Nikon Z 24-120mm f/4 S vs Nikon Z 24-200mm f/4-6.3 VR

Two of Nikon’s longest options if you want a midrange zoom for your mirrorless camera are the 24-120mm f/4 S and the 24-200mm f/4-6.3 VR. It’s not that these lenses are totally comparable to each other – one is a high-end S-line lens, while the other is a superzoom after all – but they at least target a similar type of photographer. If you need a wide-to-telephoto midrange zoom, which one should you get? That’s what I’ll answer today!

Initial Considerations

Right off the bat, there are some immediate differences between these two lenses. The Nikon Z 24-120mm f/4 S is, of course, a constant f/4 lens, while the 24-200mm quickly starts to lose its wide aperture as you zoom in. (It’s already at f/5.6 by 50mm.) Certainly if you need to have a wider aperture at longer focal lengths, the winner is the 24-120mm f/4 S. For something like handheld travel photography, that can be a big deal.

On the flip side, the Nikon Z 24-200mm f/4-6.3 VR has the longer 200mm focal length that many photographers crave. I personally chose to buy the 24-200mm f/4-6.3 VR for my own landscape photography, so that I can carry a lightweight two-lens kit that reaches from 14mm to 200mm (alongside the Nikon Z 14-30mm f/4 S).

A smaller difference is that the Nikon Z 24-200mm f/4-6.3 has vibration reduction, while the 24-120mm f/4 S curiously does not. This isn’t a big deal considering that Nikon’s in-body image stabilization works really well with the 24-120mm f/4 S. Using both lenses side by side, I don’t notice any difference in stabilization quality between them, even at the longer focal lengths above 100mm, on a Nikon camera with IBIS.

However, if you shoot with a non-stabilized Nikon camera like the Z30, Z50, or Zfc, the 24-120mm f/4 S is a really questionable choice. Especially considering that those are crop-sensor cameras, you’ll really start to want vibration reduction at the longer focal lengths. This is where the Nikon Z 24-200mm f/4-6.3 VR has a big advantage.

As for other considerations, both lenses have good construction/build quality – more similar than I expected, actually (the 24-200mm f/4-6.3 VR is better here than most superzooms). Both lenses extend when zoomed, with dual telescoping barrels. I definitely prefer internally-zooming lenses when working in tough conditions, but the weather sealing on the 24-120mm f/4 S and 24-200mm f/4-6.3 VR is quite extensive, and I have never noticed any build-related issues in practice.

Handling, however, definitely favors the Nikon Z 24-120mm f/4 S. It has an extra control ring, a custom function button, and an A-M switch. Meanwhile, the Nikon Z 24-200mm f/4 S doesn’t have any buttons or switches except for one switch to lock the zoom ring. It doesn’t even have an A-M switch, which is a big oversight in my opinion.

The final question is one of weight and size. Using these two lenses side-by-side, the Nikon 24-120mm f/4 S definitely feels bigger, especially in diameter. It’s a chunky lens. However, the length of both lenses is very similar, so if you can fit one in your bag, you can probably fit the other. Weight somewhat favors the Nikon Z 24-200mm f/4-6.3 (at 570 g / 1.26 lbs) over the 24-120mm f/4 S (at 710 g / 1.57 lbs).

Image Quality

I’ll start off by saying that wide-to-telephoto zooms are never going to be perfect optics. (Well, I shouldn’t say never – but they definitely aren’t there yet.) It takes a lot to design a lens that excels both at 24mm and at focal lengths over 100mm. And both of the two lenses I’m testing today perform way better than usual for such lenses. With that out of the way, let’s take a look at their image quality measurements from the lab:

1. Vignetting

Both lenses have some noticeable vignetting, as you can see below:

I’d prefer less vignetting on both lenses, to be sure. (I usually hope for 1.5 stops at the max, with anything under 1 stop of vignetting being negligible.) However, the clear winner here is the Nikon Z 24-120mm f/4 S. In fact, the superzoom 24-200mm f/4-6.3 VR has among the highest vignetting of any Nikon Z lens, reaching nearly 2.5 stops when shooting at 24mm, f/4, and close focus distance.

Thankfully, both lenses improve dramatically upon stopping down and/or zooming in from 24mm. At landscape apertures like f/8-16, I have no real issues with either lens. Remember that most post-processing software directly reads information from the in-camera vignetting setting on your Nikon Z camera. So, if you want this distortion to be removed automatically in post, make sure to set Medium or High vignetting correction on your camera.

In any case, vignetting is high enough on both these lenses that you’ll have to settle with either darker corners, or noisier corners (if you correct the vignetting). The 24-120mm f/4 S wins head-to-head, though.

2. Distortion

Get ready for a wild ride. Here’s the distortion of both lenses as measured in the lab:

That’s some serious distortion! Thankfully, distortion is probably the easiest optical issue to correct in post-processing today (which is probably why lens manufacturers – not just Nikon – are starting to design lenses with more distortion than in the past). Even so, distortion levels of 5% are pretty ridiculous. Both lenses also have high pincushion distortion as you zoom into 50mm and beyond.

Neither lens wins this comparison; they’re both pretty bad here. The good news is that it’s easy to correct even high levels of distortion in post-processing software. Heck, in Adobe Lightroom, the correction is applied automatically and you can’t even undo it (I’m not a fan of that). You do lose a bit of corner sharpness when stretching the image back into place, but nothing major.

3. Chromatic Aberration

Here’s one area with a big difference between these two lenses!

As you can see above, the Nikon Z 24-120mm f/4 S is quite well-corrected for chromatic aberration. Even at its worst, you will not see the chromatic aberration in most uncorrected photos (and fixing CA in post is very easy at those levels).

By comparison, the Nikon Z 24-200mm f/4-6.3 VR has quite high levels of chromatic aberration. It’s at the point that you’ll see chromatic aberration in a lot of uncorrected photos. It’s also high enough that, in worst-case photos (like tree branches against the sky), fully correcting the CA in post may not be possible without leaving some slight haloing artifacts. No, it’s not the highest chromatic aberration we’ve ever seen, but it’s definitely higher than I’d like.

4. Sharpness

Now for the fun part! Well, everyone cares about sharpness a bit too much, but with midrange zooms like these, there actually can be some meaningful differences. Here’s what I measured on both lenses in the lab, starting at 24mm. Remember to compare the same aperture values against one another if you want an apples-to-apples comparison at the longer focal lengths:

Now 35mm:

50mm:

70mm:

105mm:

And finally 120mm on the Nikon Z 24-120mm f/4, compared to 135mm on the Nikon Z 24-200mm f/4-6.3:

To sum things up, the Nikon Z 24-120mm f/4 S is clearly the sharper lens, especially at the longer focal lengths. The Nikon Z 24-200mm f/4-6.3 is actually quite strong at the wider focal lengths, especially 35mm, but it starts dipping in performance when zoomed in. Meanwhile, the Nikon Z 24-120mm f/4 S is among the most consistent midrange zooms I’ve ever tested – it’s strong at 24mm, 120mm, and everywhere in between.

That said, like with most lenses, the performance at the narrower apertures of f/11 and f/16 is similar enough that I’d be happy using either lens. That’s actually why I got the Nikon Z 24-200mm f/4-6.3 VR for my landscape photography! I shoot at f/8 and narrower most of the time, when differences between almost any modern lenses are pretty slim.

Value and Recommendations

Now that you’ve seen how these two lenses perform, what about their prices? The Nikon Z 24-120mm f/4 S is $1100, while the Nikon Z 24-200mm f/4-6.3 VR is $900. Both lenses sometimes go on sale for less, but those are the usual prices – not as big of a difference as you may have been expecting!

Considering that the Nikon Z 24-120mm f/4 S is the sharper and more advanced lens, I think it easily justifies a $200 higher price. That’s not to say it’s the right lens for everyone, of course. But I’d definitely recommend it to more photographers over the 24-200mm f/4-6.3 VR.

You may find that statement to be a surprise, especially coming from an owner of the Nikon Z 24-200mm f/4-6.3! But remember, these are just tools. I don’t have any special attachment to my lenses – I just pick the right one for the job. For me, that job was to shoot landscapes at f/11 on long backpacking trips. Minimizing weight, and reaching 200mm, are more important to me than maximizing sharpness at apertures I’m not usually going to use. But even I can step back in an objective manner and say that the Nikon Z 24-120mm f/4 S is the better lens for most photographers :)

I hope this gives you a better idea of which lens to pick between the Nikon Z 24-120mm f/4 S and the Nikon Z 24-200mm f/4-6.3 VR. You can check the current prices, and support my testing efforts at Photography Life, at the following affiliate links:

• Nikon Z 24-120mm f/4 S at B&H – Check prices and current sales
• Nikon Z 24-200mm f/4-6.3 at B&H – Check price and sales
• Used: Nikon Z 24-120mm f/4 S at KEH
• Used: Nikon Z 24-200mm f/4-6.3 VR at KEH

If you buy anything (not just these two lenses) through the links above, Photography Life can receive a small percentage of the purchase price at no extra cost to you. It goes a long way toward helping me test more lenses. Thank you for supporting my ad-free website!

Let me know in the comment section if you have any questions about these two lenses. I’ve used them both extensively and would be happy to help.