Nikon Z 24-120mm f/4 S Lens Review

PRIVACY and DISCLOSURE:
* Matt Granger is a participant in the B&H Photo Video affiliate program that provides an advertising commission if you purchase through our links.
* If you purchase something from our affiliate links will get a small commission with no extra cost to you.

[lukaszklopotek]

Thank you. I already own 24-200, which I bought impulsively half asleep, but never regretted after my first travel with it. It's precisely a travel lens, not a session lens, and 200mm comes in handy very often. For a photo session I use primes only.

[robendert]

Well presented, and clearly explained. After growing frustration with many years with mobile phone pictures, and after my trusty old Kodak point and shoots camera did not focus anymore, I decided to take one step up profiting from a special offer on a Nikon Z30 vlogging kit including the kit lens. Then came the question what to buy next, overwhelmed by the bewildering number of options. This video convinced me of the Nikon Z 24-120mm f/4 S Lens you presented as a good compromise, and bought it profiting from still another special offer. My first few uses confirm your evaluation of the expectations. Thank you for sharing, and greetings from Switzerland.

[jimgraves]

24-120mm is a great walkabout lens. I have the old F mount 24-120mm f3.5-5.6 D lens that lives on my Nikon F801s 35mm camera. It's a great all rounder for most things us mere mortals shoot. The Z mount lens continues the Nikon tradition of giving us decent lenses that get the job done wherever our level is at, be it pro or amateur, portaits or street. When I make the move to mirrorless I will be getting the 24-120mm f/4 S.

[philipsutton]

Exactly as Matt said. I shoot paid gigs and events, and had been happily using the 24-120 F4 lens. The images are very nice, and infinitely useable. However, the Achille's heel for me was the F4. I knew it would be, but like a clown, I thought I could live without it, because in Australia it is $1, 500 cheaper than the top tier lens. I was stingy and got it to save money, but ended up having to sell it and get the 24-70 2.8 ($3, 900 here in Australia - oh boy). Man, there is definitely a big difference in the image quality between the two. The big brother is blazingly sharp wide-open and even into the corners (though for what I shoot, I'm often not looking too hard at corners). The 24-120 was fine for me outside, until I started shooting in halls etc, and needed every bit of light that I could. The expensive brother is not perfect, because 2.8 can get better subject separation than the F4, but not as nice as my 1.8 primes. Like everything in photography there is a compromise and a trade-off. The bottom line is though - I can shoot an event all day, with my Godox fill-flash, have one lens on that covers wide to low tele, have images that are gorgeous and on my Z6ii body, the kit is still quite light and I can carry it all day long. Thanks for the great revue Matt and telling it just like it is
!

[psicopaulo]

Hey, Matt. I´ve been following you from sometime and you are looking more thin and vibrant nowadays. Happy for you and thanks for this review. Cheers.

[nickcarneyphotography]

Straight up, this lens alone is going to probably get me into the Z system. As a landscape/travel photographer it's exactly what I need and I love the idea of this on a Nikon Z7/ii body. This lens and the 50 1.8 would be a killer combo.

[Joseph-iuip]

I have the 24-70 and 70-200 2.8 lenses and got the 24-200 for just hiking and walking around. The 2.8s are amazing and the 24-200 is fun.

[danielgetachew]

My favorite lens for all around photojournalistic work🤩

[pjimmbojimmbo]

I agree with you about the 24-120 being Very Good. I also cannot disagree about the 24-70 2.8, and the 50 1.2 being superior, as they are in a different League/Realm
I did use a 24-200 for about a month last fall(northern hemisphere), as a replacement for my Nikon 28-300. The 24-200 was better in many ways than the 28-300, but it was even slower. Cropping a 200mm shot from the 24-200 to 300mm equivalent, it was far sharper than a 300mm shot from the 28-300, and it didn't have the horrible Purple Fringing that the 28-300 had. It also had great VR, I was able handhold it down to 1/2 at 200mm, and no shake. However, I returned it and got the 24-120, and really like this one, even though I lost the Tele end. It performed very well outside at -24 in mid Dec for several hundred shots(no bursts). It is currently my only Z mount Lens, I am still using the 70-200 2.8 FL and 200-500 5.6, and several other F mount Lenses, even an old 50mm AF from 1990, not even the D version.

[martinjn]

I have the 24-70/f4 and the 24-120/f4, I like and use both regularly, the 24-70 is a great light discreet lens, the 120 version gives that additional length at the tele end that is great for a bit of isolation, I have no issue with image quality on either lens and have images up to A3+ hanging on my wall and they look wonderful. The 24-70/f2.8 is an awesome bit of kit, but it's a bit of a lump and doesn't offer the flexibility of the 24-120 however its image quality is second to none. One day when funds permit I may shift the 24-70/f4 on and add the f2.8 version or maybe just pick up one of those nice F1.2 primes for the occasions when that extra stop or two of light is needed. Nice video thanks.

[xen_x]

24-120mm is great! Haven't had so versatile lense before, in traveling and hiking it is lovely lense and don't hold you back

[gregmosher]

I own the 24-70 2.8 and I have been absolutely blown away by the quality of that lens. I DID pass up the 1.2 50mm JUST because in all the various comparisons it just seems like the 1.8 is still really great. NOT as great I know I'm not crazy. but if you compare the build quality, and image quality of the 50 1.8Z to the 1.8G or D lenses of the past it is REALLY obvious that the 50 1.8Z is a massive improvement

[_zakkus]

24-120 is phenomenal and reliable for professional work but as you said the look with the 2.8 and 50 1.2 are another level

[GollwiGollwi]

Thank you for the video and all the best for your family

[MikeMenegus]

I use this for model and family portrait shoots; incredible versatile lens-sharp and to end. Also landscape and sunsets.

[.N.A.M]

This lens and the 50mm f1.8s are the only lenses I have currently, and, I’m not really wanting for more at this moment. The 24-120mm is a great lens, and it is an exceptional landscape photography lens (in both of these scenarios I tend to stick to f5.6 or higher). I stick on the 50mm f1.8 any time I need a bit more background separation.

Side-note: The 24-120mm actually makes a decent semi-macro lens as well. If I recall correctly, it has a reproduction rate of around .35x!

[jessicahaydahlrichardson]

This lens is a work horse for me on commercial shoots. Also it has amazing close focusing distance!

[PvMLad]

Thank you! I was completely torn between this lens and the Tamron 35-150 f2-2.8. After watching I have made my decision.

[slny]

The 24-120 actually replaced my 24-70 2.8. Sure the latter was a better lens in terms of the extra stop and image quality, but the incremental difference didn’t warrant it for my use. Rather, the 24-120 is more versatile and lighter. I found it being preferred to throw in the camera when I was just going out and for me - a non-professional. The 2.8 I have to keep with it is my 70-120. For range and portraits it fills in what I need. I also have the 50 for when I need it.

[brianglock]

Fantastic lens, sharp focuses fast and versatile. I bought the F mount years ago to use on my D810, then on the D850. When I purchased the Z9 last year it was a no brainer as the first Z mount lens. Yes I could use the FTZ with the F mount, do with others, but wanted a Z mount lens and it made the most sense.