Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Clovishound" data-source="post: 844284" data-attributes="member: 50197">I have the 24-70 F4. It is a very good lens. The only down side is that it is a little short on the long side. For around the same price, new, you can get the 24-120 that BF mentioned. The 24-70 is an S series lens, which is Nikon's premium version. The 24-120 is not. Having said that, word on the street is the Z 24-120 is an excellent performer, and I doubt you would be disappointed, and the extra reach can be a real advantage for lots of folks. The 24-70 F4 can be had used for about half of new price. MPB currently has a Z 24-70 lens in like new condition for around $475 USD. The Z 24-120 goes used for just a little lower than new prices at $969 USD. I would not recommend getting an F mount lens to use on your Z cameras, unless there is no affordable Z lens available, or you already have an F mount lens. The larger Z mount allows the engineers more flexibility designing their lenses. Add to that Nikon has not introduced a new design F mount lens in a while. Lens design has improved significantly over the last few decades in all regards, with the possible exception of durability. The AF-S 24-120 F4G you mentioned is nearly a decade older design than the Z 24-70 F4. As an example, I bought my first Z camera about 4 years ago. I was beginning to get interested in wildlife photography around then, and wanted a long tele, but there were no affordable Z long teles available then. I purchased an FTZ and an F mount 200-500 F5.6. This lens has a well deserved reputation for being an excellent lens for the money. I have had good service from it for nearly 4 years. Late last year I decided to make the leap to the Z 180-600. Is it significantly sharper than the 200-500? No. It is marginally sharper, but the AF is noticeably faster, and has several other advantages. I have no regrets for upgrading.</blockquote>

Verification