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!
