The 14–30 and 24–120 are my two favorite lenses. They are compact for traveling and cover quite a range.
The only thing I don't like about them is the A/M switch—it's too easy to change the setting accidentally.
ajamils wrote:
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.
I had the G1 Tamron 70-180 for about a year prior to the introduction of the Nikon housed version. I found the 70-180 to make a nice pairing with the 24-120 for my shooting. It is small enough to tuck into a camera bag well, IQ was perfectly acceptable to me. I sometimes carried both lenses but often just one at a time in areas I was familiar with when with my family and would focus on different compositions when carrying the telephoto zooms. I did shoot my wife’s last maternity photos with the lens and they turned out fantastic.
I would consider the Nikon vs the Tamron if you don’t want to deal with the adapter for removing a possible failure point, but I was careful with mine when I had it but didn’t have any issues. Really probably more a matter of you want VR of the G2 and the longer Tamron warranty vs no adapter.
I still haven’t gotten around to replacing the 70-180 as I often will shoot at the long end of the 24-120 wide open and focus on using off camera lighting if I need to provide a boot to any slightly more formal/posed portraits. I have also put most of my camera equipment dollars during the 2024 eclipse and birding season towards the large long lens realm (500G than bumped up to 500FL when it didn’t seem likely that there would be large rebates on the 600PF). I will eventually get around to adding it back but it’s probably #3-4 on the list after a monopod, head and newer body.
nikonmedic wrote:
The 14–30 and 24–120 are my two favorite lenses. They are compact for traveling and cover quite a range.
The only thing I don't like about them is the A/M switch—it's too easy to change the setting accidentally.
Not having to deal with an adapter is definitely a plus but in my usage so far I haven't found the adapter to be any hassle due to is slim design (unlike FTZ adapter).
My main reason for going with G2 is that it is a newer design, have VR and an overall a better lens (even if the difference is minor). I had owned the original lens in my Sony days and really liked it. So I'm sure G2 is even better.
On the wide side, I do have 14-30 F4, which pairs great with 24-120. I did try Tammy 35-150 on a trip and it was even better with pair for 14-30, but after having the lens around my neck all day, I decided that it wasn't worth it to lug it around on a family vacation. So I ended up selling it an bought 24-120 again (for the third time).
huddy wrote:
I had the G1 Tamron 70-180 for about a year prior to the introduction of the Nikon housed version. I found the 70-180 to make a nice pairing with the 24-120 for my shooting. It is small enough to tuck into a camera bag well, IQ was perfectly acceptable to me. I sometimes carried both lenses but often just one at a time in areas I was familiar with when with my family and would focus on different compositions when carrying the telephoto zooms. I did shoot my wife’s last maternity photos with the lens and they turned out fantastic.
I would consider the Nikon vs the Tamron if you don’t want to deal with the adapter for removing a possible failure point, but I was careful with mine when I had it but didn’t have any issues. Really probably more a matter of you want VR of the G2 and the longer Tamron warranty vs no adapter.
I still haven’t gotten around to replacing the 70-180 as I often will shoot at the long end of the 24-120 wide open and focus on using off camera lighting if I need to provide a boot to any slightly more formal/posed portraits. I have also put most of my camera equipment dollars during the 2024 eclipse and birding season towards the large long lens realm (500G than bumped up to 500FL when it didn’t seem likely that there would be large rebates on the 600PF). I will eventually get around to adding it back but it’s probably #3-4 on the list after a monopod, head and newer body....Show more →
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 .
I'm not at home right now, but can look for some examples later this week.
I never notice this behavior (I don't know if it's field curvature or astigmatism), until I want to shoot a flat, nearby subject. It doesn't even have to be extremely closeup.
For example: trying to make a detail shot of small mud cracks in the ground. On a tripod, 1.5 meter high. Shooting straight down at for example 100/120mm.
The (broad) center is very sharp, the corners out of focus. Whatever I do, I just can't get a corner-to-corner sharp image. Focusing on the corners doesn't really improve anything. Stopping down to something like F16 doesn't really help and makes everything softer because of diffraction ofcourse.
When using a different lens (Z 85/1.8, Z 105, Z 100-400) the corners look so much better. With the Z 24-120 I mostly need to be around 50mm to get more decent results in those corners in the closer ranges.
It mirrors the findings of the reviewer at Cameralabs and I've seen more people say that they prefer the Z 24-70 F4 (or 2.8) when it comes to this application because they notice the same limitation as I do.
The review at photographylife.com also mentions this (even though I'm not just talking about macro distances):
"What about close-focus distances? There, sharpness remains excellent in the center at every focal length, including at f/4. Corner sharpness at macro distances is definitely weaker"
If refocusing in the corners does nothing, it isn’t field curvature. Field curvature is when the plane of focus is curved. As such, focusing in the corners would make them sharp but the center softer.
Jochenb wrote:
I'm not at home right now, but can look for some examples later this week.
I never notice this behavior (I don't know if it's field curvature or astigmatism), until I want to shoot a flat, nearby subject. It doesn't even have to be extremely closeup.
For example: trying to make a detail shot of small mud cracks in the ground. On a tripod, 1.5 meter high. Shooting straight down at for example 100/120mm.
The (broad) center is very sharp, the corners out of focus. Whatever I do, I just can't get a corner-to-corner sharp image. Focusing on the corners doesn't really improve anything. Stopping down to something like F16 doesn't really help and makes everything softer because of diffraction ofcourse.
When using a different lens (Z 85/1.8, Z 105, Z 100-400) the corners look so much better. With the Z 24-120 I mostly need to be around 50mm to get more decent results in those corners in the closer ranges.
It mirrors the findings of the reviewer at Cameralabs and I've seen more people say that they prefer the Z 24-70 F4 (or 2.8) when it comes to this application because they notice the same limitation as I do.
The review at photographylife.com also mentions this (even though I'm not just talking about macro distances):
"What about close-focus distances? There, sharpness remains excellent in the center at every focal length, including at f/4. Corner sharpness at macro distances is definitely weaker"
The OP says that a second copy showed different corner behavior.
So is it copy related? It certainly could be.
For all other applications the lens is just brilliant. I don't notice any weirdness in my normal landscape shooting, across the entire focal range. ...Show more →
Thom Hogan reported similar findings:
"At minimum focus distance (1:2.4, which is getting near macro range) the lens is very good in the center at f/4, excellent by f/8. The DX corner is fair at f/4, good by f/8. The far FX corners never make it past fair at minimum focus distance, though. I'd also judge the lens to have some clear field curvature at close distance.
At long focus distances, I'd say the lens improves significantly from what I just described. Infinity shows very little sharpness change towards the FX corner, though a bit of field curvature at the long end (and far less than at close focus). Indeed, 120mm extreme corners at near infinity look relatively good. I do see a small amount of focus shift towards infinity, though, at smaller apertures."
(Thom Hogan)
Jman13 wrote:
If refocusing in the corners does nothing, it isn’t field curvature.
I was thinking I’d get the 24-70 f4 because it’s smaller and cheaper, but this thread has really made the 24-120 look attractive. I’ll have to test them both.
coyotecai wrote:
I was thinking I’d get the 24-70 f4 because it’s smaller and cheaper, but this thread has really made the 24-120 look attractive. I’ll have to test them both.
Probably will be determined by your intended usage, but for me I really appreciated the extra reach. I came from the 24-70 f2.8 F-mount lens, and was always wishing I had just a bit more reach. Once I bought the 24-120 I was a very happy camper.
Mostly for traveling and hiking. Hard to strike the proper balance between weight and range.
Fred Amico wrote:
Probably will be determined by your intended usage, but for me I really appreciated the extra reach. I came from the 24-70 f2.8 F-mount lens, and was always wishing I had just a bit more reach. Once I bought the 24-120 I was a very happy camper.
coyotecai wrote:
Has anyone used both long-term? I’m coming from Fujifilm’s more compact lenses so I’ve never hiked with a full-frame kit
If you consider having it for about 2 years long term, that's me. I use a sling strap when hiking, which works very well for me. Use it with the 24-120 and my 180-600 when shooting birds and hiking nature trails. No issues with either set up.
coyotecai wrote:
Has anyone used both long-term? I’m coming from Fujifilm’s more compact lenses so I’ve never hiked with a full-frame kit
For hiking and cycling, I recently moved from Fuji's x-h2s to Nikon's z8 back in April and found that I really missed the reach of the xf 70-300 when using the z 24-120 kit. I agree it's hard to find the proper balance of weight and range, as I like the wider landscapes paired with opportunistic wildlife without carrying the weight of the z 180-600. I recently added the gen-2 Tamron 70-180 f/2.8 to give slightly longer reach and speed, and this works pretty well for now, especially paired with a separate fixed 35mm for wider shots, especially with stitched landscapes.
