Ive been shooting with the Z system for years and honestly, youll be much more satisfied with the Nikon NIKKOR Z 24-120mm f/4 S. It works well in low light during those Kyoto temple visits compared to the variable aperture alternatives. Reach hasnt been an issue for me; 120mm is usually plenty for travel imo. Its a professional-grade optic that stays sharp across the entire frame.

Kyoto is gonna be absolutely incredible!! I did a similar trip with my Nikon Z6II Mirrorless Camera last fall and I totally get the one lens panic. I actually started my journey with a superzoom but swapped it for the Nikon NIKKOR Z 24-120mm f/4 S and it was hands down the best decision ever. The rendering on that lens is just... chefs kiss. You really feel the S-line quality in the contrast and color pop! Heres why I think you should lean toward the 24-120mm:

• The constant f/4 is a lifesaver in those dimly lit shrines where you cant use a tripod.
• The bokeh is way smoother than the 24-200mm, which gets kinda busy in the background sometimes.
• Its got a dedicated control ring and a customizable L-Fn button that makes switching settings super fast while walking. Technically speaking, the 24-120 has much better control over chromatic aberration, which is huge when you have bright skies behind dark temple roofs. If you want a cheaper alternative that stays tiny, the Nikon NIKKOR Z 24-70mm f/4 S is a gem, but that extra 50mm on the long end of the 120 is worth every penny of your $1000 budget. Youre gonna love the results, the sharpness is just insane across the whole frame! Just grab a couple extra batteries and you are golden.

ngl I am in the exact same spot. I've been obsessing over the MTF charts and diffraction limits of the Nikon NIKKOR Z 24-120mm f/4 S versus the reach of the Nikon NIKKOR Z 24-200mm f/4-6.3 VR for my own Japan trip. Been dealing with this indecision for weeks and it's driving me crazy. Every time I think I've picked one, I change my mind. Still got no clue which way to go. It's a total stalemate.