Nikon Z 24-120 or 24-200

Hi. Need some advice to make a good decision on what lens to choose. I have gone from Nikon dslr to mirrorless and plan to sell off all my F lenses. Just the 70-300 p version left.
I have a Z6 with 24-70/4 but are planning to sell this for a 24-120 or 24-200. I like the kitlens a lot but it is a little limiting with the small range. The 24-120 is most tempting but the versatility of the 24-200 make me wonder wihich to get. I will probably get both the 28 and 40mm compacts but that is longer down the road. What do you guys think?

I preferred the 24-70 f4 over the 24-200, for IQ reasons mainly. The 24-120 is an S lens and I expect it to deliver the same IQ as the 24-70 f4. So I'd go for the 24-120.

I have the 16-85 for F mount DX use, and it's terrific, just the right sort of range for a general purpose lens. I wouldn't miss the longer end of the 24-200.

Just my personal feeling.

Nikon24-7 said:

Hi. Need some advice to make a good decision on what lens to choose. I have gone from Nikon dslr to mirrorless and plan to sell off all my F lenses. Just the 70-300 p version left.
I have a Z6 with 24-70/4 but are planning to sell this for a 24-120 or 24-200. I like the kitlens a lot but it is a little limiting with the small range. The 24-120 is most tempting but the versatility of the 24-200 make me wonder wihich to get. I will probably get both the 28 and 40mm compacts but that is longer down the road. What do you guys think?

Click to expand...

The correct answer is both

I have the 24-200 and ordered the 24-120.

24-120 for indoor use

24-200 single lens travel.

I'm sure the 24-120 will be much sharper as an S lens.

It really comes down (in my opinion) to whether you care more about additional reach or additional aperture at the long end of things. The 24-200 is already at F/6.3 by about 85mm so the 24-120 is giving you a stop and a third more light at portrait focal lengths (and of course less DoF that is sometimes desirable).

On the flip side 120 vs 200 is quite a significant difference in reach.

The 24-120 is a bit more expensive and a bit heavier and likely will have somewhat better optical quality particularly on the edges and corners but the 24-200 is no slouch in that regard either.

So I don't think there is an obviously "better" lens here across the board. Really down to the whole reach vs. aperture trade off with probably additional benefit to the 24-120 for build features and modest IQ improvement (but that really remains to be seen in testing).

I shoot landscapes and do often do telephoto landscapes but not enough to be wanting to schlep a 70-200 or 70-300 around for that. I don't care about aperture at all as F/8 is about as wide as I'd ever shoot at for my landscapes. So for me, right now, the 24-200 that I already have is likely going to be what I stick with. Whatever marginal IQ improvements the 24-120 might bring are nothing compared to the huge IQ loss I'd incur cropping 120 for telephoto compositions.

Naturally others might find they rarely shoot past 120 anyway, or plan to have another lens that covers that (e.g. the 100-400 a no brainer for many), and would prefer having the wider aperture and potential for a bit more IQ.

I have the 24-200 and tge 24-70f4. The 24-200 is a joy to use when traveling. I got good street pictures without being too close to other persons. 24-120 would not be enough reach for me and the 24-200 has at 24mm f4 enough light when shooting inside and outside f6.3 is not a problem at all.

In the evening I take the 24-70f4.

I would keep the 24mm-70mm f4, since there are already a ton of them on the market already and you won't get that much for it, and buy the 24mm-200mm. This gives you the constant aperture in the 24mm-70mm range, useful for low light situations, with the telephoto reach of the 24mm-200mm.

I have found that the 24mm-200mm is good for most situations, and that I tend to reach for the 24mm-70mm if in a low light or dark situation.

I use mostly primes so I sold my 2470/4 to buy the 24200. So I have a allround zoom and primes.

Im going to trade 24-200 for 24-120.
constant F4 is more important then additional reach.
difference between 120 and 200 is negligible for me.
24-200 is a great lens but slow in most range. Also when I travel I also want to take some portraits photos so constant F4 will work better for me.

24-200 maximum apertures:

• 24mm — f/4
• 35mm — f/4.8
• 50mm — f/5.6
• 70mm — f/6
• 85mm+ — f/6.3

from the thread Which lens and why? 24-70/4 or 24-200 which covers a lot of different reasons for choosing one or the other. (24-70, not 24-120, but still relevant.)

Asking myself the same question, but additionally considering the 28-75/2.8 as interesting option.

On DX side, I went through 18-70, then gave 16-85 preference over 18-200 due to better IQ and wider coverage, then tried 18-140, enjoyed the additional reach, but missed coverage at the wide end and was disappointed by color rendition and veiling flare -- or whatever produced a disappointing grey veil on many images. Finally settled with the excellent 16-80/2.8-4 and use the Sigma 18-35/1.8 for low light situations.

This experience may speak for the 24-120. But: it appears to be a big lens and f/4 is not particularly fast -- somehow neither fish now flesh.

The 24-200 got better glass and coating than the 18-140, which may eliminate the drawbacks. It also got the wider coverage. This is why I tend to the 24-200, complemented with 28-75 for low light. But I'm not sure yet.

jthomas39 said:

24-200 maximum apertures:

• 24mm — f/4
• 35mm — f/4.8
• 50mm — f/5.6
• 70mm — f/6
• 85mm+ — f/6.3

from the thread Which lens and why? 24-70/4 or 24-200 which covers a lot of different reasons for choosing one or the other. (24-70, not 24-120, but still relevant.)

Click to expand...

This is probably the main reason I opted for the 24-120. Unless you're using the lens exclusively in really good light or stopped down for landscapes or similar uses, you will likely feel the limits of f5.6 at 50mm or f6 at 70mm quite a bit. I know some people will happily give up f4 to get 200mm but I think I benefit more from f4.

Thank you all for your comments. I am still confused, but at a higher level

I have both 24-70s, the 24-200 and have a 24-120 on the way. I will see which way it goes.

The three existing get enough use. The 24-200 is great for rural travel and hiking, the 2.8 for indoors, some portraits and poor light. The F4 is good for urban travel, landscape lightweight setups especially video and when it's not the focal length I think I will need much. The 24-120, on F mount, was my favourite travel lens especially urban travel. I hope the Z mount will be the same, I like the reproduction ratio to increase it's flexibility. I also think it will be my go to for landscape. I will have to evaluate things when everything settles down. For the remaining use cases I may even consider swapping the 24-70F4 for the 24-50.

Using a lens like the 24-200 sort of makes me start to wonder what the point is of a system camera. Although that feeling would be stronger with a 28-300. Also I do think the 24-120 isn’t necessarily less versatile than the 24-200. The versatility is just different.

Good luck choosing!

starbase218 said:

Using a lens like the 24-200 sort of makes me start to wonder what the point is of a system camera.

Click to expand...

The point is that you're able to take it off and put on a different lens if needed. Hope that helps.

starbase218 said:

Using a lens like the 24-200 sort of makes me start to wonder what the point is of a system camera. Although that feeling would be stronger with a 28-300. Also I do think the 24-120 isn’t necessarily less versatile than the 24-200. The versatility is just different.

Click to expand...

I get your point if someone only has a 24-200 and never removes it from the camera. And that certainly is something super-zooms are fairly criticized for at times (especially the classic expensive DSLR body with ultra-cheap low-IQ superzoom welded to it).

But of course if one pairs the 24-200 with some primes or an UWA the advantages of a system camera are quite clear. A similar criticism could be made of folks who say "I sold all my primes after I got my F/2.8 zooms". Do you really have a system camera just to swap two zoom lenses on and off?

Actually the number of people I see who have the 24-200 along with some other 24-xxx zoom and use both highlights how something like 24-200 extends the usefulness of a system camera even if it overlaps in focal range with existing lenses. The 24-200 allows you to turn your system camera into an extremely high quality all-in-one for things like hikes or daytime travel outings where compactness of your kit is essential. Come nighttime you can swap over to faster glass, be it prime or zoom, for astrophotography, indoor lowlight photography or nighttime street photography where aperture trumps focal range for utility.

And actually even for those size/weight restricted day outings something like the 24-200 plus the 40/2 makes for an exceptionally capable kit.

I've been a multi-camera/system shooter for years and years but really in any case that I can have a lens allow me to remove another body/camera from my setup all the better. The 24-200 does that for sure by letting me use my Z7 in cases I might have leaned on m43 instead. And I expect the 24-120/4 will do that as well for a different set of users.

kenw said:

starbase218 said:

Using a lens like the 24-200 sort of makes me start to wonder what the point is of a system camera. Although that feeling would be stronger with a 28-300. Also I do think the 24-120 isn’t necessarily less versatile than the 24-200. The versatility is just different.

Click to expand...

I get your point if someone only has a 24-200 and never removes it from the camera. And that certainly is something super-zooms are fairly criticized for at times (especially the classic expensive DSLR body with ultra-cheap low-IQ superzoom welded to it).

But of course if one pairs the 24-200 with some primes or an UWA the advantages of a system camera are quite clear. A similar criticism could be made of folks who say "I sold all my primes after I got my F/2.8 zooms". Do you really have a system camera just to swap two zoom lenses on and off?

Click to expand...

I think that’s actually not the same situation, given that there are no 24-200mm f/2.8 lenses. So you have to have multiple lenses, which means a system camera already makes sense. If you need the f/2.8.
I do have to say the UWA zoom is a good point. For me, I’d always want such a lens. Which indeed means that the 24-200 would not be my only lens anyway.

But there is one other thing: if I have an ultrawide zoom like the 14-30, I can also take that with a 50mm and a 70-200 or 70-300. And if I have that tele lens anyway, the advantage of having a 24-200 becomes smaller. At that point the faster f/4 aperture would be something I might gravitate towards more. F/2.8 is even better but that also makes a lens heavier, and coming from DX, with the 24-70 I would not get the same tele range compared to my old 17-55.

kenw said:

Actually the number of people I see who have the 24-200 along with some other 24-xxx zoom and use both highlights how something like 24-200 extends the usefulness of a system camera even if it overlaps in focal range with existing lenses. The 24-200 allows you to turn your system camera into an extremely high quality all-in-one for things like hikes or daytime travel outings where compactness of your kit is essential. Come nighttime you can swap over to faster glass, be it prime or zoom, for astrophotography, indoor lowlight photography or nighttime street photography where aperture trumps focal range for utility.

Click to expand...

The downside I see with this is that you have to indeed own multiple overlapping zoom lenses. Which I don’t like because if you only use a lens 50% of the time, you won’t get to know it as well or as fast. Also it can be a distraction to have to choose your gear from several options.

kenw said:

And actually even for those size/weight restricted day outings something like the 24-200 plus the 40/2 makes for an exceptionally capable kit.

Click to expand...

I do most of my photography while traveling actually. I will say that it can be a hassle to switch lenses around. When I was doing a hike in Malaysia in a group, I did switch a bit between that 17-55 and 70-200. But when I was in Japan I used that 17-55 with the f/2.8 to capture a night scene. What I’m saying is, it’s always a compromise.

kenw said:

I've been a multi-camera/system shooter for years and years but really in any case that I can have a lens allow me to remove another body/camera from my setup all the better. The 24-200 does that for sure by letting me use my Z7 in cases I might have leaned on m43 instead. And I expect the 24-120/4 will do that as well for a different set of users.

Click to expand...

Oh, that’s fine. I mean I’m just writing here what my thoughts are. If the 24-200 fits you, that’s good. And actually I think these two lenses aren’t that different in terms of focal range: 5x zoom vs 8.3x zoom. Although it may sound strange, that’s actually what does appeal to me in the 24-200.

kenw said:

starbase218 said:

Using a lens like the 24-200 sort of makes me start to wonder what the point is of a system camera. Although that feeling would be stronger with a 28-300. Also I do think the 24-120 isn’t necessarily less versatile than the 24-200. The versatility is just different.

Click to expand...

I get your point if someone only has a 24-200 and never removes it from the camera. And that certainly is something super-zooms are fairly criticized for at times (especially the classic expensive DSLR body with ultra-cheap low-IQ superzoom welded to it).

But of course if one pairs the 24-200 with some primes or an UWA the advantages of a system camera are quite clear. A similar criticism could be made of folks who say "I sold all my primes after I got my F/2.8 zooms". Do you really have a system camera just to swap two zoom lenses on and off?

Actually the number of people I see who have the 24-200 along with some other 24-xxx zoom and use both highlights how something like 24-200 extends the usefulness of a system camera even if it overlaps in focal range with existing lenses. The 24-200 allows you to turn your system camera into an extremely high quality all-in-one for things like hikes or daytime travel outings where compactness of your kit is essential. Come nighttime you can swap over to faster glass, be it prime or zoom, for astrophotography, indoor lowlight photography or nighttime street photography where aperture trumps focal range for utility.

And actually even for those size/weight restricted day outings something like the 24-200 plus the 40/2 makes for an exceptionally capable kit.

I've been a multi-camera/system shooter for years and years but really in any case that I can have a lens allow me to remove another body/camera from my setup all the better. The 24-200 does that for sure by letting me use my Z7 in cases I might have leaned on m43 instead. And I expect the 24-120/4 will do that as well for a different set of users.

Click to expand...

In M43 I have "Equivalent" lenses that include 24-64, F3.5-5.6 24-70 F2.8, 24-120 F2.8-4, 28-280 F3.5-5.6 and a lens that adapts via speed booster to C. 25-50 F1.2. they all get used and I see it as one of the advantages of a system camera.

Nikon24-7 said:

Hi. Need some advice to make a good decision on what lens to choose. I have gone from Nikon dslr to mirrorless and plan to sell off all my F lenses. Just the 70-300 p version left.
I have a Z6 with 24-70/4 but are planning to sell this for a 24-120 or 24-200. I like the kitlens a lot but it is a little limiting with the small range. The 24-120 is most tempting but the versatility of the 24-200 make me wonder wihich to get. I will probably get both the 28 and 40mm compacts but that is longer down the road. What do you guys think?

Click to expand...

Depend on...I own Z 24-70/4 and was thinking about Z 24-120/4...but finally I decided to buy Z 24-200 for landscape photos. Im happy, that I did not buy 24-120 !

I’d keep that AFP 70-300 and add the 24-120. The 70-300 is excellent and is faster than the 24-200, with more reach. I use it alongside my 24-70. I chose it over the 24-200 when I wanted more reach (and when we thought the upcoming lens was going to be a 24-105). And now I kinda want the 24-120 but can’t really justify it given how good the 24-70 and 70-300 are for me.