Thanks for putting this video together and for all of your great content. I own both of these lenses and the Z9, so I was interested to see if your experiences were consistent with mine. I found the 24-70 to be exactly what you'd expect from a lens of that price range and as part of the "holy trinity." It is a spectacular lens, and like you say, "nothing to complain about." I love owning it, and make use of it frequently. The 24-120, however, entirely exceeded my expectations. This lens is sharp, fast, and a bargain at the current price point. I had an opportunity to attend a concert recently where the stadium policy limited me to a lens 6" or shorter, so my choice was the 24-120 on my Z6ii. I was approximately 100-150 feet from the subject (pure guess), and was shocked at how sharp the images that this lens was delivering under really challenging circumstances. Rather than consider one lens over the other, I would enthusiastically recommend owning both.
Estou pesquisando muito sobre essa lente 24-120. Meu medo em adquirir é pq maior parte dos eventos que faço é a noite. Mas qnd vc falou aqui fiquei bem mais empolgada. Mt obrigada.
I chose the 24-70/2.8 and it lives on my camera. 1 stop improvement lets in double the light. I mostly shoot at 2.8 which you can only do with the 24-70. Changing the ISO won’t give you a shorter depth of field. If you don’t need 2.8 then get the cheaper one…
Great video! I have both lenses. I recently shot a wedding and opted for the 24-70 f2.8 as A: I was also shooting with the Nikkor Z 70-200 f2.8 and B: I was concerned with the amount (or lack of) ambient light. I made the correct guess as the reception was in a poorly lit venue with a very high ceiling that was painted black so bouncing a flash was not possible. I also brought along a few light stands, a couple of shoot through umbrellas and a few Godox AD 200's. At the time I had a pair of Z6's and mounted the 24-70 to one and the 70-200 to the other. It is possible that I may have been able to use the 24-120 however the lighting was so poor in some instances that I had to rely on my center most focus point even at f2.8. If I happen to shoot a wedding that is outdoors I would not hesitate to swap out the 24-70 for the 24-120. I may even consider leaving the 70-200 at home as well as I find that the 24-120 produces good portrait results at 120mm. Thanks!
I choose 24-120 for my Z5. As a hobby photographer I had to consider price as well (this aspect is missing in video ;)). 24-70 f2.8 is almost double the price of 24-120 f4 in my local Nikon store. Also it is somewhat lighter and has longer reach so decision was clear for me. I'm really happy with this lens so far. In a year or two I might upgrade a body but I'll probably keep this lens.
@@RamonVaqueroImage Works pretty well. Somewtimes in low light it needs help but overall I don't have issues with AF. I have only old F-mount lens on D200 to compare with and this works little better. I'm not fully proficient with AF modes on Z5 yet. Haven't had much luck with fast moving subjects like birds in flight yet but it might be because of lacking skill.
@@RamonVaqueroImage The "smaller" Nikon mirrorless cameras up to the Z7II are by and large not very well-suited to action photography, be it wildlife or events. Having said that, I own the same combo of Z5 and 24-120 f4 and for landscape, architecture or portrait photography, the AF works perfectly fine imho.
I choose….. both! I’ve found the 24-120 is great for travel or just walking around while the 24-70 is what I use during portraits. I use both with a Nikon Z6 and Z9 and have found that they each have a use. Great video, love the in depth review.
I actually own both lenses. For general purpose, I carry the 24-120mm f/4 lens, but if I’m shooting night-sky images (z.B., Milky Way), I take the 24-70mm f/2.8 and the 14-24mm f/2.8 lenses. In this case, the extra stop is very helpful because I can shoot at a lower ISO value. In my experience, when there is plenty of light, there is no problem shooting at high ISO values, but when the light is very low, the noise dramatically higher at high ISO values. So that one extra stop is very helpful.
@@deegeeofpenryn I’m using the Nikon Z9 and Z8 cameras. They essentially have the same 45.7 megapixel BSI stacked sensors. The ISO setting is usually between 1600 and 3200, but I always try to keep it as low as possible.
@@guyyowell8547 it still amazes me that even £5k modern cameras come up “noisy” at these iso settings in real world situations? With the dynamic range on the bsi sensors have you tried lower iso then underexpose maybe 2/3 stops and adjust exposure in software. If so do you get just as much noise? Cheers
@@deegeeofpenryn Getting the right exposure with night photography is always a bit tricky. I generally shoot a bit faster than the 500 rule suggests (often 15-20 seconds rather than 30) to eliminate star trails. I always shoot wide open at f/2.8 with the 14-24mm f/2.8S lens. There’s always a balance between trying to minimize noise while still achieving an adequate exposure, and you have to be really careful with noise reduction during editing because stars can be viewed as “noise”.
Thanks for including portrait photos from the 24-120! Most reviews on UA-cam focus on landscape but I thought it's possible to do some nice portraits at 120/4 and it's true! Amazing photos, thanks for the review
For me, I think these are different enough to have both for certain photographers, I considered trading my 2.8 for the 24 to 120, but decided to have both for now and can’t see this changing.
Like you I have both lenses Having the extra focal length, shorter focus distance and lighter weight is much more useful to me than one stop of extra light gathering Great review as always
Have both. This is probably psychosomatic, but I find the color rendition better on the 24-70 2.8. But that’s probably an artifact of my imagination. In a non-related event, I just wrapped up an all day shoot comparing the Nikon Z7 II vs the GFX 100S. After matching colors in Lightroom there is literally no discernible difference unless you zoom in 400%. Again, I think we trick ourselves into thinking the more expensive piece of equipment is better, but I’m not sure that really is the case.
Interesting comment, many thanks CT. Maybe the color difference is not only perception but has to do with bigger glass and wider aperture in the 24-70? I will try to pay attention to color science next time I compare them.
Great video and description as usual. I have the 24-70mm f4 which came with my Z6. Now I use it on my Z9, it is a fantastic lens however, at certain times of the year, I shoot parties, events and ceremonies. I needed more focal length so I purchased the 24-120mm f4 and it is just perfect. In my use case, the usability of 24-120mm far outweighs that additional stop of 2.8. Thanks so much for the excellent content on your channel.. Ted in Sebastian, Florida.
Low light situations is no problem in most situations with the 24-120 as you can compensate with iso adjustment or shutter speed. However, the bokeh differ between f4 and f2.8, so if you need blurry backgrounds the 24-70/2.8 will be your choice.
If you do not need the 120mm flex, shoot often in low light and if the almost double price of the 24-70 is ok for you, then the standard 24-70 is the right choice for you.
@@anderslundberg3215 Agree with your statement on bokeh, spot-on. However, with the longer 120mm you get a very shallow DoF and very nice soft background bokeh as you can see in some of the sample images. Clearly, longer tele also means more blurriness in the background and 120mm is significantly longer than 70mm if you compare the two lenses at their longest focal length setting.
@@anderslundberg3215 if you prefer shooting more wide angle with blurry background thats definetly correct, but at 120mm at f4, the potential for background seperation should be (in practice) pretty much equal to the 2.8 at 70mm
@@mathphotographer We agree on the bokeh difference between the two lenses. I have both and I think both are excellent. The 24-120 has become my favorite standard travel and hiking lens, lightweight and crispy sharp. However, used at the shortest length, 24mm, the bokeh is more smooth at 2.8 than at 4. I like that and that's why I sometimes prefer the 24-70/2.8.
Interesting comparison. I opted for the 24-120 f4 S for my Nikon Z9, partly because of your video and partly because I have an AF-S Nikkor 24-70 f2.8G ED on my D850. It would be interesting to see a comparison between these two lenses on a Z9 body using the F mount adapter for the AF-S lens. I suspect that the 24-120 f4 S would have the edge, but how big would you have to print for the difference to become noticeable?
I use the 24-70/2.8 on a daily basis both in the studio and outside. What strikes me about the Z-lenses is how similar they perform when used simultaneously. There’s virtually no difference in color rendering between the various S-line lenses which makes it very easy to extend the 24-70 with the 85/1.8 or the 105/2.8. It makes post processing so much easier. Few brands do this as good as Nikon with its Z-lenses.
Thanks Math, this video was very helpful and timely ! I was trying to decide which lens to take on a camping trip and decided to take the 24-120. Carrying weight is the higher priority for the hikes.
Great, thanks Michael. If you are out in nature you will also enjoy the significantly larger magnification on the 24-120 for macro shots. Happy shooting!
Thorough review as always. Now, if you were comparing the 24-70mm f4 S lens to the 24-120mm it would be a no brainer. In fact , it seems silly for Nikon to continue to offer the 24-70mm f4 now that, for one hundred dollars more you can get a lens with a significantly longer focal length on the tele end with a constant aperture. The 24-70mm f2.8 is twice as expensive - for a lens that's only one stop brighter. The only time that might be useful would be in a very low light situation where the extra stop would mean you could shoot at ISO 4000 instead of ISO 8000 - that would be a noticeable difference in quality.
Thank you for a very nice comparison. I own ten Z lenses; four zooms and six primes, but neither of these. My 24-70 f/4 has been tucked away in it's box since I got the 24-200 non S variable aperature zoom; but, for what I do, the 24-200 has been my lens choice 90% of the time. My second most used Z lens is the 105 f/2.8 macro. I really think I must just take one week per lens to get to know the others better.
Now I do have the 24-120 f/4. I found a copy from Nikon USA as a discounted, refurbished, lens and I usually take it on walks instead of the 24-200. I think it is sharper throughout. I like the extra control ring. I love the 0.39X magnification to catch some wildflowers as I walk. As I rewatched this video, I again appreciate how inspiring your photographs are.
thanks for the always good lens exam and comparison! I decided to go for the 2.8 as I did for the F-System. main advantage is CAs which you actually see at urban landscape night shots (pls say "shots" not "shuts" 🙂 ). keep on the good work, it's very helpful!
Thank you for sharing! Always appreciate the thoughtfulness of your reviews. I have the the 24-70 f4 and f2.8 versions and find myself using the f4 more on my Z7. The f2.8 is superior but feels unwieldly on the Z7 in comparison. I imagine the Z9's body makes a better match. I also have an SL with a Lumix 24-105 f4 and enjoy that combo as well.
Excellent review Bro! Clearly illustrated. Both lenses are super sharp. Obviously the 24-70 f2.8 excels for astro. Hopefully I may switched to Nikon's mirrorless later, for now I'm stuck with the D850 with the 24-120 f4 & 14-24 f2.8. So far I have no complains with the 2 lenses I have currently
Nice comparison, but I still have trouble choosing. I think the 24-120 is in the lead thanks to lower price and weight. Perhaps a better all-aroundlens. If I aim to have a short depth of field I can use a faster prime.
Thanks Niclas, here is my thought for you: if you care a lot about macro photography and "getting closer", the 24-120 is the better choice. If you shoot a lot in low light, then the wider aperture at the 24-70 will be the better choice. Cross fingers for your decision making :)
This may sound like a weird comparison, but would you ever consider comparing a Z9 with 24-120mm to the Leica SL2 with the 24-90mm? I can't think of anyone else who could do this better! Thank you for your wonderful work!
One important aspect to consider would be the price. For the price of one 24-70mm f/2.8, we can get one 24-120mm f/4, one 24mm f/1.8 and one 50mm f/1.8. the advantage here would be f/4 at 120mm, f/1.8 at 24mm and 50mm. More versatility at the expense of portability I guess, depends on what works better for individual
Thanks for the review! Any experience how the 24-120 compares to 24-70/4 and to 24-200? Would you go for 24-120 or 24-200, considering their comparable size and weight?
Thank you for the very nice video. Fortunately I ended up getting both because the use is different IMHO. Use the 24-70/2,8 more but love having 24-120/4 to pair with my Z 100-400/4.5-5.6 VR S for travel. Interestingly pair the 24-70/2.8 with the Z 70-200/2.8 VR S.
Thanks for the video. Personally I would prefer 24-120 for travel purpose because it has more focal length and is also lighter. A 24-70/f2.8 is somehow embarrassing because the focal length is limited and the aperture is not as good as primes. Also it is more expensive and heavier.
I have both of these lenses and agree with you - they are both incredible - the only real difference being that in my opinion the extra stop on the 24-70 is significant in low light - for event shooting this can be the difference between ISO 8000 and ISO 4000 - while high ISO on the Nikon's is really good - I would say up top about ISO 5000 (sometimes 6400) is usable for low light event photography. Above 5000 or so it starts to be a bit to noisy: 4000 looks pretty good; 8000 is often passable but it is just passable - it no longer looks 'good'. As such, I find that f/2.8 is the slowest that a lens for low light event shooting can be to achieve acceptable images. So if you are an event/low light (astro included) photographer and/or a portrait photographer the 24-70 2.8 is for you, but if you are shooting anything else the better bet is the 24-120 - for landscape, travel, architecture/interiors, or just general photography. Also, I would point out another major difference between these lenses that you did not mention and that is price - the 2.8 24-70 lens is more than double the price of the 24-120 f/4. The 24-70 is literally $1200 more than the 24-120 which means it is more than twice the price as the 24-120 comes in at $1100. Both lenses are great - Just a little more to think about in addition to what the video talks about. Thanks for the comparison :)
Price actually is an interesting aspect here. When you compare what you get for money, the 24-120 is the even better value for money given its much lower price. Best wishes :)
Ciao Matt. Nella Z9, l'avviso alte luci (motivo zebrato) è solo per il video (g12) ? Per la fotografia non riesco a trovarlo. Possibile? Grazie per la cortese risposta. A presto.
Hi and thanks. Have you tried any of the Nikons on Leica SL2 with adaptors? I know comparison with Leica glass is irrelevant but some perspective would be helpful. Thanks.
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?
And since you have the f4/24-70 and not the f2.8/24-70 you have still the same widest open aperture on the f4/24-120, so your proposed lens change is a true upgrade.
@@mathphotographer the dillema are: if i get 24-120 i need 16-20 prime at least for landscape, but i dont need macro lens. and if i choose 24-70. i dont need landscape and portrait prime, but i need macro lens lol
I picked up the 24-120 just because it's so much more versatile and a much better price. I picked it up along with th14-24 2.8. I have a ton of Sony lenses so not sure whether to pickup the Megadep and sell my A7IV, stick with the Z9. But the A7IV is just so much easier to pickup and carry around. :P Decisions.
I can attest via personal experience that the megadap works great for E on Z7 & Z7II with sony/zeiss and zeiss batis primes. AF, aperture, image stabilization, no issues. The native E lenses are so compact and light on the Z...not to mention many of them are optically superior to the 1st gen Nikon Z lenses(e.g. rehoused and slightly revamped Nikon G lenses). The Techart TZC-01 for Canon Mount to Z on the other hand is barely useful and the company offers ZERO support. It works sometimes, but focus hunt, and inability to override the "no fire" situation when it can't find focus (even when you manually adjust focus and are ready to shoot) has made me MISS many shots, which is infuriating and intolerable, so I gave up on that and only use canon lenses on Canon bodies.
Never been a fan of 24-70mm or equivalent lenses. They always feel too short on the long end. ☺️ Back in film days I loved the Zeiss 28-85mm, and even the Yashica lens with the same range was a good performer. (I had both because the Zeiss was too bulky for some situations.) Nowadays Leica’s 24-90mm is my medium range go-to lens. It’s not exactly compact, though! In the Micro Four-Thirds system Panasonic’s 14-140mm (28-280 equiv.) way outperforms its price point and is pretty much glued onto my little GX8 camera.
Hi thanks for the comparison. What about focusing speed, any difference? Is the 2.8 better in terms of focus accuracy on a z9 due to being capable of gathering more light? Thanks in advance for your reply. Cheers!
You will like the lens, very flexible in terms of focal length and great image quality. I hope your stolen lens had insurance ... its an expensive loss otherwise.
I know this is an odd question, but if you don't mind could you please let me know whether the lens hoods are interchangeable between these two lenses, 24-120mm f/4 and 24-70mm f/2.8? Thank you.
@@mathphotographer Thank you for testing this. The different filter threads do not mean much for hoods that attach with a bayonet, for example the same hood fits on the Nikon Z 14-24 f/2.8, 24-70 f/2.8, and 70-200 f/2.8, despite them all having different filter thread sizes. I was just wondering whether the 112mm filters I have for the 14-24 f/2.8 hood would also fit on the 24-120 f/4.
I prefer the 24-70mm / f4 -- Excellent used for $400 and DX it to 105mm when needed. One lens w/ one new Z5 body -- that's all I need for my pro work. $1450 total.
So, basically a pointless comparison :) It would have been better if you had showed cropped close ups of the corners of the images so we could have assessed the strengths of the lenses at the edges.
I'm a life long Nikon user and I have to say how saddened i am with Nikon more or less like they deny ever having made DSLR's since they have decided to completely stop making them you'd think they never existed with the way they are going so over the top with the over rated mirrorless cameras they have chosen to focus on, absolutely disgusted with this company
I chose the 24-70mm because its the one I've always used and I love fast glass. And I may be a little prejudiced against the 24-120 because it used to be the videographers lens...🦘
Thanks for putting this video together and for all of your great content. I own both of these lenses and the Z9, so I was interested to see if your experiences were consistent with mine. I found the 24-70 to be exactly what you'd expect from a lens of that price range and as part of the "holy trinity." It is a spectacular lens, and like you say, "nothing to complain about." I love owning it, and make use of it frequently. The 24-120, however, entirely exceeded my expectations. This lens is sharp, fast, and a bargain at the current price point. I had an opportunity to attend a concert recently where the stadium policy limited me to a lens 6" or shorter, so my choice was the 24-120 on my Z6ii. I was approximately 100-150 feet from the subject (pure guess), and was shocked at how sharp the images that this lens was delivering under really challenging circumstances. Rather than consider one lens over the other, I would enthusiastically recommend owning both.
Many thanks, Ira, for sharing your experience. The 24-120 indeed exceeds expectations, in particular for such a lower price than the 24-70.
Estou pesquisando muito sobre essa lente 24-120. Meu medo em adquirir é pq maior parte dos eventos que faço é a noite. Mas qnd vc falou aqui fiquei bem mais empolgada. Mt obrigada.
Same here! 🙂
I chose the 24-70/2.8 and it lives on my camera. 1 stop improvement lets in double the light. I mostly shoot at 2.8 which you can only do with the 24-70. Changing the ISO won’t give you a shorter depth of field. If you don’t need 2.8 then get the cheaper one…
Great video!
I have both lenses. I recently shot a wedding and opted for the 24-70 f2.8 as A: I was also shooting with the Nikkor Z 70-200 f2.8 and B: I was concerned with the amount (or lack of) ambient light.
I made the correct guess as the reception was in a poorly lit venue with a very high ceiling that was painted black so bouncing a flash was not possible. I also brought along a few light stands, a couple of shoot through umbrellas and a few Godox AD 200's.
At the time I had a pair of Z6's and mounted the 24-70 to one and the 70-200 to the other. It is possible that I may have been able to use the 24-120 however the lighting was so poor in some instances that I had to rely on my center most focus point even at f2.8.
If I happen to shoot a wedding that is outdoors I would not hesitate to swap out the 24-70 for the 24-120. I may even consider leaving the 70-200 at home as well as I find that the 24-120 produces good portrait results at 120mm.
Thanks!
I choose 24-120 for my Z5. As a hobby photographer I had to consider price as well (this aspect is missing in video ;)). 24-70 f2.8 is almost double the price of 24-120 f4 in my local Nikon store. Also it is somewhat lighter and has longer reach so decision was clear for me. I'm really happy with this lens so far. In a year or two I might upgrade a body but I'll probably keep this lens.
How do you find the AF performance of the Z5 with the 24-120?
@@RamonVaqueroImage Works pretty well. Somewtimes in low light it needs help but overall I don't have issues with AF. I have only old F-mount lens on D200 to compare with and this works little better. I'm not fully proficient with AF modes on Z5 yet. Haven't had much luck with fast moving subjects like birds in flight yet but it might be because of lacking skill.
@@MrMarin051 thank you!
@@RamonVaqueroImage The "smaller" Nikon mirrorless cameras up to the Z7II are by and large not very well-suited to action photography, be it wildlife or events. Having said that, I own the same combo of Z5 and 24-120 f4 and for landscape, architecture or portrait photography, the AF works perfectly fine imho.
I choose….. both! I’ve found the 24-120 is great for travel or just walking around while the 24-70 is what I use during portraits. I use both with a Nikon Z6 and Z9 and have found that they each have a use. Great video, love the in depth review.
I actually own both lenses. For general purpose, I carry the 24-120mm f/4 lens, but if I’m shooting night-sky images (z.B., Milky Way), I take the 24-70mm f/2.8 and the 14-24mm f/2.8 lenses. In this case, the extra stop is very helpful because I can shoot at a lower ISO value. In my experience, when there is plenty of light, there is no problem shooting at high ISO values, but when the light is very low, the noise dramatically higher at high ISO values. So that one extra stop is very helpful.
Great comment, thanks Guy
Guy you don't mention which Nikon body nor ISO settings you were using and this is critical in terms of megapixels and associated noise ?
@@deegeeofpenryn I’m using the Nikon Z9 and Z8 cameras. They essentially have the same 45.7 megapixel BSI stacked sensors. The ISO setting is usually between 1600 and 3200, but I always try to keep it as low as possible.
@@guyyowell8547 it still amazes me that even £5k modern cameras come up “noisy” at these iso settings in real world situations? With the dynamic range on the bsi sensors have you tried lower iso then underexpose maybe 2/3 stops and adjust exposure in software. If so do you get just as much noise?
Cheers
@@deegeeofpenryn Getting the right exposure with night photography is always a bit tricky. I generally shoot a bit faster than the 500 rule suggests (often 15-20 seconds rather than 30) to eliminate star trails. I always shoot wide open at f/2.8 with the 14-24mm f/2.8S lens. There’s always a balance between trying to minimize noise while still achieving an adequate exposure, and you have to be really careful with noise reduction during editing because stars can be viewed as “noise”.
Thanks for including portrait photos from the 24-120! Most reviews on UA-cam focus on landscape but I thought it's possible to do some nice portraits at 120/4 and it's true! Amazing photos, thanks for the review
Glad it was helpful!
spot on analysis. I am returning my 2.8. why spend $1,300 more not to mention the extra weight. I will get the f4. Great analysis, thank you!
For me, I think these are different enough to have both for certain photographers, I considered trading my 2.8 for the 24 to 120, but decided to have both for now and can’t see this changing.
Like you I have both lenses
Having the extra focal length, shorter focus distance and lighter weight is much more useful to me than one stop of extra light gathering
Great review as always
Thanks Ronald, much appreciated
24-120 is my fav lens for the Z9 -- very versatile, light, and great for video (minimal focus breathing, near parfocal).
Thanks Roland, for videographers the 24-120 is likely the better choice, spot-on comment.
Have both. This is probably psychosomatic, but I find the color rendition better on the 24-70 2.8. But that’s probably an artifact of my imagination. In a non-related event, I just wrapped up an all day shoot comparing the Nikon Z7 II vs the GFX 100S. After matching colors in Lightroom there is literally no discernible difference unless you zoom in 400%. Again, I think we trick ourselves into thinking the more expensive piece of equipment is better, but I’m not sure that really is the case.
Interesting comment, many thanks CT. Maybe the color difference is not only perception but has to do with bigger glass and wider aperture in the 24-70? I will try to pay attention to color science next time I compare them.
Mat you read my mind!!!! This was going to be my new purchase the 24-120 but I wasn't sure! Thanks buddy
Pleasure :)
Great video and description as usual. I have the 24-70mm f4 which came with my Z6. Now I use it on my Z9, it is a fantastic lens however, at certain times of the year, I shoot parties, events and ceremonies. I needed more focal length so I purchased the 24-120mm f4 and it is just perfect. In my use case, the usability of 24-120mm far outweighs that additional stop of 2.8. Thanks so much for the excellent content on your channel.. Ted in Sebastian, Florida.
Thanks Ted and warm regards to Florida
Thank you, Great review! I'm going to buy the Z 24-120 f4 now that I sold my G version which wasn't as sharp.
Great - enjoy and happy shooting!
I chose 24-70 2.8s for my z9. As the concert shooter I need 2.8 for both 24-70 and 70-200. Both z lenses amazing.
Fully understand - if you shoot concerts and a lot in low light the extra stop wider at f/2.8 makes a big difference.
I've had the original 24-120D Streetsweeper, also the 24-120 f4 and now the Z 24-120. All have been great, but the Z is the best by far.
I prefer the 2.8 version and it’s married to my Z9 . It comes in really handy in low light situations.
Low light situations is no problem in most situations with the 24-120 as you can compensate with iso adjustment or shutter speed. However, the bokeh differ between f4 and f2.8, so if you need blurry backgrounds the 24-70/2.8 will be your choice.
If you do not need the 120mm flex, shoot often in low light and if the almost double price of the 24-70 is ok for you, then the standard 24-70 is the right choice for you.
@@anderslundberg3215 Agree with your statement on bokeh, spot-on. However, with the longer 120mm you get a very shallow DoF and very nice soft background bokeh as you can see in some of the sample images. Clearly, longer tele also means more blurriness in the background and 120mm is significantly longer than 70mm if you compare the two lenses at their longest focal length setting.
@@anderslundberg3215 if you prefer shooting more wide angle with blurry background thats definetly correct, but at 120mm at f4, the potential for background seperation should be (in practice) pretty much equal to the 2.8 at 70mm
@@mathphotographer We agree on the bokeh difference between the two lenses. I have both and I think both are excellent. The 24-120 has become my favorite standard travel and hiking lens, lightweight and crispy sharp. However, used at the shortest length, 24mm, the bokeh is more smooth at 2.8 than at 4. I like that and that's why I sometimes prefer the 24-70/2.8.
Interesting comparison. I opted for the 24-120 f4 S for my Nikon Z9, partly because of your video and partly because I have an AF-S Nikkor 24-70 f2.8G ED on my D850. It would be interesting to see a comparison between these two lenses on a Z9 body using the F mount adapter for the AF-S lens. I suspect that the 24-120 f4 S would have the edge, but how big would you have to print for the difference to become noticeable?
I use the 24-70/2.8 on a daily basis both in the studio and outside. What strikes me about the Z-lenses is how similar they perform when used simultaneously. There’s virtually no difference in color rendering between the various S-line lenses which makes it very easy to extend the 24-70 with the 85/1.8 or the 105/2.8. It makes post processing so much easier. Few brands do this as good as Nikon with its Z-lenses.
Indeed - the Z lens line-up is just excellent, as is their new flagship the Z9.
Thanks Math, this video was very helpful and timely ! I was trying to decide which lens to take on a camping trip and decided to take the 24-120. Carrying weight is the higher priority for the hikes.
Great, thanks Michael. If you are out in nature you will also enjoy the significantly larger magnification on the 24-120 for macro shots. Happy shooting!
24-70/2.8 usually for wedding pro. 24-120/4 very useful for travel. Pro usually pair the zoom with 35/1.2 and 85/1.2 for specialized shoot
Thanks. Considering my first Nikon with the Z8 this helped decide on 1st lens to get.
I bought both. The 24-120 lives on my Z8 unless it is really dark. At weddings I do the 24-70 and 70-200.
Thorough review as always. Now, if you were comparing the 24-70mm f4 S lens to the 24-120mm it would be a no brainer. In fact , it seems silly for Nikon to continue to offer the 24-70mm f4 now that, for one hundred dollars more you can get a lens with a significantly longer focal length on the tele end with a constant aperture. The 24-70mm f2.8 is twice as expensive - for a lens that's only one stop brighter. The only time that might be useful would be in a very low light situation where the extra stop would mean you could shoot at ISO 4000 instead of ISO 8000 - that would be a noticeable difference in quality.
Thank you for a very nice comparison. I own ten Z lenses; four zooms and six primes, but neither of these. My 24-70 f/4 has been tucked away in it's box since I got the 24-200 non S variable aperature zoom; but, for what I do, the 24-200 has been my lens choice 90% of the time. My second most used Z lens is the 105 f/2.8 macro. I really think I must just take one week per lens to get to know the others better.
Thanks, Barry, for sharing your experience. I shoot primarily prime lenses but if a zoom lens is as good as these two I go for it :)
Now I do have the 24-120 f/4. I found a copy from Nikon USA as a discounted, refurbished, lens and I usually take it on walks instead of the 24-200. I think it is sharper throughout. I like the extra control ring. I love the 0.39X magnification to catch some wildflowers as I walk. As I rewatched this video, I again appreciate how inspiring your photographs are.
I use the 24-120 w z9 and it's amazing!!! 5x zoom is unreal. Def wish I had 2.8 for low light but I use my 50 or 105 for that :)
Thanks Brandon :)
thanks for the always good lens exam and comparison! I decided to go for the 2.8 as I did for the F-System. main advantage is CAs which you actually see at urban landscape night shots (pls say "shots" not "shuts" 🙂 ). keep on the good work, it's very helpful!
I have 24-120 one right now... But I am considering to switch it to 24-70 F2.8 as I bought 70-200 F2.8.
Makes sense in terms of focal length coverage and a wider open aperture.
Thanks! I'm thinking I will go with the 24-120 F4 S. It will give me the wide angle that I want plus a little more reach than my 85mm S.
Agree - if you want the flex to go as long as 120mm then the 24-120 is the right choice for you.
Thank you for sharing! Always appreciate the thoughtfulness of your reviews. I have the the 24-70 f4 and f2.8 versions and find myself using the f4 more on my Z7. The f2.8 is superior but feels unwieldly on the Z7 in comparison. I imagine the Z9's body makes a better match. I also have an SL with a Lumix 24-105 f4 and enjoy that combo as well.
Thanks for the feedback and for sharing your thoughts and experience.
Excellent review Bro! Clearly illustrated. Both lenses are super sharp. Obviously the 24-70 f2.8 excels for astro.
Hopefully I may switched to Nikon's mirrorless later, for now I'm stuck with the D850 with the 24-120 f4 & 14-24 f2.8. So far I have no complains with the 2 lenses I have currently
I am using the same lenses too
Nice comparison, but I still have trouble choosing. I think the 24-120 is in the lead thanks to lower price and weight. Perhaps a better all-aroundlens. If I aim to have a short depth of field I can use a faster prime.
Thanks Niclas, here is my thought for you: if you care a lot about macro photography and "getting closer", the 24-120 is the better choice. If you shoot a lot in low light, then the wider aperture at the 24-70 will be the better choice. Cross fingers for your decision making :)
This may sound like a weird comparison, but would you ever consider comparing a Z9 with 24-120mm to the Leica SL2 with the 24-90mm? I can't think of anyone else who could do this better! Thank you for your wonderful work!
One important aspect to consider would be the price. For the price of one 24-70mm f/2.8, we can get one 24-120mm f/4, one 24mm f/1.8 and one 50mm f/1.8. the advantage here would be f/4 at 120mm, f/1.8 at 24mm and 50mm. More versatility at the expense of portability I guess, depends on what works better for individual
Spot-on comment, thanks Santhosh.
I’m looking forward to the forthcoming Zeiss native Z mount but thanks for this.
Zeiss is great, I have the 50mm Zeiss macro for F-mount - a dream lens!
Thanks for the review! Any experience how the 24-120 compares to 24-70/4 and to 24-200?
Would you go for 24-120 or 24-200, considering their comparable size and weight?
I owned both, if you are shooting studio only, go for 24-12
Agree completely.... Still have my 24-120 AFs... but prefer these two lenses on my Nikon Z5 (Z9 is overkill for my needs at this point).
Nice! Actually deciding between these lenses. 😊
Obrigada, pelo escelente vídeo....vou adquirir a 24-120
Thank you for the very nice video. Fortunately I ended up getting both because the use is different IMHO. Use the 24-70/2,8 more but love having 24-120/4 to pair with my Z 100-400/4.5-5.6 VR S for travel. Interestingly pair the 24-70/2.8 with the Z 70-200/2.8 VR S.
Indeed Steven, I have also the 70-200 and in combo with the 24-70 you cover all you need. With the 2x teleconverter I can get up to 400mm
@@mathphotographer Admit I limit my TC’s to 1.4X for now.
Thanks for the video. Personally I would prefer 24-120 for travel purpose because it has more focal length and is also lighter. A 24-70/f2.8 is somehow embarrassing because the focal length is limited and the aperture is not as good as primes. Also it is more expensive and heavier.
I have both of these lenses and agree with you - they are both incredible - the only real difference being that in my opinion the extra stop on the 24-70 is significant in low light - for event shooting this can be the difference between ISO 8000 and ISO 4000 - while high ISO on the Nikon's is really good - I would say up top about ISO 5000 (sometimes 6400) is usable for low light event photography. Above 5000 or so it starts to be a bit to noisy: 4000 looks pretty good; 8000 is often passable but it is just passable - it no longer looks 'good'. As such, I find that f/2.8 is the slowest that a lens for low light event shooting can be to achieve acceptable images. So if you are an event/low light (astro included) photographer and/or a portrait photographer the 24-70 2.8 is for you, but if you are shooting anything else the better bet is the 24-120 - for landscape, travel, architecture/interiors, or just general photography.
Also, I would point out another major difference between these lenses that you did not mention and that is price - the 2.8 24-70 lens is more than double the price of the 24-120 f/4. The 24-70 is literally $1200 more than the 24-120 which means it is more than twice the price as the 24-120 comes in at $1100.
Both lenses are great - Just a little more to think about in addition to what the video talks about.
Thanks for the comparison :)
Many thanks, Barry, for your comment and sharing your experience. I actually did mention price - but only in the infobox below the video :)
@@mathphotographer No worries - It wasn't a criticism. All the best :)
@@baronsilverton6504 Thanks - I did not see it as criticism 😊 Speak soon on this channel
Price actually is an interesting aspect here. When you compare what you get for money, the 24-120 is the even better value for money given its much lower price. Best wishes :)
Awesome video Thanks ❤️🙌🏻
Many thanks Azeem
Ciao Matt. Nella Z9, l'avviso alte luci (motivo zebrato) è solo per il video (g12) ? Per la fotografia non riesco a trovarlo. Possibile? Grazie per la cortese risposta. A presto.
Nice video, thank you.
Hi and thanks. Have you tried any of the Nikons on Leica SL2 with adaptors? I know comparison with Leica glass is irrelevant but some perspective would be helpful. Thanks.
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 - the f4/24-120 gives you more flex, and its a terrific lens. With widest open f/4 at 120mm you will love the background blurriness.
And since you have the f4/24-70 and not the f2.8/24-70 you have still the same widest open aperture on the f4/24-120, so your proposed lens change is a true upgrade.
Question. Feature wise. Which one you choose. Bnib 24-120 or used 24-70/2.8. Price only 500 bucks apart?
I use the 24-120 more often. As said in the video, both lenses are excellent but the extended focal range means something to me :)
@@mathphotographer 1:2,5 close focus killer deal for me. but in my country none 24-120 used (1200s) but a lot 24-70/2.8 avg 1700-1800 lol
@@mathphotographer the dillema are: if i get 24-120 i need 16-20 prime at least for landscape, but i dont need macro lens. and if i choose 24-70. i dont need landscape and portrait prime, but i need macro lens lol
I picked up the 24-120 just because it's so much more versatile and a much better price. I picked it up along with th14-24 2.8. I have a ton of Sony lenses so not sure whether to pickup the Megadep and sell my A7IV, stick with the Z9. But the A7IV is just so much easier to pickup and carry around. :P Decisions.
I can attest via personal experience that the megadap works great for E on Z7 & Z7II with sony/zeiss and zeiss batis primes. AF, aperture, image stabilization, no issues. The native E lenses are so compact and light on the Z...not to mention many of them are optically superior to the 1st gen Nikon Z lenses(e.g. rehoused and slightly revamped Nikon G lenses). The Techart TZC-01 for Canon Mount to Z on the other hand is barely useful and the company offers ZERO support. It works sometimes, but focus hunt, and inability to override the "no fire" situation when it can't find focus (even when you manually adjust focus and are ready to shoot) has made me MISS many shots, which is infuriating and intolerable, so I gave up on that and only use canon lenses on Canon bodies.
I wanna ask a question that if both lens at f4, which one is more sharp?
Good video I own both but may sell the 24-70 f2.8 s
Both are Excellent.... Will they perform the same on Z7 or Z6
I think yes except autofocus speed, here the Z9 is just much better.
I'm still waiting for delivery since more than 6 month. Gush!
Never been a fan of 24-70mm or equivalent lenses. They always feel too short on the long end. ☺️
Back in film days I loved the Zeiss 28-85mm, and even the Yashica lens with the same range was a good performer. (I had both because the Zeiss was too bulky for some situations.)
Nowadays Leica’s 24-90mm is my medium range go-to lens. It’s not exactly compact, though! In the Micro Four-Thirds system Panasonic’s 14-140mm (28-280 equiv.) way outperforms its price point and is pretty much glued onto my little GX8 camera.
Thanks David, I used Leica's L-lens 24-90 a lot and continue to use it, excellent choice and nice long flex on focal length.
Hi thanks for the comparison. What about focusing speed, any difference? Is the 2.8 better in terms of focus accuracy on a z9 due to being capable of gathering more light? Thanks in advance for your reply. Cheers!
In my experience the autofocus speed is excellent and the same on both lenses, I did not feel any difference when shooting them.
Excellent squared!
I will take the 24-120 to replace my stolen 24-70 f4 and z7.
You will like the lens, very flexible in terms of focal length and great image quality. I hope your stolen lens had insurance ... its an expensive loss otherwise.
The comparison would have been more useful taking the same images
I know this is an odd question, but if you don't mind could you please let me know whether the lens hoods are interchangeable between these two lenses, 24-120mm f/4 and 24-70mm f/2.8? Thank you.
They are not - as said in the video they have a different filter thread
@@mathphotographer Thank you for testing this. The different filter threads do not mean much for hoods that attach with a bayonet, for example the same hood fits on the Nikon Z 14-24 f/2.8, 24-70 f/2.8, and 70-200 f/2.8, despite them all having different filter thread sizes. I was just wondering whether the 112mm filters I have for the 14-24 f/2.8 hood would also fit on the 24-120 f/4.
Gostaria de ver mais videos dessas lentes trabalahando a noite. Com pouca luz. Mas obrigada pelo excelente video
pity no side by side images were shown.. kinda defeats the purpose of a vs challenge..
aw! You can't please everyone!
The 24-120 is sharper in the centre
I prefer 24-120.
I would go longer.... of course !
Good choice, I tend to agree.
I prefer the 24-70mm / f4 -- Excellent used for $400 and DX it to 105mm when needed.
One lens w/ one new Z5 body -- that's all I need for my pro work. $1450 total.
Also, ich nehme dann das 24-70 und 70-200 f2.8 😅😅
Why you always say C9 it’s a Z9 😏😏
Britain and Canady: zed; America: zi :) I used to live in the US, guess that's where its coming from :)
👍🏾🙏🏾
So, basically a pointless comparison :) It would have been better if you had showed cropped close ups of the corners of the images so we could have assessed the strengths of the lenses at the edges.
I'm a life long Nikon user and I have to say how saddened i am with Nikon more or less like they deny ever having made DSLR's since they have decided to completely stop making them you'd think they never existed with the way they are going so over the top with the over rated mirrorless cameras they have chosen to focus on, absolutely disgusted with this company
I chose the 24-70mm because its the one I've always used and I love fast glass.
And I may be a little prejudiced against the 24-120 because it used to be the videographers lens...🦘
Ha! "videographers lens" :) Thanky Roy, appreciate your comment.