The Nikon Z system has a wealth of standard zooms, ranging from budget-friendly starters like the 24-50mm F4-6.3 ($399.95) up to pro workhorses like the 24-70mm F2.8 S ($2,399.95). I tend to be a wide angle type of guy, and that little guy renders better than the 24-70 F4, the 24-120 F4, and the 24-200, in their matching focal lengths. It does not suffer too much from the aperture loss because I tend to be at 24-28 range, and that is f4-f4.5, close enough. If it is a serious day, My main carry is the z 14-24 F 2.8 . These lenses shine at f5.6-f8 and give a new benchmark for "kit" lenses. After seeing this video I feel completely comfortable trading in the 24-70mm f4 then add the 24-200mm and 20mm f1.8 for a two lens kit. 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. Description. Make ordinary scenes extraordinary from wide angle to telephoto, all with one versatile lens, the NIKKOR Z 24-120mm f/4 S lens. Experience exceptional versatility and flexibility with extensive weather sealing and the lightest weight in its class. With a multi-focusing system that lets you capture images fast and accurately, the 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. That is one brilliant lens! I haven't done any direct in depth comparisons yet, but the general voice claims that 24-120mm has better sharpness at the corners compared to the 24-70 f4. It is my impression as well. Pros for the 24-120: sharp, constant aperture, good macro capability, nice bokeh.; cons: no VR, costs. For now I have the 24-70 f4 which I really like as well as 70-200mm 2.8 S line to cover the range without overlappping. The second is so insanely sharp, so I probably won't need the 70-120 from the 24-120mm. But the 24-120 would make a good single lens for hiking. ( I have the 24-200, but I'm not very happy with it). 24-70mm f/4 24-70mm f/2.8 . Nikon Full-Frame Z Midrange Zooms Compared. 24-120mm f/4 24-200mm VR. New: 26mm f/2.8 Pancake. 28mm f/2.8 28mm f/2.8 SE. 28-75mm f/2.8 35mm f/1.8. 40mm f/2 40mm f/2 Special Edition. 50mm f/1.2 50mm f/1.8 50mm f/2.8 Macro. 58mm f/0.95 Noct "Eye of God" NEW: 70-180mm f/2.8 70-200mm f/2.8 VR . NEW: 85mm f/1.2 85mm f/1.8 If you see the charts, 24-120 is sharper than 24-70 from 24 until 50mm. It is little soft after 100mm but if the subject is close to you it's ok (portraits or spots). With Lightroom or DxO you can fix it. I am very happy from the VRii. I can shoot easy less than 1/15 handheld, and night landscape with 1/6. Make. wBn0Aff.