Hi there - been away a while - I'll try to be good this time around
I've noticed a severe (IMHO) lack of comments about the 24-120 - both is AF-S and S formats - why is this ?
I am involved in a lot of concert and circus photography and frankly this range is really good for what I need - I fully realise that not everyone is in the same boat - can't imagine this being much use for landscapes for instance.
Are there other people out there with this lens, or am I alone...??
All the best
Ian
Cameras, lenses and stuff. (I actually met someone once who had touched a real Leica lens cloth.)
Comments
Software does a lot these days with my Capture One and Pure RAW from DxO f/4 is no problem to get clean shots, even with ISO 12.800.
There's currently a shortage of the Z (S) variant here in Europe - my AF-S version certainly paid for itself many times over and I'm eager to get my hands on the new S version ASAP.
I currently use the 24-70 f/2.8 S as a 'replacement' and possibly my only gripe would be that an f/2.8 version of the 24-120 would REALLY be perfect!
Glad to see you're happy with yours
Why do you say 'Junk' ?
Brilliant scheme...
PS the OP (me) actually mentioned BOTH versions...this wasn't in a 'chart' so it's easy to miss
Taken many thousands of pics with a pair of them .
Why bother?
When the stage is very large, and the musiciens are spread out a bit, the '120' end comes into it's own as the 24-70 just doesn't get me close enough for individual close-ups.
Yes, I could crop, but being VERY old and having grown up being used to filling the frame, I still like to do this.
Not wishing to 'blow my own trumpet", nearly all of the examples on this page were taken with the AF-S 24-120 - sharp or not, they don't seem too bad really...to me at least.
I considered getting the Z 24-120 but I already have the 24-200 and felt that would be better as a "convenience" type lens. I did get the 24-70 2.8 on a refurb sale for use at events and/or when I need max quality or speed. But maybe I would be better off with just the 24-120.
I shied off the 24-200 (albeit a super zoom range) as while I can 'handle' a maximum aperture of f/4, I felt that f/6.3 was pushing it a bit (for my post processing sequence)
Obviously a 24-120 f/2.8 would be ideal...but I can't imagine what the price and the size of a beast like that would be!
More trumpet blowing (!) this album is almost exclusively the 24-120 - and is the environment I'm most comfortable in...
But I will say any lens is crap on JPEG unless you have the sharpness at +9
https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-z-24-120mm-f-4-s
FWIW, I also had an AF-S 16-80 f/2.8-4 DX with my D500. At some lengths and f-stops, its image quality was stunningly good, even through an FTZ on my Z 7. But then there were times when it just turned in lousy images. I think I got a bad copy of that one. I've since moved on from DX.
YMMV.
It depends a lot on what your shooting and light conditions.
These are the 24-120 F4 S