24-120+prime or 24-70 2.8s?

[thisisbenji]

My vote would be either the 24-120 or 24-200. I’d combine the zoom with the 35/1.8S. I like those two zooms for outdoor use and then the 35 for indoor use when it’s not as bright.

For me, even though the 24-70/2.8 is a stellar lens, it would be too limited as a single lens.

 

[NowHearThis]

Hi,

I'm starting to sell off my F-mount lenses so I can switch to Z-lenses 100%.

I only have 1 Z-lens right now: the 40f2

My question is: Where I live the 24-120z+1.8 z-prime is the same price as a single 24-70 2.8S.

What would you choose? I'm afraid the f4 is going to be limiting somehow. Ideally I want a do-it-all lens (I'm tired of switching lenses:/) and thats where the 24-70 2.8s comes in. But even f2.8 can be slow sometimes.

Edit: I'm not a professional. I just like taking quality photos of my kids and travels.

I know many 24-70/2.8 lenses are great, including the Nikon Z version. But I can’t stand them. Big, heavy expensive, slower than most every prime, and you have to change lenses to get into portrait FLs (IMO).

If the Z24-120/4 is better optically than the Sony FE24-105/4 and equals the Canon RF24-105/4, then that’s what I’d get and add primes as needed. But again, this is what I would do… YMMV.

 

[Lars]

The Canon Is not very good, neither on MTF nor in real Life.

 

[NowHearThis]

The Canon Is not very good, neither on MTF nor in real Life.

I'm sorry yours isn't but the 4 (from different shops) I have tried...are. And they aren't just very good, they were excellent.

 

[Twombly]

My two cents:

1. Maybe you've already watched it, but Ricci's video for the 24-120 is up and he compares picture quality with the 24-70's, both f4 and f2.8. I was surprised!

2. On my D750 I used the Sigma 24-105 - and I still miss it: It was just perfect for kids and travel in terms of size and focal lenghts.

 

[35GMaster]

I’m still not sure.

These are the prices in Denmark:

24-70 f2.8s = 2371$

24-120 f4s + 35 f1.8s = 2281$



I wonder what will give better subject isolation. 70mm @ 2.8 or 120mm @f4?

 

[MCLV]

I’m still not sure.

These are the prices in Denmark:

24-70 f2.8s = 2371$

24-120 f4s + 35 f1.8s = 2281$

I wonder what will give better subject isolation. 70mm @ 2.8 or 120mm @f4?

Just fill those number into one of DOF calculators available online and you will get your answer.

 

[Nikon24-7]

I’m still not sure.

These are the prices in Denmark:

24-70 f2.8s = 2371$

24-120 f4s + 35 f1.8s = 2281$

I wonder what will give better subject isolation. 70mm @ 2.8 or 120mm @f4?

Take a look here. https://www.photopills.com/calculators/dof

As an example. 70mm at 2.8 will at a subjectdistance of two meters give you 13cm depth of field. 120mm at 4.0 and the same distance will give only 6cm depth of field. That is more than I would have thought. If you can trust the calculator is another matter

 

[GeorgioDS]

Why not split the difference? Get the 24-70 f/4, which is small and light for travel with excellent quality. Then, add the 50mm f1.2, which is outstanding but big and heavy. Eventually, Nikon is likely to introduce a 70-200 f/4 which collapses like the others zooms. Plan for the likely future not just what is available today…

 

[sirhawkeye64]

I’m still not sure.

These are the prices in Denmark:

24-70 f2.8s = 2371$

24-120 f4s + 35 f1.8s = 2281$

I wonder what will give better subject isolation. 70mm @ 2.8 or 120mm @f4?

I'm not sure about the math behind it, but I'm guessing the 24-120 at 120 at f/4 might be similar to the 24-70 at 2.8 at 70mm. However, I haven't checked to see how much they've improved the Z 24-120 over the F 24-120 which I think many said was not all that sharp at 120mm at least in the corners -- then again if you're going for nice bokeh, this may be less of an issue, but for landscape shooters, it may be a problem. Again, not sure of the comparison between the F and Z versions. Haven't checked.

However, I still think the 24-70 may still be better all the way out (zoomed at 120mm). I know that at least based on the 70-200's the difference between the f/4 and 2.8 versions (were not as great as people had thought, same for the 24-70 2.8 and f/4). Obviously, we are comparing two different lenses here. My suggestion would be to try to see if you can test shoot both in the store at some point and then decide from there (or better yet, try to rent one when they become available for rent).

--
(NOTE: If I don't reply to a direct comment in the forums, it's likely I unsubscribed from the thread.)

 

[35GMaster]

Update:

I sold all my F-mount lenses:

24mm 1.8G

35mm 1.8G

50mm 1.8G

85mm 1.8G

24-70 2.8G ED

AND… then I bought the 24-70 2.8s!

This lens is incredible. Sharp sharp sharp! It definitely replaced my F-mount primes.

So now I’m left with Z5, 40mm f2 and 24-70 2.8s

Maybe I’ll add a 85mm 1.8s in the future.

 

[jjz2]

Neither bad option. I'd rather have the 24-70 f4 or 24-120 f4 + a 35 1.8 as my primary 2 lenses though for the same cost. If I shot weddings or fast moving events, that would change.

For me it's more about the "look" of the image wide open of a 35/50/85 1.8 though (take your pic), which can't be replicated.

Secondary is the weight, the 24-70 2.8 is much heavier and larger. Yes, the primes in total might weigh more, but they don't when mounted on the camera... Addding another prime or two in my backpack (or leaving it in the hotel room) doesn't feel like anything, but you feel it in your wrist after a few hours, and people will notice you more with a 2.8 zoom mounted if doing travel or street photography. Take a 35 1.8 with 62mm filter at 370g mounted vs the 24-70 2.8 with 82mm filter and 805g mounted...quite the difference. Throw the 28 or 40 on...even more so.

Third, I prefer shooting primes and the way it makes me shoot and think, the 24-70 f4 is a complimentary or situational lens to my prime trio.

The IQ of the zoom lenses are fine, the high ISO performance is also really good.

 

[NikonokiN]

Update:

I sold all my F-mount lenses:

24mm 1.8G

35mm 1.8G

50mm 1.8G

85mm 1.8G

24-70 2.8G ED

AND… then I bought the 24-70 2.8s!

This lens is incredible. Sharp sharp sharp! It definitely replaced my F-mount primes.

So now I’m left with Z5, 40mm f2 and 24-70 2.8s

Maybe I’ll add a 85mm 1.8s in the future.

Congratulations! And I want to thank you for starting this conversation. I was in the process of replacing my 24-200 S for the new 24-120 S. This thread changed my mind. Some of the posters in this thread lifted my long-held prejudice against all 24-70s (I owned the VR version but didn’t find it exciting even though it took great photos). And then the Nikon big discount on refurbished products started and I jumped on a 24-70 f2.8 S deal. All I can say is…WHAT. A. LENS!

My 24-200 is being sold on eBay and is getting a good price. Whoever is going to get that lens will be very happy too, as that’s a great lens, just not my type.

 

[Lars]

Update:

I sold all my F-mount lenses:

24mm 1.8G

35mm 1.8G

50mm 1.8G

85mm 1.8G

24-70 2.8G ED

AND… then I bought the 24-70 2.8s!

This lens is incredible. Sharp sharp sharp! It definitely replaced my F-mount primes.

So now I’m left with Z5, 40mm f2 and 24-70 2.8s

Maybe I’ll add a 85mm 1.8s in the future.

Congratulations. The 24-70 2.8 is an absolute masterpiece!