What strikes me most about this lens is its good ability in low light. I had the F mount sibling for the longest time and when I compare it with this Z sibling across all light conditions, yes, I must say one should even questioned if you need the 24-70 f2.8?
I recently bought this lens for my son to practice capturing video with it. When I used it, I can't believe how versitile it is. The images with this lens is outstanding. I never considered this lens before and I have shot with an entry DSLR for the last 10 years. I enjoyed this lens so much, that I borrow it from my son from time to time. I also bought one for the F mount used for my recently bought D610. Flexible focal length and F stop. Great work Nikon.
Im uasually a prime lense only user. 14-40-85 is my holy trinity. But last year i went 4 weeks to bali and didnt want to carry around 3 different lenses all the time and bought this one. And all i can say it that it was worth every penny. In combination with an pol filter you really have a one of a kind lense here. I even used it for weddings if i really need to be flexible. The only bad thing i can say is that the focus at 100+ misses more often then at other zoom ranges. Other then that i really cant say anything bad. You could also consider the new Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8. But thats almost twice as expensive, is way heavier and looses some important wide angle. This being said: f2 can be very handy tho.
I bought a Nikon Z6ii with the Nikon Z 24-120 f/4 S lens about six months ago. This is my first foray into full frame territory and mirrorless cameras. Till now I have been shooting with Nikon DX camera for over a decade. This lens, combined with the Z 6ii performs superbly. I have no complaints and it is a joy to work with this combination. Your review confirms my findings and views. A very well put together video. Well rounded. Keept it up.
Your review is spot on, Thomas, If I didn't need a longer and wide angle lens as well I think I would super glue the 24-120 on, it is superb in all the ways you mention. If you are not back before Christmas have a lovely Holiday, hopefully 2024 will get you to where you should be.
I like the fact that you've been using this lens for 2 years. I dislike these "reviews" of products that the reviewer has loaned to them by Nikon & they're shooting with it for the first time or even worse...they tell you they have to return in in 2 days. Not only do I not trust those opinions based on longevity, but they are clearly doing the video to get compensated so I just bypass that & look for something like this instead. I can also without all the slick post production tricks or the videos that look like the manufacturer's own promo. A guy sitting at a table telling me what & why based on experience beats that to pieces.
Great timing Thomas, I'm expecting a B&H delivery tomorrow (flood conditions permitting) having sent the 24-70 to KEH earlier today (great lens also but more reach will be even better). My Zf body awaits so thanks for the reassurance on this setup! Great sample photos btw :-)
Good to see you David! Yes, I think if you aren’t glued to compact primes, this lens is a real winner. Thank you for your kind compliment and thanks for stopping in! 🙂
Few months back I bought my first Nikon, a Z6ii and I got this lens for it and its my be all do all for sure! Just recently picked up the 105 MC and its also a fantastically sharp macro lens!
Thanks for the review. I've used both of the earlier versions of the 24-120...Also my go-to lens on my D850... looking forward to picking this one up to put on my new Z7ii.
As a hobbyist my use case was one body one lens (prime). Then I began to appreciate what a useful lens the Nikon Z 24-70 f/4 S was on my Zfc. And I told myself I had to get a similar zoom range for my Zf. Voila the Nikon Z 24-120 f/4 S. Of course everyone, Nikon, Adorama, B&H, Amazon were out of stock. After a month, the lens was suddenly, a month early, in stock and in my Shopping Cart at Adorama. Got the lens 3 days ago. Just loving it.
the optical formula and new coatings with this lens are the main reason why differs so much to its F mount counterpart. In the Z system, even at f4, the image you get is pretty good even when the light dims down
I am also having the lens for 2 years now, initially was thinking to go with 2.8 but i am happy i decided to go with this. Also i have shot the lens in constant rain for 5-6 hours and no issue so it is very well weather sealed as well
your amazing your views photography and discussion regarding this post has me buying one soon thank you for details on this lens finally someone who clearly explains lens like you do much appreciate your time and your skills in what you do best
Very great review! I absolutely loved this. This lens is the lens I always wish I had and could afford. Currently I shoot on the Nikon Z5 and all my lenses are Viltrox Primes and a Nikkor 40mm f2. The 24-120 f4 S and the 70-180mm f2-2.8 are my dream lenses.
I already have the Z8 and recently buy this amazing Nikkor Z 24-70 F4 (was hesitated for the 2.8 but changed my mind because it’s price and after many researches, the F4 is a very good choice) and i’m honestly very satisfied of it and your review confirm that i made a good move. Thank you Thomas.
I have had this Lens about a year and a half. It is not Perfect, but it is very good. It is usually on the Camera when in the Bag. Too bad it is such a massive Air Pump, sucking Dust into the Interior of the Lens, and onto the Sensor of the Camera. My Z9 is very good at Astral Photography, making Stars, even with the Lens Cap on, with several Dozen Hot-Stuck Pixels, at any ISO above 125 and 1 sec shutter speed. A few days before Xmas in 2022, I did an Outdoor Modeling Shoot. This little Asian Honey wanted to pose outside of a very heavily decorated House, in her Birthday Suit. It was -25C, that night but she insisted, so at about 1 in the Morning... The Z9 and the 24-120 both performed well despite it being much colder than what Nikon speced. She was quite happy with the results too, but was complaining about having some Frostbite
If I tavelling somewhere and can only take one lens with me, this is it. This lens plus one or both of the 14-30 and 100-400 represents my ultimate 1/2/3 lens set up as well.
For my Astro work, I tend to use my Z 14-24 f2.8 and my Z 20mm f1.8. Now having said that, I should the zoom at anywhere from 2.8 to 4.0. My 20mm is shoot from 1.8 to 2.8. I have used my Z 70-200 f2.8 at 70mm for MW core shots. For portraits, I shoot strictly outside and I use my 70-200 f2.8 at 2.8 and usually 135 to 200mm. I do own the Z24-120 f4 though and I do use it. It is my “walk around” lens for when I go places to shoot and can’t take multiple lenses.
@@imabadboino. For my night sky, i tend to only use my Z 14-24 f2.8 and my Z 20mm f1.8. You pretty much need a faster lens than f4 for astro in order to get the amount of light you need. Otherwise, you would have to push your ISO alot higher to get the light which gives you more noise to deal with. Or, you have to use a longer shutter speed which gives you start trailing.
I really enjoyed your review. I hope you grow the channel and make many more videos. Thanks for sharing how you feel about the lens. I agree with you. One minor thing: to me the very repetitive music playing constantly in the background while you were talking was rather distracting. Thanks again. I'll tune in regularly.
Absolutely agree on the 70-120 range. Until tried a plena i never felt the need for another z lens. But that's going to take a lot of savings so until then very happy with the 24-120
"The bokeh thing is a nice trick": you just summed up what I believe has been a key motivation behind this strange hobby of ours, and why f/4 seems to many of us like an unacceptable limitation for portrait work. Ultra fast apertures used primarily for background blur are nothing but a lazy gimmick, and, as a gimmick, its mass appeal is relatively recent: I date it back to when DSLRs started becoming mainstream. Before that, fast apertures were purchased to be able to shoot in lower light at higher speeds with lower grain film, DESPITE narrow depth of field, not BECAUSE of narrow depth of field. We collectively need to snap out of our fascination for bokeh and re-learn what makes a portrait interesting. This 24-120 is a perfect tool for that, indeed!
I have been shooting for over 60yrs, and until about 5 yrs ago, had NEVER heard of the Term Bokeh, and frankly never gave a Damn about it, and still don't. Focus, Sharpness, Distortion, and Contrast are the Items that I cared/worried about.
@@pjimmbojimmbo1990 exactly that! You might add shutter speed to avoid shake blur or subject movement blur: we desired that expensive f/1.4 capability to allow for shutter speeds that would avoid forcing us to use grainier film. At the same time we swore at the difficulties induced by those fast apertures to give justice to a face and body (beyond one eye) and to make the surroundings intelligible. We hated that. Now people want more blur and fancier blur, because it avoids caring about backgrounds, poses and composition, or even about the model's hair, clothes, etc. It is a cop out and hampers any attempt at storytelling. In turn, portraits have become repetitive and less and less interesting. Now that you can get f/0.95 Chinese lenses for a song and now that smartphones and/or Lightroom blur out backgrounds with a click, photographers will need to find more creative ways to differentiate their portraits. And, to go back full circle, this is why that high res compact 24-120 f/4 zoom is more than fast enough to generate great portraits.
Thank you for your recap Thomas. I am finally moving from my D750 DSLR to mirrorless. It has given me 9 years of solid service. I decided to wait to see what the Z6 III would be before ordering a Z6 II with this lens. I will be using this camera for my travel photography needs and it is reassuring to know that products launched two years ago are still good for today. I decided not to go for the Z6 III primarily because its price is now way beyond what I am prepared to pay. Furthermore, the new features on the Z6 III are not worth anything to me and wull not greatly impact my images. The Z6 II with the Z 24-120mm cost $ 1,800 (in my area) and my mirrorless journey begins. Thank you again and keep up the good work!
Hello. Very interesting. I own this marvelous zoom and also the Tamron 28-75 F2.8 G2 for Nikon Z that is very good equally. It’s sometimes very difficult to choose one and not the other to go shooting really, between the two my heart swings very often, the Tamron is 80 g lighter than the 24-120. These 2 lenses perfectly accompany my Nikon ZF and I love them a lot. 😉👍
Thank you for such a great review, I'm at the point of buying the Z6 ll camera and wasn't sure which lens to go for. You have helped me make up my mind. Thank you, and I have subscribed 👍
I have been using this lens with the Zf, and it’s fine to hold - I am using the Smallrig grip, which makes it plenty comfortable, but it’s okay even without the grip. Hard to say much negative about this lens. It’s a beauty, sharp edge to edge, lovely images. It has to be top two or three bargains in the Z lens catalogue. Not ‘cheap’, but cheap for all it does. You’re full of praise for this, but I can’t say you’re wrong. I rarely take it off the camera.
I bought this and use it on my Z 7. It's great. I have the old Streetsweeper, and the 24-120 f4 F mount- all good, but this one is the best. In the Z- system this plus the 14-30Z are all you need.
I have so many lenses from Nikon, but this one really I love specially when I travel 👌👌👌 , thank you so much for this nice review about awesome lens 📸🤍
Great video. I own this miracle lens also. With my Nikon Z7 ii, its a great combo. The reason why this lens shoot great images, despite F4, its of the 77mm diameter. If this lens was 67mm in diameter, it wasnt that great. This lens is a beast and great in macro too❤.
Thanks for the review, Thomas. I'm 99.9 percent certain that I will be buy a Z8 tomorrow and have been debating whether I should just use the 24-120 F mount that I already have or get the 24-120 Z mount that they sell as a kit lens. After seeing your review, I think I'll get the Z 24-120 and leave the 24-120 F mount on my F100 (film) camera. - Cheers
I think thats the best move you can make. I too have an F100 and I would keep that lens for duty on that body. The new 24-120 is just so much better than the last one there is simply no contest. Thanks for watching!
😂Thanks for your great reviews. I also go to the 24 to 120 F4 as my primay lens. Love it. Also backed up with 14 to 30 f4 and 100 to 400 f4.5 to 5.6 and add the 105 mc for maco. All great on a Z8.
I've been shooting with Nikon since the time when the F2 was introduced. So I have a bit of a history with Nikon and I like the brand even though it does have some warts. Back in 2016 I picked up a D750 to use at my Nieces wedding and the first lens I got for it was the 24-120 EDIF VR AF-S Nikkor, one of those alphabet lenses Nikon just loves to produce. My sample happened to be one of the best samples and tested on my Z7 II as a complete equal to my 24-120 S line lens. Pixel peeps at any magnification were a dead on match. However it was 1/2 pound heavier than the S lens and at nearly 70 years of a age weight does matter. Basically the 24-120 S is a huge giant bargain because the image quality is top rank and the usefulness is off the charts good. BTW, having shot with so many film cameras over the years I am well aware of the benefits of having at Aperture Ring on a lens. First time you find you need to adjust the aperture while maintaining your finger on the shutter release you will discover the left hand is very useful for more than just holding the lens. BTW, that is Nikon Wart #2, they should have retained the aperture ring on the lenses. That would allow those who don't change their aperture to have a dial where it would only rarely get disturbed and those who like to set the aperture on the fly to do that without changing their grip on the camera.
I wish you lots of luck with your channel, you deserve it. Really nice video on the 24-120. Just observing that IBIS is such a given now that you didn't even mention its lack of in lens VR. You said what good value the lens is and F4 and lack of VR are obviously factors.
I think the lack of VR isn't important at all given the newer camera bodies. Even on my 6 year old Z7 the IBIS more than makes up for in lens stabilization. In a way, I am glad these new lenses lack stabilization. One less thing to go wrong. You know what I mean? Thank you for your praise by the way. I am working hard at it. :-)
I had the 24-70 f2.8 S GREAT lens but I needed a little more at the long end and WOW Sold the 24-70 and got the 24-120 F4 .. SUPERB its my fav standard Zoom I have ever owned a real Leatherman Multi Tool
I agree with you one hundred percent. I still can’t let go of that 24-70 though. I use it for all sorts of stuff in the studio for shooting video. I know a bit pricey for a video lens but I love the quality of it.
Good luck with your channel! I do try to catch it whenever UA-cam recommends me your videos. BTW I find landscape channels quite saturated. Perhaps mix it with some wildlife if you're in the wild country of Maine. I know there's a following for bird photography and the Nikon community is rather active. I liked what Josh Bayou did with his storytelling. It's too bad that guy no longer produces content.
Thank you! I could mix it up some for sure. Working at that for future videos. And, if you want to see my channel more often now that I’m back at it with making content, you should subscribe! I always love to have more subscribers. 😁 thanks for dropping in again!
I find its a good match to the Zf. As for the function ring, I like it. I use it as an aperture ring. The button I don't use really but I do need to start. The extra button on the Zf would be handy. Thanks for watching!
It's a great lens. In my opinion, the only problem is the somewhat slow maximum aperture of f4. This is why I prefer the Tamron 35-150mm f2.0-f2.8 (especially for people photography), but for travel photography the 24-120mm f4 is probably a better choice.
Great video! If I already have the 24-70 F4, is there any downside in upgrading to the 24-120 F4? Sure it's slightly larger and heavier. I feel like I would just sell the 24-70.
I am using the K&F concept Magnetic UV filter and lens cap system. I use the entire magnetic system from them and it’s superb. I have just basic rings for the filters as well but I love having a UV filter that just stays on the camera and I put the filters on to it. Yes, this lens will work quite well for weddings. You do get an extra stop of light from the 2.8 but the Z6 or Z7 function well at higher ISO so it’s not such a big deal. If you are shooting the Zf or the Z8 you will find a similar situation and the focusing will be better. Thanks for watching!
It’s fascinating to think about focal lengths and what best suits a given scene. Ideally you want to have a 14-800mm f1.2 on your camera - but we know that’s not the way lens designs work - not yet anyway :) I did test out the new 28-400mm - but it’s a long throw and takes too long to focus, is awkward to use at f8 even though the evf remains bright. If you really need to have on your person the gear necessary to cover such an extreme range, you’d be better off with two bodies and two zoom lenses - maybe this one and a 100-400mm. Also, the images from the 28-400mm just don’t hold up when you dive in. When I really look at my recent walk about shots, I rarely go beyond 120mm anyway. But I think one thing is evident - the 24-70mm f4 S is bound to be discontinued. The 24-120mm is only $100 more and gives you a significantly longer reach while maintaining the same constant f4 maximum aperture and the same S line quality.
That 28-400 had to have some massive compromises. I've not had a chance to use one but I suspect it wouldn't fit in to any thing that I might shoot. Then again, I could be wrong. Not sure that the 24-70 F4 is going anywhere only because they sell a massive amount of them and they are a good lens. That and the size to weight ratio for an F4 24-70 is great. Of course people like you and I work better with the 24-120 but I think there is a huge market for just 24-70 still. Who knows what Nikon will chose in the end though.
@@ThomasPetzwinkler Actually, my main complaint about the 28-400 was image quality. It delivers on that huge range - and with in-camera distortion correction always on things aren't wonky. But the sharpness and contrast just aren't there. Why? It's not an S line lens :) Ken will tell you that's mostly marketing and yes, bang for the buck you can save money on a standard lens. But I've always felt those internal Nano, and now Arneo coatings do make a difference - they reduce internal reflections and hence, allow for more contrast. I used the 24-70mm f4 for a couple years - but, it's a boring lens :) And although there's a perfect picture for every focal length including 70mm, it's not long enough for portraiture. Anyway, my 24-120 mm f4 arrives tomorrow. Time for me to stop pixel peeping and get out and shoot.
I wish I had some Z mount lenses, I have a huge collection of F mount. I'm old school, I don't was to sell off my collection! This lens looks like the ultimate "travel lens". This might be my first Z mount lens I buy.
You can't go wrong with this lens. That said, the F-Mount lenses were also really really good. Some were close to perfect. Don't discount them because they are older. They are still excellent! Thanks for watching!
Feature wise and IQ . Which one: bnib 24-120/4 or used 24-70/2.8 price difference only 300-350 bucks. In my country there is none used z24-120 but quite some for z24-70/2.8
It really depends on what you are going to do with it. The 24-120 is lighter and gives you more reach. If you don't need the reach and don't mind the weight, the 24-70 2.8Z is an astounding optic. That said, I own both and the 24-70 is not the lens I chose when heading out the door. That lens is more for studio work for me. I do take it out sometimes because the optics are just so good and its nice to use it or if I need the 2.8 for an event but the 24-120 stays on the camera most of the time.
I think your statements as to the edge to edge sharpness is true for the S lenses, the 28mm f2.8 and the 40mm f2 are not really stellar lenses. The old Canon EF40mm f2.8 kicks the **** out of the Nikkor Z 40mm in terms of sharpness. It's also cheaper and has better build quality. Got both of the Nikkor lenses in the SE edition to go with my Zf and I wasn't really impressed with either of these lenses for sharpness. I got the 50mm Z S which I think is an outstanding lens. I will get the 24-120 next - I also use the Zinger adapter to use my EF lenses on the Zf which works well.
So, my statements are that they are sharp from edge to edge. They stand up nicely to the 24-70 f4 zoom easily. No, they aren’t razor sharp S lenses but I think I was pretty clear about them being budget lenses and for the money they are really quite good. I use them all the time on my Z8 now and have had no complaints. The level of sharpness when pixel peeping is completely irrelevant when doing real world photography, and even at pixel peeping levels they aren’t far off from the 50. With proper print sharpening, I’d say you won’t even see a difference in a 3x5 foot print. No, they aren’t as sharp as the 50 but you compare apples to oranges at that point and it’s still close, and though it’s nice to have that level of sharpness in a lens, it’s not at all necessary for pretty much any use. Not to be too argumentative but I think way too much emphasis is placed on sharpness. I make huge prints off of lenses that people would consider not sharp by pixel peeping standards. I do love a good discussion though. lol I think you’ll love the 24-120. It’s not going to be as sharp as that 50 but it’s an excellent lens!
That is the K&F Concept Magnetic filter system. The cover comes with the magnetic UV and Polarizer kit. The landscape kit doesn’t have the cap but includes the 3 stop, 6 stop and 10 stop nd filters and a 3 stop graduated ND filter. It’s a great system. The UV you see on the lens doesn’t come off, it’s built in to the magnetic mount and the other filters and the cap go right on to it.
First of all , I am very much a learner , so is more than likely a Z for dummies question you may be able to solve. I mainly for my enjoyment only take videos. I decided on the Z24-120 for it's focal length. I find that if I shoot in 10 bit H.265 can be razor sharp if I add 1 contr .5 clarity and .25 Sat to say the nuetral picture profile. If I manually focus in same is even better , video that is as clean and clear as a photo. However in Nraw both sdr and nlog it sometimes just fails to find any focus , not hunting , just does not latch to anything. Using a Z9 . Quite often distant leaves just blow out even when histogram suggests is within boundries. What may be happening ? Also aperture priority with forced auto iso , jumps noticeably in exposure change. Have a Z100-400 s which does do that to a far lesser degree. Thanks for any thoughts in advance . Ps. Hope you have enough savings to enjoy your passion for as long as possible and earn some youtube extra bucks.
Phil, I am not sure I can answer this question but I am going to go test and see if I have any issues like yours. I do not have the Z8 but the Zf should have the same issues I would imagine. Standby and I will try to figure this out over the holiday season.
Hey, I'm looking into this lens and don't kow much about lenses. Nikon and every other manufacturer offer zoom lenses at 2.8 in a basic line that cost way less and are also more compact. Why would someone choose a S-line premium lens at "only" f4? Does the boost in quality make the "premium f4" look brighter than the basic f2.8? Or is it just a trade-off where - as you said in the video - users simply don't need 2.8 and opt for the more expensive f4 because they want the better coating and stuff?
I don’t think you’ll find it to be a bad portrait lens. I used,to shoot all my professional portraits years ago with a 70-200 f4. It was such a good lens and really did the part for that purpose.
New sub here. I'm mulling the idea of jumping over to mirrorless. I was looking at getting the D780 as my main camera and keeping my D7200 as my backup... that was until the Z8 came out. I'm flirting with the idea of getting the Sony A7 IV or V. The issue there is I've been shooting on Nikon since the early 2000s and I just love the way the feel and perform; so a switch to Sony would mean needing new glass and various accessories. I really don't want to do that. I've read that by using the FTZ II adapter, I can use my F mount glass. What has your experience been?
I think you absolutely will not go wrong with the Z8. I bought one and love it. I've used the Sony and I can say, you won't get any better image quality. A few more MP on the 60 but believe it or not, thats completely negligible. The Z8 is just so fantastic in every way and the Zf has proved to be an excellent backup camera. The glass on Nikon is also just so good. Also, the colors. Nikon colors are hard to beat. I'm a little biased I guess as I have been a Nikon shooter since the mid 90s but I can't recommend it highly enough. Sure, I love my Fuji cameras too but for different reasons. You won't go wrong sticking with Nikon. I am sure of that.
@@ThomasPetzwinkler I'm definitely a Nikon shooter as well after leaving Canon behind after I sold my Rebel 2000. Nikon's just feel so much better in my hands, I love the ergonomics and the fell of their bodies and glass. So I'm definitely going to be getting a Z8, but also thinking about getting the D780, just because I had the opportunity to shoot with it for a week, thanks to a local camera shop. I fell in love with it, but at the time my wife was sick and wanted to hold on to the cash in case we needed. The Z9 is far and above what I'd need in my daily shooting needs. But when the Z8 it just seems like it's just too hard to pass up for me. :-) I have a drag race coming up that I need to shoot and film. So I'll be renting the z8 and see how we get along. :-)
Sounds like the Z8 is definitely for you. I have never tried the D780 but I would love to. Seems like the best of both worlds with decent autofocus etc. One day I will have to try one.
I am a new to the mirrorless game. I am looking at replacing my ( which is borrowed) Nikon F mount 24-70 for a Z mount. The price is rather hefty for the 24-70 Z mount, and I was looking at this lens as an alternative. I do mostly portrait work, ie: Senior photos. In your opinion, would this lens be a good alternative for the 24-70?
Any advice for someone with the 24-200 f4-6.3 and a 50mm f1.8 S? Should I ditch the superzoom for the 24-120 f4 (even though it's like a $400 difference on the used market now), or keep with what I've got? Ever since I picked up a 50mm f1.8 S, I just feel like the 24-200mm images are lacking.
Yeah, I felt the same way. I sold the 24-200 for the 24-120. Well, I sold it a year later but still, I never used it at all once I switched out. For me the extra reach wasn't worth what I gained with the 24-120. You may find differently but overall I think the tradeoff is worth it.
I use it all the time and feel that it’s quite usable. I use the smallrig grip too though. I think that’s nice if not necessary for the larger lenses. Hope this helps. Thanks for watching!
Yes, I have shot star trails and had pretty good results overall with Astro. I just know that people who are in to Astro heavily don’t appreciate the F4 aperture. Thanks for the comment!
I have this lens and a couple of z primes....I would rather have the primes than this zoom. Primes I am talking about are 40mm, 85mm, 135mm (AIS). It seems like though the 24-120 does provide a convenience, but instead of that if I had 2 bodies with 2 different primes, I would be much happier.
I can buy this lens now at $200 off of MSRP. I already have 24-200 lens and I'm shooting mostly outdoors, hikes, beaches, friends, dogs, etc. so I wonder if it adds anything.
@@ThomasPetzwinkler and so I bought 24-120 and took it through places. Testing on charts shows that both lenses are pretty much identical at the center at the same settings, and 24-120 is a tiny bit better at the edges (except for 120mm), it's also has a little bit better vignetting and CA. In real world shooting there is no difference to observe, nobody would be able to distinguish which picture came from which lens. So the only reason to get 24-120 is if you want to trade aperture for range and IS. I think it goes back to B&H, the tradeoff doesn't make sense to me.
Yeah, so MFT charts don't tell the whole story though. Image quality isn't just sharpness. It's also contrast, character, rendering bokeh etc. IF all you care about it sharpness then I'd say just keep the 24-200. You won't see a huge difference there. I used mine for 3 years before I sold it. But, the S lenses all have a character that I haven't seen in the non S lenses. Its usually regarding rendering and "character" but Bokeh is also really important. If I have an out of focus area and it looks crazy and poorly defined and ultra busy, thats a problem. I found through extensive shooting that the 24-120 just had a better overall image in my opinion. That may not be the case for what you look for in a lens. I just can't stress enough that sharpness doesn't make the image. I love shooting my old SI-S lens on my modern digital Nikons because they render the image in such a beautiful way. If you want modern sharpness, those lenses are not for you. There are a million ultrasharp Sony lenses and not one of them looks good to me because the way that they render things. Anyway, your mileage will always vary. One mans problem is another mans non issue. Anyway, thanks for letting me know your findings. I am sure the lens for you will reveal itself and that will be the right lens for you. :-)
@@ThomasPetzwinkler all those undefined terms like character, pop, 3D, etc. -- anything that can't be measured is just a figment of one's imagination. I also went to shoot landscapes with both lenses and it's practically impossible, without pixel peeping the edges, to distinguish which lens took which photo. There is absolutely nothing (optically) special about S lenses either, in fact 35/1.8 is very unremarkable, Canon/Sony/Sigma -- all make better 35mm lenses. The 50/1.8 is quite good though. The 24/1.8 is also so-so, Sony 24/1.4 that I like is doing much better. The 20/1.8 is as good as Sony. So Nikon S lenses are all over the map. Btw, though bokeh is subjective most reviewers label 24-120 bokeh as poor/nervous/bubbly. Of course, there isn't much of a bokeh at f/4, and in my view it's nothing I would call good. Want good bokeh -- try some Sigma Art lenses, their 35/1.4, 85/1.4 and even 24-70/2.8 -- all have excellent bokeh.
I'm not sure why we are having this discussion. You've clearly watched many reviews and listened to many "experts" in the online forums. Obviously you've made your decisions, and your judgements. If you think I am wrong, good on you! Sounds like you should start a UA-cam channel! Thanks for watching!
It really depends on how low of light you’re in. It’s fantastic at F4 but physics will always play a role in iso etc. but at f4 this lens is just terrific and doesn’t hunt much (also subjective to what you are shooting of course).There is no substitute for wider apertures but what comes with that is a much harder time keeping what you want sharp, sharp. So, in brief, if you take all factors in to account, this lens is great in low light.
@@ThomasPetzwinkler Thanks for that info. I'm particularly wondering about using it for doing videos of concerts in theatrical settings (also sometimes in churches, concert halls and nightclubs where lighting is not the best, or is sometimes dimmed way down or using colors for artistic effect). I've shot video for years in such situations with less than excellent results, and I'm just wondering if the 24-70 2.8 might be worth it for that.
So, I suspect the 2.8 would be helpful. Though the body you are using will decide a lot. If you are on a Zf, you could likely get away with the f4. I have both lenses and the 2.8 is a wonderful piece of glass. Very expensive though. The f4 will do the trick if you can get your iso high enough which you can with cameras like the Zf and z6/z6ii. Even the z7 will work pretty flawlessly. I shoot at 1600 iso for video all the time with the z7. I’ll shoot at 3200 with the Zf. That should give you an idea of the levels you can shoot at. What I would do is do a test with whatever camera you are going to use and see if you can get away with F4 on another lens in the light you think you’ll have access to. Sorry I can’t be more specific. It’s tough to give this kind of advice without knowing just how bright it will be. One other thought. If you can, and since you’ll be shooting at some amount of distance, you’ll want to try to stay at f4 anyway so that you don’t compress your depth of field to drastically. If you do, that shallow depth of field will bite you in the end with out of focus subjects.
awesome piece of "one and done" walkaround glass. paired with the tamron 150-500 for some occasions,, you can do a fuckton of really good shots.fuck 2.8!
Absolutely not. As long as you have one of the ibis bodies (z6, z7, z6II, Z7II, Zf etc. they all have very reliable ibis. You only have an issue if you use one of the APS-C cameras. Those, as of yet don’t have IBIS.
@@ThomasPetzwinkler I wish they would include VR. Canon swears that lens-based stabilization is superior to sensor-based. I doubt anyone would second guess that. Having both working together is probably even better
My Nikons are the Z7 and the Zf. My video recording camera is the Nikon Zfc. I also shoot with a Fujifilm X-T5 and an older X-T2 and for fun I have the X-E3 which I am considering getting converted to infrared. Thanks for watching!
I have the F mount version of this lens and think it may be the worst lens Nikon has ever made. It has heavy vignetting at F4 and is noticeably less sharp than the Tamron 35 - 150 and Tamron 17 - 35 that I bought to replace it. I'm happy to hear the Z mount replacement is much better.
I have talked to people who have. The high ISO abilities on the Nikons these days is so good that you can get away with the loss of one stop. Besides, this thing is so good at F4 that knowing what I just said, the image quality is just top notch wide open. Thanks for watching!
As an owner of this lens, I just found out that Nikon disabled the fully mechanical shutter whenever this lens is attached to your camera. Apparently this was done as a poor man's version of vibration reduction / image stabilization because the lens is very susceptible to shutter vibration especially at longer focal lengths. This *might* be okay, but what just doesn't sit right with me is how Nikon never openly mentions this. Customers are forced to find out after buying the lens.
Nope. All of the new lenses use a electronic front curtain. It has nothing to do with image stabilization. You don't need image stabilization in the lens. The IBIS in Nikons cameras is so good. As for why they did it? It does allow full mechanical at shutter speeds where shutter shock isn't an issue so when you get up in to anything over 1/250th shutter speeds it switches to full mechanical. This was brilliant thinking on Nikons part. In fact I used to put my z7 in front curtain electronic shutter because it stopped shutter shock from being an issue. Shutter shock is an issue on every camera that uses a full mechanical shutter. When you switch to front curtain shutter, at anything below 1/250 the shutter automatically stays open at the start of the exposure then ends the exposure with the mechanical shutter (stopping any issues with sensor readout delays like you have with full electronic shutter on unstacked sensors). Thats why you only hear the shutter at the end of the exposure. As I said, all of the new lenses cause the camera to behave this way because it is superior to fully mechanical shutter when you are at slower shutter speeds.
The background music is always a crap shoot. Some like, some down't I'm trying to get less repetitive and only use for effect on my newest videos. I've cut it back a lot in fact. Thanks for your thoughts and thanks for watching!
Nikon hit a home run with this lens. It’s the best. Anyone on the Z system should own one. Great review.
Agreed and thanks for watching!
What strikes me most about this lens is its good ability in low light. I had the F mount sibling for the longest time and when I compare it with this Z sibling across all light conditions, yes, I must say one should even questioned if you need the 24-70 f2.8?
I recently bought this lens for my son to practice capturing video with it. When I used it, I can't believe how versitile it is. The images with this lens is outstanding. I never considered this lens before and I have shot with an entry DSLR for the last 10 years.
I enjoyed this lens so much, that I borrow it from my son from time to time. I also bought one for the F mount used for my recently bought D610. Flexible focal length and F stop. Great work Nikon.
They've always been a great company. It's good to see them really making excellent stuff and gaining in popularity these days.
I've been contemplating this lens for a WHILE now as a walk-around lens. Thanks for the video, it helps.
Glad I could help! Thanks for watching too!
I have this lens on my Z6ii and I sure didn't regret it! Its worth grabbing!
Im uasually a prime lense only user. 14-40-85 is my holy trinity. But last year i went 4 weeks to bali and didnt want to carry around 3 different lenses all the time and bought this one. And all i can say it that it was worth every penny. In combination with an pol filter you really have a one of a kind lense here. I even used it for weddings if i really need to be flexible. The only bad thing i can say is that the focus at 100+ misses more often then at other zoom ranges. Other then that i really cant say anything bad.
You could also consider the new Tamron 35-150mm F/2-2.8. But thats almost twice as expensive, is way heavier and looses some important wide angle. This being said: f2 can be very handy tho.
I bought a Nikon Z6ii with the Nikon Z 24-120 f/4 S lens about six months ago. This is my first foray into full frame territory and mirrorless cameras. Till now I have been shooting with Nikon DX camera for over a decade. This lens, combined with the Z 6ii performs superbly. I have no complaints and it is a joy to work with this combination. Your review confirms my findings and views. A very well put together video. Well rounded. Keept it up.
Thank you so much! I appreciate your compliments. Yes, this lens and that camera are a really fantastic combination! Thanks for dropping in!
I love mine on ZF body. Your pictures are awesome Thomas 😉.
Thank you Christian! I appreciate your compliment!
THIS video was right on time! I have been trying to decide what lens to get for my Nikon Zf. I believe this is it. Thank you, Santa.
Thank you June! You bring much joy to the channel!
Your review is spot on, Thomas, If I didn't need a longer and wide angle lens as well I think I would super glue the 24-120 on, it is superb in all the ways you mention.
If you are not back before Christmas have a lovely Holiday, hopefully 2024 will get you to where you should be.
LOL I am picturing someone gluing a lens to their camera. I agree though. The core lens for sure.
Agree with your review. Good luck reaching 1000 subs soon. Nice shots too.
Thanks Michael! I appreciate you checking out the video and commenting and your kind words on my work!
I like the fact that you've been using this lens for 2 years. I dislike these "reviews" of products that the reviewer has loaned to them by Nikon & they're shooting with it for the first time or even worse...they tell you they have to return in in 2 days. Not only do I not trust those opinions based on longevity, but they are clearly doing the video to get compensated so I just bypass that & look for something like this instead. I can also without all the slick post production tricks or the videos that look like the manufacturer's own promo. A guy sitting at a table telling me what & why based on experience beats that to pieces.
Thank you so much! When I do my reviews I try to make sure I’m as honest and straightforward as possible. It’s good to hear feedback like this.
I got this a week ago and it is a beautiful lens. I could not agree more with all your points. great review, mate!
Thanks! 👍 I appreciate that!
@@ThomasPetzwinklerno worries! Good luck and hoping to see some new videos soon.
Great timing Thomas, I'm expecting a B&H delivery tomorrow (flood conditions permitting) having sent the 24-70 to KEH earlier today (great lens also but more reach will be even better). My Zf body awaits so thanks for the reassurance on this setup! Great sample photos btw :-)
Stunning images. I may need to take a closer look at this lens if I ever get my hands on a ZF.
Good to see you David! Yes, I think if you aren’t glued to compact primes, this lens is a real winner. Thank you for your kind compliment and thanks for stopping in! 🙂
Few months back I bought my first Nikon, a Z6ii and I got this lens for it and its my be all do all for sure! Just recently picked up the 105 MC and its also a fantastically sharp macro lens!
That is an amazing macro lens. Good call! Thanks for watching too!
I finally ordered it today...!! can't wait.
Congrats! I just know you’re going to love it!
Thanks for the review. I've used both of the earlier versions of the 24-120...Also my go-to lens on my D850... looking forward to picking this one up to put on my new Z7ii.
You won't regret it. Its a great lens. Its far better than the first one and that was a pretty decent performer.
As a hobbyist my use case was one body one lens (prime). Then I began to appreciate what a useful lens the Nikon Z 24-70 f/4 S was on my Zfc. And I told myself I had to get a similar zoom range for my Zf. Voila the Nikon Z 24-120 f/4 S. Of course everyone, Nikon, Adorama, B&H, Amazon were out of stock. After a month, the lens was suddenly, a month early, in stock and in my Shopping Cart at Adorama. Got the lens 3 days ago. Just loving it.
the optical formula and new coatings with this lens are the main reason why differs so much to its F mount counterpart. In the Z system, even at f4, the image you get is pretty good even when the light dims down
LOVE my 24-120 Z lens, took it to Europe and it was fantastic in every way.
I am still undecided but this review helps a lot. Thank you so much.
Good luck with your channel
Thank you so much! I’m working as hard as I can!
I am also having the lens for 2 years now, initially was thinking to go with 2.8 but i am happy i decided to go with this. Also i have shot the lens in constant rain for 5-6 hours and no issue so it is very well weather sealed as well
Yep, Nikon really did a good one in all ways with this lens.
your amazing your views photography and discussion regarding this post has me buying one soon thank you for details on this lens finally someone who clearly explains lens like you do much appreciate your time and your skills in what you do best
Thank you so much for your kind words! I am trying to make sure my videos help and inform people. Thank you for watching.
Very great review! I absolutely loved this. This lens is the lens I always wish I had and could afford. Currently I shoot on the Nikon Z5 and all my lenses are Viltrox Primes and a Nikkor 40mm f2. The 24-120 f4 S and the 70-180mm f2-2.8 are my dream lenses.
Thank you for your kind words and thank you for watching!
I already have the Z8 and recently buy this amazing Nikkor Z 24-70 F4 (was hesitated for the 2.8 but changed my mind because it’s price and after many researches, the F4 is a very good choice) and i’m honestly very satisfied of it and your review confirm that i made a good move. Thank you Thomas.
I think you made a solid choice. The 24-70 F4 is an excellent lens. If I didn't want the extra reach up to 120, I would just have that lens.
The Nikon 24-120 f4 is sharper then the 24-70 f4, cause of the diameter.
I have had this Lens about a year and a half. It is not Perfect, but it is very good. It is usually on the Camera when in the Bag. Too bad it is such a massive Air Pump, sucking Dust into the Interior of the Lens, and onto the Sensor of the Camera.
My Z9 is very good at Astral Photography, making Stars, even with the Lens Cap on, with several Dozen Hot-Stuck Pixels, at any ISO above 125 and 1 sec shutter speed.
A few days before Xmas in 2022, I did an Outdoor Modeling Shoot. This little Asian Honey wanted to pose outside of a very heavily decorated House, in her Birthday Suit. It was -25C, that night but she insisted, so at about 1 in the Morning... The Z9 and the 24-120 both performed well despite it being much colder than what Nikon speced. She was quite happy with the results too, but was complaining about having some Frostbite
Neat. My favorite lens for about everything too. Nice review!
It’s a great piece of glass! Thanks for watching.
If I tavelling somewhere and can only take one lens with me, this is it. This lens plus one or both of the 14-30 and 100-400 represents my ultimate 1/2/3 lens set up as well.
I agree with you 100% That is also my setup. You simply can’t beat those three lenses as a powerhouse trio!
Yes, I also have that as my f/4 Holy Trinity. It rocks.
For my Astro work, I tend to use my Z 14-24 f2.8 and my Z 20mm f1.8. Now having said that, I should the zoom at anywhere from 2.8 to 4.0. My 20mm is shoot from 1.8 to 2.8. I have used my Z 70-200 f2.8 at 70mm for MW core shots. For portraits, I shoot strictly outside and I use my 70-200 f2.8 at 2.8 and usually 135 to 200mm. I do own the Z24-120 f4 though and I do use it. It is my “walk around” lens for when I go places to shoot and can’t take multiple lenses.
have you tried astro with this lens?
@@imabadboino. For my night sky, i tend to only use my Z 14-24 f2.8 and my Z 20mm f1.8. You pretty much need a faster lens than f4 for astro in order to get the amount of light you need. Otherwise, you would have to push your ISO alot higher to get the light which gives you more noise to deal with. Or, you have to use a longer shutter speed which gives you start trailing.
I really enjoyed your review. I hope you grow the channel and make many more videos. Thanks for sharing how you feel about the lens. I agree with you. One minor thing: to me the very repetitive music playing constantly in the background while you were talking was rather distracting. Thanks again. I'll tune in regularly.
Thanks for the tip on the music and I appreciate your compliments. I hope you’ll drop back in to see some of the great content I have planned.
Thank you…thinking of getting into the Nikon Z system and this lens is likely to be my first purchase. Keep up the good work
Thank you, I appreciate it! You can’t go wrong with this lens period. Thanks for watching and I hope you’ll stop by again!
Absolutely agree on the 70-120 range. Until tried a plena i never felt the need for another z lens. But that's going to take a lot of savings so until then very happy with the 24-120
"The bokeh thing is a nice trick": you just summed up what I believe has been a key motivation behind this strange hobby of ours, and why f/4 seems to many of us like an unacceptable limitation for portrait work. Ultra fast apertures used primarily for background blur are nothing but a lazy gimmick, and, as a gimmick, its mass appeal is relatively recent: I date it back to when DSLRs started becoming mainstream. Before that, fast apertures were purchased to be able to shoot in lower light at higher speeds with lower grain film, DESPITE narrow depth of field, not BECAUSE of narrow depth of field. We collectively need to snap out of our fascination for bokeh and re-learn what makes a portrait interesting. This 24-120 is a perfect tool for that, indeed!
Well put my friend! Thank you for watching!
I have been shooting for over 60yrs, and until about 5 yrs ago, had NEVER heard of the Term Bokeh, and frankly never gave a Damn about it, and still don't. Focus, Sharpness, Distortion, and Contrast are the Items that I cared/worried about.
@@pjimmbojimmbo1990 exactly that! You might add shutter speed to avoid shake blur or subject movement blur: we desired that expensive f/1.4 capability to allow for shutter speeds that would avoid forcing us to use grainier film. At the same time we swore at the difficulties induced by those fast apertures to give justice to a face and body (beyond one eye) and to make the surroundings intelligible. We hated that. Now people want more blur and fancier blur, because it avoids caring about backgrounds, poses and composition, or even about the model's hair, clothes, etc. It is a cop out and hampers any attempt at storytelling. In turn, portraits have become repetitive and less and less interesting. Now that you can get f/0.95 Chinese lenses for a song and now that smartphones and/or Lightroom blur out backgrounds with a click, photographers will need to find more creative ways to differentiate their portraits. And, to go back full circle, this is why that high res compact 24-120 f/4 zoom is more than fast enough to generate great portraits.
Thank you for your recap Thomas. I am finally moving from my D750 DSLR to mirrorless. It has given me 9 years of solid service. I decided to wait to see what the Z6 III would be before ordering a Z6 II with this lens. I will be using this camera for my travel photography needs and it is reassuring to know that products launched two years ago are still good for today. I decided not to go for the Z6 III primarily because its price is now way beyond what I am prepared to pay. Furthermore, the new features on the Z6 III are not worth anything to me and wull not greatly impact my images. The Z6 II with the Z 24-120mm cost $ 1,800 (in my area) and my mirrorless journey begins. Thank you again and keep up the good work!
thank you for this video that‘s very
specific for a lens’s
evaluate，when I saw your photos in this video I decided to buy one24-120 thank you
I have this lens and use it on the Nikon Zf. Pure magic!
Such a good lens. I still pick it up over the 24-70 2.8 almost every time I shoot.
Hello. Very interesting. I own this marvelous zoom and also the Tamron 28-75 F2.8 G2 for Nikon Z that is very good equally. It’s sometimes very difficult to choose one and not the other to go shooting really, between the two my heart swings very often, the Tamron is 80 g lighter than the 24-120. These 2 lenses perfectly accompany my Nikon ZF and I love them a lot. 😉👍
Thank you for such a great review, I'm at the point of buying the Z6 ll camera and wasn't sure which lens to go for. You have helped me make up my mind. Thank you, and I have subscribed 👍
Glad I was some help to you! You will definitely enjoy it.
I have been using this lens with the Zf, and it’s fine to hold - I am using the Smallrig grip, which makes it plenty comfortable, but it’s okay even without the grip. Hard to say much negative about this lens. It’s a beauty, sharp edge to edge, lovely images. It has to be top two or three bargains in the Z lens catalogue. Not ‘cheap’, but cheap for all it does.
You’re full of praise for this, but I can’t say you’re wrong. I rarely take it off the camera.
I bought this and use it on my Z 7. It's great. I have the old Streetsweeper, and the 24-120 f4 F mount- all good, but this one is the best. In the Z- system this plus the 14-30Z are all you need.
I have so many lenses from Nikon, but this one really I love specially when I travel 👌👌👌 , thank you so much for this nice review about awesome lens 📸🤍
I tried this lens this weekend. I have a ZF with 24-70 f/4, i like the 24-70 f/4 but the 24-120 f/4 will replace it. Thanks for the review
I'm really happy it was helpful. I love to hear when I have lent some amount of assistance to others. Thank you for watching!
Great video. I own this miracle lens also. With my Nikon Z7 ii, its a great combo. The reason why this lens shoot great images, despite F4, its of the 77mm diameter. If this lens was 67mm in diameter, it wasnt that great. This lens is a beast and great in macro too❤.
Agreed
Thanks for the review, Thomas. I'm 99.9 percent certain that I will be buy a Z8 tomorrow and have been debating whether I should just use the 24-120 F mount that I already have or get the 24-120 Z mount that they sell as a kit lens. After seeing your review, I think I'll get the Z 24-120 and leave the 24-120 F mount on my F100 (film) camera. - Cheers
I think thats the best move you can make. I too have an F100 and I would keep that lens for duty on that body. The new 24-120 is just so much better than the last one there is simply no contest. Thanks for watching!
Thanks for making this video. I do agree that this is a great lens.
Thank you for watching the video. I really do love this lens to this day.
😂Thanks for your great reviews. I also go to the 24 to 120 F4 as my primay lens. Love it. Also backed up with 14 to 30 f4 and 100 to 400 f4.5 to 5.6 and add the 105 mc for maco. All great on a Z8.
All lenses I used except for the macro. They are all so good. Thanks for. watching!
I've been shooting with Nikon since the time when the F2 was introduced. So I have a bit of a history with Nikon and I like the brand even though it does have some warts. Back in 2016 I picked up a D750 to use at my Nieces wedding and the first lens I got for it was the 24-120 EDIF VR AF-S Nikkor, one of those alphabet lenses Nikon just loves to produce. My sample happened to be one of the best samples and tested on my Z7 II as a complete equal to my 24-120 S line lens. Pixel peeps at any magnification were a dead on match. However it was 1/2 pound heavier than the S lens and at nearly 70 years of a age weight does matter. Basically the 24-120 S is a huge giant bargain because the image quality is top rank and the usefulness is off the charts good. BTW, having shot with so many film cameras over the years I am well aware of the benefits of having at Aperture Ring on a lens. First time you find you need to adjust the aperture while maintaining your finger on the shutter release you will discover the left hand is very useful for more than just holding the lens. BTW, that is Nikon Wart #2, they should have retained the aperture ring on the lenses. That would allow those who don't change their aperture to have a dial where it would only rarely get disturbed and those who like to set the aperture on the fly to do that without changing their grip on the camera.
I wish you lots of luck with your channel, you deserve it. Really nice video on the 24-120. Just observing that IBIS is such a given now that you didn't even mention its lack of in lens VR. You said what good value the lens is and F4 and lack of VR are obviously factors.
I think the lack of VR isn't important at all given the newer camera bodies. Even on my 6 year old Z7 the IBIS more than makes up for in lens stabilization. In a way, I am glad these new lenses lack stabilization. One less thing to go wrong. You know what I mean? Thank you for your praise by the way. I am working hard at it. :-)
I had the 24-70 f2.8 S GREAT lens but I needed a little more at the long end and WOW Sold the 24-70 and got the 24-120 F4 .. SUPERB its my fav standard Zoom I have ever owned a real Leatherman Multi Tool
I agree with you one hundred percent. I still can’t let go of that 24-70 though. I use it for all sorts of stuff in the studio for shooting video. I know a bit pricey for a video lens but I love the quality of it.
Good luck with your channel! I do try to catch it whenever UA-cam recommends me your videos. BTW I find landscape channels quite saturated. Perhaps mix it with some wildlife if you're in the wild country of Maine. I know there's a following for bird photography and the Nikon community is rather active. I liked what Josh Bayou did with his storytelling. It's too bad that guy no longer produces content.
Thank you! I could mix it up some for sure. Working at that for future videos. And, if you want to see my channel more often now that I’m back at it with making content, you should subscribe! I always love to have more subscribers. 😁 thanks for dropping in again!
@@ThomasPetzwinkler already subscribed! Looking forward
Awesome! I hope you enjoy what's coming. I'm trying to crack the code of YouTubing so it should be a pretty fun ride!@@KibbitUpIt
Nice video - considering buying to kit with the ZF - how do you like the function ring and button?
I find its a good match to the Zf. As for the function ring, I like it. I use it as an aperture ring. The button I don't use really but I do need to start. The extra button on the Zf would be handy. Thanks for watching!
It's a great lens. In my opinion, the only problem is the somewhat slow maximum aperture of f4. This is why I prefer the Tamron 35-150mm f2.0-f2.8 (especially for people photography), but for travel photography the 24-120mm f4 is probably a better choice.
I bought it today. I’ve loved the The 24-70 f4 however it will be sold.
Very nice! I'm glad to hear you are enjoying it!
Good luck with your channel.
Thank you! I’m working hard at it. 🙂
Great video! If I already have the 24-70 F4, is there any downside in upgrading to the 24-120 F4? Sure it's slightly larger and heavier. I feel like I would just sell the 24-70.
I like your channel it's like talking to a friend.
Fellow Mainer! My favorite lens too.
Welcome! Stay tuned for lots more content on Maine too! Thanks for dropping in and I hope you’ll come by again in the future!
Now a Z8 shooter still own D500, girl friend sold her D7500 along with 16-80 lens. Have to cover the low range. Started to look at this lens
Nice video! what is the lens cap you are using? You think this lens is good enough for wedding pose to the 2.8?
I am using the K&F concept Magnetic UV filter and lens cap system. I use the entire magnetic system from them and it’s superb. I have just basic rings for the filters as well but I love having a UV filter that just stays on the camera and I put the filters on to it. Yes, this lens will work quite well for weddings. You do get an extra stop of light from the 2.8 but the Z6 or Z7 function well at higher ISO so it’s not such a big deal. If you are shooting the Zf or the Z8 you will find a similar situation and the focusing will be better. Thanks for watching!
Deciding between this or the Tamron 35-150 f2-2.8 - any thoughts between the two?
It’s fascinating to think about focal lengths and what best suits a given scene. Ideally you want to have a 14-800mm f1.2 on your camera - but we know that’s not the way lens designs work - not yet anyway :) I did test out the new 28-400mm - but it’s a long throw and takes too long to focus, is awkward to use at f8 even though the evf remains bright. If you really need to have on your person the gear necessary to cover such an extreme range, you’d be better off with two bodies and two zoom lenses - maybe this one and a 100-400mm. Also, the images from the 28-400mm just don’t hold up when you dive in. When I really look at my recent walk about shots, I rarely go beyond 120mm anyway. But I think one thing is evident - the 24-70mm f4 S is bound to be discontinued. The 24-120mm is only $100 more and gives you a significantly longer reach while maintaining the same constant f4 maximum aperture and the same S line quality.
That 28-400 had to have some massive compromises. I've not had a chance to use one but I suspect it wouldn't fit in to any thing that I might shoot. Then again, I could be wrong. Not sure that the 24-70 F4 is going anywhere only because they sell a massive amount of them and they are a good lens. That and the size to weight ratio for an F4 24-70 is great. Of course people like you and I work better with the 24-120 but I think there is a huge market for just 24-70 still. Who knows what Nikon will chose in the end though.
@@ThomasPetzwinkler Actually, my main complaint about the 28-400 was image quality. It delivers on that huge range - and with in-camera distortion correction always on things aren't wonky. But the sharpness and contrast just aren't there. Why? It's not an S line lens :) Ken will tell you that's mostly marketing and yes, bang for the buck you can save money on a standard lens. But I've always felt those internal Nano, and now Arneo coatings do make a difference - they reduce internal reflections and hence, allow for more contrast. I used the 24-70mm f4 for a couple years - but, it's a boring lens :) And although there's a perfect picture for every focal length including 70mm, it's not long enough for portraiture. Anyway, my 24-120 mm f4 arrives tomorrow. Time for me to stop pixel peeping and get out and shoot.
I wish I had some Z mount lenses, I have a huge collection of F mount. I'm old school, I don't was to sell off my collection! This lens looks like the ultimate "travel lens". This might be my first Z mount lens I buy.
You can't go wrong with this lens. That said, the F-Mount lenses were also really really good. Some were close to perfect. Don't discount them because they are older. They are still excellent! Thanks for watching!
Great video. I got the lense and like it very much 🙂👍
Thank you for the comment and of course, thank you for watching!
@@ThomasPetzwinkler 👍🙂
Feature wise and IQ . Which one: bnib 24-120/4 or used 24-70/2.8 price difference only 300-350 bucks. In my country there is none used z24-120 but quite some for z24-70/2.8
It really depends on what you are going to do with it. The 24-120 is lighter and gives you more reach. If you don't need the reach and don't mind the weight, the 24-70 2.8Z is an astounding optic. That said, I own both and the 24-70 is not the lens I chose when heading out the door. That lens is more for studio work for me. I do take it out sometimes because the optics are just so good and its nice to use it or if I need the 2.8 for an event but the 24-120 stays on the camera most of the time.
I think your statements as to the edge to edge sharpness is true for the S lenses, the 28mm f2.8 and the 40mm f2 are not really stellar lenses. The old Canon EF40mm f2.8 kicks the **** out of the Nikkor Z 40mm in terms of sharpness. It's also cheaper and has better build quality. Got both of the Nikkor lenses in the SE edition to go with my Zf and I wasn't really impressed with either of these lenses for sharpness. I got the 50mm Z S which I think is an outstanding lens. I will get the 24-120 next - I also use the Zinger adapter to use my EF lenses on the Zf which works well.
So, my statements are that they are sharp from edge to edge. They stand up nicely to the 24-70 f4 zoom easily. No, they aren’t razor sharp S lenses but I think I was pretty clear about them being budget lenses and for the money they are really quite good. I use them all the time on my Z8 now and have had no complaints. The level of sharpness when pixel peeping is completely irrelevant when doing real world photography, and even at pixel peeping levels they aren’t far off from the 50. With proper print sharpening, I’d say you won’t even see a difference in a 3x5 foot print. No, they aren’t as sharp as the 50 but you compare apples to oranges at that point and it’s still close, and though it’s nice to have that level of sharpness in a lens, it’s not at all necessary for pretty much any use. Not to be too argumentative but I think way too much emphasis is placed on sharpness. I make huge prints off of lenses that people would consider not sharp by pixel peeping standards. I do love a good discussion though. lol I think you’ll love the 24-120. It’s not going to be as sharp as that 50 but it’s an excellent lens!
Great review...subbed.
Thank you! I much appreciate you watching and subscribing! Welcome to the channel!
Very interested to know about the lens cover you pot on and off!
That is the K&F Concept Magnetic filter system. The cover comes with the magnetic UV and Polarizer kit. The landscape kit doesn’t have the cap but includes the 3 stop, 6 stop and 10 stop nd filters and a 3 stop graduated ND filter. It’s a great system. The UV you see on the lens doesn’t come off, it’s built in to the magnetic mount and the other filters and the cap go right on to it.
@@ThomasPetzwinkler Thank you so much for the details. Much appreciated
First of all , I am very much a learner , so is more than likely a Z for dummies question you may be able to solve.
I mainly for my enjoyment only take videos.
I decided on the Z24-120 for it's focal length.
I find that if I shoot in 10 bit H.265 can be razor sharp if I add 1 contr .5 clarity and .25 Sat to say the nuetral picture profile.
If I manually focus in same is even better , video that is as clean and clear as a photo.
However in Nraw both sdr and nlog it sometimes just fails to find any focus , not hunting , just does not latch to anything.
Using a Z9 .
Quite often distant leaves just blow out even when histogram suggests is within boundries.
What may be happening ?
Also aperture priority with forced auto iso , jumps noticeably in exposure change.
Have a Z100-400 s which does do that to a far lesser degree.
Thanks for any thoughts in advance .
Ps. Hope you have enough savings to enjoy your passion for as long as possible and earn some youtube extra bucks.
Phil, I am not sure I can answer this question but I am going to go test and see if I have any issues like yours. I do not have the Z8 but the Zf should have the same issues I would imagine. Standby and I will try to figure this out over the holiday season.
Hey, I'm looking into this lens and don't kow much about lenses. Nikon and every other manufacturer offer zoom lenses at 2.8 in a basic line that cost way less and are also more compact. Why would someone choose a S-line premium lens at "only" f4? Does the boost in quality make the "premium f4" look brighter than the basic f2.8? Or is it just a trade-off where - as you said in the video - users simply don't need 2.8 and opt for the more expensive f4 because they want the better coating and stuff?
I shoot Astro with the 20mm F1.8 S Lens and Portraits 70-200 F2,8 S but will certainly try 24-120 on Portraits now
I don’t think you’ll find it to be a bad portrait lens. I used,to shoot all my professional portraits years ago with a 70-200 f4. It was such a good lens and really did the part for that purpose.
New sub here. I'm mulling the idea of jumping over to mirrorless. I was looking at getting the D780 as my main camera and keeping my D7200 as my backup... that was until the Z8 came out. I'm flirting with the idea of getting the Sony A7 IV or V. The issue there is I've been shooting on Nikon since the early 2000s and I just love the way the feel and perform; so a switch to Sony would mean needing new glass and various accessories. I really don't want to do that. I've read that by using the FTZ II adapter, I can use my F mount glass. What has your experience been?
I think you absolutely will not go wrong with the Z8. I bought one and love it. I've used the Sony and I can say, you won't get any better image quality. A few more MP on the 60 but believe it or not, thats completely negligible. The Z8 is just so fantastic in every way and the Zf has proved to be an excellent backup camera. The glass on Nikon is also just so good. Also, the colors. Nikon colors are hard to beat. I'm a little biased I guess as I have been a Nikon shooter since the mid 90s but I can't recommend it highly enough. Sure, I love my Fuji cameras too but for different reasons. You won't go wrong sticking with Nikon. I am sure of that.
@@ThomasPetzwinkler I'm definitely a Nikon shooter as well after leaving Canon behind after I sold my Rebel 2000. Nikon's just feel so much better in my hands, I love the ergonomics and the fell of their bodies and glass. So I'm definitely going to be getting a Z8, but also thinking about getting the D780, just because I had the opportunity to shoot with it for a week, thanks to a local camera shop. I fell in love with it, but at the time my wife was sick and wanted to hold on to the cash in case we needed. The Z9 is far and above what I'd need in my daily shooting needs. But when the Z8 it just seems like it's just too hard to pass up for me. :-) I have a drag race coming up that I need to shoot and film. So I'll be renting the z8 and see how we get along. :-)
Sounds like the Z8 is definitely for you. I have never tried the D780 but I would love to. Seems like the best of both worlds with decent autofocus etc. One day I will have to try one.
I am a new to the mirrorless game. I am looking at replacing my ( which is borrowed) Nikon F mount 24-70 for a Z mount. The price is rather hefty for the 24-70 Z mount, and I was looking at this lens as an alternative. I do mostly portrait work, ie: Senior photos. In your opinion, would this lens be a good alternative for the 24-70?
Thank you for nice review. Is this lens works with Nikon D5500?
No, this lens will only work with the Z mount cameras such as the Z5, Z6, Z7, Z8, Z9, and Zf. For APS-c it will work on the Z30, the Z50 and the Zfc.
@@ThomasPetzwinkler Yes, but there's an F-mount version, which I use on a D780. And, yes, it's good!
This lens and the 40mm are my EDC.
I just picked up the 40. What a fabulous lens! Thanks for watching!
check out the 28mm pancake too
Any advice for someone with the 24-200 f4-6.3 and a 50mm f1.8 S? Should I ditch the superzoom for the 24-120 f4 (even though it's like a $400 difference on the used market now), or keep with what I've got? Ever since I picked up a 50mm f1.8 S, I just feel like the 24-200mm images are lacking.
Yeah, I felt the same way. I sold the 24-200 for the 24-120. Well, I sold it a year later but still, I never used it at all once I switched out. For me the extra reach wasn't worth what I gained with the 24-120. You may find differently but overall I think the tradeoff is worth it.
Hi Tom, how it this lens on new Nikon zf camera body . Is it usable ergonomically?
I use it all the time and feel that it’s quite usable. I use the smallrig grip too though. I think that’s nice if not necessary for the larger lenses. Hope this helps. Thanks for watching!
his photos are fantastic😅 I really dig the style
this lens can do Star trails at f/4 - 10 shots with 3 mins each shot f/4 ISO600.
Yes, I have shot star trails and had pretty good results overall with Astro. I just know that people who are in to Astro heavily don’t appreciate the F4 aperture. Thanks for the comment!
I have this lens and a couple of z primes....I would rather have the primes than this zoom.
Primes I am talking about are 40mm, 85mm, 135mm (AIS).
It seems like though the 24-120 does provide a convenience, but instead of that if I had 2 bodies with 2 different primes, I would be much happier.
This Lens balances perfectly on my Z8 >> match made in Heaven
I bet! I am borrowing a Z8 from Nikon so I will be doing a full write up of that combo as well.
Thank you for this video. New subscriber here.
Welcome! Thanks for watching and I appreciate your thoughts!
I can buy this lens now at $200 off of MSRP. I already have 24-200 lens and I'm shooting mostly outdoors, hikes, beaches, friends, dogs, etc. so I wonder if it adds anything.
I had the 24-200. Excellent lens of course but I sold it once I bought this. Image quality is far better on the 24-120. Thanks for watching!
@@ThomasPetzwinkler and so I bought 24-120 and took it through places. Testing on charts shows that both lenses are pretty much identical at the center at the same settings, and 24-120 is a tiny bit better at the edges (except for 120mm), it's also has a little bit better vignetting and CA. In real world shooting there is no difference to observe, nobody would be able to distinguish which picture came from which lens. So the only reason to get 24-120 is if you want to trade aperture for range and IS. I think it goes back to B&H, the tradeoff doesn't make sense to me.
Yeah, so MFT charts don't tell the whole story though. Image quality isn't just sharpness. It's also contrast, character, rendering bokeh etc. IF all you care about it sharpness then I'd say just keep the 24-200. You won't see a huge difference there. I used mine for 3 years before I sold it. But, the S lenses all have a character that I haven't seen in the non S lenses. Its usually regarding rendering and "character" but Bokeh is also really important. If I have an out of focus area and it looks crazy and poorly defined and ultra busy, thats a problem. I found through extensive shooting that the 24-120 just had a better overall image in my opinion. That may not be the case for what you look for in a lens. I just can't stress enough that sharpness doesn't make the image. I love shooting my old SI-S lens on my modern digital Nikons because they render the image in such a beautiful way. If you want modern sharpness, those lenses are not for you. There are a million ultrasharp Sony lenses and not one of them looks good to me because the way that they render things. Anyway, your mileage will always vary. One mans problem is another mans non issue. Anyway, thanks for letting me know your findings. I am sure the lens for you will reveal itself and that will be the right lens for you. :-)
@@ThomasPetzwinkler all those undefined terms like character, pop, 3D, etc. -- anything that can't be measured is just a figment of one's imagination. I also went to shoot landscapes with both lenses and it's practically impossible, without pixel peeping the edges, to distinguish which lens took which photo.
There is absolutely nothing (optically) special about S lenses either, in fact 35/1.8 is very unremarkable, Canon/Sony/Sigma -- all make better 35mm lenses. The 50/1.8 is quite good though. The 24/1.8 is also so-so, Sony 24/1.4 that I like is doing much better. The 20/1.8 is as good as Sony. So Nikon S lenses are all over the map.
Btw, though bokeh is subjective most reviewers label 24-120 bokeh as poor/nervous/bubbly. Of course, there isn't much of a bokeh at f/4, and in my view it's nothing I would call good. Want good bokeh -- try some Sigma Art lenses, their 35/1.4, 85/1.4 and even 24-70/2.8 -- all have excellent bokeh.
I'm not sure why we are having this discussion. You've clearly watched many reviews and listened to many "experts" in the online forums. Obviously you've made your decisions, and your judgements. If you think I am wrong, good on you! Sounds like you should start a UA-cam channel! Thanks for watching!
Do you use filters
What is this lens like for video in lower light situations?
It really depends on how low of light you’re in. It’s fantastic at F4 but physics will always play a role in iso etc. but at f4 this lens is just terrific and doesn’t hunt much (also subjective to what you are shooting of course).There is no substitute for wider apertures but what comes with that is a much harder time keeping what you want sharp, sharp. So, in brief, if you take all factors in to account, this lens is great in low light.
@@ThomasPetzwinkler Thanks for that info. I'm particularly wondering about using it for doing videos of concerts in theatrical settings (also sometimes in churches, concert halls and nightclubs where lighting is not the best, or is sometimes dimmed way down or using colors for artistic effect). I've shot video for years in such situations with less than excellent results, and I'm just wondering if the 24-70 2.8 might be worth it for that.
So, I suspect the 2.8 would be helpful. Though the body you are using will decide a lot. If you are on a Zf, you could likely get away with the f4. I have both lenses and the 2.8 is a wonderful piece of glass. Very expensive though. The f4 will do the trick if you can get your iso high enough which you can with cameras like the Zf and z6/z6ii. Even the z7 will work pretty flawlessly. I shoot at 1600 iso for video all the time with the z7. I’ll shoot at 3200 with the Zf. That should give you an idea of the levels you can shoot at. What I would do is do a test with whatever camera you are going to use and see if you can get away with F4 on another lens in the light you think you’ll have access to. Sorry I can’t be more specific. It’s tough to give this kind of advice without knowing just how bright it will be. One other thought. If you can, and since you’ll be shooting at some amount of distance, you’ll want to try to stay at f4 anyway so that you don’t compress your depth of field to drastically. If you do, that shallow depth of field will bite you in the end with out of focus subjects.
awesome piece of "one and done" walkaround glass.
paired with the tamron 150-500 for some occasions,, you can do a fuckton of really good shots.fuck 2.8!
Agreed! Thats a great lens too. I have the 100-400 but I wouldn’t mind the extra reach of the 150-600 type lenses. Thanks for watching!
How is it for Toneh?
Toneh isn’t bad. Of course you’ll need to be closer to a subject to get a lot but it’s quite decent.
24-120 is soft at 24mm comparing 24-70mm that its quite acceptable regarding that long range.
Is the lack of VR a problem?
Absolutely not. As long as you have one of the ibis bodies (z6, z7, z6II, Z7II, Zf etc. they all have very reliable ibis. You only have an issue if you use one of the APS-C cameras. Those, as of yet don’t have IBIS.
@@ThomasPetzwinkler I wish they would include VR. Canon swears that lens-based stabilization is superior to sensor-based. I doubt anyone would second guess that. Having both working together is probably even better
What kind of lens caps are you using?
That is the magnetic lens cap that goes with the K&F concepts magnetic filter system. I will be doing a review before long on that.
What other camera do you shoot primarily with?
My Nikons are the Z7 and the Zf. My video recording camera is the Nikon Zfc. I also shoot with a Fujifilm X-T5 and an older X-T2 and for fun I have the X-E3 which I am considering getting converted to infrared. Thanks for watching!
You're 100% right. It is fantastic.... use it 4 potraiture an nudeart all the time HNY 2024
Right? Glad to hear you think the same. Thanks for watching!
Will it work on the d750 ? Or just on mirrirless?
I have this lens, F-fitting, on a D780 - and yes, it's sharp, and versatile! Hefty - and it delivers! Some of us still love our DSLRs!
Nice video
Thank you. I am working hard to get solid content out. I hope to see you again!
I have the F mount version of this lens and think it may be the worst lens Nikon has ever made. It has heavy vignetting at F4 and is noticeably less sharp than the Tamron 35 - 150 and Tamron 17 - 35 that I bought to replace it. I'm happy to hear the Z mount replacement is much better.
Sigma glass for me. ☑️
Sigma is good stuff.
Thanks for the video - very helpful. But please…. Stop winding the lens in and out a thousand times…. Very distracting.
Ha! I have watched this video back and you are so right. I just keep cranking it in and out. LOL My bad!
Has anyone use this lens for weddings?
I have talked to people who have. The high ISO abilities on the Nikons these days is so good that you can get away with the loss of one stop. Besides, this thing is so good at F4 that knowing what I just said, the image quality is just top notch wide open. Thanks for watching!
sold my 24-70 2.8 for this lens.. no regrets!
As an owner of this lens, I just found out that Nikon disabled the fully mechanical shutter whenever this lens is attached to your camera. Apparently this was done as a poor man's version of vibration reduction / image stabilization because the lens is very susceptible to shutter vibration especially at longer focal lengths. This *might* be okay, but what just doesn't sit right with me is how Nikon never openly mentions this. Customers are forced to find out after buying the lens.
Nope. All of the new lenses use a electronic front curtain. It has nothing to do with image stabilization. You don't need image stabilization in the lens. The IBIS in Nikons cameras is so good. As for why they did it? It does allow full mechanical at shutter speeds where shutter shock isn't an issue so when you get up in to anything over 1/250th shutter speeds it switches to full mechanical. This was brilliant thinking on Nikons part. In fact I used to put my z7 in front curtain electronic shutter because it stopped shutter shock from being an issue. Shutter shock is an issue on every camera that uses a full mechanical shutter. When you switch to front curtain shutter, at anything below 1/250 the shutter automatically stays open at the start of the exposure then ends the exposure with the mechanical shutter (stopping any issues with sensor readout delays like you have with full electronic shutter on unstacked sensors). Thats why you only hear the shutter at the end of the exposure. As I said, all of the new lenses cause the camera to behave this way because it is superior to fully mechanical shutter when you are at slower shutter speeds.
👍🏾🙏🏾 🏴🇸🇪🇹🇹
The background music is really not a good idea. Maybe not well chosen? Too repetitive?
The background music is always a crap shoot. Some like, some down't I'm trying to get less repetitive and only use for effect on my newest videos. I've cut it back a lot in fact. Thanks for your thoughts and thanks for watching!
@@ThomasPetzwinkler I do not know, it ended up being distracting. I had my left ear focused on it.
@@jango71maybe you should work on your ADHD.
Right. It's more on an irritative side