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

[@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.

[@abhilashreddy8724]

I just got into Nikon's ecosystem and that's the exact combination I thought I would ever need :)

[@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.

[@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.

[@abhilashreddy8724]

Is the DX crop any different than cropping in lightroom?

[@TomMasonPhoto]

@ no not technically, it just saves some space in memory cards and I prefer to shoot images as I want them the first time rather and save myself some work in post!

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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 😁

[@andyb_23]

I have the 24-70 and have done for four years, I love it mate. Glad that you do too. Enjoy..

[@michra]

I am glad you made the same decision, Thomas! Because I hadn't had opportunity to test these lens in advance.

[@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.

[@Peter_Reed_Photography]

Love the banter between you and Gavin. It might not have been "scientific" (which is where the magazines and professional reviewers come in), but you showed us some real world images and the output the three lenses produce. For most photographers how a lens performs in the field matters most, along with weight and price.

[@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.

[@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€.

[@benlzicar7628]

I typically use the longer end of my 24-104 to isolate a subject from the background, in which case softness around the corners is a bonus!

[@andysuzierawlins5462]

Glad you came to a conclusion, hope your new lenses and camera serve you well on your adventures. I like your videos, no matter what, because of your honesty. I think oooh it's Wednesday, Thomas Heaton, will have a video out.

[@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.

[@plannerjohn]

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

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@Ameliatherobloxfairy]

Beautifully explained. All doubts cleared. No need to opt for 24-70 2.8 for double the price. But my choice is now 24-120 with more reach n reasonably priced. Well done Thomas

[@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.

[@sekaf4125]

I just got the Z8. Upgraded from the D850. I’m blown away. The focus system!!!!! What I understand it’s way above the 7? I know your landscape, however when the bird/animal/person comes into prospect. The eye tracking is something I could NEVER give up. Thanks for the channel

[@calebplumleephotography]

Thanks for the extra validation! I had made the same comparison and same conclusion when i purchased mine. That 24-70 f4 lens makes some GORGEOUS images

[@dac9404]

I’m not surprised. I got the lens with my D7 in Jan 2019. I’m just blown away with it. I see no need for the extra weight of the other lens. If I need to zoom to 100 mm I crop in post. Im told the other two lenses make nicer sunstars. You might want to check that as you have all three - if that is important. I look forward to the video from the trip some time in the future.

[@jochenhermann7342]

Really enjoyed the video. remembering younger you a couple of years back when you started to think about leaving canon und mentioned how horrible gear videos are... and then came the beer commercial. just perfect.

[@warrickcoe5576]

Where I am used lenses, mint condition 24-70 f4 is the cheapest, 24-120 f4 is double the price, and the 24-70 f2.8 is 4 times the price. US dollars 450, 900 and 1800 respectively. It's a no brainer if you are buying used on a budget. Unless you really need the extra reach of the 120, the 24-70 f4 represents remarkable value for what it is.

[@TRD_Kyle]

The 24-120 was my pick. I came from a 24-70 f2.8 and 70-200 f4 combo and thought about just dropping the 24-70 f2.8 f mount for the 24-70 f4 z mount. I then really started to think about what I wanted in my bag and realized that the 24-120 could eliminate the need to carry my 70-200 f4 when I am really weight restricted without restricting my focal length choices AS much. Now yes 120 vs 200 is a difference but it is a difference that is much easier to swallow than 70 vs 200 if I had only gone with the 24-70 f4. Having the option to consolidate from 2 lenses to 1 is far and away more of a weight savings than any change between lenses could have gotten me so I am more than happy with the slight IQ sacrifice of the 24-120. I still have the 70-200 if I really want to shoot that last 80mm but it has been going out less and less.

[@peterfritzphoto]

Sounds smart to me. Plus, you can always crop in for that last 80mm.

[@craigcarlson4022]

Thomas, Thank you for sparing us the image by image zooming in pixel peeping. (We can’t see the differences on KZbin anyway). I’ve gotta make this same choice soon myself.

[@timbliss8777]

Great comparisons. I shoot Astro so I upgraded my F mount to the Z : 14-24 2.8, 24-70 2.8 and kept my F 70-200 and plan to pick up the 100-400 to finsh out the bag. Add in the 85 1.8 and Macro 105 and I'm complete. All great lenses and all will do you well.

[@brianlemke6017]

I have the 24-120 f/4, the 24-70 2.8, the 70-200 2.8 and, for wide stuff and astro, the 20mm 1.8. All great lenses. My wife bought me the 24-120 for Christmas as a “travel lens”. What’s interesting is, since then, it’s been glued to the camera most of the time; and mostly at the expense of the 24-70 2.8. These days for landscapes I interchange between the 24-120 and the 70-200, the latter most often with the 1.4x extender attached (the Z mount extenders suffer almost nil loss of image quality IMO). So with two lenses, I have 24-280mm fully covered. It’s a no brainer for me. The 24-120 has become my most used lens.

[@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.

[@Franglais91]

Well I do a lot of portraits and I use DXO with lens profiles to develop my RAW files so the 24-120 was an easy choice. I have the 100-400 as well. As I sometimes do fast moving things like racing cars, planes and birds the Z8 is also an easy choice.

[@Illuminationsfromtheattic]

I recently went from the 24-70 to the 24-120 and I can't say that I've noticed a meaningful difference between the two. I'm sure if I shot side-by-side and pixel peeped I would see the flaws of the longer zoom, but the extra reach is really a meaningful benefit for me.

[@jonfletcher147]

I have both and agree. (24-70 f4) Both sharp as hell and optically very similar. Brilliant lenses.

[@Illuminationsfromtheattic]

@jonfletcher147 I have found in the past 5 months that vignetting can be a problem with the 24-120, more so than the 24-70. The extra reach is still worth that tradeoff though.

[@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.

[@AggMeisTer28]

Fantastic review, well-balanced information, personal opinion, specs, humor, and advice. Thank you for your hard work!

[@jean-charles9931]

Key message: mind sample dispersion. The corners were rather soft at 70mm on the 24-70 f/4 tested by C. Frost, and his 24-120 was excellent. That may change your mind (and how can you be 100% sure that you will never need the range 70 to 100?).

[@willdphoto]

Good video! My kit right now is a Z7, 14-30 f4, 24-120 f4 and the 100-400, for nature and wildlife. I'm waiting for my Z8 which will be used mostly for wildlife. I absolutely LOVE the 24-120, it stays on the camera about 80% of the time and the best walk about lens I've ever used (I've been at it for at least 40 years, formerly as a photojournalist). I like having the continuous range of 14mm all the way to 400mm in such a lightweight kit, my back thanks me every day. So much different than the photojournalist kit: 2 dslrs, 17-35 f2.8 on one shoulder, 70-200 f2.8 on the other, a great kit, but unnecessary for what I do now. After 40 years, NOW is the best time to be a photographer!

[@alexle7964]

Wonderful time isn’t it.

[@RobWignell]

For landscape, a Z7 will do everything that a Z7ii will do and you can pick them up for very little. You might save enough to buy a 14-30 f4 to go with your 100-400. This will give you amazing range with just three lenses.

[@jmrosario9464]

Love your videos, just natural and with humour. Great job!

[@MrDeanJamieson]

Somehow you manage to even make this content entertaining, and I don't even shoot Nikon! I love your honesty in this kind of video. and I even find your humour hits! Keep doin what you do Thomas, I will never miss a video!

[@roc7035]

I was actually going to say the exact same thing. 😋

[@nomadcompany]

i was going to say the exact opposite......

[@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.

[@nigelsmith721]

8:53 definately more contrast from the f2.8 on the right on my monitor (tiny but it's there). There's also a wave in the f2.8 image that the f4.5 hasn't picked-up at all....although the f2.8 missed the bird....so let's acall it a draw.

[@michaelbottari6398]

Good choice Tom. I own this lens for to same reasons as you. Yes it is absolutely the best choice of for landscapes. The weight, the size and the quality are stunning for this price. You will have a lot of fun and good quality images of your trip.

[@Chris-13]

I have just bought a mint boxed 24-70 f4 used for £320 . These lenses are crazy good value used . I bought it as a lighter walk around lens to save weight . I still have my 24-70 f2.8 but to be honest I usually pick up the f4 . It’s just lighter and more than good enough 👍

[@russellschundler6559]

As a landscape photographer, most often, I differentiate my subject from “background” scenery with vignetting or with sharpness. So, even when a lens is sharp around the edges, I most often blur the edges so that my main subject gets more attention. So, for me, the 24-120mm lens (along with the 14-30mm and the 100-400mm) finds its way into my camera bag as a part of my 3 lens selection.

[@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. 😂

[@Zealor365]

The color rendition of the 2.8 lens in your images is superior. I have the 24-70 f4 and it is my "Go To" lens all day.

[@ElementaryWatson-123]

I tested all those lenses, there is no difference in color, it's very neutral. Any difference in color you see is an artifact of this experiment, more likely just an AWB. There isn't perceptible difference in contrast either. When it comes to resolution they are very close, there are weaknesses and strengths but they are not easily perceivable. Don't rely on random potentially misfocused images. Poorly executed testing is the explanation of any differences you notice.

[@josephhawk1]

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

[@baobo67]

Hi Thomas, Your Vid came up again and now 1 Year later. Got a 24-120 F4 S = Brilliant and also 35mm 1.8 S which is lighter and handier for my Street work. The 24-70 F4 S might go well on a Z50II for another family member. Cheers

[@martinsarre]

Your gear reviews are great! You say what works for you and give trustworthy information and opinions. I am glad you like the Nikon gear and hopefully more photographers will purchase and love using Nikon, because it is a great camera system.

[@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.

[@attilavida4696]

@ Thomas Heaton - Wow Thomas! I haven’t seen such an entertaining gear content in a while , not many people managed to engage my attention like you have . ( Chris N and Kai did but that’s about it ) Entertaining, informative , practical . Carry on .

[@marcusjackson9978]

Enjoyable video. I do think the 24-70 f4 is a brilliant lens. I love mine. The other thing to remember is that if you are buying a new Z7ii, you could probably buy it in kit with the 24-70 f4 - thus reducing the price considerably from the £950 list price! The cheapest price I can see online currently for the Z7ii is £2549. The cheapest I've found the Z7ii kit with the 24-70 f4 is £2959 - thus making the cost of the 24-70 f4 just £410!

[@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

[@x60mmx]

>100mm lacks contrast, throws it out for max 70mm. 😂

[@envyrish]

That book toss 😂

[@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.

[@OldGirlPhotography]

Made same choice for the same reasons with Canon mirrorless a while back: main kit - 14-35 f/4, 24-105 f/4 and 70-200 f/4. Also have the 24-240 for those only one lens moments. Nice to see the pros willing to consider these alternatives too.

[@fredmuellerphotographer4532]

There are a number of test sites that place the 24-70 f4 below the 24-120 f4 at same focal lengths ... moderately, but measurably. I have both and that's my conclusion as well. That being said, both are terrific, and the 24-70 can be had for a song used ...

[@kevincamp2913]

The 24-120mmf4 would be a great portrait and family photographer for studio and good light work. You have the range for group images and the length to isolate for portraits all in one lens. Not sure it would be the go-to for event photography because of the slower aperture, but for good to controlled light it should be fine.

[@tectoramia-sz1lu]

I chose the 24-120 to go with my Z8, it will take the place of my old Tamron 18-400 f mount. I also have the 70-200 f2.8 and will soon be getting the 180-600. They suit my type of photography which is mostly Sport, Wildlife and Aviation..

[@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.

[@Jensrnsholt]

Stunning tech review Mr H! Turning it into a beer ad makes it only better👌

[@MrAndr3yi]

Hey @Thomas Heaton, ,at 10:47, it looks to me The Wanderer boat has move slightly counterclockwise, didn't it? :))

[@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.

[@ianbachanek2538]

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

[@chaviddhammongkol2537]

I agree with your choice. The Z 24-70 f/4 performs surprisingly well in all situations I threw at it. Its compact size and light weight make me want to bring my camera to more places. The rotate to lock-unlock lens some complained about is also a non-issue; it’s easy to get used to, remained nice and tight over extensive use, and can withstand light rain. Overall, it’s a great value for money.

[@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!!!

[@greggarcia7324]

Thanks for this video. I am going to make the switch from the D810 to Z7ii. I needed this info.

[@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!

[@FeedScrn]

I'm just viewing your videos for the first time. Thank you for accepting input from us plebs. - I see that the Z7 II is a full-frame camera... Well - shooting at the same focal length, the same f/stop, the same ISO using two different lenses from the same manufacturer - Should yield very similar images. If they don't, there's a huge problem going on. - From my experience, I would say - chase after fast glass. No it's not primarily because of bokeh... It's because shooting at f/4 minimum sucks... at least when the light is marginal / dimming. For me, there was too many times that I missed the shot - because the lens would not open up enough. Zooming in/out at a minimum of f/4 did not help, obviously. - Of course if you're always shooting with great sunlight conditions, then just ignore everything I said. - So if you're still reading this... what I'm saying is - 'focus' on prime lenses... primarily.

[@johannelaporte8057]

I have the Z7ii which i love, i went with 24 -70 F4 S and 20 S f1.8 for landscape ... i do miss the 14-35.. but this round weight and size was my first criterias..and $$

[@jaspercaelan4998]

The 24-200 is better for most people, the difference in optical performance is negligible and the weight, size and convenience more than make up for that. Rarely found I need something longer or wider.

[@bigbrownmab189]

The difference between to the 24-70 f4 and 2.8 in sharpness is in the edges not the center of of the image, and some high dynamic image situations you notice those little mig bits a bit more. Or so I noticed when shooting with both lenses.

[@cindyleeson2817]

That was my experience as well, and why I chose the 2.8.

[@stevenrobinsonpictures]

The 2.8 is far better optically out from the centre at any aperture.

[@davidellinsworth3299]

As one or two others have said: Get the 24-70/4 as a bundle kit with the camera. Save a load of money. You can also get them used/mint for under £400. No brainer. The missing 30mm between 70 and 100 (you say you're buying the 100-400) is just a case of cropping... not a problem on a 46MP sensor

[@mikebartow9415]

Very nice. I look forward to your extended field testing.

[@seantomlinson3320]

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

[@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.

[@danieltilley]

Not sure what you see across the pond, but in the US on MPB I can find the 24-70 f4 for under $400 in excellent condition. They do 6 month returns there too, so that could work to send back after your trip if you need to.

[@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. 📸😎

[@praetorian65]

The 24-120mm is interesting as I've not noticed any issues with my lens. The biggest advantage for me was the extra focal length which made it much more usable for me. I have a 70-200mm, but doing event photography found myself constantly switching lenses to get that little bit closer when using the 24-70mm. The 24-120mm solved it.

[@CC3GROUNDZERO]

The 24-120 f4 isn't quite as sharp in the corners as the 24-70 f4. So you're trading money and corner sharpness for a measly 50mm more reach. Not a smart deal imho, but obviously the one Nikon would like us to make, seeing how they're aggressively marketing the 24-120 on all their affiliated channels across KZbin!

[@marcinsmolinski903]

@@CC3GROUNDZERO but at center is sharp, so the subject will be sharp and at the end the result will be better because of the greater focal length and no need for crop.

[@CC3GROUNDZERO]

@@marcinsmolinski903 I rarely if ever place my subject at the center of the image.

[@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.

[@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.

[@johnchambers6272]

Not only informative but also entertaining. Well done Thomas.

[@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!✌

[@laurelb8372]

You gave me a giggle, best gear review for ages. Personally I love my Z7II, 14-30, 24-70f4, and 24-200 for landscapes.

[@brianeibisch6025]

Thom, I’d go for the 24-120 F4. I think it is the most versatile lens in the Nikon Z line-up. Cheers

[@gnmurray5955]

A good comparison video. I have the 20, 14-30, 24-70 f4, 85, 105 and 24-200 z lenses for bushwalking (hiking). And the lenses that travel with me consistently? The 20 if I expect astro, and the 14-30 and 24-200. Maybe I got a good version but every single time I use the 24-200 I am gobsmacked with how good this large range zoom is. It's light, versatile and sharp.

[@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. 👍👏

[@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.

[@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.

[@DanielKramecki]

It depends. For me, the Z 24-70 f4 is great. It's a lens I missed in the Nikon F-mount lineup. It's small, light and very versatile. If I want to shoot with a lower f-stop, I just use my primes for that. All my primes offer better sharpness, bokeh and low light capabilities than the Z 24-70 2.8. However, if the Z 24-70 2.8 had the same weight and dimensions as the f4 version, I might consider it 😉

[@nrocha2466]

I've owned several 2.8 lenses and my conclusion of not worth it over dedicated primes.. primes are still faster and sharper by f2. 8. Best bet are versatile F4 zooms with a dedicated f1. 4 or f1. 8 prime

[@daviddyephotography]

totally agree. wise choice and interestingly we used the same evaluation techniques

[@JohnDrummondPhoto]

When you shot Canon, you used an unstabilized EF 70-200 F/4L and got great results with it. I shoot Canon mirrorless now and my main lens is the RF 24-105 F/4L. I don't need F/2.8 and the extra 35mm at the long end are really handy. I think you're gonna love that Z8 even if it's more camera than you really need.

[@kilohotel6750]

I think you made the right choice. For cost, weight, size and image quality it seems like a great option for Nikon shooters.

[@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 … 😁