I Now Have to Pay For My Own Nikon Gear, So What Will I Buy?

[@dirtywater5336]

I'll share with you what a photographer friend of mine shared with me when I once scrutinized the grain in an photograph that I took. What he said to me single handedly changed the way I approach photography from that day forward. He said "I believe anyone who insists of studying the grain of an image instead of appreciating its content, is missing the point of a photograph". In other words, if it's a good photograph, it will stand on its own and no one will be scrutinizing its sharpness. If it's a poorly composed photograph, no amount of sharpness will make it better. It's an important lesson to learn. Some of the most memorable photos in the world aren't optically perfect because it's not the sharpness that made it a great photograph. It’s the story it tells.

[@joegrossinger3381]

Yes, that is a great excuse for grainy out of focus images. Times have changed and tastes along with it. If your camera consistently misses the focus then toss it and move to a brand that knows how to make their cameras focus.

[@ThePurpleHarpoon]

What about grainy focused images?

[@AndrewBenbow]

@@joegrossinger3381 “Sharpness is a bourgeois concept” is a favorite quote by Henri Cartier-Bresson AND "There is nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept." Ansel Adams. 😉😉😉

[@EdwardMartinsPhotography]

Then why bother with FF at all? (A rhetorical question, I agree with what your saying.)

[@jamesjoyce5962]

iPhone is the way

[@TomMasonPhoto]

As someone who's shot Nikon for over a decade professionally, I thought I'd throw a few thoughts having used all three lenses! Right now the 24-120 has earned a place in my daily bag, it's a really great choice for the versatility (now obviously I do shoot wildlife so the extra reach is handy) Wide open or stopped down (as used most of the time) it's excellent on a Z9 and has produced some of my favourite images of the last few months. The extra reach is super, especially if you want one lens for landscapes and nature photography, perfect if you do also like shooting panoramics. The 24-70 2.8 is a great workhorse of lens as you say, for events etc, but in reality you buy it to use it at 2.8. My old 24-70 2.8 G is still in my kit for when I "need it", although usually if I want fast glass I'll take the primes. The 24-70 f4 is great, optically excellent and easily the best value, would I swap back to it from the 24-120 just to save 100g, no way. If you're making an image that needs "perfect corner sharpness" you won't be at f4/f5.6 anyway so at f8-11 the 24/120 is for almost all purposes excellent and the versatility for when the light shows up/subject shows up and you want that composition a bit tighter, those 50mm, well they are worth their weight in gold (add the DX crop functionality and well you've got 180mm)! Great vids as always Cheers (from another Tom)

[@dragoro3033]

Just getting my first so this is really REALLY helpful when trying to budget for the camera AND lense. Thank yoh!!

[@peterfritzphoto]

Great advice, Tom.

[@agataWKW]

Thanks for so informative comment! I bought z7ii and used my F f 2.8 lenses with it till now, but it’s a high time to switch to Z lenses and I am totally lost with of these 3 I should buy. So the video and your comment are super helpful to me! I will buy 24-120 as a bit more reach is important for me and as someone commented earlier, the sharpness on the corners is not the most important factor.

[@akoskiss7320]

The 24-70/4S is the only one from these 3 that work well in infrared. Also, there are a lot of used ones on the market for far less money since it's a kit lens.

[@alecmurray4921]

Tom, you could make watching lawn bowling, curling, grass growing and paint drying fun and interesting. As always my favourite photography channel. The only one I refuse to miss.

[@RichardEllaPhotography]

14-30mm f4, 24-120mm f4 and 100-400mm are the perfect landscape set up. Add a 24-200mm for the casual lightweight hiking set up and you’re done.

[@fgalaxie123]

I don't want you to do gear reviews regularly, but this was fun, I excitedly watched the whole thing. I can't wait to hear/see more about this trip.

[@alanwilson7792]

The 24-70 f/4 is a no-brainer when you can get it for only an extra 400 quid as a package deal with the Z7ii. I picked that lens to go on my trip-of-a-lifetime Inca trail trek to Machu Picchu and was not disappointed by its performance.

[@HR-wd6cw]

If we take out the pixel peeping for a second, personally I find the 24-120 f/4 to be probably the most versatile. Yes the 24-70 2.8 is the sharpest of the three (but again, we aren't really pixel peeping) and the 24-70 f/4 is the cheapest (especially if bought used) but I feel that the 24-120 gives the most range and is almost a single lens solution for most landscape photography shooting. I would think most of th time, most people will be at f/5.6 or higher and since it covers the range of 24-70, but perhaps doesn't have the speed of the 2.8, it's a good balance, and the price is affordable (you could buy two 24-120's for the price of a single new 24-70 2.8 when not on sale). Heck, for the price of a 24-70 2.8 you could buy both the 24-120 f/4 and a new 70-200 f/4G F-mount lens probably (slightly over but close enough) and you'd have a very useful range for landscape from 24 to 200mm with great image quality. But my vote would be for the 24-120. I actually sold my 24-70 f/4 to get the 2.8, but since getting the 24-120 I honestly don't use the 2.8 much anymore except for specific things relating to landscape, but if I'm hiking, or only want to take one lens, it's the 24-120.

[@19Photographer76]

The 24-120mm has been a favorite since my D3 days. Now, the Z mount is even sharper at all focal lengths. I did hold on the my f/mount 14-24mm f/2.8 when I moved to the Z9, it's just awesome.

[@JimmyCheng]

at f8-11, most modern lenses should perform the same sharpness wise. So for landscape, just pick the lightest lenses as weight makes a much bigger difference in whether you will have the motivation to get the image in the first place 😂

[@Chrismzeller]

Yes exactly the value of the wider aperture lenses are when you shoot them wide open both in the ability to shoot in low light wide open and in quality at their widest f4-5.6

[@echt114]

I wish that were true. He even noted in the video at 13:02 that the upper right corner of the 24-120 was "much softer." That's been my experience with many lenses - it gets too mushy on the edges/corners even at f/8-f/11. Then there's sample variation. Buying lenses is truly a pain in the ass if you really care about the quality across the whole frame. A lens should be tested thoroughly as soon as you get it, and NOT with the kind of pics he used. You need the whole frame to be composed of detail that's close to the focus point. But I do agree that you often don't have to get the big 2.8 zooms if you're needing high quality at f/8.

[@WakoJacKooo]

Thomas Heaton 2016 - Get rid of your wide angle lens Thomas Heaton 2023 - Move that rock and umbrella out the way

[@JasonLorette]

Getting cheeky with Gavin two videos in a row…😂 I have the 24-120, it’s my favourite lens right now, I really want the 100-400 but man that price tag. The versatility of the 24-120 is awesome. 📸😎

[@KyleClements]

As a wide angle junkie, the 14-30mm/4 was what sold me on the Z system. So light and tiny. Good infrared performance, too. The 24-70mm/4 is another great infrared performer and can be found used for cheap. I dropped mine and put a big dent in it so now I can't really sell it. Still works perfectly. But I'd take the versatility of the 24-120mm/4 over the 24-70mm/4. In fact, I went all the way to the 24-200 for versatility, and use the 50mm/1.8 and 105mm/2.8 when I need contrast and edge sharpness.

[@peterfritzphoto]

Fun video, Tom - especially Gavin’s anti-promo! I bought Canon’s RF 24-70 2.8 a few months back to match up with my 100-500. With a 50mm 1.8, it’s perfect for me. If I start actually walking or hiking (instead of only driving) to my locations, I’ll have to rethink my life choices, because those two lenses - plus the drone, and all the other sh*t - are bloody heavy.

[@adrianvanleeuwen]

The Nikon 24-120mm F4 is my go to for product photography and portraits, plus weddings. Love the extra range. However I use a second body with a 85mm f1.8 when I want softer background for portraits.

[@mcheung05]

I started with the 24-70 f4 and now have switched to the 24-120 f4. Aside from sharpness, one consideration for me was sunstars. The 24-120 produces much more pleasing sunstars with clean, pointed spikes than the 24-70. That’s more important to my landscape photography than marginal corner sharpness. I also liked the 77mm filter size and longer reach (pairs well with the 100-400). It also just feels built better and more “premium” in the hand - not a huge fan of the twist to unlock on the 24-70.

[@cianmcliam1]

The sunstars were important to me too, I went from the Tamron 24-70 G2 lens to the Nikon 24-70 F4 and was dissapointed at the poor sunstars it makes. Except at F4 for some weird reason! The 24-120 F4 has much more pleasing sunstars, even better than the Tamron. The Nikon 24-70 2.8 G lens was absolutely abysmal for sunstars as well, as was the 17-35 2.8 that made up the other half of my landscape kit. The 24-120 is a joy to use.

[@genin69]

very disappointed that you didnt do tests at their native f4 and f2.8 settings. at f11 you might as well buy the cheapest lens they have cause it will be sharp regardsless. thats not why people buy expensive lenses for. its to shoot full open

[@plannerjohn]

I feel the same. Love my 24-70/4 for the IQ and compact size and weight.

[@NORTRONGAMES]

I own the 24-120 f4s and it's a beast. Excellent sharpness, superior flare control, that extra reach with less weight, it's amazing. Am 100% sure it's optically superior to the 24-70 f4. I think your copy has issues. Cuz almost every optical comparisons available online, rates the 24-120 better.

[@gerryphilpott9766]

Thanks, great comparison. And welcome to our world of retail purchasing. I returned my first copy of the 24-120 for the reasons you stated as it underperformed the 24-70 f2.8. Later on I tried it again as money and wanting more reach came into play again and the second copy almost 8 months later was sharp as can be all around. (Sold my f2.8). That and my 100-400 are it. And I can't say for certain, but I'm betting that you'll keep the 7ii as I had the 8 for a day last week and can't justify the weight, the extra money, or all the bells and whistles I wouldn't use. I'd rather wait for a possible Z 7iii or similar and maybe get same improved AF, processor, flippy screen and maybe even more MP. Good luck and enjoy your trip.

[@F1lmtwit]

Here's the thing, the vast majority of photos you're gonna take in are in the 24-70 range, so this is where you should make your first big purchase when it comes to lenses should start. Because if you try to save money here, you'll regret it and you'll end up buying that f2.8 lens in the end. So $5 says you'll be buying it inside a year from the time of your purchase.

[@justinbennett486]

When I switched from DX to a Z7ii, I wanted the equiv of my 17-70, so the 24-120 F4 won, and it's my go to lens besides a 200-500 when I need some reach. Fantastic quality, didn't completely break the bank! Can't fault it.

[@DanielAucoinFineArt]

Thomas, I love this video. I find it entertaining to see you experiment with various brands, and I have to admit that my favourite moment was when you presented the beer. This is authentic, and let's face it, I completely agree and accept any form of advertising you choose to include in your videos. I can only say that the amount of love and effort you put into your videos is amazing because I have a channel of my own and have been inspired by your content for the past few months. You have the right to entertain us in any way you choose, and hopefully you will earn enough money to do so for many years. We must always take advice from the experts, they say. That's what I'm trying to do as I look up to you. Cheers!✌

[@johnchambers6272]

Not only informative but also entertaining. Well done Thomas.

[@momchilyordanov8190]

I sold all my lenses and kept only the 24-120. A bit later I will save some for the 14-30 (maybe). But the 24-120 I find very good in terms of sharpness and I really like the 5x zoom.

[@ericlarson6180]

Interesting results you had on the 24-120. I have both this lens and the 24-70 F4. I recently tested them with a tabletop setup with items to check contrast, color and sharpness. I tested them at 24, 35, 50, and 70 and of course 120 for the longer lens. I also tested at every whole aperture between f2 and 11. At every aperture and focal length, my 24-120 came out slightly ahead of the 24-70 in both sharpness and contrast. Most of the reviews I’ve followed found the same thing. I wonder if sample variation played a part in your results

[@kennygeorgeonline]

Read the same reviews you did! Ditto!

[@fredmuellerphotographer4532]

concur ... I have both and the 24-70 f4 is a really fine lens, but the 24-120 is astonishingly sharp ... however, the cost of the 70 used is hard to beat if you are on a buget.

[@c.augustin]

This wasn't tedious - it was actually quite entertaining! I think it was quite clear from the get-go which lens would be the choice, but maybe I'm biased as a m43 user … 😁

[@RazeTheWeak]

Straight spit out my supper when I saw you toss Gavin’s book. Y’all are so entertaining! 🤣🤣🤣

[@cotswoldphotographers]

I couldn’t agree more and for your photography this is the perfect kit. I think the only areas where you might get more from the Z8 are for star gazing and auroras etc plus the portrait option with the rear screen but that’s about it. I’ve just bought a like new 24-70 2.8 for 1,700 so thought this was a good option for me but i need this for event photography and the extra stop of light and additional depth of field is important for me. However, the F4 for landscape is perfect so a great choice and well worth saving the money 👍

[@dennisvanleent1]

There is always a compromise, suit whatever works best for you. When it comes to quality and light sensitivity I really like primes. I'd pick 2 or 3 focal lengths I know I would use the most (28 and 50mm, and maybe an additional 20mm or 85/105 ish) and buy those who deliver the best bang for the buck. Additionally I'd keep one zoom for flexibility, I'd recon that would be the 24-120 in this case. I would also consider buying the FTZ II adapter, which opens up a huge range of (used) lenses. Older primes with an F-mount which still are good to todays standards, go away for bargain prizes these days. I keep the compatibility with my F100 and F3's with older lenses - which would mean this is an extra option for you to explore (and yes, the Epson V850 can pull some quality out of those 35mm negatives, albeit somewhat "artistic" due to film grain). Buying the fastest glass is not always the most sensible for my wallet and my back. Given I soly shoot for pleasure I really want to keep it that way - keeping stuff simple helps a lot.

[@ianbachanek2538]

Perfect timing. Have a milestone birthday coming up and these 3 lenses were on the wishlist. Also the Z 105 macro.

[@markbonham]

Decisions, decisions and “how much is it”! Interesting and another good update on the buying frustrations/decisions/options. I opted for Nikon Z7II for landscape, I did have a go at weddings years back using film but that was a nightmare, especially the family dynamics. Lens I opted for 24-200 & 14-30 and kept my 200-500 beast, mainly all down to cost & availability plus 100-400 wasn’t out. 👍👏

[@stanspb763]

This was the first video I have seen of yours and was thoroughly entertained. When you proposed the comparison I said to myself, the 24-70 f/4 is the practical winner, the 2.8 is better for limited space portrait shots and the 24-120 would be the most practical travel and casual shooting. I had the 24-70 f4 as long as I have had my Z6, in the first batch received by my camera store because it was bundled as a kit. I had 18 best Nikkor lenses for my D850 and D800 in the range of 14mm to 200mm. I have the 24-70 2.8 in F mount so I assumed with the include FTZ that would be my mid range lens and maybe keep the f/4 z version for tourism, light walking around causual shooting. After pretty compete testing, the f4 beat the 2.8 in lack of CA, and corner to corner sharpness and color. That surprised but adding the 50 1.8 and 85 1.8 as low weight travel primes, until I tested agains my Sigma ART 85 and 50 1.4, although in the center of the frame both did very well towards the corners the S lenses were clearly better but the biggest difference was CA, undetectable in both S lenses, and behavior when having a light source in the frame, such as portrait against the setting sun at the beach. All the F mount lense had problems with that with flare, but none of the S lenses did. The Sigma ART lenses had more pleasant out of focus rendering in static tests but in real world shooting such as a portrait session outdoors the overall blur was creamier and smoother. My wide angle zoom that gets lots of work is the F mounth 15-30 2.8 Tamron G2. I still have my Nikkor 14-24 but since getting the Tamron, at 1/2 the price is just better in every criteria such as very effect VR, less distortion in the corners, sharper over the full width of the frame, color, flare, and feel/handling My main subjects are portraits, head shots, actor portfolios, ballet, opera and other commercial applictions and my personal shooting is street, clubs, landscape. For my applications the Z family is the best but I do not shoot birds in flight or sports. From my experience the often complained about AF of the z bodies have not been experienced and have a higher keeper rate in location or studio work better than even my D850. The S lenses alone justify the brand choice. The 85 1.2 is in a class by itself.

[@dawggsat]

All lenses perform best 2-3 stops from maximum aperture, so as landscape/nature photographers F4 lenses are usually the best at F8, F11, which is great for us! Get the 14-30 F4, its great where we need it. I actually bought the 24-200z as well because its as good through 120mm where it matters most for what I do, but you also get 120-200 for Free ;) Also, these are on the 7ZII. Cheers

[@DavidCourtenay]

I had the 24-120 F4 for a weeks shooting and returned it as i felt it lacked contrast over 100mm and was slightly soft at the edges, I am the proud owner of the 24-70 F2.8 and love using it and the results it gives, I keep my lenses over 10 years so need to be happy with them for the long term

[@josephhawk1]

this was by far the funniest video you've made to date. the bit about gavin's book was hilarious.

[@LisaLesher]

I absolutely love the 24-70 f/2.8, I do a lot of low light shooting and the difference in light gathering in a F/2.8 vs F/4 is vast. IMO I even use the 14-24 for milkyway shots, love all the F/2.8 Z mount lenses.

[@MD-nc6yl]

I shoot now for two years landscape with the z24-70/4 as well and I find it to be a fantastic lens! In germany this lens is used extremly cheap. I think you can buy one for 350€.

[@mikeray4902]

In the Canon world which you were a part, the best workhorse lens is the 24-105mm F4 L lens. I never leave home without it. Range and Macro. The compositions, the light, the mood is what I look for. Pixel sharp is only for geeks. The 100-400mm f4 L lens is my second when I want to reach out and touch something.

[@EricSnydereasphotography]

Im SO glad to see you using Nikon! ive been using Nikon since 2006, Been using the Z9 for just over a year, and my 24-120 f4 never leaves my camera body!

[@martyntorode7126]

Hey Tom, you can get the 24-70 F4 for £384 like new condition from MPB (remember them?) 😃 Great lens, you can shoot into the sun with almost no flare. 👍

[@autotechandtravels]

Thank you so much, I was going to sell mine 24-70 f4 and buy 24-120. But now I am gonna keep it and save a lot of money. Thanks!!

[@jeffstephens5266]

I have the 14-30 and 24-70 f4 to go with my Z7, amazing gear. Nikon are doing a great job with the Z’s on quality and price.

[@USGrant21st]

I don't particularly like 24-70 range. In my experience it's the most uninteresting focal range. I use wide angle a lot, 16-35 is really the most useful range, sometimes I need telephoto. When I need 24-70 range it likely means I'm indoors and a prime would work better.

[@johnforbes4795]

Interesting and entertaining as always. I bought the Z 24-120mm f4 S when I purchased my Z7ii, and while the Z7ii moved out to make room for a Z9 and later joined by a Z8, the Z 24-120mm remains the lens that's on the camera for hikes, travel, other outdoor uses and the grab-and-go situations that life presents. I do have a need for low light capabilities in shooting lots of movement photos at indoor dog shows where I normally use the Z 70-200mm f2.8 S lens, and I think about getting the Z 24-70mm f2.8 S to add wide-angle capabilities for those situations. But the Z 24-70 f4 doesn't really fit my use case as the Z 24-120mm f4 is remarkable and just as sharp in the center where it matters to me and is perfectly fine for wide-angle and movement outdoors.

[@nelsonclub7722]

The maths is simple - you buy the 24-70 2.8 and the 70-200 2.8 - and if you can't buy new you buy secondhand from MPB

[@mamonakh]

Hi, Thomas! Great choice! But I prefer 14-30 f4 and 24-200 f4-6.3. 100-400 is too large and heavy for my trips :) I've thought about 24-70 f4, maybe sometime I'll buy it too. PS. It's a great plaasure to watch your trips.

[@deanjackson7149]

Hi I got rid of the 24/200 because of the flare horrendous happy wiv the 24/120

[@mikerottier7131]

When you don't buy the f2.8, how long will it take before you decide that you want it, and buy it ?

[@DavidRodriguezMusic]

Very surprised you went with the 24-70 instead of 24-120. The latter stays on my camera most of the time unless I'm shooting portraits. The other benefit of the 24-120 is the near macro abilities it has.

[@zakiradi450]

He may he carrying 100-300 for that extra range.

[@jimholland2675]

Another riveting video, very informative. Be sure and keep the book you tossed to the side, it will make good kindling for starting a fire on a cold winter evening.

[@envyrish]

That book toss 😂

[@peteturner3928]

I ditched the 24-70mm f/4 for the 24-120mm f/4 as my daily driver lens, especially when I'm on my travels. I have not regretted that decision at all, as as you say there is not a great deal between the lenses in the real world. The extra focal range is always useful I find though on a single lens travel solution walk about lens and helps you travel lighter (always have a 35mm or 28mm prime with me too for when you need that wider aperture at night too though).

[@gianlucacaputo821]

Newly designed lenses have all much more quality than you may need, except if you do some very specific duty. I would focus on focal length range, lightweight, robustness and availability. And price, obviously..

[@PJ-om2wq]

I got the F mount 24-120f4 as a kit with my D750 which made it half price. It's brilliant. I often go out with just that one lens if I want to travel light.

[@seantomlinson3320]

This is fun. Good work. I adore my 24-120

[@ericerickson6537]

Tom, Thanks for the discussion on the lenses. I must confess that I own all of the lenses you have tested along with the wide angle lenses. Don't ask how I happen to own these lenses, it's a long story. Anyway you are correct with your analysis of the three you tested, except that my 24-120 seems to work very well at the longer ranges. I tend to use the f 2.8 version when I shoot people, which is not often but I do. What's even harder is to decide which wide lens to use. The 14-24 f 2.8 is a terrific lens and I bought it of astro photography. However the 14-30 is a lot handier and I use it when I travel. My main travel kit is the 14-30 plus the 24-120, unless I am going to photograph wildlife. Then I take the 14-30 plus the 24-120 and the 100-400. I am anxious to hear what you decide to purchase. A wise blogger once said "you marry your lens, and you lease your camera" This is why I haven't sold any of the lenses I have purchased. I have never regretted purchasing a lens, but have regretted selling one. In fact on several occasions, I went back and rebought lenses that I have sold. I am very interested in your evaluation of the Z8. I am giving serious consideration to purchasing one. Hope you enjoy your trip to Svalbard.

[@chrisklugh]

You know, I hate how obsessed with things that don't even matter. Story is King. Use what you have to its Strengths and stop fussing over what you don't have. Take what you got and be creative with it!

[@AndyBanner]

I burst out laughing at your "slow decline into madness". Yeah. I feel this. I stopped the video when you said this to write this comment as I can predict that you found it VERY hard to compare the images not only in terms of quality but also in terms of side-by-side windows on screen and so on. It's probably similar to curating shots for an exhibition of book: which one is the better one and why and will you feel the same tomorrow? You're lucky it was as slow decline into madness. I will click the post button now and watch to the end to see if I am close to correct... Be well, Tom.

[@gcvrsa]

You can clearly see a fairly substantial difference in contrast and color saturation between the 24-70 f/4 and the 24-70 f/2.8, but this is almost certainly attributable to the fact that the f/2.8 lens is stopped down more than the f/4 lens. There's less difference between the 24-70 f/4 and the 24-120 f/4, but there is still a difference. The good news is that all three are capable of excellent quality images.

[@mypeakxv]

I have the 24-120 on my D850 and really like it. Incredible versatility and you need to be a proper pixel peeper to find issues.

[@jonpaulpepen9470]

Wouldn’t a test on how well the lenses hold contrast/avoid flare against a bright back light also be something good to check for landscape shooting? Not that I’m doubting you for a second! Just my first thought after watching the video since the day you were at the lighthouse the lighting seemed pretty flat, and I’m wondering how they’d hold up in more contrasts situations It’s definitely refreshing to see how little difference in resolving power you get at typical landscape apertures

[@antonoat]

This 24-70f4 is remarkable value, can be had for £500 in as new condition. Looking forward to hearing more about your upcoming trip Tom.👏😀👍

[@nvwolfephotography]

One thing to keep in mind with these lenses is build though. The 2.8 has weather sealing and can withstand the elements to a better degree than the f4.

[@heythere6983]

Don’t they both have weather sealing?

[@jimwlouavl]

My unsolicited two pence: the sensor cover on the Z8 makes it great for landscape. I also assign metering to the Fn 3 on the back so most of the non-exposure functions are on the left side of the camera. And, I just learned about the recall camera settings feature, which I set up on Fn 2 in case an interesting bird or critter crosses my path. Plus, it seems to me that the Z8 will get more firmware updates than the Z7ii.

[@ThatNorma]

the sensor shield is not that much of an issue on the z6/z7 and mark2 versions. Theres a workaround and its better than nothing, turn the camera on, remove the battery and take out your lens. When u do so the sensor shield will be deployed and u can safely swap lenses without risk of getting the sensor dirty. battery in, camera back on , press the shutter and it opens again

[@andhib]

@@ThatNorma err... that's not a 'sensor shield' on the Z6/7, it's the mechanical shutter and I’m pretty sure your shutter is a lot more delicate than the sensor.

[@EO-ie4su]

Thankyou Thomas Heaton I was slightly kicking myself when they brought the 24-120 f4 out as I have the 24-70 f4 and knowing how good these new Z lenses are I thought it would be just as good but with more reach, but if I sold my 24-70 f4 I wouldn't have got even half the money for 24-120. So now after watching this video I feel a lot happier about my 24-70 f4 😁

[@jamesjin8839]

Still owning both 24-120 F4 and 24-70 2.8 my assessment is similar. They're really close when you stop down and want corner sharpness. Yours definitely is subjected to sample variation. My 24-120 F4 is as close as it can get to the 24-70. I do notice a difference through extensive starring and peeping. It mainly lies in the high frequencies and contrast, meaning more micro details clarity. But that is not what most lanndscape fine art photographers are after these days anyway. So my 24-70 2.8 is my weapon of choice. At stopped down aperture it produces image more like a prime lens to my eyes. Plus, 2.8 is gonna prove itself versatile if my trips bring me to places where I just cant setup a tripod on scene. The only real caveat people have to watch out with these mid range zooms from Nikon is that they're notoriously heavy in vignetting, just like old counter parts.

[@HoRiGa94]

I use 24-120mm f4 and 20mm f1.8 on my Z7 for hiking (by now around 1000km with that setup), 20mm for wide angle generally but also specifically for low light (only carry a tiny tripod) and astro, I can't cover 14-20mm but the f1.8 and stellar sharpness make up for that. What I love about the Z7 + 24-120 is that I can easily crop down to 20MP getting an equivalent of 185mm vocal length and when cropping the soft corners are of no concern.

[@GiuseppeGessa]

Without doubt the 24-70mm f/4 will be my lens, and indeed I've got a really similar one for my Sony cameras. Anyway, great video as always Thomas. Have a nice day!

[@whfowle]

I agree that the 24-70 f4 is a superb lens. I was florred by the quality when I first looked at the results. The one I'm wanting is the 70-200 f4 to complete my f4 z trinity. I don't need f2.8 in a zoom.

[@alexanderthon569]

Hello Thomas, I bought the 24-70/4 together with a Z6 II and, like you, I am very satisfied with the quality. But for me as a landscape photographer there is one very important reason why I swapped it for the 24-120/4: the sunstars. In my opinion, the sunstars of the 24-70/4 are completely useless, even with small apertures. You should definitely try this. For me that is a KO-criterion. Best regards Alex

[@jphouhton5337]

That's a great video you have save me testing my new gear this week I've purchased a Z7 ll with 24- 70 F4 and the 24 -200 mm.

[@kennygeorgeonline]

I have a different view of the pairing of zooms... When you closed out and said you wouldn't miss the "hole" between 70 and 100 in your selection... I believe the best way to travel is to make sure the zooms overlap, therefore the 24-120 would be and is my choice. By overlapping, you might not need to switch lenses. The 14-24 is too heavy for travel, the 14-30 has that funky resting position you can't take pictures at, you must unlock it to get to 14. The 17-28 was my choice. Not an S lens, but quite good. Back to the 120... I have a 24-200 but really miss the close-ups that I wanted. The magnification ratio of the 24-120 ultimately swayed me. It lets you get the best close-ups without buying a macro, and let's it be more of a multifunction lens than either 24-70. Mag ratio is 0.39 for the 24-120 whilst only .22 and .3 for the 2.8 and 4 respectively. I really like to get flowers, leaves, bees and such while out and about. Having 50 more mm and 33-77% better magnification ratio put me over the top. It's not always about edge sharpness, (you might need to crop that 70 mm if you really needed 90mm for the shot, losing sharpness), but can also be about pictures you might miss with the other lenses. Make sense?

[@The-Tall-Photographer]

It's funny as I was pondering over the f4 and f2.8. For my low light events I know having the extra stop or so would be good but not essential. So thus far I'm enjoying the 24-70f4 which I may add I picked up used although it's clear it hadn't had any use for a price of £279.

[@mcmoose64]

I have always found that quality f/4 lenses offer superb results . Unless you find yourselve regularly shooting wider than f/4 , you are better off saving the money and the weight .

[@m.maclean8911]

I’ve never regretted getting the 24-70/2.8 … and I’ll get a big chunk of cash when I sell it. I shoot at 2.8 a lot, and 1 stop is double the light. P.S. There’s no such thing as a “forward slash”, it’s called a slash. Do you call the backslash a backforwardslash?

[@ianiles6430]

I went from the 24-70 f4 to the 24-120 f4. I noticed no difference in quality, but that extra reach is welcome, and why I bought it. That said, you can pick up a used 24-70 f4 for under £400, and if you're going to have the 100-400 anyway ... Edit: And then I got the end of the video I realised I needn't have bothered saying anything. Note to self, in future, wait 'til the end.

[@KTtv1991]

I don’t think many people will see this decision coming , but it’s a great choice !

[@rogerbotting3459]

Oh, the beer is>>>>> wait I bought the 24-200 and the 14-30 F4. Good walk around lens, served me well during a week in Paris. I haven't noticed any sharpness issues. The only downside to the 24-200 was the lack of useful close focus. I used to be a news photographer and would walk around with 2-3 motor driven cameras and lens from 18 to 300mm. Plus film and flash, etc. Not good for the back and shoulders. And, modern sharpening software really helps.

[@Hangiinjohnny]

I’d assume the 24-70 f4 is slightly better than the 24-120 but building a kit, You know you want the 14-24 and the 100-400 so that 24-120 gives you the full mid range where the 24-70 leaves you 30mm short. There’s also the 24-200 that is variable aperture but small, light and gives you incredible range. Landscape doesn’t often shoot at 2.8 anyway so variable lenses aren’t a huge setback and packing a massive range into a small footprint makes hiking for that shot much easier

[@silvere36]

Now there's a 35-150mm from Tamron. It would be nice to combine with Nikon's 14-30mm.

[@peterw616]

Where on earth did you find the 24-70 f4 price? I've seen them new £800 online and £350 for an excellent used one.

[@musiqueetmontagne]

Thanks for the upload, interesting as ever. Funny enough my copy of the Z24-120 f4 is sharper in the corners, and more contrasty, marginally, than my 24-70 f4. I've re-tested it after watching your video, same result. Anyway, they are both fantastic lenses rendering quality not often seen for such lenses not so long ago. We are lucky we have so many great choices. I too have given up now on the f2.8 zooms, great as they are, too heavy as I get older. 😂

[@jonstout7635]

Thank you x's 1000. This was a great presentation that will save me money and prevent needless lens lust. It will keep me from hiding packages from my wife, and save me money for my guitar addiction. Thanks so much for your hard work and honest trustworthy comments as a great photographer.

[@valiodimi]

I've been using the 24-70 F4 since it's release and IMO this is by far the best lens cost/image quality ratio. It stands it's ground against the F2.8 version and nothing, absolutely nothing beats its size, weight and compactness. There is virtually no difference in image quality between the two, besides the aperture size. And it's decently weather proof as well. There isn't a single speck of dust inside mine after using it in all kinds of weather for the last 4 years. So I don't think you'll regret buying it even for a second. And if you get it as a kit lens bundle it comes at about 400 pounds. Cheers :)

[@scriptosaurusrex]

This may be too late, but have you tried the 28-75/2.8? It's a repacked tamron, but good. 2.8, so nice for the occasional astro shoot. Light and small, as no VR, so you only have the ibis.

[@vimalneha]

Excellent comparison Thomas.

[@ricktherazor]

Hi Thomas, you can pick up a good as new 24-70 f/4 for less than £300. I know, I just sold one. There are so many around. I switched to the 24-120 to get better portraits at the long end.

[@acbcfoto]

The 24-70 f4 is an extremely underrated lens. I use it for everything, including macro, and it never dissapoints. Thank you for the great video.

[@acbcfoto]

Forgot to mention that I also have the 14-30 f4, which is my workhorse for real estate work - another fantastic piece of glass!

[@CostaMesaPhotography]

I completely agree with your conclusion that 24-70 PLUS your 100-400 covers your needs. And in the highly unlikely circumstance that 75-95mm would be the right/needed focal length, you could still use the 24-70 racked out, and then just crop in further (assuming the 100mm would be too tight to include your desired composition). I'm not convinced that the 24-120 is unacceptable in the 70-120 range... but given that you have the 100-400 with you, you're covered. For someone wanting to go out with just a single lens, then clearly the 24-120 gives more flexibility. Can't wait to hear about your upcoming epic trip!

[@AshvirMaharaj]

I have an older f mount 24-70 f2.8 and the Z 24-70 f4 and between those two the Z f4 is much sharper . I didn't have the budget for the Z f2.8 so stuck with the f4 and it hardly ever comes off my camera. I was actually surprised with the quality for both people and Landscapes. The quality difference doesn't justify the price difference. Maybe when they make a version 2 of the f2.8 it may be miles ahead in quality but for now the price difference isn't worth it unless you can afford it then by all means get the f2.8 as it's still a better build quality. One thing i do miss from the f2.8 is the distance meter as it made things easier to focus on especially when its dark and the screen is all fuzzy

[@RzaNaziri]

You've got to zoom more that is 42mp sensor!

[@philipashley9723]

As an 80 year old, and interested in photography since the age of 10, I have read millions of reviews about camera lenses etc. Might I respectively suggest, you try something I read decades ago.The only thing you didn't mention was, on occassion, the same make, focal length lenses, can differ.Yes I realize that modern production measures are much more consistent now than year's ago, however, with your depth of intensity to finding your perfect lens, I think this method will work best in your case. When you decide which of these lenses will be your choice, perhaps, borrow three, and test them against each other.The best one will be your choice?

[@iTriguy1]

The 24-120 f/4 is a spectacular lens, in fact Nikon has created what I think is the best "budget" lineup from 14 - 400. The 24-70 2.8 is miles better than the 24-120 if you are shooting wide open and looking at edge to edge sharpness.

[@dougheizenrader2280]

I’ve been a huge proponent of f/4 lenses for landscape photography for years. I just don’t get why people saddle themselves with the extra size, weight and price of an f/2.8, just for that one stop they will never use. Especially with the ability of todays sensors to control noise and todays editing software to eliminate what little creeps through. P.S.: Mr Fototripper is not going to be happy. I love it!!!

[@Getoffmycloud53]

I was expecting you to choose the 24-70/4 - on basic assumptions Price & weight are in favor of the f/4s and you are not using f/2.8 anyway 70 vs 120mm on the long end Not knowing lens I was assuming that the longer end would be the less performing end - all affordable zooms come at some compromise, mostly on one end, wide or long. I was expecting you not to care too much about the gap between 70mm and 100mm on the tele zoom. What I did not expect was to see the 24-70 have a little more pop, which I did imagine to see in some the samples. I am in the market for a Nikon Z - no rush, still undecided which one - but for the money I’d love to add a 24-70/4 (used) in the bag. For faster I look at primes.

[@alangauld6079]

People get way too excited by f2.8 v f4. One stop with modern IBIS is not significant and if you really need more light or shallow DoF you really need f2 or wider. I did the same balancing act when i had a Sony A7 and went with the cheaper/smaller/lighter f4 version. When I switched to Olympus I went with the f4 PRO lenses and a couple of Sigma f1.4 primes. The other Nikon option is of course the 24-200 'superzoom' which gets rave reviews from some quarters, it would be interesting to see how that compares with the 24-120.

[@ThyWorshipMetal]

The 24-70mm f4 looks slightly warmer in colour temp compared to the other lenses too. Also the 24-120mm corner looks terrible, I wonder if one of the lens elements has dislodged

[@richardlarsonphotographer5327]

I will trade you a used 24-70/f4S, in very good conditions, for your books current and future. We can agree on a price you will like. I watch you every week from Winslow, Arizona.

[@derekgillan7314]

Every other week another recommendation about different manufacturers. Does anyone listen? Just wondering. Not the most technical vlog, every lens has it's sweet spot for focus. You cannot simply use F4 or F? on every lens to compare. Sweet spot is usually 2 stops from widest F. Was the Z7 not too good that there is a Nikon Z2 now? Better with the D series, better value, lenses are also better value and choice.

[@tubularificationed]

Ruthless NIKON 😅 The way they seem to use influencers is, 1) to bribe them with free gear (actually indefinite loans without an obliged return date, so that such loans are equivalent to a tax-free present) 2) they likely expect, that the influencer hails each ever-more-expensive item coming along (as a free loan), and adds that to his hiking kit. Nikon likely actually expect, that most followers follow suit, and do corresponding expensive purchases. 3) as soon as the influencer makes the mistake of saying "my previous Nikon camera is good enough for me", instead of "this brand-new camera is something you and I couldn't live without", then the influencer is "expired" for Nikon? Not useful any more for seducing the followers to buy the next even more expensive gear item? 😉 4) disciplinary action: all previous presents (the usually indefinite loans) are revoked, and the influencer is ranked down in the priority hierarchy for receiving future indefinite loans? Rinse and repeat.

[@catmonkey6826]

They'll all be doing it. Nikon won this one.

[@tubularificationed]

@@catmonkey6826 Agree, that's probably the industry standard for all brands using KZbin for their marketing.