24-120 vs 24-200 for Z5 travel

As you can probably tell from split opinions, you can't go wrong with either lens.

If you're gonna bring a fast prime anyway, then I think the issue of maximum aperture becomes somewhat less important, so it comes down to the trade-off between maximizing image quality vs. maximizing zoom range.

If you're someone who wants that last little bit of "2% better" image quality, then take the 24-120/4 - the 24-200/4-6.3 is still an excellent lens, but Nikon has such outstanding lenses in its lineup (including the 24-120/4) that it's going up against some tough competition. If you want the maximum flexibility in a single lens, take the 24-200/4-6.3.

For me - if I showed my wife a mix of pictures taken with 24-120/4 and 24-200/4-6.3, she wouldn't be able to tell which is which, so I'd choose flexibility over image quality and take the 24-200/4-6.3.

pyang88 said:

As you can probably tell from split opinions, you can't go wrong with either lens.

Click to expand...

Strongly agree.

Cultius Ponc said:

Lol! I'm not in Zimbabwe. Not sure how that got into my profile info, I must have made an error somewhere.

No it's currently on sale in the UK at least; £899 down from £1079.
And I've just this moment bought one.

Click to expand...

In your profile, you have Zimbabwe as your location.

Marie

ajr images said:

Click to expand...

LOL I this! Looks like me when I wake up!

Marie

I'm seriously looking at the Z8 to take advantage of the May promotion and going through the lens debate. They have the 24-120 bundled with the camera at a $200 discount vs separately purchased. I'm debating getting that or buying just the body and waiting to get the new 28-400. It's getting pretty good test results and reviews and could be a perfect travel lens.

I have both and other lenses too. Both of mine are good copies. Both of these two are good lenses. the 24-120 is however definitely the better lens in terms of IQ, at least for me.
The 24-120 is the one on my Z7 camera now. Can't remember when I last used the 24-200. it's now just collecting dust.

Japan screams for a 200mm. Get the Z 24-200, or you will miss a lot of shots like the one below. The Z 24-200 is sharp enough for the Z5 and the Z5 handles high iso values good enough that the f6.3 won't be that much of an issue. In Japan, even at night there is enough light that you won't be required to use high iso values for most of your shots.

One important lesson I learned from my Japan trip in late March is that sometimes versatility is much more important than chasing for the best possible quality and missing the shoot because you hadn't the time to change the lens, or you don't have the required focal length.





This shoot was taken handeld with iso 320 at f2.8. There is plenty of room for a 6.3.

Cultius Ponc said:

shuncheung said:

The F-mount 24-120mm/f4 AF-S VR is by far an inferior lens optically, but that was a year 2010 design that needs to leave space for a slapping mirror. That lens also has optical VR so that it is optically more complicated. I still own the F-mount version.

Click to expand...

If the F-mount version is 'by far an inferior lens optically', then the new Z-mount version must be incredible... *

[…]

* I do wish people wouldn't use such misleading hyperbole. The new version isn't vastly superior, it's a teeny bit better, max. There are virtually no 'bad' Nikkor lenses these days.

Click to expand...

>50% more resolving power in the center in the 70-120 mm range and f/4 is more than a “teeny bit”. The old lens never had a reputation for being particularly sharp at the long end.

Sir Yirk said:

I've read a billion reviews on these but any real world handling/images/stories would be great considering these two.

Will be traveling in China and Japan later this year and would love to take one of these, and possibly a fast prime.

Previously my favorite lens was the 24-70 f2.8 for the F-mount, so I'm leaning toward the 24-120, but the 24-200 would leave more budget for an additional prime.

Click to expand...

This is a topic that interests me greatly because I am always indecisive, especially when I see the Z 24-120 on sale.


Z 24-200 | 130mm | f11 | 15s | iso 100

When I started buying my Nikon Z lens collection in 2019, the Z 24-120 did not yet exist. So, I quickly decided to replace my Z 24-70 f4 with the Z 24-200.
It is a versatile lens that I love for landscapes and is also capable of macro photography.
For my type of landscape photography, f8-f11 is sufficient; I don't need f4


Z 24-200 | 110mm | f16 | 1/125 | iso 1800

The Z 24-200 is a lens that I quickly adopted and it has followed me everywhere, particularly during my backpacking trips and motorcycle rides.


Z 24-200 | 130mm | f6.3 | 1/60s | iso 400

Later, I bought the Z 24-70 f2.8 for professional use for wedding photography.
I was curious to use my Z 24-70 f2.8 for landscape photography as a hobby.


Z 24-70 f2.8 | 31.5mm | f11 | 120s @ iso 100

I immediately saw the difference in image quality compared to the Z 24-200.
The 24-70 f2.8 has better micro-contrast and much better sharpness than the Z 24-200.
The Z 24-70 f2.8 requires less adjustment in Lightroom, whereas the Z 24-200 demands more attention and needs more editing for an equivalent result


Z 24 - 70 f2.8 |46mm | f5 | 1/160 | iso 4000

So, I often find myself using my Z 24-70 f2.8 for landscape photos.


Z 24-70 f2.8 | 24mm | f3.5 | 1/320 | iso 7200

Indeed, I use my Z 24-200 much less today.
If I go hiking or backpacking, I take my Z6 and the 24-200 in addition to my Z 14-24. It’s a great combo, but I only use it when hiking.

However, I will soon have my new Nikon Z8, which I bought during Nikon promotions in Europe for 3530€
But I don’t know how the 24-200 will perform on a 45MP body.
And I chose to buy the Z8 body only.



I already regret not taking advantage of the promotion on the Z8 + 24-120 f4 kit.
For only 629 euros more, it was possible to get the 24-120 f4.
I missed it and it's out of stock now.

Now that I've shared my experience, I'll follow this topic closely and, of course, wait to hear your choice.

--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/101961522@N04/

I had the 24-200mm and sold it when I bought the 24-120 f4. I found the 24-120m much sharper but more importantly, the F4 gave me the ability to isolate subjects, take portraits etc. the 24-200 goes to 5.6 too quickly precluding subject isolation at mid focal lengths.

but if you only want one lens, maybe take a look at the new 28-400mm. Initials reviews look very promising.

Sir Yirk said:

I've read a billion reviews on these but any real world handling/images/stories would be great considering these two.

Will be traveling in China and Japan later this year and would love to take one of these, and possibly a fast prime.

Previously my favorite lens was the 24-70 f2.8 for the F-mount, so I'm leaning toward the 24-120, but the 24-200 would leave more budget for an additional prime.

Click to expand...

Depends what other lenses you have in your kit.

I'd base it on what you are going towards to compliment or if you want one lens to do it all.

Thanks everyone for your inputs and thoughts (and especially pictures)!

I'm in Canada where the Nikon sale covers both lenses and thd Z5. I'm currently shooting an OM-5 with 12-40mm f2.8 (equiv 24-80mm FF). I also have a D800 with the F-mount trinity, and I find myself often missing the subject isolation and light-gathering capacity of FF on m43, as much as I still love the smaller size.

Indeed, in terms of overall kits I'm leaning toward getting the Z 14-30 eventually, and leaving telephoto work to the OM-5 which naturally has the edge in terms of reach. In some ways, that biases me toward picking the 24-120.

shuncheung said:

Cultius Ponc said:

shuncheung said:

The F-mount 24-120mm/f4 AF-S VR is by far an inferior lens optically, but that was a year 2010 design that needs to leave space for a slapping mirror. That lens also has optical VR so that it is optically more complicated. I still own the F-mount version.

Click to expand...

If the F-mount version is 'by far an inferior lens optically', then the new Z-mount version must be incredible... *

The original F-mount version was a very underrated and overlooked lens for quite a while, perhaps because it was relatively expensive and many people preferred to go for the 24-70 f2.8 lenses instead. I bought mine for £655 back in maybe 2012 or so, as it was on a good discount. It then became increasingly popular, as people realised what a versatile lens it was for a whole range of tasks. I fond it perfect for shooting events at smallish venues, where you could get the while stage in yet still get close ups of individual performers. Perfect for when a 24-70 and 70-200 combo was overkill; just needed one cam and no faffing about with a second cam or swapping lenses over. Also great at large political demos. The ideal 'Swiss army' lens.

* I do wish people wouldn't use such misleading hyperbole. The new version isn't vastly superior, it's a teeny bit better, max. There are virtually no 'bad' Nikkor lenses these days.

Click to expand...

You are entitled to your opinions, but I bought the F-mount 24-120/4 AF-S VR back in 2010, shortly after it was introduced. In the first few years I was happy with that lens, on e.g. my 12MP D700 in those days. However, in early 2019, I bought a D850 and went on a trip to Antarctica, and I had the D850 + 24-120/4 AF-S VR as well as a brand new Z6 + 24-70/4 S. I by far prefer my landscape images from the Z6 with the 24-70/4 as the F-mount 24-120/4 is not sharp from edge to edge on its wide end. I never noticed the issue until I put that lens on a 45MP body.

Click to expand...

Yep, a higher resolution body/sensor and also viewing it bigger, zooming in more will definitely reveal the weaker lens. A lens that looked ok on the old 12mp sensors, suddenly doesn't look that good on the 45mp sensors, quite true....

shuncheung said:

At least I brought a laptop on that trip so that I found the issues very quickly and I also had a different camera/lens to use. Otherwise, it would have been very frustrating if all I had were a 45MP D850 without the best lens on a remote trip.

Click to expand...

Exactly.. if you buy a top notch body, you need a top notch lens to get the most out of it. I love the people that will drop $5K+ on a new Z9, but want the cheapest F mount adaptable lens they can find, LOL. If you buy Z9, get the 24-70 F2.8 that deserves to go with it. The F4 glass does decent job too, but to get the most out of the sensor you paid for. Yes, a laptop is needed to be brought on any photo shoot. Or at least to review the images later. I've had one that look decent on camera, only to find out they aren't that great on the 14 laptop. Same with your smart phones..

Kamil Z said:

Japan screams for a 200mm. Get the Z 24-200, or you will miss a lot of shots like the one below. The Z 24-200 is sharp enough for the Z5 and the Z5 handles high iso values good enough that the f6.3 won't be that much of an issue. In Japan, even at night there is enough light that you won't be required to use high iso values for most of your shots.

One important lesson I learned from my Japan trip in late March is that sometimes versatility is much more important than chasing for the best possible quality and missing the shoot because you hadn't the time to change the lens, or you don't have the required focal length.

Click to expand...

Thats the perfect argument for using the latest high end smartphones. Good enough image quality of vacations, for the social media you will be posting to anyway.... With iPhone Max, I cover 13-120mm optically. AND.. you want be drawing attention to yourself, to get robbed or law enforcement watching you. Esp. depending on the country you are in. I've seen it happen. in other countries, USA tourist detained slightly for having a big camera on the family vacation.

Kamil Z said:

This shoot was taken handeld with iso 320 at f2.8. There is plenty of room for a 6.3.

Click to expand...

Fullframer said:

Thats the perfect argument for using the latest high end smartphones. Good enough image quality of vacations, for the social media you will be posting to anyway.... With iPhone Max, I cover 13-120mm optically. AND.. you want be drawing attention to yourself, to get robbed or law enforcement watching you. Esp. depending on the country you are in. I've seen it happen. in other countries, USA tourist detained slightly for having a big camera on the family vacation.

Click to expand...

A Smartphone is just good in terms of sharpness on small screens in good light conditions. But Smartphones have a limited focal length range. Your iPhone does not cover 13-113. It covers something like 13, 24 and 120. Anything between these focal lengths is just cropped. With a full-frame you can crop a 50-70mm to a Smartphone 120mm and the full-frame image will probably still be better. A 24-200mm on a full-frame is something like a 24-400/600 with cropping to Smartphone quality. Full-frame cameras have so much more cropping ability. And the 120 is not a real 120, it doesn't give you the same look. This matters more than one may think. For example. Look at the photo below. At first glance it looks like a simple photo you can easily shoot with your phone. But because auf the smaller focal length the distracting background won't be blurred out and the bamboo trees won't be compressed that much.



A smartphone limits your creativity drastically. It's not just about the quality of the photos. With a smartphone it is also near impossible to get shots of moving objects in lowlight. You can't shoot against the sun without getting flare and low contrast.

Once you are used to a high-end full-frame camera with high-end optics it's hard to go back to Smartphones.

>>>But I don’t know how the 24-200 will perform on a 45MP body.

OK but not marvelous at the wide end. And pretty soft and dark at the long end.

The F4 constant z 24-120 is a clearly visibly better lens with greater contrast and sharpness. I had both. I now only have the 24 120. On a 7II and Z8. Its quite remarkable in its clarity and feel/look.

I also have a few other lenses. Almost all the S glass is razor sharp wide open in the centre at least. And some is sharp corner to corner wide open on a 45mp sensor. Hello plena! And some need stopping down to get sharp corners. But thats generally OK as wide open usually means you want to isolate a subject and thats not normally in a corner. And this appllies to the 14-24, and the 24 120, etc.And you naturally stop down to get dof for landscape/cityscape etc anyway. So nikon made a good compromise.

But the 24 200 never gets sharp in the centre at the long end. On a lower mp sensor you may not see this as much but its still visible. But there is lower contrast too.

But the thing that would do it for sure with me is this:

F8 compared to F4 in anything but sunshine means higher ISO and so more noise that degrades image further. I persume you will be carrying this lens at night while out too? Well unless you plan on lugging a tripod around on holiday then theres a massive difference between a pin sharp F4 lens compared to a less than pin sharp F8 one. One will give great clean usable clear images at night hand held. And the other is less sharp to start with and 2 stops slower.

Burgerman said:

>>>But I don’t know how the 24-200 will perform on a 45MP body.

OK but not marvelous at the wide end. And pretty soft and dark at the long end.

Click to expand...

Not sure I agree with the pretty soft part. Sure, 200/6.3 is not the most exciting spec, but it is all a matter of perspective. Photographylife measured the resolving abilities of the 24-200 as 2650 LWPH in the centre at 200 mm, and people say it is pretty soft. But at the same time, this is pretty much the same as the 180-600, which most people say is a pretty good lens. So yes, it is not the sharpest lens out there, but it is decently usable. Stopped down, it is highly workable at the short end as well, and it is pretty good in the mid-focal length range.

Member said:

The F4 constant z 24-120 is a clearly visibly better lens with greater contrast and sharpness. I had both.

Click to expand...

Agree with this.

Member said:

But the 24 200 never gets sharp in the centre at the long end.

Click to expand...

See above.

Member said:

Well unless you plan on lugging a tripod around on holiday...

Click to expand...

You are not going to get the best out of any of these lenses unless you either use a tripod or high shutter speeds. Otherwise, technique will limit sharpness at least as much as the differences in lens design do.

Member said:

...then theres a massive difference between a pin sharp F4 lens compared to a less than pin sharp F8 one. One will give great clean usable clear images at night hand held. And the other is less sharp to start with and 2 stops slower.

Click to expand...

If "handheld at night" type of quality is sufficient ("great, clean, usable, clear"), then any of these lenses will do fine enough. I tend to carry a tripod because "hand-held at night" does not meet my bar of acceptable quality.

pyang88 said:

As you can probably tell from split opinions, you can't go wrong with either lens.

If you're gonna bring a fast prime anyway, then I think the issue of maximum aperture becomes somewhat less important, so it comes down to the trade-off between maximizing image quality vs. maximizing zoom range.

If you're someone who wants that last little bit of "2% better" image quality, then take the 24-120/4 - the 24-200/4-6.3 is still an excellent lens, but Nikon has such outstanding lenses in its lineup (including the 24-120/4) that it's going up against some tough competition. If you want the maximum flexibility in a single lens, take the 24-200/4-6.3.

For me - if I showed my wife a mix of pictures taken with 24-120/4 and 24-200/4-6.3, she wouldn't be able to tell which is which, so I'd choose flexibility over image quality and take the 24-200/4-6.3.

Click to expand...

Here are some examples with 24-200 at 200 and 24:



















On my trip to Turkey last year, 24-200 and 14-30 were most used lenses. I also have 24-120 so I know the difference and it is not that drastic like some say.

Some pictures where taken on Z9 and some om Z 7II. For some reason EXIF has been taken out.

I have an old iPhone 12 mini and plan to use it as long as possible. 1 b/c it's still doing the work, 2 b/c they no longer make the iPhone mini...

I have an iPhone pro for work and hate the size of the thing.

Burgerman said:

I also have a few other lenses. Almost all the S glass is razor sharp wide open in the centre at least. And some is sharp corner to corner wide open on a 45mp sensor. Hello plena! And some need stopping down to get sharp corners. But thats generally OK as wide open usually means you want to isolate a subject and thats not normally in a corner. And this appllies to the 14-24, and the 24 120, etc.And you naturally stop down to get dof for landscape/cityscape etc anyway. So nikon made a good compromise.

Click to expand...

This is interesting though, I see you have the 100-400. I wonder if you would still feel this way if you didn't have this lens available. Would you be happy with 120mm as your longest lens? I've tried it, and wasn't. I wanted that extra length.

For me, 200mm is as long as I need and kind of an "end game" length.

I can also mount it on my Zfc to get to 300mm and have VR. Something that the 70-180 I was mentioning in a different thread that I didn't want can't do, no VR.

So no it's not optically as good as my 20mm or 85mm...but I get the shot.

100-400 by price and weight alone is not a lens I'd ever consider. Just not for me.

I also don't plan on getting a 45mp body anytime soon, just ordered a Zf that will probably last me til the end of the decade almost. And if it wasn't that, I probably would have got the likely 24mp Z6iii or something like a Canon R6ii.

All I'm saying you really have to evaluate your whole kit and what one is after in photography before deciding if 24-120 or 24-200 would work better for you.