Hey, Matt. I´ve been following you from sometime and you are looking more thin and vibrant nowadays. Happy for you and thanks for this review. Cheers.

Thank you for the video and all the best for your family

24-120mm is a great walkabout lens. I have the old F mount 24-120mm f3.5-5.6 D lens that lives on my Nikon F801s 35mm camera. It's a great all rounder for most things us mere mortals shoot. The Z mount lens continues the Nikon tradition of giving us decent lenses that get the job done wherever our level is at, be it pro or amateur, portaits or street. When I make the move to mirrorless I will be getting the 24-120mm f/4 S.

Excellent information and top notch advice as usual Matt, thanks for sharing. This video is definitely shaping my decision to move from DSLR to Mirrorless.

As always, perfectly explained and demonstrated!

Thank you. I already own 24-200, which I bought impulsively half asleep, but never regretted after my first travel with it. It's precisely a travel lens, not a session lens, and 200mm comes in handy very often. For a photo session I use primes only.

Well presented, and clearly explained. After growing frustration with many years with mobile phone pictures, and after my trusty old Kodak point and shoots camera did not focus anymore, I decided to take one step up profiting from a special offer on a Nikon Z30 vlogging kit including the kit lens. Then came the question what to buy next, overwhelmed by the bewildering number of options. This video convinced me of the Nikon Z 24-120mm f/4 S Lens you presented as a good compromise, and bought it profiting from still another special offer. My first few uses confirm your evaluation of the expectations. Thank you for sharing, and greetings from Switzerland.

@mattgranger

3 ай бұрын

Enjoy 👍🏼

My favorite lens for all around photojournalistic work🤩

Fantastic lens, sharp focuses fast and versatile. I bought the F mount years ago to use on my D810 , then on the D850. When I purchased the Z9 last year it was a no brainer as the first Z mount lens. Yes I could use the FTZ with the F mount, do with others, but wanted a Z mount lens and it made the most sense.

Exactly as Matt said. I shoot paid gigs and events, and had been happily using the 24-120 F4 lens. The images are very nice, and infinitely useable. However, the Achille's heel for me was the F4. I knew it would be, but like a clown, I thought I could live without it, because in Australia it is $1,500 cheaper than the top tier lens. I was stingy and got it to save money, but ended up having to sell it and get the 24-70 2.8 ($3,900 here in Australia - oh boy). Man, there is definitely a big difference in the image quality between the two. The big brother is blazingly sharp wide-open and even into the corners (though for what I shoot, I'm often not looking too hard at corners). The 24-120 was fine for me outside, until I started shooting in halls etc, and needed every bit of light that I could. The expensive brother is not perfect, because 2.8 can get better subject separation than the F4, but not as nice as my 1.8 primes. Like everything in photography there is a compromise and a trade-off. The bottom line is though - I can shoot an event all day, with my Godox fill-flash, have one lens on that covers wide to low tele, have images that are gorgeous and on my Z6ii body, the kit is still quite light and I can carry it all day long. Thanks for the great revue Matt and telling it just like it is !

I use this for model and family portrait shoots; incredible versatile lens-sharp and to end. Also landscape and sunsets.

24-120mm is great! Haven't had so versatile lense before, in traveling and hiking it is lovely lense and don't hold you back

I think compared to previous F-mount 24-120's, Nikon did a great job here with the 24-120 Z. I was a bit hesitant to buy it at first, knowing how the older F-mount versions performed, but for most things, I've been using it over the 24-70 2.8 simply for weight reasons. It's a good compromise between the 24-70's and the 24-200. Doesn't quite give you the same image quality as the 24-70's but does give you more range and a fixed aperture, but not quite the focal range of the 24-200.

Very nice review Matt. Of course it is a Nikon S lens and I want it. I do have the 24-200 and it performs wonderfully. But I still want this one!

Thanks Matt.

I have the 24-70/f4 and the 24-120/f4, I like and use both regularly, the 24-70 is a great light discreet lens, the 120 version gives that additional length at the tele end that is great for a bit of isolation, I have no issue with image quality on either lens and have images up to A3+ hanging on my wall and they look wonderful. The 24-70/f2.8 is an awesome bit of kit, but it's a bit of a lump and doesn't offer the flexibility of the 24-120 however its image quality is second to none. One day when funds permit I may shift the 24-70/f4 on and add the f2.8 version or maybe just pick up one of those nice F1.2 primes for the occasions when that extra stop or two of light is needed. Nice video thanks.

Thank you for the effort making this vid and sharing your knowledge. Its a good subject to learn and discuss. As you have said, Out of my own experience I also believe there is a clear line between nikon's f4 and 2.8 serious. I've never been really satisfied with the f4's. It was 'almost, but not really there'. To my taste the 2.8 obviously gives better shots. But it comes with a price, both $$$ and weight. So, if i go on vacation abroad, if i work at an event's photography, etc - this lens might be a good option. But For daily all around use I prefer the higher level gear.

I love that lens for travelling. For work I have Z 24-70/2.8. And when I need even lighter lens (for long distance trekking,) I grab Z 24-50 (where the image quality is unfortunately far from perfect).

24-120 is phenomenal and reliable for professional work but as you said the look with the 2.8 and 50 1.2 are another level

I have the 24-70 and 70-200 2.8 lenses and got the 24-200 for just hiking and walking around. The 2.8s are amazing and the 24-200 is fun.

@FabulousPepper

Жыл бұрын

I also own the 24-200 and published my own review of this lens which I like a lot too.

I agree with you about the 24-120 being Very Good. I also cannot disagree about the 24-70 2.8, and the 50 1.2 being superior, as they are in a different League/Realm I did use a 24-200 for about a month last fall(northern hemisphere), as a replacement for my Nikon 28-300. The 24-200 was better in many ways than the 28-300, but it was even slower. Cropping a 200mm shot from the 24-200 to 300mm equivalent, it was far sharper than a 300mm shot from the 28-300, and it didn't have the horrible Purple Fringing that the 28-300 had. It also had great VR, I was able handhold it down to 1/2 at 200mm, and no shake. However, I returned it and got the 24-120, and really like this one, even though I lost the Tele end. It performed very well outside at -24 in mid Dec for several hundred shots(no bursts). It is currently my only Z mount Lens, I am still using the 70-200 2.8 FL and 200-500 5.6, and several other F mount Lenses, even an old 50mm AF from 1990, not even the D version.

During F-times I used the old 24-120mm. Then waiting the Z version....to long, so I got the 24-200. It was okay, but now, shooting models with my Z6 and 24-120mm S-lens....I'm really happy again 🙂 thx 4 the vid :-)

I use it as a general walk about lens and its very good indeed at a price point, close focusing, can blur out backgrounds at 120, has 9 aperture rounded blades. etc... I'm super happy with it and usually carry some 1.8 Z primes in the bag for when needed.

Excellent comparison. Clear explanation of the quality difference between F/4 and F/2.8 lenses. Compliment.

@mattgranger

11 ай бұрын

Glad it was helpful!

This lens is a work horse for me on commercial shoots. Also it has amazing close focusing distance!

Thank you Matt! I'm just waiting for my Z8+24-120 kit. Before I had the D500 and the old 24-120 as my workhorse. I wonder how big of a difference it's going to be. Can't wait to try it.

I have one, and I agree with Matt's review.

Straight up, this lens alone is going to probably get me into the Z system. As a landscape/travel photographer it's exactly what I need and I love the idea of this on a Nikon Z7/ii body. This lens and the 50 1.8 would be a killer combo.

@sigeamer

Жыл бұрын

I’ve sat on buying a “real camera” for 5 years now as I waited for mirrorless to progress a bit further that’s not Sony (due to color science and handling), I just bought into a Z6II and the two lens combo you just mentioned. I’m an enthusiast and never professionally shot anything but I can tell it’s a killer combo, at least for my needs

@tfransson

Жыл бұрын

For video work I travel with exactly this setup.

@ralfjansen9118

Жыл бұрын

Coming from D7100 with 16-85, practically the same lens in DX Format, such a usefull range... Without this 24-120, I certainly would not have upgraded to Z.

@GreenTekHaus

Жыл бұрын

​​@@ralfjansen9118 I have a D7100 that I still use with my Sigma 150-600 lens for wildlife, and with the 85 macro lens for micro photography, and it's still great for that. However, once I got my Z6, I then got the Z70-200 f2.8 S lens, and the Z TC 2X S, and with 400mm of reach, plus the better focusing capabilities of my Z6, I actually use this set up more for sports, like my son's HS baseball team. You might want to look into that. While this 85 f1.2 is awesome, for the money, I believe the Z 70-200 is the better way to go. Much more flexibility for portraits or sports.

@ArsenijeRadenovic

Жыл бұрын

I have same combo for F mount and now I'm switching to the Z mount. 24-120 will be my first Z lens

Thank you for an honest review!

@mattgranger

4 ай бұрын

Glad it was helpful!

The 24-120 was my first lens from back in my F4S days.

I've just bought this lens for my Z8. It's a brilliant go-anywhere lens.

Just the kind of help I was looking for, Matt. Thank you. I have a 24-200 Z and was thinking of getting the 24-120 next time it appears for $100 off. After considering your comments, I'm thinking I should get instead the 24-70 f/2.8; and go from good to two steps better on image quality in the 24-70 range and use my 70-200 f/2.8 more.

@ruoxiyu

Жыл бұрын

$100 ?🤤

In moving from F to Z I had to make a decision... Do I get another 24-70 2.8 or not??? I had a look back at how I had been using my 24-70 and realised that I was almost always shooting with it at apertures of 5.6 to 10 and not really needing the 2.8. Also there were times where the 70mm was just not long enough so I got the 24-120 S lens and it has done exactly what i need it to do. That extra range is just enough for what I need it for at most times and I am glad that I took the time to work out what i really needed from the lens rather than just getting the 24-70 2.8 out of habbit.

The 24-120 actually replaced my 24-70 2.8. Sure the latter was a better lens in terms of the extra stop and image quality, but the incremental difference didn’t warrant it for my use. Rather, the 24-120 is more versatile and lighter. I found it being preferred to throw in the camera when I was just going out and for me - a non-professional. The 2.8 I have to keep with it is my 70-120. For range and portraits it fills in what I need. I also have the 50 for when I need it.

Fantastic review.

Matt, I agree with you, this is a very good zoom, certainly better than the 24-200 or the 24-70 f4 but for pure image quality all of the S primes are better. It is my main walk around lens, but it can’t replace faster lenses in certain situations.

@ccjh0806

9 ай бұрын

LOL that's obvious isn't it. Save it

I own the 24-70 2.8 and I have been absolutely blown away by the quality of that lens. I DID pass up the 1.2 50mm JUST because in all the various comparisons it just seems like the 1.8 is still really great. NOT as great I know I'm not crazy. but if you compare the build quality, and image quality of the 50 1.8Z to the 1.8G or D lenses of the past it is REALLY obvious that the 50 1.8Z is a massive improvement

Very informative, thank you.

I enjoy the heck out of my 14-30 and 24-120 Z lenses. They give me enough quality for my needs as a serious shooter who occasionally gets a photo featured by someone.

@GreenTekHaus

Жыл бұрын

I have the 14-30 Z F4 and I use it for my real estate and architecture shoots, and my clients love the pics I get from it! I also have the Z 70-200 f2.8 S lens, and it's my fave. Such a great lens!

Very nice photos by Matt Granger. I know he is an old Nikon user. I follow everything from Nikon with interest. I have loved Nikon for 12 years. I can't leave Nikon for another brand. Even if now it is a little behind the 2 (Canon & Sony) in terms of focus.

I purchased this with my new Z9 and the first minute I tried it I hated it because of the f/4, purchase mistake, returned it, and got the 2.8 24-70mm and been loving it for years! Can't wait for them to bring out the 1.2, 35mm prime!

@pjimmbojimmbo1990

Жыл бұрын

I like it on my now old Z9. I am old, and really don't like packing around a ton of Glass, like I did 45 yrs ago, before decent Zooms became commonplace

My 24-120 g is my favorite walk around lens. For my D750

Matt, I am a Z50 owner with its kit lenses. This a great travel camera. Both the kit lenses are DX and VR lenses. I know the faster F/4 maybe a bit better image quality, but not having VR and not a DX lens. I will stick with my kit lenses. Great review...

@FabulousPepper

Жыл бұрын

Hello. I am also a Z50 owner. I published a review of the 24-200 and explained why I think it is also a great companion with my Z50. You may want to watch it too...

I originally purchased the 24-120 f4 after seeing glowing reviews however after using it for a week and looking at my results i ended up returning it for the 244-70 F2.8 which i love, I thought over 100mm the lens lacked a little contrast and sharpness of course when i mentioned this on the web i got jumped upon but there you go

@starbase218

Жыл бұрын

There is so much that can influence this. Things like focus distance for example. Or technique, combined with e.g. whether or not the lens has field curvature. And of course, there is sample variation as well. The review from e.g. Chris Frost on this lens is very positive. But then, he got his sample from Nikon, and they might have sent him one of the best samples. So, while I like that Matt has taken a look at this lens, I think it's just another opinion. A valid one, but not necessarily any more so than that of others.

@pjimmbojimmbo1990

Жыл бұрын

Don't worry about the Fanboys, they tried to tear me another poop chute when I stated I had a defective D850. Some think that a Camera can NEVER be defective, that all problems are always the Photographers Fault...

This lens and the 50mm f1.8s are the only lenses I have currently, and, I’m not really wanting for more at this moment. The 24-120mm is a great walk-around/travel-photography lens, and it is an exceptional landscape photography lens (in both of these scenarios I tend to stick to f5.6 or higher). I stick on the 50mm f1.8 any time I need a bit more background separation. Side-note: The 24-120mm actually makes a decent semi-macro lens as well. If I recall correctly, it has a reproduction rate of around .35x!

@nAcolz

Жыл бұрын

I have the Z7II with 24-70/4, 50/1.8 and 14-30/4 and am looking to sell the 24-70 and get the 24-120 for the extra reach

My favorite lens for landscapes

I bought the 24-120mm and really like it….for me, as an amateur, its all I need, most days, and my primary walk around lens. If I need speed, I use the excellent Z primes. I made the decision not to buy into the Z f2.8 S line trinity lenses, because I kept my F mount trinity glass (I still shoot my D850 when it drops below -20C as it just handles more easily) I think my investment in Z lenses going forward will mostly be primes….definitely the 135 f1.8 and likely the 35mm f1.2…maybe the 50mm f1.2 too. The 100-400mm, 200-600mm zooms do intrigue, as well, but not as much as the primes, for my use cases.

Got recently a Z6II with 24-70/F4. For now, I am super happy with what I get out of it. Should I keep my older F mount 24-70/F2.8 NonVR one with FTZ or keep using 24-70/F?

I would argue that you don't get "extra" range with the Z 24-200. You just get a different range. The Z 24-200 has a 0.28x reproduction ratio, while the Z 24-120 has 0.39x. So in effect the "range" is extended to the macro side more on the Z 24-120 than on the Z 24-200. Regardless of the stated reproduction ratio, I find the 24-200 is poor at macro while the 24-120 is excellent. I feel that the two lens are pretty close in sharpness up until about 70mm, with the Z 24-120 just being a little sharper. Above 70mm the Z 24-120 is quite a bit sharper. With earlier firmware versions on the Z6/7/II, the VR on the Z 24-200 fell apart at 150mm or higher. Nikon has since very quietly addressed that, and now I would say its very good throughout the entire range. I have both. If I could only pick one, its Z 24-120 without hesitation.

I just noticed that YT had skipped me over to this video! Arrrrgh! This comment was supposed to be on the new f1.2 85mm Z lens vid. While I'm sure you're correct on the quality of the imagery, and for the price, it better be better, I think that the Z 70-200 f2.8 S lens is the better option. Yes, I've had it for a year now, and it's still my favorite lens. LCD screen included. (Not sure why Jared Polin doesn't like it. I think it's cool.) I do like my vintage nifty fifty that my Opa left me, even though it's a manual lens. Also, from your video, Matt, about the vintage 105 f2.5 manual lens, I picked one up off of eBay a few years back that was in great shape and I really like the dreamy bokeh and soft focus it produces. Images just feel really like a portrait, taken with either of those lenses. Now, if I were a high end world famous portrait Tog, then I think it would be a kit bag requirement. However, I do portraiture once in a while, and the "un-holy trinity" these three lenses afford me, is more than sufficient for my purposes. Great shoot, model, and lens. However, I would say to those who do not do very high end portraiture, that the 70-200 is a much better investment. Add the two manual lenses for another $250-$300 (total) for great examples, and you have a really nice kit for portraits, even when coupled to a camera like my Z6. Then, for added versatility, add the Z-TC 2X and the image quality at 140-400mm is actually REALLY nice! (I use it for sports photography of my son and his high school baseball team.) That saved a ton of mullah vs. getting the Z 400mm lens, too! So the 70-200 is the best lens to get for versatility. Yes, I'm awaiting the Z8, or a much improved Z6-III, as I really like the low light capabilities of my Z6!

After much hemming and hawing, I have just upgraded from the 24-70 f/4 to this and I'm as pleased as Punch about it. a) The extra 130g is basically unnoticable - the 24-120 is very well balanced on a Z5, and I can really appreciate the lack of need to "unlock" it. b) The additional control ring and function button is a godsend, worth alone for the money - the ring is very hard to nudge and so it's perfect for me to assign ISO to it. On the Z5 you can't set up the back dial for ISO in A mode like it used to be on my D7100, which has always bothered me... that's not an issue anymore, and the Fn button is a boon either as a subject tracking or quick highlight priority metering override. c) It's slightly better for "macro" - it doesn't replace a dedicated macro lens, but as an all-rounder every little bit of extra reproduction ratio helps. d) The 77mm filter thread also makes it more versatile - for the 24-70 I needed to use a step-up ring, which clashed with the hood. This is not an issue anymore. .... x) ephotozine measured it as being ~20% sharper at f/4 and f/5.6 at equivalent focal lengths compared to the 24-70 f/4. It's not a huge difference, this alone probably wouldn't sway most people either way, but it's a "nice to have" bonus. Sure, there are MOAR EXCELLENT lenses to be had, like you said, but with my budget "very very good" is plenty good enough. :) y) I've been shooting with the Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4 C on APS-C for a long time, and with the 24-70 I've been really missing that extra reach on the tele end... not an issue anymore. z) I've read somewhere in a DPReview - RIP :((( - forum entry that the bokeh is a bit busier on this than on the 24-70 f/4... I really haven't noticed it thus far, and anyways these are not supposed to be bokeh monsters after all. If I want to shoot for that, I'll whip out the old 180/2.8 AF-D and just live with the MF only restriction "all day long" as some other guy likes to say:) Overall if you are still on the 24-70 f/4 I can heartily recommend upgrading to the 24-120 - for the extra money it really gives you extra versatility, extra functionality, extra quality. It is not god tier, but superb value nonetheless.

Great video, I have the 24-200 but watt to swap it for the 24-120, mostly because I also have the 70-200. But I can do without that intro music...

Matt I am going to go off topic but where can I get a complete lineup of all the Nikon F mount lenses? Thanks Rick.

Despite it’s reputation for flaws, I had settled on the F 24-120mm F/4 as the one run and gun. And use it most of all. It’s flaws are subtractive, so does not bother me for most things. Am trying and using the Z 24-120mm F/4 on mostly a Z7ii, but also a Z9, for a while now. Not enough to be conclusive. However, I find it immediately appealing. It, like most Z lenses has that stark, dramatic apparent contrast that gives it a look that jumps. But It also displays the limited color palate and color subtly lack of the Z lenses as well. However, unusually for a Z lens in my experience, the Z 24-120mm F/4 displays some of the luminance and vibrancy of color reminiscent of only the finest F Mount Nikkors. And to a lessor degree, Leitz and older Zeiss lenses as well. I bought the lens due to that. The lens seems sharp, seems to hold it’s contrast out at the long end, and most importantly, seems to be devoid of any color shifts. Or internal flare that I find plagues the Z 24-70mm F/2.8. It appears to be slightly less sharp than the F/2.8 lens, but honestly, not sure it is. Time will tell. I have given up my love affair with the Z 24-70mm F/2.8 lens. I married prematurely! Despite it being very sharp and vivid, cannot accept it’s heinous distortion at the wide end and persistent internal flare at the long end, plus occasional blue violet color cast. Subtle, but noticeable. We were lovers for a while, but she gave me a dose.

Hello Folks! I'm an happy owner of the F version of the 24-120 f4. I really love the versatily of this lens. I'm looking into moving at some point to mirrorless and looking at the different systems and I'm wondering how this 24-120 f4 lens would compare to my usage against a 35-150 f2-2.8 from tamron (secretly hopping that this lens will come in z mount at some point). The use of this lens for me would be to use it as a main travel and landscape photography lens coupled with a wide angle zoom. I'm wondering if the image quality is similar and if the only trade between the 2 is loss of the wider range and an heavier lens with the tamron to gain a stop of light? Which one would you put in your bag? Also to have a taste of it I'm wondering if I should not buy the tamron 35-150 f2.8-f4 to see if it fit my needs and sell the 24-120. Thanks a lt for your inputs!

I hope you could still guide me in my decision making. I do have the nikon 24-70 f4 s lens. This coming June, we'll be having a trip to Vietnam and I'm planning to upgrade the said lens to the 24-120 f4 and bring along the 50 f1.8 s for lowlight situations. Is the 24-120 f4 a substantial upgrade from 24-70 f4 lens?

Serious question / video idea. I used to love my 24-240mm when I had a 24MP camera, but in 2021 I bought a 24-70 F2.8 because I had upgraded to 42MP in 2017, my 24-240 was pretty beat up, and I wanted better sharpness and low light. The 'new' lens is obviously better that in the 24-70mm range. But.. the question is... how close in IQ will a cropped image with a better lens on a high megapixel camera to these lower cost 'travel zooms' / 24-105mm / 24-120mm type lenses. How big would you even need to print before you see a difference. I would be tempted to test myself, but it would not be a fair test given my 24-240mm is scratched AF (trying to decide whether it is even worth replacing the travel zoom), and there are lots of different options that you already seem to have.

Great everyday and travel lens it seems.

can't wait to see your review of the Nikon 85mm 1.2 I'm waiting

@mattgranger

Жыл бұрын

I requested it from NIKON, but was denied early access to test it for you guys. Sorry 🤷‍♂️

@saucelove

Жыл бұрын

@@mattgranger that’s a bummer! Your a great artist/photographer/human. I mean that! Love your videos etc!

Matt summarized it well (paraphrasing here): For dedicated portaiture or telephoto work this is not your lens. For everything else in between it's an awesome lens.

@WilsonSilverthorne

Жыл бұрын

I own the other lenses as well - but don’t throw the 24-120 out in the portrait category - that lens has earned me loads of money and client approvals. It’s a great lens and I wouldn’t be afraid to shoot a whole portrait session with it. You don’t always need the “best specs on paper” lenses - there is a lot more to making great images. It’s all good - use the tool that works for you.

@unloadedone

Жыл бұрын

@@WilsonSilverthorne Agreed. I have taken some killer portraits with my 24-120 that rivaled my S 1.8 primes. This lens continues to surprise me every time I take it on a shoot. I love it.

Another reviewer felt the 24-120 f/4 Z lens is almost on par with the old 24-70 f/2.8 F mount lens for sharpness. He also found the Z mount 24-70mm f/2.8 was clearly superior if you need that clinical sharpness and/or the extra stop.

Matt, Thanks for this. I’m moving back into Nikon FF and mulling between this Z24-120 versus the new Tamron 28-75 f2.8 for Nikon FF. Have you had the chance to shoot with it by any chance?

Being that I currently have the D850 with 24-120mm f4, if I go with a Z8 with an FTZ2 and use the f mount lens…..can I expect similar results or does the FTZ2 route just not compare to the new quality of the Z mount lens. I don’t earn a living in photography but I like good equipment that help provide good results.

I have the F Mount I got with the D750. Probably pick one up if they have it in a kit with the Z8. They better launch the Z8.

I shoot portraits and am normally at f/4 or f/6.3 on either my 24-70 or 70-200 f-mount lenses on a Z9. If this lens performed as well or better than my f lenses in that it gets less chroma, enough blur at 120mm and renders as nice in the transition from focus to out of focus then I’d save some weight and lens switching. There are a lot of us still using f-mount on mirrorless so if you could make a comparison video, with f-mount lenses such as the 24-70 f/2.8G, 70-200 f/2.8 VR2ED (not FL) with this z lens then that would be of great interest to a lot of us.

Nice intro! What camera are you filming this on? Z9?

Besides 2.8 really the only difference between the 24-120 and 24-70 is corner sharpness on the wide end. Both are spectacular imo and the 24-120 has its own advantages like the close focus magnification

@pjimmbojimmbo1990

Жыл бұрын

Most of the time Corner Sharpness isn't all that relevant, unless you are shooting a patterned/textured wall perfectly Perpendicular to the Camera.

@richardwanbon3087

Жыл бұрын

@@pjimmbojimmbo1990 Landscape photography

Hi Matt, what strap are you using? Thank you.

Dear Matt I have a question for you.Since the launch of Z 9 nobody talks if you can use high sync speed with flash.As a Z 6 user I can use it only with the mechanical shutter and the same goes for other cameras.With electronic shutter only you can't.You must do a video to clarify and showcase this

@pkennethv

Жыл бұрын

With the Z9, the specific triggers you have makes a big difference. Some will allow you high speed sync & TTL with the Z9 (e.g. Raven trigger by Fusion TLC). There are some (e.g. Pocket Wizard TT5) that do allow high speed sync with Nikon DSLRs, but will not support TTL or high speed sync when used with the Z9. It's quite messy, and tedious to figure out. You might need to specifically contact some brands to ask/confirm. [context: I went from D800E to Z9]

Its amazing lens for street photography 📸❤️

Jack of all trades, master of none? Yup, the 24-120 f/4 is my favorite lens on my Z and I paid perhaps $1k less for it than the 2.8. Both have a 77mm front element. No disappointment here. I still can use my 2.8 24-70 and 70-200 with the FTZ and get an optically better, with better out of focus bokeh, but for the effort, the 24-120 is worth every penny. Maybe instead of buying more gear, I can take a tour and get pretty damn good pix with it.

@FabulousPepper

Жыл бұрын

Fully agreed. You might like the conclusion of a review I published of the 6 Nikon Z standard zooms...

As a former owner of the f mount 24-70/2.8 and current owner of a z mount 24-70/2.8, i have been considering buying a 24-120/4 for these reasons: 1. I am not a pro photographer (i dont really need a workhorse like this 2470/2.8); 2. I am lazy (i usually onlly bring one lens; if i bring two, the second one will be the f mount 50/1.4 (with the converter)); 3. 2470/2.8 IS HEAVY!; 4. i want the extra 50mm (24120 is much more versatile as a holiday/hiking lens, it is also much lighter).

Coming from Fuji X I am contemplating about FF and a second-hand Z7ii, with 24-120 and some primes. Is this still a decent buy in 2023, or should I wait for Z8 / Z7iii or even consider R6mkII...?

@nickcarneyphotography

Жыл бұрын

Same boat waiting for a new camera body, but we'll have to wait for a while. Z8 may be announced this spring, doubt you'll get your hands on one until fall. Z7iii there are no reliable rumors thus far. R6mkii is a totally different camera, lower resolution, much more speed.

Question: If you are shooting in RAW, does changing the white balance make any difference?

@xophaser

Жыл бұрын

no, you can change the wb in edit without affecting the raw colors while editing. But raw has a baked-in jpeg and it might look off as a preview. Yes wb is important to get right first for jpeg.

estava atrás desse review, 24 x 120 vs 24 x 70 2.8, queria analisar se vale a pena trocar qualidade pela versatilidade, para casamentos o 24 a 120 vai ser top, mas a qualidade do 24 a 70 é surreal, eu tinha no mount F

@mattgranger

8 ай бұрын

The z 24-70 is even better.

So, when you say it’s very good and not excellent...does that mean you can see a difference at 70mm at f5.6 on both? Picture examples would be good in reviews!

The difference between "oh my god" image quality and excellent image quality is imperceivable without chart shooting and pixel peeping.

Please let me ask you something, if I use glasses. Should I need to wear my glasses or it's not necessary? Just to know if I have to when I take photos

So is the 24-120 better in image quality then the 24-70 f4 ?

Hi @mattgranger, seems like the download link to the sample files is broken.

Already have the 24-200 and 28-75 f2.8. Plus a lot of fmount lenses. But if this was a 24-150 f4, then i would trade my 24-200 in. waiting for the z 200-600mm.

Why would you bounce the flash off a mirror (same as direct flash), when there are all those white walls that could be used to make much nicer light? Very odd.

@vueport99

Жыл бұрын

Lack of skills or lack of sleep?

You can also bump your iso up to like 600 when using flash it will preserve some ambience and brighten the background iso 600 your not gonna see noise anyway

Matt, I'm an amateur enthusiast who shoots landscapes and wildlife. Do you think this lens will fit my landscape needs. I don't shoot landscapes wide and I'm not putting my pictures in National Geographic. Thanks

what strap were you using ?

I own a 24 to 120 f mount and use the FTZ adaptor. is it worth changing to the Z lens?

@myvideobuffet5398

Жыл бұрын

Not for photos, but if you shoot video, the z-mount’s AF motors are nearly silent, but the f-mount AF can be heard on audio in quiet situations. I switched to Z only for video purposes. Would have kept my F (and money) if I only shot photos.

Is it just me or possibly the longer focal length, but doesn't the bokeh of the 24-200 look smoother and less busy than the 24-120?

I don't use F/2.8 heavy lenses. F/4 is perfect for me and F/1.8 prime lenses. Apart from the exceptional Tokina Macro 100 F/2.8.Flash no, I don't like flash. I like one degree of darker phytography, I don't like overexposed ones. I don't care if the photography is good or a little less, but I like a real spontaneous moment. I'm not interested in pixels, I'm interested in art.

Hello Matt, the Nikon 24-200mm is an average lens. I had one, and image quality wasn't that great. I like the reach, the image was below par. I am looking for replacement to my 24-200mm.

Would this be as sharp and versatile as the Canon 24-105 for studio use?

@mattgranger

Жыл бұрын

I havent compared them side by side to say in terms of sharpness sorry. I am not sure what you mean by versatile, other than zoom range?

@ozarksdigitalcreations9254

Жыл бұрын

@@mattgranger The zoom range is what I meant sorry. I only have primes right now and I went to shoot with another photographer a few weeks ago in his studio and learned quick that I needed a zoom lens and to not keep changing lenses. I was looking at the 24-70, but I also want to be able to get detailed beauty shots, so I was curious if this would be a good solution since a lot of fellow photographers that shoot Canon still use the 24-105 in studio.

The image quality on the 24-120 still lacks compared to the 50 1.2, those previous 1.8S line up of primes punches more but not versatile like the 24-120..

I published also a review of this lens and compared it to other Nikon Z standard zooms. Guess which lens was the winner?

I like

How do you determine the differences in iq? There's pro landscape photographers that use this lens so if there's that much of a difference then why?

Someone should do a test comparing the 24-120 at 120 with the 24-70 f2.8 at 70 then cropped to match 120 to see how image quality compares.

@mattgranger

Жыл бұрын

Why?

@aussie8114

Жыл бұрын

@@mattgranger Why not.

👍🏾🙏🏾

Is such excellent and pricy gear necessary to make such ordinary shots ?

@mattgranger

Ай бұрын

No! Is a French name necessary. For such a rude attitude?

please brand and type of strap time time 7:39, thank you!!

@mattgranger

7 ай бұрын

geni.us/bNhT

I think it's not really fair to say the 24-120 f4 doesn't measure up to the 24-70 f2.8. The idea is to do all the 24-70 and nearly half the work of 70-200 f2.8's. Which it does, with a one stop penalty.

I’m glad someone agrees with me on the 24-200. On my channel I said it’s the worst lens in the line up. Behind on build, IQ, and focus. Yes. People still fight me in the comments lol

@MeAMuse

Жыл бұрын

Superzooms are always the worst in terms of IQ, but the arguement was always that they were better in terms of flexability. I am not so sure if that is true these days with such sharp 24-70 F2.8 lenses and high megapixel cameras (see my question above). Would be interested to see someone look into it and test.

@salehalrashdan

Жыл бұрын

Thank you. I agree, sold mine, bought a 24-70 f2.8 for the reason you mentioned.

@uhoh7541

Жыл бұрын

I immediately was unhappy with the 24-200's sharpness. I kept it in case i ever needed something small/multi purpose. This video confirms my theory i need to sell that lens and buy this one.

@ZWadePhoto

Жыл бұрын

@@uhoh7541 I got so much hate on the 24-200 video I made lol I know I’m not crazy. But the 24-120 is getting a ton of good reviews. Not a hyper zoom guy, but I’d like to test it out

@uhoh7541

Жыл бұрын

@@ZWadePhoto You are not crazy, I'm a simple hobbyist that got too old to play hockey and dove back into photography. Upgraded everything from a D3200 setup i bought in 13. I thought the 24-200 would be perfect for me, but immediately didn't like the sharpness compared to the two S lenses i bought at same time. Someone did a review (nigel dawson maybe?) that said/showed images where the 24-200 had better sharpness around the 50-120 range. Going to throw my near mint on ebay (3 outings made me give up) and pick this up. What good is the extra 80mm when the images look cellphone quality? (No disrespect to anyone who likes the lens, sure wish i did).