Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="TwistedThrottle" data-source="post: 794370" data-attributes="member: 46724"><p>I've heard nothing but great things about this lens but I don't know if it's for me.&nbsp; I already have the 24-70 f4S and the 24-200 as well as the 105 f2.8S.&nbsp; Theoretically, the 24-120 could replace all 3 of those lenses as it's reportedly as good as the 24-70 f4S but with more reach; better image quality than the 24-200 and although not a true macro, focuses quite close.&nbsp; On the flip side, it seems quite a bit larger physically than the 24-70 and the 24-200, has out of focus characteristics that aren't quite pleasing and isn't as sharp as the 105.&nbsp; Since I use the 24-70 for a compact lightweight video lens on my Z6, (that pairs perfectly with the 14-30) I don't know if I would enjoy having the extra bulk doing videos for hours and hours a day for a bit of extra reach that I don't often find myself needing in video.&nbsp;&nbsp; Same applies to the 24-200.&nbsp; That's my adventure lens mostly used for photos that's light weight and rarely comes off my camera while on vacations.&nbsp; I'll never get rid of the 105, its my favorite focal length and almost every shot gives me a wow factor I doubt I could get with another lens.&nbsp; It seems that if I were to end up getting this lens, I'd have a use case for each of the 4 and wouldn't get rid of any of them.&nbsp; If I were to do it all over again, perhaps I'd end up with this 24-120 instead but where I sit now, I don't know if the extra reach would be worth it for me with how I use the lenses I have now.&nbsp; FWIW, I have the 24-120 f mount; it was my most used lens on DSLR's but I rarely ever use it with the FTZ on my Z6.&nbsp; I'm either satisfied with the convenient 24-200 IQ or happy with the weight savings using the 24-70.&nbsp; What I'd love from Nikon is a 70-200 f4S for a light weight f4 trinity with stellar optics.</p></blockquote><p></p>

[QUOTE="TwistedThrottle, post: 794370, member: 46724"] I've heard nothing but great things about this lens but I don't know if it's for me. I already have the 24-70 f4S and the 24-200 as well as the 105 f2.8S. Theoretically, the 24-120 could replace all 3 of those lenses as it's reportedly as good as the 24-70 f4S but with more reach; better image quality than the 24-200 and although not a true macro, focuses quite close. On the flip side, it seems quite a bit larger physically than the 24-70 and the 24-200, has out of focus characteristics that aren't quite pleasing and isn't as sharp as the 105. Since I use the 24-70 for a compact lightweight video lens on my Z6, (that pairs perfectly with the 14-30) I don't know if I would enjoy having the extra bulk doing videos for hours and hours a day for a bit of extra reach that I don't often find myself needing in video. Same applies to the 24-200. That's my adventure lens mostly used for photos that's light weight and rarely comes off my camera while on vacations. I'll never get rid of the 105, its my favorite focal length and almost every shot gives me a wow factor I doubt I could get with another lens. It seems that if I were to end up getting this lens, I'd have a use case for each of the 4 and wouldn't get rid of any of them. If I were to do it all over again, perhaps I'd end up with this 24-120 instead but where I sit now, I don't know if the extra reach would be worth it for me with how I use the lenses I have now. FWIW, I have the 24-120 f mount; it was my most used lens on DSLR's but I rarely ever use it with the FTZ on my Z6. I'm either satisfied with the convenient 24-200 IQ or happy with the weight savings using the 24-70. What I'd love from Nikon is a 70-200 f4S for a light weight f4 trinity with stellar optics. [/QUOTE]

Verification