Love my 24-120, it's probably now my favorite zoom of all time.
I did recently add a Tamron 35-150 also — yes they overlap quite a bit but I've been doing a lot of theatre work and the range and speed just work better for that. Probably putting my 24-70/2.8 up for sale soon, I don't know what I'd even use it for.
Weddings seem like the perfect application for that lens, where you really don’t have a need for the wider angles that can be more unflattering.
huddy wrote:
That 35-150 is pretty fabulous too. I rented one to shoot a wedding and it was great to have one lens and no swaps all day (very important on a Z6)
stompyq wrote:
Has anyone owned both the 24-120mm and the 24-200mm? is the 24-120mm that much better?
I briefly owned the 24-200 and returned it after a few days. It’s fine for a super zoom but it is a notable step down from the 24-120, and the extra reach wasn’t much better than cropping at 120mm.
If I wanted a super zoom I’d get the 28-400 because while also having some super zoom compromise, the extra reach is quite worth it.
stompyq wrote:
Has anyone owned both the 24-120mm and the 24-200mm? is the 24-120mm that much better?
Yes I have. Both are good lenses, but the 24-200 lacks that liveliness / pop that you can get with the 24-120. Sorry, not something I could put into words well other than to say the contrast, colours and sharpness are next level. I sold the 24-200 eventually although I thought it was a pretty good lens for the price. I used it for kayaking and street photography where I didn't need a low aperture and where I didn't want to have to change lenses.
In terms of sharpness, I did test shots with both the 24-120 and the 24-200 where I cropped the 24-120 image to replicate 200mm. Interestingly, the cropped 24-120 shot was still sharper than the 24-200mm at 200mm (taken on a Z7, so still lots of resolution).
I also own the 24-70 f2.8S and that's my favourite of the three lenses, so I've been entertaining selling the 24-120 f4S so I use my 24-70 more. That's not a knock on the 24-120, it's more of a question of needing both. The 24-120 does have an excellent minimum focus distance which is nice for near-macros.
Actually I just sold my 24-70 2.8S and kept the 24-120, it was a tough decision but the 24-120 is just an amazing lens that I’m always reaching out for it.
Btw, great review Scott!
urbanwild wrote:
Yes I have. Both are good lenses, but the 24-200 lacks that liveliness / pop that you can get with the 24-120. Sorry, not something I could put into words well other than to say the contrast, colours and sharpness are next level. I sold the 24-200 eventually although I thought it was a pretty good lens for the price. I used it for kayaking and street photography where I didn't need a low aperture and where I didn't want to have to change lenses.
In terms of sharpness, I did test shots with both the 24-120 and the 24-200 where I cropped the 24-120 image to replicate 200mm. Interestingly, the cropped 24-120 shot was still sharper than the 24-200mm at 200mm (taken on a Z7, so still lots of resolution).
I also own the 24-70 f2.8S and that's my favourite of the three lenses, so I've been entertaining selling the 24-120 f4S so I use my 24-70 more. That's not a knock on the 24-120, it's more of a question of needing both. The 24-120 does have an excellent minimum focus distance which is nice for near-macros....Show more →
falconbach wrote:
Thinking about adding 70-200 f/2.8 S but wondering if there's too much overlap.
I’ve got both and don’t feel the overlap is excessive. The 24-120mm f/4 S is a good general purpose lens and the 70-200mm f/2.8 S is great for headshot, portraits or when a telephoto is needed. It’s a good combo for me! I really don’t miss my 24-70 f/2.8 much.
huddy wrote:
That 35-150 is pretty fabulous too. I rented one to shoot a wedding and it was great to have one lens and no swaps all day (very important on a Z6)
Agreed. I bought one last year. It has a very useful focal range and I love the wide aperture for better subject isolation. It's a great walk-around lens as well, if one doesn't mind the size and weight. Personally I don't mind and I use it, but the minimum focus distance is not quite as good as the Z 24-120mm, so it's not the best choice for nature-type outings where you want to get really close, or really wide. If you try to get too close at f/2-2.8, you'll see some ghosting around the subject, a similar thing the f/1.2 lenses like to do at MFD. It's just not meant to be used that way. As soon as you back up, it sharpens up really nicely. Closed down it only gets better. Great sharpness, contrast and details.
For travel, the 24-120 is perfect in capability, size and weight. For low light and event stuff, the 35-150mm is a great alternative to the 24-70, 70-200mm combo.
I'm thinking about pairing Tamron 70-180 G2 (already have FE-Z Megadep Pro adapter) with Nikon 24-120, what do you guys think? I already have 180-600 so need something im between.
Next to a 35mm prime, a 24-120mm zoom is my favorite lens. Those are my two most used lenses with my Fujifilm system. For my relatively new (six month old) Zf, I have the Nikon 40mm and Voigt 50mm APO. I had the Nikon 24-120mm once but returned it after a week thinking it was too large for the Zf.
Now, with all the love here for the 24-120, I'm thinking of giving it another try. Logged into B&H on Friday and there was a used 24-120. Hit the plastic and it was in my hands late Saturday morning.
It still feels big to me but I'm willing to spend some time with it. It won't be my walk around lens, that's what the Voigt is for. But for nearly everything else, this just might work.
Do you have the Small Rig grip or any other after market grip for the zf? They help quite a bit.
LeonD60 wrote:
Next to a 35mm prime, a 24-120mm zoom is my favorite lens. Those are my two most used lenses with my Fujifilm system. For my relatively new (six month old) Zf, I have the Nikon 40mm and Voigt 50mm APO. I had the Nikon 24-120mm once but returned it after a week thinking it was too large for the Zf.
Now, with all the love here for the 24-120, I'm thinking of giving it another try. Logged into B&H on Friday and there was a used 24-120. Hit the plastic and it was in my hands late Saturday morning.
It still feels big to me but I'm willing to spend some time with it. It won't be my walk around lens, that's what the Voigt is for. But for nearly everything else, this just might work....Show more →
I have a Neewer grip and it definitely makes it much better.
Not sure why but it's something with the size relationship between the body and lens. Either way. Even a small lens on a large body doesn't feel right to me.
I’m the 35mm guy, but yes, these 2 lenses feel bespoke for the ZF.
To your point, I hate the way the Z 40/2 feels on the ZF, it feels like such a cheap piece of plastic trash that doesn't deserve to be mounted to the all metal body.
LeonD60 wrote:
I have a Neewer grip and it definitely makes it much better.
Not sure why but it's something with the size relationship between the body and lens. Either way. Even a small lens on a large body doesn't feel right to me.
