Who is using the Z 24-120 for portraits?

It always depends on the photographic requirements, situation and intention.

Especially at events, situations where less planning is possible, where I rely on focal length flexibility and crucial moments don't allow for lens changes.

Minimal DoF is rarely required there.

It's usually counterproductive, and in the telephoto/close-up range of the Z 24-120/4 S, you have more than enough separation.

But of course, that doesn't change the fact that it's not a specialist for portraits, but rather a pragmatic solution with high situational flexibility.

Specialist lenses like the Z f/1.2 S series or the Plena are inflexible in this respect, but they're perfected for the genre, which also makes them irreplaceable in certain situations.

Where I rely on it, I naturally also work with the Z 24-120/4 S in people/portrait/event photography, but where I don't need the focal length versatility, I always use a specialist lens that simply offers other options.

Flexibility is not a one-way street; sometimes it requires a variety of focal lengths, but sometimes it requires a super-fast specialist, "the cream machine" who is perfected for the genre.

sirhawkeye64 said:

... but wanted to see if there was anyone else who is primarily shooting portraits (either in the field or in the studio) with the 24-120, as I'm starting to really feel that I don't need the 24-70 and can free up those funds for another lens that I might use more (or take a second vacation). When doing portraits, I find myself mostly at f/4 anyway, unless I'm going for really shallow DOF in which case I switch to my fast primes.

Click to expand...

Even when I had the Z 70-200 and 85 1.8S I always shot portraits around f/4, so moving to the 24-120 was an easy transition. This includes studio portraits with strobes, on-location natural light, and everything in between. I don’t shoot a ton of portraits anymore, but the 24-120 is what I use now; it is my go-to lens for almost everything.

Yes, the 2.8S trio was more capable, especially in low light, but after 25 years of carrying heavy bags of gear my aching shoulder needed some relief. I don’t miss the f/2.8 lenses very often.

sirhawkeye64 said:

I have this lens, along with the 24-70 f/2.8. I've made other posts about possibly selling the 24-70... but wanted to see if there was anyone else who is primarily shooting portraits (either in the field or in the studio) with the 24-120, as I'm starting to really feel that I don't need the 24-70 and can free up those funds for another lens that I might use more (or take a second vacation). When doing portraits, I find myself mostly at f/4 anyway, unless I'm going for really shallow DOF in which case I switch to my fast primes.

(I'm also one who is starting to think that super fast lens shot wide open for super creamy backgrounds is a bit overrated in many cases even though for some portraits I do like the look, particularly if the background is busy like a street scene. But many times or most of the time, i find myself stopped down anyway regardless of the lens to maybe 4 or 5.6 for a bit of background separation but not to the extremes that a superfast lens would produce).

Click to expand...

I'd make it simple : sell your 24-70 and keep the 24-120s, yes

And if you need more light, for some occasion, find a fixed short tele such as 85 F/1.4, or 100mm F/2. Or for a zoom at a reasonable price, the Z70-180 could do the job, but don't expect it to be as versatile as the Z24-120s, it is not (if ever some other lens could be).

To my sense, the 24-120s is good at anything (not the best of course, but good) and so is probably one of the best all-round purpose lens ever made.

It's the only lens I had that can do good proxy, good portrait, good landscape, good backlights, at the same level, all in the same pack.

I think I tried and had every single 24-1xx from Canon and Nikon from AF/EF to RF/Z mounts, and this is the best, hands down.

+ even if I don't want to think for you, It's probably also the effect of that versatility that is responsible for you to feel on the edge of selling your 24-70

TBH, to my sense any 24-70 f/2.8 is always too heavy, too short, too big, too expensive. So I won't be fair with that kind of lens as it never has been on any of my "logical" wish list since I'm in photography.

Pierre Lagarde said:

sirhawkeye64 said:

I have this lens, along with the 24-70 f/2.8. I've made other posts about possibly selling the 24-70... but wanted to see if there was anyone else who is primarily shooting portraits (either in the field or in the studio) with the 24-120, as I'm starting to really feel that I don't need the 24-70 and can free up those funds for another lens that I might use more (or take a second vacation). When doing portraits, I find myself mostly at f/4 anyway, unless I'm going for really shallow DOF in which case I switch to my fast primes.

(I'm also one who is starting to think that super fast lens shot wide open for super creamy backgrounds is a bit overrated in many cases even though for some portraits I do like the look, particularly if the background is busy like a street scene. But many times or most of the time, i find myself stopped down anyway regardless of the lens to maybe 4 or 5.6 for a bit of background separation but not to the extremes that a superfast lens would produce).

Click to expand...

I'd make it simple : sell your 24-70 and keep the 24-120s, yes

And if you need more light, for some occasion, find a fixed short tele such as 85 F/1.4, or 100mm F/2. Or for a zoom at a reasonable price, the Z70-180 could do the job, but don't expect it to be as versatile as the Z24-120s, it is not (if ever some other lens could be).

To my sense, the 24-120s is good at anything (not the best of course, but good) and so is probably one of the best all-round purpose lens ever made.

It's the only lens I had that can do good proxy, good portrait, good landscape, good backlights, at the same level, all in the same pack.

I think I tried and had every single 24-1xx from Canon and Nikon from AF/EF to RF/Z mounts, and this is the best, hands down.

+ even if I don't want to think for you, It's probably also the effect of that versatility that is responsible for you to feel on the edge of selling your 24-70

TBH, to my sense any 24-70 f/2.8 is always too heavy, too short, too big, too expensive. So I won't be fair with that kind of lens as it never has been on any of my "logical" wish list since I'm in photography.

Click to expand...

Just for some perspective (to show the 24-70 2.8 some love) when I am shooting indoor sporting events, there's no way I would pick my 24-120 over the 24-70. The AF speed, image quality across the frame, twice the light gathering and superior flare handling means it can be pointed anywhere and gets the shot. It on one camera, and the 70-200S on the other are a matched pair. The 24-120 is a great all-around lens that punches above its weight class, but people shouldn't get confused into thinking it is equal to the 24-70.

Most likely the OP never really needed the 24-70. But people shouldn't confuse something like that with the notion that there's never a need for the 24-70.

Suntan said:

Pierre Lagarde said:

sirhawkeye64 said:

I have this lens, along with the 24-70 f/2.8. I've made other posts about possibly selling the 24-70... but wanted to see if there was anyone else who is primarily shooting portraits (either in the field or in the studio) with the 24-120, as I'm starting to really feel that I don't need the 24-70 and can free up those funds for another lens that I might use more (or take a second vacation). When doing portraits, I find myself mostly at f/4 anyway, unless I'm going for really shallow DOF in which case I switch to my fast primes.

(I'm also one who is starting to think that super fast lens shot wide open for super creamy backgrounds is a bit overrated in many cases even though for some portraits I do like the look, particularly if the background is busy like a street scene. But many times or most of the time, i find myself stopped down anyway regardless of the lens to maybe 4 or 5.6 for a bit of background separation but not to the extremes that a superfast lens would produce).

Click to expand...

I'd make it simple : sell your 24-70 and keep the 24-120s, yes

And if you need more light, for some occasion, find a fixed short tele such as 85 F/1.4, or 100mm F/2. Or for a zoom at a reasonable price, the Z70-180 could do the job, but don't expect it to be as versatile as the Z24-120s, it is not (if ever some other lens could be).

To my sense, the 24-120s is good at anything (not the best of course, but good) and so is probably one of the best all-round purpose lens ever made.

It's the only lens I had that can do good proxy, good portrait, good landscape, good backlights, at the same level, all in the same pack.

I think I tried and had every single 24-1xx from Canon and Nikon from AF/EF to RF/Z mounts, and this is the best, hands down.

+ even if I don't want to think for you, It's probably also the effect of that versatility that is responsible for you to feel on the edge of selling your 24-70

TBH, to my sense any 24-70 f/2.8 is always too heavy, too short, too big, too expensive. So I won't be fair with that kind of lens as it never has been on any of my "logical" wish list since I'm in photography.

Click to expand...

Just for some perspective (to show the 24-70 2.8 some love) when I am shooting indoor sporting events, there's no way I would pick my 24-120 over the 24-70. The AF speed, image quality across the frame, twice the light gathering and superior flare handling means it can be pointed anywhere and gets the shot. It on one camera, and the 70-200S on the other are a matched pair. The 24-120 is a great all-around lens that punches above its weight class, but people shouldn't get confused into thinking it is equal to the 24-70.

Most likely the OP never really needed the 24-70. But people shouldn't confuse something like that with the notion that there's never a need for the 24-70.

Click to expand...

For sport, I'd still be taking 70-200 only.

Coupled with a 35mm or a 24mm on a second camera, that would be enough with much less weight.

Suntan said:

Pierre Lagarde said:

sirhawkeye64 said:

I have this lens, along with the 24-70 f/2.8. I've made other posts about possibly selling the 24-70... but wanted to see if there was anyone else who is primarily shooting portraits (either in the field or in the studio) with the 24-120, as I'm starting to really feel that I don't need the 24-70 and can free up those funds for another lens that I might use more (or take a second vacation). When doing portraits, I find myself mostly at f/4 anyway, unless I'm going for really shallow DOF in which case I switch to my fast primes.

(I'm also one who is starting to think that super fast lens shot wide open for super creamy backgrounds is a bit overrated in many cases even though for some portraits I do like the look, particularly if the background is busy like a street scene. But many times or most of the time, i find myself stopped down anyway regardless of the lens to maybe 4 or 5.6 for a bit of background separation but not to the extremes that a superfast lens would produce).

Click to expand...

I'd make it simple : sell your 24-70 and keep the 24-120s, yes

And if you need more light, for some occasion, find a fixed short tele such as 85 F/1.4, or 100mm F/2. Or for a zoom at a reasonable price, the Z70-180 could do the job, but don't expect it to be as versatile as the Z24-120s, it is not (if ever some other lens could be).

To my sense, the 24-120s is good at anything (not the best of course, but good) and so is probably one of the best all-round purpose lens ever made.

It's the only lens I had that can do good proxy, good portrait, good landscape, good backlights, at the same level, all in the same pack.

I think I tried and had every single 24-1xx from Canon and Nikon from AF/EF to RF/Z mounts, and this is the best, hands down.

+ even if I don't want to think for you, It's probably also the effect of that versatility that is responsible for you to feel on the edge of selling your 24-70

TBH, to my sense any 24-70 f/2.8 is always too heavy, too short, too big, too expensive. So I won't be fair with that kind of lens as it never has been on any of my "logical" wish list since I'm in photography.

Click to expand...

Just for some perspective (to show the 24-70 2.8 some love) when I am shooting indoor sporting events, there's no way I would pick my 24-120 over the 24-70. The AF speed, image quality across the frame, twice the light gathering and superior flare handling means it can be pointed anywhere and gets the shot. It on one camera, and the 70-200S on the other are a matched pair. The 24-120 is a great all-around lens that punches above its weight class, but people shouldn't get confused into thinking it is equal to the 24-70.

Click to expand...

I shoot indoor events, often with a lot of fast movement (dance, theatre etc), and the 24-120 is fine. Never missed a shot because of the AF or anything. If using two cameras, I'd have the 14-30 on the other body, so that and the 24-120 is a perfect combo. Nobody is thinking it's 'equal' to the 24-70; that isn't equal to the 24-120. They are different tools. The better IQ of the 24-70 is negligible in real world shooting anyway, in such situations. No issue with flare with my 24-120.

Suntan said:

Most likely the OP never really needed the 24-70. But people shouldn't confuse something like that with the notion that there's never a need for the 24-70.

Click to expand...

Nobody is. The 24-120 is simply more versatile, a lot of the time. I was shooting with my old Sigma 28-70 f2.8 zoom, and had a Nikon 70-200 f2.8, but after buying the 24-120, the 70-200 hardly got touched. Great lens no question, and the Sigma wasn't the ultimate in IQ (not bad though tbh), but the greater flexibility of the 24-120 meant I could dispense with both. The OP was asking about portraiture with the 24-120; for that, it is excellent. In that regard, it's way ahead of the 24-70.

The classic 24-70 and 70-200 combo is a bit outdated imo. Canon already have a 24-105 f2.8 lens, and surely something like a 105/120-300f2.8/4 would be a step forward? Personally I'm happy with the 24-120; my first one was the F-mount version, and that was a game changer for me. A 120-300 f4 zoom would be wonderful.

Hal Wilson said:

Suntan said:

Pierre Lagarde said:

sirhawkeye64 said:

I have this lens, along with the 24-70 f/2.8. I've made other posts about possibly selling the 24-70... but wanted to see if there was anyone else who is primarily shooting portraits (either in the field or in the studio) with the 24-120, as I'm starting to really feel that I don't need the 24-70 and can free up those funds for another lens that I might use more (or take a second vacation). When doing portraits, I find myself mostly at f/4 anyway, unless I'm going for really shallow DOF in which case I switch to my fast primes.

(I'm also one who is starting to think that super fast lens shot wide open for super creamy backgrounds is a bit overrated in many cases even though for some portraits I do like the look, particularly if the background is busy like a street scene. But many times or most of the time, i find myself stopped down anyway regardless of the lens to maybe 4 or 5.6 for a bit of background separation but not to the extremes that a superfast lens would produce).

Click to expand...

I'd make it simple : sell your 24-70 and keep the 24-120s, yes

And if you need more light, for some occasion, find a fixed short tele such as 85 F/1.4, or 100mm F/2. Or for a zoom at a reasonable price, the Z70-180 could do the job, but don't expect it to be as versatile as the Z24-120s, it is not (if ever some other lens could be).

To my sense, the 24-120s is good at anything (not the best of course, but good) and so is probably one of the best all-round purpose lens ever made.

It's the only lens I had that can do good proxy, good portrait, good landscape, good backlights, at the same level, all in the same pack.

I think I tried and had every single 24-1xx from Canon and Nikon from AF/EF to RF/Z mounts, and this is the best, hands down.

+ even if I don't want to think for you, It's probably also the effect of that versatility that is responsible for you to feel on the edge of selling your 24-70

TBH, to my sense any 24-70 f/2.8 is always too heavy, too short, too big, too expensive. So I won't be fair with that kind of lens as it never has been on any of my "logical" wish list since I'm in photography.

Click to expand...

Just for some perspective (to show the 24-70 2.8 some love) when I am shooting indoor sporting events, there's no way I would pick my 24-120 over the 24-70. The AF speed, image quality across the frame, twice the light gathering and superior flare handling means it can be pointed anywhere and gets the shot. It on one camera, and the 70-200S on the other are a matched pair. The 24-120 is a great all-around lens that punches above its weight class, but people shouldn't get confused into thinking it is equal to the 24-70.

Click to expand...

I shoot indoor events, often with a lot of fast movement (dance, theatre etc), and the 24-120 is fine. Never missed a shot because of the AF or anything. If using two cameras, I'd have the 14-30 on the other body, so that and the 24-120 is a perfect combo. Nobody is thinking it's 'equal' to the 24-70; that isn't equal to the 24-120. They are different tools. The better IQ of the 24-70 is negligible in real world shooting anyway, in such situations. No issue with flare with my 24-120.

Hal Wilson said:

Most likely the OP never really needed the 24-70. But people shouldn't confuse something like that with the notion that there's never a need for the 24-70.

Click to expand...

Nobody is. The 24-120 is simply more versatile, a lot of the time. I was shooting with my old Sigma 28-70 f2.8 zoom, and had a Nikon 70-200 f2.8, but after buying the 24-120, the 70-200 hardly got touched. Great lens no question, and the Sigma wasn't the ultimate in IQ (not bad though tbh), but the greater flexibility of the 24-120 meant I could dispense with both. The OP was asking about portraiture with the 24-120; for that, it is excellent. In that regard, it's way ahead of the 24-70.

The classic 24-70 and 70-200 combo is a bit outdated imo. Canon already have a 24-105 f2.8 lens, and surely something like a 105/120-300f2.8/4 would be a step forward? Personally I'm happy with the 24-120; my first one was the F-mount version, and that was a game changer for me. A 120-300 f4 zoom would be wonderful.

Click to expand...

Ok. So basically what you are arguing is that there is no scenario where the 24-70 makes sense, and that the 24-120 should be preferred in all cases.

I own and use both lenses. I disagree.

Suntan said:

Hal Wilson said:

Suntan said:

Pierre Lagarde said:

sirhawkeye64 said:

I have this lens, along with the 24-70 f/2.8. I've made other posts about possibly selling the 24-70... but wanted to see if there was anyone else who is primarily shooting portraits (either in the field or in the studio) with the 24-120, as I'm starting to really feel that I don't need the 24-70 and can free up those funds for another lens that I might use more (or take a second vacation). When doing portraits, I find myself mostly at f/4 anyway, unless I'm going for really shallow DOF in which case I switch to my fast primes.

(I'm also one who is starting to think that super fast lens shot wide open for super creamy backgrounds is a bit overrated in many cases even though for some portraits I do like the look, particularly if the background is busy like a street scene. But many times or most of the time, i find myself stopped down anyway regardless of the lens to maybe 4 or 5.6 for a bit of background separation but not to the extremes that a superfast lens would produce).

Click to expand...

I'd make it simple : sell your 24-70 and keep the 24-120s, yes

And if you need more light, for some occasion, find a fixed short tele such as 85 F/1.4, or 100mm F/2. Or for a zoom at a reasonable price, the Z70-180 could do the job, but don't expect it to be as versatile as the Z24-120s, it is not (if ever some other lens could be).

To my sense, the 24-120s is good at anything (not the best of course, but good) and so is probably one of the best all-round purpose lens ever made.

It's the only lens I had that can do good proxy, good portrait, good landscape, good backlights, at the same level, all in the same pack.

I think I tried and had every single 24-1xx from Canon and Nikon from AF/EF to RF/Z mounts, and this is the best, hands down.

+ even if I don't want to think for you, It's probably also the effect of that versatility that is responsible for you to feel on the edge of selling your 24-70

TBH, to my sense any 24-70 f/2.8 is always too heavy, too short, too big, too expensive. So I won't be fair with that kind of lens as it never has been on any of my "logical" wish list since I'm in photography.

Click to expand...

Just for some perspective (to show the 24-70 2.8 some love) when I am shooting indoor sporting events, there's no way I would pick my 24-120 over the 24-70. The AF speed, image quality across the frame, twice the light gathering and superior flare handling means it can be pointed anywhere and gets the shot. It on one camera, and the 70-200S on the other are a matched pair. The 24-120 is a great all-around lens that punches above its weight class, but people shouldn't get confused into thinking it is equal to the 24-70.

Click to expand...

I shoot indoor events, often with a lot of fast movement (dance, theatre etc), and the 24-120 is fine. Never missed a shot because of the AF or anything. If using two cameras, I'd have the 14-30 on the other body, so that and the 24-120 is a perfect combo. Nobody is thinking it's 'equal' to the 24-70; that isn't equal to the 24-120. They are different tools. The better IQ of the 24-70 is negligible in real world shooting anyway, in such situations. No issue with flare with my 24-120.

Suntan said:

Most likely the OP never really needed the 24-70. But people shouldn't confuse something like that with the notion that there's never a need for the 24-70.

Click to expand...

Nobody is. The 24-120 is simply more versatile, a lot of the time. I was shooting with my old Sigma 28-70 f2.8 zoom, and had a Nikon 70-200 f2.8, but after buying the 24-120, the 70-200 hardly got touched. Great lens no question, and the Sigma wasn't the ultimate in IQ (not bad though tbh), but the greater flexibility of the 24-120 meant I could dispense with both. The OP was asking about portraiture with the 24-120; for that, it is excellent. In that regard, it's way ahead of the 24-70.

The classic 24-70 and 70-200 combo is a bit outdated imo. Canon already have a 24-105 f2.8 lens, and surely something like a 105/120-300f2.8/4 would be a step forward? Personally I'm happy with the 24-120; my first one was the F-mount version, and that was a game changer for me. A 120-300 f4 zoom would be wonderful.

Click to expand...

Ok. So basically what you are arguing is that there is no scenario where the 24-70 makes sense, and that the 24-120 should be preferred in all cases.

I own and use both lenses. I disagree.

Click to expand...

I shoot events and sports and for a while had the 24-120 but did not yet have the 24-70 and while it is true that there a lot of cases where the 24-120 worked well, it really does depend on the specific situation and there are absolutely cases where the aperture is just not wide enough for some things.

For high school basketball games, the 24-120 has been an okay lens for the short end. The AF has worked fine for me. The images have been a little on the noisier side to what I would prefer but it's workable. For indoor graduations I've done it has been fine. Still, I did add the 28-75 as a less expensive way to get to 2.8 this year prior to the graduation period because I wanted to try doing certain things without the speedlight and in spite of what some people will say about that lens, I was very happy with the results.

On the other hand, for some evening fundraisers/galas, proms, etc. it has been much more unreliable. In the better lit parts of these events, the AF will work sometimes okay and sometimes a bit more slowly and I will need to use some "old-school" tricks to get focus. I am usually using a speedlight for these so image quality is not an issue. For the darker lit parts of the event, sometimes the AF is really a dice roll. For any kind of movement at these events where I would be focusing with AF-C to get candids, the AF really just doesn't work. For something like a prom this can make the lens borderline unusable in my experience. There is one fancy dinner event I do with a particular part where people are supposed to run around a little bit (yes, at a fancy dinner) and with the 24-120 I was really never able to actually get any photos. This year I went with a 50mm 1.8 specifically for that portion but the AF performance really of the entire evening was so much better and I was able to much more reliably get stuff on the short end as compared to when I would take the 24-120.

Now the 24-120 is still good, so even with my 50/1.8 on one camera and 70-200 on the other for that evening I still had the 24-120 in my little shoulder bag and pulled it out for a few things. It's a great lens and is versatile even for some lower light stuff, but there is a point where it is just not going to cut it.

Suntan said:

Hal Wilson said:

Suntan said:

Just for some perspective (to show the 24-70 2.8 some love) when I am shooting indoor sporting events, there's no way I would pick my 24-120 over the 24-70. The AF speed, image quality across the frame, twice the light gathering and superior flare handling means it can be pointed anywhere and gets the shot. It on one camera, and the 70-200S on the other are a matched pair. The 24-120 is a great all-around lens that punches above its weight class, but people shouldn't get confused into thinking it is equal to the 24-70.

Click to expand...

I shoot indoor events, often with a lot of fast movement (dance, theatre etc), and the 24-120 is fine. Never missed a shot because of the AF or anything. If using two cameras, I'd have the 14-30 on the other body, so that and the 24-120 is a perfect combo. Nobody is thinking it's 'equal' to the 24-70; that isn't equal to the 24-120. They are different tools. The better IQ of the 24-70 is negligible in real world shooting anyway, in such situations. No issue with flare with my 24-120.

Suntan said:

Most likely the OP never really needed the 24-70. But people shouldn't confuse something like that with the notion that there's never a need for the 24-70.

Click to expand...

Nobody is. The 24-120 is simply more versatile, a lot of the time. I was shooting with my old Sigma 28-70 f2.8 zoom, and had a Nikon 70-200 f2.8, but after buying the 24-120, the 70-200 hardly got touched. Great lens no question, and the Sigma wasn't the ultimate in IQ (not bad though tbh), but the greater flexibility of the 24-120 meant I could dispense with both. The OP was asking about portraiture with the 24-120; for that, it is excellent. In that regard, it's way ahead of the 24-70.

The classic 24-70 and 70-200 combo is a bit outdated imo. Canon already have a 24-105 f2.8 lens, and surely something like a 105/120-300f2.8/4 would be a step forward? Personally I'm happy with the 24-120; my first one was the F-mount version, and that was a game changer for me. A 120-300 f4 zoom would be wonderful.

Click to expand...

Ok. So basically what you are arguing is that there is no scenario where the 24-70 makes sense, and that the 24-120 should be preferred in all cases.

I own and use both lenses. I disagree.

Click to expand...

No, I'm not. I'm just saying that the 24-120 is more versatile, and I prefer it. That's all. I do think the 'traditional' 24-70mm range is somewhat limited now, and outdated given the advances in zoom lens design, and Canon's move to produce a 24-105mm f2.8 zoom kind of supports that.

I remember reading an article way back in the 1980s, in a magazine (remember them??) I think, about how 3x was about the limit for a zoom lens without too many compromises. Which is why Nikon didn't really do high ratio zooms much; the 24-200 type things only started appearing in the 90s and later. The 'pro' zooms were the 35-70f2.8 (2x) and the 80-200 f2.8 (2.5x). Things improved to 28-70, and then 24-70 (2.9x). Technology has now moved on to a point whee a 5x zoom is in fact less compromised than some of those early lower ratio zooms. I'd like to see the 'standard' zoom increased to about at least 90mm on the long end. I never find 70mm to be quite long enough really. With my 28-70 I was often cropping in on shots at 70mm. With my 24-120, I shoot a lot at 80mm and beyond. I'm often shooting with just one camera, so a one lens solution like the 24-120 is much better.

OK i guess I can see where people are going with this. It depends on the use case. For me, I usually either work in natural light, or use artificial light (I don't shoot events like concerts) so the faster aperture is not necessarily needed for most of the shooting I do.

This came about because after shooting with the 24-70 for a few years, I realized that between 2.8 and f4 I couldn't tell much of a difference unless I'm really close to something perhaps to decrease DOF more, but that the 24-70 was mostly similar to my 24-120 except the 1-stop wider aperture. I also felt and do feel that the range is a bit short for me to really get the looks I'm thinking of (like really shallow DOF, which under 70mm, you almost need a fast lens like an f1.4 or f/2 lens to get the nice out of focus backgrounds, of course there are factors that go into this, but aperture and FL is part of it). Of course faster lenses like the 70-200 2.8 are different because they have much more compressed view and thus out of focus backgrounds tend to blur a bit more and maybe are a bit pleasing plus you have less or almost no distortion at the longer FLs.

SCoombs said:

Now the 24-120 is still good, so even with my 50/1.8 on one camera and 70-200 on the other for that evening I still had the 24-120 in my little shoulder bag and pulled it out for a few things. It's a great lens and is versatile even for some lower light stuff, but there is a point where it is just not going to cut it.

Click to expand...

And surely thats the point where we'd switch to fast primes. 20, 24mm f1.8s, and then we've got the f1.2 lenses if we have really deep pockets. If I'm in a situation where the f4 really isn't adequate, then I'm going to be wanting f1.8 at least, not f2.8.

Nebido said:

It always depends on the photographic requirements, situation and intention.

Click to expand...

+1

Nebido said:

Especially at events, situations where less planning is possible, where I rely on focal length flexibility and crucial moments don't allow for lens changes.

Click to expand...

+2

Nebido said:

Minimal DoF is rarely required there.

Click to expand...

+1

Nebido said:

It's usually counterproductive, and in the telephoto/close-up range of the Z 24-120/4 S, you have more than enough separation.

Click to expand...

+2

Nebido said:

But of course, that doesn't change the fact that it's not a specialist for portraits, but rather a pragmatic solution with high situational flexibility.

Click to expand...

+3
In other words - horses for courses.

Hal Wilson said:

Suntan said:

Hal Wilson said:

Suntan said:

Just for some perspective (to show the 24-70 2.8 some love) when I am shooting indoor sporting events, there's no way I would pick my 24-120 over the 24-70. The AF speed, image quality across the frame, twice the light gathering and superior flare handling means it can be pointed anywhere and gets the shot. It on one camera, and the 70-200S on the other are a matched pair. The 24-120 is a great all-around lens that punches above its weight class, but people shouldn't get confused into thinking it is equal to the 24-70.

Click to expand...

I shoot indoor events, often with a lot of fast movement (dance, theatre etc), and the 24-120 is fine. Never missed a shot because of the AF or anything. If using two cameras, I'd have the 14-30 on the other body, so that and the 24-120 is a perfect combo. Nobody is thinking it's 'equal' to the 24-70; that isn't equal to the 24-120. They are different tools. The better IQ of the 24-70 is negligible in real world shooting anyway, in such situations. No issue with flare with my 24-120.

Hal Wilson said:

Most likely the OP never really needed the 24-70. But people shouldn't confuse something like that with the notion that there's never a need for the 24-70.

Click to expand...

Nobody is. The 24-120 is simply more versatile, a lot of the time. I was shooting with my old Sigma 28-70 f2.8 zoom, and had a Nikon 70-200 f2.8, but after buying the 24-120, the 70-200 hardly got touched. Great lens no question, and the Sigma wasn't the ultimate in IQ (not bad though tbh), but the greater flexibility of the 24-120 meant I could dispense with both. The OP was asking about portraiture with the 24-120; for that, it is excellent. In that regard, it's way ahead of the 24-70.

The classic 24-70 and 70-200 combo is a bit outdated imo. Canon already have a 24-105 f2.8 lens, and surely something like a 105/120-300f2.8/4 would be a step forward? Personally I'm happy with the 24-120; my first one was the F-mount version, and that was a game changer for me. A 120-300 f4 zoom would be wonderful.

Click to expand...

Ok. So basically what you are arguing is that there is no scenario where the 24-70 makes sense, and that the 24-120 should be preferred in all cases.

I own and use both lenses. I disagree.

Click to expand...

No, I'm not.

Click to expand...

Except that you really are saying that.

What situations do you believe the 24-70 2.8 is clearly the preferable lens over the 24-120?

Hal Wilson said:

I'm just saying that the 24-120 is more versatile, and I prefer it. That's all. I do think the 'traditional' 24-70mm range is somewhat limited now, and outdated given the advances in zoom lens design, and Canon's move to produce a 24-105mm f2.8 zoom kind of supports that.
I remember reading an article way back in the 1980s, in a magazine (remember them??) I think, about how 3x was about the limit for a zoom lens without too many compromises. Which is why Nikon didn't really do high ratio zooms much; the 24-200 type things only started appearing in the 90s and later. The 'pro' zooms were the 35-70f2.8 (2x) and the 80-200 f2.8 (2.5x). Things improved to 28-70, and then 24-70 (2.9x). Technology has now moved on to a point whee a 5x zoom is in fact less compromised than some of those early lower ratio zooms. I'd like to see the 'standard' zoom increased to about at least 90mm on the long end. I never find 70mm to be quite long enough really. With my 28-70 I was often cropping in on shots at 70mm. With my 24-120, I shoot a lot at 80mm and beyond. I'm often shooting with just one camera, so a one lens solution like the 24-120 is much better.

Click to expand...

If I argue this as a pro, have 2 lenses in case of failure, the (the 24-70 gives you a LED readout for focal length for repeatability) otherwise, and especially if you have enough light to AF quick enough, I think the 24-70 falls a bit shot for some applications. Taste is changing all the time, and as a lot of people get used to the aesthetic of iPhones and the like, the 70mm might be enough on the long end. BUT, being a classic guy, I miss the 85/105 options that the 24-120 gives me along with the needed depth of field.

Besides all the tech stuff, the 24-120 always felt to me a bit softer, and as were now shooting unforgiving 45mpx I think helping the subject is a nice thing (not that you loose many details in a portrait anyways).

so for versatility, weight and cost I’m a huge fan of the 24-120, that’s my go to for many things involving people.
If the light drops, the feels has to change, I have my 2.8 zooms and 1.2 fixed focals, then again, people pay me to create their visions, so I have options

If I were building out a kit for portraits and everyday shooting I'd probably go 24-120 f4, 50 1.8S and 85 1.8S in that order in terms of gear acquisition. In fact that is what I'm currently doing. Confirmed 85mm enjoyers may benefit from getting that prime first. I picked up the 50 first because I know I like that focal length.

musicshootr said:

If I were building out a kit for portraits and everyday shooting I'd probably go 24-120 f4, 50 1.8S and 85 1.8S in that order in terms of gear acquisition. In fact that is what I'm currently doing. Confirmed 85mm enjoyers may benefit from getting that prime first. I picked up the 50 first because I know I like that focal length.

Click to expand...

I just built one myself recently:

28 f1.8G

50 f1.8S

TT 75 F2

Juggling primes can be a pain but I mostly shoot with the 50 and then just grab the others when needed. But for every photographer this will be different and the 24-120 would work great in many situations.

musicshootr said:

If I were building out a kit for portraits and everyday shooting I'd probably go 24-120 f4, 50 1.8S and 85 1.8S in that order in terms of gear acquisition. In fact that is what I'm currently doing. Confirmed 85mm enjoyers may benefit from getting that prime first. I picked up the 50 first because I know I like that focal length.

Click to expand...

I'd probably have the 24-120 as #1 but as #2 I'd go for the 70-200.

While I do like the 85 or 50 at wider apertures and they would be part of my selection eventually, I think the compression from the 200mm outweighs the 1.8 aperture in terms of versatility. You can still do 50mm and 85 mm on the 24-120. You are stuck at f4, yes, I don't think I've ever had the 24-120 out and thought for a portrait that if only I had 1.8 I could make a great portrait where there wasn't one at f4. I HAVE definitely had cases where I was on the 24-120 and just knew that with that setting in that moment I just needed more compression to get a qualitatively different result.

Valid. I shoot my 24-120 at the long end a lot.

Received a couple of days ago, so I put it on my Z8 and went to the San Diego Zoo.

Here are three portraits (?) shots from today.




serval thru the glass enclosure.




meerkat






penguin inside a cave

Suntan said:

Hal Wilson said:

Suntan said:

Ok. So basically what you are arguing is that there is no scenario where the 24-70 makes sense, and that the 24-120 should be preferred in all cases.

I own and use both lenses. I disagree.

Click to expand...

No, I'm not.

Click to expand...

Except that you really are saying that.

Click to expand...

I'm really not; look:

"I'm just saying that the 24-120 is more versatile, and I prefer it. That's all. I do think the 'traditional' 24-70mm range is somewhat limited now, and outdated given the advances in zoom lens design, and Canon's move to produce a 24-105mm f2.8 zoom kind of supports that."

Suntan said:

What situations do you believe the 24-70 2.8 is clearly the preferable lens over the 24-120?

Click to expand...

When you absolutely need that extra stop of light, or the slightly better IQ, or both. For me, neither are worth the considerable extra expense. For others, they might well be.