I’m trying to decide between the 24-70/4s and the 24-120/4s – and my impression from ALL the images I’ve looked at (including this review and trawling Flickr), is that the 24-70/4 takes images that look better than those from the 24-120/4. Better in the sense of more interesting and more pleasing. But I’m confused because all the reviews say the 24-120/4 is a “sharper” lens. Maybe the 24-70/4 inspires people to take better pictures? (“If you’re pictures aren’t good enough, you’re not getting close enough”, said Capa). Or maybe the 24-70/4 has more “character” (ie, flaws). I don’t know. But it’s definitely the impression I get. You only have to look at the sample images from both lenses on this site.
At least 90% of the time, I find that “takes better photos” is more about intangible things, like being more inspired when using a lighter lens, or visiting more interesting locations with it, etc. — I don’t think that if shot on the same scene at the same time that there would be any visible differences, especially at web resolution.
Robert John
October 18, 2024 11:47 am
Looks a very decent lens indeed to buy used.
I like long lenses for landscapes but find the price of the 100-400 quite off-putting (£2,200). I’m contemplating a landscape (and any wildlife that passes by) combo of Z5 + 24-70/f4 and D500 + 70-300E. That gives me 24-450 efl at a cost of £2,700 and acceptable size/weight.
I think the 70-300E is a bit of an understated gem. But I do like the images that the Z5 produces.
Nour
October 13, 2024 9:51 am
Hello, just bought it 2nd hand like new for 260 € (290 $), I will give it a try with a Zf. This will be my first zoom. I usually prefer shooting prime lenses. Thank you for your reviews.
Jules
November 18, 2022 5:13 am
Hi! LOVE this website. Thank you Spencer! I was thinking it would be good to see a comparison of this with the older 24-70 2.8 G lens, as well as the newer Z 28-75mm 2.8? Kind regards from Wales, UK
Also, I just added head-to-head numbers against the 28-75mm f/2.8 to this review! Hope you find it useful.
Patrick Molloy
March 19, 2020 8:08 am
Here we are a year later. I’m just waiting for the credit from selling ALL my DX lenses to hit my account then I’ll get the Z 6. These have been truly interesting comments on a great review. As an amateur, I’m torn between the f2.8 or the f4. As a GAS geek, the f2.8 screams to me, but when the brain kicks in, then I realise that the f4 is the one to get. I’d be interested to hear now from those that had the f4 and f2.8 what their current thoughts are. Thank you
Hey Patrick, unless you absolutely need f/2.8 for the conditions you shoot, the f/4 version is a much more practical choice. Far smaller and lighter, negligible sharpness differences (especially on the Z6 rather than Z7) and much less expensive. You can’t go wrong either way, but my impression – as someone who has used both – is if you don’t instantly know you need the f/2.8 version, you shouldn’t get it.
Jim Nelson
March 4, 2020 11:20 am
I have this lens mounted on a Z6. I also have the 24-70 mm f/2.8 (older, non-VR version) mounted on a D750. I have taken these to numerous events/locations and shot them interchangeably. Mounted on a tripod for set pieces, the difference is not as great as I expected. They both show some softness in the extreme corners at f/4. When I shoot hand held, there is no comparison. The Z6 IBIS makes a lot of difference, noticeably high percentage of tack sharp images and the weight difference is a hugh plus. For landscapes, 24 mm was good but not great on either lens. The issue was the corners. I’ve ordered the 20 mm F/1.8 S hoping the corners are better for the wide landscapes.
Update. I shot a two model, 10 different looks session for a designer. Switched every 3 or 4 shots between the 24-70 F/4 S on a Z6 and a 24-70 F/2.8 G on a D750. The designer picked 28 images from a quick jpeg export gallery for detailed editing – 23 of the 28 were shot with the Z6 – 24-70 F/4.
That’s awesome, Jim! I’ve really enjoyed using the 24-70mm f/4 over the past year and a half. Great lens, IBIS is stellar, and wonderful size/weight. Frankly, I wish Nikon would make an F-mount equivalent for all the non-Z users!
Hi Jim! Did you test/use the F mount 24-70G on the Z6? I’m curious how does it work for stills and video.. Focusing speed, accuracy.. What is your opinion?
John Brewton
August 11, 2019 1:32 pm
My comments refer to all S lenses. For me the manual focus “focus-by-wire” system is a joke, especially for street shooting. It is much too finicky, overly sensitive and the narrow focus ring can be difficult to locate in the heat of the moment. By the time you have dialed in focus the moment has surely passed. IMO, Nikon needs a fix (firmware?) to allow more travel in the focus ring instead of too quickly jumping in and out of focus. Thank goodness we can still use the old manual focus F mount lenses.
Michael Luu
July 23, 2019 10:05 am
Is the corrected FOV at 24mm still a true 24mm? The 14-30mm is actually wider than 14mm uncorrected so that when the file is correct it’s still a true 14mm FOV. Is that true of the 24-70 F4? Or is the corrected FOV at 24mm closer to 25 or 26mm?
I’m trying to decide between the 24-70/4s and the 24-120/4s – and my impression from ALL the images I’ve looked at (including this review and trawling Flickr), is that the 24-70/4 takes images that look better than those from the 24-120/4. Better in the sense of more interesting and more pleasing. But I’m confused because all the reviews say the 24-120/4 is a “sharper” lens. Maybe the 24-70/4 inspires people to take better pictures? (“If you’re pictures aren’t good enough, you’re not getting close enough”, said Capa). Or maybe the 24-70/4 has more “character” (ie, flaws). I don’t know. But it’s definitely the impression I get. You only have to look at the sample images from both lenses on this site.
At least 90% of the time, I find that “takes better photos” is more about intangible things, like being more inspired when using a lighter lens, or visiting more interesting locations with it, etc. — I don’t think that if shot on the same scene at the same time that there would be any visible differences, especially at web resolution.
Looks a very decent lens indeed to buy used.
I like long lenses for landscapes but find the price of the 100-400 quite off-putting (£2,200). I’m contemplating a landscape (and any wildlife that passes by) combo of Z5 + 24-70/f4 and D500 + 70-300E. That gives me 24-450 efl at a cost of £2,700 and acceptable size/weight.
I think the 70-300E is a bit of an understated gem. But I do like the images that the Z5 produces.
Hello, just bought it 2nd hand like new for 260 € (290 $), I will give it a try with a Zf. This will be my first zoom. I usually prefer shooting prime lenses. Thank you for your reviews.
Hi! LOVE this website. Thank you Spencer! I was thinking it would be good to see a comparison of this with the older 24-70 2.8 G lens, as well as the newer Z 28-75mm 2.8? Kind regards from Wales, UK
Sure thing, you can compare these numbers against those in our 24-70mm f/2.8 G review here: photographylife.com/revie…70mm-f2-8g
Also, I just added head-to-head numbers against the 28-75mm f/2.8 to this review! Hope you find it useful.
Here we are a year later. I’m just waiting for the credit from selling ALL my DX lenses to hit my account then I’ll get the Z 6. These have been truly interesting comments on a great review. As an amateur, I’m torn between the f2.8 or the f4. As a GAS geek, the f2.8 screams to me, but when the brain kicks in, then I realise that the f4 is the one to get. I’d be interested to hear now from those that had the f4 and f2.8 what their current thoughts are. Thank you
Patrick M
Hey Patrick, unless you absolutely need f/2.8 for the conditions you shoot, the f/4 version is a much more practical choice. Far smaller and lighter, negligible sharpness differences (especially on the Z6 rather than Z7) and much less expensive. You can’t go wrong either way, but my impression – as someone who has used both – is if you don’t instantly know you need the f/2.8 version, you shouldn’t get it.
I have this lens mounted on a Z6. I also have the 24-70 mm f/2.8 (older, non-VR version) mounted on a D750. I have taken these to numerous events/locations and shot them interchangeably. Mounted on a tripod for set pieces, the difference is not as great as I expected. They both show some softness in the extreme corners at f/4. When I shoot hand held, there is no comparison. The Z6 IBIS makes a lot of difference, noticeably high percentage of tack sharp images and the weight difference is a hugh plus. For landscapes, 24 mm was good but not great on either lens. The issue was the corners. I’ve ordered the 20 mm F/1.8 S hoping the corners are better for the wide landscapes.
Update. I shot a two model, 10 different looks session for a designer. Switched every 3 or 4 shots between the 24-70 F/4 S on a Z6 and a 24-70 F/2.8 G on a D750. The designer picked 28 images from a quick jpeg export gallery for detailed editing – 23 of the 28 were shot with the Z6 – 24-70 F/4.
That’s awesome, Jim! I’ve really enjoyed using the 24-70mm f/4 over the past year and a half. Great lens, IBIS is stellar, and wonderful size/weight. Frankly, I wish Nikon would make an F-mount equivalent for all the non-Z users!
Hi Jim! Did you test/use the F mount 24-70G on the Z6? I’m curious how does it work for stills and video.. Focusing speed, accuracy.. What is your opinion?
My comments refer to all S lenses. For me the manual focus “focus-by-wire” system is a joke, especially for street shooting. It is much too finicky, overly sensitive and the narrow focus ring can be difficult to locate in the heat of the moment. By the time you have dialed in focus the moment has surely passed. IMO, Nikon needs a fix (firmware?) to allow more travel in the focus ring instead of too quickly jumping in and out of focus.
Thank goodness we can still use the old manual focus F mount lenses.
Is the corrected FOV at 24mm still a true 24mm? The 14-30mm is actually wider than 14mm uncorrected so that when the file is correct it’s still a true 14mm FOV. Is that true of the 24-70 F4? Or is the corrected FOV at 24mm closer to 25 or 26mm?
The corrected view is still 24mm by my impression. Perhaps just the slightest bit longer, like 24.5 at most.
The Nikon 24-70mmf4 has a better bokeh than Canon 24-105mm f4.
It’s a very interesting information.
How long do you think it’s gonna be before Nikon gets around to a 100mm +- Macro?