Coming to you from Matt Irwin Photography, this great video review takes a look at the Nikon NIKKOR Z 24-120mm f/4 S lens.I've always been partial to these zooms over 24-70mm f/2.8 options. No
Los Angeles, California. Mar 3, 2012. #3. The 24-120 is a totally different type of lens. If you use f/2.8 a lot, to freeze action, or to cream backgrounds, the 24-120 won't satisfy you. However, if you want more in focus, and your subjects aren't moving, VR would be more useful than f/2.8.This is an in-depth review of the Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8G ED lens that was released back in August of 2007 together with the 14-24mm f/2.8G ED lens. I have owned a number of different copies of the Nikon 24-70mm for many years, pretty much from the day the lens was announced and I have probably spent the most amount of time in the field shooting Eugene, This lens exists. It is just coming to Z-mount. You can direct compare the 24-120 vs Sigma 24-105. If you check enough reviews that have numerical test results between a few lenses you can extrapolate the 35-150 is optically better than the 24-120. MTF charts also. 24-120 is very good for its class, but not outstanding overall. NIKON Z 7 + NIKKOR Z 24-120mm f/4 S @ 120mm, ISO 64, 1/40, f/4.0. 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
I am debating if to get the 70-200 f/2.8 or this lens. This is mostly for wildlilfe at low light hours. I have a z 100-400 and a 1.4TC and they are awesome, also I have the 24-120 f4, but sometimes in early/late hours it is hard to capture wildlife and thought this would be great due to light weight.
Imo yes, the 24-70 2.8 is as good or imo better than any of the 1.8 primes. Kinda makes them redundant to be honest. Also, I much prefer the colors, contrast etc. From the 24-70 f2.8, even compared to the 50 1.2 eWwr.