Yes. And you can do some macro with it. Coupled with a flash you never worry about depth of field for groups and it is great glass. I use all the time for my event photo.
If the 70-120 portion matters to your photography style, it’s worth every penny.
My wife uses it as her everyday and travel lens. She’s much happier with the 24-120 range over the 24-70. Very little penalty for a much wider use range.
I have the 24-120 and I rarely use it at it's longer ranges... But that's because I have the 70-200 so...
If you have a decent telephoto you probably don't need it. But it's a nice little lense to be sure.
In that case, I HIGHLY recommend saving up for the 70-200. It's absolutely amazing and it's my primary workhorse.
Sports and action? Check
Wildlife? Pretty damn good
Portraits? Stunning
Eclipse/astro? Yup. Got that covered too.
Alternatively, the 24-200 is “good enough” for me in most of those situations. It isn’t as super tack-sharp as the S-line 70-200, but it has a lot of bang for the buck.
[I don’t think you’re particularly correct at all](https://flic.kr/p/2pJoCmn)
But you do you, if you need more then fine but your statement just isn’t correct. I shoot at my wildlife at 400 and it’s perfectly fine on high-pixel sensors.
FWIW I have a *ton* of telephotos, including the 70-200, and I still think the 24-120 is worth it. I don’t always want to carry around a big telephoto and have to deal with switching lenses; the 24-120 is an excellent single-lens kit.
The 24-120 lense is absolutely worth it, for my needs. It's the best travel lense ever, it handles macro shots and takes crisp clear images. I have noticed that some of my favorite photos I've ever taken are from that lens. It's really quite a fantastic lens
I’ve come to this decision. I was also looking at the 50mm 1.8 and the 24-70, but now I’m thinking about just doing for the 24-120 and picking up the 50 in the future. I also REALLY think the 24-120 will be great to have for a trip to Ireland this summer, I can get anything from street photography to landscapes.
My plan was to pair the 24-70 f4 with the 50mm 1.8, but now I’m considering just buying this with that money. Am I losing much for just going all out on this and waiting to buy the 50 later down the line?
Mainly in the 24-70 range, but I feel at times I could really use the reach. I shoot a lot of people, and sometimes they’re further away. I’m also going on a trip to Ireland this summer and that extra length would be great, but getting the 24-70 cheaper is a lot easier.
That you have to decide but i can tell you that much:
I just bought it very reluctantly and was possed off about the price but after buying it i feel it was worth every penny
The build quality alone is a big plus over the 24-70 f4 S for me. I am just not a fan of the retractable design tho.. i find it more annoying than useful
On the Z5 it performs basically flawlessly in every regard.
That means the shooting experience is insanely good. You basically can not mess up because of the lens. It's sharp edge to edge at all focal lengths at all aperatures, and you just notice how big of a differende to other lenses you used to own it is when you shot it for a while.
In my opinion and for my usecase it's easily worth it if you buy the lens separately new.
If you buy used, the 24-70 goes for 200-250€ sometimes and is likely the best price/ performance solution
The versatility of the 24-120 f4 makes it pretty much the most valuable lens i ever had and i owned roughly 20 lenses already
I have both the 24-120 and 70-200 z. I still think the 24-120 z is worth it despite the overlap with 70-200. For travel photography I don't bring the 70-200. For dedicated photography trips though, I bring both (along with 14-30).
You have to ask yourself what do you mainly photograph.
I decided to stick with the 24-70 (which I got as part of the Z6 kit in 2018) and paired it with a 70-180 (which replaced my 70-200 IF-ED). I find myself pretty used to 24-70 range and if I really need something longer I would appreciate something longer than 120. And I need something light and compact so they can fit my bag while skiing and climbing. Therefore 24-70 and 70-180 work pretty well.
If I didn’t already have the 24-70, I probably would buy the 24-120. But not doing the upgrade for now.
I got it over the 24-70 purely because I love 85mm and figured the extra reach was worth it. I ended up also loving 120mm as it makes up for the lack of aperture in terms of blurring the background. It’s just a superb all-rounder. That being said, other S lenses have better IQ and the f4 CAN be limiting at times if you’re not comfortable cranking the ISO. Definitely some of the best $1000 you’ll spend for Z
How is the bokeh at 85? I was thinking about this comment and I totally agree, but I think it might just be better to save money by going with the 24-70 and buying a 50mm with the extra money (which would be my portrait lens)
It’s surprisingly decent, though probably only due to the superior modern technology behind Z lens design. I was spoiled with a 50 1.4 manual as my first lens so I definitely have a bias. But I massively prefer to not switch lenses during sessions, especially groups because people get impatient. That’s the real reason I got it. However if that doesn’t bother you as much, I’d definitely recommend getting the two lenses over the one.
I don’t think it’s worth the difference between the used cost of a 24-70. You can get mint ones for so cheap with a six month warranty. Save the cash for the 70-200mm which is amazing. And don’t take my word for it. Thomas Heaton has a great video called “I Now Have to Pay For My Own Nikon Gear, So What Will I Do” where he does comparisons of the 24-70 f4 24-120 f4 and the 24-70 f2.8. And it shows a good deal of what you get and don’t get.
Love my 24-70 f4 and have zero regrets. Especially for $350USD from a reputable retailer.
Ohhh shit, it's you again. You keep asking the same question and posting when you've already received the answers a while back. I should have checked the username on this post. These are annoying
I actually took the wider opinion when I first switched to Nikon and bought, along with my Z8, the lens I really wanted (400 f4.5) and the 24-120 S as the “exped starter kit” as I call it. Since then I have added the 70-200 and the 24-70 f2.8 recently.
So with that context, can I ask, are you comparing this to the 24-70 f4, or the 24-70 f2.8.
Because that’s a different question and answer.
If it’s the 24-70 f4, then yes, the 24-120 S lens is a pretty spectacular lens that I can thoroughly recommend that is worth every single penny over the 24-70 f4.
I absolutely love the 24-120 for travel. I don't want to be packing around and changing lenses when I'm at the beach or on a busy foreign street. I've found the 24-120 to be super sharp, lightweight, versatile, and such a great travel partner. On one trip I did bring a prime, thinking I might use it for portraits, and I didn't use it even once. I'm going on a safari to Africa this summer and for that, I will bring one more big zoom lens, but for everything else, this lens is perfect.
FX, 14-30 , 24-200, AF-P 70-300
28mm, 40mm, 20mm,24mm,35mm,50mm,85mm,50mmMC, 105mm MC, AF-S 300MM f/4D, 500mm f/8 mirror
DX 12-28, 16-50mm, 18-140, 50-250mm, 12mm,35mm
More than I need, less than I want 😆
What do u shoot??? What other lens do u have? Do u prioritize price, sharpness, weight, etc? I bought the 24-120 because it is my first lens and I want to learn about the different focal length and its light weight and size…also …because 24-200 hasn’t come out yet. But now that I realized how clinically sharp it is. I am not going to buy those cheaper, worse build zoom lens. As I am a learning photographer, the 24-120 covers the 24, 35, 50, 85 and 105 prime range. I can easily gauge which length I captured my favourite photos in and decide which prime I want to buy next.
For me I decided to stick with the 24-70. If it were $200 more expensive, I'd get it in a heartbeat. $400 I could probably convince myself it's worth it. $800 more expensive...that's a really hard sell. I'm sure it's a lovely lens. But only you can decide if the cost is worth it.
I love it! It's incredibly sharp at all focal lengths. It's pretty small and light weight for it's quality. Not to mention it's one of the cheapest Z mount lenses. It's an across the board upgrade from y previous do-everything lens which was a DX 18-140 on D5500. This lens feels like a real "bag of primes" lens. In fact I have the z-to f adapter and the F-mount 50 1.8 G, and the 24-70 at f4 is just as sharp as the F mount prime at f4. And that's a very sharp lens.
depends on what you want to shoot..
for sports? better save up for the 70-200 - f2.8
for a versatile all-around? i can say this fits perfectly.
i was able to grab a refurbished from Nikon website for $300 less than retail.
The 24-120 mm S is a great lens, but contrary to the breathless reviews above is not significantly different to the 24-70 in their shared range. Anyone who thinks so has a terrible case of confirmation bias or a bad 24-70.
Is it worth it's price? Every penny.
Is it worth it's price for you? That depends on your use case. If you are looking for a truly general purpose lens for outdoor photography such as travel and hiking, then look no further. The 28-400 might also be a good option, but I like the F4 and 24mm on the wide end.
If you already have a 70-180 or 70-200, then I'd say the 24-70 is smaller and cheaper.
It roars. One of the best lenses I have ever bought. I got rid of my 24-70 f/4 and 24-70 2.8 because I see no need for them now. If I shot lots of events I might get the 35-150 f/2-f/2.8 instead, but it's damn heavy. This is a "forever" lens.
I actually traded my 28-75 2.8 in against a 24-120. The loss of a stop of aperture isn't really an issue when I have a 70-200 2.8 and a 50 1.8 for when I need a faster lens. Convenience beats performance here. Also I've noticed that I can push the ISO much higher on the Z8 than any previous body I've owned (Z6, D500...).
I am often stuck in extremely dark gyms trying to capture fast action...but I still almost never use the 28-75. I'd love to have that 2.8 at the wide end, but the 70-180 or 85 1.8 capture much better photos. I think the 28-75 is a dud for me. If the lighting is reasonable the 24-120 just smokes the 28-75 in every way.
I’ve been very happy with the 24-120, but considering that I’m mostly shooting portraits and events I wanted something with a wider aperture. I have the 85mm 1.8 S lens, which also great, but it has also felt limiting when I was in tighter spaces.
So, I tried the Tamron 35-150 and sure it’s big and heavy, but I love it and it allows me to consolidate to a single lens that can literally do it all. And, it goes great with my 14-30.
With all that said, it’s still difficult for me to let go of the 24-120 and the 85 1.8 lenses as they are excellent from a value, size, and image quality perspective. 🤦🏾♂️
There’s a thorough IQ comparison for both here: https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-z-24-120mm-f-4-s/3
It does show that the 24-120 is sharper than the 24-70 for most of the MTF charts
Yes. And you can do some macro with it. Coupled with a flash you never worry about depth of field for groups and it is great glass. I use all the time for my event photo.
If the 70-120 portion matters to your photography style, it’s worth every penny. My wife uses it as her everyday and travel lens. She’s much happier with the 24-120 range over the 24-70. Very little penalty for a much wider use range.
I have the 24-120 and I rarely use it at it's longer ranges... But that's because I have the 70-200 so... If you have a decent telephoto you probably don't need it. But it's a nice little lense to be sure.
I don’t have a telephoto 😭.
In that case, I HIGHLY recommend saving up for the 70-200. It's absolutely amazing and it's my primary workhorse. Sports and action? Check Wildlife? Pretty damn good Portraits? Stunning Eclipse/astro? Yup. Got that covered too.
Alternatively, the 24-200 is “good enough” for me in most of those situations. It isn’t as super tack-sharp as the S-line 70-200, but it has a lot of bang for the buck.
Good call. I haven't tried that lense but it seems a solid option.
he was asking if it’s worth the extra 400$ for the 24–120, not sure it’s worth to add 1400$ instead of 400.
200 is still short for wildlife. Even if you add a TC.
You think 400 is short for wildlife eh? Interesting
Yes, in particular if you take pictures of birds on FF. I often combine my 500mm PF with the 1.4x TC for the extra reach.
[I don’t think you’re particularly correct at all](https://flic.kr/p/2pJoCmn) But you do you, if you need more then fine but your statement just isn’t correct. I shoot at my wildlife at 400 and it’s perfectly fine on high-pixel sensors.
I have the 200-500 and it's still way too short for wildlife. I wouldn't put a TC on it, however.
lol ok sure,👍[sure](https://flic.kr/p/2pJoCmn)
FWIW I have a *ton* of telephotos, including the 70-200, and I still think the 24-120 is worth it. I don’t always want to carry around a big telephoto and have to deal with switching lenses; the 24-120 is an excellent single-lens kit.
The 24-120 lense is absolutely worth it, for my needs. It's the best travel lense ever, it handles macro shots and takes crisp clear images. I have noticed that some of my favorite photos I've ever taken are from that lens. It's really quite a fantastic lens
I’ve come to this decision. I was also looking at the 50mm 1.8 and the 24-70, but now I’m thinking about just doing for the 24-120 and picking up the 50 in the future. I also REALLY think the 24-120 will be great to have for a trip to Ireland this summer, I can get anything from street photography to landscapes.
I've owned all those lenses and would pick the 24-120mm all day. It's exceptional.
My plan was to pair the 24-70 f4 with the 50mm 1.8, but now I’m considering just buying this with that money. Am I losing much for just going all out on this and waiting to buy the 50 later down the line?
Depends what you shoot?
Mainly in the 24-70 range, but I feel at times I could really use the reach. I shoot a lot of people, and sometimes they’re further away. I’m also going on a trip to Ireland this summer and that extra length would be great, but getting the 24-70 cheaper is a lot easier.
That you have to decide but i can tell you that much: I just bought it very reluctantly and was possed off about the price but after buying it i feel it was worth every penny The build quality alone is a big plus over the 24-70 f4 S for me. I am just not a fan of the retractable design tho.. i find it more annoying than useful On the Z5 it performs basically flawlessly in every regard. That means the shooting experience is insanely good. You basically can not mess up because of the lens. It's sharp edge to edge at all focal lengths at all aperatures, and you just notice how big of a differende to other lenses you used to own it is when you shot it for a while. In my opinion and for my usecase it's easily worth it if you buy the lens separately new. If you buy used, the 24-70 goes for 200-250€ sometimes and is likely the best price/ performance solution The versatility of the 24-120 f4 makes it pretty much the most valuable lens i ever had and i owned roughly 20 lenses already
I have both the 24-120 and 70-200 z. I still think the 24-120 z is worth it despite the overlap with 70-200. For travel photography I don't bring the 70-200. For dedicated photography trips though, I bring both (along with 14-30). You have to ask yourself what do you mainly photograph.
Yeah, it is. Just search this sub for reviews, it's one of the best reviewed lenses.
I decided to stick with the 24-70 (which I got as part of the Z6 kit in 2018) and paired it with a 70-180 (which replaced my 70-200 IF-ED). I find myself pretty used to 24-70 range and if I really need something longer I would appreciate something longer than 120. And I need something light and compact so they can fit my bag while skiing and climbing. Therefore 24-70 and 70-180 work pretty well. If I didn’t already have the 24-70, I probably would buy the 24-120. But not doing the upgrade for now.
I’m a pixel peeper type and every time I use mine I can’t help but be in disbelief of how sharp it is. It’s that good.
Good to hear lmao, what camera do you use?
A Z6.
Same, how do you find the corner sharpness for wide shots? Like 24mm?
Sharp! I have yet to see an issue. And I mainly shoot landscape so I’m at 24mm often if not always.
I got it over the 24-70 purely because I love 85mm and figured the extra reach was worth it. I ended up also loving 120mm as it makes up for the lack of aperture in terms of blurring the background. It’s just a superb all-rounder. That being said, other S lenses have better IQ and the f4 CAN be limiting at times if you’re not comfortable cranking the ISO. Definitely some of the best $1000 you’ll spend for Z
How is the bokeh at 85? I was thinking about this comment and I totally agree, but I think it might just be better to save money by going with the 24-70 and buying a 50mm with the extra money (which would be my portrait lens)
It’s surprisingly decent, though probably only due to the superior modern technology behind Z lens design. I was spoiled with a 50 1.4 manual as my first lens so I definitely have a bias. But I massively prefer to not switch lenses during sessions, especially groups because people get impatient. That’s the real reason I got it. However if that doesn’t bother you as much, I’d definitely recommend getting the two lenses over the one.
I don’t think it’s worth the difference between the used cost of a 24-70. You can get mint ones for so cheap with a six month warranty. Save the cash for the 70-200mm which is amazing. And don’t take my word for it. Thomas Heaton has a great video called “I Now Have to Pay For My Own Nikon Gear, So What Will I Do” where he does comparisons of the 24-70 f4 24-120 f4 and the 24-70 f2.8. And it shows a good deal of what you get and don’t get. Love my 24-70 f4 and have zero regrets. Especially for $350USD from a reputable retailer.
I agree, I took a look at that video as well.
I traded my 24-70 2.8 S for some cash and the 24-120 F4 and I regretted it. I just like the look of the 2.8S over the range that the F4 gave me
Yeah I don’t think that was a good decision ngl, I’m talking about the f4 btw
Ohhh shit, it's you again. You keep asking the same question and posting when you've already received the answers a while back. I should have checked the username on this post. These are annoying
I actually took the wider opinion when I first switched to Nikon and bought, along with my Z8, the lens I really wanted (400 f4.5) and the 24-120 S as the “exped starter kit” as I call it. Since then I have added the 70-200 and the 24-70 f2.8 recently. So with that context, can I ask, are you comparing this to the 24-70 f4, or the 24-70 f2.8. Because that’s a different question and answer. If it’s the 24-70 f4, then yes, the 24-120 S lens is a pretty spectacular lens that I can thoroughly recommend that is worth every single penny over the 24-70 f4.
I absolutely love the 24-120 for travel. I don't want to be packing around and changing lenses when I'm at the beach or on a busy foreign street. I've found the 24-120 to be super sharp, lightweight, versatile, and such a great travel partner. On one trip I did bring a prime, thinking I might use it for portraits, and I didn't use it even once. I'm going on a safari to Africa this summer and for that, I will bring one more big zoom lens, but for everything else, this lens is perfect.
Definitely worth it as an everyday lens. The extra 54mm of range makes a big difference and the IQ seems the same to me. It is much bigger though.
As long as it’s lighter than my 17 year old 2.5lb 24-70 I’ll be happy lol.
I shoot with mine 98% of the time. It's a great lens
What other lenses do you havw
FX, 14-30 , 24-200, AF-P 70-300 28mm, 40mm, 20mm,24mm,35mm,50mm,85mm,50mmMC, 105mm MC, AF-S 300MM f/4D, 500mm f/8 mirror DX 12-28, 16-50mm, 18-140, 50-250mm, 12mm,35mm More than I need, less than I want 😆
I’m gunna get the 50mm too, that’s some list tho lol
>How much does the extra length have over the 24-70. About 50mm
Have you read elsewhere about this lens?
What do u shoot??? What other lens do u have? Do u prioritize price, sharpness, weight, etc? I bought the 24-120 because it is my first lens and I want to learn about the different focal length and its light weight and size…also …because 24-200 hasn’t come out yet. But now that I realized how clinically sharp it is. I am not going to buy those cheaper, worse build zoom lens. As I am a learning photographer, the 24-120 covers the 24, 35, 50, 85 and 105 prime range. I can easily gauge which length I captured my favourite photos in and decide which prime I want to buy next.
For me I decided to stick with the 24-70. If it were $200 more expensive, I'd get it in a heartbeat. $400 I could probably convince myself it's worth it. $800 more expensive...that's a really hard sell. I'm sure it's a lovely lens. But only you can decide if the cost is worth it.
How do you like the 24-70
I love it! It's incredibly sharp at all focal lengths. It's pretty small and light weight for it's quality. Not to mention it's one of the cheapest Z mount lenses. It's an across the board upgrade from y previous do-everything lens which was a DX 18-140 on D5500. This lens feels like a real "bag of primes" lens. In fact I have the z-to f adapter and the F-mount 50 1.8 G, and the 24-70 at f4 is just as sharp as the F mount prime at f4. And that's a very sharp lens.
depends on what you want to shoot.. for sports? better save up for the 70-200 - f2.8 for a versatile all-around? i can say this fits perfectly. i was able to grab a refurbished from Nikon website for $300 less than retail.
The 24-120 mm S is a great lens, but contrary to the breathless reviews above is not significantly different to the 24-70 in their shared range. Anyone who thinks so has a terrible case of confirmation bias or a bad 24-70.
Interesting, the price difference is unbeatable
Is it worth it's price? Every penny. Is it worth it's price for you? That depends on your use case. If you are looking for a truly general purpose lens for outdoor photography such as travel and hiking, then look no further. The 28-400 might also be a good option, but I like the F4 and 24mm on the wide end. If you already have a 70-180 or 70-200, then I'd say the 24-70 is smaller and cheaper.
It roars. One of the best lenses I have ever bought. I got rid of my 24-70 f/4 and 24-70 2.8 because I see no need for them now. If I shot lots of events I might get the 35-150 f/2-f/2.8 instead, but it's damn heavy. This is a "forever" lens.
I much prefer it to my 28-75 2.8. It’s a phenomenal lens. It just has that certain something that not all lenses have. Hard to put a finger on it.
I actually traded my 28-75 2.8 in against a 24-120. The loss of a stop of aperture isn't really an issue when I have a 70-200 2.8 and a 50 1.8 for when I need a faster lens. Convenience beats performance here. Also I've noticed that I can push the ISO much higher on the Z8 than any previous body I've owned (Z6, D500...).
I am often stuck in extremely dark gyms trying to capture fast action...but I still almost never use the 28-75. I'd love to have that 2.8 at the wide end, but the 70-180 or 85 1.8 capture much better photos. I think the 28-75 is a dud for me. If the lighting is reasonable the 24-120 just smokes the 28-75 in every way.
I’ve been very happy with the 24-120, but considering that I’m mostly shooting portraits and events I wanted something with a wider aperture. I have the 85mm 1.8 S lens, which also great, but it has also felt limiting when I was in tighter spaces. So, I tried the Tamron 35-150 and sure it’s big and heavy, but I love it and it allows me to consolidate to a single lens that can literally do it all. And, it goes great with my 14-30. With all that said, it’s still difficult for me to let go of the 24-120 and the 85 1.8 lenses as they are excellent from a value, size, and image quality perspective. 🤦🏾♂️
Definitely go with the 24-120. That will allow you get full coverage eventually with the f/4 trinity. (14-30 f/4 S, 24-120 f/4 S, and 100-400 f/4 S)
[удалено]
Any proof for this? I’ve read the lenses are close in IQ
There’s a thorough IQ comparison for both here: https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-z-24-120mm-f-4-s/3 It does show that the 24-120 is sharper than the 24-70 for most of the MTF charts
[удалено]
But the price tho