Nikon Z 28-400 VS Nikon 24-120 (S) ? Choice made simple!!

Nikon 28 to 400 F4-F8 review: • The Brand New Nikon 28...
Nikon 24-120 F4, In depth Review: • SHOULD you buy the Nik...
My fav Cameras:
amzn.to/3BSYiZU
amzn.to/3BOvTEz
amzn.to/3I31KFc
amzn.to/3G7MeXs
amzn.to/3WieRGT
amzn.to/3Wf5NT7
amzn.to/3G8pgQ0
amzn.to/3WE9xh5
Camera Strap for Street Shoot: amzn.to/3hdIcTb
Fav Camera Bag: amzn.to/3YDSLQS
Fav Tripod: amzn.to/3hKnrzm
Mic: amzn.to/3jqxgmg
Lens: amzn.to/3PIscpI
Key light: amzn.to/3BSg5Rb
Background RGB Lights: amzn.to/3HQnF2B | amzn.to/3Wrn4Zc
Mail: [e-mail]
Insta: / framestm70

[@randallbrander8157]

You forgot to add the 24-200mm. Cheers! My problem is, I like all of the Nikkor Lenses. I am starting to run out of room with all of these lenses.

[@FramesTM]

Hahaha you are right in a way

[@michaltopas]

Best choice: 24-200mm. A lot of rubbish is said about that lens. But it is sharp, has VR, has good color rendition. I use it on my Z8 for professional landscape photography here in Germany and other countries. Most important. you have to have the propper light conditions. When I am willing to carry more weight with me, I use the Tamron 35-150 with my 14-30.

[@carlosandreviana9448]

I also use the 24-200 professionally in outdoor shootings. We all know that amateurs only care for sharpeness corner to corner and bokeh, and that's why they hate these lenses

[@USGrant21st]

It's a good overall lens, softish at 200mm and lateral CA sometimes visible. You can see small differences between it and 24-120 on charts. But I took hundreds of real life images with both at the same time for the sake of comparison and I was surprised to see they were pretty much identical. I'm sure nobody would be able to see the difference between the two without pixel peeping things like CA in the corners.

[@stanleykessanis373]

My wife and I travel overseas together, with a Z9 for me and a Z8 for her plus a bunch of Z lenses. The plan is to take the 24-200 on my Z9 and she shoots the Z8 with THE 24-120. However, if we take our 100-400 for more reach, we add weight to our kit, albeit with premium glass. I am seriously considering the 28-400 and skip the 100-400. Will be shooting in Eastern Turkey, mostly Archaelogical sites, landscapes and people. I prefer a 400mm to photograph people from a distance, capturing candid moments without intruding on their personal space. Switching lenses often means I miss the moment. The ƒ8 on the 28--400 is a minus, but I usually shoot 1-2 stops down, so ƒ8 isnt that big a deal. Climbing mountains at 6000 ft (and I am 72) brings weight into the equation. Z lenses are fantastic, so there aren't any lemons in the range, just more choice than ever. If I drop the 100-400 I can take a few smaller Z lenses, like the 40mm ƒ2 and the 85 ƒ1.8, plus the 14-30 S wide angle. Nikon keep offering new lens options that are out of the box.

[@FramesTM]

72! Wow! Love the fact that you’re healthy and travelling

[@juliettemansour]

Great video Frames! I love your reviews.I ended up with the f-mount version of the 24-70 because I blew my budget on gear this year already! I'm quite satisfied (for now) for my event work. I would love to see a video on your top choices for f-mount lenses on Z cameras, if you have them. I'm also interested in Fuji 3rd party lens reviews. Cheers!

[@FramesTM]

these happy comments cheer me up! thank you!

[@stanobert3475]

I have been waiting for a Nikon Z replacement for their F-mount 28-300mm for some time now. I also use the Fuji X system and Tamron's 18-300mm is just not up to task for resolving Fuji's 40 megapixel sensors. Therefore, Nikon's 28-400 Z lens will now be my designated travel lens combined with my Nikon 17-28mm Z lens. The 28-400mm will be the perfect lens when changing lenses is difficult, especially capturing marine life on a boat. I do not recommend changing lenses on a boat!

[@mikedeloye8060]

Frames great review! The 28-400mm is more right for me, because of the way I shoot. I shoot birds and dogs at play and the versatility is what appeals to me. Also in post processing a lot can be fixed, so I am leaning that way.

[@johnforbes4795]

Hi Frames. I probably already have too many lenses, but I'll admit that I'm thinking about buying the new Nikon Z 28-400mm f4-8.0 lens. I have the following Nikon Z lenses; the 24-120mm f4, the 24-200mm f4-6.3, the 70-200mm f2.8, the 100-400mm f4.5-5.6 and the 180-600mm f5.6-6.3. The reason I'm thinking about the new 28-400mm f4-8.0 is two reasons: 1. For hiking. I love to hike in the foothills of California and having the ability to shoot during daylight hours from 28-400mm with one lens on the Z8 sounds ideal. The 24-120mm f4 is almost always on the Z8 or Z9, but when hiking I feel the need to carry a longer lens which means carrying more weight. 2. the second reason is for traveling. I usually take the 24-120 on trips with me and often take one or two other lenses in order to get a bit more reason or flexibility. In fact, I've thought that I might take both a 24-120 f4 and the 28-400mm f4-8.0 on the trip and cover most needs other than low light situations. I've thought about trading the Z 24-200mm for the 28-400mm but I haven't seen any direct comparison yet.

[@USGrant21st]

I'm also hiking in CA, but I'm using Tamron 28-200/2.8-5.6 on adapter. Great for everything except small birds. I frankly don't even use 24-120 anymore, Tamron fares in that range better. I have 28-400 on order, but might cancel it, because of extra weight and image quality.

[@johnforbes4795]

@@USGrant21st Thanks for the thought. I have hiked with the Nikon Z 24-200mm f4-6.3 and I like the image quality, but it doesn't have the reach I want. Two weeks ago I did a nice hike in Pinnacles National Park with both the Z 24-120mm f4 and my 180-600mm f5.6-6.3 paired with the Z8. It worked fine, but anything less than the 600mm wouldn't have delivered the results I was seeking for Turkey Vultures (I had hoped to spy a California Condor, but they are far more elusive than the Turkey Vultures.). In my mind, the nice thing about the Z 28-400mm f4-8.0 is that I could put the Z8 in DX mode and achieve 600mm equivalent. In fact, I'll probably try putting my Z 1.4 Teleconverter on the Z 180-600mm to achieve 840mm with that lens.

[@michaelst.9055]

@@johnforbes4795 Honestly, your not getting 600mm equivalent, you just get a snippet of the picture that stops at the same borders as a 600mm would do when used in FX mode, but there is absolutely no difference in doing so in post, your are not getting any nearer, you are still at 400mm.

[@johnforbes4795]

@@michaelst.9055 I'm sure you're correct, but I'm well past retirement age, in pretty good shape, but climbing 1500 feet with a backpack and the Z8 with the 4.3lb Z 180-600mm is more daunting at my age than the 1.6lb 28-400.

[@michaelst.9055]

@@johnforbes4795 I'm not too far away age-wise, so my point is not taking the 600mm, but not switching into DX Mode, as cropping at home will result in the same picture, but with a bit more flexibility to shift a few pixel left or right. I also went for the 28-400 for its weight and size. have a 150-600mm here that gets out of the house once or twice a year at max. Simply to large and to heavy.

[@gregoryarmstrong3353]

Thank you for the great video. As an amature enthusiast, the value of the versatility of a 28-400mm VR trumps the quality of the 28-120mm; however, the cost savings of the 28-400 scratches that general purpose and introduction of birding range I have been looking for. My question would be a great high-quality lens (professional) general-purpose quality lens to complement the 28-400mm. I was thinking of something that can do professional-level sports, people, landscapes, and etc.

[@FramesTM]

It should be the 28-75 f2.8. Really good!

[@nickcucchiara]

Great video Frames. In my opinion the 24-120 is a must have. Great all around lens that will pay for itself and it's consistent with camera settings. That being said post edits are a time save copy and pasting adjustments. Myself I don't want to be stuck at f/8 at 400mm but it is what it is just take the shot.

[@ruff1draft]

Both these lenses are on my list

[@koreancryptoking]

Is this lens compatible with high-pixel bodies such as z8, z7ii, and z9?

[@FramesTM]

Ummm it’s more for Z6II ans Zf in my opinion

[@FramesTM]

But it can resolve enough for general use on a Z8 too! I did all my tests on the Z8

[@koreancryptoking]

thanks sir!!

[@ALToRPhotography]

Nice Comparison. Love the 24-120.

[@FramesTM]

Great Lens! Really useful.

[@latasharma2098]

Spectacular

[@carlosandreviana9448]

The right comparison should be the 24-200

[@FramesTM]

Yes. But that Len’s doesn’t stand a chance. Just doesn’t.

[@carlosandreviana9448]

​@@FramesTMI would like to see both with shots at the same focal length.

[@carlosandreviana9448]

By the way. I use the 24-200 professionally outdoors, when I have shoots that require an all in one lens. I hope the 28-400 is as good as the 24-200

[@FramesTM]

@carlosandreviana9448 it is better. But you know these kind of lense have to cut corners to match the price band… given that, this lens is surprisingly good actually. You will like it… yes you will not get the wide 24mm here that’s all

[@justinthomas3829]

F8 from 200 is the main reason I will never buy it.

[@anandas7083]

Nikon z8 got the tipa award.....one video needed 😊

[@FramesTM]

We’ll get one soon

[@anandas7083]

@@FramesTM 😍 waiting

[@miroslavnedved2985]

Děkuji.

[@stanleykessanis373]

I play touch football twice a week, gym 3 days a week and take photos with a passion. I’m also Nikons ad agency in Australia. You’re a long time dead!

[@FramesTM]

You’re a lucky man. Live 200 years!

[@stanobert3475]

😂😂​@@FramesTM

[@FramesTM]

Stan, I mean it sincerely! It’s great to know he’s full of energy. My dads that age and trust me I want him to just trust his body and live fully

[@stanobert3475]

@FramesTM I will be 73 next month, so I am no spring chicken either. Photography helps keep me young.

[@stanobert3475]

Now I get it. This is an Austrailian compliment. I thought that it was a wise crack. .

[@arpinkus]

You used the front lens hood to zoom the lens. I stopped watching.

[@FramesTM]

So you will leave your wife if she farts? love your comment hilarious

[@jimsmith556]

I think you compared the wrong lens to the 28-400. The 24-200 is the lens to compare to the 28-400. The 24-200 is an amazing walk-around lens that does it all with good IQ. Comparing the S quality 24-120 with a fixed f/4 with the 28-400 makes no sense. They're meant for completely different users and the IQ of the 24-120mm blows away the 28-400. You're paying for that quality. I was hoping to hear if moving to the 28-400 from the 24-200 would be feasible. Nobody thinking of buying the 24-120 is going to compare it to the 28-400. They'll compare it to the 24-200. This is silly. You just made this video because you happened to have those two lenses. That's all.

[@tomaszbrodzic8381]

For me it was helpful comparison because I am the beginner, I have 24-70 F4 and I'm wondering what is better for me, change this lens for 24-120 F4 or take additionally this super versatile 28-400 for everything.

[@jimsmith556]

@@tomaszbrodzic8381 Yes, but there is a lens that sits perfectly between these two. The 24-200mm is right in the middle, with great IQ and zoom range. I'd suggest looking at reviews for that lens before you decide.

[@tomaszbrodzic8381]

​@@jimsmith556 I considered the 24-200 too. It has strong sides - range 200, light weight and low price. This is strong proposition for someone who walking in the mountains. But there are some limitations of course. The major question for me is how much I need this additional rande. No one will tell me this, I have to look for the answer myself. It seems to me that 24-120 could be a good choice at this point. Many photographers write that this is their favorite all around lens, so I think it's worth trying this solution.

[@michaelst.9055]

​@@tomaszbrodzic8381 I just sold my 24-200 in favour of the 28-400 and own the 24-120 too. When hiking, especially in the mountains, the 24mm-35mm was the most used range. The 24-120 provides some more flexibility when it comes to darker locations. The better f-stop and sharpness is more worth, then the additional VR of the 24-200 (when shooting with IBIS) The rare cases where I would have loved to get more than the 120mm, the 200mm was still not enough. For my upcoming trip to Scotland I wanted to have the extra reach, and will travel with 2 lenses only, the 14-30mm and 28-400. Most flexibility in range when you have to consider weight when traveling by aircrafts. Still the 24-120mm is my 'always on' lens, it can handle indoor and outdoor situations, where I found the 24-200 a bit more demanding when shooting indoor. The 28-400 is planned as a outdoor lens only. IBIS+VR+higher ISO will allow you to get a snapshot indoor also (for longer ranges - 85mm+), but it's much weaker there than the 24-120. The same is true for the 24-200 - f/6.3 is only half an f-stop better than f/8, but 1.5 f-stops worse then f/4. If I would have to choose only one out of the 3, I would likely go with the 24-120, I owned the 24-70 f/4 before also (got it in a bundle with the first Z6 which I sold last year), and found the 24-200 in this range not a proper replacement (specifically indoor). Could have been my specific lens, but that was just my experience.

[@weiyang6417]

24-120 comparison makes no sense. There is an obvious winner here.

[@markmalasics3413]

Just think. If you didn't blow all that money on a Shure consumer grade microphone, a swing arm and all the other nonsense you placed in the shot to spice up the look of your "studio" you could have bought another lens.

[@FramesTM]

True! If I didn’t buy my camera, I could have bought 4 more lenses too! 😆