Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Blue439" data-source="post: 826248" data-attributes="member: 53455">For many decades, I have used only the best glass Nikon had to offer. In the recent years, I have used the F-mount “Holy Trinity” and a full complement of G primes as well. Also some Zeiss primes and one Sigma Art. Since the advent of mirrorless, and because of an evolution in my photography, I decided that, where zooms are concerned, ƒ/4 would be sufficient (I have a lineup of ƒ/1.8 primes), and because Nikon introduced this “S” line of lenses, I thought I would stick to that.First, I went with a 24-70 ƒ/4 which was fine. When the 24-120 was released, I initially distrusted it as it sounded like the beginning of a walk down the “one lens does it all” avenue I never wanted to walk —I was too attached to having the best image quality possible (to give you an idea, I never wanted the F-mount 24-120...). However, I subsequently read very encouraging reviews about the Z-mount 24-120 by people I trust (Thom Hogan would be one), and because it is an S lens, I decided to give it a try, while I retained the 24-70.From the moment I had it and tested it, I never looked back —it is that good. I sold the 24-70, and I take the 24-120 whenever I am traveling or when I just happen to be out with my camera with no particular photographic purpose in mind. It has become my go-to lens, and once again, I am very demanding in terms of IQ, IO know what top IQ means in practice, and I have been used to some of the best lenses available. The 24-120 is definitely part of those.Considering the “symptoms” you are describing, I recommend you buy one unreservedly. You will enjoy it. The only downside is that, of course, it is a little heavier and bulkier than the 24-70, but optics being still largely an analog thing, there is no way around it, and the 24-120 remains very easily manageable in that respect, in my opinion.</blockquote>

Verification