Hello Spencer. Have you compared or would you consider comparing the Nikon 24-120mm f/4 to the Tamron 70-300 only between the 70-120mm range? You suggested the Tamron 70-300mm along with the 24-70mm f/4. I’m considering your recommendation, but I can’t find a quality review of said telephoto lens when it comes to sharpness.
Kevin
February 22, 2023 3:34 am
Hi Spencer, when you reviewed the Z 24-200mm lens you said “I’m personally going to use this as my main landscape photography lens from now on with the Nikon Z6 II”.
Is that still the case? Just wondering if you considered replacing it with the Z 24-120mm?
Thx.
Claus
February 14, 2023 9:20 am
Hmmm, you are rating the Z 24-70 higher than the Z 24-120? That completely contradicts my experience with both lenses.
My sample of the Z 24-120mm is sharper and more brilliant both in the center of the image and in the very outermost corner of the image field.
The final star average for the 24-120mm f/4 is only lower because of the bokeh score. I think it’s unfairly dragging down the score, and I’m going to be revising our scoring system site-wide to be fairer. But that will take some time, it’s a big endeavor.
In short, by my tests, the 24-120mm f/4 S outperforms the 24-70mm f/4 S slightly throughout the range. That’s impressive considering that it also reaches 120mm, and the 24-70mm f/4 S is already a great lens.
Yes, I think so. The difference is especially apparent in the transition areas that are slightly out of focus, and in the far corners at f/4.
Since bokeh is subjective, you may want to look at some sample photos from both lenses before making a purchase decision. And since the 24-120mm f/4 goes to 120mm, it can give you more background blur than the 24-70mm f/4 anyway. So of the two, it may still be the better lens for portraiture.
Todd Korb
December 16, 2022 5:40 pm
I’d like to comment on the conclusion that the z 24-70 f2.8 is significantly sharper than the z 24-120 f4. By my count comparing the three areas (center, mid, and corner) for the shared aperture ranges, the 24-120 wins with 36 sharper measurements to 23 for the 24-70. Of those 23 wins for the 24-70, 17 of those are in the corners. I contend that the center and mids are more important than the corners as that is where your subject is going to be. In the center and mids, the 24-120 won 33 out of 39 measurements. I think this is borne out also looking at the MTF curves on Nikon Imaging’s website (search on Google). The MTF compares f2.8 on the 24-70 to f4 on the 24-120, but the 24-120 is better. I think they really pulled out all the stops on the 24-120 including Arneo, and it really is consistently sharp in all focal lengths. It is really impressive. I know the 24-70 f2.8 is a great lens, but unless you need that f2.8, I think the 24-120 wins. Getting the extra focal lengths is just icing on the cake.
Hi Todd, thanks for adding your thoughts, and for combing through the sharpness data so closely! I like the 24-120mm f/4’s sharpness a lot, but I’m going to disagree with your conclusion. The evenness and extremely high sharpness across the frame of the 24-70mm f/2.8 S is on another level. A lot of the 24-120mm f/4’s victories that you’re pointing out are very slim, whereas the 24-70mm f/2.8’s victories are usually by bigger margins.
For example, comparing f/4 performance at 24mm, we get:
Center – 3550 vs 3463 Midframe – 2910 vs 2845 Corner – 1787 vs 2784
On one hand, this is two victories for the first lens (the 24-120mm) and one victory for the second lens (the 24-70mm f/2.8). But there’s more to the story than that. The center and midframes are extremely similar between the two lenses, with very little percent differences between them. Meanwhile, the second lens smokes the first one in the corners. If I had to say which one was sharper on the whole, the second lens would easily get the nod.
That pattern holds up throughout the focal length range when you’re comparing these two lenses (albeit less so at 70mm). Only if you ignore corner performance do the two lenses look to be on similar footing, or favoring the 24-120mm slightly. Corners may be out of focus for your type of photography, but that says more about your situation than about the lenses.
By the way, Nikon’s MTFs are only useful if you’re looking at the same aperture value. You can’t say that one lens is sharper than the other if the chart are for different apertures. I wish Nikon would provide MTF charts at more apertures, but so it goes. I hope this explanation made sense. I think for your photography, you’re absolutely right that the 24-120mm f/4 is the better choice.
Thanks so much for your thoughtful reply. You are awesome and I really appreciate all the work you put into this. Looking forward to your Z 105 macro review. Take care
Love, Love, Love my Z 105! Just purchased the Z 24-120mm f/4. Hoping that I like it since I want this for some upcoming travel photography.
Nat
November 30, 2022 4:01 pm
Great review.
I shoot manual focus Zeiss lenses, 15mm f2.8, 25mm f2, 55mm Otus and 135mm f2. My only AF lens before buying this 24-120 was an older Nikon 300mm F4 AF-S (without the VR) paired with TC-14II for occasional telephoto use.
The great reviews on the lens, its dimensions and also its close focus capability convinced me to buy it. Also it’s a lens I can give a friend to shoot with due to auto focus. I did before a test on the Nikon F mount 24-120 F4 and was disgusted by the performance on a 16 megapixel FF body.
I did some test shots on my Z7II (using 240-120 Z) on a tripod at different focal lengths and F4 to F5.6 aperture. I was expecting to be less disappointed but I’m pleasantly surprised. If you can live with F4, it’s a very sharp lens for most use cases except the very FX corner, and 1 stop down is enough to bring corners into really good levels. Tbh no one would notice the difference in corner sharpness probably except you. Yes I can get the same sharpness with better color correction (at much faster apertures) on Zeiss but I have to carry more, be limited to a specific focal length, focus manually and lose close focus capability + weather sealing. Haven’t done very heavy CA inducing scenarios but one can always shoot smarter (not point your lens wide open into a backlit treeline :) )
For all practical use cases, this is THE walk around lens in nature/city/travel/adventure. Unless you need faster 1.4 (or F2) primes at night which make a huge difference in light gathering (or DOF), bump up your iso, use the awesome IBIS, fire away and be amazed at how far tech has come.
I’m glad you’re enjoying your copy of the lens so much! I think it’s the best option at the moment for a walk-around lens as a Nikon shooter.
PawS
November 5, 2022 6:55 pm
Thanks for the great review.
Recently, I purchased a brand new Nikon Z 24-120 from Amazon. On the rear element, I see tiny glass beads, which appear to be glued to the periphery. I am not sure if those are normal. In any of my other Nikon lenses, I do not see those. They are not loose. The lens takes normal pictures, but I do not want to keep it with worry that those might become loose in the future. I do not want to return the lens unnecessarily. If someone else has this lens, could you please look into the rear element and let me know if you also see some tiny shiny specks/beads along the periphery? Thanks.
I’m holding the lens in front of me right now, and I can’t see anything like what you’re describing, unless I’m misunderstanding you. Do you have a way to post a photo of what you’re seeing?
The discussion box did not allow me to paste the picture. I have uploaded it to the following link:?dl=0 I have marked the shiny particles inside the rear glass with green lines. The lens was purchased brand new and arrived yesterday. Thanks for comparing with your own 24-120.
At least two of the dots you pointed to in the photo are tiny screws not on the rear element, but actually inside the lens holding elements in place. Those are the two dots at about 9 o’clock and 4 o’clock in the photo you sent.
I can’t tell for certain about the other dots in your photo, but they could be other screws or internal parts of the lens. Depending on the angle that I look at the rear of my 24-120mm, I see plenty of similar things inside the lens catch the light. Nothing in your photo strikes me as cause for concern.
Thank you for helping to dispel my fear, Spencer. I can enjoy taking pictures with it instead of worrying. Part of the reason for which this worry arose was that it was shipped in a soft plastic bag instead of a robust outer box. It seems the Nikon box was sufficiently strong to protect the lens.
Gukin
November 5, 2022 6:55 pm
This review is missing on lens review list please add this review
You worried me for a second! It is on the lens review list, but all the Nikon Z lenses are grouped separately from the Nikon F lenses. At the moment, it’s #64 on the Nikon list here (photographylife.com/lens-reviews), although that will change as we review more lenses.
emcee
November 3, 2022 6:33 pm
Great review Spencer. The 24-120 f/4 S combined with the 14-24 f/2.8 S and my Z7 are a mighty landscape kit that’s extremely sharp and relatively light. I’m very happy in particular with the sunstar performance and standard 77mm filter ring. I’m considering selling my F-mount 70-200 f4 because of how versatile the 24-120 is.
One thing I didn’t see highlighted is the focus speed of the 24-120 vs. the 24-70 f/4; I find it substantially faster to snap to focus on even my first gen Z7, and much closer to Canon R autofocus speed with their kit 24-105.
Thank you, Emcee! That’s an excellent landscape combo. I still consider the 14-24mm f/2.8 to be the best zoom lens I’ve ever tested, taking everything into account.
In terms of focus speed, I have the 24-120mm, 24-70mm f/4 S, 28-75mm f/2.8, and 24-200mm f/4-6.3 all in front of me right now. I’m going to do a broad comparison article that includes direct focus speed comparisons. Thinking back on using all four historically, they all seem to be fast focusers to me.
Petr
November 2, 2022 10:40 am
Hi Spencer, thank you for your brilliant review! I am deciding between buying Nikon Z 24-120 f/4 and postponing this purchase and waiting whether Nikon adopts Tamron lens 35-150 f2-2,8. The Tamron is heavy and in case of this Nikon I was dissapointed by the lens bokeh performance on your shots. I read also other reviews with mixed findings regarding bokeh. It is true that textured backgrounds/foregrounds with some highlights make the bokeh look bad. On the other hand, not all photos are with strongly textured out of focus areas with specular highlights. Ond for those shots, where these bad conditions occure, there could be sort of a fix in post – masking the out-of-focus areas and decreasing clarity and structure there (see comparison of your photo before and after on screenshot at eu.zonerama.com/petr-…/353786032). Plenty of other photos from this lens sometimes with very nice bokeh can be seen at www.flickr.com/group…20f4/pool/ Just posting this comment to offer another perspective :-) Thanks again, Petr
Right, bokeh strongly depends on the surroundings. If you shoot at 120mm and f/4, and the background is blown out, it will look soft and creamy – as it will on most every lens. It’s the in-between cases where the character of bokeh really becomes visible. Even then, you’re right that you can adjust clarity or other post-processing tools to potentially minimize any distractions in out-of-focus areas.
Hello Spencer. Have you compared or would you consider comparing the Nikon 24-120mm f/4 to the Tamron 70-300 only between the 70-120mm range? You suggested the Tamron 70-300mm along with the 24-70mm f/4. I’m considering your recommendation, but I can’t find a quality review of said telephoto lens when it comes to sharpness.
Hi Spencer, when you reviewed the Z 24-200mm lens you said “I’m personally going to use this as my main landscape photography lens from now on with the Nikon Z6 II”.
Is that still the case? Just wondering if you considered replacing it with the Z 24-120mm?
Thx.
Hmmm, you are rating the Z 24-70 higher than the Z 24-120?
That completely contradicts my experience with both lenses.
My sample of the Z 24-120mm is sharper and more brilliant both in the center of the image and in the very outermost corner of the image field.
Was your sample of the 24-120 really that bad?
The final star average for the 24-120mm f/4 is only lower because of the bokeh score. I think it’s unfairly dragging down the score, and I’m going to be revising our scoring system site-wide to be fairer. But that will take some time, it’s a big endeavor.
In short, by my tests, the 24-120mm f/4 S outperforms the 24-70mm f/4 S slightly throughout the range. That’s impressive considering that it also reaches 120mm, and the 24-70mm f/4 S is already a great lens.
Ok, thanks for the clarification and many thanks for your efforts and the very good work.
It has always helped me a lot when choosing my equipment.
Do you think that Nikkor 24-70 f/4 S has a better bokeh than this lens comparing only the range of 24 to 70?
Yes, I think so. The difference is especially apparent in the transition areas that are slightly out of focus, and in the far corners at f/4.
Since bokeh is subjective, you may want to look at some sample photos from both lenses before making a purchase decision. And since the 24-120mm f/4 goes to 120mm, it can give you more background blur than the 24-70mm f/4 anyway. So of the two, it may still be the better lens for portraiture.
I’d like to comment on the conclusion that the z 24-70 f2.8 is significantly sharper than the z 24-120 f4. By my count comparing the three areas (center, mid, and corner) for the shared aperture ranges, the 24-120 wins with 36 sharper measurements to 23 for the 24-70. Of those 23 wins for the 24-70, 17 of those are in the corners. I contend that the center and mids are more important than the corners as that is where your subject is going to be. In the center and mids, the 24-120 won 33 out of 39 measurements. I think this is borne out also looking at the MTF curves on Nikon Imaging’s website (search on Google). The MTF compares f2.8 on the 24-70 to f4 on the 24-120, but the 24-120 is better. I think they really pulled out all the stops on the 24-120 including Arneo, and it really is consistently sharp in all focal lengths. It is really impressive. I know the 24-70 f2.8 is a great lens, but unless you need that f2.8, I think the 24-120 wins. Getting the extra focal lengths is just icing on the cake.
Hi Todd, thanks for adding your thoughts, and for combing through the sharpness data so closely! I like the 24-120mm f/4’s sharpness a lot, but I’m going to disagree with your conclusion. The evenness and extremely high sharpness across the frame of the 24-70mm f/2.8 S is on another level. A lot of the 24-120mm f/4’s victories that you’re pointing out are very slim, whereas the 24-70mm f/2.8’s victories are usually by bigger margins.
For example, comparing f/4 performance at 24mm, we get:
Center – 3550 vs 3463
Midframe – 2910 vs 2845
Corner – 1787 vs 2784
On one hand, this is two victories for the first lens (the 24-120mm) and one victory for the second lens (the 24-70mm f/2.8). But there’s more to the story than that. The center and midframes are extremely similar between the two lenses, with very little percent differences between them. Meanwhile, the second lens smokes the first one in the corners. If I had to say which one was sharper on the whole, the second lens would easily get the nod.
That pattern holds up throughout the focal length range when you’re comparing these two lenses (albeit less so at 70mm). Only if you ignore corner performance do the two lenses look to be on similar footing, or favoring the 24-120mm slightly. Corners may be out of focus for your type of photography, but that says more about your situation than about the lenses.
By the way, Nikon’s MTFs are only useful if you’re looking at the same aperture value. You can’t say that one lens is sharper than the other if the chart are for different apertures. I wish Nikon would provide MTF charts at more apertures, but so it goes. I hope this explanation made sense. I think for your photography, you’re absolutely right that the 24-120mm f/4 is the better choice.
Thanks so much for your thoughtful reply. You are awesome and I really appreciate all the work you put into this. Looking forward to your Z 105 macro review. Take care
That review will be next! Although I’m taking a bit of time off for Christmas, so it should appear in early January.
Love, Love, Love my Z 105! Just purchased the Z 24-120mm f/4. Hoping that I like it since I want this for some upcoming travel photography.
Great review.
I shoot manual focus Zeiss lenses, 15mm f2.8, 25mm f2, 55mm Otus and 135mm f2. My only AF lens before buying this 24-120 was an older Nikon 300mm F4 AF-S (without the VR) paired with TC-14II for occasional telephoto use.
The great reviews on the lens, its dimensions and also its close focus capability convinced me to buy it. Also it’s a lens I can give a friend to shoot with due to auto focus. I did before a test on the Nikon F mount 24-120 F4 and was disgusted by the performance on a 16 megapixel FF body.
I did some test shots on my Z7II (using 240-120 Z) on a tripod at different focal lengths and F4 to F5.6 aperture. I was expecting to be less disappointed but I’m pleasantly surprised. If you can live with F4, it’s a very sharp lens for most use cases except the very FX corner, and 1 stop down is enough to bring corners into really good levels. Tbh no one would notice the difference in corner sharpness probably except you. Yes I can get the same sharpness with better color correction (at much faster apertures) on Zeiss but I have to carry more, be limited to a specific focal length, focus manually and lose close focus capability + weather sealing. Haven’t done very heavy CA inducing scenarios but one can always shoot smarter (not point your lens wide open into a backlit treeline :) )
For all practical use cases, this is THE walk around lens in nature/city/travel/adventure. Unless you need faster 1.4 (or F2) primes at night which make a huge difference in light gathering (or DOF), bump up your iso, use the awesome IBIS, fire away and be amazed at how far tech has come.
I’m glad you’re enjoying your copy of the lens so much! I think it’s the best option at the moment for a walk-around lens as a Nikon shooter.
Thanks for the great review.
Recently, I purchased a brand new Nikon Z 24-120 from Amazon. On the rear element, I see tiny glass beads, which appear to be glued to the periphery. I am not sure if those are normal. In any of my other Nikon lenses, I do not see those. They are not loose. The lens takes normal pictures, but I do not want to keep it with worry that those might become loose in the future. I do not want to return the lens unnecessarily. If someone else has this lens, could you please look into the rear element and let me know if you also see some tiny shiny specks/beads along the periphery? Thanks.
I’m holding the lens in front of me right now, and I can’t see anything like what you’re describing, unless I’m misunderstanding you. Do you have a way to post a photo of what you’re seeing?
Thanks for writing back quickly, Spencer. It is easier to see those in daylight. I will take picture tomorrow and post it. Regards.
The discussion box did not allow me to paste the picture. I have uploaded it to the following link:
?dl=0
I have marked the shiny particles inside the rear glass with green lines. The lens was purchased brand new and arrived yesterday. Thanks for comparing with your own 24-120.
Thanks for uploading the photo!
At least two of the dots you pointed to in the photo are tiny screws not on the rear element, but actually inside the lens holding elements in place. Those are the two dots at about 9 o’clock and 4 o’clock in the photo you sent.
I can’t tell for certain about the other dots in your photo, but they could be other screws or internal parts of the lens. Depending on the angle that I look at the rear of my 24-120mm, I see plenty of similar things inside the lens catch the light. Nothing in your photo strikes me as cause for concern.
Thank you for helping to dispel my fear, Spencer. I can enjoy taking pictures with it instead of worrying. Part of the reason for which this worry arose was that it was shipped in a soft plastic bag instead of a robust outer box. It seems the Nikon box was sufficiently strong to protect the lens.
This review is missing on lens review list please add this review
You worried me for a second! It is on the lens review list, but all the Nikon Z lenses are grouped separately from the Nikon F lenses. At the moment, it’s #64 on the Nikon list here (photographylife.com/lens-reviews), although that will change as we review more lenses.
Great review Spencer. The 24-120 f/4 S combined with the 14-24 f/2.8 S and my Z7 are a mighty landscape kit that’s extremely sharp and relatively light. I’m very happy in particular with the sunstar performance and standard 77mm filter ring. I’m considering selling my F-mount 70-200 f4 because of how versatile the 24-120 is.
One thing I didn’t see highlighted is the focus speed of the 24-120 vs. the 24-70 f/4; I find it substantially faster to snap to focus on even my first gen Z7, and much closer to Canon R autofocus speed with their kit 24-105.
Thank you, Emcee! That’s an excellent landscape combo. I still consider the 14-24mm f/2.8 to be the best zoom lens I’ve ever tested, taking everything into account.
In terms of focus speed, I have the 24-120mm, 24-70mm f/4 S, 28-75mm f/2.8, and 24-200mm f/4-6.3 all in front of me right now. I’m going to do a broad comparison article that includes direct focus speed comparisons. Thinking back on using all four historically, they all seem to be fast focusers to me.
Hi Spencer, thank you for your brilliant review! I am deciding between buying Nikon Z 24-120 f/4 and postponing this purchase and waiting whether Nikon adopts Tamron lens 35-150 f2-2,8. The Tamron is heavy and in case of this Nikon I was dissapointed by the lens bokeh performance on your shots. I read also other reviews with mixed findings regarding bokeh. It is true that textured backgrounds/foregrounds with some highlights make the bokeh look bad. On the other hand, not all photos are with strongly textured out of focus areas with specular highlights. Ond for those shots, where these bad conditions occure, there could be sort of a fix in post – masking the out-of-focus areas and decreasing clarity and structure there (see comparison of your photo before and after on screenshot at eu.zonerama.com/petr-…/353786032). Plenty of other photos from this lens sometimes with very nice bokeh can be seen at www.flickr.com/group…20f4/pool/
Just posting this comment to offer another perspective :-)
Thanks again,
Petr
Right, bokeh strongly depends on the surroundings. If you shoot at 120mm and f/4, and the background is blown out, it will look soft and creamy – as it will on most every lens. It’s the in-between cases where the character of bokeh really becomes visible. Even then, you’re right that you can adjust clarity or other post-processing tools to potentially minimize any distractions in out-of-focus areas.