mike_halliwell Posted February 20, 2023 Share Posted February 20, 2023 I'm looking for a pretty wide to modest tele single walkaround lens. Z 24-120mm maybe? I already have the kit 24-70mm. My 70-200mm FL and 100-400mm Z covers the longer end, but I'm missing the reach a little bit on the 24-70mm. How much of a compromise is the 24-200mm.? 6.3 sounds pretty slow! The 24-120mm has pretty good close focus, the 24-200mm not so much. Bugs, beetles and flowers are on the target list.... think landscape and small critters. They both cost the same here in the UK at the moment. I have the Z9, so would cropping the 120mm to 150/180/200mm be an acceptable trade-off? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robert_bouknight1 Posted February 20, 2023 Share Posted February 20, 2023 (edited) I think you have already talked yourself into the 24-120S. Not much bigger/heavier than the 24-200, and a higher max reproduction ratio (.39x). For me, not that much difference in 120 vs 200mm. Usually if I need 200mm I need more than 200mm. Of course, you could add the 105 Micro to your 24-70 and have a better bug setup. Edited February 20, 2023 by robert_bouknight1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dieter Schaefer Posted February 20, 2023 Share Posted February 20, 2023 8 minutes ago, robert_bouknight1 said: I think you have already talked yourself into the 24-120S. Not much bigger/heavier than the 24-200, and a higher max reproduction ratio (.39x). +1 I think the 24-200 is nice as a walk-about lens but not as suitable as the 24-120 for your intended use. Like you, I do have the 24-70/4. I knew I would find 70mm too short for the long end but I just wanted a Z-mount lens to hang in front of the Z9 for occasional use; found a good deal on a 24-70/4 and didn't want to cover the expense for the 24-120. I like that Sony just came out with a 20-70/4; still short on the long end but substantially wider at the short end than your standard 24-xx(x) fare. I am actually considering the Tamron 20-40/2.8 instead of purchasing a 20mm prime; Sony threw me a bit of a curve ball with the 20-70/4. F/2.8 in the end might be the decisive factor. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SCL Posted February 20, 2023 Share Posted February 20, 2023 When I first got the 24-120 I was disappointed by some of the reviews which were merely lukewarm, and I wondered if I had made an expensive (at that time) mistake. Several years later, having taken the lens with me on hiking trips in the USA, South America, and Europe, and photographed lots of flowers, animals from deer to insects, and flowers on my land at home, I can say that it was a truly versatile lens which delivered a fine result. I doubt that you would be disappointed. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joseph_smith3 Posted February 20, 2023 Share Posted February 20, 2023 For my Z9, I got the 24-120 f4 S lens. I did not consider the 24-200 as I also bought the 100-400m S lens for my Z9. However, I have a friend who has been shooting Nikon mirrorless longer than I have (Z6 and Z7) and he has both the 24-120 and the 24-200mm lenses. He is not one to buy a lens to just have it around for occasional use. I do not know why he has both. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike_halliwell Posted February 20, 2023 Author Share Posted February 20, 2023 1 hour ago, robert_bouknight1 said: I think you have already talked yourself into the 24-120S I think you might be right....🙂 2 hours ago, robert_bouknight1 said: Usually if I need 200mm I need more than 200mm. +1 I've only had the Z100-400mm for a week, and it's been a bit dull weather wise, however, I can see it's potential for long walkaround usage. Spring is approaching...🙂 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShunCheung Posted February 21, 2023 Share Posted February 21, 2023 First of all, the Z-mount 24-120mm/f4 S is totally different from the F-mount version. Apparently the Z-mount with a much shorter flange distance and wider diameter makes it possible to create a much better lens. And there is no optical VR in the Z version. I bought the 24-200 back in 2021 as part of a kit with the Z6ii. I added the 24-120/4 S in mid 2022. Since then, I haven't used the 24-200 much any more. That is a great zoom range for video, but for anything over 120mm, I get better coverage from either the 70-200mm/f2.8 S or 100-400mm S. I tend to bring the 24-200 along as a "catch all" backup lens. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rodeo_joe1 Posted February 21, 2023 Share Posted February 21, 2023 If geometric distortion is important to you, then I'd take that into consideration too. I've yet to meet a high zoom-ratio lens that didn't distort wildly at one or both ends of its focal-length range. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike_halliwell Posted February 21, 2023 Author Share Posted February 21, 2023 1 hour ago, rodeo_joe1 said: distort wildly at one or both ends of its focal-length range In body distortion correction covers a multitude of sins.....😱 Same with Vignette Control.....🙂 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rodeo_joe1 Posted February 21, 2023 Share Posted February 21, 2023 (edited) 13 minutes ago, mike_halliwell said: In body distortion correction covers a multitude of sins.....😱 Same with Vignette Control.....🙂 Ah yes. I'd forgotten about the pixel pixies beavering away inside our modern cameras. I'm a bit of an optical purist I'm afraid, and expect the lens designer to do their job properly and leave my pixels alone. Edited February 21, 2023 by rodeo_joe1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike_halliwell Posted February 21, 2023 Author Share Posted February 21, 2023 (edited) 7 minutes ago, rodeo_joe1 said: and leave my pixels alone. Brightening up maybe, but Moving/Removing? Hummmm....?? I'm sure I came across a reference that if Distortion Correction and Vignette Control are selected, and thus half baked into RAW, they cannot be turned off in NX Studio or Adobe ACR. However, DxO ignores those corrections to apply it's own Module, so you can see it naked as it were! Must go and try that....😉 Edited February 21, 2023 by mike_halliwell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilkka_nissila Posted February 21, 2023 Share Posted February 21, 2023 3 hours ago, mike_halliwell said: Brightening up maybe, but Moving/Removing? Hummmm....?? I'm sure I came across a reference that if Distortion Correction and Vignette Control are selected, and thus half baked into RAW, they cannot be turned off in NX Studio or Adobe ACR. However, DxO ignores those corrections to apply it's own Module, so you can see it naked as it were! Must go and try that....😉 The raw image data in the file is unaffected by in-camera distortion correction but there is some kind of code in the file which instructs the raw converter to perform the correction as specified. This cannot be, apparently, be turned off in Adobe or Nikon software (and there is some distortion correction always on, whether specified in the camera or not!) but most other raw converters ignore it so you can get to your pixels. I would prefer the user to be given the option of turning the correction off but this is apparently a common practice among mirrorless camera manufacturers to make Adobe do obligatory partial distortion & vignetting processing on the files before the user gets to see it. This is not the case with Nikon DSLR cameras. I think the manufacturers are trying to make their lenses look better corrected in lens tests but it is a kind of a scam in my opinion. I was surprised how much image gets thrown away with even the Z 24-70/2.8 S by the distortion correction. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike_halliwell Posted February 21, 2023 Author Share Posted February 21, 2023 1 hour ago, ilkka_nissila said: I was surprised how much image gets thrown away with even the Z 24-70/2.8 S by the distortion correction. So, is the final image size, in pixels, still the same? ie does it trim off the 'warped bits' and then upsize to the original sensor's pixel dimensions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SCL Posted February 22, 2023 Share Posted February 22, 2023 Mike - I was recently going over some old files and remembered this shot taken with the 24-120 on an old 6 mp body in 2005. I think it does a good job of showing the med. close versatility of this lens. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike_halliwell Posted February 22, 2023 Author Share Posted February 22, 2023 4 hours ago, SCL said: 24-120 on an old 6 mp body in 2005 From what I gather, the Z version is better in every way, except price maybe? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Naka Posted February 22, 2023 Share Posted February 22, 2023 I look at the two lenses as different views on a GP lens. I would use the 24-120/4 as my GP lens, at home. I would use the 24-200 as my GP lens, for travel. When I am limited in what I can carry, just TWO lenses, the 24-200 + 35/1.8. For travel, I am compromising on the lens in order to meet the 2-lens limit, I will also compromise on the IQ. I don't need pro quality glass for travel. I would also use it where I want to zoom past 120mm, WITHOUT changing lenses. Just as you would use the 24-120 over the 24-70, to zoom past 70 without changing lenses. As you see, they both would have a reason to be in my kit. If I had to choose only ONE, and I shot mostly at home, I would choose the 24-120. But if it was primarily for travel, it would be the 24-200. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SCL Posted February 23, 2023 Share Posted February 23, 2023 3 hours ago, mike_halliwell said: From what I gather, the Z version is better in every way, except price maybe? Can't help you there....I've only owned the older version. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilkka_nissila Posted February 23, 2023 Share Posted February 23, 2023 On 2/21/2023 at 8:09 PM, mike_halliwell said: So, is the final image size, in pixels, still the same? ie does it trim off the 'warped bits' and then upsize to the original sensor's pixel dimensions? I believe in either case the pixel count stays the same so the warping preserves the number of pixels. But I would have to check to be sure. 😉 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now