Z24-70 F2.8 AND Z24-120 F4

I sold my D850 and D750, 2.8 Trinity zooms and I will be buying Z8 as soon as it is back in stock. I am also set on getting Z 14-24 F2.8 and Z 24-70 F2.8. The F versions of those two lenses were my most heavily used ones. I will be getting Z100-400 in a few months, I decided not to get Z70-200 F2.8, the F version was an amazing lens but was not used very often. I shoot mostly landscape, Astro and night photography (light trails etc), I also occasionally take pictures of my family events. I am not planning on getting any primes now, I had 85 F1.8 and a few other older primes , but hardly ever used them.

I am tempted to get Z24-120 with Z8 to save $200. I know how good it is as a general photography lens. I am concerned that I will not use it enough if I have 24-70 F2.8. I am not considering Z24-70 F4.

I read lots of reviews and watched lots of YouTube videos comparing both lenses including Hudson Henry videos.

Those of you who have both Z24-70 F2.8 and Z24-120 F4, please share your thoughts and experiences.

Thank you in advance for your thoughts and opinions

VP

I definitely think there could be room for both. For me, it's pretty simple:

• Anything I do professionally/for money, I'll bring the Z 24-70 f/2.8 (among other lenses).
• Anything I do for leisure, travel, etc. I now use the Z 24-120 f/4. Most times, it's the only lens I'll bring on my camera.

Also, if saving money is your driving interest, I'd say skip the bundle savings and wait for another Nikon Refurbished sale. I picked mine up from one for $699, which is still cheaper than the bundled price.

LTheWafflePWN said:

I definitely think there could be room for both. For me, it's pretty simple:

• Anything I do professionally/for money, I'll bring the Z 24-70 f/2.8 (among other lenses).
• Anything I do for leisure, travel, etc. I now use the Z 24-120 f/4. Most times, it's the only lens I'll bring on my camera.

Click to expand...

I am the same and agree. However, for me, there is some overlap. My professional work is wide ranging. From people to product to architecture and landscape. Photo and video. The 24-120 gets used when i don't need faster than f/4 and/or I need more flexible reach. It's great for pseudo macro situations too. 24-70 gets used for people, events, low light situations. They are both just different tools.

vpoms said:

I sold my D850 and D750, 2.8 Trinity zooms and I will be buying Z8 as soon as it is back in stock. I am also set on getting Z 14-24 F2.8 and Z 24-70 F2.8. The F versions of those two lenses were my most heavily used ones. I will be getting Z100-400 in a few months, I decided not to get Z70-200 F2.8, the F version was an amazing lens but was not used very often. I shoot mostly landscape, Astro and night photography (light trails etc), I also occasionally take pictures of my family events. I am not planning on getting any primes now, I had 85 F1.8 and a few other older primes , but hardly ever used them.

I am tempted to get Z24-120 with Z8 to save $200. I know how good it is as a general photography lens. I am concerned that I will not use it enough if I have 24-70 F2.8. I am not considering Z24-70 F4.

I read lots of reviews and watched lots of YouTube videos comparing both lenses including Hudson Henry videos.

Those of you who have both Z24-70 F2.8 and Z24-120 F4, please share your thoughts and experiences.

Thank you in advance for your thoughts and opinions

VP

Click to expand...

Basically, I like the 24-70 for some types of portraits and when doing some landscape shooting. For everything else (except portraits) I use the 24-120 (it's basically my walkaround lens).

Basically you are giving up a stop for an extra 50mm of reach (and a lighter/smaller package overall).

If i Had to pick one of the two I would honestly go with the 24-120 especially if you have some fast primes, or just don't shoot wide open (fast) that much. Or think about it this way -- if you get the 24-120 you might have enough left over (versus a 24-70) to take a trip somewhere. I'm planning on taking a two week landscape trip out west later this year and will probably just take the 24-120 and leave the 24-70 at home (since I will be a bit limited on space) so that's the confidence I now have in that lens, to be able to leave the 24-70 at home and go "lighter".

At the nd of the day it come down to are you willing to pay another $1000 for an extra stop and lose 50mm on the long end? Optically, at smaller apertures (f/5.6 I'd say) and smaller) the two are very similar in terms of sharpness. Of course the benefit of the 24-120 is that you do have the longer reach, which the 24-70 can't even compete with since it doesn't zoom that far, so that right there is a big point for the 24-120).

--
NOTE: If I don't reply to a direct comment in the forums, it's likely I unsubscribed from the thread/article..

If I could only have one it would be the 24-120. As good as the 24-70 F4 was I realised when I upgraded that is is the focal range that means much more to me. I love everything about the 24-120.

That isn’t saying I wont stump for the 24-70 F2.8 one day. In theory my F1.8 primes give me good alternatives to the 24-120 Zoom but in practice my usage doesn’t deserve them and F2.8 zoom would likely be far more suitable/enjoyable/practical for my use case.

vpoms said:

I sold my D850 and D750, 2.8 Trinity zooms and I will be buying Z8 as soon as it is back in stock. I am also set on getting Z 14-24 F2.8 and Z 24-70 F2.8. The F versions of those two lenses were my most heavily used ones. I will be getting Z100-400 in a few months, I decided not to get Z70-200 F2.8, the F version was an amazing lens but was not used very often. I shoot mostly landscape, Astro and night photography (light trails etc), I also occasionally take pictures of my family events. I am not planning on getting any primes now, I had 85 F1.8 and a few other older primes , but hardly ever used them.

I am tempted to get Z24-120 with Z8 to save $200. I know how good it is as a general photography lens. I am concerned that I will not use it enough if I have 24-70 F2.8. I am not considering Z24-70 F4.

I read lots of reviews and watched lots of YouTube videos comparing both lenses including Hudson Henry videos.

Those of you who have both Z24-70 F2.8 and Z24-120 F4, please share your thoughts and experiences.

Thank you in advance for your thoughts and opinions

VP

Click to expand...

Maybe instead consider 24-70 2.8 and 24-200 for travel, bigger gap in use case between them.

I use 24-200 for travel, and 24-70 f4, 35 1.8, 85 1.8 for more serious stuff.

I have both. I choose depending on what I need more, f/2.8 or reaching 120 mm on a single lens. For example, my most common setup for shooting theater is the 24-70 f/2.8 on one body and the 70-200 f/2.8 on another. With theater lighting, the larger aperture is often needed . But, next week I'll be shooting a fundraiser, much of the time with flash on the camera. In this case, I don't need to open up larger than f/4, and the extra reach on the 24-120 can come in handy. I've also used the 24-120 on my Z7 as a single-lens travel kit, where getting out to 120mm matters more to me than a larger aperture. But, when shooting in studio, I often rely on the 24-70 instead of primes. Even though I don't need the larger aperture, the IQ is fantastic and being able to adjust focal length lets me work faster.

I would be interested in seeing a portrait comparison between the two. At 120 and f4 compared to 70 and f2.8. Moving closer with the 24-70 to get the same subject size. I’m wondering if the longer lens at f4 gives a similar blur/bokeh to the shorter lens at f2.8.

j_photo said:

I have both. I choose depending on what I need more, f/2.8 or reaching 120 mm on a single lens. For example, my most common setup for shooting theater is the 24-70 f/2.8 on one body and the 70-200 f/2.8 on another. With theater lighting, the larger aperture is often needed . But, next week I'll be shooting a fundraiser, much of the time with flash on the camera. In this case, I don't need to open up larger than f/4, and the extra reach on the 24-120 can come in handy. I've also used the 24-120 on my Z7 as a single-lens travel kit, where getting out to 120mm matters more to me than a larger aperture. But, when shooting in studio, I often rely on the 24-70 instead of primes. Even though I don't need the larger aperture, the IQ is fantastic and being able to adjust focal length lets me work faster.

Click to expand...

Likewise, I also have both. The 24-120/4 is my general-purpose lens that I typically use. The 24-70/2.8 is for low light, indoor situations such as weddings, parties, orchestral concerts .... Sometimes I shoot concert videos with multiple cameras. A lot of times the 24-70mm/f4 S (not f2.8) and the 24-120/4 go onto two cameras for video to get me the exact crop, and I use the 24-70/2.8 for stills.

You say "I shoot mostly landscape, Astro and night photography (light trails etc),"

In which case what does the Z8 give you over a Z7ii? I don't really understand spending over $1000 dollars more on a body while then considering a less than optimum lens.

As lenses last longer than bodies (but depending on use case) I would invest in top lenses as a priority over a more top of the range camera unless that camera gave distinct advantages.

But if you are happy to give up a stop of light and some IQ compromise for reach and weight then the 24-120 looks good. Only you can make that call.

This is what Tom Hogan says:

"The best of the bunch overall is the 24-70mm f/2.8 S, no doubt. But the 24-120mm f/4 S hangs in close enough so that if you don't need that extra stop of light, it's well worth considering for its extra focal range."

Best

Brian

I had the 24-120f4 and 70-200f2.8 setup back in the F mount.

When I moved to Z mount I chose the 24-702.8S to go along with the 70-2002.8S. Somewhat because the added stop is beneficial for my uses, but also because having the 24-120 made me lazy. It was less effort to just shoot with that one lens, then afterwords kinda regret not taking the effort to use the 70-200.

Suntan said:

I had the 24-120f4 and 70-200f2.8 setup back in the F mount.

Click to expand...

The quality between F and Z is very different for the 24-120 but not as much for the 70-200/2.8.

I bought my 24-120mm/f4 AF-S VR in 2010 and it was fine on my then 12MP D700. However, on 45MP bodies, its limitations become obvious. The Z 24-120/4 is a much better lens.

Suntan said:

When I moved to Z mount I chose the 24-702.8S to go along with the 70-2002.8S. Somewhat because the added stop is beneficial for my uses, but also because having the 24-120 made me lazy. It was less effort to just shoot with that one lens, then afterwords kinda regret not taking the effort to use the 70-200.

Click to expand...

The 24-70/2.8 is a much heavier lens. By itself is ok, but in conjunction with other lenses, sometimes I would rather have a lighter mid zoom. If weight is not a concern, the 24-70/2.8 S is excellent.

vpoms said:

I sold my D850 and D750, 2.8 Trinity zooms and I will be buying Z8 as soon as it is back in stock. I am also set on getting Z 14-24 F2.8 and Z 24-70 F2.8. The F versions of those two lenses were my most heavily used ones. I will be getting Z100-400 in a few months, I decided not to get Z70-200 F2.8, the F version was an amazing lens but was not used very often. I shoot mostly landscape, Astro and night photography (light trails etc), I also occasionally take pictures of my family events. I am not planning on getting any primes now, I had 85 F1.8 and a few other older primes , but hardly ever used them.

I am tempted to get Z24-120 with Z8 to save $200. I know how good it is as a general photography lens. I am concerned that I will not use it enough if I have 24-70 F2.8. I am not considering Z24-70 F4.

I read lots of reviews and watched lots of YouTube videos comparing both lenses including Hudson Henry videos.

Those of you who have both Z24-70 F2.8 and Z24-120 F4, please share your thoughts and experiences.

Click to expand...

I do pro paid events, weddings , portraits. etc 70-200 F2.8 is a must for me. I would never get rid of it for 24-120F4. Though, I've heard good things with the 24-120F4 Too slow and not enough reach for me .

vpoms said:

Thank you in advance for your thoughts and opinions

VP

Click to expand...

jjz2 said:

vpoms said:

I sold my D850 and D750, 2.8 Trinity zooms and I will be buying Z8 as soon as it is back in stock. I am also set on getting Z 14-24 F2.8 and Z 24-70 F2.8. The F versions of those two lenses were my most heavily used ones. I will be getting Z100-400 in a few months, I decided not to get Z70-200 F2.8, the F version was an amazing lens but was not used very often. I shoot mostly landscape, Astro and night photography (light trails etc), I also occasionally take pictures of my family events. I am not planning on getting any primes now, I had 85 F1.8 and a few other older primes , but hardly ever used them.

I am tempted to get Z24-120 with Z8 to save $200. I know how good it is as a general photography lens. I am concerned that I will not use it enough if I have 24-70 F2.8. I am not considering Z24-70 F4.

I read lots of reviews and watched lots of YouTube videos comparing both lenses including Hudson Henry videos.

Those of you who have both Z24-70 F2.8 and Z24-120 F4, please share your thoughts and experiences.

Thank you in advance for your thoughts and opinions

VP

Click to expand...

Maybe instead consider 24-70 2.8 and 24-200 for travel, bigger gap in use case between them.

I use 24-200 for travel, and 24-70 f4, 35 1.8, 85 1.8 for more serious stuff.

Click to expand...

Probably for cost reasons, I think the OP probably wants to just buy one lens. I would agree the 24-200 and 24-70 is a good option, but it's also $3000 combined assuming they bought all new lenses. The 24-120 at $1100 (or less) is a good comprormise between the two.

shuncheung said:

Suntan said:

I had the 24-120f4 and 70-200f2.8 setup back in the F mount.

Click to expand...

The quality between F and Z is very different for the 24-120 but not as much for the 70-200/2.8.

I bought my 24-120mm/f4 AF-S VR in 2010 and it was fine on my then 12MP D700. However, on 45MP bodies, its limitations become obvious. The Z 24-120/4 is a much better lens.

shuncheung said:

When I moved to Z mount I chose the 24-702.8S to go along with the 70-2002.8S. Somewhat because the added stop is beneficial for my uses, but also because having the 24-120 made me lazy. It was less effort to just shoot with that one lens, then afterwords kinda regret not taking the effort to use the 70-200.

Click to expand...

The 24-70/2.8 is a much heavier lens. By itself is ok, but in conjunction with other lenses, sometimes I would rather have a lighter mid zoom. If weight is not a concern, the 24-70/2.8 S is excellent.

Click to expand...

Yes, I'm aware of all of that. But even for as good as the updated Z24-120 is, it's not a replacement for the Z70-200 (or the Z24-70 2.8) so I did not want the temptation to just use it out of laziness.

I'm just sharing my experience based on my wants/needs ro give the OP some things to think about. People that have other wants or needs surely are justified in purchasing the 24-120.

vpoms said:

I sold my D850 and D750, 2.8 Trinity zooms and I will be buying Z8 as soon as it is back in stock. I am also set on getting Z 14-24 F2.8 and Z 24-70 F2.8. The F versions of those two lenses were my most heavily used ones. I will be getting Z100-400 in a few months, I decided not to get Z70-200 F2.8, the F version was an amazing lens but was not used very often. I shoot mostly landscape, Astro and night photography (light trails etc), I also occasionally take pictures of my family events. I am not planning on getting any primes now, I had 85 F1.8 and a few other older primes , but hardly ever used them.

I am tempted to get Z24-120 with Z8 to save $200. I know how good it is as a general photography lens. I am concerned that I will not use it enough if I have 24-70 F2.8. I am not considering Z24-70 F4.

I read lots of reviews and watched lots of YouTube videos comparing both lenses including Hudson Henry videos.

Those of you who have both Z24-70 F2.8 and Z24-120 F4, please share your thoughts and experiences.

Thank you in advance for your thoughts and opinions

VP

Click to expand...

I too do a lot of landscape and astro. When I switched to Z9 from DSLR, I knew I needed a 24-70. I tested all 3 versions and found that at F5.6, they are all almost identical. However, at 120mm, the quality wasn't too awesome, so I settled for the f4 version of 24-70mm. I have fast primes for astro, otherwise, I'll get the f2.8. I think if I were to start over, I will look hard at the Tamron 35-150mm.

Thank you everyone for your thoughtful responses and ideas.

A few clarifications:

1. Money is not my primary concern

1A. My primary concern is that I don't want to buy lenses that I will not use often, and they end up collecting dust in my office.

2. I am considering Z24-120 F4 because many years ago my most used lens was Nikon 35-135 F3.5-4.5 on my Nikon N8008 and Nikon 8008S bodies.

2. I feel that image quality of Nikon 2.8 zooms is very good and they are more versatile and easier to travel with. That is why I am not planning on getting any prime lenses now.

2. I am getting Z8 over Z7 because Z7 feels to small in my hand and I want the best available body. Z9 feels too large in my hand and takes too much space in my backpack and is a bit too heavy to travel with.

3. I know exactly what I want: Z12-24 and Z24-70 F2.8

4. I am not planning on getting Z70-200 F2.8 now. I hardly ever used the DSLR version of that lens. I rented Nikon 80-400 F4.5-5.6 from Lensrentals.com. It cost me only $238 for two weeks! I used it a lot on my trip to Patagonia earlier this year. I will strongly consider renting and not buying Nikon Z100-400 for my future trips.



VP

vpoms said:

Thank you everyone for your thoughtful responses and ideas.

A few clarifications:

1. Money is not my primary concern

1A. My primary concern is that I don't want to buy lenses that I will not use often, and they end up collecting dust in my office.

2. I am considering Z24-120 F4 because many years ago my most used lens was Nikon 35-135 F3.5-4.5 on my Nikon N8008 and Nikon 8008S bodies.

2. I feel that image quality of Nikon 2.8 zooms is very good and they are more versatile and easier to travel with. That is why I am not planning on getting any prime lenses now.

2. I am getting Z8 over Z7 because Z7 feels to small in my hand and I want the best available body. Z9 feels too large in my hand and takes too much space in my backpack and is a bit too heavy to travel with.

3. I know exactly what I want: Z12-24 and Z24-70 F2.8

4. I am not planning on getting Z70-200 F2.8 now. I hardly ever used the DSLR version of that lens. I rented Nikon 80-400 F4.5-5.6 from Lensrentals.com. It cost me only $238 for two weeks! I used it a lot on my trip to Patagonia earlier this year. I will strongly consider renting and not buying Nikon Z100-400 for my future trips.

VP

Click to expand...

What is more important to you? f2.8 and a bump in image quality at the same apertures, or size/weight and having some coverage from 70-120mm?

I hate to say it, but no one can answer this for for. I can ask some questions, like:

• how often do you use f2.8?

• how often does your output actually maximize/utilize 45 MPs?

• how often do you get to 70mm and wish you had more?

• how often do you leave a camera at home because of size/weight?

I think you're spot on about renting for something you only occasionally use.

Jim Keye said:

vpoms said:

Thank you everyone for your thoughtful responses and ideas.

A few clarifications:

1. Money is not my primary concern

1A. My primary concern is that I don't want to buy lenses that I will not use often, and they end up collecting dust in my office.

2. I am considering Z24-120 F4 because many years ago my most used lens was Nikon 35-135 F3.5-4.5 on my Nikon N8008 and Nikon 8008S bodies.

2. I feel that image quality of Nikon 2.8 zooms is very good and they are more versatile and easier to travel with. That is why I am not planning on getting any prime lenses now.

2. I am getting Z8 over Z7 because Z7 feels to small in my hand and I want the best available body. Z9 feels too large in my hand and takes too much space in my backpack and is a bit too heavy to travel with.

3. I know exactly what I want: Z12-24 and Z24-70 F2.8

4. I am not planning on getting Z70-200 F2.8 now. I hardly ever used the DSLR version of that lens. I rented Nikon 80-400 F4.5-5.6 from Lensrentals.com. It cost me only $238 for two weeks! I used it a lot on my trip to Patagonia earlier this year. I will strongly consider renting and not buying Nikon Z100-400 for my future trips.

VP

Click to expand...

What is more important to you? f2.8 and a bump in image quality at the same apertures, or size/weight and having some coverage from 70-120mm?

Click to expand...

You left out a few things... The F2.8 lens also focuses faster and is built even better and will last even longer. Esp faster focus in dimmer locations.

Jim Keye said:

I hate to say it, but no one can answer this for for. I can ask some questions, like:

• how often do you use f2.8?

• how often does your output actually maximize/utilize 45 MPs?

Click to expand...

Jim Keye said:

• how often do you get to 70mm and wish you had more?

• how often do you leave a camera at home because of size/weight?

I think you're spot on about renting for something you only occasionally use.

Click to expand...

vpoms said:

Thank you everyone for your thoughtful responses and ideas.

A few clarifications:

1. Money is not my primary concern

Click to expand...

F2.8 pro zooms.

vpoms said:

1A. My primary concern is that I don't want to buy lenses that I will not use often, and they end up collecting dust in my office.

Click to expand...

Very true.

vpoms said:

2. I am considering Z24-120 F4 because many years ago my most used lens was Nikon 35-135 F3.5-4.5 on my Nikon N8008 and Nikon 8008S bodies.

2. I feel that image quality of Nikon 2.8 zooms is very good and they are more versatile and easier to travel with. That is why I am not planning on getting any prime lenses now.

Click to expand...

Yes, the F2.8 lens are their best. but No, the very good S line F4 versions are easier to travel with. They are still fully weather sealed like the F2.8 versions. 14-30, 24-70, etc.

vpoms said:

2. I am getting Z8 over Z7 because Z7 feels to small in my hand and I want the best available body. Z9 feels too large in my hand and takes too much space in my backpack and is a bit too heavy to travel with.

3. I know exactly what I want: Z12-24 and Z24-70 F2.8

Click to expand...

Good choices! Except you still need a longer lens depending on the photography you are doing.

4. I am not planning on getting Z70-200 F2.8 now. I hardly ever used the DSLR version of that lens.

One of Nikon's best lens.

vpoms said:

I rented Nikon 80-400 F4.5-5.6 from Lensrentals.com. It cost me only $238 for two weeks! I used it a lot on my trip to Patagonia earlier this year. I will strongly consider renting and not buying Nikon Z100-400 for my future trips.

Click to expand...

You said the Z9 was too heavy and takes too much room in your backpack, but the Z100-400 or a 24-70 F2.8 Doesn't. ok.. LOL. Don't forget, those bigger lenses balance much better on a Z9 than a Z8 body. More comfortable for taking pics longer. The lighter bodies are nose heavy with those lenses and annoying to shoot pics with.

vpoms said:

VP

Click to expand...