Unsurprisingly, the $2400 professional Nikon Z 24-70mm f/2.8 S is a better lens in most regards compared to the Z 28-75mm f/2.8. However, the cheaper lens holds its own in terms of central sharpness, vignetting, and distortion – even beating the S-line lens at times. The real advantage of the Nikon Z 24-70mm f/2.8 S is corner-to-corner sharpness. Eugene, This lens exists. It is just coming to Z-mount. You can direct compare the 24-120 vs Sigma 24-105. If you check enough reviews that have numerical test results between a few lenses you can extrapolate the 35-150 is optically better than the 24-120. MTF charts also. 24-120 is very good for its class, but not outstanding overall. Conclusion. The new NIKKOR Z 24-200mm f/4-6.3 VR lens is surprisingly capable lens that delivers excellent image quality in most of cases. I purchased it after some initial reviews about its sharpness, silent focus, size and weight. It did not disappoint. The new price of the 24-120mm f4 is a bit high. Second hand and in kit very good price. Nano coating delivers slightly better colours (sublte effect), reduces flare quite a bit. The 24-120mm has slightly (again subtle) image quality gain versus the shorter zoom, but has a bit more distortion (easy to correct). Autofocus is faster on the F4 zoom. The 24-70 is an S line lens so it's Nikon's "higher quality" type of lens with better optical performance. It is also faster with a wider aperture of f2.8 which is significantly better for low light and I guess for sports on a cloudy day - though the limited zoom range wouldn't make it my lens of choice for sports unles you're right on top of the action. paul wassermann wrote: I have the 24-70 2.8 and without question it is the best all around zoom I have ever used. Just love it! By coincidence I just bought this afternoon, from Craigs List, the Sigma version of the 24-105 (for $550) and although I haven't taken more than a handful of shots, so far it is impressiveno vignetting at 24mm, razor sharp in the center A7rII with MC-11 adapter. Canon RF 24-105mm L IS and RF 35mm f1.8 are also shorter than the Sony equivalents. RF 50mm f1.2L is also the same length as the Sony/Zeiss 50mm f1.4 (despite the wider aperture). The new RF 70-200mm f2.8 will also be the shortest 70-200mm f2.8 lens ever. Nikon Z 24-70mm f4 is also shorter than the much inferior Sony/Zeiss 24-70mm f4 OSS. 1 Hi, I already own the 24-70 f/2.8 S and was thinking to trade it for the 24-120 f/4 S for landscapes. Is this a crazy idea? I can't find any detailed comparisons between the two lenses yet. Does anyone have experiences with both? I also own the 14-24 f/2.8 S + 100-400 on order. I am debating if to get the 70-200 f/2.8 or this lens. This is mostly for wildlilfe at low light hours. I have a z 100-400 and a 1.4TC and they are awesome, also I have the 24-120 f4, but sometimes in early/late hours it is hard to capture wildlife and thought this would be great due to light weight. Zrzg.

nikon z 24 120 f4 vs 24 70 f2 8