So I finally bit the bullet and switched over to a Nikon Z6II last month after years of dragging my heavy DSLR gear around, but now Im stuck with just the kit lens and its driving me crazy. I have a trip to the Pacific Northwest coming up in about six weeks and I really dont want to be swapping glass in the rain while trying to hike, so Im looking for that one perfect do-it-all lens. My budget is around 1000 to 1200 bucks max since I already spent a chunk on the body.
I have been doing way too much reading online. Everyone keeps pointing to the Z 24-120mm f/4 S, and honestly, the zoom range sounds like a total dream for travel. But then I get into these threads where people are obsessed with the 24-70mm f/2.8 S because of the low light performance. My logic was that f/4 is fine for landscapes if I have a tripod, but then I think about taking photos of my friends at dinner and wonder if I am gonna regret not having that extra stop of light. Is it worth the weight and the extra cash for the 2.8?
Im also looking at the 24-200mm which would be amazing for reach, but I keep reading mixed reviews about the sharpness at the telephoto end. Im just so conflicted. I want something that wont give me a backache but also isnt going to make me wish I had better optics once I get home and start editing. Like, am I overthinking the f/4 vs f/2.8 thing? I mostly shoot street stuff and scenery when I travel, occasionally some portraits. Does anyone have real world experience using these on the Z system for travel? Im just worried I pick the wrong one and end up stuck with something that doesnt fit my style...
Honestly, skip the 2.8 zoom. Its overkill for travel. Dragging that much weight around the PNW will kill your enthusiasm faster than any lack of light will. I have used the Nikon NIKKOR Z 24-120mm f/4 S for a few seasons now and its hands down the best middle ground for your budget.
- It is plenty sharp for landscapes
- The constant f/4 is totally fine for dinner shots with the Z6II high ISO performance
- The extra 50mm of reach makes a massive difference compared to the 70mm limit If you are worried about those indoor shots, maybe grab a cheap, tiny prime like the Nikon NIKKOR Z 40mm f/2 to toss in your pocket. It is super light and gives you that fast aperture you want for portraits without the weight of a pro-level zoom. Trust me, your back will thank you on those hikes.
Look, I honestly think everyone is sleeping on the Nikon NIKKOR Z 24-200mm f/4-6.3 VR. Everyone complains about the sharpness, but for hiking in the PNW, the reach is a lifesaver. Unfortunately, the f/6.3 is a drag, but here is what I do:
- Pack a tiny Viltrox AF 24mm f/1.8 Z for night shots.
- Use the zoom for daytime hiking. Carrying that heavy 24-120mm all day just to avoid swapping lenses is a mistake. Save your back.
Re: "Honestly, skip the 2.8 zoom. Its overkill for..." - gotta agree with that. I use the Nikon NIKKOR Z 24-120mm f/4 S and it is basically glued to my Z6II.
- The reach is way more useful than an extra stop.
- It stays sharp across the whole range. Honestly, save the cash for a fast prime like the Nikon NIKKOR Z 40mm f/2 for those dinner shots. You'll be way happier hiking with that setup.
