! It is so me. Where can I get one? BTW, love my 24-70 z mount and 24-120 z mount. Both are terrific lenses.
I am looking at getting the 24-120mm along with the 14-30mm lenses. I have the 24-70 f4S and I have the 70-200mm f2.8S. F4 works well for me taking Aurora Borealis photos. Doesn’t do bad capturing the night sky either.
The 24-120Z is the lens that made me jump to mirrorless and it is fantastic. I didn't want to get the 24-70 f4Z as a kit lens because it's a bad investment to buy new nowadays. I had used the f4 before and it's really sharp too, just not as the S lenses. I have the Tamron 24-70 G2 (and the rest of the G2 Trinity) for F mount and to be honest it's no slouch compared to the 24-120Z, I thought it was going noticeably better but I have a hard time seeing it.
I have the 24-120 ED VR G version and I am looking for a comparison between the counterpart in S-line. could you guys help me with this dilemma whether I should replace it with a S version or not?
I have the 24-70 f4 and the 24-70 f2.8. For me to have f2.8 in a lens is a must to use a low ISO/faster shutterspeed and most importent for me the more pleasing look with nice blurry bokeh in my pictures! And I feel that the picture the f4 lens is giving is a little boring and unexciting. I can't say what it is, it's just a feeling I have, or maybe I'm imagining it! Just one more thing, the f2.8 is heavy tha carry around but I love that lens!!! 😍🤩
Can the 24 to 200 shoot dogs like Tilly in the field it seems to me that that would be the range I would be looking for they're moving and running all through the field and playing everyday and that's mostly what I would shoot. I'm not a pro just a guy with a camera.
24-70 f2.8S for zoom portraiture and landscapes. 24-200 for hikes, kayaking, street photography as a single lens. 24-70 f4 has little value over the 24-200 now unless you want the smallest kit with less fall-off in the corners for landscapes. 24-120 is perfect for the person who wants the swiss army knife that isn't the best at anything but is perhaps the best for everything as a single lens only when balancing IQ.
Nikon Product Development (NPD): "Which TWO do you want within the first 4 years between the 24-70 f/2.8, 24-70 f/4, 28-75, 24-120 or 24-200?" Executive: "Yes." NPD: "But I asked whi-" Executive: "I said yes!" ALL OF THEM!!!!"
Why is the colour of the comparison photos so complitly different ? Is not easy to find out, wich is better ... Greetings from Cologne (sorry about my horrible "english" talking ;-)
24-70 F2.8 is amazing for my professional work nothing else compares in this range. But its expensive and heavier so I don’t take it with me when I travel for non photography work might have to look at the 24-120
I shoot professionally and whilst the F2.8 may be the best, the F4 is still sharper faster and better in the corners than my old F mount was. My camera still manages to focus on a dark dancefloor using the 24-70F4, so what isn't professional about it?
I'd be happy to shoot with either 24-70mm or the 24-120mm. Unlike video people - I never liked the F version of the 24-120mm How did that DX lens get in the test ? 🦘
I have the 24-70f4 and the 24-70 f2.8 but since getting the 24-120 it is the one I grab first. I didn’t expect to be getting all three but the 24-120 really helps with extra reach when I want just one lens to walk around with. I also like that I can focus a little closer for my flower photography. Very unexpected but excellent lens.
Is it possible to use extension tubes to make it more macro?
@@alfredconqueror4422 I did not try extension tubes but put a Nisi Closeup Lens on it and got very good results.
@@alfredconqueror4422 Extension tubes can be used on almost any lens.
Although they are only f4 those lenses should have plenty of light for extension tubes...🦘
For old folks like me entering into my 7th decade, the VR feature found only in the 24-200 is a major consideration👍
with in body camera stabilization, you won't really need those :) the cameras have them now. Unless you're exceeding 200mm, you won't really need a chonky vr mechanism in the lens. I found this out myself with my Z9 and the 24-120 F4 s that i rent from time to time
The 24-120 F4 is my new favourite lens, it’s rarely off my camera now. The range is fantastic, and it’s a very sharp lens. 😎📸
24-70/2,8 for work and 24-50 for hiking. Excellent combination. And I'm still thinking about getting 24-120 as well, fortunately for family budget it's still out of stock :D
Have found the 24-70 f4 to be a great lens but I collected my Z 24-120 from GoW and having reviewed the take from my first shoot with it yesterday, I can safely say I am blown away, so sharp everywhere, no noticeable vignetting and such a useful range. Will be a game changer, not least for travel Photography. Off out for another play with it shortly.
Hi Guys, love you both. I have a 24-200 which came in a kit with a Z5. The Z5 has now become a Zf. I miss the Z5 handling but love Zf touchy feely niceness. I also have a 28-75. I love both of the lenses and for me as a Club and Family photographer, they do a great job.
I’ve been using the 24-200 as my standard walk-around lens for over a year and the only con in my opinion is it’s variable max aperture which quickly drops to f/6.3 as soon as you start to zoom out. Would have picked the 24-120 if it was available back then even at the much higher price.
VR on the 24-200 makes up for it’s only con👍😄
Only lens I am missing is the 24-70 f4 but the 28-75 and the 24-120 made up for it. I still use the 24-200. Tamron 24-70 2.8 is a F mount but fantastic and heavy. I like the 28-75 the best because of the weight. All of these lenses are great! Stay Safe and Keep Smiling! Cheers!
I chose 24-120/4s. ...It's my go-to walk around lens with its extra reach. It's sharpness and non-focus breathing a must for video. And that's great for near macro as well.
Very good comparison. For me I dedicde for 24-120/4. I started with 24-70/4 kit. I owned the 24-70/2.8 later on and I tested 28-75/2.8 for a while. For me I can say 24-120 is the best choice. Quality is very close if not the same than 24-70/2.8, but less heavy and smaller with a very good minimum close distance. 28-75/2.8 for my it's a step down in comparison with the other mentinoed lenses, but good option for portrait photographers. Thank you Becky and Konstantin for the video. Greatings from Germany. Kai.
I found the 24-70 f4 to be an excellent performer when I picked it up with the Z6. It was sharp and worked quite well out of the box, for video I loved that there was no focus breathing. The 28-70 f2.8 replaced the f4 and while heavier, I have got some good video from handholding it and it allows shooting in lower light. I’m now considering the 24-120 f4 as my main travel lens for the extra reach. From what I’ve seen online and read on Nikon’s site, the focus breathing should be better than the 2.8 for videos and the sharpness is up there with the 2.8. I’m glad they did this instead of the 24-105 they had planned. I will add that I do miss the lighter weight and performance of the 24-70 f/4. It’s too bad they didn’t make a 24-200 in a f/3.5-4.5, it would be a bit bulkier but would make for an excellent all,purpose lens, if it was on par with the 24-120 f/4.
I’m wondering if Tokina is going to jump into the Z lens game anytime soon, maybe they could bring forth a 24-200 f/3.5-4.5. I’ve been happy with their lens on the F mount, would love to see some great stuff from them soon.
I put my money into buying the 2.8! Optical quality comes before weight concerns for my needs. 👍🏾🙏🏾
When I go mirrorless (still loving my D500/D850), I have the F 24-70 2.8 so I am going to start with the 24-120 for hiking when the focus is landscape not wildlife. The extra range makes sense. I could carry that one and my 500PF and then I'm covered for "most" landscape and wildlife without too much weight
Thank you, Grays, for the review. I have a few Z-S lenses, among them the 24-70 / 2.8 S which I have used for 1.5 years. I have been very happy with its performance in image quality throughout the focal range. The image quality is especially noticeable when I zoom in on and crop an image that I have made wide open. Also, I like the extra bit of the light the f / 2.8 gives me at end of day as natural light dims and before I have to crank up the ISO and / or switch over to flash. I do not own any of the other lenses in this review to compare, so it's only my experience with this one of the lenses that I can comment on. It suits most of my people-street photography purposes, although as other people have commented it is a hefty lens. I like the reviews of the 24-120 and am thinking it's time to start saving my $ to buy one. Often, I wish I had a little bit more reach than what my 24-70 gives me. Thank you to all of you who have commented on your experience and tests of one or more of these lenses.
I will most likely get the 24-120 + 100-400 combo with a 105 MC, just to simplify my kit from 7 lenses down to 3 on a Z6 II/III from a D7200, 24-400 in 2 lenses for travel and hiking will be a plus, Love the channel, it really helps when taking the next step. Love from Sweden!
Hello Both, I bought the 24-70 f2.8 and I am very happy with what it produces. It is defiantly better than my old F mount 24-70 f2.8 quicker, lighter and just feel easer to use. Whether that is becouse it's still a newish lens or not? as to all the other lenses in the range not a clue. Keep well, keep save and find some time for fun?
The 24-120 f4 is my go to lens. beautifully sharp and a great range. not a pro so no need for the 24-70 f2.8. had gotten the 24-70 f4 with the camera but never picked it up after having the 24-120. thanks
Sold my 24-70 f4 to get the f2.8S. But then I added the Z 24-120 f4S. That is my go to lens for travel and one lens solution. If I travel, I can see taking my 14-30, 24-120, and 100-400 Nikon Z lenses in my bag.
Had the 24-70 f4 now 24-70 f2.8 got 24-200 for walk about, it's OK, no need for 24-120, as I have that focal length covered. I'm really covered for most with trinity zooms. Got the 24-200 for weight walking around.
I’m assuming for the tests you had in camera corrections turned off. Did you look at the results with corrections on too?
For me I like the 24-200 for general use. When I want to travel light the 24-50 for my Z5. When using my Z50 I like the 16-50 and 50-250.
bookmarking this so I can refer back to it .. ty for this.
I have had the 24-70 f/4 and the 24-120. Quality was identical, but the extra reach of the 24-120 won me over for not only travel but to be the default lens always on my Z6.
Hi! I need to replace my Nikon Z 24-200mm lens. I took it out on hike trip and bump the lens against a tree, just a tap, and not it is inops. I need replace it, and I am lean toward the 24-120mm. The picture quality was so-so on the 24-200. And in most of the landscape photo, I need went above 85mm, so think 24-120mm would be the best choice. I don't need a super zoom lens.
I didn’t see the z 24 1.8 in your list. I appreciate it’s a prime but it might be interesting. I’m very happy with mine, it doesn’t get that much use apart from on dance floors at weddings, I’ve never shot a brick wall with it however. 😉
I’ve had many 27-70mm 2.8 lenses and I’ve loved them! But now filming more videos I’m gonna try the Z 24-120mm f/4. 😇
Loved the vid, my choice may be the 24-120 f4 as its becoming quite beloved by many reviewers. As for future video can you look into all the 1.8 z prime lenses and compare? The 20mm 1.8 and 50mm 1.8 are amazing but I don’t know to much about the other 3 and like your thoughts on them.
Nice vid. To the point and short, excellent👍
I'm agreeing with Dave Walker - I have a 24-70 f2.8 and whilst it's a magnificent lens, 70mm is a bit short for a lot of subjects, so I purchased a 24-120 and even though it's f4 it is very impressive and the extra reach makes it a far more useful lens for both stills and video than the 24-70. It's great wide open at f4 and the minimum focus is superb. I find I'm leaving the 24-70 f2.8 out of my bag and the 24-120 has taken it's place. I'm not brave enough to sell my 2.8 but it isn't getting a lot of use since I got the 24-120.
Great video, as always! Becky, I LOVE your shirt! It is so me. Where can I get one? BTW, love my 24-70 z mount and 24-120 z mount. Both are terrific lenses.
Whats the Nikon behind you guys on the shelf? I really like the look of it.
That would be an FM3a in Black finish :)
I am looking at getting the 24-120mm along with the 14-30mm lenses. I have the 24-70 f4S and I have the 70-200mm f2.8S. F4 works well for me taking Aurora Borealis photos. Doesn’t do bad capturing the night sky either.
The 24-120Z is the lens that made me jump to mirrorless and it is fantastic. I didn't want to get the 24-70 f4Z as a kit lens because it's a bad investment to buy new nowadays. I had used the f4 before and it's really sharp too, just not as the S lenses.
I have the Tamron 24-70 G2 (and the rest of the G2 Trinity) for F mount and to be honest it's no slouch compared to the 24-120Z, I thought it was going noticeably better but I have a hard time seeing it.
I have the 24-120 ED VR G version and I am looking for a comparison between the counterpart in S-line. could you guys help me with this dilemma whether I should replace it with a S version or not?
I went with the "Unholy Trinity" in my Bag, 14-30 f4, 24-120 f4, 70-200 f2.8. Cheers!
I finally received the last part of my 'unholy trinity' earlier this month - 100-400/4.5-5.6 - to go with my 14-30/4 & 24-120/4.
No more 24mm PLEASE! 😁😁 I have the 24-70mm f/2.8 and I'm keeping it FOREVER!!! But I'm jealous for the range of the 24-120!...
I have the 24-70 f4 and the 24-70 f2.8. For me to have f2.8 in a lens is a must to use a low ISO/faster shutterspeed and most importent for me the more pleasing look with nice blurry bokeh in my pictures! And I feel that the picture the f4 lens is giving is a little boring and unexciting. I can't say what it is, it's just a feeling I have, or maybe I'm imagining it! Just one more thing, the f2.8 is heavy tha carry around but I love that lens!!! 😍🤩
I use the 24-70mm f/2.8 for all photography, except travel, then I use the 24-200mm f/4-6.3.
Thanks!
Thank you Stephen!
Can the 24 to 200 shoot dogs like Tilly in the field it seems to me that that would be the range I would be looking for they're moving and running all through the field and playing everyday and that's mostly what I would shoot. I'm not a pro just a guy with a camera.
Expeed 7 Everything!
Thanks as always!
It would be awesome if you could compare the F (d850) lenses to the Z lenses for the holy Trinity
24-70 f2.8S for zoom portraiture and landscapes. 24-200 for hikes, kayaking, street photography as a single lens. 24-70 f4 has little value over the 24-200 now unless you want the smallest kit with less fall-off in the corners for landscapes. 24-120 is perfect for the person who wants the swiss army knife that isn't the best at anything but is perhaps the best for everything as a single lens only when balancing IQ.
Nikon Product Development (NPD): "Which TWO do you want within the first 4 years between the 24-70 f/2.8, 24-70 f/4, 28-75, 24-120 or 24-200?"
Executive: "Yes."
NPD: "But I asked whi-"
Executive: "I said yes!" ALL OF THEM!!!!"
Why is the colour of the comparison photos so complitly different ?
Is not easy to find out, wich is better ...
Greetings from Cologne
(sorry about my horrible "english" talking ;-)
24-70 F2.8 is amazing for my professional work nothing else compares in this range. But its expensive and heavier so I don’t take it with me when I travel for non photography work might have to look at the 24-120
24-70 F4 is a bargain when it's used...got mine for 350 Euros that's just insane.
I shoot professionally and whilst the F2.8 may be the best, the F4 is still sharper faster and better in the corners than my old F mount was. My camera still manages to focus on a dark dancefloor using the 24-70F4, so what isn't professional about it?
You confirmed by decision that the 24-120 f/4 is the one that I will get.
Becky or Kon: Would you be kind enough to put the files on the community Google Drive? RUclips compresses the files too much. Thanks.
Agreed.👍🏾
Why didn’t you add in the dx 16-50? I know it’s no full frame but technically it still falls in that 24-xxx category in dx mode.
Why not 24 85mm ?
👍👍👍
non of these is close to F-mount...
I'd be happy to shoot with either 24-70mm or the 24-120mm.
Unlike video people - I never liked the F version of the 24-120mm
How did that DX lens get in the test ? 🦘