Dear fellow Nikon Enthusiasts!The 24-120 f4 is getting so much praise, that I am unsure whether I should get it or not.My mirrorless journey began with Z5 and 24-200mm, but I was not really satisfied with the superzoom. Later I got 24-70 f4 at bargain (together with an z7) and love that lens. And I also have to 70-200mm 2.8 which is just so sharp.So I could cover the range with 24-70 f4 and 70-200mm as sort of a part of not that holy trinity, or I could sell the 24-70 f4 + 24-200mm and invest into 24-120. (At the moment I am not willing to invest 2k into 24-70 2.8)I am just not sure whether 24-120 is worth it. One reason to buy it would be that there is no need to change lenses when traveling. But then I`d have an overlapping range, while the 70-120mm would still be much sharper with the 70-200mm lens and I am happy with th 24-70 f4.Weight is not a big concern for me, I don`t mind carrying the 70-200mm around. I do little bit of everything (hobby), the two lenses should serve me for hiking.Has anyone experience with owning both 24-120mm and 70-200mm?

JoyfulDay wrote:Dear fellow Nikon Enthusiasts!The 24-120 f4 is getting so much praise, that I am unsure whether I should get it or not.My mirrorless journey began with Z5 and 24-200mm, but I was not really satisfied with the superzoom. Later I got 24-70 f4 at bargain (together with an z7) and love that lens. And I also have to 70-200mm 2.8 which is just so sharp.So I could cover the range with 24-70 f4 and 70-200mm as sort of a part of not that holy trinity, or I could sell the 24-70 f4 + 24-200mm and invest into 24-120. (At the moment I am not willing to invest 2k into 24-70 2.8)I am just not sure whether 24-120 is worth it. One reason to buy it would be that there is no need to change lenses when traveling. But then I`d have an overlapping range, while the 70-120mm would still be much sharper with the 70-200mm lens and I am happy with th 24-70 f4.Weight is not a big concern for me, I don`t mind carrying the 70-200mm around. I do little bit of everything (hobby), the two lenses should serve me for hiking.Has anyone experience with owning both 24-120mm and 70-200mm?I think you answered your own questionI had this setup on F mount, but prefer not having overlapping range. I much prefer having the 24-70Z and 70-200 2.8E FL or Z if owned.

JoyfulDay wrote:Weight is not a big concern for me, I don`t mind carrying the 70-200mm around. I do little bit of everything (hobby), the two lenses should serve me for hiking.Has anyone experience with owning both 24-120mm and 70-200mm?Your gear list includes the 70-200 S (so you doing not have to buy it) - and the big and heavy 200-500.If you did not have either of these lenses the 24-120 S and 100-400 S could when hiking cover more of "a little bit of everything" for similar weight and size to the 24-120 and your 70-200.

JoyfulDay wrote:Dear fellow Nikon Enthusiasts!The 24-120 f4 is getting so much praise, that I am unsure whether I should get it or not.My mirrorless journey began with Z5 and 24-200mm, but I was not really satisfied with the superzoom. Later I got 24-70 f4 at bargain (together with an z7) and love that lens. And I also have to 70-200mm 2.8 which is just so sharp.So I could cover the range with 24-70 f4 and 70-200mm as sort of a part of not that holy trinity, or I could sell the 24-70 f4 + 24-200mm and invest into 24-120. (At the moment I am not willing to invest 2k into 24-70 2.8)I am just not sure whether 24-120 is worth it. One reason to buy it would be that there is no need to change lenses when traveling. But then I`d have an overlapping range, while the 70-120mm would still be much sharper with the 70-200mm lens and I am happy with th 24-70 f4.Weight is not a big concern for me, I don`t mind carrying the 70-200mm around. I do little bit of everything (hobby), the two lenses should serve me for hiking.Has anyone experience with owning both 24-120mm and 70-200mm?HelloI have both and 24-70 f4.Yes there is an overlap but when I want to use a single lens I have 24-120, if I need a very small kit I use 24-70 f4. Z 70-200 is sharper than 24-120. I prefer 24-120 than 24-200. In terms of image 24-70 and 24-120 are similar. I like to have this kind of flexibility with lenses in this range. 24-120 is one of may favorites lenses.

JoyfulDay wrote:Dear fellow Nikon Enthusiasts!The 24-120 f4 is getting so much praise, that I am unsure whether I should get it or not.My mirrorless journey began with Z5 and 24-200mm, but I was not really satisfied with the superzoom. Later I got 24-70 f4 at bargain (together with an z7) and love that lens. And I also have to 70-200mm 2.8 which is just so sharp.So I could cover the range with 24-70 f4 and 70-200mm as sort of a part of not that holy trinity, or I could sell the 24-70 f4 + 24-200mm and invest into 24-120. (At the moment I am not willing to invest 2k into 24-70 2.8)I am just not sure whether 24-120 is worth it. One reason to buy it would be that there is no need to change lenses when traveling. But then I`d have an overlapping range, while the 70-120mm would still be much sharper with the 70-200mm lens and I am happy with th 24-70 f4.Weight is not a big concern for me, I don`t mind carrying the 70-200mm around. I do little bit of everything (hobby), the two lenses should serve me for hiking.Has anyone experience with owning both 24-120mm and 70-200mm?If, as you say, weight is not a big concern, then I think you're good to go! If money is not an issue then yes, get the Z 24-120, it's a great lens and it's a great one lens walk-around lens. Right now, when I need longer than 120mm I just flip my Z7II into DX mode and get 180mm. I had the Z 70-200 and it is a spectacular lens but it was too heavy for me to carry around (74 years of age and joint issues - everything hurt when I lugged that around!).Ken

MArcos Blois wrote:JoyfulDay wrote:Dear fellow Nikon Enthusiasts!The 24-120 f4 is getting so much praise, that I am unsure whether I should get it or not.My mirrorless journey began with Z5 and 24-200mm, but I was not really satisfied with the superzoom. Later I got 24-70 f4 at bargain (together with an z7) and love that lens. And I also have to 70-200mm 2.8 which is just so sharp.So I could cover the range with 24-70 f4 and 70-200mm as sort of a part of not that holy trinity, or I could sell the 24-70 f4 + 24-200mm and invest into 24-120. (At the moment I am not willing to invest 2k into 24-70 2.8)I am just not sure whether 24-120 is worth it. One reason to buy it would be that there is no need to change lenses when traveling. But then I`d have an overlapping range, while the 70-120mm would still be much sharper with the 70-200mm lens and I am happy with th 24-70 f4.Weight is not a big concern for me, I don`t mind carrying the 70-200mm around. I do little bit of everything (hobby), the two lenses should serve me for hiking.Has anyone experience with owning both 24-120mm and 70-200mm?HelloI have both and 24-70 f4.Yes there is an overlap but when I want to use a single lens I have 24-120, if I need a very small kit I use 24-70 f4. Z 70-200 is sharper than 24-120. I prefer 24-120 than 24-200. In terms of image 24-70 and 24-120 are similar. I like to have this kind of flexibility with lenses in this range. 24-120 is one of may favorites lenses.Ditto. Although I sold my 24-70 f/4 not long after I got the 24-120. The sharpness and speed of the 70-200 is hard to beat and is my favorite lens overall. The 24-120 is perfect though as an all-around lens for traveling and staying light.

thank you

KLH475 wrote:JoyfulDay wrote:Dear fellow Nikon Enthusiasts!The 24-120 f4 is getting so much praise, that I am unsure whether I should get it or not.My mirrorless journey began with Z5 and 24-200mm, but I was not really satisfied with the superzoom. Later I got 24-70 f4 at bargain (together with an z7) and love that lens. And I also have to 70-200mm 2.8 which is just so sharp.So I could cover the range with 24-70 f4 and 70-200mm as sort of a part of not that holy trinity, or I could sell the 24-70 f4 + 24-200mm and invest into 24-120. (At the moment I am not willing to invest 2k into 24-70 2.8)I am just not sure whether 24-120 is worth it. One reason to buy it would be that there is no need to change lenses when traveling. But then I`d have an overlapping range, while the 70-120mm would still be much sharper with the 70-200mm lens and I am happy with th 24-70 f4.Weight is not a big concern for me, I don`t mind carrying the 70-200mm around. I do little bit of everything (hobby), the two lenses should serve me for hiking.Has anyone experience with owning both 24-120mm and 70-200mm?If, as you say, weight is not a big concern, then I think you're good to go! If money is not an issue then yes, get the Z 24-120, it's a great lens and it's a great one lens walk-around lens. Right now, when I need longer than 120mm I just flip my Z7II into DX mode and get 180mm. I had the Z 70-200 and it is a spectacular lens but it was too heavy for me to carry around (74 years of age and joint issues - everything hurt when I lugged that around!).Kenthank you! well no, money is not a big concern. my concern is mostly that I don`t want to gear to lay around unused and hence feel inbetween the zoom options.. I guess it`s a situation that Nikon somehow creates by producing excellent lenses in similar range...

I just returned from an Alaskan cruise. I took way too much gear. If I did it again, I would take my Z7ii and 24-120. Great lens. If I took a second lens, it would be my 100-400, but probably not. I love the 24-120:)

JoyfulDay wrote:KLH475 wrote:JoyfulDay wrote:Dear fellow Nikon Enthusiasts!The 24-120 f4 is getting so much praise, that I am unsure whether I should get it or not.My mirrorless journey began with Z5 and 24-200mm, but I was not really satisfied with the superzoom. Later I got 24-70 f4 at bargain (together with an z7) and love that lens. And I also have to 70-200mm 2.8 which is just so sharp.So I could cover the range with 24-70 f4 and 70-200mm as sort of a part of not that holy trinity, or I could sell the 24-70 f4 + 24-200mm and invest into 24-120. (At the moment I am not willing to invest 2k into 24-70 2.8)I am just not sure whether 24-120 is worth it. One reason to buy it would be that there is no need to change lenses when traveling. But then I`d have an overlapping range, while the 70-120mm would still be much sharper with the 70-200mm lens and I am happy with th 24-70 f4.Weight is not a big concern for me, I don`t mind carrying the 70-200mm around. I do little bit of everything (hobby), the two lenses should serve me for hiking.Has anyone experience with owning both 24-120mm and 70-200mm?If, as you say, weight is not a big concern, then I think you're good to go! If money is not an issue then yes, get the Z 24-120, it's a great lens and it's a great one lens walk-around lens. Right now, when I need longer than 120mm I just flip my Z7II into DX mode and get 180mm. I had the Z 70-200 and it is a spectacular lens but it was too heavy for me to carry around (74 years of age and joint issues - everything hurt when I lugged that around!).Kenthank you! well no, money is not a big concern. my concern is mostly that I don`t want to gear to lay around unused and hence feel inbetween the zoom options.. I guess it`s a situation that Nikon somehow creates by producing excellent lenses in similar range...You're very welcome. And don't get me wrong, I find myself missing the Z 70-200mm and if I will stay alert for a sale towards the end of the year and maybe buy another another one! I miss the 200mm end and how sharp it is. In order to overcome the heaviness of some lenses I've recently discovered and bought a great lightweight tripod and have started to use it regularly now when I go out shooting so I only have to carry the heavier lenses a short distance. I don't think you'd find either lens laying around if you had both - you'd discover which lenss to use for differing circumstances!Ken

JoyfulDay wrote:Dear fellow Nikon Enthusiasts!The 24-120 f4 is getting so much praise, that I am unsure whether I should get it or not.My mirrorless journey began with Z5 and 24-200mm, but I was not really satisfied with the superzoom. Later I got 24-70 f4 at bargain (together with an z7) and love that lens. And I also have to 70-200mm 2.8 which is just so sharp.So I could cover the range with 24-70 f4 and 70-200mm as sort of a part of not that holy trinity, or I could sell the 24-70 f4 + 24-200mm and invest into 24-120. (At the moment I am not willing to invest 2k into 24-70 2.8)I am just not sure whether 24-120 is worth it. One reason to buy it would be that there is no need to change lenses when traveling. But then I`d have an overlapping range, while the 70-120mm would still be much sharper with the 70-200mm lens and I am happy with th 24-70 f4.Weight is not a big concern for me, I don`t mind carrying the 70-200mm around. I do little bit of everything (hobby), the two lenses should serve me for hiking.Has anyone experience with owning both 24-120mm and 70-200mm?The 24-120 is a great lens to pair with the 70-200 and 1.4x or 2x TC.That is how I used my FX 24-120 f4 and FX 70-200 f2.8It's a great event combo with two bodies; and the overlap means I don't have to switch cameras (or lenses) as often.  I am a big fan of overlap.Which is why I also like the 14-30 f4 range as well.  Some overlap is good.

mgreene33 wrote:MArcos Blois wrote:JoyfulDay wrote:Dear fellow Nikon Enthusiasts!The 24-120 f4 is getting so much praise, that I am unsure whether I should get it or not.My mirrorless journey began with Z5 and 24-200mm, but I was not really satisfied with the superzoom. Later I got 24-70 f4 at bargain (together with an z7) and love that lens. And I also have to 70-200mm 2.8 which is just so sharp.So I could cover the range with 24-70 f4 and 70-200mm as sort of a part of not that holy trinity, or I could sell the 24-70 f4 + 24-200mm and invest into 24-120. (At the moment I am not willing to invest 2k into 24-70 2.8)I am just not sure whether 24-120 is worth it. One reason to buy it would be that there is no need to change lenses when traveling. But then I`d have an overlapping range, while the 70-120mm would still be much sharper with the 70-200mm lens and I am happy with th 24-70 f4.Weight is not a big concern for me, I don`t mind carrying the 70-200mm around. I do little bit of everything (hobby), the two lenses should serve me for hiking.Has anyone experience with owning both 24-120mm and 70-200mm?HelloI have both and 24-70 f4.Yes there is an overlap but when I want to use a single lens I have 24-120, if I need a very small kit I use 24-70 f4. Z 70-200 is sharper than 24-120. I prefer 24-120 than 24-200. In terms of image 24-70 and 24-120 are similar. I like to have this kind of flexibility with lenses in this range. 24-120 is one of may favorites lenses.Ditto. Although I sold my 24-70 f/4 not long after I got the 24-120. The sharpness and speed of the 70-200 is hard to beat and is my favorite lens overall. The 24-120 is perfect though as an all-around lens for traveling and staying light.The 24-200 is lighter than the 24-120.

john isaacs wrote:mgreene33 wrote:MArcos Blois wrote:JoyfulDay wrote:Dear fellow Nikon Enthusiasts!The 24-120 f4 is getting so much praise, that I am unsure whether I should get it or not.My mirrorless journey began with Z5 and 24-200mm, but I was not really satisfied with the superzoom. Later I got 24-70 f4 at bargain (together with an z7) and love that lens. And I also have to 70-200mm 2.8 which is just so sharp.So I could cover the range with 24-70 f4 and 70-200mm as sort of a part of not that holy trinity, or I could sell the 24-70 f4 + 24-200mm and invest into 24-120. (At the moment I am not willing to invest 2k into 24-70 2.8)I am just not sure whether 24-120 is worth it. One reason to buy it would be that there is no need to change lenses when traveling. But then I`d have an overlapping range, while the 70-120mm would still be much sharper with the 70-200mm lens and I am happy with th 24-70 f4.Weight is not a big concern for me, I don`t mind carrying the 70-200mm around. I do little bit of everything (hobby), the two lenses should serve me for hiking.Has anyone experience with owning both 24-120mm and 70-200mm?HelloI have both and 24-70 f4.Yes there is an overlap but when I want to use a single lens I have 24-120, if I need a very small kit I use 24-70 f4. Z 70-200 is sharper than 24-120. I prefer 24-120 than 24-200. In terms of image 24-70 and 24-120 are similar. I like to have this kind of flexibility with lenses in this range. 24-120 is one of may favorites lenses.Ditto. Although I sold my 24-70 f/4 not long after I got the 24-120. The sharpness and speed of the 70-200 is hard to beat and is my favorite lens overall. The 24-120 is perfect though as an all-around lens for traveling and staying light.The 24-200 is lighter than the 24-120.Very true. However, I was only referring to the 24-120 against the weight of the 70-200.

... at Brad Hills blog:http://www.naturalart.ca/voice/blog.html#anchor_24-120mm_EarlyImpressions . He compared the Z 24-120mm with the Z 24-70 f/4 and Z 70-200 f/2.8 and I think he is VERY happy with the Z 24-120mm.___________________ always good light

I have both and i use the 24-120 95% of the time then the 85mm 1.8. The 70-200 i have not even used this year at all i dont think. got it last year.Trying to Move to a two camera setup with the 35mm 1.8 or 28mm 2.8 on one and the 85 1.8 on the other. But i just keep using the 24-120 as its more easy to just use the one camera out on jobs and it works great,Maybe the 24-120 and the new Tamron 70-300 Would be a good pick to cover more range.

I have both. They are 2 different lenses, and mostly 2 different purposes.I'm not a normal trinity zoom lens person. I realize there is a 24-70 and 70-200 and they butt up to each other at 70mm, but I like overlap. I know that if I need the wide end of the 24-120, or the long end of 70-200, I have to swap lenses. For the 70-120 portion or vision, either lens that i have can stay on the camera.So for me, I like overlap. And yeah, I have a 14-30 too

thank you very much for the blog post.. I am more and more convinced of th 24-120.. oh and I may end up in the doghouse..

goactive wrote:I have both and i use the 24-120 95% of the time then the 85mm 1.8. The 70-200 i have not even used this year at all i dont think. got it last year.Trying to Move to a two camera setup with the 35mm 1.8 or 28mm 2.8 on one and the 85 1.8 on the other. But i just keep using the 24-120 as its more easy to just use the one camera out on jobs and it works great,Maybe the 24-120 and the new Tamron 70-300 Would be a good pick to cover more range.Yes that sounds good! I could also use dx mode (Z7) on the 70-200 or a TC (which I don`t have yet).

Thank you everyone for your recommendations! I bit the bullet and today did some test shots with the 24-120mm lens. I'm very impressed, especially with the macro!this is a 2mp jpeg with very slight adjustments (f4, 1/160, iso400, 98mm) taken with a Z5

I own them both. They both have their uses. The 24-120 f/4 is my general, all purpose lens and will be the lens for travel. While on my bike, I carry that with the Z6 II.For gigs, I use my 24-70 f/2.8 S and 70-200 f/2.8 S lenses.I have used the 24-120 f/4 at a gig in a photo studio and it was spectacular. Don't fall asleep on any of the lenses I mentioned