Nikon's put a lot of energy into zooms that run through the mid-range focal lengths and that encompass 24mm. This is causing a number of folk to ask about which lens they should get. Now that I've posted my 24-120mm f/4 S review, I'll try to simplify this as best I can with the following summary:
- 24-50mm f/4-6.3 — You buy this lens to create the smallest possible travel kit that has some reasonable competence and flexibility. The benefit is very small size and weight, which makes it match up best with the Z5 buyer who wants an affordable, small kit that provides full frame. Not the best of these lenses optically, but far better than you think.
- 24-70mm f/2.8 S — An exceptionally good lens, and probably the one you want if you need to suss out every last bit of optical quality, particularly in low light. Not as big and heavy as the F-mount versions you remember, which is nice, but this lens is the priciest of the bunch.
- 24-70mm f/4 S — The lens most people are having angst over now that the 24-120mm f/4 S has appeared. The tradeoffs are clear to me: smaller size and lower price (particularly when bought in a body+lens kit), but stops at 70mm, which is only mild telephoto. To me, this lens is the definition of mid-range, and it's a very good lens optically.
- 24-120mm f/4 S — The price compared to the 24-70mm f/4 S (at list prices) is throwing a lot of people off, as it appears that for US$100 you might get 70-120mm! Yes, that's basically true, I'm finding. There are some minor things the 24-70mm f/4 S does better, but in general, I've been impressed with the 24-120mm f/4 S. However, for travel, it doesn't collapse to a small carrying size like the 24-70mm f/4 S, and the barrel extends outward a significant amount as you move to telephoto. Thus, that telephoto range comes at a cost, and the cost is basically physical size, both packed and in use.
- 24-200mm f/4-6.3 — Another lens that's throwing people off. As good as it is—and yes, for a superzoom it's quite good, one of the best ever—it isn't quite in the same optical league as the three lenses in the bullets above it. You'll note in my reviews I use the words "very good" for this lens compared to "excellent" for the previous three in a lot of places. There's also the issue of sealing and build quality to consider, as the previous three lenses are all S-line, and the 24-200mm isn't.
Most of you should be opting for the 24-70mm f/4 S (if you can get a good price in a kit and strongly value size/weight) or the 24-120mm f/4 S. These are both solid performers with very minimal weaknesses, and the fixed maximum aperture extends them some into the low light realm. If you're always photographing in low light, obviously the 24-70mm f/2.8 S comes into play, or perhaps the new 28-75mm f/2.8 if you're price conscious and can live without the wider angle.
What strikes me is that the 24-200mm f/4-6.3 is more of a "lives on camera all the time" lens. If that fits you, then by all means opt for it, as it's as good as it gets in that respect. But if you're not, then the problem is what lens do you pair with the 24-70mm or 24-120mm to get to a longer telephoto reach? That's right, we don't have a great pairing there yet. That's because we still need either a 70-200mm f/4 or 70-300mm f/4-6.3 type of lens. True, the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 S can be paired with the 24-120mm f/4 S to give you a 24-400mm range in two lenses, but that's what I'd regard as a little big and heavy to be a great two-lens travel system. It might form a smaller, lower cost safari pair for some (with a 1.4x teleconverter on the 100-400mm), but the combo is not exactly what I'd want for most travel, when I'm trying to stay svelte and not call attention to my gear.
