I’ve had the privilege to test all of Nikon’s Z-series midrange zooms extensively over the last several years, both in the field and in the lab. Nikon hasn’t been shy about making them, either! There are six full-frame Nikon Z midrange zooms so far, ranging from the cheapest 24-50mm f/4-6.3 to the most expensive 24-70mm f/2.8 S. Which one is best? Of course, that depends on the photographer’s needs – otherwise, Nikon wouldn’t make so many of these lenses in the first place. But my hope with this article is to show the relative strengths and weaknesses of each lens so that you can make a well-informed purchase.
Table of Contents
Price
The first and most important consideration when most photographers are picking a lens is price. There’s a whopping $2000 difference in MSRP between these six lenses! Here they are, in order from least expensive to most expensive:
- Nikon Z 24-50mm f/4-6.3: $400
- Nikon Z 24-200mm f/4-6.3 VR: $900
- Nikon Z 24-70mm f/4 S: $1000
- Nikon Z 24-120mm f/4 S: $1100
- Nikon Z 28-75mm f/2.8: $1200
- Nikon Z 24-70mm f/2.8 S: $2400
These prices don’t include sales. The steepest discounts I’ve seen were $300 off both the Nikon Z 24-70mm f/2.8 S and the Nikon Z 28-75mm f/2.8. Of course, you can also buy some of these lenses (especially the 24-70mm f/4 S) as a kit lens, potentially shaving hundreds of dollars off the MSRP. So, just take the list above as a general guide, and try to find some sales if you can!
Weight
- Nikon Z 24-50mm f/4-6.3: 195 grams / 0.43 lbs
- Nikon Z 24-70mm f/4 S: 500 grams / 1.10 lbs
- Nikon Z 28-75mm f/2.8: 565 grams / 1.25 lbs
- Nikon Z 24-200mm f/4-6.3 VR: 570 grams / 1.26 lbs
- Nikon Z 24-120mm f/4 S: 630 grams / 1.39 lbs
- Nikon Z 24-70mm f/2.8 S: 805 grams /1.77 lbs
The Nikon Z 24-50mm f/4-6.3 has won two contests in a row – it’s looking good so far! And that’s the last time I’ll be able to say that :)
As for the other lenses, four of them are in a pretty similar range of weights, while the Nikon Z 24-70mm f/2.8 S is in a slightly heavier weight class. I look forward to testing the Tamron 35-150mm f/2-2.8, which is the craziest midrange zoom that will fit the Nikon Z system, with a weight of about 1165 grams / 2.6 pounds!
Handling Features
One aspect of lenses that sometimes gets overlooked in our rush to judge image quality is how they handle. But for everyday photography, it can make a big difference. Here’s how I would rank these lenses in terms of handling, from best to worst
- Nikon Z 24-70mm f/2.8: This lens has a ton of bells and whistles, including a function button, an extra control ring, an A-M switch, and an illuminated display.
- Nikon Z 24-120mm f/4 S: All the same handling features as the 24-70mm f/2.8 S, except it doesn’t have an illuminated display.
- Nikon Z 24-70mm f/4 S: A big step down – none of the handling features above, except it has an A-M switch and can collapse for travel.
- Nikon Z 24-200mm f/4-6.3 VR: Super sparse design! There isn’t even an A-M switch. There is, however, a zoom locking switch.
- Nikon Z 24-50mm f/4-6.3: No buttons or switches at all, although it can collapse for travel.
- Nikon Z 28-75mm f/2.8: Zero noteworthy handling features. There’s a zoom ring and a focusing ring, that’s it.
Personally, I’d put these lenses into three tiers. In the top tier of handling are the 24-70mm f/2.8 and 24-120mm f/4. In the next tier is the Nikon Z 24-70mm f/4 S; at least it has an A-M switch. The other three lenses fall into the bottom tier of handling, with hardly any controls at all.
By the way, all six lenses have great weather sealing, even the cheapest Nikon Z 24-50mm f/4-6.3. I’d trust the design tolerances of the $2400 24-70mm f/2.8 the most for years of professional use, but maybe that’s just my biases – in practice, I have never experienced any build quality issues with any of these lenses.
Close Focus
I would love to see Nikon make a near-macro midrange zoom one day, like Canon’s EF 24-70mm f/4 L (which has crazy 0.7× magnification capabilities). Still, the existing options for the Z system are hardly bad – it just depends on the lens. With the closest-focusing Z 24-120mm f/4 S, you can get some good close-up photos of relatively small subjects like dragonflies, lizards, and flowers pretty easily. Here’s how they rank, from best to worst:
- Nikon Z 24-120mm f/4 S: 0.39× (1:2.6) magnification
- Nikon Z 28-75mm f/2.8: 0.34× (1:2.9) magnification
- Nikon Z 24-70mm f/4 S: 0.30× (1:3.3) magnification
- Nikon Z 24-200mm f/4-6.3 VR: 0.28× (1:3.6) magnification
- Nikon Z 24-70mm f/2.8: 0.22× (1:4.5) magnification
- Nikon Z 24-50mm f/4-6.3: 0.17× (1:5.9) magnification
Vignetting
Now it’s time for the lab tests! This is not an apples-to-apples comparison since all of these lenses have different focal lengths and maximum aperture values. Nevertheless, I’ll show you the six vignetting test results and rank the lenses as best I can. It’s a lot of data to look through, so I’ll summarize our findings as well.
In no particular order, here are the charts:
Simply going by the highest vignetting value, these lenses are surprisingly close in performance. The high water marks are 1.96, 1.92, 2.01, 1.81, 2.47, and 1.79 stops of light. Basically, the only real outlier is the Nikon Z 24-200mm f/4-6.3 with its 2.47 stops of vignetting – everything else is within a very similar range.
However, that ignores the fact that some of these are f/2.8 lenses, some are f/4, and some are f/4-6.3 lenses! Not to mention the different performance at various focal lengths. Even the Nikon Z 24-200mm f/4-6.3 starts to have great vignetting performance if you just zoom into 35mm and beyond.
So, ranking them here was really subjective. I erred on the side of comparing the lenses at the same aperture. I also penalized lenses with even a single bad score, like the 24-200mm f/4-6.3, since all it takes is one bad focal length to cause vignetting problems in an important photo!
- Nikon Z 28-75mm f/2.8
- Nikon Z 24-70mm f/2.8
- Nikon Z 24-120mm f/4 S
- Nikon Z 24-70mm f/4 S
- Nikon Z 24-50mm f/4-6.3
- Nikon Z 24-200mm f/4-6.3 VR
Distortion
There’s a huge range in this test. A couple of the lenses nailed it, while others have some of the highest distortion I’ve ever tested on a non-fisheye lens! Yes, distortion is correctible in post-processing – but extreme distortion correction can exaggerate optical issues, especially blurry corners, after stretching the image back into place. So, it’s still better to have a low-distortion lens than the opposite. Here are the charts, in the same order as last time:
That’s a crazy range of performance! On the high end, we have a whopping 5.82% barrel distortion on the Nikon Z 24-200mm f/4-6.3 VR. It’s amusing to me that many photographers will never see this out-of-control distortion at all, because Lightroom corrects it by default (and the corrections cannot be turned off). To answer a common question I’ve gotten, the “24mm” focal length designation on these lenses seemingly refers to the field of view after distortion corrections have been applied. After distortion corrections, there is no major difference in field of view between the 24mm lenses here.
As with last time, my rankings are somewhat subjective, which is why I shared the charts! You can make up your own mind based on the lab tests above – but this is how I would rank them in distortion:
- Nikon Z 28-75mm f/2.8
- Nikon Z 24-70mm f/2.8
- Nikon Z 24-50mm f/4-6.3
- Nikon Z 24-70mm f/4 S
- Nikon Z 24-120mm f/4 S
- Nikon Z 24-200mm f/4-6.3 VR
Note that there’s a pretty hard distinction between the top three lenses (which are all pretty good in distortion) and the bottom three here.
Lateral Chromatic Aberration
This is another area with a wide spread from best to worst. The good news is that even the worst offender here has manageable levels of chromatic aberration – still within the range where post-processing corrections will usually not leave serious unwanted artifacts.
Here are the charts in the same order:
I’m amazed by the excellent chromatic aberration performance of the Nikon Z 24-70mm f/2.8 S and Nikon Z 24-70mm f/4 S lenses. Very few midrange zooms have such low levels of CA.
A small step down, but still quite good, are the chromatic aberration performances of the Nikon Z 24-120mm f/4 S and 28-75mm f/2.8. They both have low enough levels of chromatic aberration that corrections in post-processing will be extremely effective.
The Nikon Z 24-50mm f/4-6.3 and Nikon Z 24-200mm f/4-6.3 both have more chromatic aberration than I would have hoped. Again, corrections will still usually be very effective, but you may run into situations with both lenses where CA isn’t 100% removable, or where you get tiny haloing artifacts upon removal.
My ranking?
- Nikon Z 24-70mm f/2.8
- Nikon Z 24-70mm f/4 S
- Nikon Z 28-75mm f/2.8
- Nikon Z 24-120mm f/4 S
- Nikon Z 24-50mm f/4-6.3
- Nikon Z 24-200mm f/4-6.3 VR
It’s still subjective, but the tiers I mentioned a moment ago are pretty clear – the top two lenses are a cut above the middle two lenses, which are a cut above the bottom two lenses.
Sharpness: Widest Focal Length
Time for the exciting part! Well, everyone likes sharpness, it seems. I should point out that even the worst of these lenses in terms of sharpness is good enough for typical print sizes, including with your nose to the paper. However, for extensive cropping or for making large prints from the highest-resolution sensors, you will notice some clear differences between them.
To start, I’ll show all the lenses at their widest focal length (which is 24mm for five of the six lenses, and 28mm for the 28-75mm f/2.8). In the same order as before, here are our standardized MTF50 charts as measured in Imatest. Again, it’s a lot of data to digest, so I’ll be breaking it down by focal length and by portion of the frame below:
At the widest focal length, the maximum aperture of all these lenses is either f/2.8 or f/4. Since f/4 is the first common aperture, that’s probably the one that makes the most sense to over-analyze. (If you expected under-analysis in this article, you may be disappointed!)
Starting with central sharpness, there’s a pretty clear set of two tiers. Tier one is comprised of the Nikon Z 24-50mm f/4-6.3. Tier two is comprised of all the other lenses! Yes, there are differences, but they’re all extremely sharp in the center with that one exception.
Midframe sharpness is a more interesting battle. Here, the Nikon Z 24-70mm f/2.8 S and Nikon Z 24-120mm f/4 S clearly stand above the competition. The 28-75mm f/2.8 is a step down, but still the third best. The rest of the lenses aren’t bad – even the 24-50mm f/4-6.3 is fine here, although it is the weakest of the six lenses in the midframes.
Corner sharpness shows the biggest differences, as expected. The weakest lens here is the 24-200mm f/4-6.3. The 24-50mm f/4-6.3 and 24-120mm f/4 are a bit better. The Nikon Z 24-70mm f/4 and 28-75mm f/2.8 are roughly tied for second. Meanwhile, the Nikon Z 24-70mm f/2.8 S is far and away better than the rest.
Instead of trying to combine all this into one ranking, I’ll rank separately by portions of the frame. Note that when I say “tie,” it doesn’t always denote identical performance – sometimes it means the lenses average to similar sharpness, but have relatively stronger or weaker apertures.
Wide-Angle Center:
- Nikon Z 24-120mm f/4 S
- Nikon Z 24-70mm f/2.8 S and Nikon Z 28-75mm f/2.8 (tie)
- Nikon Z 24-70mm f/4 S
- Nikon Z 24-200mm f/4-6.3 VR
- Nikon Z 24-50mm f/4-6.3
Wide-Angle Midframes (DX Corner):
- Nikon Z 24-70mm f/2.8 and Nikon Z 24-120mm f/4 S (tie)
- Nikon Z 28-75mm f/2.8
- Nikon Z 24-70mm f/4 S
- Nikon Z 24-200mm f/4-6.3 VR
- Nikon Z 24-50mm f/4-6.3
Wide-Angle Corners:
- Nikon Z 24-70mm f/2.8
- Nikon Z 28-75mm f/2.8
- Nikon Z 24-70mm f/4 S
- Nikon Z 24-120mm f/4 S
- Nikon Z 24-50mm f/4-6.3
- Nikon Z 24-200mm f/4-6.3 VR
Sharpness: 35mm
Next up is the performance at 35mm. This focal length is a relative strength of most of these lenses – they’re all pretty solid at 35mm. But that doesn’t mean they all perform equally well!
In the same order as before, here are my side-by-side lab measurements:
As with 24mm, the sharpest lens is arguably the Nikon Z 24-70mm f/2.8, and the weakest is definitely the 24-50mm f/4-6.3. It’s a bit harder to make a perfect head-to-head comparison now that the two variable aperture lenses have narrowed to f/5 and f/4.8 respectively. Nevertheless, here’s my attempt at ranking them. There are some interesting surprises in the rankings this time!
35mm Center:
- Nikon Z 24-120mm f/4 S
- Nikon Z 28-75mm f/2.8
- Nikon Z 24-70mm f/2.8
- Nikon Z 24-70mm f/4 S and Nikon Z 24-200mm f/4-6.3 VR (tie)
- Nikon Z 24-50mm f/4-6.3
35mm Midframes (DX Corner):
- Nikon Z 24-120mm f/4 S
- Nikon Z 24-70mm f/2.8, Nikon Z 24-70mm f/4 S, and Nikon Z 28-75mm f/2.8 (tie)
- Nikon Z 24-200mm f/4-6.3 VR
- Nikon Z 24-50mm f/4-6.3
35mm Corners:
- Nikon Z 24-70mm f/2.8
- Nikon Z 24-200mm f/4-6.3 VR
- Nikon Z 24-70mm f/4 S
- Nikon Z 24-120mm f/4 S
- Nikon Z 28-75mm f/2.8
- Nikon Z 24-50mm f/4-6.3
Sharpness: 50mm
This is the longest focal length on the 24-50mm f/4-6.3, and it’s also the focal length where we see some major performance decreases from a couple of other lenses. Here are the full results as measured head-to-head on our Imatest chart, same order as before:
There are some wild performance swings this time around! (Look no further than the dreadful f/2.8 corner performance of the 28-75mm f/2.8, which so far had been one of the sharpest of these six lenses.)
Once again, the Nikon Z 24-70mm f/2.8 has remarkable consistency and takes the cake as the sharpest of these lenses at 50mm corner-to-corner. But it definitely depends on the portion of the frame that you’re considering. Here’s how I would rank them.
50mm Center:
- Nikon Z 24-70mm f/4 S and Nikon Z 28-75mm f/2.8 (tie)
- Nikon Z 24-70mm f/2.8 and Nikon Z 24-120mm f/4 S (tie)
- Nikon Z 24-200mm f/4-6.3 VR
- Nikon Z 24-50mm f/4-6.3
50mm Midframes (DX Corner):
- Nikon Z 24-70mm f/2.8
- Nikon Z 24-120mm f/4 S
- Nikon Z 24-70mm f/4 S
- Nikon Z 28-75mm f/2.8
- Nikon Z 24-200mm f/4-6.3 VR
- Nikon Z 24-50mm f/4-6.3
50mm Corners:
- Nikon Z 24-70mm f/2.8
- Nikon Z 24-70mm f/4 S
- Nikon Z 24-120mm f/4 S and Nikon Z 24-200mm f/4-6.3 VR (tie)
- Nikon Z 24-50mm f/4-6.3
- Nikon Z 28-75mm f/2.8
Sharpness: 70mm (and 75mm)
Now we reach the longest focal length for three of these lenses: the 24-70mm f/2.8, 24-70mm f/4, and 28-75mm f/2.8. Will they go out on a high note?
The order below is the same as before, except with the 24-50mm f/4-6.3 sadly no longer participating.
At this focal length, it’s like looking at a roller coaster. The 24-70mm f/2.8 is as consistent as ever, but the other lenses each have some clear strengths and weaknesses. Here’s how I’d rank them.
70mm and 75mm Center:
- Nikon Z 24-120mm f/4 S
- Nikon Z 24-70mm f/2.8
- Nikon Z 28-75mm f/2.8
- Nikon Z 24-70mm f/4 S
- Nikon Z 24-200mm f/4-6.3 VR
70mm and 75mm Midframes (DX Corner)
- Nikon Z 24-120mm f/4 S
- Nikon Z 24-70mm f/2.8
- Nikon Z 24-70mm f/4 S
- Nikon Z 24-200mm f/4-6.3 VR and Nikon Z 28-75mm f/2.8 (tie)
70mm and 75mm Corners:
- Nikon Z 24-70mm f/2.8
- Nikon Z 24-200mm f/4-6.3 VR
- Nikon Z 24-120mm f/4 S
- Nikon Z 24-70mm f/4 S
- Nikon Z 28-75mm f/2.8
Sharpness: 105mm
Things are a lot easier to compare now that only two lenses are left! How do the Nikon Z 24-120mm f/4 S and Nikon Z 24-200mm f/4-6.3 VR compare at 105mm? Here are my lab test results:
No need for the rankings this time – the Nikon Z 24-120mm f/4 S is sharper in the center, midframes, and corners at 105mm. That said, I’m pleasantly surprised that the 24-200mm f/4-6.3 manages good corner performance despite being a superzoom roughly halfway into its long focal length range. At the narrower apertures from f/8 to f/16 that work well for landscape photography, I really don’t have any complaints about its performance.
Sharpness: 120mm and 135mm
We have come to the end of the line for the Nikon Z 24-120mm f/4 S, which has put up an extremely consistent performance so far across all its focal lengths. The story is similar here, too:
As before, at a given aperture, the Nikon Z 24-120mm f/4 S is sharper here at every portion of the frame. That said, the corner sharpness results are very close. It’s not quite a tie, since the 24-120mm f/4 has sharper corners at f/5.6 than the 24-200mm f/4-6.3 manages at f/6.3. But once you stop down to f/8 and beyond, they’re completely neck-and-neck. Again, it goes to show that the Nikon Z 24-200mm f/4-6.3 VR is not necessarily a bad choice for landscape photography, when you’ll often be shooting in that f/11 range (especially at such a long focal length, to get enough depth of field).
Sharpness: 200mm
Well, we know the winner this time! But even though only one of these zooms reaches 200mm, I wanted to include that chart for the sake of completeness. Here it is:
200mm is the weakest focal length on the Nikon Z 24-200mm f/4-6.3 VR. It’s still acceptable, but in the corners and midframes, it has what I’d call “f/16-level sharpness” no matter what aperture you use. Whether that’s sharp enough for your needs or not is up to you.
Separate, Detailed One-vs-One Comparisons
To pair with this article, I just finished writing nine other head-to-head comparison articles between many of these lenses, at a “one versus one” level. I didn’t want to put all nine of them on the homepage to avoid crowding it out :)
Naturally, all the test charts are the same in these articles, but I go into more detail with my analysis and spend extra time talking about other considerations like focal length, aperture, handling, and so on. If you’ve narrowed your choices down to two lenses, you may find that the relevant article below gives you a final push in the right direction:
- Nikon Z 24-70mm f/2.8 S vs Nikon Z 24-120mm f/4 S
- Nikon Z 24-70mm f/2.8 S vs Nikon Z 28-75mm f/2.8
- Nikon Z 24-70mm f/4 S vs Nikon Z 24-70mm f/2.8 S
- Nikon Z 24-70mm f/4 S vs Nikon Z 24-120mm f/4 S
- Nikon Z 24-70mm f/4 S vs Nikon Z 24-200mm f/4-6.3 VR
- Nikon Z 24-70mm f/4 S vs Nikon Z 28-75mm f/2.8
- Nikon Z 24-120mm f/4 S vs Nikon Z 24-200mm f/4-6.3 VR
- Nikon Z 28-75mm f/2.8 vs Nikon Z 24-120mm f/4 S
- Nikon Z 28-75mm f/2.8 vs Nikon Z 24-200mm f/4-6.3 VR
Conclusion and Recommendations
I hope that including all this data in one place was useful to you. If it made your head swirl, spare a moment to remember that each individual Imatest chart you see in this article took me and Nasim at least an hour of testing to generate in the lab! But I consider it worthwhile, because the way we test lenses allows 100% comparable head-to-head comparisons like this one, where you can see the strengths and weaknesses of each lens at a granular level.
So, which lens “won” this comparison? If you’re only talking optically, the Nikon Z 24-70mm f/2.8 S justifies its top spot in Nikon’s lineup with excellent, consistent performance. The next tier of lenses is comprised of the 24-120mm f/4 S, 24-70mm f/4 S, and 28-75mm f/2.8. Each of those three lenses has some strengths and weaknesses optically, and I don’t feel confident ranking any of them as definitely better than the others – it depends what your priorities are. Tied for last are the Nikon Z 24-50mm f/4-6.3 and Nikon Z 24-200mm f/4-6.3. (The superzoom is sharper of the two, but it has more problems in terms of vignetting, distortion, and chromatic aberration.)
But really, I should repeat something I said in the intro: Nikon wouldn’t make all these lenses if there were a single best choice for everyone. I’d actually say that the Nikon Z 24-120mm f/4 S is the best fit for most photographers because it manages such high performance while also reaching to 120mm. Meanwhile, at a personal level, I bought the 24-200mm f/4-6.3 because it was a good fit for my landscape photography at f/11! I could make similar arguments for all six lenses here.
So, use this article as a guideline, but ultimately, choose a lens based on your personal situation. Even the 24-50mm f/4-6.3 could make sense if you need an ultralight lens, or if you’re on a budget. (Though I’d definitely consider the Nikon Z 28mm f/2.8 prime as an alternative if that’s your situation.)
You can find all six of these lenses at the following links to B&H, as well as on eBay if you intend to buy used.
If you found this article useful, you can thank us by buying any of your photography equipment through our affiliate links at Photography Life, such as the links below. (It can be any equipment, not just whatever we linked to.) That’s the easiest way to give us a small commission and keep PL running without costing you anything extra.
- Nikon Z 24-50mm f/4-6.3 at B&H (and on eBay)
- Nikon Z 24-70mm f/2.8 S at B&H (and on eBay)
- Nikon Z 24-70mm f/4 S at B&H (and on eBay)
- Nikon Z 24-120mm f/4 S at B&H (and on eBay)
- Nikon Z 24-200mm f/4-6.3 VR at B&H (and on eBay)
- Nikon Z 28-75mm f/2.8 at B&H (and on eBay)
Let me know in the comment section if you have any questions! I’ve used all six of these lenses extensively in the field and would be happy to answer any questions that I can.