I've read Scott's blog.
I bought the 24-120 last year but sent it back. It’s a bit too bulky for my taste, and 120 mm—for the way I shoot—is often not enough; so (despite Cartier-Bresson ) I feel the need to bring the 70-200 with me when I travel.
If only Nikon would decide to make a lightweight 70-200/4 S… without forcing us to buy the various 70-180/2.8 lenses from Tamron/Tamrikon, which don’t really convince me either.
Ripolini wrote:
I've read Scott's blog.
I bought the 24-120 last year but sent it back. It’s a bit too bulky for my taste, and 120 mm—for the way I shoot—is often not enough; so (despite Cartier-Bresson ) I feel the need to bring the 70-200 with me when I travel.
If only Nikon would decide to make a lightweight 70-200/4 S… without forcing us to buy the various 70-180/2.8 lenses from Tamron/Tamrikon, which don’t really convince me either.
I hear what you’re saying on all accounts. I have carried the Z8 with 24-120 around my should for several hours while exploring travel areas and for me that combo gets painful by day’s end, so there are other lenses I prefer for lighter walkarounds.
I shoot a lot of scenes that require much more telephoto than 120mm so I usually have something like a 100-400 in my backpack on landscape photo shoots. I agree that a Z 70-200/4 or some variation (maybe revive and improve the very good F-mount 70-300E) would make a lot of Nikon shooters happy.
I’ve been back to shooting this wonderful lens this year, had my first one way back on release day, now appreciating it all over again.
) I feel the need to bring the 70-200 with me when I travel.