I'm leaving for this two-week hiking trip in Oregon next Thursday and I'm honestly panicking because I still haven't picked a one lens solution for my Z6II. I really don't want to be swapping lenses in the dust while I'm out there and I'm trying to travel as light as possible. I've narrowed it down to two main choices but I'm totally stuck and keep going back and forth.
So I was thinking about the 24-120mm f/4 S because everyone says the image quality is insane and that constant f/4 is nice for when the light starts dropping in the woods. But then my logic was like... wait, if I'm doing landscapes and maybe some distant wildlife stuff, maybe the 24-200mm is better? It's lighter and fits my $1100 budget better but I'm worried about that variable aperture and if it's gonna be super soft at the long end.
My priorities are basically:
- sharp enough for big prints later
- lightweight enough for 10-mile trails
- weather sealing is a big deal since it'll probably rain
I also looked at the 24-70 f/2.8 but honestly it's way too heavy for hiking and way out of my price range right now. If I go with the 24-120, am I gonna miss that extra 80mm reach? Or if I go with the 24-200, am I gonna regret the lower build quality? I need to order this by tomorrow night to get it here before my flight so which one is actually the better all-rounder...
In my experience shooting with the Z system since launch, the S-line designation actually means something significant for your final image quality. I've tried many all-in-one zooms over the years and while the Nikon NIKKOR Z 24-200mm f/4-6.3 VR is impressive for its size, you're going to notice a drop in edge-to-edge sharpness at the long end. If you're serious about big prints, that softness is gonna bother you. I strongly recommend the Nikon NIKKOR Z 24-120mm f/4 S for this trip. That constant f/4 aperture is crucial when you're hiking under heavy tree cover in Oregon where the light gets dim fast. The weather sealing on the S-line lenses is also way more reliable than the standard consumer lenses. I've had mine out in some pretty nasty conditions and it never skipped a beat. You're worried about the 80mm of reach you're losing, but honestly, the 24-120 is so sharp that you can usually just crop in a bit on the Z6II and still get a cleaner image than the 24-200 would produce at its maximum extension. The build quality alone makes it worth the extra few bucks. It feels like a professional tool whereas the 24-200 feels a bit more like a compromise. Grab the 24-120 and dont look back.
