24-120 vs 24-200 for Z5 travel

Burgerman · May 25, 2024

>>>>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.

Sagittarius

I can easily see the difference between 2650 lwpm and a lens that well above 3000 like the plena or the f14-24 in the centre. Its night and day.

On a 45mp sensor both of these two lenses (24-200 / 180-600) never look bitingly sharp. And do not resolve as much as the sensor can. And thats why I no longer have either. When usin a telephoto of an actual subject rather than a landscape I want the eyes sharp! And I mean sharp.

The example photos you showed as examples were either too small to judge at around 2000px at which point jamjar bottom looks sharp, and some over sharpened which looks worse that just accepting a softer image.

I have the 100-400. Its great from 100 to 300. Its VISIBLY worse at the long end above 300mm. Its still slightly sharper than the 180-600. And its a good lens. I have the 135 plena which really is sharp corner to corner esp at f2.8. It can out resolve the sensor easily. The 24-120, is almost as sharp at the widest two apertures in the centre albeit at f4. But visibly worse at the edges or corners.

If you cant see the same thing than I do not know what you are looking at. To judge sharpness you need to look at an unsharpened raw file. And compare with a truly sharp lens. Those need no sharpening or almost non. But thats why they cost so much...

If on a smaller mp sensor the difference are harder to see. Because the resolution isnt as high to start with. And this stuff only matters if you care about it.

Burgerman · May 25, 2024

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.

Depends what you are doing. I wasnt happy without having a 100 400 available! AS WELL as the 24-120. But I am also rather keen on sharpness... And contrast. And on nice smooth backgrounds. Everything is a compromise.

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.

Your camera doesent have VR built in? I didnt think about that. No you will not get 300mm from a 200mm lens on a crop sensor. You just use a smaller part of its image circle and so if the sensor pixel pitch is smaller you actually lose resolution. As in the sensor will now out resolve the lens more. Sort of like cropping in post and enlarging the image would do if that makes sense?

A 24mp camera will likely be fine with the 180 600. As it is lower resolution anyway. The lens will out resolve the sensor.

Burgerman · May 25, 2024

Of course non of this really matters. If its pictures for memories most of the planet are perfectly happy with a phone!

Most people - maybe 99% of the population are happy and think a photo is great if they can see who is in it and thats as far as it goes.

Then at the opposite end of the spectrum there are gear head photographers who can see the difference and that obsess over minute details. Where you are on this spectrum decides what camera and lenses or phone or point and shoot you are happy with.

I am a disabled hobbyist. Not a great photographer. Limited in what places or where I can get from a chair. And right now trapped 24/7 on a bed... But I like good gear! And I know and can see the difference after doing this since being about 14. And now 64...

shuncheung · May 25, 2024

Since I have both lenses, I just put them both on my Z8 and took some sample pictures at 120mm, f8. I captured sample images at other apertures as well, but the 24-200 doesn't have f4 and f5.6 @ 120mm for comparison

Even though I pixel peep, I don't see a whole lot of differences between the two, @ 120mm and f8, and that is on a Z8, as I don't have any Z5. I am sure the difference is even harder to tell on my Z6/24MP.

However, there is a big difference between max f4 vs. f6.3, and the difference between 120mm and 200mm is substantial also. I have both lenses since I got the 24-200 in May 2021 as a kit lens for my Z6ii. Nikon didn't announce the 24-120mm/f4 S until October that year and that lens wasn't widely available until early 2022. In these days I use the 24-120 a lot more.

BasilG · May 25, 2024

Burgerman said:
>>>>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.

Sagittarius

I can easily see the difference between 2650 lwpm and a lens that well above 3000 like the plena or the f14-24 in the centre. Its night and day.

On a 45mp sensor both of these two lenses (24-200 / 180-600) never look bitingly sharp. And do not resolve as much as the sensor can. And thats why I no longer have either. When usin a telephoto of an actual subject rather than a landscape I want the eyes sharp! And I mean sharp.

The example photos you showed as examples were either too small to judge at around 2000px at which point jamjar bottom looks sharp, and some over sharpened which looks worse that just accepting a softer image.

I have the 100-400. Its great from 100 to 300. Its VISIBLY worse at the long end above 300mm. Its still slightly sharper than the 180-600. And its a good lens. I have the 135 plena which really is sharp corner to corner esp at f2.8. It can out resolve the sensor easily. The 24-120, is almost as sharp at the widest two apertures in the centre albeit at f4. But visibly worse at the edges or corners.

If you cant see the same thing than I do not know what you are looking at. To judge sharpness you need to look at an unsharpened raw file. And compare with a truly sharp lens. Those need no sharpening or almost non. But thats why they cost so much...

If on a smaller mp sensor the difference are harder to see. Because the resolution isnt as high to start with. And this stuff only matters if you care about it.

I think you need to figure out how to use the quote function here. The statement at the beginning of your post is from me, but I have not posted any example photos, so the remainder of your post is probably addressed to someone else.

Jeff Klofft · May 26, 2024

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.

For your trip, I'd probably add the 17-28 f/2.8. This gives you a very good landscape and interiors lens. If you're going to be doing any wildlife stuff, I'd add the 100-400 over the ultrawide.
Jeff

Fabian Joya · May 26, 2024

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.

If the 24-70/2.8 is your favorite lens, you are likely to be happier with the 24-120/4.

The 24-70/2.8 is quickly becoming my favorite lens as well, and the 24-120/4 is probably my second choice.

I would argue that for general travel and walkaround photography, the focal length matters less. You will find plenty of subjects that match the focal length that you have. I find this to be true whether I carry around a couple or primes, the 24-70 or the 24-120. Although having only a single prime lens I find a bit limiting.

It's worth thinking about the kind of pictures you would like to take, and what focal length you would need for that. What would you use the 120-200mm range for? Personally I rarely miss the 120-200mm range, and now that I have the 24-70, I even find that I don't use the 70-120mm range much. On the other hand, f/2.8 and f/4.0 offer other creative options.

nonicks · May 26, 2024

Fabian Joya said:
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...

If the 24-70/2.8 is your favorite lens, you are likely to be happier with the 24-120/4.

The 24-70/2.8 is quickly becoming my favorite lens as well, and the 24-120/4 is probably my second choice.

I would argue that for general travel and walkaround photography, the focal length matters less. You will find plenty of subjects that match the focal length that you have. I find this to be true whether I carry around a couple or primes, the 24-70 or the 24-120. Although having only a single prime lens I find a bit limiting.

It's worth thinking about the kind of pictures you would like to take, and what focal length you would need for that. What would you use the 120-200mm range for? Personally I rarely miss the 120-200mm range, and now that I have the 24-70, I even find that I don't use the 70-120mm range much. On the other hand, f/2.8 and f/4.0 offer other creative options.

It's an evidence of capability of adaptation and you are good to use any of those tools in your hand and make them work. I think it's also a matter of your shooting flexibility and styles as well as having the knowledge of what to shoot and what opportunities to sacrifice with the limitations of the tools in particular trips.

I think OP, like most, will be fine with either option. I faced the same question myself just a couple weeks ago. For me, I would choose the gear that I would keep and would use more often, hence the 24-120.

--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/183079213@N06/

Rich Rosen · May 26, 2024

'm sure the 24-200 is a fine lens for travel. It gives you greater reach but restricts your shooting in low light situations. When the purchase decision between the 24-200, and the 24-120, had to be made; I went with the ...120. It has the same wide open aperture throughout its Zoom range, and is an S lens. I rarely travel with just one lens, but if I did, the 24-120 would be the lens. It is an extremely competent lens, that pretty masters all its focal lengths, and does it wide open.

Paddler213 · May 26, 2024

We just got back from an 11-day, 3709 mile road trip. I took 3 bodies and 8 lenses. I took a few photos with my D850 and Z9 + 500PF of prairie dogs and grey squirrels, and a few with my Voigtlander 35/2 APO Lanthar, but the rest were all with my Z5 + 24-70/4S.

Here's one with the Z5 + Voigtlander 35/2:

My point is the old saying that the farther away from "normal" focal length you go, the less you'll use it is mostly true. Exceptions for a few specific genres, like sports and wildlife, but it holds up pretty well.

Cultius Ponc · May 27, 2024

I used my new 24-120 Z lens at a political demonstration on Saturday, and I'm happy to report it is excellent, as is my F-mount version. Not had the chance to compare the two directly yet, but the 24-120 is the best all-rounder zoom available. It's IQ is up there with anything else, and differences to the 24-70 f2.8Z for eg will be slight, not major. I can see how the latter would appeal if you are after ultimate IQ from a zoom, but in real world use, I think most people would struggle to discern any significant difference at all.

The 24-120 gives such a great range, almost to the 135mm focal length, and is just that bit more versatile than the 24-105mm versions from other manufacturers. My F-mount version is my second most used lens, after my 24-70 Z. It is, for me, the perfect one-lens solution, and I will be using it for travelling from now on, as I did with my F-mount. I rarely find myself needing anything beyond 120mm tbh. The 24-200 compromises IQ too much for me. I used a 16-85mm (24-127.5mm equivalent) zoom on my old D3300, as a travel combo. I've got everything covered, from nice wide angle landscape/architecture pics, to close up portraits etc. Superb.

Burgerman · May 27, 2024

At the long end the old F mount 24 120 as well as the Z24 200 dont compare at all well when coparing to the Z24 120. Not in the same ballpark. And the Z24 120 is at its max centre sharpness wide open. So usable for quality shots even at night.

Same reason I swapped the reasonably good 14-30 for the 14-24 f2.8. Its sharp wide open in the centre at f 2.8. And then gets better still across the frame at f4 and ultimate corner to corner at 5.6.

Of course all of this is perfectly obvous on a 45mp sensor. But less so on a lower resolution one. On a 24mp sensor I would be more concerned that it was 2 stops darker. And so 2 stops noisier. And for the future in a couple of years when a 45mp sensor is "small" and 60 to 100 or more mp is the norm...

Thats the reason I buy lenses that are high in sharpness at 3000 to 3800 at least in the centre wide open.

Hence 24 120, 14 24, 135 Plena, and less so the 100 400. And why I sold all the others. Does this stuff matter? That depends on you. If you only take pics to print small, or for on a screen? Not really. If you want to crop, or print big then it really does. Why pay thousands for equipment only to get low resolution images? Your phone can do that.

If you are critical anything below 3000 is visibly soft on a 45 mp sensor. Never mind the 60 or 100mp sensors of tomorrow. Or bigger. The Z8 aleady can do 180mp images which severely tests lens resolution. Not a lot of point chopping up a blurred image into more bits!

If its just about memories, or low resolution sensors or small output images then non of this matters.

35e31f8a77514016a74aeb04390d8321.jpg.png

Bernard Delley · May 27, 2024

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.

yes, super zoom goes well with less pixels. You do not need such a sharp lens as with a 45Mpix Z7 where you can do a DX crop and still have 20 Mpix.

long lens example 170mm on the D90 in Japan with the 18-200mm. My lens sample was decentered and it shows in this image.

Cultius Ponc · May 27, 2024

Burgerman said:
At the long end the old F mount 24 120 as well as the Z24 200 dont compare at all well when coparing to the Z24 120. Not in the same ballpark. And the Z24 120 is at its max centre sharpness wide open. So usable for quality shots even at night.

Same reason I swapped the reasonably good 14-30 for the 14-24 f2.8. Its sharp wide open in the centre at f 2.8. And then gets better still across the frame at f4 and ultimate corner to corner at 5.6.

Of course all of this is perfectly obvous on a 45mp sensor. But less so on a lower resolution one. On a 24mp sensor I would be more concerned that it was 2 stops darker. And so 2 stops noisier. And for the future in a couple of years when a 45mp sensor is "small" and 60 to 100 or more mp is the norm...

Thats the reason I buy lenses that are high sharpness at least in the centre wide open.

Hence 24 120, 14 24, 135 Plena, and less so the 100 400. And why I sold all the others. Does this stuff matter? That depends on you. If you only take pics to pring small, or for on a screen? Not really. If you want to crop, or print big that it really does. Why pay thousands for equipment only to get low resolution images? Your phone can do that.

If you are critical anything below 3000lpm is visibly soft on a 45 mp sensor. Never mind the 60 or 100mp sensors of tomorrow. Or bigger. The Z8 aleady can do 180mp images which severely tests lens resolution. Not a lot of point chopping up a blurred image into more bits!

I shoot on 24Mp. No problem at all printing up very large. Lower Mp count cams perform significantly better in low light. A lot of my shooting is done in sub-optimal light conditions. The extra noise from higher res sensors negates the extra IQ of the more expensive lenses. Swings and roundabouts.

Everything is a compromise. When traveling, weight is a very important consideration. I don't want to be lugging too much around with me all day, it gets exhausting. The 14-30 is much smaller and a good bit lighter than the 14-24 f2.8 lens. Then there's the cost; the latter is twice the price. As I've said; in real world use, the better IQ of the latter is negligible unless you are shooting at very high resolutions (I'm not), and the extra f-stop is also negated by IBIS/VR.

I'm waiting for Nikon to do a DX equivalent of the 24-120; a 16-80 would be perfect.

CliveTJ · May 27, 2024

The price difference between 14-24 and 14-30 is interesting. At list price in my country the 14-24 is 2.12x the price of the 14-30. Buying grey the difference drops to 1.78x.

It looks like Nikon are making more margin on the 14-24 as they can drop its price more in far eastern markets.

fireplace33 · May 27, 2024

Cultius Ponc said:
Burgerman said:

At the long end the old F mount 24 120 as well as the Z24 200 dont compare at all well when coparing to the Z24 120. Not in the same ballpark. And the Z24 120 is at its max centre sharpness wide open. So usable for quality shots even at night.

Same reason I swapped the reasonably good 14-30 for the 14-24 f2.8. Its sharp wide open in the centre at f 2.8. And then gets better still across the frame at f4 and ultimate corner to corner at 5.6.

Of course all of this is perfectly obvous on a 45mp sensor. But less so on a lower resolution one. On a 24mp sensor I would be more concerned that it was 2 stops darker. And so 2 stops noisier. And for the future in a couple of years when a 45mp sensor is "small" and 60 to 100 or more mp is the norm...

Thats the reason I buy lenses that are high sharpness at least in the centre wide open.

Hence 24 120, 14 24, 135 Plena, and less so the 100 400. And why I sold all the others. Does this stuff matter? That depends on you. If you only take pics to pring small, or for on a screen? Not really. If you want to crop, or print big that it really does. Why pay thousands for equipment only to get low resolution images? Your phone can do that.

If you are critical anything below 3000lpm is visibly soft on a 45 mp sensor. Never mind the 60 or 100mp sensors of tomorrow. Or bigger. The Z8 aleady can do 180mp images which severely tests lens resolution. Not a lot of point chopping up a blurred image into more bits!

Click to expand...

I shoot on 24Mp. No problem at all printing up very large. Lower Mp count cams perform significantly better in low light. A lot of my shooting is done in sub-optimal light conditions. The extra noise from higher res sensors negates the extra IQ of the more expensive lenses. Swings and roundabouts.

Everything is a compromise. When traveling, weight is a very important consideration. I don't want to be lugging too much around with me all day, it gets exhausting. The 14-30 is much smaller and a good bit lighter than the 14-24 f2.8 lens. Then there's the cost; the latter is twice the price. As I've said; in real world use, the better IQ of the latter is negligible unless you are shooting at very high resolutions (I'm not), and the extra f-stop is also negated by IBIS/VR.

I'm waiting for Nikon to do a DX equivalent of the 24-120; a 16-80 would be perfect.

You mentioned "Lower Mp count cams perform significantly better in low light"
This video shows the opposite conclusion

Myth Busted: High Megapixel Cameras Do Not Produce More Noise in Low Light | Fstoppers

Burgerman · May 27, 2024

But even though the image above is not full size and so probably not viewed at 100% it is to me not sharp.

Also its a fallacy that less mp = less noise. Thats only true at 100% on screen. If I resize the 45mp image down to the 24mp size that the result is either greater detail at same noise, or LESS noise and same detail. Depending on noise reduction level used.

In other words there no disadvantage of higher mp all else being equal.

What matters isnt mp, but sensor size area. And output image size/area. The act of reducing image size also reduces noise.

Heres a quick careful test. Theres many that have including me.

Cultius Ponc · May 27, 2024

fireplace33 said:
You mentioned "Lower Mp count cams perform significantly better in low light"
This video shows the opposite conclusion
Myth Busted: High Megapixel Cameras Do Not Produce More Noise in Low Light | Fstoppers

Yeah right. I'll stick to what I know, thanks. Which is that in real world use, my Z6 performs better in very low light conditions, than a Z7. I've tried both.

Knowledge gained through real world experience is of infinitely greater value than some YT'ers waffle...

JasonTheBirder · May 27, 2024

The sharpness difference between these two lenses is real but when does it matter?

The only time I've really noticed sharpness differences to make a real difference in my photography is with bird photography. Most other genres do not demand the top level of sharpness from a lens, and will be fine with most modern lenses.

Burgerman · May 27, 2024

Here is a 25600 ISO image from my (noisyer than Z7II) nikon Z8.

Pick the noise out of this. The complete room was lit with a single LED 2W "bulb" while I was in bed... A snap of a lens case Not exactly exiting, but was testing a GOOD sharp lens.

This is TWENTY FIVE THOUSAND 600 ISO!

Remember that if I shrink this to a small 24mp sensor sized image that noise is reduced. If you can find any...

And the tests done by anyone that knows how to drive a camera and software show that in almost every case more mp = better results. At the sae sized output. Although here this is a full 45mp size anyway...

If you cant get similar results then you are doing something wrong. View FULL SIZE

24-120 vs 24-200 for Z5 travel

Burgerman

Guest

Burgerman

Guest

Burgerman

Guest

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Leading Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Leading Member

Burgerman

Guest

Senior Member

Leading Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Burgerman

Guest

Leading Member

JasonTheBirder

Guest

Burgerman

Guest

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts