Nikon Z 24-120mm F4 S updated sample gallery

The cropping leeway is most of the reason that I shoot a high res body tho, so that's still useful... Getting 20-27MP out of this lens at an equivalent of 180/5.6 seems pretty appealing, that's usefully longer than the average 24-105 IMO. I guess the main sacrifice here was the OIS/VR, I'd take that myself (but I shoot Sony, still kinda jelly of several of Nikon's f4s tho).

3 months ago*permalink

Loving mine on the Z7 II. It's one of the best zooms I've owned. I still have the 24-200...haven't sold it yet only because THAT one is the best SUPERzoom I've owned. The 24-120 is noticeably better though and there's no reason I should keep the 24-200 except for if I want to have the extra reach now and then or use it on my smaller body (Zfc), losing some on the wide end, but gaining some on the telephoto end.

3 months agopermalink

I'd be pretty curious to see how a crop of the 24-120 compares to the 24-200 @180mm... On the Z7 II of course.

3 months ago*permalink

I may have to try that and report back. I have all those items you mentioned of course. :) So are you suggesting I shoot the 24-120 in crop mode on the Z7 II at 120mm (which is like 180mm at that point) and then shoot the 24-200 in FX mode at 180mm?

3 months agopermalink

Yeah, or just crop it in post.

3 months agopermalink

OK, here are the two samples. See the notes in the album description also. I had to adjust the tripod slightly for the 24-120 shot, so that's where there's a very slight change in the framing. https://www.dpreview.com/galleries/4772243122/albums/nikon-z-24-200mm-and-z-24-120mm

3 months agopermalink

I'm looking at this on my phone so take it with a grain of salt, but I actually expected to see a bigger difference... If you pixel peep the hell out of the center (way beyond the 1.5x crop) then the 24-200 comes out slightly ahead there, but along the edges the 24-120 looks crisper even after that 1.5 crop, at least looking at the furry guy.

I think if you wanted to get in the weeds on this you'd wanna shoot the 24-120 at a smaller aperture, maybe one stop down, to make up for any apparent DoF differences after cropping (120/4 would look like 180/6, etc.)... I think there's some differences on the starry cloth due to that. I'd be real happy with that 24-120 tho.

It isn't until I've got the pot's flower filling my screen that i can start to notice a little bit more detail/resolution on the 24-200. I'd probably pick the 24-120 more often than not, unless you're shooting a lot at 200mm and cropping further from there.

3 months ago*permalink

The 24-120 on my screen is noticeably better, overall. It's perfect for me. I had Sony's 24-105 in the past and it was a very good lens, but Nikon's 24-120 has it beat and I get an extra 15mm too :)

3 months agopermalink

jpeghorror

I could care less about corner softness. Give me some vignetting too, while you're at it.

This lens alone could almost tempt me back into a system camera...

3 months ago*permalink

goactive

After cropping in some as we do on just about every photo we shoot i have no softness problems i ever worry about.

3 months agopermalink

quintana

I love this lens and thankfully my copy is pretty good. I have some slight (!) corner blur every now and then but other than that it is really sharp across the whole frame and I am very picky about sharpness. Wouldn't hesitate to use this lens wide open at every focal length.

On my Z7 I think of it as a 24-180mm lens because in DX crop mode I still have almost 20 MP left with very sharp corners whereas the 24-200/4-6.3 on a Z6/Z6II struggles with the corners the more you zoom in. I had one and wasn't completely satisfied although to be fair it was by far the best superzoom I had but it just couldn't match the Z 24-70/4.

The Z 24-120/4 on the other hand is pretty much on par with the 24-70.

3 months agopermalink

Barney Britton

This lens has basically replaced the 24-70mm F2.8 for me, it’s so versatile. When I need something faster I tend to just switch to a prime. But I do remember being very impressed by the 24-200mm too.

3 months agopermalink

quintana

Same here. Since I mostly shoot landscapes I don't need larger apertures than f/5.6 often. My Z 50/1.8 is gathering dust but it is reassuring to own this optically almost perfect prime when opportunities occur. My Z 20/1.8 gets used from time to time when 24mm is not wide enough or for astro photography.

I wish the Z 105/2.8 macro was cheaper but for occasional macro photography the Z 24-120/4 also shines. It is sharp even at the closest focusing distance. It's like a Swiss army knife with almost no compromises.

3 months ago*permalink

jonby

Very consistent and strong performance across the frame for an extended standard range zoom. Thanks to Barney for providing a balanced range of samples with appropriate aperture settings so we can actually judge how it performs.
Compared to the RF 24-105mm f4 L I've been using (which is a good lens), I'd say this is a little better, with better performance at the wide end and less tendency for softness at the edges (the copy I've been using goes a tad soft on the left side), and an extra 15mm of tele to boot, which I would find very useful. A bit cheaper than the Canon in the UK also. The Canon does have IS though...

If I had a Nikon with IBIS (and a better job), I'd be getting this lens.

3 months agopermalink

LJ - Eljot

Ah, the former Airport Tempelhof!
Built in 1936. (There was an older Airport built in 1923 before.)

3 months ago*permalink

Mavots

I flew in and out of there when Berlin was still a divided city. So glad to see that it continues to serve a purpose and not replaced with something unsightly.
To keep on topic, after owning one for about two months, I am pleased with the 24-120.

3 months ago*permalink

Foskito

Beautiful IQ as expected from a lens of this price.

3 months agopermalink

io_bg

Yes an no. The Fuji 16-80 comes to mind, while it's 25% cheaper compared to this lens it doesn't have the best reputation regarding it's IQ.

3 months agopermalink

I had the Fuji 16-80 on the X-T4 and was not impressed at all. I was disappointed, actually. The trusty 18-55 was better, but sure...less range.

3 months agopermalink

thxbb12

Indeed. I own the Fuji 16-80 f4 and I posted it for sale. It has nice rendering but corners are never really sharp. It's one of the worst zooms I've ever had regarding corner sharpness.
This Nikkor seems much much better in terms of sharpness for sure.

3 months agopermalink

MyReality

It's hard to judge IQ due to monitor differences and room light.
On my monitor, the colors are muted and neutral similar to Fuji jpeg colors and not like Canon's more vibrant and saturated colors. The exception is the cyan skies.

3 months agopermalink

EXkurogane

Well the fuji is not full frame. It better be cheaper for covering a smaller image circle.

I don't know why APSC or M43 users always appear when people compare full frame lenses.

3 months agopermalink

io_bg

And what other lens could we compare this one to? The Fuji 16-80 covers the exact same range with the exact same aperture so it's the closest it can get. No other extended standard zoom reaches 120mm.

3 months agopermalink

EXkurogane

Well nikon also has a 16-80 f2.8-4 DX for F mount lol. We nikon users don't bring it up, partly because not many people knew it even existed, but mostly because it's really irrelevant - there's no need to compare an APSC lens with a FF lens.

The only other comparison is the F mount 24-120 f4 which is definitely showing its age. It's quite slow when being adapted via the FTZ. Not worth buying even a used one unless you own DSLRs.

3 months ago*permalink

That Fuji 16-80 is hardly the only FL equivalent, there's several 12-60 for M4/3, but yeah I think they're all pretty irrelevant unless they're f2.8 or better. The closer or more realistic comparison is the bevy of FF 24-105/4s, the Nikon doesn't seem to make an IQ sacrifice vs any of those, nor a size/weight sacrifice (it's actually lighter than Sony's)...

Lack of OIS/VR seems to be the only trade-off, if that, from what I've seen even Sony IBIS tends to be plenty thru 135mm. The closest APS-C equivalent would actually be Tamron's 17-70/2.8, which is shorter at both ends and not significantly smaller or lighter (~100g less IIRC), 25.5-105/4 equivalent tho.

3 months agopermalink

thisisbenji

@EXkurogane I have a 24-120/F4G that I picked up used this year for my Z6ii (and also my F100). I'm actually pretty impressed with the quality of the images I get from it when attached to the Z6ii. The focus speed is plenty fast for most of what I shoot and it's actually a lot sharper than I was expecting. I still need to get my hands on the z-mount version to see how much better it actually is, but the cost difference is significant. I kept my eye open for a deal and was able to scoop up the f-mount lens for $150, the z-mount is easily 10x that cost. I'm just not sure it's 10x as good.

3 months agopermalink

nabpaw

Which of the pictures were shot in Berlin?

3 months agopermalink

Kirnbichler

The series begins one frame after the whale carcass and ends with the "hands off our home" mural.

3 months agopermalink

StevenN

My 24-120mm f4 F-mount lens was always my favorite lens to use on my D-750. I'm hoping to get the Z-mount version for my Z6II.

3 months agopermalink

GinoSVK

Looking good, as it should.

3 months agopermalink

i like the images and i'm a huge fan of Nikon images. i currently have the 24-70/4 and it's really difficult to sell it and buy the 24-120/4 (due to the cost difference). but the 24-120/4 seems like a wonderful lens!

3 months agopermalink

sirhawkeye64

If you can swing it, keep both. I sold my 24-70 f/4 for the 2.8 and now wish I had just kept the f/4 as a light travel/backup lens.

In the US at least, You generally don't get a lot for the f/4 lens anyway, about $400-$450 on trade (depending on condition) and you'd be lucky to get $550 trying to sell it to a private party. In some regards, it's almost not worth selling unless the few hundred dollars is a deal breaker for you.

3 months ago*permalink

I actually came to the same conclusion— it’s not worth selling. In Canada, i wasn’t able to get $500 for it as there are so many people trying to sell them. I’d have to buy the 24-120/4 brand new, which is $1700 tax-in. No thanks.

I actually bought the 24-70/2.8 used. It’s a great lens, but i just can’t justify keeping a lens like that for the pics it produced. If it cost like $1500, i might’ve kept it. Just felt over priced for again it did. Thankfully i kept my f4 version, so i just rolled back into that. The f4 lens will likely stay with me forever now lol

3 months agopermalink

sirhawkeye64

Well, if you got a 2.8 for $1500 that's not a bad price, considering a used f/4 is around $550-$600 (at least here in the US) and a new one is $1000. I might go back and see if I can find a gently used f/4 version for $500 (I really don't want to spend the $1000 on the lens to get it new). The benefit (size/weight) I guess is not worth that much too me.

Ultimately, I'd like to sell my 24-200 and get a 24-120 but the 24-200 is hard to sell. (If I got the 24-120 then I probably wouldn't bother with the 24-70 f/4).

3 months ago*permalink

Merg1

I have both 24-70 lenses and now the 24-120 lens. The 24-70 f4 lens is very good quality, but it doesn’t have the versatility of the other two lenses. So I’ll be selling it. It just gathering dust otherwise.

3 months ago*permalink

@sirhawkeye i didn’t get it for $1500, that’s just the most it’s worth in my mind where I’d keep it if i got it for that price. Also, this is Canadian dollars.

If i didn’t start with the 24-70/4, I’d buy the 24-120/4. But the 24-70/4 is just too good of a value and nice and small

3 months agopermalink

sirhawkeye64

@Simonella OK wasn't sure if you some how got it used or something for $1500. Yes the 24-70 f/4 is a great value and compact. I think the 24-120 f/4 comes in around the same size and weight (roughly) as the 24-70 2.8, but it's obviously marketed towards a slightly different crowd.

3 months agopermalink

Sony user here, jelly of all the various Nikon f4s tbh (including the 14-30)... The 24-70/4 is smaller than any of the 3rd party 28-7x f2.8 for E mount, and the 24-120 is usefully longer than 24-105s IMO. Sony's f4s are a scattershot of different model lines, different generations, different feature sets, etc.

If there's one thing that was pulling me towards Nikon when I decided to start shooting FF in 2020 it was their F4 zooms, the primes too to an extent but there's comparable options to most of those elsewhere (50/1.8 aside).

3 months ago*permalink

@impulses i've been a nikon guy for like 15 years, but i took a 'break' with Sony from 2019-2022 or so. i had a sony a1 and a smattering of lenses 1st and 3rd party. but i missed Nikon and thought that they were far enough along for me to jump back in...

the Nikon lenses are phenomenal. the f4 zooms and f1.8 primes are exceptional for performance and value. the more "pro" expensive lenses are pricy and a little big at times, except lenses like the 14-24/2.8 S, which is actually quite compact/ light for what it is.

the problem still lies with Nikon bodies imo. and lack of 3rd party lenses, if that's your thing. but i think one can get around the lack of 3rd party with FTZ if one really wants, which i don't. my bigger problem is the lack of good bodies with capable AF. the gap is too large between the Z9 and the rest of the fleet. but i think Nikon will address this in the next year, so that's pretty exciting!

3 months agopermalink

Yeah C-AF & battery life ultimately pulled me towards E mount, along with the 3rd party stuff (6 out of my ~9 E mount lenses are actually from 3rd parties, all but 1 are primes). I'm glad Nikon has a path forward tho, RF wasn't even in the running for me but I think the whole market benefits from 3+ horse race rather than a dupoly.

I think the Nikon prime lineup actually replicates most of the 3rd party stuff I've got on E mount already (and/or some if it is also available on Z, eg Laowa's), even if not always at the same price point, the 40/2 would easily match my SY 45/1.8 for instance... I think the only exception (for me, I could pick out a few others more broadly) would be a smaller short tele a la SY 75/1.8 or Sigma 90/2.8. Well that and 1st party f1.4s...

3 months ago*permalink

(cont.)

I think Nikon has been pretty clever in offering some lower budget options to account for the lack of more 3rd parties tho (that 40/2, 28/2.8, 28-75/2.8, etc.), and I like how they're selectively towing that line vs the cheaper RF stuff by Canon (no sealing, no hood, slower/external AF, weird f11s, etc.).

Although I'm jelly of some of the RF teles too, I think if someone can't find something they like better in any current system or lens catalog then they're falling prey to blind brand bias tbh.

3 months ago*permalink