Ive been shooting Nikon since the D700 was the king of the hill and I always felt like I had my kit dialed in with those f/1.8 G primes. Switched over to the Z7II recently though and I'm finding the mirrorless world a bit different than I expected. Did a shoot in a barn last week and the sensor dust after swapping lenses was just brutal... never felt that vulnerable with my old mirror box protecting things.
Now I've got a three-week trip through the Pacific Northwest coming up and I'm desperately trying to find a true one-lens solution. I want to do landscapes at Rainier but also some candid street stuff in Seattle without hauling a huge bag around. Budget is about $1,300 since I'm still offloading my old F-mount glass.
I'm basically torn between a few options:
- 24-120mm f/4 S (seems like the smart choice)
- 24-200mm (for the crazy zoom range)
- 24-70mm f/4 S (cheaper, but maybe too short?)
Is the 24-120 really the gold standard for a generalist or am I going to be disappointed by the f/4 when the sun goes down? I'm worried about the bokeh at the long end too compared to my old 85mm. Just trying to figure out if it's worth the trade-off or if I should just keep swapping primes and deal with the dust...
Stumbled upon this today and @Reply #2 - good point! That lens is a workhorse but you might want to consider the low light side of things in the PNW. I remember my first mirrorless trip, I was so paranoid about dust... I held my breath every time I swapped glass. I actually ended up with a huge smudge on my sensor mid-hike once and it was a nightmare to fix later. I would suggest looking for a used Nikon NIKKOR Z 24-120mm f/4 S to stay under budget. With the extra cash, you could grab a Nikon NIKKOR Z 40mm f/2 for those dark rainy nights. It is tiny and wont weigh you down. Just be careful when you swap them tho. Maybe do it inside your bag if you can... mirrorless sensors are just dust magnets. You dont want to ruin those Rainier shots.
I literally just got back from a month in Oregon and had the exact same dilemma! I ended up grabbing the Nikon NIKKOR Z 24-120mm f/4 S and it was an absolute beast for everything from misty coastal shots to tight street corners. The constant f/4 is such a lifesaver when you're under that heavy PNW tree canopy and dont want to swap glass.
- 24-120mm: Insane sharpness and that extra reach is huge for framing distant peaks at Rainier.
- Nikon NIKKOR Z 24-70mm f/4 S: Way more compact but honestly, you'll feel limited the second you see a distant waterfall. Check out the sample galleries over at the Fred Miranda forums if you're worried about the look. The bokeh at 120mm actually looks fantastic! Its way more versatile than primes for a fast-paced trip where dust is a concern. Plus, the weather sealing is top-tier so you wont have to worry about the Seattle drizzle!
Honestly, I had such high hopes for the Nikon NIKKOR Z 24-200mm f/4-6.3 VR, but it was just... meh. The edge softness at 200mm is really noticeable if you're used to those crisp F-mount primes. Unfortunately, the f/6.3 at the long end makes it basically useless for street stuff once the sun starts dipping in the PNW. I also found the Nikon NIKKOR Z 24-70mm f/4 S way too restrictive for landscapes... youre always gonna wish you had more reach for those mountain shots. Your best bet is the Nikon NIKKOR Z 24-120mm f/4 S. It is about $1,100 and the constant f/4 is way better than variable glass, even if it wont touch the creamy bokeh of your old 85mm. The S-line optics are decent, tho youll miss that f/1.8 speed in low light. It sucks having to compromise, but its the only one that doesnt feel like a total letdown.
