I already have three short primes: 20/1.8, 50/1.8 and 85/1.8 (the latter being AF-S not Z) and wanted something that bridges the wide to portrait range for events. Choices are 24-70/4, 24-70/2.8 (too expensive for me), 24-120, 28-75, and Tamron’s 28-75 (the 35-150 looks amazing but again too pricey). After much reading on this site, surely the best site for lens tests because the comparisons are using the same testing procedure, I’m going with the 24-120S, keeping in mind that the double-barrel extension could be problematic. If money were less of an issue it would be the 24-70/2.8.
Doc
December 9, 2024 10:08 am
Hi! I have the 24-120 as well as a 50 f1.8 and 85 1.8. I also use a Fujifilm X100F for walk around. Both prime lenses are sharper than the zoom as well as gather more light. But the versatility of the 24-120 is unbelievable. It always does an excellent job of capturing images. On a recent trip to Utah I used it as a macro in botanical gardens, as portrait with our hosts, as wide angle or telephoto for the mountains and the sharpness, color and functionality were always on target. It is a great single, versatile travel lens.
Piermario Pilloni
November 8, 2024 12:34 pm
What about a confront with the 24-200? does the better optical quality compensate for the shorter extension?
Kurt Mann
August 8, 2024 10:41 am
My 24-70 f/4 is the lens I never use. I would probably use this lens a little more, but I simply prefer primes. I have thought about getting the 24-70 f/2.8, but I would rather get this instead I believe. I think the reach trumps the aperture, if I’m gonna use a zoom anyway. But I’ll buy it secondhand if I find a good deal.
scooter123
July 18, 2024 3:48 pm
There is a problem with all these lab tests, they completely ignore what happens “when the wheels hit the road”. At present I have a D750 with the AFS VR Nikkor 24-120 f4 G lens. I also have the Z7 II with the new 24-120 f4 S lens. In addition I have the FTX lens converter and the ability to use it. Spent some time doing some comparisons between the 2 zoom lenses on my brand new Z7. To keep it real all shooting was done using the in camera VR and holding the camera in my bare naked hands. Exposure mode was set to A and f4 was chosen for all lenses tested. Focal length for all lenes was 50mm. In addition I threw in a Benchmark lens, that being a 1965 vintage AI converted 50mm f2 Nikkor H. In the late 60’s this particular lens was considered widely as a match for the 50mm f2 Leitz Summicron which was regarded as the finest 35mm lens ever created at that time. Central sharpness for both zooms was very close and with the S line lens there was not a visible difference with the 50mm at 200% magnification. Start moving out in the image and into the foreground and problems arose with the new 24-120 S. That being that the bokeh went really sour, there was a bit of dew on the grass and those highlights were tiny little rings. In addition the grass was full on double line images of the grass that resulted in a confused mess. Granted it was a 200% pixel peep but it clearly illustrates the problem with laboratory results. So much so I suspect that this lens was designed specifically to do well in testing with no regard given for image Quality at all.
Point of all this is a big THUMBS DOWN on this lens for anyone who is doing large scale graphics. In a 40 x 60 inch print this poor Bokeh will be front and center. If you are scaling your images down to a 16 x 20 or smaller it ill probably be okay but that poor Bokeh will have the effect of blurring the image in out of focus areas and it might produce interference patterns that are visible.
Both are excellent optically. I’ve tested the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 G2 in the lab recently (still working on the full review) and consider it roughly equal to the Nikon Z 24-120mm f/4 S. So I would pick between them based on whether you prefer the better maximum aperture of the Tamron or the better zoom range of the Nikon.
Lynn
June 20, 2024 5:02 pm
Great review. I have the 24-120 and love it. You mention Tamron 70-300. Would you recommend that lens?
It’s a logical lens to pair with this one — I do like it, maybe not quite as much as the 24-120mm, but it’s a good lens. I reviewed it here! photographylife.com/revie…di-iii-rxd
Johan
January 8, 2024 10:13 pm
Excellent and thorough review – thanks for all the hard work and logical presentation!
So many bar charts. If one lens mops the floor with another at some focal length and aperture, in some part of the frame, I’d like to see the difference in a typical picture without zooming in.
To me, sharpness provides cropping latitude (and therefore reach), and that only matters at the longest focal length, since if you’re not using the longest FL, only cosmetic cropping is needed.
So, an interesting question to me is: is an image with the 24-120 @ 120, cropped to give the same size as the 24-200 @ 200, better or worse? On a Z8.
To answer your question at the end, worse! It’s extremely rare that cropping substantially (say 1.5x or more) gives you better results than simply using a longer lens, even if the longer lens is a pretty basic one.
There are also relatively few cases where you will see differences in sharpness between two modern lenses on a 4K monitor without zooming in. Maybe corner sharpness, but even then, most lenses are in a similar enough ballpark.
Printing a couple feet wide, or zooming into 100%, and you’ll see these differences much more clearly. Frankly I think sharpness is overrated because it does take this much effort to see a difference among (most) modern lenses.
Edwin Youngblood
November 24, 2023 1:02 pm
Spenser – is the 24-70mm F 2.8 G-ED (not the VR) lens I already have better all around its focal length than the Z 24-120mm F 4 S? Should I see it if I get the Z8 with the 24-120? Great work on the review by the way.
Good question – all of our lens reviews are totally comparable to one another (aside from a few very old reviews on our site that have a totally different graphic design). Here’s our set of sharpness tests for the original 24-70mm f/2.8G, which you can compare head-to-head against the 24-120mm f/4 S tests in this review: photographylife.com/revie…mm-f2-8g/2
In short, the 24-120mm f/4 S is sharper all-around at a given focal length and aperture. The differences range from negligible to significant depending upon where you look. The only real advantage of the 24-70mm f/2.8 is, of course, the f/2.8 capabilities.
I already have three short primes: 20/1.8, 50/1.8 and 85/1.8 (the latter being AF-S not Z) and wanted something that bridges the wide to portrait range for events. Choices are 24-70/4, 24-70/2.8 (too expensive for me), 24-120, 28-75, and Tamron’s 28-75 (the 35-150 looks amazing but again too pricey). After much reading on this site, surely the best site for lens tests because the comparisons are using the same testing procedure, I’m going with the 24-120S, keeping in mind that the double-barrel extension could be problematic. If money were less of an issue it would be the 24-70/2.8.
Hi!
I have the 24-120 as well as a 50 f1.8 and 85 1.8. I also use a Fujifilm X100F for walk around. Both prime lenses are sharper than the zoom as well as gather more light. But the versatility of the 24-120 is unbelievable. It always does an excellent job of capturing images. On a recent trip to Utah I used it as a macro in botanical gardens, as portrait with our hosts, as wide angle or telephoto for the mountains and the sharpness, color and functionality were always on target. It is a great single, versatile travel lens.
What about a confront with the 24-200? does the better optical quality compensate for the shorter extension?
My 24-70 f/4 is the lens I never use. I would probably use this lens a little more, but I simply prefer primes. I have thought about getting the 24-70 f/2.8, but I would rather get this instead I believe. I think the reach trumps the aperture, if I’m gonna use a zoom anyway. But I’ll buy it secondhand if I find a good deal.
There is a problem with all these lab tests, they completely ignore what happens “when the wheels hit the road”. At present I have a D750 with the AFS VR Nikkor 24-120 f4 G lens. I also have the Z7 II with the new 24-120 f4 S lens. In addition I have the FTX lens converter and the ability to use it. Spent some time doing some comparisons between the 2 zoom lenses on my brand new Z7. To keep it real all shooting was done using the in camera VR and holding the camera in my bare naked hands. Exposure mode was set to A and f4 was chosen for all lenses tested. Focal length for all lenes was 50mm. In addition I threw in a Benchmark lens, that being a 1965 vintage AI converted 50mm f2 Nikkor H. In the late 60’s this particular lens was considered widely as a match for the 50mm f2 Leitz Summicron which was regarded as the finest 35mm lens ever created at that time. Central sharpness for both zooms was very close and with the S line lens there was not a visible difference with the 50mm at 200% magnification. Start moving out in the image and into the foreground and problems arose with the new 24-120 S. That being that the bokeh went really sour, there was a bit of dew on the grass and those highlights were tiny little rings. In addition the grass was full on double line images of the grass that resulted in a confused mess. Granted it was a 200% pixel peep but it clearly illustrates the problem with laboratory results. So much so I suspect that this lens was designed specifically to do well in testing with no regard given for image Quality at all.
Point of all this is a big THUMBS DOWN on this lens for anyone who is doing large scale graphics. In a 40 x 60 inch print this poor Bokeh will be front and center. If you are scaling your images down to a 16 x 20 or smaller it ill probably be okay but that poor Bokeh will have the effect of blurring the image in out of focus areas and it might produce interference patterns that are visible.
I think there is a problem with your tests, not the lab tests.
Hi, I am stuggling between tamron 25-78 G2 vs Nikon 24-120 any thoughts ?
Both are excellent optically. I’ve tested the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 G2 in the lab recently (still working on the full review) and consider it roughly equal to the Nikon Z 24-120mm f/4 S. So I would pick between them based on whether you prefer the better maximum aperture of the Tamron or the better zoom range of the Nikon.
Great review. I have the 24-120 and love it. You mention Tamron 70-300. Would you recommend that lens?
It’s a logical lens to pair with this one — I do like it, maybe not quite as much as the 24-120mm, but it’s a good lens. I reviewed it here! photographylife.com/revie…di-iii-rxd
Excellent and thorough review – thanks for all the hard work and logical presentation!
You’re very welcome!
So many bar charts. If one lens mops the floor with another at some focal length and aperture, in some part of the frame, I’d like to see the difference in a typical picture without zooming in.
To me, sharpness provides cropping latitude (and therefore reach), and that only matters at the longest focal length, since if you’re not using the longest FL, only cosmetic cropping is needed.
So, an interesting question to me is: is an image with the 24-120 @ 120, cropped to give the same size as the 24-200 @ 200, better or worse? On a Z8.
To answer your question at the end, worse! It’s extremely rare that cropping substantially (say 1.5x or more) gives you better results than simply using a longer lens, even if the longer lens is a pretty basic one.
There are also relatively few cases where you will see differences in sharpness between two modern lenses on a 4K monitor without zooming in. Maybe corner sharpness, but even then, most lenses are in a similar enough ballpark.
Printing a couple feet wide, or zooming into 100%, and you’ll see these differences much more clearly. Frankly I think sharpness is overrated because it does take this much effort to see a difference among (most) modern lenses.
Spenser – is the 24-70mm F 2.8 G-ED (not the VR) lens I already have better all around its focal length than the Z 24-120mm F 4 S? Should I see it if I get the Z8 with the 24-120? Great work on the review by the way.
Good question – all of our lens reviews are totally comparable to one another (aside from a few very old reviews on our site that have a totally different graphic design). Here’s our set of sharpness tests for the original 24-70mm f/2.8G, which you can compare head-to-head against the 24-120mm f/4 S tests in this review: photographylife.com/revie…mm-f2-8g/2
In short, the 24-120mm f/4 S is sharper all-around at a given focal length and aperture. The differences range from negligible to significant depending upon where you look. The only real advantage of the 24-70mm f/2.8 is, of course, the f/2.8 capabilities.