24-120 vs 24-200 for Z5 travel

Sir Yirk said:

Just for closure, I ended up doing some trade-in and taking advantage of the current Nikon sale in Canada to nab a Z5, 24-120, and 40 f/2. The lenses were in stock but won't have the camera till next week.

Anyhow, thanks to everyone who chimed in! Looking forward to kicking around with the Z5 for a while.

Click to expand...

That's a great kit. I'm sure you'll have a lot of fun and get many great photos with it.

Hi,

I would go with the 24-120 and would add the 20/1.8 for city and night shooting. You definitely want a wide lens. I would also probably add the 40/2 because it is so small and light.

I have no Nikon Z yet but consider to get one plus the lenses I just mentioned above. I've traveled to Japan many times with Fuji X and 14, 23 and 35. The Nikon 20 and 40 pancake would replace those lenses and for general shooting I think the 24-120 is the perfect lens.

I’m a nosey lady….does anyone know who the “unknown member” was?

Marie

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...

The 24-200 isn't a bad lens, it's just the edges and corners at long FLs can get a little soft, but nothing that I'd call horrible. But if it was me and I could only choose one I'd go for the 24-120 honestly. The fixed aperture is nice, but it's also curently $300 more than the 24-200.

I mean you could get the 24-200 and the 40 f/2 for about the same price as the 24-120 alone I guess. But if I could only choose one, I'd lean towards the 24-120. Look at your photo library and see if you shoot much beyond 120mm. If not, get the 24-120, if you do, then maybe consider the 24-200.

It's not like you're going to get horrible images with either one, it's just your trading FL and VR for lens speed and better (overall) optics in the 24-120. (I have owned both and compared both, and unless you pixel peep, both would be fine and probably is a non issue -- it's mainly the pixel peepers that will point out the softness in the 24-200 and they're right, it's softer at the longer FLs, but it's not like a night/day type of difference IMO). Regardless of which route you take, , be sure to check the lens (whatever you get) as the 24-200 did have a tendency to have a higher-than-normal copy variation so I would check any lens out carefully for sharpness issues when you buy it, and I would honestly buy the 24-200 new, and not used, for this reason. (Sorry if I'm no help though, but I shoot most landscape

--
PLEASE NOTE: I usually unsubscribe from forums and comments after a period of time, so if I do not respond, that is likely the reason. Feel free to PM me if you have a questions or need clarification about a comment I made.

sirhawkeye64 said:

the 24-200 did have a tendency to have a higher-than-normal copy variation so I would check any lens out carefully for sharpness issues when you buy it, and I would honestly buy the 24-200 new, and not used, for this reason.

Click to expand...

One exception to the "don't buy used" is "buy directly from Nikon refurbished." I believe they QC each lens that goes through refurbished sale. I bought my own copy refurbished and my copy is quite good. My 24-120 is still sharper, but I have to pixel peep, even at 200 mm, to tell the difference.

Icee258 said:

sirhawkeye64 said:

the 24-200 did have a tendency to have a higher-than-normal copy variation so I would check any lens out carefully for sharpness issues when you buy it, and I would honestly buy the 24-200 new, and not used, for this reason.

Click to expand...

One exception to the "don't buy used" is "buy directly from Nikon refurbished." I believe they QC each lens that goes through refurbished sale. I bought my own copy refurbished and my copy is quite good. My 24-120 is still sharper, but I have to pixel peep, even at 200 mm, to tell the difference.

Click to expand...

We'd hope they do. They probably do for lenses, but I've heard some rather disappointing stories from people about camera bodies they received, some of which look like they weren't even cleaned from the previous users/owner.

Lenses I'd be more concerned with though that they check them out, especially if they are returns (as some probably are), because you can drop a lens and it may not show any signs of physical damage on the outside but could misalign something on the inside. Camera bodies may show signs of damage more in some cases, but the lens thing is one reason I don't buy used lenses or refurbished for that matter, unless it's cheap like a few hundred dollars perhaps. I consider it to be "what am I willing to lose?"

sirhawkeye64 said:

Icee258 said:

sirhawkeye64 said:

the 24-200 did have a tendency to have a higher-than-normal copy variation so I would check any lens out carefully for sharpness issues when you buy it, and I would honestly buy the 24-200 new, and not used, for this reason.

Click to expand...

One exception to the "don't buy used" is "buy directly from Nikon refurbished." I believe they QC each lens that goes through refurbished sale. I bought my own copy refurbished and my copy is quite good. My 24-120 is still sharper, but I have to pixel peep, even at 200 mm, to tell the difference.

Click to expand...

We'd hope they do. They probably do for lenses, but I've heard some rather disappointing stories from people about camera bodies they received, some of which look like they weren't even cleaned from the previous users/owner.

Lenses I'd be more concerned with though that they check them out, especially if they are returns (as some probably are), because you can drop a lens and it may not show any signs of physical damage on the outside but could misalign something on the inside. Camera bodies may show signs of damage more in some cases, but the lens thing is one reason I don't buy used lenses or refurbished for that matter, unless it's cheap like a few hundred dollars perhaps. I consider it to be "what am I willing to lose?"

Click to expand...

Nikon has a 90 day warranty on refurbished. If they send you a lens that's not good, you have time to test it and can send it back for a replacement. I haven't had any issues yet (except my 40 f/2 arrived missing a lens cap, but they sent that quickly after I told them about it). I've bought 3 refurbished Z lenses and one TC. I'm not NPS, just a regular hobbyist.

Reputable camera shops will also offer a decent (30 days or more) return period for used lenses. I've bought two used lenses from my local camera store without any issue, because I knew I had time to test and return if needed, but those were cheaper lenses (under $300 each). Also, being a local camera shop, I could attach them to a camera and try them in-store before I bought them.

I'm not inclined to buy second-hand online except as factory-refurbished. There's too much stolen or, as you pointed out, dropped or damaged gear out there to be worth the small potential savings.

I've purchased a number of Nikon refurbished lenses and bodies and they all looked like new and worked perfectly.

Icee258 said:

sirhawkeye64 said:

Icee258 said:

sirhawkeye64 said:

the 24-200 did have a tendency to have a higher-than-normal copy variation so I would check any lens out carefully for sharpness issues when you buy it, and I would honestly buy the 24-200 new, and not used, for this reason.

Click to expand...

One exception to the "don't buy used" is "buy directly from Nikon refurbished." I believe they QC each lens that goes through refurbished sale. I bought my own copy refurbished and my copy is quite good. My 24-120 is still sharper, but I have to pixel peep, even at 200 mm, to tell the difference.

Click to expand...

We'd hope they do. They probably do for lenses, but I've heard some rather disappointing stories from people about camera bodies they received, some of which look like they weren't even cleaned from the previous users/owner.

Lenses I'd be more concerned with though that they check them out, especially if they are returns (as some probably are), because you can drop a lens and it may not show any signs of physical damage on the outside but could misalign something on the inside. Camera bodies may show signs of damage more in some cases, but the lens thing is one reason I don't buy used lenses or refurbished for that matter, unless it's cheap like a few hundred dollars perhaps. I consider it to be "what am I willing to lose?"

Click to expand...

Nikon has a 90 day warranty on refurbished. If they send you a lens that's not good, you have time to test it and can send it back for a replacement. I haven't had any issues yet (except my 40 f/2 arrived missing a lens cap, but they sent that quickly after I told them about it). I've bought 3 refurbished Z lenses and one TC. I'm not NPS, just a regular hobbyist.

Reputable camera shops will also offer a decent (30 days or more) return period for used lenses. I've bought two used lenses from my local camera store without any issue, because I knew I had time to test and return if needed, but those were cheaper lenses (under $300 each). Also, being a local camera shop, I could attach them to a camera and try them in-store before I bought them.

I'm not inclined to buy second-hand online except as factory-refurbished. There's too much stolen or, as you pointed out, dropped or damaged gear out there to be worth the small potential savings.

Click to expand...

Most will yes, but some will need to verify that there is in fact someting wrong with the lens (ie. they need to test it) before they allow a swap or they'll just treat it like a return and you may get stuck with a restock fee. Probably not the case with Nikon, but depending on who you deal with, some big box stores will basically stick you with a restock fee unless the lens clearly has a defect (and by clearly, I mean easily identifiable by looking at it or shaking it or something; just telling them it's not sharp or is decentered will likely get you nowhere with them).

Just depends on how demanding your needs are. The 24-200 is a good lens that is more or less as sharp as the 24-70 f/4 S throughout the 24-100mm range. The 24-120 f/4 S is the sharpest and best corrected 24-1xx zoom in existence. You obviously lose 80mm though.

Me personally, I would go 24-120 f/4 S and the el cheapo Viltrox 20mm f/2.8.

I must have got a good copy of the 24-200, I find it very sharp throughout it's focal length. I had ordered the 24-120 f4 wanting more sharpness but the waiting time for stock was too long so I got the 24-70. The 24-200 is just at sharp as the 24-70 at f8 and better in the corners. There seems to be a lot of love for the the 24-120 it would have to be better than the 24-70 to equal the 24-200.

Love the 24-120

rpps said:

I must have got a good copy of the 24-200, I find it very sharp throughout it's focal length. I had ordered the 24-120 f4 wanting more sharpness but the waiting time for stock was too long so I got the 24-70. The 24-200 is just at sharp as the 24-70 at f8 and better in the corners. There seems to be a lot of love for the the 24-120 it would have to be better than the 24-70 to equal the 24-200.

Click to expand...

I think it is better, but that's just me. It's got a nice rendering. I still have both but the 24-70mm is up for sale.

I used the 24-120 f/4 S on a one week trip to San Francisco last year. I even shot local ballet & contemporary dancers there. Very capable lens:

If you're just going to be in the cities, the 24-120 would be the better option because there will be more need for a faster aperture. If it's general site seeing, the 24-120 is a better option. What I'd suggest is these lenses: 17-28 f/2.8 (fast for night and indoor), 24-200 for mostly everything and if you had the budget the 40 f/2 for food and other details. I like the 17-28 over the 14-30 because I don't think you need 14 as much for travel and the 2.8 vs 4 is huge inside. Just my $.02