I'll share with you what a photographer friend of mine shared with me when I once scrutinized the grain in an photograph that I took. What he said to me single handedly changed the way I approach photography from that day forward. He said "I believe anyone who insists of studying the grain of an image instead of appreciating its content, is missing the point of a photograph". In other words, if it's a good photograph, it will stand on its own and no one will be scrutinizing its sharpness. If it's a poorly composed photograph, no amount of sharpness will make it better. It's an important lesson to learn. Some of the most memorable photos in the world aren't optically perfect because it's not the sharpness that made it a great photograph. It’s the story it tells.
Yes, that is a great excuse for grainy out of focus images. Times have changed and tastes along with it. If your camera consistently misses the focus then toss it and move to a brand that knows how to make their cameras focus.
@@joegrossinger3381 “Sharpness is a bourgeois concept” is a favorite quote by Henri Cartier-Bresson AND "There is nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept." Ansel Adams. 😉😉😉
As someone who's shot Nikon for over a decade professionally, I thought I'd throw a few thoughts having used all three lenses! Right now the 24-120 has earned a place in my daily bag, it's a really great choice for the versatility (now obviously I do shoot wildlife so the extra reach is handy) Wide open or stopped down (as used most of the time) it's excellent on a Z9 and has produced some of my favourite images of the last few months. The extra reach is super, especially if you want one lens for landscapes and nature photography, perfect if you do also like shooting panoramics. The 24-70 2.8 is a great workhorse of lens as you say, for events etc, but in reality you buy it to use it at 2.8. My old 24-70 2.8 G is still in my kit for when I "need it", although usually if I want fast glass I'll take the primes. The 24-70 f4 is great, optically excellent and easily the best value, would I swap back to it from the 24-120 just to save 100g, no way. If you're making an image that needs "perfect corner sharpness" you won't be at f4/f5.6 anyway so at f8-11 the 24/120 is for almost all purposes excellent and the versatility for when the light shows up/subject shows up and you want that composition a bit tighter, those 50mm, well they are worth their weight in gold (add the DX crop functionality and well you've got 180mm)! Great vids as always Cheers (from another Tom)
Thanks for so informative comment! I bought z7ii and used my F f 2.8 lenses with it till now, but it’s a high time to switch to Z lenses and I am totally lost with of these 3 I should buy. So the video and your comment are super helpful to me! I will buy 24-120 as a bit more reach is important for me and as someone commented earlier, the sharpness on the corners is not the most important factor.
The Nikon 24-120mm F4 is my go to for product photography and portraits, plus weddings. Love the extra range. However I use a second body with a 85mm f1.8 when I want softer background for portraits.
The 24-70/4S is the only one from these 3 that work well in infrared. Also, there are a lot of used ones on the market for far less money since it's a kit lens.
If we take out the pixel peeping for a second, personally I find the 24-120 f/4 to be probably the most versatile. Yes the 24-70 2.8 is the sharpest of the three (but again, we aren't really pixel peeping) and the 24-70 f/4 is the cheapest (especially if bought used) but I feel that the 24-120 gives the most range and is almost a single lens solution for most landscape photography shooting. I would think most of th time, most people will be at f/5.6 or higher and since it covers the range of 24-70, but perhaps doesn't have the speed of the 2.8, it's a good balance, and the price is affordable (you could buy two 24-120's for the price of a single new 24-70 2.8 when not on sale). Heck, for the price of a 24-70 2.8 you could buy both the 24-120 f/4 and a new 70-200 f/4G F-mount lens probably (slightly over but close enough) and you'd have a very useful range for landscape from 24 to 200mm with great image quality. But my vote would be for the 24-120. I actually sold my 24-70 f/4 to get the 2.8, but since getting the 24-120 I honestly don't use the 2.8 much anymore except for specific things relating to landscape, but if I'm hiking, or only want to take one lens, it's the 24-120.
The 24-70 f/4 is a no-brainer when you can get it for only an extra 400 quid as a package deal with the Z7ii. I picked that lens to go on my trip-of-a-lifetime Inca trail trek to Machu Picchu and was not disappointed by its performance.
at f8-11, most modern lenses should perform the same sharpness wise. So for landscape, just pick the lightest lenses as weight makes a much bigger difference in whether you will have the motivation to get the image in the first place 😂
Yes exactly the value of the wider aperture lenses are when you shoot them wide open both in the ability to shoot in low light wide open and in quality at their widest f4-5.6
I wish that were true. He even noted in the video at 13:02 that the upper right corner of the 24-120 was "much softer." That's been my experience with many lenses - it gets too mushy on the edges/corners even at f/8-f/11. Then there's sample variation. Buying lenses is truly a pain in the ass if you really care about the quality across the whole frame. A lens should be tested thoroughly as soon as you get it, and NOT with the kind of pics he used. You need the whole frame to be composed of detail that's close to the focus point. But I do agree that you often don't have to get the big 2.8 zooms if you're needing high quality at f/8.
Tom, you could make watching lawn bowling, curling, grass growing and paint drying fun and interesting. As always my favourite photography channel. The only one I refuse to miss.
Thankyou Thomas Heaton I was slightly kicking myself when they brought the 24-120 f4 out as I have the 24-70 f4 and knowing how good these new Z lenses are I thought it would be just as good but with more reach, but if I sold my 24-70 f4 I wouldn't have got even half the money for 24-120. So now after watching this video I feel a lot happier about my 24-70 f4 😁
I have just bought a mint boxed 24-70 f4 used for £320 . These lenses are crazy good value used . I bought it as a lighter walk around lens to save weight . I still have my 24-70 f2.8 but to be honest I usually pick up the f4 . It’s just lighter and more than good enough 👍
I had the 24-120 F4 for a weeks shooting and returned it as i felt it lacked contrast over 100mm and was slightly soft at the edges, I am the proud owner of the 24-70 F2.8 and love using it and the results it gives, I keep my lenses over 10 years so need to be happy with them for the long term
Still owning both 24-120 F4 and 24-70 2.8 my assessment is similar. They're really close when you stop down and want corner sharpness. Yours definitely is subjected to sample variation. My 24-120 F4 is as close as it can get to the 24-70. I do notice a difference through extensive starring and peeping. It mainly lies in the high frequencies and contrast, meaning more micro details clarity. But that is not what most lanndscape fine art photographers are after these days anyway. So my 24-70 2.8 is my weapon of choice. At stopped down aperture it produces image more like a prime lens to my eyes. Plus, 2.8 is gonna prove itself versatile if my trips bring me to places where I just cant setup a tripod on scene. The only real caveat people have to watch out with these mid range zooms from Nikon is that they're notoriously heavy in vignetting, just like old counter parts.
As a wide angle junkie, the 14-30mm/4 was what sold me on the Z system. So light and tiny. Good infrared performance, too. The 24-70mm/4 is another great infrared performer and can be found used for cheap. I dropped mine and put a big dent in it so now I can't really sell it. Still works perfectly. But I'd take the versatility of the 24-120mm/4 over the 24-70mm/4. In fact, I went all the way to the 24-200 for versatility, and use the 50mm/1.8 and 105mm/2.8 when I need contrast and edge sharpness.
Here's the thing, the vast majority of photos you're gonna take in are in the 24-70 range, so this is where you should make your first big purchase when it comes to lenses should start. Because if you try to save money here, you'll regret it and you'll end up buying that f2.8 lens in the end. So $5 says you'll be buying it inside a year from the time of your purchase.
I use 24-120mm f4 and 20mm f1.8 on my Z7 for hiking (by now around 1000km with that setup), 20mm for wide angle generally but also specifically for low light (only carry a tiny tripod) and astro, I can't cover 14-20mm but the f1.8 and stellar sharpness make up for that. What I love about the Z7 + 24-120 is that I can easily crop down to 20MP getting an equivalent of 185mm vocal length and when cropping the soft corners are of no concern.
I started with the 24-70 f4 and now have switched to the 24-120 f4. Aside from sharpness, one consideration for me was sunstars. The 24-120 produces much more pleasing sunstars with clean, pointed spikes than the 24-70. That’s more important to my landscape photography than marginal corner sharpness. I also liked the 77mm filter size and longer reach (pairs well with the 100-400). It also just feels built better and more “premium” in the hand - not a huge fan of the twist to unlock on the 24-70.
The sunstars were important to me too, I went from the Tamron 24-70 G2 lens to the Nikon 24-70 F4 and was dissapointed at the poor sunstars it makes. Except at F4 for some weird reason! The 24-120 F4 has much more pleasing sunstars, even better than the Tamron. The Nikon 24-70 2.8 G lens was absolutely abysmal for sunstars as well, as was the 17-35 2.8 that made up the other half of my landscape kit. The 24-120 is a joy to use.
I shoot now for two years landscape with the z24-70/4 as well and I find it to be a fantastic lens! In germany this lens is used extremly cheap. I think you can buy one for 350€.
Love the banter between you and Gavin. It might not have been "scientific" (which is where the magazines and professional reviewers come in), but you showed us some real world images and the output the three lenses produce. For most photographers how a lens performs in the field matters most, along with weight and price.
Beautifully explained. All doubts cleared. No need to opt for 24-70 2.8 for double the price. But my choice is now 24-120 with more reach n reasonably priced. Well done Thomas
I tested all those lenses, there is no difference in color, it's very neutral. Any difference in color you see is an artifact of this experiment, more likely just an AWB. There isn't perceptible difference in contrast either. When it comes to resolution they are very close, there are weaknesses and strengths but they are not easily perceivable. Don't rely on random potentially misfocused images. Poorly executed testing is the explanation of any differences you notice.
The 24-120mm has been a favorite since my D3 days. Now, the Z mount is even sharper at all focal lengths. I did hold on the my f/mount 14-24mm f/2.8 when I moved to the Z9, it's just awesome.
I own the 24-120 f4s and it's a beast. Excellent sharpness, superior flare control, that extra reach with less weight, it's amazing. Am 100% sure it's optically superior to the 24-70 f4. I think your copy has issues. Cuz almost every optical comparisons available online, rates the 24-120 better.
For landscape, a Z7 will do everything that a Z7ii will do and you can pick them up for very little. You might save enough to buy a 14-30 f4 to go with your 100-400. This will give you amazing range with just three lenses.
I sold all my lenses and kept only the 24-120. A bit later I will save some for the 14-30 (maybe). But the 24-120 I find very good in terms of sharpness and I really like the 5x zoom.
I agree with your choice. The Z 24-70 f/4 performs surprisingly well in all situations I threw at it. Its compact size and light weight make me want to bring my camera to more places. The rotate to lock-unlock lens some complained about is also a non-issue; it’s easy to get used to, remained nice and tight over extensive use, and can withstand light rain. Overall, it’s a great value for money.
When I switched from DX to a Z7ii, I wanted the equiv of my 17-70, so the 24-120 F4 won, and it's my go to lens besides a 200-500 when I need some reach. Fantastic quality, didn't completely break the bank! Can't fault it.
The 24-120 was my pick. I came from a 24-70 f2.8 and 70-200 f4 combo and thought about just dropping the 24-70 f2.8 f mount for the 24-70 f4 z mount. I then really started to think about what I wanted in my bag and realized that the 24-120 could eliminate the need to carry my 70-200 f4 when I am really weight restricted without restricting my focal length choices AS much. Now yes 120 vs 200 is a difference but it is a difference that is much easier to swallow than 70 vs 200 if I had only gone with the 24-70 f4. Having the option to consolidate from 2 lenses to 1 is far and away more of a weight savings than any change between lenses could have gotten me so I am more than happy with the slight IQ sacrifice of the 24-120. I still have the 70-200 if I really want to shoot that last 80mm but it has been going out less and less.
I went from the 24-70 f4 to the 24-120 f4. I noticed no difference in quality, but that extra reach is welcome, and why I bought it. That said, you can pick up a used 24-70 f4 for under £400, and if you're going to have the 100-400 anyway ... Edit: And then I got the end of the video I realised I needn't have bothered saying anything. Note to self, in future, wait 'til the end.
I’ve been a huge proponent of f/4 lenses for landscape photography for years. I just don’t get why people saddle themselves with the extra size, weight and price of an f/2.8, just for that one stop they will never use. Especially with the ability of todays sensors to control noise and todays editing software to eliminate what little creeps through. P.S.: Mr Fototripper is not going to be happy. I love it!!!
I’m not surprised. I got the lens with my D7 in Jan 2019. I’m just blown away with it. I see no need for the extra weight of the other lens. If I need to zoom to 100 mm I crop in post. Im told the other two lenses make nicer sunstars. You might want to check that as you have all three - if that is important. I look forward to the video from the trip some time in the future.
I just got the Z8. Upgraded from the D850. I’m blown away. The focus system!!!!! What I understand it’s way above the 7? I know your landscape, however when the bird/animal/person comes into prospect. The eye tracking is something I could NEVER give up. Thanks for the channel
Made same choice for the same reasons with Canon mirrorless a while back: main kit - 14-35 f/4, 24-105 f/4 and 70-200 f/4. Also have the 24-240 for those only one lens moments. Nice to see the pros willing to consider these alternatives too.
Great comparisons. I shoot Astro so I upgraded my F mount to the Z : 14-24 2.8, 24-70 2.8 and kept my F 70-200 and plan to pick up the 100-400 to finsh out the bag. Add in the 85 1.8 and Macro 105 and I'm complete. All great lenses and all will do you well.
Well I do a lot of portraits and I use DXO with lens profiles to develop my RAW files so the 24-120 was an easy choice. I have the 100-400 as well. As I sometimes do fast moving things like racing cars, planes and birds the Z8 is also an easy choice.
I have the 24-120 f/4, the 24-70 2.8, the 70-200 2.8 and, for wide stuff and astro, the 20mm 1.8. All great lenses. My wife bought me the 24-120 for Christmas as a “travel lens”. What’s interesting is, since then, it’s been glued to the camera most of the time; and mostly at the expense of the 24-70 2.8. These days for landscapes I interchange between the 24-120 and the 70-200, the latter most often with the 1.4x extender attached (the Z mount extenders suffer almost nil loss of image quality IMO). So with two lenses, I have 24-280mm fully covered. It’s a no brainer for me. The 24-120 has become my most used lens.
My unsolicited two pence: the sensor cover on the Z8 makes it great for landscape. I also assign metering to the Fn 3 on the back so most of the non-exposure functions are on the left side of the camera. And, I just learned about the recall camera settings feature, which I set up on Fn 2 in case an interesting bird or critter crosses my path. Plus, it seems to me that the Z8 will get more firmware updates than the Z7ii.
the sensor shield is not that much of an issue on the z6/z7 and mark2 versions. Theres a workaround and its better than nothing, turn the camera on, remove the battery and take out your lens. When u do so the sensor shield will be deployed and u can safely swap lenses without risk of getting the sensor dirty. battery in, camera back on , press the shutter and it opens again
@@ThatNorma err... that's not a 'sensor shield' on the Z6/7, it's the mechanical shutter and I’m pretty sure your shutter is a lot more delicate than the sensor.
In the Canon world which you were a part, the best workhorse lens is the 24-105mm F4 L lens. I never leave home without it. Range and Macro. The compositions, the light, the mood is what I look for. Pixel sharp is only for geeks. The 100-400mm f4 L lens is my second when I want to reach out and touch something.
Thanks, great comparison. And welcome to our world of retail purchasing. I returned my first copy of the 24-120 for the reasons you stated as it underperformed the 24-70 f2.8. Later on I tried it again as money and wanting more reach came into play again and the second copy almost 8 months later was sharp as can be all around. (Sold my f2.8). That and my 100-400 are it. And I can't say for certain, but I'm betting that you'll keep the 7ii as I had the 8 for a day last week and can't justify the weight, the extra money, or all the bells and whistles I wouldn't use. I'd rather wait for a possible Z 7iii or similar and maybe get same improved AF, processor, flippy screen and maybe even more MP. Good luck and enjoy your trip.
Thanks for the extra validation! I had made the same comparison and same conclusion when i purchased mine. That 24-70 f4 lens makes some GORGEOUS images
When you shot Canon, you used an unstabilized EF 70-200 F/4L and got great results with it. I shoot Canon mirrorless now and my main lens is the RF 24-105 F/4L. I don't need F/2.8 and the extra 35mm at the long end are really handy. I think you're gonna love that Z8 even if it's more camera than you really need.
Good choice Tom. I own this lens for to same reasons as you. Yes it is absolutely the best choice of for landscapes. The weight, the size and the quality are stunning for this price. You will have a lot of fun and good quality images of your trip.
Enjoyable video. I do think the 24-70 f4 is a brilliant lens. I love mine. The other thing to remember is that if you are buying a new Z7ii, you could probably buy it in kit with the 24-70 f4 - thus reducing the price considerably from the £950 list price! The cheapest price I can see online currently for the Z7ii is £2549. The cheapest I've found the Z7ii kit with the 24-70 f4 is £2959 - thus making the cost of the 24-70 f4 just £410!
You know, I hate how obsessed with things that don't even matter. Story is King. Use what you have to its Strengths and stop fussing over what you don't have. Take what you got and be creative with it!
There is always a compromise, suit whatever works best for you. When it comes to quality and light sensitivity I really like primes. I'd pick 2 or 3 focal lengths I know I would use the most (28 and 50mm, and maybe an additional 20mm or 85/105 ish) and buy those who deliver the best bang for the buck. Additionally I'd keep one zoom for flexibility, I'd recon that would be the 24-120 in this case. I would also consider buying the FTZ II adapter, which opens up a huge range of (used) lenses. Older primes with an F-mount which still are good to todays standards, go away for bargain prizes these days. I keep the compatibility with my F100 and F3's with older lenses - which would mean this is an extra option for you to explore (and yes, the Epson V850 can pull some quality out of those 35mm negatives, albeit somewhat "artistic" due to film grain). Buying the fastest glass is not always the most sensible for my wallet and my back. Given I soly shoot for pleasure I really want to keep it that way - keeping stuff simple helps a lot.
The 24-200 is better for most people, the difference in optical performance is negligible and the weight, size and convenience more than make up for that. Rarely found I need something longer or wider.
I absolutely love the 24-70 f/2.8, I do a lot of low light shooting and the difference in light gathering in a F/2.8 vs F/4 is vast. IMO I even use the 14-24 for milkyway shots, love all the F/2.8 Z mount lenses.
Glad you came to a conclusion, hope your new lenses and camera serve you well on your adventures. I like your videos, no matter what, because of your honesty. I think oooh it's Wednesday, Thomas Heaton, will have a video out.
I recently went from the 24-70 to the 24-120 and I can't say that I've noticed a meaningful difference between the two. I'm sure if I shot side-by-side and pixel peeped I would see the flaws of the longer zoom, but the extra reach is really a meaningful benefit for me.
@jonfletcher147 I have found in the past 5 months that vignetting can be a problem with the 24-120, more so than the 24-70. The extra reach is still worth that tradeoff though.
As one or two others have said: Get the 24-70/4 as a bundle kit with the camera. Save a load of money. You can also get them used/mint for under £400. No brainer. The missing 30mm between 70 and 100 (you say you're buying the 100-400) is just a case of cropping... not a problem on a 46MP sensor
Really enjoyed the video. remembering younger you a couple of years back when you started to think about leaving canon und mentioned how horrible gear videos are... and then came the beer commercial. just perfect.
The 24-120 f/4 is a spectacular lens, in fact Nikon has created what I think is the best "budget" lineup from 14 - 400. The 24-70 2.8 is miles better than the 24-120 if you are shooting wide open and looking at edge to edge sharpness.
I chose the 24-120 to go with my Z8, it will take the place of my old Tamron 18-400 f mount. I also have the 70-200 f2.8 and will soon be getting the 180-600. They suit my type of photography which is mostly Sport, Wildlife and Aviation..
Nikon have nailed it with the Z system. The 50mm f1.8 prime is outstanding. Build quality is not as good as the F mount glass: my 24-70 f2.8 had to go back to Nikon after 8 months because the inner barrel was loose. It’s now got dust behind the main element. Also, Z raw files are part-processed in camera and you can’t switch that off. I wouldn’t go back now. Overall, it’s a great system and the part-processed f4 images are very good, but if you want maximum resolution from the Z7 II, the f2.8 is better for large format printing.
As a landscape photographer, most often, I differentiate my subject from “background” scenery with vignetting or with sharpness. So, even when a lens is sharp around the edges, I most often blur the edges so that my main subject gets more attention. So, for me, the 24-120mm lens (along with the 14-30mm and the 100-400mm) finds its way into my camera bag as a part of my 3 lens selection.
Fun video, Tom - especially Gavin’s anti-promo! I bought Canon’s RF 24-70 2.8 a few months back to match up with my 100-500. With a 50mm 1.8, it’s perfect for me. If I start actually walking or hiking (instead of only driving) to my locations, I’ll have to rethink my life choices, because those two lenses - plus the drone, and all the other sh*t - are bloody heavy.
This was the first video I have seen of yours and was thoroughly entertained. When you proposed the comparison I said to myself, the 24-70 f/4 is the practical winner, the 2.8 is better for limited space portrait shots and the 24-120 would be the most practical travel and casual shooting. I had the 24-70 f4 as long as I have had my Z6, in the first batch received by my camera store because it was bundled as a kit. I had 18 best Nikkor lenses for my D850 and D800 in the range of 14mm to 200mm. I have the 24-70 2.8 in F mount so I assumed with the include FTZ that would be my mid range lens and maybe keep the f/4 z version for tourism, light walking around causual shooting. After pretty compete testing, the f4 beat the 2.8 in lack of CA, and corner to corner sharpness and color. That surprised but adding the 50 1.8 and 85 1.8 as low weight travel primes, until I tested agains my Sigma ART 85 and 50 1.4, although in the center of the frame both did very well towards the corners the S lenses were clearly better but the biggest difference was CA, undetectable in both S lenses, and behavior when having a light source in the frame, such as portrait against the setting sun at the beach. All the F mount lense had problems with that with flare, but none of the S lenses did. The Sigma ART lenses had more pleasant out of focus rendering in static tests but in real world shooting such as a portrait session outdoors the overall blur was creamier and smoother. My wide angle zoom that gets lots of work is the F mounth 15-30 2.8 Tamron G2. I still have my Nikkor 14-24 but since getting the Tamron, at 1/2 the price is just better in every criteria such as very effect VR, less distortion in the corners, sharper over the full width of the frame, color, flare, and feel/handling My main subjects are portraits, head shots, actor portfolios, ballet, opera and other commercial applictions and my personal shooting is street, clubs, landscape. For my applications the Z family is the best but I do not shoot birds in flight or sports. From my experience the often complained about AF of the z bodies have not been experienced and have a higher keeper rate in location or studio work better than even my D850. The S lenses alone justify the brand choice. The 85 1.2 is in a class by itself.
Somehow you manage to even make this content entertaining, and I don't even shoot Nikon! I love your honesty in this kind of video. and I even find your humour hits! Keep doin what you do Thomas, I will never miss a video!
All lenses perform best 2-3 stops from maximum aperture, so as landscape/nature photographers F4 lenses are usually the best at F8, F11, which is great for us! Get the 14-30 F4, its great where we need it. I actually bought the 24-200z as well because its as good through 120mm where it matters most for what I do, but you also get 120-200 for Free ;) Also, these are on the 7ZII. Cheers
The 24-120mm is interesting as I've not noticed any issues with my lens. The biggest advantage for me was the extra focal length which made it much more usable for me. I have a 70-200mm, but doing event photography found myself constantly switching lenses to get that little bit closer when using the 24-70mm. The 24-120mm solved it.
The 24-120 f4 isn't quite as sharp in the corners as the 24-70 f4. So you're trading money and corner sharpness for a measly 50mm more reach. Not a smart deal imho, but obviously the one Nikon would like us to make, seeing how they're aggressively marketing the 24-120 on all their affiliated channels across UA-cam!
@@CC3GROUNDZERO but at center is sharp, so the subject will be sharp and at the end the result will be better because of the greater focal length and no need for crop.
Interesting and entertaining as always. I bought the Z 24-120mm f4 S when I purchased my Z7ii, and while the Z7ii moved out to make room for a Z9 and later joined by a Z8, the Z 24-120mm remains the lens that's on the camera for hikes, travel, other outdoor uses and the grab-and-go situations that life presents. I do have a need for low light capabilities in shooting lots of movement photos at indoor dog shows where I normally use the Z 70-200mm f2.8 S lens, and I think about getting the Z 24-70mm f2.8 S to add wide-angle capabilities for those situations. But the Z 24-70 f4 doesn't really fit my use case as the Z 24-120mm f4 is remarkable and just as sharp in the center where it matters to me and is perfectly fine for wide-angle and movement outdoors.
I'm just viewing your videos for the first time. Thank you for accepting input from us plebs. - I see that the Z7 II is a full-frame camera... Well - shooting at the same focal length, the same f/stop, the same ISO using two different lenses from the same manufacturer - Should yield very similar images. If they don't, there's a huge problem going on. - From my experience, I would say - chase after fast glass. No it's not primarily because of bokeh... It's because shooting at f/4 minimum sucks... at least when the light is marginal / dimming. For me, there was too many times that I missed the shot - because the lens would not open up enough. Zooming in/out at a minimum of f/4 did not help, obviously. - Of course if you're always shooting with great sunlight conditions, then just ignore everything I said. - So if you're still reading this... what I'm saying is - 'focus' on prime lenses... primarily.
I'm no professional, only a enthusiastic Hobby shooter... with not so much time. So I love cameras with high quality JPGs. So my combis: z8 with 24-120 and GH6 with olympus pro lenses.
Interesting comparison. I just switched to the Z72 from the D850 and decided to go for the 24-200 for landscapes. One lens to do 95% of the work liberates you in so many ways when you're in the field. I did try the 24-70 2.8 and image quality was something else, but at the end of the day it's all about priorities and compromises. The only real issue I have with the 24-200 is the lack of a M/A switch on the lens. Oh, and I also struggle with manual focusing but that's more of a "mirrorless era" kind of thing 😄 Whatever you choose I'm sure the images you'll take will be great!
I had to make this exact same decision between these three lenses a month ago. I ended up choosing the 24-70mm f/2.8. Which turned out to have a broken focus ring. So I got a replacement. Which also had a broken focus ring. Then I gave up. So the decision ultimately came down to the 24-120mm f/4 and 24-70mm f/4, and it was pretty simple: the 120 is fantastically versatile, but notably bigger and more expensive than the 70. When buying secondhand, the 70 can be had for 1/3rd of the price of the 120, which made it a much easier decision for me. It's a bargain at ~350 quid and a very solid lens.
Key message: mind sample dispersion. The corners were rather soft at 70mm on the 24-70 f/4 tested by C. Frost, and his 24-120 was excellent. That may change your mind (and how can you be 100% sure that you will never need the range 70 to 100?).
I have the 24-70 f4 and the 24-200 f5.6. they are super sharp and weather sealed. Stewart mcglennon swears by the 24-200. He did a video on, and it's incredible for the money. Personally though I can confirm the 24-70 f4 is incredible and is ridiculously cheap. I paid £500 for mine grey import.
Good video! My kit right now is a Z7, 14-30 f4, 24-120 f4 and the 100-400, for nature and wildlife. I'm waiting for my Z8 which will be used mostly for wildlife. I absolutely LOVE the 24-120, it stays on the camera about 80% of the time and the best walk about lens I've ever used (I've been at it for at least 40 years, formerly as a photojournalist). I like having the continuous range of 14mm all the way to 400mm in such a lightweight kit, my back thanks me every day. So much different than the photojournalist kit: 2 dslrs, 17-35 f2.8 on one shoulder, 70-200 f2.8 on the other, a great kit, but unnecessary for what I do now. After 40 years, NOW is the best time to be a photographer!
I don't particularly like 24-70 range. In my experience it's the most uninteresting focal range. I use wide angle a lot, 16-35 is really the most useful range, sometimes I need telephoto. When I need 24-70 range it likely means I'm indoors and a prime would work better.
Thomas, I love this video. I find it entertaining to see you experiment with various brands, and I have to admit that my favourite moment was when you presented the beer. This is authentic, and let's face it, I completely agree and accept any form of advertising you choose to include in your videos. I can only say that the amount of love and effort you put into your videos is amazing because I have a channel of my own and have been inspired by your content for the past few months. You have the right to entertain us in any way you choose, and hopefully you will earn enough money to do so for many years. We must always take advice from the experts, they say. That's what I'm trying to do as I look up to you. Cheers!✌
I think the F4 will definitely be the best choice given how much hiking you do! I have the f2.8 version and the 100-400 as my two lenses, and it's an amazing combo, but it the 2.8 is pretty heavy for hiking, especially if you don't need the 2.8.
At the end of the day none of these lenses is a 'bad' choice, you just have decide which one has the right balance of features for your needs. I have the 24-120 for my light all purpose lens and will be grabbing the 24-70 2.8 in the next month or so, for my low light/concert photography. I love my 1.8 primes but it's a pain to carry and swap them out all while possibly missing moments at an event. I think it will make a potent (but chonky) low-light two lens kit, alongside my 70-200 2.8. My choices would probably be different if I had to hike with the gear versus carrying it from a parking lot to a venue though.
I've been using the 24-70 F4 since it's release and IMO this is by far the best lens cost/image quality ratio. It stands it's ground against the F2.8 version and nothing, absolutely nothing beats its size, weight and compactness. There is virtually no difference in image quality between the two, besides the aperture size. And it's decently weather proof as well. There isn't a single speck of dust inside mine after using it in all kinds of weather for the last 4 years. So I don't think you'll regret buying it even for a second. And if you get it as a kit lens bundle it comes at about 400 pounds. Cheers :)
I couldn’t agree more and for your photography this is the perfect kit. I think the only areas where you might get more from the Z8 are for star gazing and auroras etc plus the portrait option with the rear screen but that’s about it. I’ve just bought a like new 24-70 2.8 for 1,700 so thought this was a good option for me but i need this for event photography and the extra stop of light and additional depth of field is important for me. However, the F4 for landscape is perfect so a great choice and well worth saving the money 👍
I told you this on Instagram last week - "I know you'll get the 14-24 f2.8, but the 14-30 f4 is really fantastic. It would be my hiking choice...in fact, it is!!" - I think you'll find the same as the 24-70 f4, which I think is one of the very best lenses I've ever owned.
This wasn't tedious - it was actually quite entertaining! I think it was quite clear from the get-go which lens would be the choice, but maybe I'm biased as a m43 user … 😁
I agree that the 24-70 f4 is a superb lens. I was florred by the quality when I first looked at the results. The one I'm wanting is the 70-200 f4 to complete my f4 z trinity. I don't need f2.8 in a zoom.
Im SO glad to see you using Nikon! ive been using Nikon since 2006, Been using the Z9 for just over a year, and my 24-120 f4 never leaves my camera body!
You can get a brand new 24-70 f4 white box for about £400. Much cheaper second hand. For what you're getting for the money I have it in my bag despite owning the 24-120 f4. Love both.
I own both the NIKKOR Z 24-70mm f/2.8 S and the NIKKOR Z 24-120mm f/4 S and shoot the Nikon Z7ii - I also own a AF-S NIKKOR 70-200mm f/2.8E FL ED VR (with the FTZ). My choice is coming down to if I only carry one lens, the 24-120/4 wins out every time! It's the perfect range. I can always clean up a little in the editing. The 70mm to 120mm range is something I want all the time, but also like the wide angle. The 70-200 is a brilliant lens and I am very happy with it, it's big and I do not want to carry it on some trips. These are tough calls for those on a budget. If I had your dilemma, I might have to consider that the 100-400 is great, but missing 70-100 is not worth that loss. I would get the NIKKOR Z 24-120mm f/4 S. Another observation is that the shots where light is facing the lens (sunrise, city lights etc.) the NIKKOR Z 24-70mm f/2.8 S is by FAR the best at getting sunstars! Hands down! I cannot sell it because it's too versatile and so much better for portraits and bokeh etc.
For anyone on a budget (the non professionals amongst us) the F2.8 was off the table. What swung the 24-70 F4 for me was that secondhand it was over less than half the price of the 24-120 f4. I brought a mint used copy for under £400. Complete bargain. (and like you my telephoto choice is a 100-400, although the Z version was/is too expensive I got a used Tamron 100-400 with an FTZ mk 2 adapter for less than a third of the Nikon Z 100-400.
Interesting results you had on the 24-120. I have both this lens and the 24-70 F4. I recently tested them with a tabletop setup with items to check contrast, color and sharpness. I tested them at 24, 35, 50, and 70 and of course 120 for the longer lens. I also tested at every whole aperture between f2 and 11. At every aperture and focal length, my 24-120 came out slightly ahead of the 24-70 in both sharpness and contrast. Most of the reviews I’ve followed found the same thing. I wonder if sample variation played a part in your results
concur ... I have both and the 24-70 f4 is a really fine lens, but the 24-120 is astonishingly sharp ... however, the cost of the 70 used is hard to beat if you are on a buget.
I ditched the 24-70mm f/4 for the 24-120mm f/4 as my daily driver lens, especially when I'm on my travels. I have not regretted that decision at all, as as you say there is not a great deal between the lenses in the real world. The extra focal range is always useful I find though on a single lens travel solution walk about lens and helps you travel lighter (always have a 35mm or 28mm prime with me too for when you need that wider aperture at night too though).
Thomas, Thank you for sparing us the image by image zooming in pixel peeping. (We can’t see the differences on UA-cam anyway). I’ve gotta make this same choice soon myself.
First (almost). Prior to seeing the video - undoubtedly 24-70/2.8. Quality is unmatched. F4s nikons seem too flat to me. Didn't try the 24-120 but I doubt it'll be any different. Although I'm not sure whether I could find the meaningful difference myself😅
Great choice with the F4 version I love using the 24-70 F4 on my Z6ii that I've owned for a little less than 2 years now.. My friend traded his F4 for the 24-120 and says there's no difference at all in terms of image quality.. I've rented the 2.8 lens for a freelance shoot a year back, yes it's kinda superior because of that extra stop of light, but it's downside is that it costs the same as my camera body.. For now, I'm pretty happy with the 24-70 F4 lens, but who knows what'll happen next!!!
I have a different view of the pairing of zooms... When you closed out and said you wouldn't miss the "hole" between 70 and 100 in your selection... I believe the best way to travel is to make sure the zooms overlap, therefore the 24-120 would be and is my choice. By overlapping, you might not need to switch lenses. The 14-24 is too heavy for travel, the 14-30 has that funky resting position you can't take pictures at, you must unlock it to get to 14. The 17-28 was my choice. Not an S lens, but quite good. Back to the 120... I have a 24-200 but really miss the close-ups that I wanted. The magnification ratio of the 24-120 ultimately swayed me. It lets you get the best close-ups without buying a macro, and let's it be more of a multifunction lens than either 24-70. Mag ratio is 0.39 for the 24-120 whilst only .22 and .3 for the 2.8 and 4 respectively. I really like to get flowers, leaves, bees and such while out and about. Having 50 more mm and 33-77% better magnification ratio put me over the top. It's not always about edge sharpness, (you might need to crop that 70 mm if you really needed 90mm for the shot, losing sharpness), but can also be about pictures you might miss with the other lenses. Make sense?
Oh, the beer is>>>>> wait I bought the 24-200 and the 14-30 F4. Good walk around lens, served me well during a week in Paris. I haven't noticed any sharpness issues. The only downside to the 24-200 was the lack of useful close focus. I used to be a news photographer and would walk around with 2-3 motor driven cameras and lens from 18 to 300mm. Plus film and flash, etc. Not good for the back and shoulders. And, modern sharpening software really helps.
I'll share with you what a photographer friend of mine shared with me when I once scrutinized the grain in an photograph that I took. What he said to me single handedly changed the way I approach photography from that day forward. He said "I believe anyone who insists of studying the grain of an image instead of appreciating its content, is missing the point of a photograph". In other words, if it's a good photograph, it will stand on its own and no one will be scrutinizing its sharpness. If it's a poorly composed photograph, no amount of sharpness will make it better. It's an important lesson to learn. Some of the most memorable photos in the world aren't optically perfect because it's not the sharpness that made it a great photograph. It’s the story it tells.
Yes, that is a great excuse for grainy out of focus images.
Times have changed and tastes along with it.
If your camera consistently misses the focus then toss it and move to a brand that knows how to make their cameras focus.
What about grainy focused images?
@@joegrossinger3381 “Sharpness is a bourgeois concept” is a favorite quote by Henri Cartier-Bresson AND "There is nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept." Ansel Adams. 😉😉😉
Then why bother with FF at all? (A rhetorical question, I agree with what your saying.)
iPhone is the way
As someone who's shot Nikon for over a decade professionally, I thought I'd throw a few thoughts having used all three lenses!
Right now the 24-120 has earned a place in my daily bag, it's a really great choice for the versatility (now obviously I do shoot wildlife so the extra reach is handy) Wide open or stopped down (as used most of the time) it's excellent on a Z9 and has produced some of my favourite images of the last few months. The extra reach is super, especially if you want one lens for landscapes and nature photography, perfect if you do also like shooting panoramics.
The 24-70 2.8 is a great workhorse of lens as you say, for events etc, but in reality you buy it to use it at 2.8. My old 24-70 2.8 G is still in my kit for when I "need it", although usually if I want fast glass I'll take the primes.
The 24-70 f4 is great, optically excellent and easily the best value, would I swap back to it from the 24-120 just to save 100g, no way.
If you're making an image that needs "perfect corner sharpness" you won't be at f4/f5.6 anyway so at f8-11 the 24/120 is for almost all purposes excellent and the versatility for when the light shows up/subject shows up and you want that composition a bit tighter, those 50mm, well they are worth their weight in gold (add the DX crop functionality and well you've got 180mm)!
Great vids as always Cheers (from another Tom)
Just getting my first so this is really REALLY helpful when trying to budget for the camera AND lense. Thank yoh!!
Great advice, Tom.
Thanks for so informative comment! I bought z7ii and used my F f 2.8 lenses with it till now, but it’s a high time to switch to Z lenses and I am totally lost with of these 3 I should buy. So the video and your comment are super helpful to me! I will buy 24-120 as a bit more reach is important for me and as someone commented earlier, the sharpness on the corners is not the most important factor.
The Nikon 24-120mm F4 is my go to for product photography and portraits, plus weddings. Love the extra range. However I use a second body with a 85mm f1.8 when I want softer background for portraits.
14-30mm f4, 24-120mm f4 and 100-400mm are the perfect landscape set up. Add a 24-200mm for the casual lightweight hiking set up and you’re done.
The 24-70/4S is the only one from these 3 that work well in infrared. Also, there are a lot of used ones on the market for far less money since it's a kit lens.
I don't want you to do gear reviews regularly, but this was fun, I excitedly watched the whole thing. I can't wait to hear/see more about this trip.
If we take out the pixel peeping for a second, personally I find the 24-120 f/4 to be probably the most versatile. Yes the 24-70 2.8 is the sharpest of the three (but again, we aren't really pixel peeping) and the 24-70 f/4 is the cheapest (especially if bought used) but I feel that the 24-120 gives the most range and is almost a single lens solution for most landscape photography shooting. I would think most of th time, most people will be at f/5.6 or higher and since it covers the range of 24-70, but perhaps doesn't have the speed of the 2.8, it's a good balance, and the price is affordable (you could buy two 24-120's for the price of a single new 24-70 2.8 when not on sale). Heck, for the price of a 24-70 2.8 you could buy both the 24-120 f/4 and a new 70-200 f/4G F-mount lens probably (slightly over but close enough) and you'd have a very useful range for landscape from 24 to 200mm with great image quality. But my vote would be for the 24-120. I actually sold my 24-70 f/4 to get the 2.8, but since getting the 24-120 I honestly don't use the 2.8 much anymore except for specific things relating to landscape, but if I'm hiking, or only want to take one lens, it's the 24-120.
The 24-70 f/4 is a no-brainer when you can get it for only an extra 400 quid as a package deal with the Z7ii. I picked that lens to go on my trip-of-a-lifetime Inca trail trek to Machu Picchu and was not disappointed by its performance.
at f8-11, most modern lenses should perform the same sharpness wise. So for landscape, just pick the lightest lenses as weight makes a much bigger difference in whether you will have the motivation to get the image in the first place 😂
Yes exactly the value of the wider aperture lenses are when you shoot them wide open both in the ability to shoot in low light wide open and in quality at their widest f4-5.6
I wish that were true. He even noted in the video at 13:02 that the upper right corner of the 24-120 was "much softer." That's been my experience with many lenses - it gets too mushy on the edges/corners even at f/8-f/11. Then there's sample variation. Buying lenses is truly a pain in the ass if you really care about the quality across the whole frame. A lens should be tested thoroughly as soon as you get it, and NOT with the kind of pics he used. You need the whole frame to be composed of detail that's close to the focus point. But I do agree that you often don't have to get the big 2.8 zooms if you're needing high quality at f/8.
Tom, you could make watching lawn bowling, curling, grass growing and paint drying fun and interesting. As always my favourite photography channel. The only one I refuse to miss.
Thankyou Thomas Heaton I was slightly kicking myself when they brought the 24-120 f4 out as I have the 24-70 f4 and knowing how good these new Z lenses are I thought it would be just as good but with more reach, but if I sold my 24-70 f4 I wouldn't have got even half the money for 24-120. So now after watching this video I feel a lot happier about my 24-70 f4 😁
I have just bought a mint boxed 24-70 f4 used for £320 . These lenses are crazy good value used . I bought it as a lighter walk around lens to save weight . I still have my 24-70 f2.8 but to be honest I usually pick up the f4 . It’s just lighter and more than good enough 👍
I had the 24-120 F4 for a weeks shooting and returned it as i felt it lacked contrast over 100mm and was slightly soft at the edges, I am the proud owner of the 24-70 F2.8 and love using it and the results it gives, I keep my lenses over 10 years so need to be happy with them for the long term
>100mm lacks contrast, throws it out for max 70mm. 😂
Still owning both 24-120 F4 and 24-70 2.8 my assessment is similar. They're really close when you stop down and want corner sharpness. Yours definitely is subjected to sample variation. My 24-120 F4 is as close as it can get to the 24-70. I do notice a difference through extensive starring and peeping. It mainly lies in the high frequencies and contrast, meaning more micro details clarity. But that is not what most lanndscape fine art photographers are after these days anyway. So my 24-70 2.8 is my weapon of choice. At stopped down aperture it produces image more like a prime lens to my eyes. Plus, 2.8 is gonna prove itself versatile if my trips bring me to places where I just cant setup a tripod on scene. The only real caveat people have to watch out with these mid range zooms from Nikon is that they're notoriously heavy in vignetting, just like old counter parts.
As a wide angle junkie, the 14-30mm/4 was what sold me on the Z system. So light and tiny. Good infrared performance, too.
The 24-70mm/4 is another great infrared performer and can be found used for cheap. I dropped mine and put a big dent in it so now I can't really sell it. Still works perfectly.
But I'd take the versatility of the 24-120mm/4 over the 24-70mm/4. In fact, I went all the way to the 24-200 for versatility, and use the 50mm/1.8 and 105mm/2.8 when I need contrast and edge sharpness.
Here's the thing, the vast majority of photos you're gonna take in are in the 24-70 range, so this is where you should make your first big purchase when it comes to lenses should start. Because if you try to save money here, you'll regret it and you'll end up buying that f2.8 lens in the end. So $5 says you'll be buying it inside a year from the time of your purchase.
I use 24-120mm f4 and 20mm f1.8 on my Z7 for hiking (by now around 1000km with that setup), 20mm for wide angle generally but also specifically for low light (only carry a tiny tripod) and astro, I can't cover 14-20mm but the f1.8 and stellar sharpness make up for that. What I love about the Z7 + 24-120 is that I can easily crop down to 20MP getting an equivalent of 185mm vocal length and when cropping the soft corners are of no concern.
I have the 24-70 and have done for four years, I love it mate. Glad that you do too. Enjoy..
I started with the 24-70 f4 and now have switched to the 24-120 f4. Aside from sharpness, one consideration for me was sunstars. The 24-120 produces much more pleasing sunstars with clean, pointed spikes than the 24-70. That’s more important to my landscape photography than marginal corner sharpness. I also liked the 77mm filter size and longer reach (pairs well with the 100-400). It also just feels built better and more “premium” in the hand - not a huge fan of the twist to unlock on the 24-70.
The sunstars were important to me too, I went from the Tamron 24-70 G2 lens to the Nikon 24-70 F4 and was dissapointed at the poor sunstars it makes. Except at F4 for some weird reason! The 24-120 F4 has much more pleasing sunstars, even better than the Tamron. The Nikon 24-70 2.8 G lens was absolutely abysmal for sunstars as well, as was the 17-35 2.8 that made up the other half of my landscape kit. The 24-120 is a joy to use.
I shoot now for two years landscape with the z24-70/4 as well and I find it to be a fantastic lens! In germany this lens is used extremly cheap. I think you can buy one for 350€.
Love the banter between you and Gavin.
It might not have been "scientific" (which is where the magazines and professional reviewers come in), but you showed us some real world images and the output the three lenses produce. For most photographers how a lens performs in the field matters most, along with weight and price.
I feel the same. Love my 24-70/4 for the IQ and compact size and weight.
Beautifully explained. All doubts cleared. No need to opt for 24-70 2.8 for double the price. But my choice is now 24-120 with more reach n reasonably priced. Well done Thomas
The color rendition of the 2.8 lens in your images is superior. I have the 24-70 f4 and it is my "Go To" lens all day.
I tested all those lenses, there is no difference in color, it's very neutral. Any difference in color you see is an artifact of this experiment, more likely just an AWB. There isn't perceptible difference in contrast either. When it comes to resolution they are very close, there are weaknesses and strengths but they are not easily perceivable. Don't rely on random potentially misfocused images. Poorly executed testing is the explanation of any differences you notice.
I am glad you made the same decision, Thomas! Because I hadn't had opportunity to test these lens in advance.
The 24-120mm has been a favorite since my D3 days. Now, the Z mount is even sharper at all focal lengths. I did hold on the my f/mount 14-24mm f/2.8 when I moved to the Z9, it's just awesome.
I own the 24-120 f4s and it's a beast. Excellent sharpness, superior flare control, that extra reach with less weight, it's amazing. Am 100% sure it's optically superior to the 24-70 f4. I think your copy has issues. Cuz almost every optical comparisons available online, rates the 24-120 better.
For landscape, a Z7 will do everything that a Z7ii will do and you can pick them up for very little. You might save enough to buy a 14-30 f4 to go with your 100-400. This will give you amazing range with just three lenses.
I typically use the longer end of my 24-104 to isolate a subject from the background, in which case softness around the corners is a bonus!
I sold all my lenses and kept only the 24-120. A bit later I will save some for the 14-30 (maybe). But the 24-120 I find very good in terms of sharpness and I really like the 5x zoom.
I agree with your choice. The Z 24-70 f/4 performs surprisingly well in all situations I threw at it. Its compact size and light weight make me want to bring my camera to more places. The rotate to lock-unlock lens some complained about is also a non-issue; it’s easy to get used to, remained nice and tight over extensive use, and can withstand light rain. Overall, it’s a great value for money.
When I switched from DX to a Z7ii, I wanted the equiv of my 17-70, so the 24-120 F4 won, and it's my go to lens besides a 200-500 when I need some reach. Fantastic quality, didn't completely break the bank! Can't fault it.
The 24-120 was my pick. I came from a 24-70 f2.8 and 70-200 f4 combo and thought about just dropping the 24-70 f2.8 f mount for the 24-70 f4 z mount. I then really started to think about what I wanted in my bag and realized that the 24-120 could eliminate the need to carry my 70-200 f4 when I am really weight restricted without restricting my focal length choices AS much. Now yes 120 vs 200 is a difference but it is a difference that is much easier to swallow than 70 vs 200 if I had only gone with the 24-70 f4.
Having the option to consolidate from 2 lenses to 1 is far and away more of a weight savings than any change between lenses could have gotten me so I am more than happy with the slight IQ sacrifice of the 24-120. I still have the 70-200 if I really want to shoot that last 80mm but it has been going out less and less.
Sounds smart to me. Plus, you can always crop in for that last 80mm.
I went from the 24-70 f4 to the 24-120 f4. I noticed no difference in quality, but that extra reach is welcome, and why I bought it. That said, you can pick up a used 24-70 f4 for under £400, and if you're going to have the 100-400 anyway ...
Edit: And then I got the end of the video I realised I needn't have bothered saying anything. Note to self, in future, wait 'til the end.
I’ve been a huge proponent of f/4 lenses for landscape photography for years. I just don’t get why people saddle themselves with the extra size, weight and price of an f/2.8, just for that one stop they will never use. Especially with the ability of todays sensors to control noise and todays editing software to eliminate what little creeps through.
P.S.: Mr Fototripper is not going to be happy. I love it!!!
I’m not surprised. I got the lens with my D7 in Jan 2019. I’m just blown away with it. I see no need for the extra weight of the other lens. If I need to zoom to 100 mm I crop in post.
Im told the other two lenses make nicer sunstars. You might want to check that as you have all three - if that is important.
I look forward to the video from the trip some time in the future.
I just got the Z8. Upgraded from the D850. I’m blown away. The focus system!!!!! What I understand it’s way above the 7? I know your landscape, however when the bird/animal/person comes into prospect. The eye tracking is something I could NEVER give up. Thanks for the channel
Made same choice for the same reasons with Canon mirrorless a while back: main kit - 14-35 f/4, 24-105 f/4 and 70-200 f/4. Also have the 24-240 for those only one lens moments. Nice to see the pros willing to consider these alternatives too.
Great comparisons. I shoot Astro so I upgraded my F mount to the Z : 14-24 2.8, 24-70 2.8 and kept my F 70-200 and plan to pick up the 100-400 to finsh out the bag. Add in the 85 1.8 and Macro 105 and I'm complete. All great lenses and all will do you well.
Well I do a lot of portraits and I use DXO with lens profiles to develop my RAW files so the 24-120 was an easy choice. I have the 100-400 as well.
As I sometimes do fast moving things like racing cars, planes and birds the Z8 is also an easy choice.
I have the 14-30 and 24-70 f4 to go with my Z7, amazing gear. Nikon are doing a great job with the Z’s on quality and price.
I have the 24-120 f/4, the 24-70 2.8, the 70-200 2.8 and, for wide stuff and astro, the 20mm 1.8.
All great lenses. My wife bought me the 24-120 for Christmas as a “travel lens”. What’s interesting is, since then, it’s been glued to the camera most of the time; and mostly at the expense of the 24-70 2.8. These days for landscapes I interchange between the 24-120 and the 70-200, the latter most often with the 1.4x extender attached (the Z mount extenders suffer almost nil loss of image quality IMO). So with two lenses, I have 24-280mm fully covered.
It’s a no brainer for me. The 24-120 has become my most used lens.
My unsolicited two pence: the sensor cover on the Z8 makes it great for landscape. I also assign metering to the Fn 3 on the back so most of the non-exposure functions are on the left side of the camera. And, I just learned about the recall camera settings feature, which I set up on Fn 2 in case an interesting bird or critter crosses my path. Plus, it seems to me that the Z8 will get more firmware updates than the Z7ii.
the sensor shield is not that much of an issue on the z6/z7 and mark2 versions. Theres a workaround and its better than nothing, turn the camera on, remove the battery and take out your lens. When u do so the sensor shield will be deployed and u can safely swap lenses without risk of getting the sensor dirty. battery in, camera back on , press the shutter and it opens again
@@ThatNorma err... that's not a 'sensor shield' on the Z6/7, it's the mechanical shutter and I’m pretty sure your shutter is a lot more delicate than the sensor.
In the Canon world which you were a part, the best workhorse lens is the 24-105mm F4 L lens. I never leave home without it. Range and Macro. The compositions, the light, the mood is what I look for. Pixel sharp is only for geeks. The 100-400mm f4 L lens is my second when I want to reach out and touch something.
Thanks, great comparison. And welcome to our world of retail purchasing. I returned my first copy of the 24-120 for the reasons you stated as it underperformed the 24-70 f2.8. Later on I tried it again as money and wanting more reach came into play again and the second copy almost 8 months later was sharp as can be all around. (Sold my f2.8). That and my 100-400 are it.
And I can't say for certain, but I'm betting that you'll keep the 7ii as I had the 8 for a day last week and can't justify the weight, the extra money, or all the bells and whistles I wouldn't use. I'd rather wait for a possible Z 7iii or similar and maybe get same improved AF, processor, flippy screen and maybe even more MP. Good luck and enjoy your trip.
Thanks for the extra validation! I had made the same comparison and same conclusion when i purchased mine. That 24-70 f4 lens makes some GORGEOUS images
When you shot Canon, you used an unstabilized EF 70-200 F/4L and got great results with it. I shoot Canon mirrorless now and my main lens is the RF 24-105 F/4L. I don't need F/2.8 and the extra 35mm at the long end are really handy.
I think you're gonna love that Z8 even if it's more camera than you really need.
Good choice Tom. I own this lens for to same reasons as you. Yes it is absolutely the best choice of for landscapes. The weight, the size and the quality are stunning for this price. You will have a lot of fun and good quality images of your trip.
Enjoyable video. I do think the 24-70 f4 is a brilliant lens. I love mine. The other thing to remember is that if you are buying a new Z7ii, you could probably buy it in kit with the 24-70 f4 - thus reducing the price considerably from the £950 list price! The cheapest price I can see online currently for the Z7ii is £2549. The cheapest I've found the Z7ii kit with the 24-70 f4 is £2959 - thus making the cost of the 24-70 f4 just £410!
You know, I hate how obsessed with things that don't even matter. Story is King. Use what you have to its Strengths and stop fussing over what you don't have. Take what you got and be creative with it!
There is always a compromise, suit whatever works best for you. When it comes to quality and light sensitivity I really like primes. I'd pick 2 or 3 focal lengths I know I would use the most (28 and 50mm, and maybe an additional 20mm or 85/105 ish) and buy those who deliver the best bang for the buck. Additionally I'd keep one zoom for flexibility, I'd recon that would be the 24-120 in this case.
I would also consider buying the FTZ II adapter, which opens up a huge range of (used) lenses. Older primes with an F-mount which still are good to todays standards, go away for bargain prizes these days. I keep the compatibility with my F100 and F3's with older lenses - which would mean this is an extra option for you to explore (and yes, the Epson V850 can pull some quality out of those 35mm negatives, albeit somewhat "artistic" due to film grain).
Buying the fastest glass is not always the most sensible for my wallet and my back. Given I soly shoot for pleasure I really want to keep it that way - keeping stuff simple helps a lot.
The 24-200 is better for most people, the difference in optical performance is negligible and the weight, size and convenience more than make up for that. Rarely found I need something longer or wider.
I absolutely love the 24-70 f/2.8, I do a lot of low light shooting and the difference in light gathering in a F/2.8 vs F/4 is vast. IMO I even use the 14-24 for milkyway shots, love all the F/2.8 Z mount lenses.
I think you made the right choice. For cost, weight, size and image quality it seems like a great option for Nikon shooters.
Glad you came to a conclusion, hope your new lenses and camera serve you well on your adventures. I like your videos, no matter what, because of your honesty. I think oooh it's Wednesday, Thomas Heaton, will have a video out.
I recently went from the 24-70 to the 24-120 and I can't say that I've noticed a meaningful difference between the two. I'm sure if I shot side-by-side and pixel peeped I would see the flaws of the longer zoom, but the extra reach is really a meaningful benefit for me.
I have both and agree. (24-70 f4) Both sharp as hell and optically very similar. Brilliant lenses.
@jonfletcher147 I have found in the past 5 months that vignetting can be a problem with the 24-120, more so than the 24-70. The extra reach is still worth that tradeoff though.
As one or two others have said: Get the 24-70/4 as a bundle kit with the camera. Save a load of money. You can also get them used/mint for under £400. No brainer. The missing 30mm between 70 and 100 (you say you're buying the 100-400) is just a case of cropping... not a problem on a 46MP sensor
Really enjoyed the video. remembering younger you a couple of years back when you started to think about leaving canon und mentioned how horrible gear videos are... and then came the beer commercial. just perfect.
The 24-120 f/4 is a spectacular lens, in fact Nikon has created what I think is the best "budget" lineup from 14 - 400. The 24-70 2.8 is miles better than the 24-120 if you are shooting wide open and looking at edge to edge sharpness.
I chose the 24-120 to go with my Z8, it will take the place of my old Tamron 18-400 f mount. I also have the 70-200 f2.8
and will soon be getting the 180-600. They suit my type of photography which is mostly Sport, Wildlife and Aviation..
Nikon have nailed it with the Z system. The 50mm f1.8 prime is outstanding. Build quality is not as good as the F mount glass: my 24-70 f2.8 had to go back to Nikon after 8 months because the inner barrel was loose. It’s now got dust behind the main element. Also, Z raw files are part-processed in camera and you can’t switch that off. I wouldn’t go back now. Overall, it’s a great system and the part-processed f4 images are very good, but if you want maximum resolution from the Z7 II, the f2.8 is better for large format printing.
As a landscape photographer, most often, I differentiate my subject from “background” scenery with vignetting or with sharpness. So, even when a lens is sharp around the edges, I most often blur the edges so that my main subject gets more attention. So, for me, the 24-120mm lens (along with the 14-30mm and the 100-400mm) finds its way into my camera bag as a part of my 3 lens selection.
Fun video, Tom - especially Gavin’s anti-promo! I bought Canon’s RF 24-70 2.8 a few months back to match up with my 100-500. With a 50mm 1.8, it’s perfect for me. If I start actually walking or hiking (instead of only driving) to my locations, I’ll have to rethink my life choices, because those two lenses - plus the drone, and all the other sh*t - are bloody heavy.
This was the first video I have seen of yours and was thoroughly entertained. When you proposed the comparison I said to myself, the 24-70 f/4 is the practical winner, the 2.8 is better for limited space portrait shots and the 24-120 would be the most practical travel and casual shooting. I had the 24-70 f4 as long as I have had my Z6, in the first batch received by my camera store because it was bundled as a kit. I had 18 best Nikkor lenses for my D850 and D800 in the range of 14mm to 200mm. I have the 24-70 2.8 in F mount so I assumed with the include FTZ that would be my mid range lens and maybe keep the f/4 z version for tourism, light walking around causual shooting. After pretty compete testing, the f4 beat the 2.8 in lack of CA, and corner to corner sharpness and color. That surprised but adding the 50 1.8 and 85 1.8 as low weight travel primes, until I tested agains my Sigma ART 85 and 50 1.4, although in the center of the frame both did very well towards the corners the S lenses were clearly better but the biggest difference was CA, undetectable in both S lenses, and behavior when having a light source in the frame, such as portrait against the setting sun at the beach. All the F mount lense had problems with that with flare, but none of the S lenses did. The Sigma ART lenses had more pleasant out of focus rendering in static tests but in real world shooting such as a portrait session outdoors the overall blur was creamier and smoother.
My wide angle zoom that gets lots of work is the F mounth 15-30 2.8 Tamron G2. I still have my Nikkor 14-24 but since getting the Tamron, at 1/2 the price is just better in every criteria such as very effect VR, less distortion in the corners, sharper over the full width of the frame, color, flare, and feel/handling
My main subjects are portraits, head shots, actor portfolios, ballet, opera and other commercial applictions and my personal shooting is street, clubs, landscape. For my applications the Z family is the best but I do not shoot birds in flight or sports. From my experience the often complained about AF of the z bodies have not been experienced and have a higher keeper rate in location or studio work better than even my D850. The S lenses alone justify the brand choice. The 85 1.2 is in a class by itself.
Somehow you manage to even make this content entertaining, and I don't even shoot Nikon! I love your honesty in this kind of video. and I even find your humour hits!
Keep doin what you do Thomas, I will never miss a video!
I was actually going to say the exact same thing. 😋
i was going to say the exact opposite......
All lenses perform best 2-3 stops from maximum aperture, so as landscape/nature photographers F4 lenses are usually the best at F8, F11, which is great for us! Get the 14-30 F4, its great where we need it. I actually bought the 24-200z as well because its as good through 120mm where it matters most for what I do, but you also get 120-200 for Free ;) Also, these are on the 7ZII. Cheers
The 24-120mm is interesting as I've not noticed any issues with my lens. The biggest advantage for me was the extra focal length which made it much more usable for me. I have a 70-200mm, but doing event photography found myself constantly switching lenses to get that little bit closer when using the 24-70mm. The 24-120mm solved it.
The 24-120 f4 isn't quite as sharp in the corners as the 24-70 f4. So you're trading money and corner sharpness for a measly 50mm more reach. Not a smart deal imho, but obviously the one Nikon would like us to make, seeing how they're aggressively marketing the 24-120 on all their affiliated channels across UA-cam!
@@CC3GROUNDZERO but at center is sharp, so the subject will be sharp and at the end the result will be better because of the greater focal length and no need for crop.
@@marcinsmolinski903 I rarely if ever place my subject at the center of the image.
Interesting and entertaining as always. I bought the Z 24-120mm f4 S when I purchased my Z7ii, and while the Z7ii moved out to make room for a Z9 and later joined by a Z8, the Z 24-120mm remains the lens that's on the camera for hikes, travel, other outdoor uses and the grab-and-go situations that life presents. I do have a need for low light capabilities in shooting lots of movement photos at indoor dog shows where I normally use the Z 70-200mm f2.8 S lens, and I think about getting the Z 24-70mm f2.8 S to add wide-angle capabilities for those situations. But the Z 24-70 f4 doesn't really fit my use case as the Z 24-120mm f4 is remarkable and just as sharp in the center where it matters to me and is perfectly fine for wide-angle and movement outdoors.
Thom, I’d go for the 24-120 F4. I think it is the most versatile lens in the Nikon Z line-up. Cheers
I'm just viewing your videos for the first time. Thank you for accepting input from us plebs.
- I see that the Z7 II is a full-frame camera... Well - shooting at the same focal length, the same f/stop, the same ISO using two different lenses from the same manufacturer - Should yield very similar images. If they don't, there's a huge problem going on.
- From my experience, I would say - chase after fast glass. No it's not primarily because of bokeh... It's because shooting at f/4 minimum sucks... at least when the light is marginal / dimming. For me, there was too many times that I missed the shot - because the lens would not open up enough. Zooming in/out at a minimum of f/4 did not help, obviously.
- Of course if you're always shooting with great sunlight conditions, then just ignore everything I said.
- So if you're still reading this... what I'm saying is - 'focus' on prime lenses... primarily.
I'm no professional, only a enthusiastic Hobby shooter... with not so much time. So I love cameras with high quality JPGs. So my combis: z8 with 24-120 and GH6 with olympus pro lenses.
Interesting comparison. I just switched to the Z72 from the D850 and decided to go for the 24-200 for landscapes. One lens to do 95% of the work liberates you in so many ways when you're in the field. I did try the 24-70 2.8 and image quality was something else, but at the end of the day it's all about priorities and compromises. The only real issue I have with the 24-200 is the lack of a M/A switch on the lens. Oh, and I also struggle with manual focusing but that's more of a "mirrorless era" kind of thing 😄 Whatever you choose I'm sure the images you'll take will be great!
curious how you feel the image quality is on the 24-200? Considering getting it with a z8, but still pretty unsure.
@@tobiasyoder Unfortunately I only had time to use it once for like 15 minutes 😅I need some more time with it to understand how I feel about it.
I had to make this exact same decision between these three lenses a month ago. I ended up choosing the 24-70mm f/2.8. Which turned out to have a broken focus ring. So I got a replacement. Which also had a broken focus ring. Then I gave up. So the decision ultimately came down to the 24-120mm f/4 and 24-70mm f/4, and it was pretty simple: the 120 is fantastically versatile, but notably bigger and more expensive than the 70. When buying secondhand, the 70 can be had for 1/3rd of the price of the 120, which made it a much easier decision for me. It's a bargain at ~350 quid and a very solid lens.
Key message: mind sample dispersion. The corners were rather soft at 70mm on the 24-70 f/4 tested by C. Frost, and his 24-120 was excellent. That may change your mind (and how can you be 100% sure that you will never need the range 70 to 100?).
I have the 24-70 f4 and the 24-200 f5.6. they are super sharp and weather sealed. Stewart mcglennon swears by the 24-200. He did a video on, and it's incredible for the money. Personally though I can confirm the 24-70 f4 is incredible and is ridiculously cheap. I paid £500 for mine grey import.
Good video! My kit right now is a Z7, 14-30 f4, 24-120 f4 and the 100-400, for nature and wildlife. I'm waiting for my Z8 which will be used mostly for wildlife. I absolutely LOVE the 24-120, it stays on the camera about 80% of the time and the best walk about lens I've ever used (I've been at it for at least 40 years, formerly as a photojournalist). I like having the continuous range of 14mm all the way to 400mm in such a lightweight kit, my back thanks me every day. So much different than the photojournalist kit: 2 dslrs, 17-35 f2.8 on one shoulder, 70-200 f2.8 on the other, a great kit, but unnecessary for what I do now. After 40 years, NOW is the best time to be a photographer!
I don't particularly like 24-70 range. In my experience it's the most uninteresting focal range. I use wide angle a lot, 16-35 is really the most useful range, sometimes I need telephoto. When I need 24-70 range it likely means I'm indoors and a prime would work better.
Thomas, I love this video.
I find it entertaining to see you experiment with various brands, and I have to admit that my favourite moment was when you presented the beer. This is authentic, and let's face it, I completely agree and accept any form of advertising you choose to include in your videos.
I can only say that the amount of love and effort you put into your videos is amazing because I have a channel of my own and have been inspired by your content for the past few months. You have the right to entertain us in any way you choose, and hopefully you will earn enough money to do so for many years.
We must always take advice from the experts, they say. That's what I'm trying to do as I look up to you. Cheers!✌
I think the F4 will definitely be the best choice given how much hiking you do! I have the f2.8 version and the 100-400 as my two lenses, and it's an amazing combo, but it the 2.8 is pretty heavy for hiking, especially if you don't need the 2.8.
At the end of the day none of these lenses is a 'bad' choice, you just have decide which one has the right balance of features for your needs.
I have the 24-120 for my light all purpose lens and will be grabbing the 24-70 2.8 in the next month or so, for my low light/concert photography. I love my 1.8 primes but it's a pain to carry and swap them out all while possibly missing moments at an event. I think it will make a potent (but chonky) low-light two lens kit, alongside my 70-200 2.8. My choices would probably be different if I had to hike with the gear versus carrying it from a parking lot to a venue though.
I've been using the 24-70 F4 since it's release and IMO this is by far the best lens cost/image quality ratio. It stands it's ground against the F2.8 version and nothing, absolutely nothing beats its size, weight and compactness. There is virtually no difference in image quality between the two, besides the aperture size. And it's decently weather proof as well. There isn't a single speck of dust inside mine after using it in all kinds of weather for the last 4 years. So I don't think you'll regret buying it even for a second. And if you get it as a kit lens bundle it comes at about 400 pounds. Cheers :)
I couldn’t agree more and for your photography this is the perfect kit. I think the only areas where you might get more from the Z8 are for star gazing and auroras etc plus the portrait option with the rear screen but that’s about it. I’ve just bought a like new 24-70 2.8 for 1,700 so thought this was a good option for me but i need this for event photography and the extra stop of light and additional depth of field is important for me. However, the F4 for landscape is perfect so a great choice and well worth saving the money 👍
I told you this on Instagram last week - "I know you'll get the 14-24 f2.8, but the 14-30 f4 is really fantastic. It would be my hiking choice...in fact, it is!!" - I think you'll find the same as the 24-70 f4, which I think is one of the very best lenses I've ever owned.
That book toss 😂
This wasn't tedious - it was actually quite entertaining! I think it was quite clear from the get-go which lens would be the choice, but maybe I'm biased as a m43 user … 😁
Thank you so much, I was going to sell mine 24-70 f4 and buy 24-120. But now I am gonna keep it and save a lot of money. Thanks!!
I agree that the 24-70 f4 is a superb lens. I was florred by the quality when I first looked at the results. The one I'm wanting is the 70-200 f4 to complete my f4 z trinity. I don't need f2.8 in a zoom.
Im SO glad to see you using Nikon! ive been using Nikon since 2006, Been using the Z9 for just over a year, and my 24-120 f4 never leaves my camera body!
You can get a brand new 24-70 f4 white box for about £400. Much cheaper second hand. For what you're getting for the money I have it in my bag despite owning the 24-120 f4. Love both.
I own both the NIKKOR Z 24-70mm f/2.8 S and the NIKKOR Z 24-120mm f/4 S and shoot the Nikon Z7ii - I also own a AF-S NIKKOR 70-200mm f/2.8E FL ED VR (with the FTZ). My choice is coming down to if I only carry one lens, the 24-120/4 wins out every time! It's the perfect range. I can always clean up a little in the editing. The 70mm to 120mm range is something I want all the time, but also like the wide angle. The 70-200 is a brilliant lens and I am very happy with it, it's big and I do not want to carry it on some trips. These are tough calls for those on a budget. If I had your dilemma, I might have to consider that the 100-400 is great, but missing 70-100 is not worth that loss. I would get the NIKKOR Z 24-120mm f/4 S. Another observation is that the shots where light is facing the lens (sunrise, city lights etc.) the NIKKOR Z 24-70mm f/2.8 S is by FAR the best at getting sunstars! Hands down! I cannot sell it because it's too versatile and so much better for portraits and bokeh etc.
For anyone on a budget (the non professionals amongst us) the F2.8 was off the table. What swung the 24-70 F4 for me was that secondhand it was over less than half the price of the 24-120 f4. I brought a mint used copy for under £400. Complete bargain. (and like you my telephoto choice is a 100-400, although the Z version was/is too expensive I got a used Tamron 100-400 with an FTZ mk 2 adapter for less than a third of the Nikon Z 100-400.
Interesting results you had on the 24-120. I have both this lens and the 24-70 F4. I recently tested them with a tabletop setup with items to check contrast, color and sharpness. I tested them at 24, 35, 50, and 70 and of course 120 for the longer lens. I also tested at every whole aperture between f2 and 11. At every aperture and focal length, my 24-120 came out slightly ahead of the 24-70 in both sharpness and contrast. Most of the reviews I’ve followed found the same thing. I wonder if sample variation played a part in your results
Read the same reviews you did! Ditto!
concur ... I have both and the 24-70 f4 is a really fine lens, but the 24-120 is astonishingly sharp ... however, the cost of the 70 used is hard to beat if you are on a buget.
I don’t think many people will see this decision coming , but it’s a great choice !
I ditched the 24-70mm f/4 for the 24-120mm f/4 as my daily driver lens, especially when I'm on my travels. I have not regretted that decision at all, as as you say there is not a great deal between the lenses in the real world. The extra focal range is always useful I find though on a single lens travel solution walk about lens and helps you travel lighter (always have a 35mm or 28mm prime with me too for when you need that wider aperture at night too though).
Thomas, Thank you for sparing us the image by image zooming in pixel peeping. (We can’t see the differences on UA-cam anyway). I’ve gotta make this same choice soon myself.
First (almost). Prior to seeing the video - undoubtedly 24-70/2.8. Quality is unmatched. F4s nikons seem too flat to me. Didn't try the 24-120 but I doubt it'll be any different. Although I'm not sure whether I could find the meaningful difference myself😅
Great choice with the F4 version
I love using the 24-70 F4 on my Z6ii that I've owned for a little less than 2 years now..
My friend traded his F4 for the 24-120 and says there's no difference at all in terms of image quality..
I've rented the 2.8 lens for a freelance shoot a year back, yes it's kinda superior because of that extra stop of light, but it's downside is that it costs the same as my camera body..
For now, I'm pretty happy with the 24-70 F4 lens, but who knows what'll happen next!!!
Fantastic review, well-balanced information, personal opinion, specs, humor, and advice. Thank you for your hard work!
I have a different view of the pairing of zooms... When you closed out and said you wouldn't miss the "hole" between 70 and 100 in your selection... I believe the best way to travel is to make sure the zooms overlap, therefore the 24-120 would be and is my choice. By overlapping, you might not need to switch lenses. The 14-24 is too heavy for travel, the 14-30 has that funky resting position you can't take pictures at, you must unlock it to get to 14. The 17-28 was my choice. Not an S lens, but quite good.
Back to the 120... I have a 24-200 but really miss the close-ups that I wanted. The magnification ratio of the 24-120 ultimately swayed me. It lets you get the best close-ups without buying a macro, and let's it be more of a multifunction lens than either 24-70. Mag ratio is 0.39 for the 24-120 whilst only .22 and .3 for the 2.8 and 4 respectively. I really like to get flowers, leaves, bees and such while out and about. Having 50 more mm and 33-77% better magnification ratio put me over the top. It's not always about edge sharpness, (you might need to crop that 70 mm if you really needed 90mm for the shot, losing sharpness), but can also be about pictures you might miss with the other lenses. Make sense?
Oh, the beer is>>>>> wait
I bought the 24-200 and the 14-30 F4. Good walk around lens, served me well during a week in Paris. I haven't noticed any sharpness issues. The only downside to the 24-200 was the lack of useful close focus.
I used to be a news photographer and would walk around with 2-3 motor driven cameras and lens from 18 to 300mm. Plus film and flash, etc. Not good for the back and shoulders.
And, modern sharpening software really helps.