I have had the 24-200 for two years or so and have generally been happy with the output, but after reading several reviews about how the 24-120 S was a higher-grade, superior-quality lens ("S-line, yo!"), I decided to give it a try during one of the recent rebates. So, I thought I would share some initial impressions. This is not meant to be a comprehensive review, but I thought that some observations might be useful if some of you are considering the same addition or up/side-grade.
What I found using my copies of these lenses (!) is that the 24-120 has very high centre sharpness wide open, a bit better than the 24-200. So if this is something you value, this lens will fit the bill. In agreement with e.g. the Photographylife review, centre sharpness decreases when stopping down, i.e. it is at its peak wide open at f/4 and f/8 is noticeably less sharp. Contrast of the 24-120 is also a little bit better, but not drastically so.
At the wide end (24 mm), the corners of the 24-120 are a bit better than those of the 24-200 (the centre is totally fine for both lenses). At the long end (120 mm), the centre of the 24-120 is a bit better, but the edges are mostly similar to the 24-200 (again, on my copies - I am sure they are not all exactly the same). Notably, the 24-120 appears to have some field curvature at this setting, so focusing half way between the centre and edge to improve the edges when shooting flat scenes helps even out the sharpness (though you do pay with slight softening in the centre).
If all of that sounds a little lukewarm, you might be right. The difference is not as pronounced as I hoped, but at the same time, there is nothing wrong with the 24-120. Will I keep it? Probably yes, because I like some other attributes that set it apart from the 24-200 (e.g. sunstars). Would I buy it again if I could time travel back two months? That, I am not sure about. I shoot mostly landscapes, which often involves stopping down, which in turn reduces the centre advantage of the 24-120 and produces rather decent output on the 24-200 anyhow.
I think part of the problem is that I have been spoiled by some of the other Z glass (14-24, 50, 85) and expected e.g. the corners of the 24-120 S to be a bit better than they are, which might have been an unrealistic expectation for a 5x zoom. Generally, I would say that the Photographylife review is quite accurate, and e.g. their MTF tests clearly show that centre sharpness is a strength while the corners are not the sharpest on this lens.
Hope this will be useful for some. Happy shooting.
What I found using my copies of these lenses (!) is that the 24-120 has very high centre sharpness wide open, a bit better than the 24-200. So if this is something you value, this lens will fit the bill. In agreement with e.g. the Photographylife review, centre sharpness decreases when stopping down, i.e. it is at its peak wide open at f/4 and f/8 is noticeably less sharp. Contrast of the 24-120 is also a little bit better, but not drastically so.
At the wide end (24 mm), the corners of the 24-120 are a bit better than those of the 24-200 (the centre is totally fine for both lenses). At the long end (120 mm), the centre of the 24-120 is a bit better, but the edges are mostly similar to the 24-200 (again, on my copies - I am sure they are not all exactly the same). Notably, the 24-120 appears to have some field curvature at this setting, so focusing half way between the centre and edge to improve the edges when shooting flat scenes helps even out the sharpness (though you do pay with slight softening in the centre).
If all of that sounds a little lukewarm, you might be right. The difference is not as pronounced as I hoped, but at the same time, there is nothing wrong with the 24-120. Will I keep it? Probably yes, because I like some other attributes that set it apart from the 24-200 (e.g. sunstars). Would I buy it again if I could time travel back two months? That, I am not sure about. I shoot mostly landscapes, which often involves stopping down, which in turn reduces the centre advantage of the 24-120 and produces rather decent output on the 24-200 anyhow.
I think part of the problem is that I have been spoiled by some of the other Z glass (14-24, 50, 85) and expected e.g. the corners of the 24-120 S to be a bit better than they are, which might have been an unrealistic expectation for a 5x zoom. Generally, I would say that the Photographylife review is quite accurate, and e.g. their MTF tests clearly show that centre sharpness is a strength while the corners are not the sharpest on this lens.
Hope this will be useful for some. Happy shooting.
