ugh im honestly so over looking at reviews online everyone says something different. i leave for my trip to italy in two weeks and i still dont have a general zoom for my z6ii. right now im torn between:
- the 24-70mm f4 s (found one for 400 bucks)
- the 24-120mm f4 s (way more expensive but is it worth it??)
- the 24-200mm f4-6.3
i just want one lens to stay on the camera the whole time because i hate swapping glass in crowded places. my budget is strictly under 900 so the 24-120 is pushing it big time. which one is actually the sharpest for landscapes and street stuff? im leaning toward the 24-70 just to save money but i dont want to regret the lack of reach...
Italy is amazing! Last summer I did a two-week stint through Rome and Venice and seriously, the Nikon NIKKOR Z 24-120mm f/4 S was basically glued to my camera the whole time. I know its at the top of your budget, but trust me, it is absolutely worth every single penny for travel! Heres why I think you should stretch for it:
- That extra reach from 70mm to 120mm is a total game changer when youre trying to capture architectural details across a piazza.
- The image quality is stunningly sharp, honestly even better than the 24-70mm in my experience.
- Having a constant f/4 aperture is so much nicer than the variable one on the Nikon NIKKOR Z 24-200mm f/4-6.3 VR when the sun starts setting. I started with the Nikon NIKKOR Z 24-70mm f/4 S and while its super compact, I constantly felt limited. Search for a used one or a refurbished deal to stay under your 900 limit... you wont regret it!
I saw this thread and wanted to jump in since I have spent a lot of time with the Z system lately. In my experience, travelers often overthink the reach and forget about the weight. If you are walking 10 miles a day through Florence or Rome, every single gram matters. Directly speaking, I would just grab the Nikon NIKKOR Z 24-70mm f/4 S. It is basically the best value lens in the entire Z lineup right now. Since you found one for 400 bucks, you are saving literally 500 dollars compared to the 24-120. That is a lot of extra pasta and wine money. Heres why I think it wins for your situation:
- Profile: Its a collapsible design. In crowded Italian squares, having a smaller camera profile makes you feel less like a target and it is just way more comfortable to carry.
- Constant aperture: Unlike the Nikon NIKKOR Z 24-200mm f/4-6.3 VR, you dont lose light as you zoom in. That 24-200 gets dark really fast, usually hitting f/6.3 by the time you reach 80mm, which is a total pain for evening street shots or inside dark cathedrals.
- Sharpness: The S-line glass is legit. The 24-70 is incredibly sharp at 24mm for architecture and landscapes. If you really want a faster lens for low light, maybe look at the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 Di III VXD G2 for Nikon Z. It fits your budget and the f/2.8 is great for blurry backgrounds, tho you lose some of that wide angle. Honestly though... just get the 24-70 S and crop the image if you need to. The Z6ii sensor is good enough to handle it.
Just catching up on this thread! I actually went through this exact same process before my trip to Spain and honestly, I am so glad I stayed conservative with my spending. I ended up choosing the Nikon NIKKOR Z 24-70mm f/4 S for 400 dollars and it was absolutely fantastic for those narrow European streets! My methodical approach to the budget helped me stay way under my limit:
- Saving 500 dollars provides a massive safety net for travel emergencies or amazing food
- The smaller profile is much more discreet in crowded tourist areas
- Optical performance is exceptionally sharp for landscape shots I also invested some of the leftover funds into a B+W 72mm Master UV Protection Filter to ensure the front element stayed protected from the elements. Having that extra cash in my pocket made the entire journey feel way more secure and enjoyable! You really cant go wrong with the reliability of this setup.
