I Now Have to Pay For My Own Nikon Gear, So What Will I Buy?

Ee lad, that's proper advice that is. Unless one really needs f2.8, the f4s are great lenses.

I'd only splurge for the f2.8 if I were doing weddings and those kinds of events. But for landscapes and waterfalls, I'm going to be at f8 or higher anyways. I got my 24-120 f-mount certified-refurbished for $500. But I also don't have a 100-400. If I did, I'd get the 24-70 also.

I chose the 24-120 to go with my Z8, it will take the place of my old Tamron 18-400 f mount. I also have the 70-200 f2.8
and will soon be getting the 180-600. They suit my type of photography which is mostly Sport, Wildlife and Aviation..

Interesting and entertaining as always. I bought the Z 24-120mm f4 S when I purchased my Z7ii, and while the Z7ii moved out to make room for a Z9 and later joined by a Z8, the Z 24-120mm remains the lens that's on the camera for hikes, travel, other outdoor uses and the grab-and-go situations that life presents. I do have a need for low light capabilities in shooting lots of movement photos at indoor dog shows where I normally use the Z 70-200mm f2.8 S lens, and I think about getting the Z 24-70mm f2.8 S to add wide-angle capabilities for those situations. But the Z 24-70 f4 doesn't really fit my use case as the Z 24-120mm f4 is remarkable and just as sharp in the center where it matters to me and is perfectly fine for wide-angle and movement outdoors.

24-120 changed my travel and landscape photography game

24-120/4 for sure.

I love your sponsorship. Everybody has Squarespace, Thomas has Beer 52 :-D

Nikon Z 24-70 f4 used is extremely cheap btw. Seeems because its a kit lens. In DE for 300-350€ in good condition

Thank you so much, I was going to sell mine 24-70 f4 and buy 24-120. But now I am gonna keep it and save a lot of money. Thanks!!

Considering how cheap the 24-70 F4 is available on the used market it’s more like 1/4 the price of the 2.8

I wish i watched this video before buying the 2.8, but i do portrait photography. So I’ll use that fact to justify my hasty purchase

Surprisingly you didn’t even think of Z24-200? Considering hiking is always on landscape’s agenda, convenience deserves a seat doesn’t it 😂

Excellent and I made it to the end!!!
Question
Would the conclusion for the 24-70 f4 be similar enough for the f mount slr bodies w/o going thru this again?
Would Nikon lenses have somewhat simile me quality traits?

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz xzzzzzzzzzzzz

It's somehow interesting when Nikon doesn't allow you selling your own Nikon lenses.

Old photography school taught that a lens is sharpest at 2..3 stops closed from fully open. That's between f/8 and f/11 for the f/4 lenses and between f/5.6 and f/8 for the f/2.8 lens. Comparing all at f/11 may be in the ballpark, Thomas, of your use cases, and in that sense valid and relevant, but may not be fair to the lens designers. Also, it's more difficult to make extremely good "fast" lenses than slower ones. If you have a "slower" lens's design and simply make the diameter of the lenses larger then you add the edges that have a more prismatic cross-section and these edges would add e.g. a lot of chromatic aberration. That's why slower lenses don't have such edges tapering to thinness. So a fast lens needs another design and more elements for correction. More elements add more surfaces that can cause glare and so these need coatings to suppress that. With more elements you do not necessarily get sharper images. Then it boils down to the quality of the coatings and the precision in glass formulation and grinding/polishing to perfection, how well lenses will perform. In the light of all this, the 24-70/2.8S is almost a miracle. It comes close to even prime lenses.
Well, prime lenses that have no focus breathing are actually zoom lenses too, so that's another "but".
For the landscape photographer's use case of wanting foreground to background sharpness, my suggestion is to try what Nikon call "Focus Shift Shooting" (which is more appropriate than "Focus Stacking" because the latter is done in post with the results of the former).
These modern lens designs are already extremely sharp at fully open and may actually do less at f/11. If sharpness is a thing, then Focus Shift Shooting can help to divert from the starting effect of diffraction by shooting wider open and a couple of shots at different distances - fore-, mid-, back-ground - may be ll that is required.
Of course, there is time parallax between the individual frames and you must be able to understand that at shoot time and/or in post.
If you want a very precise "say" in where sharpness starts in foreground and ends towards background, then you may want to go fully open and do the Focus Shift Shooting all the way from shortest distance to infinity.
This would also enable you to select/stack a different set of frames out of the Focus Shift Shooting set depending on e.g. print size because a smaller (print/display) size hides some blur and raises the illusion of deeper Depth of Field.

Too bad you’re not traveling through Japan. Mapcamera 655.13 pd. New & tax free.

The new 180-600 makes lens selection more interesting. It might be the 24-120 and 180-600 are an alternative to the 24-70 and 100-400 duo.

24-120 is also a nice macro lens...well near enough macro.

You can get all those lenses much cheaper on the used camera store discount... the 24-70 f4 is about £350 used

What do you think of 28-75mm F2.8?

You can even get the 24-70 and 24-120 for less money if bought as a kit :) yeah thoses are " kit lenses ", nikon you jokester ^^

I had used 24-70 f/4 and now use 24-120 f/4. Either my 24-70 f/4 was a bad copy or Thomas's 24-120 f/4 is a bad copy because I found 24-120 is better (a tiny bit but still) :)

You should have tested the Nikon 28-75mm f2.8 as well. It is said that it is made by Tamron but it is a good lens none the less. It is a popular lens among many Sony shooters.

Hi Thomas,

I like your practically relevant comparison without letting viewers pixel-peep, because I was also eyeing the 24-120 f4.

What I would have liked even more is a comparison of the 24-70 sharpness at 70mm and then cropped in to the equivalents of 85mm, 100mm or 105mm, and 120 mm, with the native 24-120 images. Because that is what will happen at the long end where the composition calls for the narrower view than the zoom ring can deliver: you will crop.

I also must say, that being able to evaluate the composition by zooming in to it instead of just planning to crop in post would be a clear advantage for me. (Although I learned the hard way, that after zooming in to the favorite composition I should typically zoom out a bit before taking the shot, because even on a tripod my composition is often not perfectly levelled and I need to rotate or I want to keystone correct or I only understand on the computer that the wider composition is better or I could have used more pixels close the edge for cloning things out. A topic on itself.)

Three years ago I had a similar problem. At the time I had a full suite of f2.8 Nikon DSLR lenses. But, I wasn't enjoying my photography. Too much stuff to carry around (I'm 76). So, I looked at my photos and realised that I rarely used f2.8. Most photos taken around f5.6 - 8. I also don't make mega prints. So, was IQ all that important? My decision: a suite of f4 lenses combined with a M43 camera (Olympus). I have since obtained a couple of f1.8 primes for when I really need them - they are tiny! I can now have my go to lens on the camera and 2 spares in a small bag if I need to travel really light. That gives me a FF equivalent of 24-800mm in a light weight combo. It was the best decision I ever made. I am now really enjoying my photography.

So in other words, the past few months of videos were Nikon advertisements?

If you have too zoom in 100 % to see any difference at al, that says a lot for me...
For the price of 2.8 you can buy 14-30. 24-120 and almost a 50 1.8...
That is mindblowing 🤣
And yes, with Z7II you really dont need those extra 50 mm reach if you are comparing 24-70 with 24-120 beacuse you can crop without any issues and get a greeat image...

Tom, why do I keep getting spammed from your videos when I leave comments??? It's annoying and makes me not want to deal with your content.

Why would you buy a Z7 when you can get the amazing Z8 ........

If I didn't already have the 24-70 f4 from the original kit, I would buy the 24-120 f4. That, and the 14-30 f4 that I own would cover nearly any situation other than portraiture. I have old D lenses for those already.

Greetings Thomas, just wanted to drop a comment since 24-120mm is so versatile, it can replace two lenses in the bag. I went through 3 copies of 24-120mm. The first two seemed to deviate a lot of reviews I read and saw. Did excruciating amount of testing on each and even compared them to 35mm, 50mm, 85mm f/1.8 S-line primes, and indeed the 3rd one was razor sharp edge-to-edge on every focal length at landscape apertures. Had it as my primary lens in Iceland just now and performed admirably. Just wanted to let you know.

This man can easily afford these three lens....the video is just for content 😁

Having just gotten back from a transcontinental trip lugging my full camera backpack, “lighter” seems like a really good idea!

Chasing Awe by Gavin Hardcastle (Mr Fototripper) is a fantastic read!

Some key differences between the f4 lenses didn't make it into the video: 24-120 has much faster focus motors and about .4 magnification. Also, whilst the list price of the 24-70 is only slightly lower, there should be many used ones available for way less as it was sold as a kit lens.

Go for the 24-120. It's just performs perfectly! Great lens stars as well 🙂

I have the 14-30 and 24-70 f4 to go with my Z7, amazing gear. Nikon are doing a great job with the Z’s on quality and price.

I am glad you made the same decision, Thomas! Because I hadn't had opportunity to test these lens in advance.

Thomas, I am an Australian on the road with smoke signal communications and cannot at the moment respond to your request to talk. But I am guessing you would like me to expand on my comment re a Nikon 7 lens which is pumping in dust, which as your would expect, ends up on the sensor. I contacted my friend for details and this was his reply:  

"it is the 24-140mm, f 1:4 lens.
My friend, the professional, cleaned the sensor quite often and very thoroughly.
One evening I counted 57 sensor spots!!! On one picture. That night, I stopped taking pics deeply frustrated!"

Excelente Heaton. Eu realmente gosto do meu Nikkor 24-70mm f/4. Acredito que seja perfeito em conjunto com o Nikkor 20mm f1.8.

Bought the F4 version at 430€ used, excellent condition on MPB... Gone for it because the different testings don't shom me that much difference in the lens quality, and for weddings, I work with primes, with better bokeh and low light performances.

you mightve tossed the book but you're using the same bag... but seriously loved this video. pixel peeping the same type lens is maddening and honestly the older I get the more im willing to drop the 2.8 for the reach so I have to move less which is why the 24-120 f4 is always tempting =)

U have to choose 24-70f/2.8

Not the result I was expecting! The fact that one can buy the 24-70 f4 used for peanuts right now is even more enticing. I sold mine for the 24-200. I'm not in love with the 24-200 but it is useful for hikes and kayaking where the reach is nice. The sunstars aren't great though.

Fun review!

Z 28-75 mm f/2.8 will give you the best of both worlds: budget and quality.

Tom does a lens comparison review? and buying Nikon??? Who ARE you?!!?!! :D Really interesting and pertinent video for me, but ahh wish you shot infrared on a Z system! Want to test the 24-120 on my infrared Z5. My 24-70 F4 works well in infrared, but hmm.... can't put my finger on what I'm lacking - but something. F2.8 is too expensive. My 24-200 is terrible in infrared but a good general purpose / travel on my Z7, though quality... ok but....doesn't really match the camera. I'd ^heard^ (can't remember where, though you have probably disproved it) the 24-120 was a better option lens compared to the 24-70 F4, but is definitely better than the 24-200 which I have real problems with in infrared so its utility is limited, but don't know if the 24-120 hotspots in infrared. I've got the long end with a 100-400 and that's fine in infrared, so can probably afford to get rid of....

Every other week another recommendation about different manufacturers. Does anyone listen? Just wondering. Not the most technical vlog, every lens has it's sweet spot for focus. You cannot simply use F4 or F? on every lens to compare. Sweet spot is usually 2 stops from widest F. Was the Z7 not too good that there is a Nikon Z2 now? Better with the D series, better value, lenses are also better value and choice.

If Nikon had a 20-70mm f/4 this video would have been 33% longer ... A darn shame :(