p.2 #1 · What’s Sony’s Answer to Nikkor Z 24-120 f/4?
tschopp wrote:
I’m wondering how people rate the Tamron 28-200 vs the Sony 24-105 and Nikon 24-120?
I know many will disagree with me, but I don’t rate the Tamron 28-200 very high. I owned it for two years and took it on several vacations. Although sharp, the images don’t have that sparkle that I get from better lenses. I went back and looked at many of the images I took with that lens and I just don’t like them much. Many here love the lens and that’s great. It didn’t work for me.
p.2 #3 · What’s Sony’s Answer to Nikkor Z 24-120 f/4?
I visited Yellowstone a few weeks ago with 20-70/4 and 70-200/2.8gmii; while the 70-200 range is used quite a lot, frequent lens changing is just annoying.
I checked the histogram of focal length:
FL(mm) | 20 | 21-23 | 24-69 | 70 | 71-120 | 121-199 | 200 |
Ratio | 6.5% | 1.3% | 49.0% | 17.7% | 5.0% | 3.9% | 16.6% |
Some conclusions:
a) I don't shoot 20-23mm much; when I do, 20mm is not wide enough
b) 50.3% photos are in 20-70mm range. (Photos at 20mm and 70mm are not included.)
c) 71.7% photos are in 24-120mm range
c) when I want to shoot telescope FL, 200mm is not long enough. (only 4% photos in 121-199mm)
Therefore to me, best one-lens travel solution is 24-120; two-lens solution is 24-120 + 100-400.
Unfortunately Nikon has no intention to release a Z7 III, and it still doesn't have a relatively compact high-MP body with up-to-date electronics to pair with 24-120. (really wish Z8 & ZF be 25% lighter and smaller...)
At the end, I guess Sony will release 24-105 mk2 the day Nikon releases Z7 mk3...
p.2 #4 · What’s Sony’s Answer to Nikkor Z 24-120 f/4?
yongliu wrote:
I visited Yellowstone a few weeks ago with 20-70/4 and 70-200/2.8gmii; while the 70-200 range is used quite a lot, frequent lens changing is just annoying.
I checked the histogram of focal length:
FL(mm) | 20 | 21-23 | 24-69 | 70 | 71-120 | 121-199 | 200 |
Ratio | 6.5% | 1.3% | 49.0% | 17.7% | 5.0% | 3.9% | 16.6% |
Some conclusions:
a) I don't shoot 20-23mm much; when I do, 20mm is not wide enough
b) 50.3% photos are in 20-70mm range. (Photos at 20mm and 70mm are not included.) c) 71.7% photos are in 24-120mm range
c) when I want to shoot telescope FL, 200mm is not long enough. (only 4% photos in 121-199mm)
Therefore to me, best one-lens travel solution is 24-120; two-lens solution is 24-120 + 100-400.
Unfortunately Nikon has no intention to release a Z7 III, and it still doesn't have a relatively compact high-MP body with up-to-date electronics to pair with 24-120. (really wish Z8 & ZF be 25% lighter and smaller...)
At the end, I guess Sony will release 24-105 mk2 the day Nikon releases Z7 mk3......Show more →
That’s interesting. When I shoot with my 70-200GM II, I bring a 1.4x tc in case I want more range. The 1.4x works very well with the GM2 and I use crop mode frequently which gives me a very effective 420mm lens and a nice 26mp file. Of course you can crop the 100-400 a lot more, but I find the 70-200GM II with the 1.4x and a max aperture of 2.8 (without tc) more flexible than a bigger 100-400. All choices are good though!
p.2 #5 · What’s Sony’s Answer to Nikkor Z 24-120 f/4?
tschopp wrote:
I’m wondering how people rate the Tamron 28-200 vs the Sony 24-105 and Nikon 24-120?
I thought I remembered a rumor about a new Sony travel lens, but looking into it, it is a Sigma travel lens. I think the Sony 24-105 is due for a refresh.
I have and use a Tamron 28-200/2.8-5.6. I had generally expect to be looking to the 24-105/4 if adding ff, but afterhaving the 18-135 in aps-c, I was used to and liked that focal length range, so chose the 28-200 when adding FF.
It's about $700 to $800 dollars. So, not surprisingly, it doesn't perform "optically" like an $1800-$2500 24-70/2.8 GM or GMii Nor like a $1400 24-105/4. Nor does it weigh as much. Oh, and one doesn't need to also spend on/carry a 70-200 or 70-300 lens which might run $800 to $3000.
I think it's pushing the "comfortable" size/weight on an A7CR so would expect to feel the same with the 24-105/4 (and heavier lenses). For me, it's fine on an A7riv.
p.2 #7 · What’s Sony’s Answer to Nikkor Z 24-120 f/4?
I had both the Sony and the Tamron. Sony is better at the wide end but gradually getting worse at the long end. It’s quite weak at 105mm. The Tamron is more consistent across the range and better than the Sony at 105mm. However. The Sony produces more neutral colors while the Tamron is a tad warm and dull. When when I switch to the Tamron, quite often I miss the 24mm.
I ended up selling the Sony and replaced it with the 24-70 GMII. I kept the Tamron for its convenience. I’m too looking forward to Sony 24-105 mark II as I find that focal range really convenient.
tschopp wrote:
I’m wondering how people rate the Tamron 28-200 vs the Sony 24-105 and Nikon 24-120?
I thought I remembered a rumor about a new Sony travel lens, but looking into it, it is a Sigma travel lens. I think the Sony 24-105 is due for a refresh.
p.2 #8 · What’s Sony’s Answer to Nikkor Z 24-120 f/4?
There is always something, a lens or a feature in a camera that you thought would make your photography life significantly better or easier or simply that it would improve your photography but it is not available in your current camera brand. What are you going to do? Tough! Focus more on photography and less on your gear, regardless whether you are using Canon, Nikon or Sony, be more creative and you will find a way to make up for the difference!
p.2 #9 · What’s Sony’s Answer to Nikkor Z 24-120 f/4?
I loved 24-105 G when I was using it, it has beautiful colour and OOF rendition. But this lens is showing it's age and leaves a lot to be desired when matched with bodies above 24mp. For video work it's still a remarkable lens.
Nikon 24-120 Z is prime level sharp (in-fact it can beat Sony's GM Primes Mark 1s such as 24 and 85), is pseudo macro and has that 3D pop. It handles better, is built tighter, also very quick focussing lens.
Only con I found with 24-120 Z is busy distracting OOF, at times not always.
So think of 24-105 G as OG Sony lens like 24 GM and 85 GM, beautiful rendition but long overdue for an upgrade. Z version feels like GM II lenses.
p.2 #10 · What’s Sony’s Answer to Nikkor Z 24-120 f/4?
Outstanding wrote:
I loved 24-105 G when I was using it, it has beautiful colour and OOF rendition. But this lens is showing it's age and leaves a lot to be desired when matched with bodies above 24mp. For video work it's still a remarkable lens.
Nikon 24-120 Z is prime level sharp (in-fact it can beat Sony's GM Primes Mark 1s such as 24 and 85), is pseudo macro and has that 3D pop. It handles better, is built tighter, also very quick focussing lens.
Only con I found with 24-120 Z is busy distracting OOF, at times not always.
So think of 24-105 G as OG Sony lens like 24 GM and 85 GM, beautiful rendition but long overdue for an upgrade. Z version feels like GM II lenses.
Competition always benefits the consumer. I am super happy Nikon threw down the gauntlet with this lens, it should only hasten the appearance of the Sony 24-105G MkII, in whatever form it takes, it is likely to be "better" than a casual tweak to the old lens since Nikon has done such a good job on theirs. That's my story and I'm sticking to it. Work with me here folks.
Eric the Optimist (today only while supplies of optimism last )
p.2 #13 · What’s Sony’s Answer to Nikkor Z 24-120 f/4?
I'm not about to switch or add another body to the kit but this thread is making me curious about the Nikon 24-120
Perfectly happy with the 20-70 and a shooting in crop mode with 50mp on board right now.
Aug 13, 2025 at 03:19 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #14 · What’s Sony’s Answer to Nikkor Z 24-120 f/4?
RoamingScott wrote:
A refreshed 24-105 would need to be GM quality to stack up. Has Sony ever "upgraded" a G lens to GM status?
There are only two lenses slower than f/2.8 that are designated as GM lenses. One is the 600 f/4 GM, so that is obviously an outlier because of the long focal length.
The one that is relevant is the 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 GM. I think there could well be an argument that a 24-105 or 24-120 f/4 GM would be a good complement to this lens. The only thing close to upgrading a G lens to GM status was dropping the Sony/Zeiss 35 f/1.4 and introducing the 35 f/1.4 GM and sort of replacing the Sony/Zeiss 50 f/1.4 with the 50 f/1.2 GM and 50 f/1.4 GM.
So there isn't exactly a precedent, and so far Sony has made almost all f/2 and f/2.8 zooms as GMs and f/4 zooms (and some short range f/2.8 zooms like the 16-25 and 25-50 f/2.8) as Gs, but there is the 100-400 GM, so maybe a small possibility they could change the designation of a 24-105 or 24-120 f/4 lens to a GM. Kind of like how a short range f/2.8 could be designated a G, a long range slower lens like the 100-400 and potentially a 24-120 if they are high enough quality could be designated a GM.
That said, I fully expect a lukewarm but competent upgrade to the 24-105 f/4 G that they won't be in a hurry to do and won't be to the level of the Nikon lens. It will be smaller and still pretty decent, however. Sony seems to have two sets of slower zooms:
1) 20-70 f/4 G, 70-200 f/4 G II, and 200-600 f/5.6-6.3 G and
2) 12-24 f/4 G, 24-105 f/4 G, 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 GM, and 400-800 f/6-3-8.0 G
I think if Sony made it today the 100-400 would be designated a G instead of a GM, and if there is any change in designation I would bet it will be that the 100-400 when it comes out in a version II will be lighter and "downgraded" to a G rather than the 24-105 or a 24-120 being upgraded to a GM.
p.2 #15 · What’s Sony’s Answer to Nikkor Z 24-120 f/4?
Good suggestion on 1.4x tc!
I'll keep the 70-200gm2 for hockey and definitely add a tc later.
Back to the topic, if Sony puts a better evf on a7c* and make manual focusing practical on them, then 20-70 becomes a perfect answer and I don't want a 24-120 at all
mudlake wrote:
That’s interesting. When I shoot with my 70-200GM II, I bring a 1.4x tc in case I want more range. The 1.4x works very well with the GM2 and I use crop mode frequently which gives me a very effective 420mm lens and a nice 26mp file. Of course you can crop the 100-400 a lot more, but I find the 70-200GM II with the 1.4x and a max aperture of 2.8 (without tc) more flexible than a bigger 100-400. All choices are good though!
p.2 #16 · What’s Sony’s Answer to Nikkor Z 24-120 f/4?
I believe the right way to think about this is to figure out what’s the widest focal length you need, and build a kit from there
For example
12mm -> 12-24 & 50-150
16mm -> 16-35 & 70-200 or 16-25 & 50-150
20mm -> 20-70 & 100-400
24mm -> 24-50 or 24-70 or 24-105
I think the 24-xx lenses are mainly for people who do not need focal lengths wider than 24mm. The Sony 24-105 is decent but the Nikon 24-120/4 variant is probably better
p.2 #17 · What’s Sony’s Answer to Nikkor Z 24-120 f/4?
Recently I've had no desire to cover the 25-50 focal length. I've had the 28-70 with me all summer and only used it once. But, this thread has convinced me that I need to get out with it more and learn to use that range.
p.2 #18 · What’s Sony’s Answer to Nikkor Z 24-120 f/4?
RoamingScott wrote:
There has been no answer. I know I get laughed at for it, but I moved to Z simply to get access to the 24-120. Cold dead hands and all that. The G can't hold a candle on close inspection, and really shows its age on the 61mp sensors. Even having had the Z lens since launch day, I still have a few more years experience with the G, so no hyperbole here, just thousands of first hand data points.
You've seen the proof in the Z image thread at least
That is funny - many among us change systems not for bodies but for lenses. I switched from Z to Sony for the 50-150/2.
p.2 #19 · What’s Sony’s Answer to Nikkor Z 24-120 f/4?
shadow9d9 wrote:
Recently I've had no desire to cover the 25-50 focal length. I've had the 28-70 with me all summer and only used it once. But, this thread has convinced me that I need to get out with it more and learn to use that range.
I don’t think a zoom lens in this range is necessary at all.
It’s more for people who only want to carry one lens
)
