Thank you. I appreciate your advice. I will think seriously 24-120 mm f4G. I heard that it is much lighter than f2.8 70-300.
There may be different lens models confusing me, and I am not aware of a Nikon 70-300 f/2.8, but the Nikon site says those lenses are 24 or 25 ounces weight. Far from the smallest, but far from the largest. Maybe you meant 70-200 f/2.8, which is 54 ounces.
But the range of 24-120 mm seems not directly comparable to 70-300 mm, in that they only share the 70-120 mm range. And 24 mm is moderate wide angle and 70 mm is mild telephoto, no wide angle at all (on full frame), which simply does not serve the same purposes, hard to compare.
Focal length choice really should match some goal of yours? What do you want it to do? How do you plan to use it?
Sorry, but I did not understand the meaning of the f4G reference? I probably should range wider on the internet?
If I have that lens do I still need Prime 35 mm F1.8 G which is around 500 GBP? Previously I was thinking that lens for wide angles and thinking about another zoom lens for telephoto. But I believe F4G can replace the Prime lens and probably I do not need it. I will forgo the telephoto shot.
The 24-120 mm will do 35 mm too, but at f/4 maximum, not at f/1.8. With both at 35mm, f/4 will have more than twice the depth of field span that f/1.8 has, which I find pleasing. I find f/4 no issue for walk-around-all-day-with-one-lens general use, even indoors in old dark cathedrals. IMO, high ISO better does that job today that we needed f/1.8 for in older days. Those are just my own notions though, all opinions exist somewhere.
24-120 mm on a full frame would be the range from moderate wide angle to moderate telephoto, but not extremes at either end. That seems useful to me, very general purpose. Extreme wide angle might be 14 mm (on full frame).
The so-called "normal lens" on full frame is of course 50 mm. "Normal lens" meaning about the same view that we remember our eye saw there, making it appropriate for many usual things. It is very difficult to describe the eye however, we only see a sharp image in a very narrow spot, and it progressively is less sharp at wider angles. A "normal lens" typically has a focal length near the same as the sensor diagonal dimension, which is 43.3 mm for full frame, and which is viewing angle of about 45 degrees of width. 50 mm is about 40 degrees width, and somehow, that often seems about "normal" to us.
35 mm is only mildly wide angle on the full frame camera, where 24 mm is moderately wide angle, but not extreme wide angle.
And 70 mm on full frame is mildly telephoto, not wide angle at all.
Mild and moderate is just my perception, I think we cannot really define those words well in this context.
But at 2 meters distance, 35 mm coverage is 2 meters wide, and 24 mm coverage is 3 meters wide. That can be important for indoor shots, when you cannot back up very far.
And whether you need the f/1.8 or the prime lens would be a personal decision, if you have needs you think that would solve. Speaking for myself, the 24-120 seems a great choice for general use, but it does not reach the extremes. No one lens can do everything.