Nikon Z 24-120mm f/4 S lens review with samples 

And forgot about their z50 and zfc users. Why bother launching a system with only 2-3lens made for it

@@frankluo230 you’re a glass half empty type of guy huh

@@frankluo230 because consumers are shifting toward full frame cameras. You still have a choice to use full frame lenses or adapt Nikon DX glass, too. They made Z 18-140mm VR, 16-50mm VR, 50-250mm VR. 24mm DX, and 12-28mm DX are coming soon. 28mm f2.8 and 40mm f2 are relatively cheap. What lens do you need in DX format? I have Peargear 12mm f2. Viltrox is pumping solid lenses for Nikon Z system, FX and DX. Nikon is sitting pretty at this moment.

@@eldindokara7868 I think Nikon is not teaming up with Viltrox in any way shape or form. If anythiny, Nikon would happily sue Viltrox for Z mount patents infringement. Look at Nikon's DX lenses, you can't really rely on 28f2.8 and 40f2 as DX only walk around lenses. Consumers are shifting to full frame but the process takes 8-10yr to complete, not instantly. At the moment I would rank Fuji X, Canon M, and Sony aps E mount ahead of Nikon Z DX. Adapting a non E DX lens like 16-80, 17-55, 12-24 to Z50 is a PITA. The aperture constantly actuating inside FTZ makes a worryingly clicking noise.

@@frankluo230 well which lens do you need for dx? The 18-140mm pretty much covers every range you need. Nikon is not partnering with any companies yet. They are building their own lenses first and once they are in a better financial state, they will probably allow 3rd party to make z lenses. The reality is apsc don't sell as well like it used to be. Even Sony has removed several APSC cameras. A6600 and A6100 have been discontinued. Nikon releasing new dx lenses just shows that they still care for their dx customers.

yes,which is worth to buy？

I’ve been looking at these lenses for a while also. This one and the 28-75 are the best for the price. With those two, it really comes down to the focal lengths that you need. The 24-70 F 2.8 is the best of the lot with a price tag to match! lol

But doesn't sony have 24-105 f/4

@@amitkrupal1234 It looks like Sony really hit their stride in recent years with their lenses, and the 24 105 predates that, certainly doesn't seem as sharp as this 24 120

@@amitkrupal1234 try comparing build and image quality... You will get the point..❤️🙌

I would just get the tamron 35 150 on sony

@@axelfiraxa there are worlds betwenn 24mm and 35mm

Yea, but some people will be very disappointed if the lens they just bought doesnt hold up to extravagant marketing companies use, Its best to have Chris check those corners and quarks than having to go through the returns process :D

@@samuelgoad7320 indeed! Thank God that we've a such hero as Christopher ❤️😉

Out in the field, If 120mm is not enough, 200mm usually isn't much better. It is a lot closer than people tend to beLieve looking at numbers. However F4 and F6.3 is one and a third stop of light, that is huge in a lot of situations. 24-200 was probably the best non S lens but 24-120 is a S lens straight up.

Naaa. This lens is far superior. The 24/200 with that dark 6.3 aperture can't be taken in consideration. and shouldn't.

@@Bardamu3000 from usability point of view yes . At the same aperture, sharpness in the mid frame and corner, I doubt 24-120 has much edge. 24-200 is no slouch in sharpness.

@@Bardamu3000 the 24-200 is perfect for hiking and travel ;)

@@frankluo230 Nikon should have included VR with the 24-120 at this price. It would have made the owners of the 24-200 switch. In this case, the 24-200 may be better for hiking and handheld outdoor video. probably at 120 mm the difference is one stop.

Honestly with the performance of Nikon's IBIS and the low noise of most full frame cameras I doubt having both gives you much. For portraiture and such the 75 might be a bit short, while 120/4 is pretty much the same as 75/2.8 as far as background blur goes.

Lack of VR in this lens is a bummer...otherwise its excellent ❤️🙌

@@Azeemmerchant how it is a bummer, when even the higher end Nikon Z lenses doesn’t have a VR because all Nikon body’s have a built in VR. So no it’s not a bummer.

I already have a 24-70 F/4 so I am leaning towards the 28-75mm F/2.8 personally.

@@hofra01 IBIS only works on wider focal lengths. Going past 85ish, OIS is superior in stabilizing the image.

Agree, I had originally owned and tested the Z6 with 24-70mm f/4 and even with adapted lenses...I just wasn't a fan. Image quality wasn't bad or anything, but I guess I was spoiled. I have an extremely sharp copy of the 24-70mm f/2.8E VR, it's sharp corner to corner even when wide open at f/2.8! It's a newer model as it has the same dark gray lettering or font style on it's rear barrel. It looks like the new Z-lenses do, with the dark gray writing on the rear of the lens' barrel. Anyways, long story short...I am now an owner of this lens...the 24-120mm f/4 S and open-box Z7. I thought originally I might not be too satisfied with it, so I made sure to buy from Amazon as they offer no hassle 30 day returns and if you make sure to buy "Ships From and Sold by Amazon" you're good. So now I've had this setup for a few days and...I am in love! With the 3.4 firmware update Nikon made the Z6 and Z7 very competitive and very capable, even or especially autofocus, is vastly improved. It was like using a completely different camera compared to the early Z6 NPS sent me, which I had promptly sent back after only 24 hours, lol. I still absolutely love my D6 and I'll probably use the D6 for another couple of years, alongside my D500 and Z7, I have pretty much everything covered. All I typically have in my bag nowadays is a Z7 with 24-120mm f/4 S, an FTZ II adapter, my D6 attached to my 500mm f/4E VR FL and my 70-200mm f/2.8E VR FL. I recently sold my beloved 24-70mm f/2.8E VR and my D5's...I sold off over the past few months. Either way though my bag definitely is or at least feels lighter and my lower back is a big fan of the Z7 and 24-120mm f/4 weight! The only wide angle lens I've personally used that matches this lens around the 24-28mm mark is the Nikon 28mm f/1.4E! A remarkable lens in it's own right, but in a zoom....prime-like sharpness! Plus as long as you have a body with VR/IBIS this lens can compensate for it's narrow'er aperture value. I thought that I would miss that important stop of light, going from an f/2.8 to an f/4 zoom, but I haven't regretted this decision yet! The 24-120mm f/4 S is a fantastic lens and probably the best "super-zoom" lens ever made. I sure do use my 70-200mm f/2.8E VR FL a lot less now that I have the 70-120mm range along with the 45.7mp sensor...I can usually "just crop" my way to where I wanted to be composition wise. This lens is definitely a game changer for me and probably many others. I highly, highly recommend this lens! 5 Stars, for sure!!!

Try the 50mm 1.8 z. I love it.

You will love it and i hope you get it soon. Using it for last 1 month and have not touched my 24-70 2.8 G ED non VR F mount lens

It's almost entirely first-order distortion so there's basically no reason why it wouldn't be fully corrected. Distortion correction at 24 mm would also improve peripheral illumination a bit due to cropping.

You can see the corrected image at 3:23.

@@okaro6595 not the distortion grid I was looking for. All good.

Nikon has some incredible in camera corrections

I'm with ya, but have been pleasantly surprised with my Z 24-200. With the VR I find I rarely use my 24-70 F4. This 24-120 may replace my 24-200 though :D.

I have the 14-30 and 24-200 on my Z7 as travel landscape lenses. My only gripe with the 24-200 is the vignetting and dark maximum aperture of f6.3 at the long end. I also have to stop down to f8 to get good sharpness at the long end so it gets even darker.

I'm very happy with my 24-200. use it for hiking. Only the range from 170-200 isn't as sharp as it could be. And no real sunstars unfortunately. But the photos look brilliant, you can even do some allround portraits and macro.

the 24-200 has OIS/VR stabilization, which is better for video. It is pretty sharp. The only downside is the variable aperture. I also have the 24-70 f4, which I bought used. If the 24-120 had OIS/VR I would sell the other 2 lenses in a heartbeat for the newer lens. The 24-200 is lighter, so for hiking and daytime photos it may be just as good. For outdoor handheld video may be even better as the combination of OIS/VR and IBIS is better than IBIS alone.

I think it has a lot of video merit, and the close focus as budget macro + crop 4k video as 36 to 180mm F4.... amazing.

How about Tamron 50-400?

I went for Z and no regrets. Damn the colors sooc are beautiful, for raw too. And the lenses are amazing.

Sony really needs to make a G2 of this lens now!

All Z lenses are better than the F mount ... check 'ricci talks' he compared most z lenses to f mount equivalent

I have a number of different cameras for the sole reason that I need them for testing lenses for this channel :-)

After I've tested a few more Z mount lenses I MIGHT ask Nikon if I can borrow some of their older F mount lenses for testing :-)

@@christopherfrost what’s left, just the 24-200, 70-200, 100-400, 28 and imminent 400/TC? Would love to see you get your hands on the 100 1.4E for F mount.

@@christopherfrost That sounds great Christopher! I just picked up an used D700 and looking for a nice standard zoom to pair it with.

The 28-75 isn’t really a Nikkor lens. It’s a re-branded Tamron lens. The G1 version, which isn’t that much to write home about. This true Nikon lens, the 24-120/4S should run rings around it.

I really liked this lens haha

They have 2 of them. The 24 and 35mm 1.8's are not worth the money. They just aren't that good. Especially the 24mm. My wife keeps the 105MC on the Z6. She is in love with it.

@@kretieg2943 that actually says a lot because the 35 1.8 is actually really good although not at the level of the others. For reference it’s better than my old Sigma Art 35.

Nonsense, the 35/1.8S is amazing. It’s one of the sharpest lenses in existence. No focus breathing, light weight. I’ve compared it extensively with the 20/1.8S, 50/1.8S and 85/1.8S and it’s just as good. The 24 I don’t have but have a good friend who loves that lens. There isn’t a bad lens among them, and the general level of performance is unmatched really.

@@livejames9374 Is it better than the Sigma 35 at f/1.8. I believe I said the that the Z 35 was the better of the two lenses between it and the 24. I really like the 50 f/1.8. I considered the 50 f/1.2 but Sony's E-mount 50g f/1.2, adapted, has more interest for me. It is smaller and still very sharp.

@@kretieg2943 yes the 35S is better at 1.8 in mid frame and corners, center about the same. By 2.8 it’s a significant difference to about 5.6 with Z being much sharper across frame. I think it has softer bokeh as well. Sonys 50 1.2 is awesome and still much lighter than the Z even adapted 😂