Excellent comparison images. I’ve owned the 24-70 f4 S and I still own a 24-200. The 24-200 is a bit of a fluke - for a non S type lens, it performs quite well. But the image quality with the S line lenses is always superior - it’s the sharpness yes - but mainly it’s the contrast. The higher quality glass and the extra coatings reduce internal reflections. I recently tested the 50 and 35 f1.8 S lenses for walk about shots. Both primes were too restrictive. And I NEVER shoot at f1.8 anyway. I like the focus lock button on the 24-120, a pro touch useful for videos. So we’ll see - just ordered the 24-120 which is currently back ordered.
The 24-120Z is a beast of a lens. Its announcement made me move to mirrorless and when I finally got it could confirm how special it is. Also, I'm currently editing some really big images for a campaign for work taken with a Canon R6 and the 24-105, such a letdown; the amount of CA and the loss of sharpness are big, the Nikon clearly smokes the Canon counterpart, which BTW is U$200 more expensive.
@@russandloz Correct - but if you really understand and master the Nikon autofocus system - as explained by Steve Perry for example - you will reach almost the same level in speed and accuracy. Yes there are more lenses for the Sony E-System because they have an advantage of five years.
@@markusbolliger1527 but now we have hope with Tamron and hopefully Sigma establishing themselves with the Z system. We also have the Megadap V2 that has me really tempted, every review I see is positive and the new Sigma 20 1.4 Art is a lens that I would like to see against the Nikkor Z.
The 24-120 4 has quickly become my absolute favorite zoom. Super versatile, beautiful sharp images throughout the range, with the added bonus of very close focus distance (1.1’ / 35cm). I traded in my 24-70 4 and 24-200 to consolidate. Nice comparison here, thanks!
I’ve been using the 24-120mm for 5 months now travelling around Australia and been my go to lens for sure. So versatile and the shots are very appealing. The lightness to walk or hike makes it so convenient. I’ve done a little of low light work and on the Z6ii seems pretty good.
Ha ha ha - it is never too late to becom wiser 😇 When it came out I knew instantly that the Z 24-120 F4 would become my bred-and-butter lens for landscape and reportage. The look and redition are considerably better resp. nicer as with the Z 24-200, and because it is also faster it is so versatile for many situations. Greetings from the Swiss mountains.
@@russandloz Yes I have plenty of views worth do be photographed 🤩 -And I love the opportunities and quality this lens gives me. I made some stunning images of mountain sceneries mainly in the Bernese Oberland, in the Engadin and in den canton Valais. You can have a look at them on five hundred px.
got myself 14-24/2.8 and 85mm/1.8 but still when travelling i used only my 24-120mm/f4 other lens stay at home! for landscape and portrait 24-120mm is amazing!
I own all these lenses and find myself using the 24-120 for outside work and the 24-70 2.8 for inside work. I like the extra reach. The 24-200 works well when I use a tripod, but not as good handheld. Just my 2 cents.
Yeah, you're right, the extra light, most of these pitches are under lit and soccer usually played near light down also +rainy season.....it's all lightroom reservation, I hate that. I love lifelike photography, not desktop Photography.
I tried using the af-p 70-300 and compared it with my 24-120. It's day and night. The 24-120 s images are extra bright. it's like backlit. Also keep a f2 or f2.8 prime (like the nikon z 40) handy. And a small flash. That will take care of indoor images.
@@russandloz Yes. Actually the older nikkor lenses are bargains now. I am still sometimes trying to see if I can use my d7100 or d700. But then I see the increase in weight and return them.
Yes, but that's the only advantage of nikon 24-70 2.8...and it's hard to say that 2.8 is crucial for that range...24-120 have much more purpose, equaly sharp, 50mm longer, lighter...and you can always bump iso on z cameras to get better ss...z cameras handle iso so well...
The 24-120 is a excellent zoom lens. mine only complaint@24mm the four very extreme corners will have CA and a little drop of sharpness. once zoom in to 28mm is perfect.
Went to Bangkok a few days ago to buy this lens, Nikkor S 24-120, but no one had it. Almost got a little angry at Nikon, but in retrospect I really wonder what's going on... why is Nikon unable to deliver goods to potential customers (the lens didn't exactly hit the market yesterday). By the way, nice video as always.
Fotofile at MBK had it in stock last week. I was going to buy it, but they weren't able to offer me enough to trade in my 24-70 f4. I suspect a lot of people want to make this trade.
finally someone who compares these two lenses at their best/at their limits. What's the use of just comparing them with both at zoom max. at 120mm because one can't go further, or with both apertures at min. f/6.3 just because one can't open more? Today I'm going to buy the 24-120, after nearly 36 hours of excruciating doubts. Not just because of this video, but thank you a lot for it!
@@cris_studio_fotografia9523 Thanks Cris, 24-120 is a solid performer, though for indoor use and subject separation a 2.8 or faster would always be my preferred lens
Personally I see no need for my self for 24 120, although it's a great lens. I prefer the 24 200, because when I need that kind of lens, it's on vacation with the family where 200mm becomes pretty Handy and usually it's day light. ISO is so good on the Zs that the smaller aperture is nothing to worry about. Especially when using Dxo pure raw. When I shoot landscape / Indoor with it I use a tripod and stop down. As a wedding / event shooter on the other hand I don't like to use f4. I adapted the Tamron 35 150 f2 -f2.8 with the megadap etz21 and it works great. Combined with the 20 1.8S on the other body, this a much more flexible and better set up for me. I hope you get the etz21 yourself and do some intercompany lens comparisons some day.
I have both 24-120 and 24-200. I was going to sell my 24-200 once I bought the 24-120, but I can't get my mind to give up as I really like the range of the 24-200 lens. I was traveling in Australia this month and took my 24-120 only, it was great, but I really missed a 200mm at certain times.
I've only had the z 24-120 f4 for a couple of weeks, and find it brilliant., It's let me pack away a couple of my f mount lenses. For sport (I do field hockey) the 70-200 does the job really well. I have the 180-600 on order.
You didn't mention one of the main things that you can do to give you extra reach (as opposed to the 24-200). You just whack it on DX crop then you have an equivalent 180!
@@russandloz It would probably be better on the Z7ii, because you have the larger sensor. However, when I shoot events, I use it a lot on my Z50 1.8 (which gives me a 75mm equivalent). The files are smaller (only about 10MB as opposed to about 23MB for FX), however they look fantastic and I haven't had any complaints about them yet. I've only shot one event on my new 24-120, but contrast and clarity of the images are equally as good as my Z50mm (can't see any difference). However the one main con of the zoom is that being only F4, I can't get very good subject separation from my background. I've ordered another Z6ii and the Z24mm 1.8, and will have to carry that to get separation at 24mm (I shoot the majority of my images at that focal length). I'm hoping the zoom will be OK for the rest.
@@leric4205 That's if you used a 24-200, he was referring to the 24-120 on a DX (so 36-180 on the DX with the 24-120 and 36-300 if you used a 24-200 on a DX camera).
I would re-do these at the same FLs (up to 120mm) for the most accurate comparisons. Yes I Know the 24-200 is a variable aperture, but perhaps you can do two tests: one wide open with both lenses, and one at the same apertures on both lenses (and same FLs). I think what most people are also going to be interested in is sharpness between the two and if you use the same FLs and apertures, this gives a more accurate picture (no pun intended) of the qualify of the glass.
The aperture changes very quickly on the 24-200, this is a major drawback so highlights the main difference and advantage of the f4 which is very sharp. A lot of people won't want to use a higher f stop than that?
I own several Nikon Z lenses, and compared to the f-mounts, they are significantly better to my eyes. I own both the Z 24-200mm f4-6.3 and the Z 24-120 f4. The Z 24-120 seems like it's always on either my Z8 or Z9 as I find it just a wonderful lense. Like Russ, I love to use both the Z 70-200 on one camera while the second body has the 24-120mm. That gives me two wonderful lenses covering 24-280mm (thanks for being able to fit the Nikon Z 1.4 teleconverter to the 70-200mm). Sometimes I put the 24-120mm on one body and the Nikon Z 100-400mm f5.6-6.3 on the second body. That gives me 24mm to 560mm, again thanks to the 1.4 teleconverter. I've recently taken the 24-200 off the shelf where it's languised since I purchased the 24-120 because it is a very nice lens, especially if you only care about the center of the frame and have good available light. Hopefully, I'll use it more often than I have in the past year. Keep up the interesting adventures and perspectives!
That's certainly what I do most of the time, but the Nikon1.4 seems better at retaining sharpness than I remember from my old F-mount Sigma Art lenses and using either a 1.4x or 2.0x teleconverter. It also is nice to have the better image pull through the EVF when using the 1.4 teleconverter. I know you can zoom in, but I don't use a tripod all that often and the 1.4 seems steadier throught the EVF than a zoom when hand holding.@@russandloz
I got both 24-120 and 24-200, tested them on charts and in real life shooting. They are nearly identical at the same settings. Any differences you see are the natural variations of uncontrolled testing and placebo effect. You basically trading off the aperture for range.
@@russandloz I like shooting with different lenses and I always take them through various tests. Nikon is my system of choice, but I also shoot with Sony, and use Sony lenses on adapter. Though Nikon lenses aren't as sharp as some Sony lenses, practically all of them doing well or very well at the center 5mm radius, nothing to worry about. So all the battle between them is in the corners and differences are in contrast, distortions, vignetting, CA, bokeh -- most of that is fixed in software. Flare of course can't be fixed, but I haven't observed it being a problem. So taking controlled tests, correcting white balance, exposure, turning on corrections and it will be very difficult to see the difference without pixel peeping.
At 7:53 that almost looks like missed focus on the 24-120, not a sharpness issue (like a lens issue). Also, this is why it's not really of much help to compare them beyond 120mm because you have no bench mark to test the 24-200 by since the 24-120 doesn't go to 200mm (or beyond 120mm for that matter), so anything beyond 120mm is going to go the 24-200 due to its longer FLs. So personally I feel the tests beyond 120mm on the 24-200 to be of little use in this comparison.
Yeah that could be true, but it's interesting to see if it could match it with cropping. Sure advantage of the 24-200 is the focal length if you need it.
Thanks for the useful video. I have the Nikon AF-S 18-200mm F/3.5-5.6G ED DX VR lens which I have been using for the last 8 years on my Nikon D series camera. I recently switched to the Nikon Z5 camera and have bought the FTZ adapter and can use this lens on my Z5 though I am aware its a cropped DX lens and so doesn't use the full frame capabilities. Apart from this issue, is there any other reason why I shouldn't continue to use this lens and should invest in one of the new Nikon 24-120 or the 24 - 200 Z mount lenses. Any advise would be appreciated. Thanks.
I had that lens years ago on my crop sensor Nikon DSLRs virtually never left the body; it was a great lens for its time but things have moved on massively I’m afraid
@@lozzom Thanks. Yes It has never left my DSLR either except when I used my 50mm prime when indoor ....Great travel lens ..Still works on my Z5 with the FTZ adapter but based on how far the lenses have moved on and feedback received, would be moving to the 24-200z lens as soon as can afford it :)
Kind of a late comment but can you tell me with this lens and a Z9 can it zoom and focus at the same time to photograph someone running towards the camera?
I think that the 24-200 held up pretty well, all things considered. If I pixel peep I can see the difference, but are my clients going to see it? Doubtful.
I recently bought a Z-Mount 400mm f/4.5 S lens for soccer. I'm usually position on the corner line behind the goal line. As expected the dynamic of forward attacks are awesome, but in and around the penalty area there's no more opportunity for in-focus as One misses the action with 400mm f/4.5 S lens. However for close focus I swape my back-up Z6: Which Z-Mount 24-70mm f/2.8 , 70-200mm2.8 or 24-120 be best use for swapping in order not just to capture the action but to get a closer quality to the "Z9" w/ Z-Mount 400mm f/4.5 S lens as a close-ups ?
I think any of those would give great results but in that scenario I would probably choose the 24-120 for the extra flexibility unless you definitely felt you needed the extra stop
I'm planning to buy a Z6II with a 24-120 F4 kit.. Shall I go for it.. I'm looking for an all rounder lens.. or shall i stick with 24-70? Suggestions please
@@aarif333 I only know Nikon. If you have the budget for the 24-120 it’s worth it. The 24-70 is a good lens though. But you can find great deals on used gear.
Hey guys! The 24-120 looks great but is currently unavailable here in Germany. It's also 1300€! Considering that the 24-200 is available for 850€ (although I got mine in a Z6II kit for 2400€) then the choice becomes not so clear... Edit - the 24-120 is also available in a Z6II kit... 3200€! 🙃
Hi Eric; I ordered it from Wex but after 3 months of waiting, I bought it new from eBay and paid a small premium over retail for it, becuase I knew I wanted it for September. Very happy I did !
@@russandloz Yes, I'm pleased I got most of what I wanted last year when the prices were lower and availability wasn't a problem. I used to buy a lot from the UK (VAT free with an EU VAT number 😀) but Brexit has obviously put paid to that!
Hi, cheers for the very useful video. One thing I would love to hear from you guys is how would the mirrorless camera handle real cold weather such as in Antarctica. I mean, summer in Antarctica. Do you reckon I could have an issue due to its elletronic type? Thanks heaps in advance for any thoughts on this matter. Best, Marina
Been using a 24-120 f4 S for 6 months. A brilliant lens, Based on UA-cam hype and sell I supplemented it with a 28mm f2.8 non S which turned out to be rubbish by my standards. Only S now maybe the 35mm f1.8 S.
Yeah those pancake lenses don't have that clinical sharpness of the S lenses but we are currently reviewing the 40mm f2, which has it's place for budget and size
I also choose the 24-120 f4 over the standard zoom 24-70 f2.8. It is simply more versatile to have on the camera, I could say 1lens for an entire event.
@@russandloz I use 24-120 f4 since I bought my Z6II a couple of months ago paired with older 70-200 for all events and that lens was and is my bread and butter for my event photography (even on F mount). For low lights I use flash, and I have struggled sometimes in very dark conditions to acquire focus (low light AF is rubbish in fast paced events and af assist grid from flash doesn't work on Z system). I find that 2.8 does help with acquiring focus (have used old 24-70g a few times) and also Z6II simply shines with 1.8 Z primes in lowlight. When I find myself in very lowlight situations I rely even on built in AF assist light (which is poorly implemented) or on the led light on my V860III Flash. I am very satisfied with 24-120 z lens and it is a great improvement over the F mount 24-120, although my old D4 did focus faster in lowlight. All in all this is a great all-round lens that can do everything.
What would the result be in shooting with the crop sensor setting using the 24-120 to achieve 180mm reach? I wonder what this would be like compared to the 200 mm shots on the 24-200 lens? Did you look that scenario?
Yes but then a 24-200 on a crop sensor would give you 36-300 and be sharper. On a crop sensor the edges don't matter as much where the 24-120 edge sharpness seems to be a big difference on the wide angle. If you're shooting a crop sensor the 24-200 makes much more sense as the center of the 24-200 is the same as the 24-120 based on this video and you get to 300.
Hi guys, thank you for a very interesting review. I ordered my Z 24-120 F4 over 7 months ago and I am still waiting for delivery. I would be grateful if you could tell me when you got yours and where from.
Yep I ordered it from Wex in April and need it for an event next week. At the end of July Wex told me it definitely wouldn't be coming in August and no certainty about September so cancelled it and bought a new one from eBay with 2 years warranty but paid a smallish premium over list price. So glad I did.
@@lozzom Thanks for the info. I purchased a used 24 to 70mm F4 to use as an interim solution. I have heard that supplies of the 24-120 F4 are now becoming available but Nikon are only clearing back orders on a first come, first served basis. I will just have to be patient
@@russandloz I am gobsmacked by the quality of the 3D pop. Especially the 35mm 1.8Z which I presume was used for the wider video clips. A sleeper lens indeed.
You can't compare two lenses at different focal points and apertures, as you did in many examples. Very unprofessional to say the least. I don't think the number of your subscribers will increase.
We tested them all at the same focal lengths that they share. Also showing the difference apertures have. A lot of people like this video and find it useful.
Excellent comparison images. I’ve owned the 24-70 f4 S and I still own a 24-200. The 24-200 is a bit of a fluke - for a non S type lens, it performs quite well. But the image quality with the S line lenses is always superior - it’s the sharpness yes - but mainly it’s the contrast. The higher quality glass and the extra coatings reduce internal reflections. I recently tested the 50 and 35 f1.8 S lenses for walk about shots. Both primes were too restrictive. And I NEVER shoot at f1.8 anyway. I like the focus lock button on the 24-120, a pro touch useful for videos. So we’ll see - just ordered the 24-120 which is currently back ordered.
The 24-120Z is a beast of a lens. Its announcement made me move to mirrorless and when I finally got it could confirm how special it is. Also, I'm currently editing some really big images for a campaign for work taken with a Canon R6 and the 24-105, such a letdown; the amount of CA and the loss of sharpness are big, the Nikon clearly smokes the Canon counterpart, which BTW is U$200 more expensive.
Ok interesting to hear that Nikon beats the other big brands at something.
@@russandloz At something? 🧐At nearly everything! 😂
@@markusbolliger1527 I would say they have a bigger lens choice and better autofocus in the lower camera bodies?
@@russandloz Correct - but if you really understand and master the Nikon autofocus system - as explained by Steve Perry for example - you will reach almost the same level in speed and accuracy. Yes there are more lenses for the Sony E-System because they have an advantage of five years.
@@markusbolliger1527 but now we have hope with Tamron and hopefully Sigma establishing themselves with the Z system.
We also have the Megadap V2 that has me really tempted, every review I see is positive and the new Sigma 20 1.4 Art is a lens that I would like to see against the Nikkor Z.
The 24-120 4 has quickly become my absolute favorite zoom. Super versatile, beautiful sharp images throughout the range, with the added bonus of very close focus distance (1.1’ / 35cm). I traded in my 24-70 4 and 24-200 to consolidate. Nice comparison here, thanks!
I can imagine using that as macro.
Personally, I think it's as close to a perfect lens as possible, for all of the reasons you've mentioned.
and how is your new lens doing at 200mm?
I’ve been using the 24-120mm for 5 months now travelling around Australia and been my go to lens for sure. So versatile and the shots are very appealing. The lightness to walk or hike makes it so convenient. I’ve done a little of low light work and on the Z6ii seems pretty good.
Ha ha ha - it is never too late to becom wiser 😇 When it came out I knew instantly that the Z 24-120 F4 would become my bred-and-butter lens for landscape and reportage. The look and redition are considerably better resp. nicer as with the Z 24-200, and because it is also faster it is so versatile for many situations. Greetings from the Swiss mountains.
We live and learn hey lol. But yes the lens is good for many situations. I bet you have some great views up there!
@@russandloz Yes I have plenty of views worth do be photographed 🤩 -And I love the opportunities and quality this lens gives me. I made some stunning images of mountain sceneries mainly in the Bernese Oberland, in the Engadin and in den canton Valais. You can have a look at them on five hundred px.
nobody could ever be able to distinguish real life images from 24-120 and 24-200 at the same settings, I tested both lenses, it's all placebo effect
got myself 14-24/2.8 and 85mm/1.8 but still when travelling i used only my 24-120mm/f4 other lens stay at home! for landscape and portrait 24-120mm is amazing!
Yes I’m finding the lenses which are more portable and light are the ones that get used the most. I got the 400 4.5 for the same reason
24-120 has much better contrast and colour in your test as far as I can see.
not if you do controlled testing and actual measurements
I own all these lenses and find myself using the 24-120 for outside work and the 24-70 2.8 for inside work. I like the extra reach. The 24-200 works well when I use a tripod, but not as good handheld. Just my 2 cents.
Interesting. Why is the 24-200 better on a tripod and not handheld?
@@russandloz the best lens I have is a tripod. It keeps the lens solid even at slow shutters speeds. It is a decent lens and very good on a tripod.
If you think about it, 24-120mm f/4 is equivalent to a 16-80mm f/2.7 for APS-C
Yeah, you're right, the extra light, most of these pitches are under lit and soccer usually played near light down also +rainy season.....it's all lightroom reservation, I hate that. I love lifelike photography, not desktop Photography.
I tried using the af-p 70-300 and compared it with my 24-120. It's day and night. The 24-120 s images are extra bright. it's like backlit.
Also keep a f2 or f2.8 prime (like the nikon z 40) handy. And a small flash. That will take care of indoor images.
@@warthog123 yes modern z lenses do have their advantages
@@russandloz Yes. Actually the older nikkor lenses are bargains now. I am still sometimes trying to see if I can use my d7100 or d700.
But then I see the increase in weight and return them.
Makes sense to use if you don't need f/2.8. You can set the f/2.8 to f/4, but you cannot set the f/4 to f/2.8.
Yes, but that's the only advantage of nikon 24-70 2.8...and it's hard to say that 2.8 is crucial for that range...24-120 have much more purpose, equaly sharp, 50mm longer, lighter...and you can always bump iso on z cameras to get better ss...z cameras handle iso so well...
The 24-120 is a excellent zoom lens. mine only complaint@24mm the four very extreme corners will have CA and a little drop of sharpness. once zoom in to 28mm is perfect.
Went to Bangkok a few days ago to buy this lens, Nikkor S 24-120, but no one had it. Almost got a little angry at Nikon, but in retrospect I really wonder what's going on... why is Nikon unable to deliver goods to potential customers (the lens didn't exactly hit the market yesterday). By the way, nice video as always.
World situation is hard on smaller businesses. Can’t be helped I don’t think. They are probably frustrated too
Fotofile at MBK had it in stock last week. I was going to buy it, but they weren't able to offer me enough to trade in my 24-70 f4. I suspect a lot of people want to make this trade.
finally someone who compares these two lenses at their best/at their limits. What's the use of just comparing them with both at zoom max. at 120mm because one can't go further, or with both apertures at min. f/6.3 just because one can't open more? Today I'm going to buy the 24-120, after nearly 36 hours of excruciating doubts. Not just because of this video, but thank you a lot for it!
8:21 ok, now i'm really shocked 😮
@@cris_studio_fotografia9523 Thanks Cris, 24-120 is a solid performer, though for indoor use and subject separation a 2.8 or faster would always be my preferred lens
Personally I see no need for my self for 24 120, although it's a great lens. I prefer the 24 200, because when I need that kind of lens, it's on vacation with the family where 200mm becomes pretty Handy and usually it's day light. ISO is so good on the Zs that the smaller aperture is nothing to worry about. Especially when using Dxo pure raw. When I shoot landscape / Indoor with it I use a tripod and stop down.
As a wedding / event shooter on the other hand I don't like to use f4. I adapted the Tamron 35 150 f2 -f2.8 with the megadap etz21 and it works great. Combined with the 20 1.8S on the other body, this a much more flexible and better set up for me. I hope you get the etz21 yourself and do some intercompany lens comparisons some day.
Thanks, do you see any autofocus issues with the adapter?
@@russandloz not yet :D
It's a great lens for video.
Just bought it 2 weeks ago...and its a wonderful lens for my Z9 and Z7ii
Excellent review! What lens were you filming on at beginning? Bokeh was beautiful
Thanks. 50 1.2 and 50 1.8
I just got a Z6ii with the 24 - 120 as my go to everyday lens.
I have both 24-120 and 24-200. I was going to sell my 24-200 once I bought the 24-120, but I can't get my mind to give up as I really like the range of the 24-200 lens. I was traveling in Australia this month and took my 24-120 only, it was great, but I really missed a 200mm at certain times.
Yeah, there is no perfect lens hey, always a compromise
@@russandloz tried the DX crop ?
@@cesardelosreyes508 It is handy but the same as cropping in post
I've only had the z 24-120 f4 for a couple of weeks, and find it brilliant., It's let me pack away a couple of my
f mount lenses. For sport (I do field hockey) the 70-200 does the job really well. I have the 180-600 on order.
Would the new tamron 35-150 2-2.8?
@@russandloz is that a Z mount ?. I already have the Tamron 18-400 F mount (a good lens)
This is a superb lens! Nikon really pushed it with this one!
You didn't mention one of the main things that you can do to give you extra reach (as opposed to the 24-200). You just whack it on DX crop then you have an equivalent 180!
Yes good point. Does it lose much quality?
@@russandloz It would probably be better on the Z7ii, because you have the larger sensor. However, when I shoot events, I use it a lot on my Z50 1.8 (which gives me a 75mm equivalent). The files are smaller (only about 10MB as opposed to about 23MB for FX), however they look fantastic and I haven't had any complaints about them yet. I've only shot one event on my new 24-120, but contrast and clarity of the images are equally as good as my Z50mm (can't see any difference). However the one main con of the zoom is that being only F4, I can't get very good subject separation from my background. I've ordered another Z6ii and the Z24mm 1.8, and will have to carry that to get separation at 24mm (I shoot the majority of my images at that focal length). I'm hoping the zoom will be OK for the rest.
Et le 24-200 mm en format DX est un 300 mm ! 🤣
@@leric4205 That's if you used a 24-200, he was referring to the 24-120 on a DX (so 36-180 on the DX with the 24-120 and 36-300 if you used a 24-200 on a DX camera).
Will it has equivalent compression effect of original long tele lense?
I would re-do these at the same FLs (up to 120mm) for the most accurate comparisons. Yes I Know the 24-200 is a variable aperture, but perhaps you can do two tests: one wide open with both lenses, and one at the same apertures on both lenses (and same FLs). I think what most people are also going to be interested in is sharpness between the two and if you use the same FLs and apertures, this gives a more accurate picture (no pun intended) of the qualify of the glass.
The aperture changes very quickly on the 24-200, this is a major drawback so highlights the main difference and advantage of the f4 which is very sharp. A lot of people won't want to use a higher f stop than that?
The 24-120 auto focus is nice and fast
except at 120mm at AF-C when it starts pulsing in certain situations
I own several Nikon Z lenses, and compared to the f-mounts, they are significantly better to my eyes. I own both the Z 24-200mm f4-6.3 and the Z 24-120 f4. The Z 24-120 seems like it's always on either my Z8 or Z9 as I find it just a wonderful lense. Like Russ, I love to use both the Z 70-200 on one camera while the second body has the 24-120mm. That gives me two wonderful lenses covering 24-280mm (thanks for being able to fit the Nikon Z 1.4 teleconverter to the 70-200mm). Sometimes I put the 24-120mm on one body and the Nikon Z 100-400mm f5.6-6.3 on the second body. That gives me 24mm to 560mm, again thanks to the 1.4 teleconverter. I've recently taken the 24-200 off the shelf where it's languised since I purchased the 24-120 because it is a very nice lens, especially if you only care about the center of the frame and have good available light. Hopefully, I'll use it more often than I have in the past year. Keep up the interesting adventures and perspectives!
Thank `john, I am trying to get hold of a good dealon the 1.4 TC, I wonder if it's sometimes better just cropping in as it's only a 40% boost
That's certainly what I do most of the time, but the Nikon1.4 seems better at retaining sharpness than I remember from my old F-mount Sigma Art lenses and using either a 1.4x or 2.0x teleconverter. It also is nice to have the better image pull through the EVF when using the 1.4 teleconverter. I know you can zoom in, but I don't use a tripod all that often and the 1.4 seems steadier throught the EVF than a zoom when hand holding.@@russandloz
I’m really interested in buying 24-120 or 24-70 2.8….
I would really like opinion on the topic from somebody who tried both of them ☺️
This video should help
I got both 24-120 and 24-200, tested them on charts and in real life shooting. They are nearly identical at the same settings. Any differences you see are the natural variations of uncontrolled testing and placebo effect. You basically trading off the aperture for range.
Interesting you found that but it wasn’t in our experience. I had no favourite going into the tests.
@@russandloz I like shooting with different lenses and I always take them through various tests. Nikon is my system of choice, but I also shoot with Sony, and use Sony lenses on adapter. Though Nikon lenses aren't as sharp as some Sony lenses, practically all of them doing well or very well at the center 5mm radius, nothing to worry about. So all the battle between them is in the corners and differences are in contrast, distortions, vignetting, CA, bokeh -- most of that is fixed in software. Flare of course can't be fixed, but I haven't observed it being a problem. So taking controlled tests, correcting white balance, exposure, turning on corrections and it will be very difficult to see the difference without pixel peeping.
At 7:53 that almost looks like missed focus on the 24-120, not a sharpness issue (like a lens issue). Also, this is why it's not really of much help to compare them beyond 120mm because you have no bench mark to test the 24-200 by since the 24-120 doesn't go to 200mm (or beyond 120mm for that matter), so anything beyond 120mm is going to go the 24-200 due to its longer FLs. So personally I feel the tests beyond 120mm on the 24-200 to be of little use in this comparison.
Yeah that could be true, but it's interesting to see if it could match it with cropping. Sure advantage of the 24-200 is the focal length if you need it.
Thanks for the useful video. I have the Nikon AF-S 18-200mm F/3.5-5.6G ED DX VR lens which I have been using for the last 8 years on my Nikon D series camera. I recently switched to the Nikon Z5 camera and have bought the FTZ adapter and can use this lens on my Z5 though I am aware its a cropped DX lens and so doesn't use the full frame capabilities. Apart from this issue, is there any other reason why I shouldn't continue to use this lens and should invest in one of the new Nikon 24-120 or the 24 - 200 Z mount lenses. Any advise would be appreciated. Thanks.
You should see much improvement in all image areas using z glass from a dx lens
@@russandloz Thanks for the quick response.
@@RajeshNair-ro8ml I still use premium F mount lenses which are great and you can find good deals too
I had that lens years ago on my crop sensor Nikon DSLRs virtually never left the body; it was a great lens for its time but things have moved on massively I’m afraid
@@lozzom Thanks. Yes It has never left my DSLR either except when I used my 50mm prime when indoor ....Great travel lens ..Still works on my Z5 with the FTZ adapter but based on how far the lenses have moved on and feedback received, would be moving to the 24-200z lens as soon as can afford it :)
Kind of a late comment but can you tell me with this lens and a Z9 can it zoom and focus at the same time to photograph someone running towards the camera?
The z8 and z9 have amazing autofocus so I’m sure it can
B & C camera in Las Vegas has it in stock. Good excuse for a vacation.
I think that the 24-200 held up pretty well, all things considered. If I pixel peep I can see the difference, but are my clients going to see it? Doubtful.
even if pixel peeping there is no noticeable difference, only in the corners
If Lindsay Adler was using Nikon, I am sure she would use the 24 - 120mm in the studio.
Interesting. Why is that?
@@russandloz she uses the canon version of this lens in the studio.
@@castieldiallo2945 Ah yes I’m a studio where you can control the light it would work well
I recently bought a Z-Mount 400mm f/4.5 S lens for soccer. I'm usually position on the corner line behind the goal line. As expected the dynamic of forward attacks are awesome, but in and around the penalty area there's no more opportunity for in-focus as One misses the action with 400mm f/4.5 S lens. However for close focus I swape my back-up Z6: Which Z-Mount 24-70mm f/2.8 , 70-200mm2.8 or 24-120 be best use for swapping in order not just to capture the action but to get a closer quality to the "Z9" w/ Z-Mount 400mm f/4.5 S lens as a close-ups ?
I think any of those would give great results but in that scenario I would probably choose the 24-120 for the extra flexibility unless you definitely felt you needed the extra stop
The Best lens Nikon has ever Produced, Over all it kills the 24-70 dead in its tracks.! Who cares if its f/4 it works.!
It is a great lens, but for lower light shooters it wouldn't be really?
Great lens but I’d say that the 70-200 is the best ever !
It def is a special lens, perhaps it is going to become a cult favorite :)
I wonder if a 70-200 F4 would be just as good
Not sharp at f5.6 and f6.3.
I'm planning to buy a Z6II with a 24-120 F4 kit.. Shall I go for it.. I'm looking for an all rounder lens.. or shall i stick with 24-70? Suggestions please
Z6 is a great camera all but auto eye focus issues. Which 24-70? 2.8 or f4?
@@russandloz 24-70 F4
Do you have any other camera suggestions in this price range? Actually I planned for the Sony A7M4.. but it's too costly which i can't afford..
@@aarif333 I only know Nikon. If you have the budget for the 24-120 it’s worth it. The 24-70 is a good lens though. But you can find great deals on used gear.
Hey guys! The 24-120 looks great but is currently unavailable here in Germany. It's also 1300€!
Considering that the 24-200 is available for 850€ (although I got mine in a Z6II kit for 2400€) then the choice becomes not so clear...
Edit - the 24-120 is also available in a Z6II kit... 3200€! 🙃
Hi Eric; I ordered it from Wex but after 3 months of waiting, I bought it new from eBay and paid a small premium over retail for it, becuase I knew I wanted it for September. Very happy I did !
Camera gear has got more expensive over all and harder to get hold of. But over in the Uk they are listed as almost the same price.
@@russandloz Yes, I'm pleased I got most of what I wanted last year when the prices were lower and availability wasn't a problem.
I used to buy a lot from the UK (VAT free with an EU VAT number 😀) but Brexit has obviously put paid to that!
Hi, cheers for the very useful video. One thing I would love to hear from you guys is how would the mirrorless camera handle real cold weather such as in Antarctica. I mean, summer in Antarctica. Do you reckon I could have an issue due to its elletronic type? Thanks heaps in advance for any thoughts on this matter. Best, Marina
We don't have any experience in that area unfortunately. Obviously weather sealing would be essentail.
Check out Morten Hilmer, he went way up north with Z6. Did just fine. These are excellent cameras.
@@ArsenijeRadenovic thanks a lot!
@@russandloz Thanks!
Been using a 24-120 f4 S for 6 months. A brilliant lens, Based on UA-cam hype and sell I supplemented it with a 28mm f2.8 non S which turned out to be rubbish by my standards. Only S now maybe the 35mm f1.8 S.
Yeah those pancake lenses don't have that clinical sharpness of the S lenses but we are currently reviewing the 40mm f2, which has it's place for budget and size
The best part of the video was when you realized you were both holding the same effing lens! 😂😂
I also choose the 24-120 f4 over the standard zoom 24-70 f2.8. It is simply more versatile to have on the camera, I could say 1lens for an entire event.
How do you get on in low light for events?
@@russandloz maybe high iso, since z bodies has good high iso performance..
@@russandloz I use 24-120 f4 since I bought my Z6II a couple of months ago paired with older 70-200 for all events and that lens was and is my bread and butter for my event photography (even on F mount).
For low lights I use flash, and I have struggled sometimes in very dark conditions to acquire focus (low light AF is rubbish in fast paced events and af assist grid from flash doesn't work on Z system). I find that 2.8 does help with acquiring focus (have used old 24-70g a few times) and also Z6II simply shines with 1.8 Z primes in lowlight.
When I find myself in very lowlight situations I rely even on built in AF assist light (which is poorly implemented) or on the led light on my V860III Flash. I am very satisfied with 24-120 z lens and it is a great improvement over the F mount 24-120, although my old D4 did focus faster in lowlight.
All in all this is a great all-round lens that can do everything.
What would the result be in shooting with the crop sensor setting using the 24-120 to achieve 180mm reach? I wonder what this would be like compared to the 200 mm shots on the 24-200 lens? Did you look that scenario?
Yes but then a 24-200 on a crop sensor would give you 36-300 and be sharper. On a crop sensor the edges don't matter as much where the 24-120 edge sharpness seems to be a big difference on the wide angle. If you're shooting a crop sensor the 24-200 makes much more sense as the center of the 24-200 is the same as the 24-120 based on this video and you get to 300.
Hi guys, thank you for a very interesting review. I ordered my Z 24-120 F4 over 7 months ago and I am still waiting for delivery. I would be grateful if you could tell me when you got yours and where from.
Loz gave up waiting and found one on eBay at an extra cost.
Yep I ordered it from Wex in April and need it for an event next week. At the end of July Wex told me it definitely wouldn't be coming in August and no certainty about September so cancelled it and bought a new one from eBay with 2 years warranty but paid a smallish premium over list price. So glad I did.
@@russandloz Thanks for the info.
@@lozzom Thanks for the info. I purchased a used 24 to 70mm F4 to use as an interim solution. I have heard that supplies of the 24-120 F4 are now becoming available but Nikon are only clearing back orders on a first come, first served basis. I will just have to be patient
I ordered mine in February and got it in June but so happy with it.
You guys need to write down the gear that you are recording this video with.
I can’t always remember as the intro is filmed weeks before. I believe it was the 50 1.2 and 50 1.8. Conclusion was 50 and 35 1.8
@@russandloz Which camera body was used?
@@startrekmelo2749 z6ii and z6. Z7 has a cropped video mode and a slightly different look
Great video. What lens was used to take the full body video clips? Seems to have some pop.
Thanks. The end talk was shot with a 35 1.8z and 50 1.8z.
@@russandloz I am gobsmacked by the quality of the 3D pop. Especially the 35mm 1.8Z which I presume was used for the wider video clips. A sleeper lens indeed.
@@victorlim5077 we are hoping to make a video on the 35 soon. Not sure I’m an overall fan. TBC
@@russandloz You are just spoiled by the 50mm 😂😂
You can't compare two lenses at different focal points and apertures, as you did in many examples. Very unprofessional to say the least. I don't think the number of your subscribers will increase.
We tested them all at the same focal lengths that they share. Also showing the difference apertures have. A lot of people like this video and find it useful.