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.
Faoder Jacques
October 22, 2023 8:33 am
Félicitations pour votre article très complet mais pourriez vous m ’apporter une précision : Je viens de coupler ce 24-120 f/4 s avec mon z6 II et lorsque je veux modifier l’ obturation, je n’ai le choix qu’entre obturation auto ou premier rideau électronique ! Quel est à votre avis la meilleure solution ? Merci d’avance pour votre réponse
Debasis
October 1, 2023 6:40 am
For a year, I had both of 24-70 and 24-120 F4 glasses. One on my Z5 and the other on my Z7-II. Then I realized I am wasting money keeping both. I didn’t like the clicky nature of 24-70. So, I sold that 😀 And then bought 24-200 for the Z5. I think I have GAS. And all the primes are gathering dust.
Steve
September 21, 2023 10:55 am
Terrific review, Spencer.
Just wondering: if the Z 24-120 were my only lens for landscape photography, do you think I would gain in photo quality by trading my Z6ii for a Z7ii?
Thank you, Steve! Yes, you would see some benefits. They won’t be drastic, but even at f/11 and f/16, there’s more detail at 45 MP than at 24 MP – enough for maybe one size larger print at the most. However, the bigger benefit of the Z7 II for landscape photography is base ISO 64.
Granted, I think that the money would be better spent on other upgrades first, like tripod or lens. But the simple answer to your question is yes.
Troy Phillips
August 19, 2023 8:04 pm
I am very interested in this lens for video as well as a general carry all purpose lens . I’ve also seen Nikon will be coming out with the Tamron 35-150 f/2.-2.8 . I’d be interested in this lens but it’ll be so much bigger. Better for most of the photography I do and would work for most of the video I do for sure . I have so many big heavy lenses ( Sigma Art ) I need a kit for video that cover a wide range and is fairly light . I am thinking 14-24 f/2.8 S , 24-120 f/4 S and 100-400 f/5.6-6.3 . That I believe could be my Whole(ly) Trinity for Live Music Video, photography, nature , landscape and wildlife . I have a lot of fast primes, zooms and the Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 fl vr e that I adapt . As for Z mount only the 40mm f/2 and 85mm f/1.8 S . Thoughts on the 24-120 or 35-150
I ended up getting this lens and am very surprised by its image quality. I am also loving the close up almost macro ability. The resolution and color has amazed me . The versatility for video and lack of focus breathing is tops . So glad I got this lens
Todd S
August 3, 2023 5:09 am
Not sure why everyone is so obsessed with gear weight. Are many photographers that weak physically? I regularly carry around 17 lbs of gear when I spend 12 hour days at Disney World with no pain or discomfort and I’m 41 so not a young 20 something.
I’m 60 and have many bad bad injuries and carry about that and sometimes more for multi day festivals and events I shoot . I don’t get it so much either. But again this summer of 60 I’ve been really getting weak . Not going into details but I’m way more injured and in pain than 99% of most folks complaining and much younger. I’m also not a big person. I believe it comes down to drive and determination.
I sure am, I have had 3 back surgeries and I am 70 years old!!
Laurence Taylor
July 28, 2023 12:51 am
I can’t believe so many people are still obsessed with bokeh. If that’s what you’re looking at, your composure isn’t good and you’ve not taken a good photo.
lol, what do you mean obsessed with bokeh. bokeh is photography life – what separates a good lens from an iphone
Theresa G.
May 20, 2023 9:34 pm
I’m so bummed to see the bokeh isn’t up to par
Steve Solomon
April 19, 2023 1:57 pm
Excellent review as always, Spencer! As a happy Z7 and Nikkor Z 24-70 f/4 S landscape photographer who is contemplating acquiring the pending Z8, do you think that this Nikkor Z 24-120 f/4 S zoom has enough resolution/sharpness to function well with a potential 61MB sensor on a Z8, or even the 24-70 f/4? Thank you.
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.
Félicitations pour votre article très complet mais pourriez vous m ’apporter une précision : Je viens de coupler ce 24-120 f/4 s avec mon z6 II et lorsque je veux modifier l’ obturation, je n’ai le choix qu’entre obturation auto ou premier rideau électronique ! Quel est à votre avis la meilleure solution ?
Merci d’avance pour votre réponse
For a year, I had both of 24-70 and 24-120 F4 glasses. One on my Z5 and the other on my Z7-II. Then I realized I am wasting money keeping both. I didn’t like the clicky nature of 24-70. So, I sold that 😀 And then bought 24-200 for the Z5. I think I have GAS. And all the primes are gathering dust.
Terrific review, Spencer.
Just wondering: if the Z 24-120 were my only lens for landscape photography, do you think I would gain in photo quality by trading my Z6ii for a Z7ii?
Thank you, Steve! Yes, you would see some benefits. They won’t be drastic, but even at f/11 and f/16, there’s more detail at 45 MP than at 24 MP – enough for maybe one size larger print at the most. However, the bigger benefit of the Z7 II for landscape photography is base ISO 64.
Granted, I think that the money would be better spent on other upgrades first, like tripod or lens. But the simple answer to your question is yes.
I am very interested in this lens for video as well as a general carry all purpose lens .
I’ve also seen Nikon will be coming out with the Tamron 35-150 f/2.-2.8 . I’d be interested in this lens but it’ll be so much bigger. Better for most of the photography I do and would work for most of the video I do for sure .
I have so many big heavy lenses ( Sigma Art ) I need a kit for video that cover a wide range and is fairly light . I am thinking 14-24 f/2.8 S , 24-120 f/4 S and 100-400 f/5.6-6.3 . That I believe could be my Whole(ly) Trinity for Live Music Video, photography, nature , landscape and wildlife . I have a lot of fast primes, zooms and the Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 fl vr e that I adapt . As for Z mount only the 40mm f/2 and 85mm f/1.8 S .
Thoughts on the 24-120 or 35-150
I ended up getting this lens and am very surprised by its image quality. I am also loving the close up almost macro ability.
The resolution and color has amazed me . The versatility for video and lack of focus breathing is tops .
So glad I got this lens
Not sure why everyone is so obsessed with gear weight. Are many photographers that weak physically? I regularly carry around 17 lbs of gear when I spend 12 hour days at Disney World with no pain or discomfort and I’m 41 so not a young 20 something.
I’m 60 and have many bad bad injuries and carry about that and sometimes more for multi day festivals and events I shoot . I don’t get it so much either. But again this summer of 60 I’ve been really getting weak . Not going into details but I’m way more injured and in pain than 99% of most folks complaining and much younger. I’m also not a big person. I believe it comes down to drive and determination.
I sure am, I have had 3 back surgeries and I am 70 years old!!
I can’t believe so many people are still obsessed with bokeh. If that’s what you’re looking at, your composure isn’t good and you’ve not taken a good photo.
lol, what do you mean obsessed with bokeh. bokeh is photography life – what separates a good lens from an iphone
I’m so bummed to see the bokeh isn’t up to par
Excellent review as always, Spencer! As a happy Z7 and Nikkor Z 24-70 f/4 S landscape photographer who is contemplating acquiring the pending Z8, do you think that this Nikkor Z 24-120 f/4 S zoom has enough resolution/sharpness to function well with a potential 61MB sensor on a Z8, or even the 24-70 f/4? Thank you.
The Z 24-120mm f/4 is optically even better than the Z 24-70mm f/4.
It also resolves better.
Unfortunately, the rating scheme here is still a bit misleading, although PL wants to correct that.