Z 24-120 is a lot better than 24-200

DarkShift wrote:

whoosh1 wrote:

I have both - but I have not found any dramatic difference in the tests of normal subjects on a tripod in good light. By normal subjects I meant backyard plants and flowers and a sloped ground.

Difference is very obvious at fe. 24mm when shooting at landscape distances (whole frame in focus). 24-200 can't quite keep up with the 24-120 to the edges. Center sharpness is ok.

Just to clarify, I have both and prefer the 24-120 f/4 (along with 14-30) because it is such a great versatile lens and has f/4 throughout while the 24-200 drops to f/5.6 and f/6 a bit too fast for my taste. But while I prefer the 24-120 f/4 S in general, for shooting landscapes at f/8 or so, the difference was not as obvious to me on a 32 inch 4k monitor that you say they are.

Here are a few X|Y comparison shots of the corners from Lightroom. I had kept the tripod on the same spot but there is a slight difference in the view because of focus breathing.

Corners comparison at 24mm at f/8:

Corners comparison at 120mm at f/8 (kinda - 24-200mm is at 125mm as I could never set the 24-200 to get exactly 120mm):

At both 24mm and 120mm, they do not look that far apart to me.

The 24-120 S is a bit better in the corners at 24mm, but at 24mm I prefer to use 14-30mm f/4 anyway (habit). At 120mm, I cannot tell the difference.