Nikon 24-120mm f/4 z

If I could only own one lens, this would be the one without a doubt. It's my workhorse. Mine sits permanently on a Z8 body since I bought it as a kit. It may not have the quality of the 24-70 f2.8 (I still have the original one) or an equivalent prime but it is a seriously sharp lens. I'm amazed at times at how sharp it actually is for a 24-120 zoom. I use it for landscapes, plants, people, buildings. The extra reach over a 24-70 is invaluable when I'm out and about or travelling. I rarely use my 24-70 f2.8 any more and I'm not in the market for the new one.

And It can focus close so I use it for plant photography when I'm not carrying my favourite Z 105 MC. Again it is not as good as the 105 but it is more than adequate for a lot of what I do.

I’ve owned the Z 24-120 f4 since it was introduced and have used it a lot on my Z6III as a travel combination, as well as on my Z9’s. I can confirm that it can produce excellent images.

I certainly don’t consider this to be a large lens although perhaps people are intimidated by the amount the lens extends when zooming. I can see that the lens might appear large when mounted on a Z5.

I recently sold my 24-70 f2.8 S1 and replaced it with the 24-70 f2.8 SII. The 24-120 is about 5/8 inch shorter than this lens when retracted and about an inch longer when fully extended. The diameters are very similar. I’m now using this lens more than the 24-120, but the price of this lens with tax is around $3000, so it might not be your first option.

I still plan to keep my 24-120 for its versatility.

Here’s a couple of 24-120 portraits where the subjects were not in the least bit intimidated.





--
Alan

I, like many others here, have this lens, and I keep it mounted 95-98% of the time! Of course, I only have Z 24-70 F/4 and Z 70-200 F/2.8.

The only other zoom lens I'd consider over the Z 24-120 F/4 would be a Z 24-105 F/4,...but only if it was significantly lighter.

You may want to rethink this!

I happen to consider this lens essential on my Full Frame Nikon's because it is superb for Landscapes and as a do anything lens. That said I don't use it on my Z50II because it's just too big and not as useful due to the Crop factor. On my Z50II I have a Tamron 17-70mm f2.8 which is sort of like a DX version of the 24-120 in terms of size and weight. If I go for a walk with my Dog I will usually put the 16-50mm Kit lens on the camera and that package is wonderful.

So, Options.

• One is the 24-50mm 4-6.3 lens, limited in range but very compact.
• Another is the 24-70mm f4 S lens. In size it's very close to the Z 50mm f1.4 and weighs in at 1.1 lbs. about 2 ounces heaver than the 50mm f1.4. Note I keep this 50mm parked on my Zf. Downside to this lens it costs nearly as much as the 24-120 lens.

I suspect that the 24-70 may suit you better but this is a case where you may want to find someone who will do a straight trade on this lens. My experience with trading lenses at a camera shop is the offer for the lens you are trading it will get an offer of about 35% of it's retail value. Note, if you are within the 30 day return window many shops offer then use that option for a near even trade for the 24-70.

As for the 24-50mm zoom, if that range will work for you then don't get super worked over the "slow" speed, the Full Frame Nikon's have high ISO noise that cleans up very nicely. I can also tell you that Nikon's "poor" Z mount lenses feature Image Quality much better than the average F mount equivalents. Basically Nikon doesn't make a "bad" lens in the Z mount. If you have a "need for speed" the Viltrox 50mm f2 is a very inexpensive option with very high image quality. I will also point out the image quality of the 40mm f2 is actually much better that most of the reviews out there imply. In my view if a lens is good enough to make a "tack sharp" 24 x 36 inch print it is more than good enough for me.

robmarshall77 said:

Some great shots here, Pierre, and thanks for your thoughtful response.

Click to expand...

You're welcome. Thanks as well

robmarshall77 said:

Hi everyone

As a new Nikon z5 owner I got this lens along with a couple of primes as so many people were saying how versatile it is combined with its very good image quality. The problem is I'm just loathe to use it, to the point where I'm considering selling it. I find its size a bit intimidating especially for shooting people in their natural environment though I know it's quite a lot smaller than say a 24-70 f/2.8 s.

My question is should I persevere with this lens? How have you guys who champion this lens used it and in what scenarios has it shone for you?

Click to expand...

I am another person who highly values the 24-120 for its versatility and the quality of images it can produce. It is the lens I use most often with my Z5. If I was in a position where I could only keep one of my Z mount lenses it would be this one.

I use it for landscape, event, portrait, architecture, close up, and some street photography. Day and night.

And yes, in some situations, use of this lens or other large lenses can cause people to react in some ways that is different than their typical behavior. These situations might occur in public places or in private gatherings. But I haven't found that there is much difference between using the 24-120 and the 24-70 in this regard. Sometimes just removing the hood changes how people react.

An alternative lens for such situations might be the Z 24-50. I have some smaller primes that I use when this may be an issue. Not the larger Nikon "S" line primes but the Nikon 28mm f/2.8, Nikon 40mm f/2 and a couple of Viltrox Air series primes.

robmarshall77 said:

"Better, lighter weight, smaller options". Would that include the 24-70mm f/4? I've got that one too lol. I think that will be my keeper as I believe the image quality is very similar to the 24-120 of course without the further reach but I'm I'm not sure how much I'd use 70-120mm

Click to expand...

Since you say you have the 24-70/4, it sounds like that may be the sweet spot for you. It is smaller and lighter weight than the 24-120/4. Most reviewers who've compared those 2 lenses have generally concluded that they are both very similar to each other image quality-wise. Perhaps giving the 24-120 just a slight edge for a little better sharpness and - of course - the greater focal range.

Like others here, my 24-120 lives on my Z7ii. It was the one lens I actually pre-ordered and have greatly enjoyed using it. I'll be looking to upgrade my Z7ii in the not too distant future. But my 24-120 will move on to that new camera when I do.

Agree with this assessment ... for commercial work the 24-120 is just great ... nearly indispensable for me. Not a casual rig at all on my Z8 though. If the OP is comfortable with MFT ... any FF Z body with this lens will be difficult adjustment. For me these days I am either shooting commercially or just use my Iphone.

robmarshall77 said:

Hi everyone

As a new Nikon z5 owner I got this lens along with a couple of primes as so many people were saying how versatile it is combined with its very good image quality. The problem is I'm just loathe to use it, to the point where I'm considering selling it. I find its size a bit intimidating especially for shooting people in their natural environment though I know it's quite a lot smaller than say a 24-70 f/2.8 s.

My question is should I persevere with this lens? How have you guys who champion this lens used it and in what scenarios has it shone for you?

Click to expand...

If the 24-120 brings no joy to you as a photographer there is no reason to let it gather dust. I was tempted to but a 24-120 but the extra focal length did not really interest me as much as longer telephotos, and faster prime lenses so I have stuck with my kit 24-70/4 purchased in 2019 with the Z7. It is small, light and is basically a good lens. Rent it before buying though.

I see the 24-120 as more a catch all lens for traveling and general photography. That is not saying any thing bad about it. It makes better sunstars when compared to my 24-70/4. If I did not have the 24-70/4 I too would have purchased the 24-120. The down side is like you mentioned, it is not as all stealthy.

robmarshall77 said:

AZ Indie said:

As a commercial photographer, the Z24-120/4S is an absolute must have lens. I shot three books this past year and only used that lens for each of them. Extremely versatile for that kind of work. But I agree, it is big, but not egregiously so like the 1.2"s.

Would I haul it along on vacation? Probably not, as our vacations are to get away from work. I love the smaller DX bodies and in the past have used the Nikon 24/1.7 and Viltrox 20/2.8 on both a Z50 and now Z30's. Current favorite combo is a Z30 with the 26/2.8 pancake. But we're talking snapshots not paid work.

Bottom line is how you shoot, what you shoot, and how much you rely on equipment vs vision. I personally would never part with it, but for travel and day-to-day general photography, I think that there's better lighter weight/smaller options.

Click to expand...

"Better, lighter weight, smaller options". Would that include the 24-70mm f/4? I've got that one too lol. I think that will be my keeper as I believe the image quality is very similar to the 24-120 of course without the further reach but I'm I'm not sure how much I'd use 70-120mm

Click to expand...

Yes, sort of. I don't think it's "better," but we all can agree it's "lighter" since it's physically smaller in every factor. The 24-70/4S is a sleeper/stunningly good lens for corporate video --which is 75% of my work. It's a workhorse and despite the massively annoying "turn-to-open to use" BS, is quite good optically. With that said, I've purposely never used it in "dire" weather situations, as it seems a tad Dollar Store in its build. But to be fair, my copy is going on 5-6 years old now and has never faltered, so that caveat is personal bias, not based in any field experience. It just seems a tad "cheesy."

As for the 24-70 vs the 24-120... Uh... +70mm... man, I can't add anything to your actual use case other than, there's been times were I've needed to grab 10-20 seconds of interview footage at +100mm that would have left the shorter zoom in limbo. The Z6iii and 24-120S are a monster for all the lame/boring/everyday jobs you need to punch out when running a commercial operation. Just my HUMBLE 2¢. YMMV

robmarshall77 said:

Hi everyone

As a new Nikon z5 owner I got this lens (24-120 f/4S) along with a couple of primes as so many people were saying how versatile it is combined with its very good image quality.

Click to expand...

It is

robmarshall77 said:

The problem is I'm just loathe to use it,

Click to expand...

Whoops! That is a big issue!

robmarshall77 said:

to the point where I'm considering selling it. I find its size a bit intimidating especially for shooting people in their natural environment though I know it's quite a lot smaller than say a 24-70 f/2.8 s.

My question is should I persevere with this lens? How have you guys who champion this lens used it and in what scenarios has it shone for you?

Click to expand...

Hi!

First of all, I am pretty heavy into Nikon equipment (pun partially intended)

Usually my least concern is the weight of my equipment , typically preferring optics over size.

So my frequently most used Nikon equipment now and in the immediate past includes:

Z8

400 TC

Plena 50 1.2S

35/1.2S

200 VR

500 f/4VR

Not exactly a list of lightweight gear

But I like the optics of these lenses

HOWEVER:

I sometimes like the idea of a small camera, and that often has been my iPhone:

I actually shot this magazine cover with an iPhone:



A few weeks back there was a Ringo Starr concert where they don't allow "Professional cameras" (usually meaning no detachable lenses).

So, I found a much smaller camera that fit in my oversized coat and was allowed n to the concert with it

A Leica Q3 (yes, I know that this is a Nikon forum, but as a Nikon user, sometimes there are non- Nikon solutions that work for me)

Uncropped (Can barely see Ringo Starr at his drum kit):



View: original size (external website)

Cropped >120%



View: original size (external website)

For those that are not familiar with the Leica Q3 it has a 28 f/1.7 lens and a full frame 60 MP sensor. Both are excellent.

Way better photo files than my iPhone.

So, to get back onto your desire for something smaller, especially for shooting people, the Leica Q3 is great.

The camera is expensive (~$6,735). But I get not just an excellent 60MP sensor but also an excellent 28 f/1.7 lens, and the ability to crop a lot. I've been really pleased with it

Another Crop example Wide open @ f/1.7) :



View: original size (external website)

Cropped:



View: original size (external website)

~100& Cropped



Your desire for shooting people in their natural environment is one of the areas that the Q3 excels at.

Not as quick focusing as the Nikon 24-70 f/2.8S Mk II (which I also have), but adequate and way smaller

Also, I recently wanted to crawl down under a bridge and over some rocks to get this shot.

It was great being able to do that with the relatively small Q3 instead of my much larger Z8 24-70 f/2.8S Mk II :



So, coming from a die hard Nikon guy, for your stated purposes., I suspect that you'd be very happy with the Leica Q3 in addressing your camera/lens size issues.

Sometimes, it makes sense to think out of the (Nikon)box...

Best Regards,

RB

--
http://www.dpreview.com/members/2305099006/challenges
https://www.nikonimages.com/member-photos/859

Great shots Rob, they look well balanced

Thanks for that AZ. I see in your gear list you also have the 26mm 2.8 pancake. I've also got that, yes I admit I'm a bit of a gear horder for a newbie to the Z camera system. How do you find that one?

Wow, great shots. They make me want that Leica, but unfortunately my wallet votes against it, especially it is still recovering from buying the Z6iii and the discussed 24-120.


I bought the kit because I really like the versatility of the 24-120 and its 77mm filter size. I have a very nice pol filter ad a nice set of ND’s that I bought for my Sigma 10-20 when I still had a d3100.

I like to take long exposure shots and my filters fit nicely on this lens, as well as on my 70-200 f/2.8 canon lens (more on that next month)

One other quality for which I use the 24-120 a lot is Macro. Its nit as close as a dedicated macro lens, but great for larger flowers and butterflies.

my advice: keep it and buy something smaller along the way. Maybe get that nifty z30 and 16-50 F/2.8

Thanks for your reply. Indeed the number of people who do the kind of photography I'm interested in (street, but other genres too) who use the Leica M system as their go to camera is depressingly frequent. I say depressingly cos I don't have £6000 down the back of my sofa. ;-)

robmarshall77 said:

As a new Nikon z5 owner I got this lens along with a couple of primes as so many people were saying how versatile it is combined with its very good image quality. The problem is I'm just loathe to use it, to the point where I'm considering selling it. I find its size a bit intimidating especially for shooting people in their natural environment though I know it's quite a lot smaller than say a 24-70 f/2.8 s.

My question is should I persevere with this lens? How have you guys who champion this lens used it and in what scenarios has it shone for you?

Click to expand...

I was offered this lens when I purchased my z9 from the same seller.

Did some test shots with this and the 40mm f2 he was also selling.

Both were soft... the 40mm was even more of a joke.

I was migrating from a D850 and had the last f-mount 70-200 f/2.8 with me so did a tripod mounted comparison of 24-120 at 70 and 120 compared with older 70-200 with a ftz2 adaptor on the z9. 24-120 came nowhere near the 70-200 at 70 f/4 and 120 f/4.

If you have the money sell the 24-120 and buy the 24-70 f/2.8 version 1 or 2 if you have money to burn.

At the end of the day it depends how much you value sharpness and tones out of camera... retro softness can always be added with various filters that are now available.

VidJa said:

Wow, great shots.

Click to expand...

Thanks!

VidJa said:

They make me want that Leica, but unfortunately my wallet votes against it, especially it is still recovering from buying the Z6iii and the discussed 24-120.

I bought the kit because I really like the versatility of the 24-120 and its 77mm filter size. I have a very nice pol filter ad a nice set of ND’s that I bought for my Sigma 10-20 when I still had a d3100.

Click to expand...

Regarding the filter size.

The Leica Q3 has a filter size of 49mm. One of the few less expensive things about the Q3 us the smaller/less expensive 49mm filters (almost all of the Leica brand accessories are jaw-droppingly high) .

VidJa said:

I like to take long exposure shots and my filters fit nicely on this lens, as well as on my 70-200 f/2.8 canon lens (more on that next month)

One other quality for which I use the 24-120 a lot is Macro. Its nit as close as a dedicated macro lens, but great for larger flowers and butterflies.

Click to expand...

Yep.

The 24-120 does focus pretty close... It's really a wonderful lens

At the risk of further temping you, the Q3 has a very useful macro mode at the simple twist of the focusing ring:

The macro mode is very useful for me:

Just a Dandelion in my back yard

View attachment 0fb990cfb66b40d2a949b67587e6d028.jpg

View: original size

Crop:



View: original size (external website)v

VidJa said:

my advice: keep it and buy something smaller along the way. Maybe get that nifty z30 and 16-50 F/2.8

Click to expand...

I admit, that as I left the camera store with the Q3 and le$$ money, I had some buyers remorse.

But that has faded once I realized how surprisingly versatile it was being able to crop the 60 MP image to make up for the 28mm lens, it's simplicity of use, small profile, and really great images.

So for it's high price of ~$6,350, I get an outstanding 28 f/1.7 lens that I can crop to a lot in lieu of needing multiple focal lenses. Almost makes me pretend I'm being thrifty.

I very much underestimated how useful, easy to use, fun, and versatile I'm finding the Q3 to be.





It's sometimes taken the place of tossing an iPhone into my jacket for a bike ride:





..and, addressing the OP's size concerns, is pretty inconspicuous grabbing images during casual walks:

In the past most of my shots like this might have been made with my iPhone.

The Q3 does a much better job.



Personally, I don't find the size 24-120 quire as "loathsome" as the OP has indicated. I don't mind carrying it around.

However, as one who, in the past, has scoffed at those lamenting the size/weight of their camera's and lenses, I have come to appreciate that I've found another option.

It kind of reminds me of an experience that I had in 1984 (yes I'm that old!)

I was spending year in the Washington DC area, and at work, met a client who was a White House photographer. I was a little star struck

Being an SLR newbie, I of course starting asking all the wrong questions including what equipment the photographer was using.

He was using Nikon and I soon discovered that he had a large array of high level Nikon lenses, SLR's etc. He had pretty much of everything it seemed to me.

But what surprised me was when he said, "But honestly, I have this little Nikon point and shoot with a fixed focal length lens that gets great pictures and is easy to grab a quick shot with it. I've gotten some of my best images with that little Nikon point and shoot"

I was surprised, and never forgot this valuable advice.

At the time, as a very inexperienced photographer, I had been more enamored with how wonderful it might be, and how much better my photography might be if I had a bunch of high end Nikon gear (I couldn't afford it at the time).

Hearing that this White house photographer was using that simple point and shoot Nikon got me thinking more about how to shoot as opposed to being obsessed with what equipment using

Best Regards,

RB

robmarshall77 said:

Thanks for your reply. Indeed the number of people who do the kind of photography I'm interested in (street, but other genres too) who use the Leica M system as their go to camera is depressingly frequent. I say depressingly cos I don't have £6000 down the back of my sofa. ;-)

Click to expand...

from where you are you can get close in size, weight and capability for little money by adding the Z 28mm f/2.8 lens to your Z5 . You basically go down from 60 Mpix to 24 and 4/3 of a stop down in lens speed. It does not take much zooming in to show more detail than 28mm at 60 Mpix. And, you remain far ahead of legendary street photographer Henri Cartier-Bresson on the tech side. (Bresson used Leica I with 50mm f/3.5 lens to begin, hence all street photogs need a Leica) You likely have to up your skill in photographic composition, clarity of visual message and catching the decisive moment.

For significantly more money you can up it with Nikon to 45 Mpix by taking a Z7 camera instead.

The Z 24-120mm f/4 S lens is the ultimate lens choice for a single lens travel and walk around kit in my agenda. It covers bordering ultra wide angle to longer portrait tele range. The image acuity it shows across the field of view on the 45 Mpix cameras makes it a very portable landscape kit too. Some 100% city views to document technical IQ.


Z7 II + Z 24-120 at 24mm f/4 click through for 100% view




Z7 II + Z24-120 at 50mm f/4




Z7 II + Z24-120 at 120mm f/4

lightaffaire said:

I was offered this lens when I purchased my z9 from the same seller.

Did some test shots with this and the 40mm f2 he was also selling.

Both were soft... the 40mm was even more of a joke.

I was migrating from a D850 and had the last f-mount 70-200 f/2.8 with me so did a tripod mounted comparison of 24-120 at 70 and 120 compared with older 70-200 with a ftz2 adaptor on the z9. 24-120 came nowhere near the 70-200 at 70 f/4 and 120 f/4.

If you have the money sell the 24-120 and buy the 24-70 f/2.8 version 1 or 2 if you have money to burn.

At the end of the day it depends how much you value sharpness and tones out of camera... retro softness can always be added with various filters that are now available.

Click to expand...

Would be interesting to see those pictures.

I tested the 70-200 Z version at the shop (to justify a future purchase maybe) and I did not see much difference between the 24-120 @ 120 F4 and the 70-200 @120 F4. So either your 24-120 copy was bad, or the 70-200 Z that I tested was mediocre (which I doubt)

I'm regularly borrowing the F mount 70-200 (latest version as well) from my neighbour and I also did not notice any great difference there either.

VidJa said:

lightaffaire said:

I was offered this lens when I purchased my z9 from the same seller.

Did some test shots with this and the 40mm f2 he was also selling.

Both were soft... the 40mm was even more of a joke.

I was migrating from a D850 and had the last f-mount 70-200 f/2.8 with me so did a tripod mounted comparison of 24-120 at 70 and 120 compared with older 70-200 with a ftz2 adaptor on the z9. 24-120 came nowhere near the 70-200 at 70 f/4 and 120 f/4.

If you have the money sell the 24-120 and buy the 24-70 f/2.8 version 1 or 2 if you have money to burn.

At the end of the day it depends how much you value sharpness and tones out of camera... retro softness can always be added with various filters that are now available.

Click to expand...

Would be interesting to see those pictures.

I tested the 70-200 Z version at the shop (to justify a future purchase maybe) and I did not see much difference between the 24-120 @ 120 F4 and the 70-200 @120 F4. So either your 24-120 copy was bad, or the 70-200 Z that I tested was mediocre (which I doubt)

I'm regularly borrowing the F mount 70-200 (latest version as well) from my neighbour and I also did not notice any great difference there either.

Click to expand...

I only have experience with one sample of the Z 24-120mm/f4 S, my own lens, and it is very good and far better than the F-mount 24-120mm/f4 AF-S VR I previously own. I also own the Z 24-70/4, 24-70/2.8 version 1, and 70-200/2.8. All are S class lenses with high quality, but perhaps the f2.8s are a bit higher.

I tend to discount bad experience with just one sample of a lens, especially when it is a demo lens that was only used briefly inside a camera store or at some camera show. Of course there could be defective samples of any new lens, but a demo lens could have been through a lot of hands and not carefully handled. If I find a bad sample of a lens, I would try to check a 2nd and perhaps a 3rd sample to verify the results. But I understand that is much easier said than done.