I’ll admit, the image thread for this lens and RoamingScott’s praise pushed me to buy the lens. I’ve only had it for a month and I only got to shoot with it a few times but I must say, I’m impressed with the results. I’ve never been a big “super zoom” guy but this one is special for sure.
twistacatz wrote:
I’ll admit, the image thread for this lens and RoamingScott’s praise pushed me to buy the lens. I’ve only had it for a month and I only got to shoot with a few times but I must say, I’m impressed with the results. I’ve never been a big “super zoom” guy but this one is special for sure.
Nice video review! I tried the Canon R5 II for a while but their RF 24-105 L lens didn’t perform nearly as well as the 24-120 S. While I liked Canon’s 100-500, Nikon dominates for wildlife lenses, so I’m back to a Z8 kit and not looking back. I think Nikon has a well rounded selection of cameras and their lenses are top notch which is the reason to go Nikon, especially with their aggressive sale prices as of lately.
Yeah, the 24-120 has been so incredibly versatile. It's my go to travel lens. If I bring teh 24-120 and a 35 1.8, I think that covers 99% of the things I need. I've discovered that I rarely use the 14-30.
nineblade wrote:
Yeah, the 24-120 has been so incredibly versatile. It's my go to travel lens. If I bring teh 24-120 and a 35 1.8, I think that covers 99% of the things I need. I've discovered that I rarely use the 14-30.
I've started taking the CV 35 as my 2nd lens, love it.
jrscls wrote:
Nice video review! I tried the Canon R5 II for a while but their RF 24-105 L lens didn’t perform nearly as well as the 24-120 S. While I liked Canon’s 100-500, Nikon dominates for wildlife lenses, so I’m back to a Z8 kit and not looking back. I think Nikon has a well rounded selection of cameras and their lenses are top notch which is the reason to go Nikon, especially with their aggressive sale prices as of lately.
The way the 100-500 is weird with the TC irked me SO much
RoamingScott wrote:
The way the 100-500 is weird with the TC irked me SO much
Yes, that was a strange design for the Canon, and I didn’t like their other affordable telephoto options. Instead, I picked up the Nikon 100-400 S and the 600 PF for wildlife and nature to go along with the 24-120.
jrscls wrote:
Yes, that was a strange design for the Canon, and I didn’t like their other affordable telephoto options. Instead, I picked up the Nikon 100-400 S and the 600 PF for wildlife and nature to go along with the 24-120.
Have you tried the 100-400 with 1.4x? Been curious how much better the 600 PF really is vs that option.
RoamingScott wrote:
Have you tried the 100-400 with 1.4x? Been curious how much better the 600 PF really is vs that option.
I haven’t had a chance to try my 1.4x yet, but I’m thinking it may be a good option on the 100-400 if i need closer focusing over the prime with added versatility. The 600 PF is awesome on its own but I plan to also use it at 840mm as well so these two lenses compliment each other nicely. This combo is much more expensive than the 180-600, but that lens was a bit heavy for me.
Getting back on topic, the 24-120 S is a good reason to use Nikon as it seems to have the best balance of quality, weight and price over any other mid range zoom that I have tried. I also love that it focuses close. Here is an example of the macro lite you mentioned on a photo that I posted a while back.
This lens was on my wish list as soon as it was announced. I waited for one of the early $896 sales and jumped the moment I saw one at one of the semi nearby local shops. My 24-70/4 which came with the Z6 is a fine lens but this manages to be so much more versatile with the added focal length. And I love the sun stars.
It is one of 3x Z mount lenses I own (2x Nikons) and it is on my camera probably 80-90% of the time.
This lens was one of the reasons I switched to Nikon. It's so versatile and sharp.
The only negative I can say about it is that it has strong field curvature when focusing on a subject that's in the closer ranges. It gets more pronounced after 50mm. Reviews like the one from Cameralabs also noticed this.
This often makes it difficult to get a corner-to-corner sharp image when you're photographing a flat subject. Not a deal-breaker (you can't have it ALL), just something I always need to keep in mind.
It's my workhorse lens and I'm consistently impressed that this is a 24-120 "standard" zoom.
I have to say I have never noticed field curvature on this lens in any situation. Are you talking VERY close up? I just did some tests at 120mm and like 3', and there's no major field curvature on my copy. I'm usually VERY sensitive to field curvature, and notice it right away if a lens has it strongly, and I can't say I've ever encountered this .
This exactly, I’m very curious what curvature is being seen, would love to see some examples.
Jman13 wrote:
I have to say I have never noticed field curvature on this lens in any situation. Are you talking VERY close up? I just did some tests at 120mm and like 3', and there's no major field curvature on my copy. I'm usually VERY sensitive to field curvature, and notice it right away if a lens has it strongly, and I can't say I've ever encountered this .
Here are some tripod mounted quick tests I did. It's very hard to do VERY close, because the test setup would take forever to make sure subject and camera were perfectly square, but the first setup is at 71mm and around 2' subject distance. Books are all square to each other. All images were focused in the center.
The corners aren't as sharp as the center, because this is wide open at closer focus distance, but they aren't out of focus, and are still reasonably sharp, and certainly don't show signs of field curvature (there's no part behind or in front of the edges (looking at books extending backward and also the small part of the shelf at the front) that show being sharper than the point in focus. ) In fact, this is a REMARKABLY flat field for a 5x zoom at closer focus. If this shows up only at MFD, that's not uncommon at all, and frankly, isn't usually an issue, as people don't tend to shoot flat field subject at near macro range.
Heck, even near MFD if there is any, it's minimal - shot I just took at 120mm and near MFD (not exactly MFD, but within an inch or so). This is at f/8, because the lens does soften towards the edges at 120mm at MFD, but still. https://www.jordansteele.com/2025/24120-3.jpg
Interesting, maybe I will give it a try since I already have the tele converter. It’s down to the 600 PF or the 800, but I feel like the 800 will be too long in most circumstances.
billsnature wrote:
The 600 PF with 1.4X is a really good 840mm F9. I'm sure it is wildly better than the 100-400 with a 2X yielding a 800mm f11.
My 600 PF is used with a 1.4X a lot for things like bears.
1) The long Min focus distance kept me from getting magnification improvements over the 600 PF bare and less than the 600 PF with 1.4X.
2) The size and weight difference is massive! The 3.25 pound weight of the 600 PF and the 300 GM is magic.
3) Bokeh is better than 600 PF + 1.4X, but not wildly better. Create some background separation and the 600 PF is awesome.
4) Adding extension tube helped with MFD on 800 and was good in center, but lost quality on the edges
The 24-120, the 600 PF and the 105 Macro make up my entire Nikon kit as those lenses are better than anything in the Sony system.
Now let's get the thread back to the 24-120 - Sorry for the detour.
billsnature wrote:
I tried the 800 PF and returned it.
1) The long Min focus distance kept me from getting magnification improvements over the 600 PF bare and less than the 600 PF with 1.4X.
2) The size and weight difference is massive! The 3.25 pound weight of the 600 PF and the 300 GM is magic.
3) Bokeh is better than 600 PF + 1.4X, but not wildly better. Create some background separation and the 600 PF is awesome.
4) Adding extension tube helped with MFD on 800 and was good in center, but lost quality on the edges
